Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
I agree.
OK. I should have said that I don't know anyone at all who doesn't read quite avidly.
All depends on the social and work circle I guess.
I agree.It is the attempts from the left to control the media and subsequent freedom of speech that is the most worrying issue, imo.
Yep 40000 members about 20 odd posters on this thread (usual suspects) cutting edge.
Julia you really need to get over yourself.
Rubbish indeed
OK. I should have said that I don't know anyone at all who doesn't read quite avidly.Quite true most watch the 6.00pm news or the current affairs programs that show dramatic footage of lost dogs, print media has been in decline for some time.
I remember being around a work force of 300 + (Managers, engineers etc) less than 1/2 a doz were interested in discussions that we are currently having.
Andrew Bolt's martyrdom is now complete: twice in the next fortnight his popular column in the Herald Sun will be accompanied by a nearly unreadable ''corrective notice'' outlining his sins against the Racial Discrimination Act. And that's it.
Has he been fined for offending, insulting, humiliating and intimidating nine fair-skinned Aborigines? No. Does he have to pay them damages? No. Has he been warned off the delicate subject of whites identifying as blacks? Not at all.
How else have Bolt and the Herald Sun suffered? Has the judge directed the paper strip the columns from its website? No. From its archives? No. Has he compelled the paper and its star columnist to apologise to the aggrieved Aborigines? Not even that. All Justice Bromberg has ordered to be done is publication of a 500-word notice in the paper and online setting out the nub of his judgment.
Marr is on the money here worth a read
Bolt's 'freedom of speech' crusade won't right his wrongs
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-his-wrongs-20111019-1m80a.html#ixzz1bJTBWeKO
The way I see it he wrongly accused a group of people of being frauds.So what exactly did Bolt do wrong?
The way I see it he wrongly accused a group of people of being frauds.
.
Bolt from the past: a heartfelt history lesson to the man I loved
Suzanne Walshe
October 22, 2011
No secret: Then a cadet journalist at The Age, Andrew Bolt and the author were engaged in the early '80s. Photo: Supplied
It is with great reluctance that I feel I must make a public response following the recent profile of Andrew Bolt in The Monthly magazine. I am the woman who Anne Summers refers to as Andrew Bolt's former girlfriend and fiancee.
I want to set the record straight, following Andrew's public denial of the status of our relationship and the fact that my name has been made public against my wishes
On the other hand, my entirely uncontroversial relationship with a girlfriend more than a quarter of a century ago, before I met my wife, is now considered of such public importance that it is raked over by The Monthly, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald so obsessively that the ex-girlfriend is even given a column of her own today to explain what a terrible person I have become since we parted, and how I lied when I said I didn’t remember being engaged to her.
What on earth are The Age and the SMH doing? Are they so blinded by hatred for an ideological foe that they will publish such stuff, even printing excerpts from private emails and private love letters I wrote when young?
Another side to the Andrew Bolt picture is coming out. A former girlfriend and fiancée who lived with Andrew for 6 years has come out to defend herself against a couple of cheap Bolt shots and another "rewriting history" episode. Quite fascinating.
.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...man-i-loved-20111021-1mcio.html#ixzz1bSExpsh8
Oh Lord! A storm in a teacup that tickles basilio's G-spot.
Pffffft
What an insignificance.
Perhaps the salient points that come up are are
1) Andrew can be unnecessarily nasty
2) He has no problems with rewriting history where it suits him.
Jeez! That sounds like just about everyone I know.
Certainly could include a lot of people.
I was being generous in my (under) statements. The ridicule and nastiness that Andrew heaps on targets in his articles is extreme. That was one of the comments made by the judge in his findings.
Also Andrews capacity to create whatever version of history he wants to justify his stories was also noted by the judge.
IMO the reality that a very nasty person who doesn't care about the truth is one of the most widely read columnists in the country is a concern.
Bit hey ! Quippy, nasty stories sell lots of copy. So purely from a business model we can see why Andrew is continuing his success.
Oh great another Liberal advertising spot dumbing down the nation with political vile and venom just like the US.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?