public debate
18 Aug 2009
Why Are We Paying For Andrew Bolt?
Far-right pundits like Bolt make personal attacks rather than engage with the issues. Jason Wilson asks if we should reward Bolt's contempt for reasoned debate by putting him on the ABC
Last week, I once again had the pleasure of being "Bolted".That's what happens when opinion writer Andrew Bolt singles you out on his blog or in his column, both of which appear under the Herald Sun masthead. Just in case any newmatilda.com readers are curious as to what it's like, I thought I'd offer a beginner's guide, and also flag a couple of questions it raised in my mind.
The week before last, you may remember, I wrote a piece reflecting on John Howard's Melbourne University speech about the Australian media. If you re-read it, you'll see that I specifically praise a number of News Ltd journalists, and, among other things, I argue that Kevin Rudd's apparent blanking of the Australian may be bad for democracy. That's hardly a hard-left or anti-News Ltd line, and indeed one that may well be unsatisfactorily centrist for some newmatilda.com readers.
The thing that clearly annoyed Bolt, though, was my criticism of the way in which John Howard's repeated, unsupported assertions of left-wing bias among journalists took hold, and helped to give currency to the idea that hard-right views should be represented in the media, even at the expense of quality commentary and debate. Howard's version of balance is one that the ABC in particular has taken on to the detriment of its current affairs broadcasting (Piers Akerman's bizarre performance on Q&A last week offered an instructive example). I named Bolt as someone who took advantage of this version of balance to derail analysis and debate in ABC current affairs shows like Insiders.
Bolt got in his response at 7.30am on Sunday morning (you can't fault his work ethic). The blog post was a classic opening move in a "Bolting". Though it was hardly relevant to my argument, he trawled the internet for a picture of me, with which he chose to lead the post. He described me in flatly inaccurate terms as being a "GetUp operative". (Of course, I'm no more a GetUp! operative than he is an ALP operative — I did work for them but I have no continuing links with their campaigning activities, as they or I would have told him if he'd bothered contacting either party.)
He didn't even pretend to engage with the substance of my piece. Instead he suggested that it amounted to an assertion of my own infallibility and that of "the left" (it's always hard to tell what Bolt means when he uses that scare-word). He also suggested a preference on my part for the Pravda model of journalism.
Ludicrous? Yes, and pretty creepy too. But the post is just the beginning when you're getting Bolted. Like much of Bolt's work, this post really functioned as a collection of cues and provocations for his audience and the commenters he feeds. They are a busy bunch, with time to burn, and their wit and wisdom is always the basis of the next phase of Bolt's performance. For your delectation, I offer a sample of the free character assessments — spelling mistakes included — which I was offered on Bolt's thread (many of which, of course, were based on the falsehood of a continuing association with GetUp!).
"Smug looking little git has an eminently punchable face doesn't he? ALP preselection beckons."
"What makes you think he has his head in the clouds — with a job description like that I would think it's more likely in his fundamental orifice."
"Its strange that leftards have such a bias against catholicism and yet believe themselves infallible.One can imagine how his students would react to his posing. He's made it clear hasn't he? Agree with me 100% and you'll get 100%."
[I'm actually a Catholic myself, just for the record, and I've got someone with legal training looking very carefully at the final sentences of that comment.]
"Personally, I prefer 'leftoid'; as in haemorrhoid, as in a continual pain in the arse that causes mild to accute annoyance from time to time but doesn't affect one's ability to reason and is ultimately irrevelant to anything truly important."
"What a smug little shit. It must be so comfortable in the zone of infallibility."
"What else would you expect from a tax leach. Another case of those who cant do, teach."
"What a prick."
"If this 'GetUp operative' seriously believers that the ABC's hostily towards John Howard was just a figment of his imagination, how can such a biased, blinkered ideological fool be lecturing other on communications?"
"Note the mandatory head tilt in the photo of young Jason. Probably the product of insufficient parental discipline."
"They say a picture speaks a thousand words but, in this case, how about just two .. smug, self satisfied, perhaps? Just another one of the Peter Pans of the academic world endlessly waffling on with silly opinions, eternally immature in thought and deed ... all at the taxpayers' expense."
"why give this lefty lunatic the air time? he is just an insignificant, parasitic socialist wally trying to impose his sick nonsense on the rest of us. oh and a lecturer in 'digital communications'? is that writing numbers on a blackboard???"
"Is Commissar Jason worth more than a derisory laugh? Not exactly the type of advertisement a university would want with that display of intellect — cleverly, Jase is obviously setting himself up for greater things — as a clerk in a Soviet censor's office. I'd imagine this little tick would understand one well known digital communication. What a pity he has not yet received it from his faculty and so-called 'university'."
And it goes on — check the thread for more choice cuts. Of course, that doesn't include many items of hate email I received, all of which had Bolt's post cut-and-pasted into it. One of the more bizarre emails I received was CCed to Bolt, who as far as I know expressed no disapproval of these actions. Commenters addressed a number of topics — my appearance, what they presumed was my youth, my parents, my profession, and some even chose to take a sideswipe at Wollongong. Anything, in short, except the substance of what I had said.
Mostly, I find this hilarious. What's especially funny is that it's clear that almost none of Bolt's commenters have actually read my article. They have no need or desire to go beyond Bolt's presentation of my argument and my person. Rather, on Bolt's signal, and at a moment's notice, they're prepared to perform every rhetorical cliché of the grievance-addicted hard right, up to and including thinly veiled threats of violence. It's a ritual of ad hominem abuse.
So, the Bolting has continued for much of this week, and all of this stuff is now permanently archived. Personally I'm fine with that, and in any case I was prepared for it. Many character-building years on the rugby league field taught me how to take my lumps and give them too. I can only presume Bolt's many years as an avid opera fan have done the same for him. But there are bigger questions at stake here which go beyond the terms of this "disagreement".
I'm not the first, nor will I be the last to be Bolted. It's his stock in trade. Last week he allowed his forum to play host to the extended abuse of an Anglican minister (check the irony of the headline on that post), and has also published comments suggesting (on the basis of another selective photograph) that a Ballarat councillor's environmentalism is somehow equivalent to Nazism. These were almost as classy as another of last week's bunch, which claimed that women, as a group, are more superstitious than men. If you can bring yourself to read them, there are plenty more posts where these came from, sitting in Bolt's archive.
Now, as a supporter of free speech and a free press, one is bound to say that Bolt is free to play host to such a forum. Within the limits of the law, he's even free to give rein to name-calling, uncivil speech, and threats. News Ltd is also perfectly entitled to make money out of it all. We might want to understand it in terms of the long, slow decline of newspaper circulations, and a retreat from mainstream concerns into more and more narrow forms of sensationalism and niche marketing, but that's a discussion for another day.
It should be said, though, that the raw, unyielding partisanship and incivility of Bolt's comments threads present an interesting conundrum for those who hold that online forums might help return us to a more deliberative style of democracy. It's pretty clear that in fact they are deliberately undeliberative. Of course, Bolt is not alone in taking this approach to public debate, and no doubt there is a place for online political snarkiness, but he is in a select bunch in having this kind of platform, and in combining this with other roles.
Notwithstanding Bolt's and News Ltd's right to host such a circus, we might ask whether being subject to this kind of smearing and denunciation is a fair price to have to pay to enter into public debate. As I said, I found it all pretty entertaining, but there are others who might well be intimidated by the prospect of being insulted and reviled by scores of anonymous strangers on the website of a major media outlet. Is it possible that this kind of demagoguery could have a chilling effect on public discourse?
If we think that it might, we may also like to ask whether we're happy with our tax dollars providing a platform, and legitimation, for Bolt's approach to public debate. Although he relentlessly criticises the ABC, Bolt is always careful to say in his bio lines that he has appeared on current affairs programs like Insiders. That's because these forums provide him with some status as a political commentator. They also show his readers that the campaign against what he calls left-wing bias in the national broadcaster is somehow working.
Ideally, public affairs programs on the national broadcaster should provide a forum for reasoned analysis and debate. I'd argue that this is what our taxes should be used for, and I wouldn't be alone in thinking so. But as we've seen, Bolt's forum indicates that this is the last thing that he's interested in. So why should the rest of us subsidise untrammeled far-right messaging on the national broadcaster? And why should our money be used to give comfort to those whose interests are in making public debate as divisive, uncivil and personally destructive as possible?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
He resorts to insults and slurs because in a reasoned debate, he has no sustainable argument to back up his views. Much like the loudmouth in the schoolyard, back in year 3.
"Andrew, touching the soccer ball with your hands is against the rules of the game we’re playing"
"Nuh uh! You’re gay! And you smell! Smelly gay! Smelly gay!"
I eagerly await Andrew’s response to this article. I’m confident he’ll this time maturely address the points you raised in your original piece.
Exactly my thoughts after last week’s Q&A.. you’re right, bizarre and incoherent are 2 words that spring to mind to describe Ackerman’s performance. Week after week on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings Bolt and Ackerman are the trotted out as the ‘balance’ to counter a supposedly biased ABC.
The debate over whether the ABC is or was in fact biased drags on and the question of the overall media bias towards the right is rarely discussed. However, the issue of quality debate, informed opinion and sustainable well researched argument being something we have a right, as taxpayers, to expect from the ABC is the point in question.
Are there really no conservative media commentators out there who are prepared to conduct an intelligent debate, engage with facts and do some research into the issues? Surely its time the ABC producers went out and found themselves some!
Perhaps the fact that they continuously invite Bolt and Ackernan on to repeatedly parade their ignorance, bias and laziness simply because they need ‘balance’ does demonstrate bias on behalf of the ABC.. a conspiracy to present the conservative side as idiots?
Jesus Christ, what is with that guy’s face?
News Limited is pretty much run by neocons who have no interest in "reality based" thinking. Rather they believe "truth is what we say, because we said it".
Many of the Howard government ultra right-wing appointees to the ABC are due to end their term in February 2010 and so we may not see Piers Ackerman and Bolt back on the Insiders. Well done Jason, anyone who can annoy Bolt that much is doing a good job.
Steve the Elder
Why does anyone read Andrew Blot? You know in advance exactly what he is going to say on any topic. He is not a real person, just a rightwing netbot.
It is a fun blog and Andrew tries very hard…..glad you could laugh at it.
The likes of Bolt, Akerman, Blair, et al, have only one agenda; to take Australia back to the middle of the last century. These people have no place in a modern multicultural Australia whatsoever and particularly not within our mainstream media.
The only reason their garbage continues to be peddled on the MSM is because they are paid by Rupert Murdoch. Without Murdoch they would simply disappear into the rotting woodwork of long fallen ideological trees where they can decompose gracefully to give life to a renewed more progressive and sharing society.
Fortunately, these people are now just relics of an era that represented the narrative of the darker side of Australian history. Unfortunately, it is only when we have rid ourselves of them entirely that we will be able to move on without the dark past of Australian racism muddling the hopes of a egalitarian multicultural future.
The quicker these people have disappeared from our mainstream media the better. Let them peddle their hatreds at the outer fringes of the extreme right-wing blogosphere where they belong.
(This comment has been edited)
Hi Jason
Why Are We Paying For Andrew Bolt.
Exactly my sentiments,it amazing that the ABC continue to invite Bolt and Ackerman onto the insiders and Q&A. Andrew Bolt is a nasty, insulting, sarcastic, horrible man,obsessed with Kevin Rudd. He continues to publish his regular attack dogs comments same dogs day after day. I was bolted last year and banished twice for disagreeing comments, Bolt’s attack dogs came after me in a pack.
I loved this blog
http://boltwatch.blogspot.com
Lyn Qld
I take your points on Bolt’s blog and tactics, as well as those of his commenters. I’m not fond of the blog format, in general, because I think it lends itself to extreme views, name-calling and unconsidered debate. People go to these blogs to have their world view validated, not to be challenged by different ideas. They are the ‘damn straight’ of the marketplace of ideas.
That said, I have to say that I don’t find Bolt too polemic on The Insiders, with the very notable exception of his position on climate change. I often distinguish him from Ackerman in this regard, because I always know what position Ackerman will take before he ever opens his mouth (I’m not fond of that kind of commentary, whether it be from the left or right).
Yeah Hey,
I thoroughly enjoyed your last post, and am constantly amazed by the comments on the Bolt.
Your last post was a rare, insightful piece on the state of media in this country, and a necessary criticism of the whole "balance" that the right felt so necessary at the ABC.
I do lament that we have to have Bolt and Akerman on the couch on Insiders each week, and you were right to say that they offer nothing, spouting worthless ideological rhetoric and that you would not know how any others of the journos on this show would vote.
You would have onlyhad to see a few seconds of qanda the other night to see Piers in top form, making no sense, with comments of no value.
With Piers, he so used to doing what he does that it would be hard to imagine him doing anything else. That’s just how he rolls.
With Andrew, its something more insidious. It is like he simply loads up his pieces with as much emotively comments as to draw the reader into a lather, heightening people’s propensity to engage in the worst of all possible worlds.
He did write once that Greek-Australian football fans should not paint their face with the greek flag, while living in Australia.
Ask him what happened about that. The greek community went mental, they spewed, and he got nailed by his editor.
Just ask him.
Oh, and I am quite sure is on heroin, I keep seeing "Andrew Bolt: 1 Million hits". Thanks (Shaun Michaleff)
BTW, I only wrote this comment as I really enjoyed your last piece.
Thanks Again, Adrian
It’s fun to chance on blogs like this where all the groups gets together to hone up its groupthink. No offence Jason, but who cares what Bolt thinks about you or you think about Bolt? Do you and your supporters really want a Bolt-free world with only academics and true believers running the show? Some of us enjoy and celebrate different opinions. If it weren’t for Andrew Bolt and a few more like him, it would be a very grey world, full of zealots like Iataan: "It is only when we have rid ourselves of them entirely that we will be able to move on without the dark past of Australian racism muddling the hopes of a egalitarian multicultural future.”
You guys are really scary.
Bolt was actually a breath of fresh air when he first came onto The Insiders, back when the odious Ackerman was the only right-wing voice the ABC allowed on the program circa 2002.
Pre-Bolt, a colleague of mine (who regularly whined about his taxes paying for ALP propaganda on the ABC) saw Ackerman as a Machiavellian tactic to enhance the pro-Labor effect of The Insiders. Rather than have just a former Labor PM’s press secretary as anchor and three pro-Labor journalists, which he thought rather too obviously biased even for the ABC, the devious Workers Collective had the Liberal viewpoint represented by the odious Ackerman. Nothing could be better calculated to make the Right look repugnant!
Of course love him or loathe him Ackerman is the quintessential Insider, a journalist who dined privately with both John Howard and the real power in his government, Jeanette.
Bolt, Ackerman and Tim Blair have fashioned themselves around the deranged right wing pundits in the US. Now that they find themselves on the political fringe across the board, the gloves have come off. There’s no doubt that the controversy they generate attracts attention and everyone will agree, a freak show will always pull an audience. These people know their market and play to it very well. Sometimes one wonders if anyone with their intellect woudl be capable fo entertaining their simplistic and juvenile beliefs, though the bile they frequently excrete suggests they are the real deal.
Glenn Greenwald made the observation last year that when it comes to the right wing, there is no such thing as being too the right. Anything goes, so when lefties make references to fascism and Nazism, it’s an abomination, but when the right does it, they are exercising free speech and any outrage those comments attract prove that the left are silencing criticism and assume to be infallible.
In the case of Bolt, one can’t help but notice a reoccurring theme of insecurity. His inability or refusal to address the topic at hand would certainly feed his sense of fallibility, hence his disdain for your infalibility.
"If it weren’t for Andrew Bolt and a few more like him, it would be a very grey world, full of zealots like Iataan"
Get off your high horse Richard,
Guys like Bolt are only relevant as long as there are people on the right who take the bait.
Sit back and enjoy the show.
I can just imagine the sort of tantrums Bolt and Akerman will throw at the prospect of being included among the News Ltd sites Murdoch intends to start charging people to access. So much so, what’s the betting their blogs will be among the few sites still available for free?
Bolt is a one-off, thank goodness. He bags the ABC, but of never Barrie Cassidy - that would take balls.
The "contributors" to his offensive blogs can well be imagined…dribbling nobodies having their say…running their fingers slowly along the lines as their excitement mounts. He is their lifeline to the denigration of Muslims, Aboriginals, Sudanese, Judges who don’t conform to his extreme right wing views and Labor voters.
[This comment has been edited]
I have been censored any number of times by Andrew and his moderators, particularly when I mention xenophobia or racial vilification since it is my opinion that those words have particular relevance to his blog.
For all of his posturing about a left wing media bias, he omits to acknowledge that in fact he gets more than his fair share of airplay. What is his major concern is that the majority of journalists and most Australians simply believe his point of view is wrong.
His major attraction is that he provides a forum where people can openly debate however rarely does he get involved other than to cut out commentary that offends him. Should there be another forum that offers the same opportunity to discuss issues, I am sure Bolt’s patronage would fall, as it should. See the forum at www. rasmuncher.com/ for a newly constructed alternative.
Hi everyone,
Comments on this article are now pre-moderated - which means they’ll be held in a moderation queue until they can be reviewed by a moderator. If you post after business hours your comment may not appear before 9am the following day.
Marni (editor)
Those with a concern about the public broadcaster providing a platform for commentators like Andrew Bolt might also like to read an opinion piece in Friends of the ABC Vic’s current newsletter, titled ‘The Next Struggle’.
The current newsletter can be accessed from the link on the home page www.fabc.org.au
Glenys Stradijot
Campaign Manager
Friends of the ABC (Vic)
I can’t watch Insiders because of Bolt.
His style seems to be consciously feeding our lowest common denominator - hatred of the other.
He makes my skin crawl - which I have to admit is a weakness on my part. He is appealling to that part of all of us that loves hating (whether it’s in agreement with what he’s hating, or hating him). And he does it so well!
And yes I do fall for it.
So I choose to not feed that part of myself, and I turn it off.
Yes it’s appalling that tax-payers are funding his appearance on ABC.
Fair enough for Insiders to try and cover a right-wing view point, but isn’t there someone out there with a 101 level of intellectual rigour and respect for other viewpoints. If not, what does that say about the right-wing point of view?
Isn’t Bolt’s smolderingly photo impressive? These guys are so vain aren’t they? I noticed Ackerman on the box recently and he looks like he’s gone to town with the botox and brow lift…not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it does seem at odds with the image of the no nonsense, strong, right wing salt of the earth veneer they like to project.
As someone who has also been Bolted "live" on radio where he falsely called me a liar over the stolen generation issue you have my sympathy. You ask why he has funding from taxpayers dollars in ABC funded time. The trouble is that when rational, informed people speak those who don’t want the world to hear their messages call the speaker names. They also demand balance which means balancing informed views with ignorance; humanism with selfishness and truth with untruths. Taking him (and those like him) on gives him oxygen, not taking him on gives him liberties he does not deserve. It is a conundrum. In the end he got away with harming me and my reputation because I let it go but in hindsight I am not sure that was wise. Well done.
"Get off your high horse Richard, Guys like Bolt are only relevant as long as there are people on the right who take the bait. Sit back and enjoy the show."
Shingo, am I confused or is it you? Firstly it’s Dave, not Richard. Secondly. didn’t you mean to say that people on the left take the bait? From this blog I can see he’s pulled in a whole lot of fish from that particular sea. And thirdly, it’s not me on my high horse, wanting to exterminate people who don’t agree with me. I’m all for enjoying the show.
The whole ruse about left wing media bias is a carnard that has been debunked repeatedly. Even on the face of it, it is ironic that right wing commentators keep repeating this mantra while they dominate the airwaves. Murdoch has the world biggest media monopoly and most of his outlets are dominated by right wing narrative.
Still, it’s a claim that serves a purpose. Any view that contradicts the likes of Bolt can be dismissed as left wing media bias, which shields him and others from addressing the topic of he debate.
It appears above…thanks
Its funny how different people have such diverse opinions when presented with the same situation. I myself am considered pretty smart at least in the academic sense (IQ>180) and yet in direct contrast to Wilson consider the ABC so fatally corrupted by left wing ideology and bias that, even considering a public broadcasters pivotal role in democracy, it should be completely dismantled.
As for insiders I can ONLY watch when there is some balance from Bolt or Akerman!
What I want to know is why is the public purse is being used to support ideologues like Jason Wilson using our universities to shove far left ideologies down the throats of our university students?
Tonyb
Readers might also wonder about the tactics employed by the more respectable conservative Gerard Henderson who doesn’t play quite such hardball but clearly has the same agenda. See his Herald piece August 28 www.smh.com.au/opinion/hindsight-has-not-cleared-the-vision-of-an-atroci… supposedly about the film Balibo he has a couple of bizarre assertions about the Left being alienated - the implication that they aren’t real Aussies and shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers - has weird reverse resonance with the Bolt situation.
good article!
To complain to Insiders about Bolt’s hysterical and highly partisan *contributions* to the show, and to demand that Insiders source a conservative viewpoint that is accurrate, rational, and not so ideological, go here:
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/contact.htm
Are people really only just waking up to News Ltd.’s infiltration of the ABC?
Come on Jason, you love the attention from Bolt!
How about having a shot at one paper towns where Murdoch scribes also host morning ABC radio shows, or the amount of superfluous government advertising artificially propping up Murdoch outlets?
In any case, don’t pussy foot around - sue him!
More to the point: All these idiots want is for everyone to talk about them "Look at me! Look at me!", and the more Crikey, New Matilda Quiggin et al link to them the more legitimate their claim to a place in the discourse. Stop it!
http://www.stopmurdoch.blogspot.com/
www.springhillvoice.com
Ju
Ha! For years I have been asking this question - why is my 8-10-12 cents per day to the ABC paying for Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman? Their continued presence on Insiders is the very reason I no longer watch this program and have not done so for the past two plus years, as have many of my similar age (60-70years) friends - and I will not resume watching it while they remain part of it. I have not completely abandoned the ABC, I simply listen to Radio National instead.
Like Scott, I eagerly await Andrew’s response to this article. I want to know more about his opera days in particular.
Andrew Bolt is clearly able to be intelligent when he chooses to be, which makes it doubly a shame that he has decided to take on a role as an unthinking online bomb thrower on behalf of some warped caricature of Teh Right. It’s not like Akerman or Bolt are the only right-leaning commentators given an airing in the media, including on the ABC and on The Insiders. I’m all in favour of having right-leaning commentators and contributors in our mass media – it’s just that Bolt and especially Akerman aren’t interested in putting cogent positions, which means nothing of any value is provided on behalf of the ‘Right wing’ position they supposedly portray.
I thought piers and bolt was the comedy part of insiders? the other journos always laugh after piers talks ??? Ltd news should spend some money on therapy for them ,they both still have not got over the last election. Jason , you must be doing something right, if boltie and rupert attack you, keep up the good work. Keep pushing their buttons, acky not far of having a turn or boltie blowing a fuse.If rupert charges for content,they will lose their jobs and rupert will continue to lose money on his rags.
Two pieces on Andrew Bolt within a month.
Careful Jason. You are increasing his "importance"
I wish the friends of the ABC well in any attempts to make the organisation objective. If you want high quality journalism simply look to NEWSHOUR with Jim Lehrer on PBS. They always have both sides to an issue to ensure "fairness".
You will have to start with an employment contract that forbids personal views in any form of programming. Its easy enough to get a variety of public views.
Marni, You had better assure Andrew that NewMatilda really loves him.
When it comes to Andrew Bolt, I really wonder what his function is, if any, other than as a kind of joker in the pack, or some kind of modern version of the court jester. Maybe we even need people like Bolt, just so that we have a way of defining what the linguistic boundaries and structures of reasonable and argued logic actually are. To that extent I’m even pretty reassured if Bolt goes to bed without a hint of irony or pastiche in his faculties, if he takes himself 100% seriously (which I’m fairly sure he’d have to, to keep on doing what he does - unless he is a total sell-out, which I don’t quite get the feeling he is).
Does anyone apart from the people to whom he appeals so much; the same ones who obviously feel the fervent need to post their lurid comments at the arse end of his blog every week, ie his fans, actually listen or take seriously what Andrew Bolt says? How much influence does this guy really have? Not a whole lot it seems. He’s hardly managed to convince a vast legion of, let’s say, working class, suburban, Herald-Sun type readers to stop voting or believing in Labor and the Evil Left or Kevin Rudd would hardly be as popular as he is, let alone the Prime Minister.
Seems people like Bolt act as a kind of barometer of extremes. I’d actually be quite proud to be "Bolted" if I actually had anything meaningful to say, or if anyone actually read what I wrote; it would seem to imply a measure of success, that your message has hit a nerve with the Righteous Right and that your signifiers are strikingly signfiying what they’re supposed to be.
Bolt is nothing but a clown with a fan club. Apart, maybe, from his fan club, I don’t think there are many who actually would take him so seriously as to act on what he rails against. What he stands for is minor league and deep down he knows it.
He may picture himself as a kind of Isaiah, or a voice in the desert, but in the end he knows he’s just a newspaper columnist who gets paid to write dribble.
However, I totally agree we definitely shouldn’t be paying for him to be on the ABC. I have nothing against a conservative opinion if it plays by the rules and while News Ltd. can suck the capitalist dollar all it wants, seeing as I never buy it, as a taxpayer I expect a whole lot more from the ABC.
http://zielwolf.blogspot.com
So its ok to pay for left wing idealogues like Philip Adams but not someone who is a conservative ?
Just shows how out of touch the left are.
This reminds me of the Carry-On series.
I suggest the title for next week’s New Matilda article is:
"Why are we Talking About Andrew Bolt?"
followed in week four by:
"Why are we Still Talking About Andrew Bolt?
.I have my own theory about this. The key thing is that his name reminds people of ‘Blot’.
Andrew Bolt is like an inkblot. Staring at him helps bring suppressed memories and primal emotions to the surface.
How does one go about getting on Bolt’s hate list? I have pilloried him in posts here and elsewhere, but really feel I could be doing more. Can one register?
There has been a lot of talk about balance here, as though that was a good thing, but balance is what makes it possible for religion to still be taken seriously, or for franky weird ideas like Bolt’s to be injected into the mainstream instead of regarded from afar as lunatic.
Screw balance, if the wars are still on, and they are, then I am glad to have the ABC on my side. Bolt can have the Oz, in which I don’t hear him complaining, in the interests of balance, about the low numbers of lefty columnists.
Let him keep coming onto The Insiders, he presents an excellent target for his betters. In this regard the show could only be improved by using stocks and rotten tomatoes.
A quick scan of Jason Wilson’s biography seems to show that the taxpayer is, and apparently, has always paid his salary. There may be more to Wilson than his bio shows but it seems to be a bit rich to be attacking Bolt when Wilson’s whole career has been spent sucking on the public teat.
Thinking about how Bolt and Ackerman are "trotted out" to provide "the right wing angle" got me to thinking about how more broadly we always see the same old commentators rehashing their same opinions. Which is maybe JamesK’s point (although I disagree with his conclusion that the left are "out of touch"!)
So many people who are regularly in the media as commentators seem boring and predictable to me. I think it’s in part because journalists/other people involved in the production of media are pressured to come up with material so quickly (for maximum "productivity") and so they fall back on stereotypical dichotomised points of view, if that makes sense. Which is kind of ironic really since often they’re also supposed to be finding "news". I find this particularly frustrating because it’s so hard to get issues on the mainstream media’s agenda (let alone alternative perspectives) if those issues are perceived as "old news" - like the exploitation of Aboriginal land and people by mining companies, which we’ve all heard about before. Somehow we have to find a new angle on that to get it in the media, but these guys get away with not coming up with anything new?
OK now I’m painting myself into a conundrum that I’m not sure how to resolve…
Hey, don’t forget "Counterpoint" supposedly the ABC’s Right Wing Answer to Phillip Adams. You can hear it five times a week on ABC Radio National. That is five hours of Right Wing drivel, beside any other RW commentators!
But to answer your original question, the answer has to be NO! No media deserves the blather of these Far Right Murdoch-owned commentators. No listeners deserve to have their ears bashed by such people.
If indeed the Howard appointees to the ABC and the SBS Boards are to be dumped in 2010 (not guaranteed with Krudd and Conroy in charge) we can only live in hope of some massive changes. I will NOT hold my breath. The ABC in particular has been totally demoralized and emasculated, castrated, and gutted by 12 odd years of Far Right management and political obsession.
p.s. As the ABC is commonly called "Aunty", I am not sure that my terms of description can apply. Any suggestions?
@Andrew Bartlett - I agree - I have no problem whatsoever with principled positions from either side of the political fence being put on ABC current affairs programmes. What I do have a problem with is incivility being rewarded, and with people going on with the intention of running lines rather than engaging in discussion.
@icedvolvo With all due respect to your gigantic IQ, it’s normal practice in debates such as these to give some evidence for your claims, something you’ve failed to do over two threads in relation to ABC bias. Your accusations about me being a left-wing ideologue are, similarly, assertions.
@MeganY I take your point to some extent, however I’m bound to say that the "just ignore them" approach from the centre, the left and principled conservatives has not worked in the United States, where it’s currently impossible for them to have a sensible discussion about healthcare provision. I think it’s important to call these tactics for what they are.
"So its ok to pay for left wing idealogues like Philip Adams but not someone who is a conservative ?"
By all means, feel feel free to link to a piece by Adams that contains the same degree of trash talk we see from Bolt, and then maybe, you might have a point.
Hear Hear! I’m constantly offended by my tax dollars paying for Bolt to parade his well-cultivated and wilful ignorance on the ABC. His refusal to acknowledge the existence of the ‘stolen generation’ is just one of many examples. The ABC needs to accept that ‘fair and balanced’ should not excuse putting loonies on stage - there are far more knowledgable and intelligent conservative commentators than Bolt, who is rewarded for his intransigence with a national stage. Reward bad behaviour and you’ll just get more of it.
Great comments zielwolf,
Though we should avoid generalities, the right tend to congregate in high numbers around those who can incite them. This is a trend that is obvious in the US. In any case, Bolt and Ackerman know they will never succeed in winning over moderates to their position, and I suspect, nor are they even interested in trying.
Their appeal is limited to their base where they are free to limit their efforts to stoking antagonism and fueling resentment. They will be the first to complain about censorship when thy are shunned but are apparently only too happy to ban disagreeable commenters from their blogs.
Having said that, the reality is that love them or hate them, these guys do draw a crowd, and that is the name of the game. Even for those of us who disagree, they do help strip away the stifling PC layer and encourage impassioned exchanges. On the odd occasion that they are lucid, they can even make a cogent point or two.
Some of us may have stopped watching the Insiders because of their appearance, but many more would stop watching if they weren’t.
icedvolvo,
With all due respects, you provide a compelling example of how a high IQ does not guarantee one’s intelligence or awareness.
Attributing the ABC’s failings to it’s alledged left wing bias is as simplistic and jingoist as it gets. If one were to actually analyze the conventional wisdom’s that are accepted at face value by the ABC, one would realize that the ABC is largely mainstream. Views put froth by independent journalists and reporters are often rejected or challenged for the mere fact that they don’t conform to the status quo.
In any case, I’s be interested from where you draw your comparison by which to measure the ABC’s degree of bias and ideology. What network or new source woudl you consider to be ideologically sound and less biased in your opinion?
Sorry Dave,
"Shingo, am I confused or is it you? Firstly it’s Dave, not Richard. Secondly. didn’t you mean to say that people on the left take the bait? "
yes you are right, I did mean the left.
My point is that while these right wing blow hards don’t contribute to intelligent discussion, they do create entertainment, which seems to be the emerging trend in news and current affairs. Indeed, many right wing pundits in the US have shifted from referring to themselves as reporters or journalists, to entertainers.
The Right would not be saying that the ABC is balanced until it was as right wing as they are.
Everybody is biased in the respect that its the value angle that you come at everything. So, the RIGHT should be saying that it is to the left of them. I know for a fact that the Palestinians write identical letters to the ABC complaining of right wing bias - the Jewish community have the opposite complaint which proves that on a values basis the ABC meanders round the centre ground. There is all this information/stuff coming in from the Left that I know does not even get up at the ABC that you get to find out in European medias.
EITHER WAY,
- the ABC presents the Right and Left, the Right only presents the Right
- Yes, alot of creative people are left leaning but what people of the Right on this thread do not see, is that 98% of the time, they are bending over backwards to be fair - provide ideological diversity and critique party political independently, - separate the personal from the professional.
When it comes to people of the Right, that same respect is very rarely shown.
ICEDVOLVO - your comments are very typical. Howard’s men did a study and it came out that there was no systemic bias - cause its ALL ABOUT VALUES - and what you are choosing to broadcast. There is a very strong argument as our media is so ideologically one-sided to the Right. Either way, this is not bias, its just information that does not get up ( and I know what I am missing)
YOU GUYS WIN, you take the 2% of the truth that suits you, and ignore the 98% of truth going in the opposite direction.
(This comment has been edited for clarity.)
Akerman’s unctuous bloviating on Q&A would have been laughable if it hadn’t been so lame and inadequate a response to issues so serious.
Ideologically waffling off the point, indulging in the role of political players rather than diligent observers and chroniclers of our time, he and Bolt engage in deliberate distraction, diversion and misinformation. Honorary titles as Shadow Extra-Parliamentary Secretaries for Absurdist Huff & Bluster would be well in order.
How proud must Bolt be of the vile slurmongers he attracts to his blogosmear. Such a worthwhile reason to get out of bed in the morning, such an endearing mob to incite. Charming.
Yes Jason,
But it isn’t a case of ‘just ignore them’. The point is, by all means criticise them and wherever possible take any action to stop them or reduce their influence.
But by constantly linking to them and pointing out their biases and propaganda, all that happens is they can then claim to have a ‘place’ in the debate. By their conduct they have disqualified themselves from honest discussion of any sort. Legitimacy is not automatic, it is earned or squandered. They deliberately derail intellectual integrity and must be treated in that way.
It is not ‘impossible to have a sensible discussion’ about anything unless you give a level of credit to people like Murdoch’s crew which will ensure that is the case. They are actually not as powerul as everyone fears, please don’t help them to become so by legitimizing their place in any discussion.
That’s all.
www.stopmurdoch.blogspot.com
www.springhillvoice.com
No one would argue that Bolt and Akerman are conservative journalists but in the same vein Tony Jones and Kerry O’brien have earned the nicknames that I use for them for good reason.
But there IS a difference! Neglecting some sporadic appearances on Insiders, Akerman and Bolt are optional, they work for commercial media selling to a specific demographic. We can choose to pay to hear them or not as the case may be. Further, to a certain extent, they are counterbalanced by the likes of the Sydney Moaning Herald, the Melbourne rAge and other left leaning dailies.
The ABC (Jones, O’Brien, Adams and many others) are a completely different situation! We have no choice other than to pay for them. Further a public broadcaster plays a much more essential role in democracy of informing (or misinforming!) the public in an unbiased way. The political agenda of Jones, Obrien, Adams et al is at least as overt and as blatant as Akerman’s. But the critical difference is THERE IS NO BALANCING FORCE AT THE ABC.
Now as to someone above who asked for proof, we have already decided it is impossible, short of overt admission, to PROVE bias but as an intelligent thinking person who worked in daily contact with Federal and State Parliament Press Galleries I can tell you there is absolutely no doubt that the ABC is grossly biased towards the ALP/Green side of politics and they make no attempt to quash their political agendas in their reporting.
As to smart or not, yes I am good at the things that IQ tests test i.e. puzzles, mathematical, spatial and logic. But I acknowledge that there are other types of smarts: linguistic, artistic, musical, personal, physical etc of which I have little talent. My point was how can two intelligent people looking at the same set of circumstances reach such opposing stances? Answer: we can’t! One of us is lying possibly to ourselves as well as the readers!
(This comment has been edited.)
To watch Andrew on Insiders, when he’s on there & not off with the fairy’s, he actualy has some relevant things to say. You can either laugh at Andrew or you can take him & leave him but which ever way you take him, I’m pretty sure that Jason was the image of the person who was actualy carrying the message that threatened his ideology. If you don’t understand my reasoning you had better ask a psychologist & then you will understand Andrew’s method of attack & what he was actually trying to protect. I don’t think it’s right to attack Jason for what ever the reason & in the way he did because as a professional, Andrew should know there are other methods of communication & that is what Andrew’s business is supposed to be.
What an advance, instead of being labelled a greenie, you can now get the tag of a GetUp supporter from political incompetents.
In Andy Warhol’s words, "Don’t pay any attention to what they write about you. Just measure it in inches."
@MeganY I’m a little confused about what you’re recommending as a course of action. How would we criticise them without pointing to evidence or pointing out what we’re objecting to? And it’s a little naive, in my view, to say that we can have important public debates while pretending the most important media institutions simply aren’t there. My intention is not to legitimise Bolt’s tactics at all - quite the opposite. Anyhow, thanks for your comments and your interest in the piece.
iced volvo
The ABC does most of the investigative journalism - and get’s on people where it is there area of expertise, eg: Philip Adams gets alot of different people on - eg: Human Rights in Sudan and get’s on Amnesty International. He had cross debates with Iraqi Dissidents about the war in Iraq. The show is not about him. I see it as information.
The Managers there do not let the journalists there run there own political agenda. I know one Journalist at the ABC who felt strongly about something but they, and in some ways correctly, would not let him run with it.
I just think that you are coming in at Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones at the wrong angle - I think that you will find that we get people coming in from a pro Labor angle that accuse KOB of bias towards the Liberal Party. Yes K OBrien has values but he is also a professional that asks hard questions of both sides of politics within a proper informing show such as the 7.30 Report.Tony Jones asks people from the Left and Right hard questions. He takes opposing view points to someone of the Left when he may privately agree with them off air. them.
I just think you are viewing the ABC is a very one-dimensional way. I know alot of people who really respect KOB because of the scrutiny he puts politicians under. No matter who you put on someone to the left or right of them would say they are biased.
Paul Lyneham was someone with liberal party connections - perhaps we should bring him back from the dead and was the 7.30 Report Political Correspondent and get him to replace KOB and then you would be happy?
What I can never ubderstand is why the other guests on Insiders don’t call Andrew on his tactics?
Another question we should all ask is why he in particular thinks he knows more about various subjects than those who have studied or researched a question in detail.
‘Insiders’ is a suitably pompous title for an extremely sad program by the ABC, that each week confirms my view the ABC is essentially another disinformation channel.
These folk may well be on the inside of the Australian mass media gravy train. But do they have a care in the world for the truth?
I invite the ABC to reply some of the programs from before the March 2003 Iraq invasion.
Why not remind the Australian public what a bunch of inept, ill-informed idiots appeared on the show in the run up to invasion, spouting conformist views that even then were easily falsifiable - with all the energy of agitated war-crazed demons?
The Insiders’ incessant use of Paul Kelly as ‘expert commentator’ is particularly absurd. This is the man who, a few weeks before President Suharto was ousted in Indonesia, appeared on our screens to inform us there was "no alternative" to Suharto.
To paraphrase the famous song:
"How many times can some pundits be wrong
Before they’re removed from our screens?"
Bolt is really just the obvious flimflam merchant. The Insiders’ line in disinformation runs much deeper - and is dispensed by a wider range of commentators than Mr Blot.
I’ve been Bolted, for telling New Zealanders that he denies the Stolen Generations happened.
It was a pleasure. I smiled for days.
I agree with the premise of this post. Some of my best friends are right-wing, and they argue intelligently. They admit that they’re not experts in a given field, and defer to those who spend their lives study those fields. They support their conclusions with evidence. With the same evidence, we come to different conclusions, and I respect that.
Bolt, on the other hand, is a fence-post. He throws away any evidence that doesn’t suit him, which allows him to make the most outrageous claims you can think of.
I consider Bolt to be like a drunk who uses a lamp post for support rather than illumination.
How the hell does one get Bolted? I’ve been trying for years: I actually had a regular segment on my blog called "Let’s Slander Andrew Bolt", and nothing! He didn’t even bother to point out my incorrect use of the word slander!
I mean, seriously, who do I have to f*ck in this town to get abused by Andrew Bolt?
Well, I mean, apart from the obvious.
I posted this in another forum but it is probably more relevant to this debate here:
Costello has now weighed into this debate, you can [and should] read the full article here:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/left-to-its-devices-its-their-abc-20090825…
A few choice comments:
"the ABC is hostile territory…"
"I once walked into ABC headquarters at Ultimo and was confronted by an employee who began hissing at me."
"With the ABC, the line of questioning is always predictable. It always comes from the Labor/Green perspective."
"But the flagship national current affairs programs - AM, PM, and The 7.30 Report - have a consistent editorial perspective."
"The 7.30 Report has been a good training ground for politicians, producing a Labor premier of Western Australia, Alan Carpenter, and a Northern Territory Labor chief minister, Clare Martin. The former Victorian Labor minister Mary Delahunty and Maxine McKew have also worked for ABC news and current affairs. The 7.30 Report is hosted by the former Labor staffer Kerry O’Brien. I have no objection to former staffers working in the media. It’s just that you notice the preponderance of those from a particular side at the ABC."
"He’s an oddity …. Out of the 4500 ABC employees, they [the ABC] know there is one Liberal."
and the best quote of all regarding the ABCs now 4 year long search for a balance to Philip Adams leftist views:
"There appears nothing urgent about the task of getting balance into the ABC. But if it did find a right-wing Phillip Adams, we [the ABC] would then have a Liberal in Perth and one in Sydney too."
Good morning Jason,
Welcome to my world!
I too was Bolted in November last year. Following a Sydney Morning Herald article written by David Marr which mentioned my name and some satirical exploits I had successfully conducted, Sir Andrew in his rabid exuberance to deride Mr. Marr as a fully-fledged Socialist who fraternises with violent lefties claimed that I had stalked and threatened to bash some right-wing radio commentators…
Here is the original David Marr article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-naked-truth-of-a-shock-jock-dupe…
Here is Bolt’s interpretation and comments from his cronies:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen…
The only decent thing Bolty did was allow a comment from me onto his blog clearing up his misinformation, although he did not edit his own post to reflect his mistakes. One who does not do much to rectify their mistakes (of which we are all guilty) shows someone severely lacking reflective ability and critical analysis. Enough said.
If the world were clear, art would not exist.
The missing bit of the icedvolvo Costello link is, in place of the ellipses, -ey3b.html, for those who find clicking on the truncated version taking you to an SMH "please pay" page!
What worries me about Bolt more than anything else is his obsession with racial purity…and that’s a HUGE worry.His posts about anyone who isn’t a "full blood" Aboriginal but who claims to be Aboriginal, are so offensive they bring out the worst in his trailer trash "correspondents". Regarding his appearances on The Insiders -he bags the ABC at the drop of a hat but accepts payments from the dreaded left wing organisation!
(This comment has been edited.)