Andrew Bolt is trashy and a liar, not a journalist

The Super Grass

Senior List
Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
265
Likes
0
Location
The Sth West Coral Sea
Other Teams
Tiges
#26
Andrew Bolt was the first in a newspaper that I ever responded too. Was some amazingly obnoxious article and got me so riled up I fired him off an email.

It was the moment I recieved a reply from him outlining whatever his argument was at the time, that I knew he was'a jackass and not worth worrying about.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#27
The Super Grass said:
Andrew Bolt was the first in a newspaper that I ever responded too. Was some amazingly obnoxious article and got me so riled up I fired him off an email.

It was the moment I recieved a reply from him outlining whatever his argument was at the time, that I knew he was'a jackass and not worth worrying about.
he should be stopped because Bruce&Sheila out there in the 'burbs believe his trash, too dumb to think for themselves
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#29
The Super Grass said:
I dunno. Look at that picture. Perhaps he's employed for the people to have someone to disagree with. An antagonizer.

Looking at his pic, I cant envision him as one of the 'burb people.
he's not one of them but he preaches to them
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#30
celtic_pride said:
Fair dinkum I have really had a gutful of what he writes in the Herald-Scum. (Don't worry I didn't buy it)
But he's totally so one sided and anti-greens/anti-arab, anti-anti Catholic, pro zionist, pro-amercian ass licker etc ...
What really gets me is his continual slandering of the green movement and he once compared the greens policies to the Nazi party.
This man is what is wrong with Australian poltics/society today, so many plebs seem to agree with him.
And you have other twits that agree with him on the radio waves, like Neil Mitchell and his crew at 3AKKK that it's hard to get an objective view through.
The way Bolt sticks up John 'mr liar about children overboard' Howard that it makes me wonder if he literally 'tosses' Johnny's salad (go to an porno site if you don't know what I mean by that)
Perhaps I should start my own Anti-Bolt site,. I tell you pricks like him must stop their garbage and muck racking and fear mongering.
You called him a liar, please provide evidence of this. When he wrote about the inaccuracy of the rabbit proof fence story for example he was branded a racist, redneck etc etc but like the case of Windschuttle I didnt read anyone produce any evidence to prove that what he asserted was factually incorrect. If you want to read people that have a great deal of trouble sticking to the truth I suggest you try Robert Manne and Margot Kingston.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#31
celtic_pride said:
Ah go and get that chip off your shoulder.
Israel has perrhaps the most oppressive and corrupt govt. in the world.
Sharon is basically in many ways as bad as Saddam.
And how come Israel is allowed Weapons of Mass Destruction (frankly their nuclear stockpile scares me)
The man is totally unbalanced and unforgiving.
You must be horrendously deluded if you could possibly think that Israel was more corrupt and oppressive than such wonderful regimes as Zimbabwe, North Korea, the vast majority of sub saharan Africa, Burma, China, Laos, etc etc.

Why arent you complaining about Pakistan and India having nuclear weapons?
 

agitator

All Australian
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Posts
795
Likes
0
Other Teams
salisbury serial killers
#32
Rodion said:
There seems to be a tendency among hard left writers to make a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes on purpose. This is especially obvious with the idiots from Socialist Alliance at uni, who think poor use of the English language and terrible photocopying are a mark of sincerity.
alas they dont do it on purpose, this is living proof of the quality of a public school education.
 

agitator

All Australian
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Posts
795
Likes
0
Other Teams
salisbury serial killers
#33
demon_dave said:
he should be stopped because Bruce&Sheila out there in the 'burbs believe his trash, too dumb to think for themselves
and your the man to stop him..........maintain the rage commrade!!!
 

MGREG

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Posts
2,981
Likes
1
Location
Beatles best band ever
Other Teams
Collingwood
#34
demon_dave said:
he should be stopped because Bruce&Sheila out there in the 'burbs believe his trash, too dumb to think for themselves
So this means you want someone else to think for them?

Shows how hypocritical your stance against Bush censorship really is.

You are basically seeking to censor Bolt.
 

M29

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Posts
13,593
Likes
5
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dons
#35
I don't normally agree with what Bolt spews for in the Hun, but that article the other day about the rap group D12 was great. He should do more of them and less moaning about 'lefties'.
 

M29

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Posts
13,593
Likes
5
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dons
#36
The Super Grass said:
I dunno. Look at that picture. Perhaps he's employed for the people to have someone to disagree with. An antagonizer.

Looking at his pic, I cant envision him as one of the 'burb people.
I think someone in here has once compared/described him to/as the Suzi Olsen of journos.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

O'Brien

Senior List
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Posts
156
Likes
0
Location
Witton Lane Stand
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Villa/Victory/Storm
#37
medusala said:
You called him a liar, please provide evidence of this. When he wrote about the inaccuracy of the rabbit proof fence story for example he was branded a racist, redneck etc etc but like the case of Windschuttle I didnt read anyone produce any evidence to prove that what he asserted was factually incorrect. If you want to read people that have a great deal of trouble sticking to the truth I suggest you try Robert Manne and Margot Kingston.

You didn’t read anyone produce any evidence to prove that what he asserted was factually incorrect …???

I can only assume that you have not read “Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History” by R. Manne, or if you have, gave it a cursory glance, and upon discovering that it did not conform your jaundiced views of aboriginal history, you concluded that it ‘MUST’ be full of left wing lies and propaganda!!

Allow me to inform you then, that Manne goes into great detail to examine and debunk many of Windschuttle’s claims. Now whilst you can question many of Manne’s conclusions, you cannot with a straight face claim that no serious effort has been made to debunk/examine many of Windschuttle’s assertions.

Incidentally can YOU cite specific examples of where Manne has been proven to have lied or deliberately misled his readers? Nah didn’t think so.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#38
O'Brien said:
You didn’t read anyone produce any evidence to prove that what he asserted was factually incorrect …???

I can only assume that you have not read “Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History” by R. Manne, or if you have, gave it a cursory glance, and upon discovering that it did not conform your jaundiced views of aboriginal history, you concluded that it ‘MUST’ be full of left wing lies and propaganda!!

Allow me to inform you then, that Manne goes into great detail to examine and debunk many of Windschuttle’s claims. Now whilst you can question many of Manne’s conclusions, you cannot with a straight face claim that no serious effort has been made to debunk/examine many of Windschuttle’s assertions.

Incidentally can YOU cite specific examples of where Manne has been proven to have lied or deliberately misled his readers? Nah didn’t think so.
There have been numerous examples of Manne been proven to be incorrect. The number of aborigines removed in the alleged stolen generations for example, the number of aboriginals killed in frontier wars, alleging that authorities carried out a systematic process of genocide etc.

His (and others in his book) rebuttals of Windschuttle attack him not so much on his figures but in the manner in which he describes aboriginals, their lifestyle and the attitude of settlers and the govt towards them. There are three accounts of killings which they accuse him of stuffing up, he has posted substantial evidence to back up his claim in each of these cases. Slightly more believable than someone like Ryan who claimed a Tasmanian newspaper article as proof for one attack at a time when the paper wasnt even in publication.

Manne is a very confused and twisted individual. From being editor of quadrant to being an ultra lefty. A similar road to Mal Fraser and about as irrelevant.

The Age 3 April 2001


One believer in the "stolen generations" claim, Robert Manne, has now conceded serious errors in the report by Sir Ronald Wilson, Bringing Them Home. But Manne and others continue to promulgate the myth without producing substantive evidence.

Contrary to the claim in Manne’s new book "In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right"(an extract of which appeared in Saturday Extra), no significance at all can be attached to the 1994 ABS Household survey reporting that one in ten Aborigines (compared with Sir Ronald’s one in three) believed they had been "stolen".

The ABS survey made no checks on the authenticity of these beliefs, a process that was demonstrated as essential in the subsequent Williams case in NSW and Cubillo-Gunner cases in the Northern Territory. As Justice O’Loughlin pointed in his judgment on the latter, mixed-race children who were removed at an early age could not themselves have personal knowledge of what actually occurred, and would have to rely on stories they had been told.

When properly tested in court, such stories were revealed as close to fantasies.

The failure of the self-appointed true believers to find any living Aborigine who was stolen, and the realization that there are some questions about the Wilson report, has now forced Manne to retreat to claiming:

That 25,000 children were "stolen" between 1900 and 1970 - but without acknowledging that reliance on childhood memories, and on subsequent stories relayed by a parent who would naturally tend to blame others, provides no substantive evidence of the reason for removals;

That these removals are for Aboriginal Australians what the term Holocaust was for Jews;

That there has been a campaign against the stolen generations thesis by alleged right wingers whose motive is to deny that Aborigines suffered as a result of the occupation of Australia. There is no evidence to support this and it is fanciful to imagine such a large number of individuals with diverse views and backgrounds could mount a campaign. Manne seems unable to distinguish between a campaign and the obvious concern of these individuals to establish the truth.

To support their views, generation myth-makers such as Manne are selectively quoting statements by one or two officials who were administering Aboriginal policy as implying such policies were founded on racist objectives, rather than providing protection and succor for children.

However, whatever the views of those administrators, no evidence has been produced that such objectives formed part of government policies themselves. Indeed, the 1937 Government policy statement by the then responsible Commonwealth Minister, John McEwen, clearly indicated there were no such objectives in the Northern Territory .

Manne dismisses sworn evidence on the stolen generation question, subjected to cross examination, by patrol and other officers in the Cubillo-Gunner cases, while effectively claiming that statements by one or two other officers reflected government policy.

It is important to recognize that:

The removals of children from parents involved part-Aborigines, not full bloods;
These children were often not accepted as members of traditional communities and in such cases were subjected to discrimination within such communities. Indeed, some of such children were subjected to infanticide. Baldwin Spencer’s report of the late 1920s, which revealed that numerous part-Aboriginal children born during the construction of the Ghan railroad had been abandoned and become wandering waifs, inspired responses from those who saw a clear need to provide care for such children.
Many removals were made by administrations because of neglect or abuse of the children, as continues to the present day (in 1998-99, for example, over 3,000 Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from a parent for this reason across all States and in the Northern Territory). As the Wilson report itself reveals, legislation going back to the early nineteenth century provided that such removals had to be authorized by boards and/or courts.
The Christian churches took the lead in establishing institutions to help protect such children and provide education that would not otherwise have been available.
Not a few removals were made voluntarily by a parent or parents in order to provide better opportunities, particularly educational, for the child. The evidence in the Cubillo-Gunner case showed such children were generally well cared for in the N T.

An interview with Manne where he argues against the judgement in that case which demolished his arguments re the stolen generations.

http://www.atsic.gov.au/News_Room/ATSIC_News/September_2000/change_view_aust.asp

You have said that O’Loughlin’s judgment in the Gunner-Cubillo case is flawed. Why do you say this?

I don’t mean that the decision is wrong in law, because I’m not able to say that. I know that there are good lawyers who think it’s wrong in law and that will be tested.

The judge had to consider a vast amount of historical evidence brought to the court—far more evidence than researchers for Bringing Them Home were able to afford. The submissions are the best historical documentation we’re ever likely to have on child removal in the Northern Territory.

I think O’Loughlin made three very fundamental errors of judgement in considering this history.

First, he claims there was no "general" policy of removal. He seems to confuse a general policy with a "blanket" policy, thinking that every so-called half-caste child had to be taken. The policy was never as universal as that, and only implemented patchily—there were periods, for example in the Second World War, where the policy went into abeyance. He construes that to mean there was no general policy. But I am convinced that from about the mid-1920s to the Second World War, and into the early 60s at least, you can speak about a general policy to remove a particular kind of so-called half-caste child—those born to Aboriginal mothers and European fathers, who were living in traditional ways. To say there was no policy of child removal (let alone no general policy), as Peter Howson did recently, is a terrible distortion of the truth.

The second flaw in the judgement is that O’Loughlin disputes the idea there were forcible removals. He thinks they were by and large not resisted, that mothers more or less voluntarily gave their agreement. But I’ve read interviews by administrators who said they were shocked at having to take the children away. There’s the famous Wave Hill incident where patrol officer Ted Evans said he saw sights the like of which he never wanted to see again in his life. Before the Second World War, I’m certain policemen simply rode into the camps. There are endless cases where we know— O’Loughlin knew—the children were covered with charcoal to darken their skin, or the mothers and children fled, before the patrol officers arrived.

The third really big flaw goes so deep it astonishes me. He says that while the removals were misguided and paternalistic, they were not based on considerations of race. That is fundamentally wrong. The idea was always to rescue these part-European babies from the fate of Aboriginality, and in certain periods the policy was even worse than that, it was the policy of breeding out the colour—to get rid of the Aboriginal blood in three or four generations. This was a policy which the chief protector of the Northern Territory, Cecil Cook, was behind, and which the Commonwealth Government supported. O’Loughlin denied this. Here, he is simply factually wrong. His idea that these removals were not based on race involves a staggering misunderstanding.
 

O'Brien

Senior List
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Posts
156
Likes
0
Location
Witton Lane Stand
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Villa/Victory/Storm
#39
medusala said:
There have been numerous examples of Manne been proven to be incorrect. The number of aborigines removed in the alleged stolen generations for example, the number of aboriginals killed in frontier wars, alleging that authorities carried out a systematic process of genocide etc.
I asked you to provide evidence to substantiate your claims that Manne had in the past lied or deliberately misled his readers. In response you provided me with an article written by Peter Howson (I noticed that you omitted to mention the identity of the author), a minister in the Menzies, Holt, McEwen and McMahon Coalition governments, and a known stolen generation denier.

As to the second article, far from O’Loughlin “demolishing” Manne’s arguments, O Loughlin has this to say on the topic of the stolen generation:

“Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of ‘the Stolen Generation”. Hardly the conclusive dismissal of Manne’s assertions, that you would like everyone to believe.

His (and others in his book) rebuttals of Windschuttle attack him not so much on his figures but in the manner in which he describes aboriginals, their lifestyle and the attitude of settlers and the govt towards them. There are three accounts of killings which they accuse him of stuffing up, he has posted substantial evidence to back up his claim in each of these cases. Slightly more believable than someone like Ryan who claimed a Tasmanian newspaper article as proof for one attack at a time when the paper wasnt even in publication.[\quote]

The first few sections of “Whitewash” do deal with Windschuttles portrayal of Aboriginal lifestyle and their relationship with their land. However there is also an excellent critique of Windshuttle’s historical methodology, his selecting citing of historical sources and his deliberate “filtration” of other historical sources. It’s also interesting to note, that despite Windschuttle describing himself as a historian, he possesses no academic qualifications in area of historical research.

Manne is a very confused and twisted individual. From being editor of quadrant to being an ultra lefty. A similar road to Mal Fraser and about as irrelevant.
Ah, now we come to the real source of your hostility towards Manne!! It isn’t Mannes view on the stolen generation that has you all “hot and bothered”, but rather it’s his abandonment of the right that irks you. But if Manne is to be considered a “confused and twisted individual” now that he has defected from the right, what are we to make of the innumerable number of conservatives who were “lefties” in their youth? Are they also “confused and twisted” or would you perceive them as enlightened? You are of course aware that Windschuttle also held various left wing views during his younger days… is he confused as well? And here I was thinking that the left was rather unique in its treatment of its apostates. Oh well, at least you’ve proven me wrong on that!
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#40
O'Brien said:
I asked you to provide evidence to substantiate your claims that Manne had in the past lied or deliberately misled his readers.
Manne has consistently stated vastly exaggerated numbers with respect to the stolen generation and to aboriginal massacres. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary he sticks to his own fantasyland. Just like those muppets who talk of genocide. Now if thats not deliberately misleading I dont know what is.

The judge wasnt asked to decide on the existence of the stolen generation, thus he wasnt in a position to comment on it. He was however asked to make a determination on a number of points, all of which he did which denied and were allegations that Manne and others had been making. Pretty clear as Manne himself admitted in the interview ie the judge came to vastly different conclusions than Manne had.
 

Hawkforce

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 9, 2000
Posts
7,140
Likes
3,061
Location
London
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham
#41
This.

celtic_pride said:
the same people who read Bolt's stuff are probably from the same breed who enjoyed Hitler's autobiography Mein Kempf.
From the same person who wrote this:

celtic_pride said:
And some people wonder why the holocaust happened.
Frankly as stories like this go on with the oppression of the Palestenians, I feel less and less empathy for what the Germans did in WW2.
Two things strike me about this particular poster:

1) Why hasn't he been booted?

2) Why haven't any of the resident "left-wing" called this guy out?

Once upon a time, obvious racists like celtic_pride were vehemently opposed by the "left". It appears the pseuds infesting this site don't care.
 

Bombers 2003

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
34,490
Likes
4,769
Location
Yatala
AFL Club
Essendon
#42
Hawkforce said:
This.



From the same person who wrote this:



Two things strike me about this particular poster:

1) Why hasn't he been booted?

2) Why haven't any of the resident "left-wing" called this guy out?

Once upon a time, obvious racists like celtic_pride were vehemently opposed by the "left". It appears the pseuds infesting this site don't care.
Hawkforce.
i,for one,have no time for this idiot,so why bother?.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Posts
1,038
Likes
1,119
Location
London
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Fulham
#43
Bolt's lack of journalistic ethics (perhaps an oxymoron) would be amusing if it weren't so serious. Having been personally implicated into one of his columns, I KNOW that he settles for peddling untruths, fabricating context, quoting hearsay and presenting information without the slightest verification or research. At best, much of his writing is lazy, and has the sophistication of a Year 9-10 argumentative essay.
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,433
Likes
17,030
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#44
If you're that mentally challenged that you consider the Hun a good read then you probably deserve guys like Bolt telling you the facts of life.
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#45
MGREG said:
So this means you want someone else to think for them?

Shows how hypocritical your stance against Bush censorship really is.

You are basically seeking to censor Bolt.
totally different, Bush is trying to make censorship law all across the US meaning that the rodent will follow and we will get the same, bolt is just a toerag who needs to be told to take his footy and go home
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#46
medusala said:
Manne has consistently stated vastly exaggerated numbers with respect to the stolen generation and to aboriginal massacres. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary he sticks to his own fantasyland. Just like those muppets who talk of genocide. Now if thats not deliberately misleading I dont know what is.

The judge wasnt asked to decide on the existence of the stolen generation, thus he wasnt in a position to comment on it. He was however asked to make a determination on a number of points, all of which he did which denied and were allegations that Manne and others had been making. Pretty clear as Manne himself admitted in the interview ie the judge came to vastly different conclusions than Manne had.
thats what you believe, thats your fantasyland, personally I will believe an intelligent Manne before a bludy med
 

BlueMark

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Posts
2,233
Likes
12
Location
MELB
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#49
There are 63 identified massacre sites in Victoria alone. If we did not shoot them then the diseases we introduced killed significant numbers, very similar to what happen to the native American Indians. One of the reasons that the deniers can easily 'disprove' the genocide that occured is that the Aboriginals do not have a written history and that the killing was larely carried out by settlers and squatters who had no interest in documenting thier crimes. In the US most of the killing was completed by the military whom as a matter of course documented thier 'glorious victories' over largly defenceless civilians. Probelm for the US military was that when they came up against well armed and organised Indian Braves they generally got thier butts kicked.
 
Top Bottom