BoltWatch

Dedicated to those who can tell the difference between A. Bolt and a nut.

Where Andrew Bolt's Deranged Polemic ... Gets What's Coming To It

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Not Bolt for two weeks
"I will be away until July 11, and so – sorry – the forum will shut up shop until then. Thanks for your support so far."

Whatever shall we do? I'm having withdrawal from his excellent column already!

- posted by Nic White @ 5:08 PM |
Friday, June 24, 2005

Bolt 24/6/2005: "How the Left gets loonier" and "Free speech farce"
Essentially, Bolt's thesis in this piece is that the "left" backs terrorists over former hostage, Douglas Wood.

What exactly does he mean by "back"?

Well, he means that Andrew Jaspan, editor-in-chief of The Age, thought that it was a bit "boorish" and "coarse" for Wood to be calling his former captors "assholes" in press conferences.

Said Jaspan: "I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood's use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.

"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive." The ingrate.


Seems a bit of an odd remark. But Andrew's suggesting it's the left as a whole, so he must have more than just a silly remark from Jaspan.

Oh, look, he's got Bob Ellis. And a spokesman for the Mufti!

Ellis now praises Wood's kidnappers as "honourable men (with) a well-treated captive". Keysar Trad, spokesman for the Mufti, Sheik Taj el-Din el-Hilaly, also agreed Wood had been "well looked after".


Well, I remember that when we lefties elected Jaspan and Ellis to represent us entirely, we did ask them to be careful not to carelessly give away all our secret prejudicies to the likes of Bolt. Damn them for their foolishness!

Bolt thinks he's made some sort of brilliant point, so much so that it's a LIGHTNING ROD TO TURN YOUNG PEOPLE TO CONSERVATISM:
Let me ask younger readers still deciding on their brand of politics. Wouldn't you blush to join this Left?


Not really. Just because people say some silly things sometimes, doesn't mean I'm suddenly a huge fan of abolishing unfair dismissal laws or lying about reasons for invading another country. I think you'll find it takes more than this sort of silly "gotcha" column to achieve that, Andrew.

Meanwhile, of course the left is unimpressed by Wood's "God Bless America, Ra Ra Ra" rhetoric. We think it's stupid, it's part of the sort of attitude that makes ordinary Iraqis less than entirely opposed to hostage-taking and terrorism, and what he's really doing is greatly increasing the chance of the next hostage just being executed. But you know, a free society etc etc. I think it's a bit rough that he's being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his good fortune where others, like, say SBS journalist Martinkus, were ignored, because their views weren't good PR for the Coalition.

Bolt's other column, "Free speech farce", is about the Catch the Fire decision.

So began a three-year prosecution against the pastors that has cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Last December, Judge Higgins finally ruled that Scot in particular had offended by quoting the Koran in a way that got "a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter". Is laughter now a crime?

Stranger still, he gave 13 examples of how Scot had "made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct", at least eight of which involved him quoting the Koran, and, I believe, accurately. Yes, the Koran indeed authorises men to beat their wives. Yes, it indeed calls for thieving hands to be chopped off.

What did Scot say that was false? The judge listed just two trivial examples, but also said Scot hadn't made clear enough he was giving a literalist reading of the Koran that wasn't mainstream.

Did he? Isn't it? On such points, so deserving of debate, Scot was convicted of stating the wrong opinion.

You know, I don't think this is a very accurate or fair summary of the actual decision.

I've responded to this issue in more detail on my normal blog, so I'll refer you there. Particularly I'd recommend actually reading what precisely the Catch the Fire pastors were found to have said and printed. They didn't just say "we think the Muslims are wrong for these reasons", they went more than a little overboard.

Does Andrew think any defamation law is a blow against free speech? (Actually, after Jelena Popovic, he probably does...)

UPDATE: By the way, although the comments have degenerated into a debate about the issue of whether vilification laws are a good idea, that's not the point of this response. Whether you're opposed to the laws or in favour of them, the point is that Bolt is, in this piece, massively exaggerating the law's effect. You would believe from Andrew's article that you can't ever say anything even vaguely critical of Islam now, and that's simply not the case. Read section 11 of the Act if you don't believe me.

Obviously if you're here you're conscious that you're not getting the full story from the Hun. If you read the weekend papers, you'd believe that Bracks had gone the Full Stalin and was banning taxi drivers from being ever allowed to talk about religion or politics. Obviously, if you read the article carefully for what Bracks had actually said, that's not what's proposed at all. But if you were just casually skimming over the paper, it'd leave you with a deliberately misleading impression...

BoltWatch is not about one side of politics over the other. It's about providing a balanced response to Bolt's columns. The response here is - Andrew, there's plenty to debate about vilification laws. You shouldn't need to exaggerate them, if you're debating the issue honestly.

- posted by Jeremy @ 4:28 PM |

Technical assistance
Er, does anyone know, looking at the html code for this page, why it's suddenly breaking posts to below the sidebar? I've tried reloading the template from scratch, but even the default template does the same thing now.

It makes little sense to me that, despite me not changing the html code, suddenly what worked yesterday doesn't work today. It must be something blogspot has hanged in one part of the code that references the system (some bit of java, perhaps)? Any assistance would be appreciated.

It looks a bit ridiculous as it is now.

UPDATE: Exultate Justi has a temporary workaround to this blogspot snafu. Thanks to George for the solution.

- posted by Jeremy @ 10:52 AM |
Thursday, June 23, 2005

Bolt 22/6/2005: "Why the Libs should thank Petro"
Not everything Andrew Bolt writes is ridiculous.

He is at least somewhat politically astute (within certain narrowly-defined limits*).

On Tuesday, on the Hun opinion page Bolt has on Wednesdays and Fridays, a Kevin Donnelly wrote a piece about how Petro Georgiou was now essentially a traitor to the Liberal Party and should go.

(I've covered it on my normal blog here.)

On Wednesday, Bolt came charging in to argue that Petro "should be thanked, not threatened."

The Libs kicking out Petro at this point would be fantastic news for the Opposition. As Bolt points out, the fact that there are still moderates in the Liberal Party is an electoral life-saver, particularly in a "doctors' wives" electorate like Kooyong, and particularly just when the Liberals are taking complete control of the Federal Parliament.

It's disappointing that Bolt is making such a sensible call, because there are those of us who'd find extremely interesting a three-way battle in Kooyong between the Liberals, the ALP, and an independent Petro, with the latter two swapping preferences.

I think I preferred it when he was complaining about vegetarian cartoon animals.

*I put that caveat in there because Bolt is sadly convinced that when he lurches off into wing-nut territory that really, really, there's a huge "silent majority" of Australians who agree with him.

- posted by Jeremy @ 8:03 AM |
Tuesday, June 21, 2005

How to Argue on the Bolt Forum
Well, the sad thing is that you can't.

Say you respond to a Bolt article broadly, so as to keep your response concise. Well then, you're not "dealing with [his] arguments" -
From: Paul Webster

Comment: Hey Andrew, I read your response to Leigh: "I'm sad that an attack on a bigot is seen as an attack on Islam. That's an insult to many Muslims." Forget the attack on Mufti, your past columns are full of attack on Islam and Muslims including their holy book Quran, which was biggest insult to all Muslims. You may remember the columns you have written when there was a hearing going on in VCAT under the vilification laws and from memory Islamic Council of Victoria won that case, and even the decision of an impartial judge was not to your liking. All I can say here is that I have never seen any other columnist in this country who has such hatred for Islam and its followers. However, it is interesting to know that you tend to like moderate Muslims. I will be interested in your definition of a "moderate" Muslim. I am thinking of Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Iyad Alawai of Iraq, Hosney Mubarak of Egypt and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan must be in your list of moderates.

Andrew replies: Deal with my arguments and show me where I'm wrong, Paul. Such a broad-brush tarring gets us nowhere. And, yes, I'd say most of the men you mention (while mangling their names) probably would deserve to be called moderate Muslims, although I wish one in particular was a democrat as well.

I see, Paul's being too vague eh? He should have addressed Bolt's remarks in more detail?

But if you do try to respond in more detail, you get the dreaded... SNIP!

There isn't an example in the most recent fora, because people have given up writing anything longer than a paragraph. Why? Because Mr Bolt spent the first week or so of his forum calling any negative emails longer than a sentence or so "turgid essays" and, playing to the gallery, deriding the writers as being tedious over-earnest drones.

So - Andrew. What do you want? How much detail are you prepared to take in critical responses on your forum?

And can you point us to even one of your fora comments in which you've answered a genuine criticism with an honest attempt to respond to it?

- posted by Jeremy @ 1:43 PM |
Monday, June 20, 2005

Bolt Forum 20/6/5
Some comments on Bolt's forum today...
From: Greg Buck
Comment: On the ABC's Insiders this morning (19 June), you agreed that " of course 7 years is too long" or something to that effect, in respect of Peter Qasim's detention. You also appear to agree that locking kids in detention for years on end is also wrong. What I don't understand is why you don't just come out and shout from the rooftops "let him out, set them free"? Why agree, when pressed, that we are doing horrible things to people, then leave it at that? We need to put an end to this barbarism, and you can help.

Andrew replies: I'm cautious, because I don't know all the facts. But I agree he should be freed or sent back – and within a month at most.

"I'm cautious, because I don't know all the facts"?! Has that ever stopped Andrew before?

Mr Bolt, you write opinion columns on the topic of asylum seekers and mandatory detention all the time. Are you going to go and do some research on the topic now? Can we at least expect you to stop writing about the subject until you have?

Meanwhile, here's an example of Bolt shooting down nutters coming at him from the right, as discussed the other day:

From: John Wolczko
Comment: Hi, Andrew, Now that Doug Wood is safe, thanks to a great job by the Iraqui army, I must say that the man is an idiot and a bungling bragart. We are told that he has a serious heart complaint yet he embarked on a very dangerous and stressful job in Iraq at the age of 63. He bragged to his wife over the phone how "clever" he was in avoiding trouble. It was, no doubt, picked up by the terrorist organisation which then proceeded to abduct him on his way to work showinf us how stupid he really was. Having been so fortunate to be rescued, he is again playing a "big hero" disregarding his crawling to his captors while begging for his life on televiision. His stupidity, also forced his two brothers to demean themselves in the eyes of the terrorists and Sheik Hilally to act .like a couple of beggars. The best thing this man can do is to shut his big mouth and stop embarrasing genuine Australians.

Andrew replies: I like his daring very much, I rather hope to see him going hell for leather in Iraq, than sitting on leather in some Australian bar or nursing home. And your slur on his courage is despicable.


I imagine John is quite startled at Bolt's response, and lamenting having overshot the mark and drawn the ire of his hero.

From: Nic
Comment: Dear Andrew, Unlike some correspondants, I thought that 'Let them eat steak', (Wednesday, June 15th), was one of your best articles of late. The penny to drop for some is that there are plenty of 'realities' that our society chooses to ignore, or rather 'sugar coat' to deny certain truths. Terrorists are not 'freedom fighters', illegal immigrants are just that, not all children have 'two mummies' and as you pointed out, bears in the wild are not Humphrey. Amid the ABC and the Fairfax press, you are a beacon of sanity.

Andrew replies: That's kind, Nic.

Nic's probably relieved that Andrew came down on his side. But what's this "not all children have 'two mummies' crap? Is this what the hard-core social conservatives are pretending now - that calls for equality for gay and lesbian parents are actually calls to make lesbian parents compulsory? Hilarious.

From: Mark Imisides
Comment: In belated response to "My misguided fans" I sometimes wonder whether those who most shrilly accuse others of racism do so in order to justify their own racism. These people consider Corby innocent not because they have objectively weighed the evidence, but because the Indos are a bunch of dumb darkies who don't know how things really work. These are the same people who argue for race-based welfare. Quite obviously this particular race need welfare because they are inferior, and can't make it in life without special help. It is they who are racist, and the vehemence with which they accuse others is nothing more than an attempt to silence their own conscience. Cheers, Mark

Andrew replies: There is some truth to what you say, Mark. And I might just do a piece that uses some revealing quotes from David Marr, among others, that will illustrate your point.

I think Mark is suggesting that it's the left who think Corby's innocent for the racist reasons he lists. Does this rather bizarre stereotype ring true for anyone other than Bolt? I recall the left arguing the following about Corby, consistently:
  • She probably should be able to demonstrate a reasonable doubt, and a criminal legal system in which police aren't required to perform basic forensic tests for a successful prosecution, and in which a defendant has to "prove" that she had no knowledge, is not particularly just; and
  • 20 years for smuggling 4kg of marijuana is a ridiculously extreme penalty.

I hardly think race has anything to do with it. The "banana-eating monkey" remarks were from conservative shock-jocks, not lefties.

(ps Andrew, re: your on-going discussion, Clem Bastow is a her, not a him.)


- posted by Jeremy @ 10:44 PM |
Sunday, June 19, 2005

Crikey! Hello there!
If you're here from Crikey's link, welcome, and you're probably looking for this post here.

Cheers!

- posted by Jeremy @ 7:50 PM |
Friday, June 17, 2005

Bolt 17/6/2005: "Fools stripped bare"
Summary: In which Andrew Bolt does his best to degrade a nude magazine that gives part proceeds to AIDS relief in Africa.

This is quite a boring and predictable piece from Bolt. Essentially he doesn't like the fact that a certain shoe chain boss, Tamara Mellon, along with Elton John, have rallied 44 celebrities together to pose wearing only a pair of shoes and some jewelry (oh no! it offends my "traditional values") and then sell the photos in a magazine with 10% of the proceeds going to AIDS relief.

There are two important things to note about this article. Firstly there is Bolt's implication that a few naked women having their photos taken is more important than getting a very large amount of aid to Africa where it is much needed. That's right - Ideology 1, AIDS infected Africans 0.

Secondly is that this is just another football for Bolt to score points with in the cultural battleground.

According to renowned AIDS experts writing in the British Medical Journal last year: "It seems obvious, but there would be no global AIDS pandemic were it not for multiple sexual partnerships."

And what has proved to be the best way to wind back AIDS in Africa?

Says Professor Edward C. Green, a Harvard medical anthropologist who helped Uganda to slash its horrific HIV infection rates: "The single most important behavioural change was fidelity" within marriage. He said the second most important was to persuade more young Africans not to have sex outside it.
Andrew, your longbow is lacking some arrows of logic. The Africans are not actually going to be reading the offending magazine. Yes, there is irony, but who cares? Lots of people want to see naked celebs, they buy the magazine for $99, 10% of that goes to help AIDS infected Africans. Elton John and Tamara Mellon chose this idea because, oh I don't know, because it would be successful perhaps?

But all this is secondary to Bolt plugging away at his ultra-conservative cultural agenda - abstinence only, no sex before marriage, etc etc. It's boring and predictable and I'm sure he screens the stories of the day just looking for something he can use to further push this.

This is not what journalism is supposed to be about. Perhaps he was a preacher in another life.

- posted by Nic White @ 5:54 PM |
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Bolt 15/6/2005: "Deadly signs of decay"
Summary: In which Andrew Bolt ever-so-nicely tramples on the graves of four dead kids and then blames "liberal" society.

Last week four children were killed in a fire while their mother was at the pub watching the Anthony Mundine fight. Fair enough it was a stupid thing to do and she should have got herself a babysitter to look after them for the night.

Not content to simply tell the truth of the matter, Bolt has to conduct as much character assasination on all parties as he possibly can. The mother didn't just make a horrible mistake, she is a completely failed human being created by a liberalising society - that is what is really to blame for the deaths of her children, not her mistake.

Three of the dead had the same mother, mother-of-eight Lisa Ford, but all had different fathers, two of whom are in jail. None is Ford's present boyfriend.

The fourth victim, a six-year-old at Ford's home for a sleepover, also came from a broken home. Her mother's boyfriend last week bared his backside at photographers, gave the finger and swore.
Note that most of this information is completely irrelevant. He could have said that the mother should have taken better care of her children, which is a fair point, but instead he wants to drag her into the mud to prove his point - this is a classic Bolt tactic.

The deaths of so many children is truly shocking.
This is, of course, a cover-me-arse line before he launches into the point he is actually trying to make - using the kids as cultural football.

But what must also disturb is to be reminded again - after the Macquarie Fields riots in particular - how some Australians now live, freer to divorce, freer to mate, freer to breed, freer to abandon, freer to idle, freer to neglect.
Look at the message here - divorce, promiscuity, large numbers of children are all bad, and they will inevitably lead to irresponsible, layabout parents and dead kids. It is this sort of twisted and dishonest logic of assumption that is so odious about Bolt's work.

The flotsam of these freedoms is now washing up in the obscure suburbs and towns of the poor. It smells of deadly decay.
It's all the liberals' fault, of course. Bolt, with his staunch conservative values, can only see bad come from the idea that having more than one partner in your life might actually be socially acceptable. Not only is he drawing a longbow in linking the deaths of the children to a liberalising society, his logic on a few points is off the mark.

When he says "freer to breed" like it's a bad thing, his is missing the point that back when the "values" he likes existed, families the size of eight were commonplace - they didn't see anything wrong with that, so why should Bolt? Also note him dehumanising them with the "freer to mate" line - they must be animals, surely. Secondly, he implies that granting society freedoms is also a bad idea. Why then has he trumpeted the "freedom and democracy" line in reference to Iraq so many times? Is it only good if it's the freedoms he likes?

Andrew Bolt has committed a disgraceful act of journalism in using the deaths of four innocent children to push his cultural agenda. It does nothing but dishonour their memory.

- posted by Nic White @ 6:54 PM |
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Bolt v Mayne
Stephen Mayne from Crikey filled in for Jon Faine on ABC radio last week. Andrew Bolt wasn't impressed:

Stephen Mayne ended his stint as a fill-in presenter on ABC radio in Victoria this morning with a heated on-air debate with Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt.

Bolt turned up at the studio to have a crack at the Crikey founder for allegedly using the ABC as a platform to pursue a vendetta against him. Mayne said on air that Bolt was appearing because ABC management wanted him to.

A seething Bolt accused Mayne of using his week in the presenter's chair to "pursue personal animus," including "three highly personal attacks in three days" (perhaps Bolt wasn't listening when Mayne defended him to a talkback caller...).

Bolt also said the ABC had made a "gross error in judgment" in allowing Mayne on air, but he'd expect no less because "the left stick together."

But "I voted for Robert Doyle in the last election," said Mayne, pointing out that he was also a former Kennett staffer. "You're saying that I shouldn't be allowed to criticise you," he told Bolt, but "you're the most critical commentator in the News Limited stable."

"The ABC is disgraced by your presence," concluded Bolt.


Apart from what this says about Mayne (he voted for Robert Doyle?), I'll be curious as to what Bolt defines as the "three highly personal attacks". Now would be a good time to outline them, Andrew.

EDIT I've removed a somewhat inflammatory remark I made regarding people who vote for Robert Doyle. (References still exist in the comments, of course.) BoltWatch is dedicated to responding to Bolt's polemic, not advocating for whom people should or shouldn't vote. Concern over Bolt cuts across party lines. Even Liberal voters can gasp in horror at his ranting.

So I withdraw the remark.

- posted by Jeremy @ 7:23 AM |
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Bolt Fora - One item of praise; one of criticism.
Running BoltWatch does actually require me to read Andrew Bolt's fora. The horrors I endure on your behalf!

Anyway, the following are two notes regarding these fora, one positive, and one negative, with which which I think even Mr Bolt's fans would have to agree.

PRAISE.

To give him his due, Bolt is prepared to shoot down even particularly sycophantic supporters if they overstep the mark. He doesn't suffer fools, even on his own side.

Er, I'd love to put an example of this, because I know I've seen some, and been pleasantly surprised. But I'll have to trawl back through his fora to find them, and frankly, it's not worth it. The point is that he is prepared to stomp on over-enthusiastic support.

CRITICISM (one item, three examples - these examples were easier to find than for the praise).

I don't think anyone, even his supporters, can be particularly proud of the way he deals with critical (or even just disagreeing) emails. He's very quick with the childish insult - as to Clem Bastow:

I haven't actually read A Midsummer Night's Dream. Is that the one with Bottom the ass? You may be just the person to tell me.
Or he'll ignore the email and call to the gallery -

From: John Mathews
Comment: Mr Bolt's piece on his "misguided fans" is a true return to form and I must thank him for it. After a period of insightful pieces regarding Africa's struggles, and the Corby case, you return to your typical subject matter of blaming the Age, and the left because shock and horror, it was the left after all who provoked the media hysteria. One dope smoking caller to 774 in Melbourne is evidence of that. And all those FM listeners. Or Bob Brown. Honestly Andrew, it makes one smile how regardless of the issue, its ultimately the left's fault (or an conspiracy at The Age). I never realised listening to FM radio made me a leftie.
Andrew replies: Does anyone else reading this notice that I'm getting little waves of like-thinking posting from pack-attack writers citing the same hope-to-be-devastating nyah-nyah? You'd almost suspect some people were posting under multiple names, or workshopping their responses. Are these emails truly the work of a collective? It's another argument for individualism.
Or he just attacks the questioner as part of a conspiracy and refuses to respond to their questions, whether they're reasonable or not:
From: Roger Fedyk
Comment: Andrew, I wish I knew better how to handle some of your answers. You say to Gaye (an obvious fan) "A forum like this is a flame to some peculiarly savage moths, and I'm not sure I go home quite so bouncy having had to wage through their droppings". Either you only want sycophants or you are prepared to engage the world, particularly as you comment at will on it. So what's it to be? Do your employers want to hear from people who buy and read their newspaper like I do (and yes, I also buy The Age and The Australian) or would they rather I stopped being a customer because you can't be bothered?
Andrew replies: Anyone familiar with your writing would be astonished to think you would buy this paper. I think you are being dishonest again, not least in your interpretation of my comments, Roger, and urge you to return to your fellow inmates at Web Diary where deceit and vitriol pass for sophistication.
Andrew, if you are such a champion of the power of argument and debate, as you claim to be, why are pretty much 100% of your responses to emails from the other side ad hominem attacks? For example, Roger's questions above would not have been difficult to respond to, honestly.

What is the purpose of your forum in terms of debate? I'd have thought that email would have been a good opportunity for you to explain what it is you're actually trying to do with it. If you want debate, then perhaps you ought to try debating on substance rather than attacking your opponents? At least hold off if they haven't done the same to you first.

Oh - as for Bolt's little demonstration of the differences of gulags and Guantanamo Bay, eg:

Reasons for Imprisonment:

Gulag: Opposition to the Soviet regime's forced collectivisation, including efforts to hide grain in cellars; owning too many cows; need for slave labor; political opposition to the Soviet system; being Jewish; being Finnish; being religious; being middle class; being in need of reeducation; having had contact with foreigners; refusing to sleep with the head of Soviet counterintelligence; telling a joke about Stalin.

Guantanamo: Fighting for the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan; being suspected of links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Actually, Andrew, that's a good example of the similarity between the two. I'll put it in capital letters to make sure you get it:

THE GULAGS AND GUANTANAMO BAY WERE/ARE BEING USED TO IMPRISON (FOR MANY YEARS) PEOPLE WHO HAD/HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME IN A COURT OF LAW.

Hate to point it out, but there it is.

- posted by Jeremy @ 1:10 PM |
Friday, June 10, 2005

BoltListen and the Left Wing Conspiracy
Alright, something different today.

(Bolt's new column in today's paper about how the Left only agrees with him on the Corby piece because we're hateful bastards, doesn't really need a new response. In fact, BoltWatch responded to it pre-emptively a few days ago. Sadly, in his new column, Andrew makes exactly the same rather weak argument as on his forum, without bothering to address any of rather obvious points we raised in response. It's almost as if Andrew is trying to pretend we don't exist and that he doesn't read BoltWatch!)

Anyway, today BoltWatch becomes BoltListen, presenting a transcript of one of Andrew's radio discussions this week (although I suppose that since it's a transcript of a radio programme, it's still BoltWatch. Or BoltRead. Sigh.):

STEPHEN MAYNE: Andrew Bolt has called in from the Herald Sun, actually it might be worth asking him about this. Good morning, Andrew Bolt.

ANDREW BOLT: Good morning.

LIZ JACKSON: (inaudible) Andrew.

SM: Just firstly, why do you think that the media hasn't reported, for instance, the story about Sky News hoping to take over the ABC Asia Pacific service, is it just a non-story or is there a culture of self-censorship when the proprietor's own outlets are involved?

AB: I think it's absurd for you and Liz to go on with this…peddling these conspiracy theories, it's just unbelievable sometimes, the sort of mythology, the myth making that goes on. I mean, I think it's quite disgraceful. For example, today, you know, Liz was saying "Why doesn't…why hasn't Andrew answered all these questions about why he didn't specifically name the Sunday Herald Sun".

SM: Why didn't you name the Sunday Herald Sun in that piece?

AB: Well you will see that I have answered it on my forum site. "We will never know", she says, "his answer". You never asked me, Liz, you never asked me, you went to air with it and you never asked me, it's just absurd that…then she says, oh, "has it gone out that you self-censor yourself" and you said "you don't criticise the boss". Hello, we're talking about me actually quoting a fellow editor's editorial, I mean, if I was into self-censorship, why would I do that? He certainly knew what I was talking about.

SM: No, the point was that you didn't…we didn't know it was a News Limited outlet.

AB: And I can tell you, there are lots of outlets I didn't name, I didn't name the Sydney Morning Herald for example, I didn't mention Channel 9…

LJ: Andrew, the point was that you…

AB: …I didn't mention Channel 7…

LJ: …of course not!

AB: No, Liz, Liz, you've had your shot…

LJ: yes, sorry you say your piece, sorry…

AB: …you've had a shot on air without even asking me, right, and I just think it's insane, and you too, Stephen, on your website suggest that…

SM: It's not my website any more

AB: well…and it probably will be because I don't think Eric will go ahead and pay you that million bucks to take it off your hands, but listen, on your website you suggest, or some anonymous person suggests that the reason I wrote this piece criticising the Corby hysteria - which, in as far as I can tell, is the strongest piece anyone's ever written and yet Liz feels free to condemn me for it – you suggest that what this is about is to protect some business deal that Rupert Murdoch has got going in Indonesia, I mean, you cannot surely believe that kind of crud, I didn't even know about the deal.

SM: Well Andrew, I didn't actually write that, I haven't actually read that piece so I don't know what you're talking about.

LJ : And I certainly didn't write it either

AB: (unintelligible interjections)

AB: Well have a look in your own website. Apparently, I'm writing on the instructions of Rupert Murdoch against the Corby hysteria to protect some business deal, I mean if we really operate in that kind of evil empire, and you must know better than that, why would I for example, today write a piece strongly condemning China when we know that Rupert Murdoch has business interests in China? It's insane, it's wrong, it's malicious and it's irresponsible of both of you to be peddling this kind of stuff.

SM: I guess the point…

LJ: Andrew, you're lumbering both Stephen and I with something we haven't said.

AB: Uhh, I'm afraid you have.

LJ: I mean, you're referring to Stephen's website.

AB: Yes, Stephen's website.

LJ: It's not Stephen's website, and I have absolutely nothing to do with it.

AB: Stephen is regularly promoted as someone who comes from crikey.com.au is he not? It is the website he sets up, it's the website he runs, it features him prominently,

SM: (sighs)

AB: I will say it's Stephen's website and everyone will know exactly what I mean.

SM: Andrew, I've sold my website, I have no control over the editorial content any more. If the Herald Sun was sold, I wouldn't be accusing Rupert Murdoch of doing something that appeared in the Herald Sun. Now on the question of you not naming the Sunday Herald Sun in your criticisms over the Corby matter, Andrew, you name and shame and criticise individual journalists more than any other journalist in Australia. The argument is that when it came to naming and criticising a stablemate, of which you actually have a column in, you pulled your punches, and that was self-censorship.

AB: I pull my punches? I quote exactly one newspaper of all the newspapers I could have chosen, I could have chosen Miranda Devine's piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, I didn't quote any of the TV stations, I could have gone hard on them. I could have gone hard on some of the rubbish I've read in The Age. I quoted – the one paper I did quote was one of my own, I mean, what kind of self-censorship is that, I mean you just don't get it.

LJ: But Andrew, you didn't name them.

AB: Oh, look, I'm so sorry, Liz, I mean, flog me with a feather, I mean really, I didn't name them

SM: Well that was her point, and you haven't answered it, Andrew

LJ: That was the point

AB: If I…you are trying to suggest that I'm into self-censorship when the one paper I did criticise was one of my own, I mean, it's just…

LJ: How would a reader know that?

AB: If you want to know…

LJ: How would a reader know that, someone who picked up your article, and I'm not saying…

AB: (unintelligible interjection)

LJ: Good on you for quoting them, but how would a reader know, if they picked up the paper, who you were talking about?

AB: I didn't hear "good on you for naming them" on your piece which was a typical patronising…

SM: You didn't name them!

LJ: Well I'm happy to say good…

AB: What in fact you do, Liz…

LJ: …you didn't name them…

AB: …what, in fact…

LJ: …I'm not going to say good on you for naming them when you didn't name them

AB: no, for criticising them, you just congratulated me now, but it isn't something you said on air. Now what the problem is with Media Watch is that you are, like all the other hosts, hunting for conservatives and those that don't fit the agenda, and you leave largely untouched those that well deserve criticism on the left, and it is just a love-in. Why, for example, I mean, just to point out the kind of things you ignore is the overwhelming left-leaning uh, feel to the ABC and so much of the media. Look at Stephen, for example. Look at this, uh, conversation hour that he will have today, it's co-hosted by Joan Kirner, before he's had Jarrod Diamond, yesterday he had Robert Manne again, discussing my long shortcomings, today he's got
you, I mean, it's just incredible how the ABC…

SM: Yesterday it was Andrew McIntyre from the IPA, Andrew

AB: He is the one token conservative introduced a couple of months ago on this show, and…

SM: I'm a former Kennett staffer, I mean for goodness' sake

AB: Oh, yeah, and I'm a former Labor Party worker as well, what that means is that you've got to be (inaudible) by what you do now, and I'm afraid that Liz has got a beam in her eye and she criticises the specks in someone else's, provided they're on the right.

LJ: (laughing)

AB: Andrew, thanks very much for your call, and we'll let Liz briefly respond to that and then we'll move on. Liz?

LJ: Respond to it?

AB: Well, I mean, you're running a left wing conspiracy, Liz!

LJ: Well look, I just think it's a tired old criticism that's made all the time of people who don't like…look, the point about whether or not you do or don't name the people you're criticising has got nothing to do with a left or right perspective. I mean, we're just trying to point out the problems that come up in the media, and we're happy to go…we go the ABC as often as we go anyone else…umm…if someone's happy…someone points out to us or draws our attention to errors anywhere in the media, we're on the case. I mean, I just actually resent the assumptions that are made about where I come from and the assumptions that are made about what topics we will and won't discuss because it's just not true.


He's a cranky sausage, isn't he? And I love his clever defence to "right wing conspiracy" theories by simply inverting the claim - it's a LEFT WING CONSPIRACY! Agh!

And I must say, wasn't it nice of Stephen Mayne to call Andrew Bolt a "journalist"? Such impeccable manners.

As for "the strongest piece anyone's ever written" on the Corby hysteria, isn't Andrew reading my normal blog? Or any of the other* fine left wing blogs? We were writing critical responses to the hysteria days before Bolt's little piece. (And we didn't need to slam Corby's family or suggest that 20 year sentences weren't all that bad really in order to do it.)

(Thanks to Evan for the transcript.)

*Yes, I know. A little conceited. Sshh.

- posted by Jeremy @ 1:59 PM |
Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Bolt 8/6/2005: China, Derryn Hinch, and Bob Geldof
I know Andrew Bolt thinks that lefties only agree with him when he's being vaguely critical of Australia (because we all hate Australia, remember), but I'm happy to prove him wrong on this morning's effort.

I agree with him on his story about the Chen defection, Mercy or trade? It's no choice. (It's a rather lefty position he's taking, actually.)

I also agree with him on what appears to be the rather shabby treatment of Derryn Hinch by the Cerebral Palsy Education Centre. Derryn does indeed need a whack over his stupid Graham Kennedy attack, but it's unfortunate that the CPEC had to make an arse of itself by slamming his involvement in fund-raising for it, for which until recently it was extremely grateful. Provided that Andrew's not leaving out some pertinent fact, it seems a reasonable critism.

Dear me. Agreeing with Andrew? He'll probably take this as proof that the left is crumbling or something.

Don't worry, though, there are certainly some problems with his main piece today, "Bob's big blunder".

BOB GELDOF is a saint. His aid concerts next month will be watched by happy millions. And the cause is one of the best – the hungry of Africa.

Yet he is wrong.
His Live 8 shows of superstars such as Madonna and Mariah Carey will feed a dangerous fantasy -- that Africa's squalor is caused by Western selfishness.

They will also pamper to a generation of slackers by promising all they need do to end Africa's misery is bully our politicians into sending a cheque of someone else's money.

Africa does need help, of course. What a disaster the continent has been. Living standards of sub-Saharan Africa have dropped over the past four decades, AIDS has decimated countries such as Swaziland, and civil wars still rage on.

...

An end to poverty? How?

"By doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa."

Notice how none of the solutions involve African countries doing much themselves? But this always was more about us than them.

What a terrible fraud.

More aid might help Africa. Freer trade most certainly would. But nothing can truly help Africa until it helps itself -- by becoming as free, open and accountable as is the West.


Let's be clear here. Andrew is right - Africa is held back and kept poor not just by exploitation by the west, but also by the corrupt dictatorships that plague it.

But what is Andrew suggesting we should do to help the people of Africa?

For Geldof and his fellow stars to pretend Africa can be fixed by reforming the West instead turns the contempt of the crowds on to exactly the wrong targets.

Africa is not poor because we are rich. It is not enslaved because we are free. Africa is poor because of its vices, not our virtues.

If Geldof must shame anyone about Africa, let him and his friends shame those truly responsible for its misery. Let him shame Africa's leaders, and not our own.


We can shame Africa's leaders all day, Andrew, and it'll achieve nothing. How do you imagine the situation in Africa can be solved? At least people like Geldof are trying to increase the resources available to Africans so that eventually they'll have a chance to move towards prosperity and democracy. Remember that mythical trickle-down effect you conservatives were so fond of in the 1980s? (Actually, I think you're still pretty fond of it now.)

As long as Africa is kept poor, corrupt dictatorships will take what they can and their citizens will be so desperate that they'll prop them up just to stay alive.

I agree that simply throwing money at the problem is not a complete solution. (I'd suggest that things like an international criminal court to try human rights abusing dictatorships, and policies to force dictatorships into holding free elections, are also necessary.) But willingness to share some of our wealth with the millions of people in Africa is a necessary start.

We don't need a special concert to criticise brutal dictatorships in Africa, Andrew. We already know they're bad. People like Geldof are trying to work towards solving the problem, and part of that involves waking the West up to our responsibility to help. That's what this concert's about, and that's why your analysis has missed the point.

Of course it's about "us" rather than "them". We have the capacity, and hopefully the will, to do something about it. The African people have not the former, and their leaders don't have the latter. If we do nothing, no-one else will.

(Further interesting discussion on this issue - both pro and con - here.)

- posted by Jeremy @ 5:20 PM |

No more "Anonymous" commenting - easy registering with blogspot required (although of course you can use a non-identifiable pseudonym)
Sorry about this, but there are too many people just popping up and commenting as "anonymous", and not even bothering to pretend to put a pseudonym after their name. This makes dialogue with them impossible. Is Anonymous the same Anonymous as the Anonymous who commented earlier? Who knows?

Comments are still open to anyone, of course. You've just got to spend two minutes signing up with blogspot (there's a link where you want to comment). You can use any made-up name you like, just not "Anonymous"! You can use this new login to comment on any blogspot blog, and, if you want, to start your own blog. Or you can just use it to comment here.

Cheers!

- posted by Jeremy @ 7:53 AM |
Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Bolt Forum 7/6/2005 - "If you're reading this, I may be dead..."
Not exactly what he's said, but Bolt appears to think that if he keeps on "telling the truth" his life may be in danger:

Snip! Have I ever explained on this forum my unfortunate response to threats and bullying, Tony? It really will get me killed one day.


(From Bolt's forum it appears that the "threats and bullying" were some letter writer starting off with "Dear letters editor, If you consider your paper as more than just a rag you will publish the researched letter below in its entirety...")

Sorry, that just greatly amused me. I guess it's possible that nutters are sending Andrew Bolt the occasional death threat - although he mainly provokes us lefties, he probably provokes the occasional nutcase too - but the idea that he genuinely thinks that his failure to print a letter in full will "get [him] killed one day" is hilarious. Perhaps it's an ironic joke. You never can tell with Andrew.

Meanwhile, is Andrew referring here to Boltwatch?

Run your own site, Paul, and see who comes. Other manic Bolt haters have done it, and believe me, the emails they get have just as little sense or civility as some of the ones you read here. There's no surprise in that, of course, because the same people are involved in both – sending me emails here in the hope that they can scream "censored" somewhere else. Heavens, Iain Lygo, the Greens candidate, has accused me of refusing to run two of his turgid postings, both of which, to the great dismay of readers, I did indeed publish here.

But perhaps you're on to something here. If I'm being accused of censoring the critics whatever I do, I may as well go ahead and do it anyway, just for the sheer pleasure of it.


Since I suggested last week that people send their emails here as well as to Bolt, it's more than possible that he is referring to this site. "Manic Bolt haters"? Us?

I'd just like to clarify, for when Andrew next pops over here - Mr Bolt, me old mate, we're not "manic Bolt haters" here at BoltWatch (the somewhat provocative heading notwithstanding). I'm sure you're a lovely bloke in real life. I'm just not fond of much of the more vitriolic and dishonest drivel you have published in your regular column in the Herald Sun, and this site therefore seeks to provide a balance. We're responding to your words, not you personally. (You know, love the sinner, hate the sin, that sort of thing. Except here it's more "love the spinner, hate the spin".)

As a fervent supporter of democracy and freedom of speech, Andrew, I'm sure you don't begrudge us ours.

I will point out that BoltWatch doesn't necessarily share the views of everyone who posts a comment. (Well, obviously, since commenting is open to all.) But I do think it's healthy having an open debate between various viewpoints, and I have to say there's more of that here than at your site. (And have you considered occasionally actually responding to some of your critics' questions instead of just dismissing them as cranks every time?)

- posted by Jeremy @ 1:55 PM |
Saturday, June 04, 2005

Bolt 3/6/2005: "Meet the new barbarians"
SummaryIn Which Andrew Bolt confirms that he can't tell the difference between Corby and those Australians who've apparently done stupid things in her name; and slams the media organisations who've "whipped up our morons", despite happening to be an editor of one of the prime offenders...

I WAS lunching with Indonesian Consul General Wahid Supriyadi when he took a call on his mobile phone.

It was a colleague from his embassy in Canberra with yet more bad news. No, not another death threat this time, but a package of powder in the mail.

Supriyadi hung up and shrugged, almost apologetic. "It's just to scare us," he reassured me. He was sure it was nothing serious.

No? It was serious enough to be an unknown biological agent, sent by some savage, that forced the staff at the embassy to be isolated for hours and decontaminated.

But Supriyadi has been like that during this riot of xenophobia and savage self-righteousness over the sentencing of Schapelle Corby, caught in Bali with 4.1 kg of marijuana in her bags and no excuse worth giving.

He's done interviews with papers calling from Indonesia to hear if it's really true -- that wild Australians have now run amok, menacing Indonesian diplomats and vilifying their country.

No, he has said, showing a civility Corby's cretins couldn't match. After 10 years here he's sure the few don't represent the many.


Good of him to be so magnanimous. After all, it's not like the Australian embassy was ever attacked in Jakarta, now, is it?

Meanwhile, note how Andrew is really getting stuck into Corby now. It's not enough that she's got 20 years - he's now dedicating himself to backing up the Indonesian judges' flawed decision. Oh, okay, she had "no excuse worth giving", Andrew? I'm not you, of course, but I think that raising a reasonable doubt that "I DID NOT KNOW THE DRUGS WERE IN MY BAG" is actually not a bad excuse and in fact ought to be a full defence. It would be here.

Please, please let that be true. And let it not be, as some media demagogues maliciously suggest, that Corby and her supporters are truly the "real Aussies". Our virtuous "battlers" -- because see what "real Aussies" now do in our name.


Ah, I see. "Corby" isn't a "real Aussie", because someone's sent some powder to the Indonesian embassy. How easy it is to be condemned, in Andrew Bolt world. You don't have to do anything. An offender just has to cite your name and it's your fault.

The case against Corby was always damning, if not conclusive. She was given a trial that was more open than any here, and the judges even relaxed the rules to allow her to present witnesses and hearsay evidence an Australian court would have thrown out.

Well, they didn't really relax the rules - because all that other "evidence" was completely ignored by them anyway. They allowed some of it in - and then completely disregarded it.

The case against Corby wasn't damning, Andrew. The case that she had drugs in her bag was, yes, but the problem is that in a real criminal legal system that wouldn't be the whole offence. Knowledge - intent - would be a crucial element, and all the evidence that would have pointed one way or another was missing. The prosecutors hadn't kept the video tape of her being picked up. They hadn't taped her interview. They hadn't followed any of the basic police procedures that exist to try to ensure that defendants have a fair trial.

If the judiciary doesn't force prosecutors to keep crucial evidence, like interview tapes, then how on earth can defendants ever defend themselves?

YET much of the media decided to adopt "our" Schapelle as their pet cause -- and ratings booster.

They downplayed the case against her and fed the public a myth of saintly Schapelle, menaced by jabbering, clutching, armpit scratching, corrupt brown savages. They whipped up our morons, whingers and racists, and sooled them onto Indonesia and its nervous officials here.

See the evil they've let loose. See how they've trashed our good name and let us be represented in Asia not by our best but our worst. Count the damage.

Shame on them. Shame.


So, you'll be calling on the other Herald Sun editors to resign over their coverage of the matter last weekend, will you, Andrew?

- posted by Jeremy @ 8:46 PM |
Friday, June 03, 2005

Before you send an email to Mr Bolt ...
Mr Lygo makes a good suggestion in the comments to the last BoltWatch post:

Before (or just after) you send an email to Mr Bolt via his forum, why not put a copy here in the comments of the most recent post (or most relevant, if you're commenting on a slightly older Bolt column)?

At least you'll get to put the whole thing up, without it being "edited" by the Boltmeister.

(Please, though, not really long and ranty ones!)

- posted by Jeremy @ 8:06 PM |

Bolt Forum 14
Mr Bolt has been thrilled this week to receive several emails from lefties who were, in turn, glad and surprised on Wednesday to find a News Ltd columnist calling a halt to the Stampeding Mob on the Corby matter. (Although of course, he wasn't alone - by earlier in the week the directive had come down from above at News Ltd: Alright, guys, that's enough. Andrew read it. So did Piers and others.)

He couldn't resist suggesting that it's just because lefties hate Australians, though. To the lefties who've sent emails saying "I don't usually agree with you, Andrew, but on this occasion..." he responds:

I've had so many emails from people who've said something similar. Noted critics and colleagues of mine have written privately to say this is the first time they've ever agreed with me, which is sad. First, I wrote the piece with exactly the same respect for facts and contempt for popular myths as I've written so much else, which makes me wonder how many of these people actually read what I write with an open mind. Secondly, the first and only time I get the support of these critics of mine is when I seem to them to damn Australians as racists. Has that been their real beef with me – that I don't share their loathing of Australians?


And
Aha! Another one. Just as I described above.

Should I thank you, Simon, or just ask you to reread my previous pieces with this new and kindly eye?


There are a number of reasonable conclusions Andrew could have come to about letters of support from lefties on this one - such as, that lefties are actually reasonable people who don't bag his columns just out of spite, and when he says something vaguely sensible they're happy to applaud it. (He'd even notice that BoltWatch, despite being dedicated to responding to Bolt's "deranged polemic", does this quite regularly.)

But no, Andrew's conclusion is that it's just because he was being critical of Australians, and lefties hate Australians!

*dingdingdingding* Yup, that's it Andrew. Well done!

If you're suddenly driven to notice xenophobic stupidity from the mob, it's because really, deep down, you love Australians and know that it's only "a small minority" who can be whipped up so easily into a frenzy with provocative media coverage of an issue (although there does seem, on last weekend's coverage, to be somewhat of a strong correlation between the "shapels inosent becos shis pritty!" mob and those who read the Hun and watch Channel Nine).

But if lefties happen to notice the same thing, it's because they really, deep down, hate Australians!

I see.

I hope your readers do, too.

And lefties - before you send messages of support to Bolt, please actually read his whole column. You may have agreed with him on the for god sake, stop being hysterical morons point, but do you agree with him on his admiration for the tougher Indonesian system or his line of argument that Corby must be guilty because, well, her main supporter's a "spiv" and her mum's a slapper? You know that he thinks you're with him on all this now, don't you?

By the way, apart from his luvvies (who think he's very "bwave" for publishing highly-edited extracts from some detractors' emails and commenting to them) does anyone actually think he's genuinely "responding" to critical - or even just questioning - messages?

His critics will offer several pertinent questions, and he'll put a one-line answer along the lines of "this is the sort of offensive tripe I get from Fred Flobblebottom, readers, you should see the rest of his email from which I'm kindly protecting you". He doesn't actually respond to substantive points. He ignores them with "I don't have the time or inclination to sit your test" or "If I really am so >whatever<, my response couldn't be worth anything to you".

Yes, really brave. And so persuasive!

ps I have sent Bolt two emails now to his forum, as MrLefty. Neither has been published or responded to, probably because I didn't use a real name (although I doubt very much that many of the actual letters published are sent with real names, either). It could also be because both mention BoltWatch and Andrew, perhaps understandably, doesn't want to draw attention to it (although there's nothing stopping him editing out the reference, I suppose). Unfortunately, I've forgotten what I sent, so I can't post them here. If I bother sending another one at some stage in the future, I'll post it here as well.

I do remember asking him to try letting his readers punctuate their letters with line breaks rather than painful blocks of text. I don't think he's going to do it, though.

- posted by Jeremy @ 1:22 PM |
Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Bolt 1/6/2005: "Corby and the mob"
Is it just me, or has Andrew Bolt, he of the Hey Australians voted for a non-white person to be Australian Idol last year, therefore it's SACRILEGE to ever refer to any mass of Australians as "racist" columns, changed his tune a bit?

Bolt starts off today's column, about the hysteria following the Corby verdict, as follows:

AND now to the verdict on the Schapelle Corby case. I find the defendant guilty of xenophobia, spite, boorishness and a self-righteous tribal hysteria.

No, I don't mean Corby.

I'm referring to the weeping and bellowing mob that is demanding we do all it takes -- even starve the poorest Indonesians -- to free this convicted drug trafficker. "Our" Schapelle.


That's not the same "mob" that Bolt has previously pilloried the "left" for daring to describe as, well, occasionally somewhat tending towards being a little racist, now, is it? "Xenophobia"? From the Australians that voted for Trevor whassisname on Big Brother? Impossible!

I mean, I thoroughly agree with him here - the mob has been pretty nauseating. I'm just a little surprised at the sudden turn-around.

(Don't worry, though - I don't agree with him throughout the article.)

Bolt goes on, as he does about any accused drug trafficker - in a tone strongly suspicious of guilt:

What a shock to see the beast of mob rule roar like this, and in support of a woman who seems on the evidence more likely to be guilty than she's painted.

Yes, Corby may be as innocent as she says. But picture how she must look, and how we all now look, to an Indonesian, whether a judge or a citizen.

Here is a surfer girl who worked as a bar hostess in Tokyo's nightclub area, flying into Bali for reportedly the fifth time in six years.


Aha! Five times! Ooh, she must have been smuggling drugs. Or at least, she probably was.

Customs officials screen her bags and detect something suspicious. They watch her, and later tell a court she seems nervous. Her bodyboard bag is more than twice its usual weight, bulging with an extra something the size of a stuffed pillow.

Actually, she says later, she'd only dragged her bag, and had so much other luggage she couldn't tell its weight was unusual, or that there was anything inside but a bodyboard and flippers. Yes, well.


"Yes, well." Can't you see?! She's obviously a lying cow!

Two police and two customs officials agree on what happened next. They say Corby's brother James carried the bag for her to the customs area, where officer I Gusti Nyoman Winata asked her to open it.

Corby zipped open the front pocket. Now the main zip, demanded Winata.

"The suspect (seemed) to panic," he later testified.

"When I opened the bag a little bit, she stopped me and said, 'No!'

"I asked why. She answered, 'I have some . . .' She looked confused."

ABC's Lateline showed Winata re-enacting Corby's lunge to stop him opening her bag. He seemed as honest as Corby does, and said he had no doubt of her guilt.


At least Andrew is consistent, I guess. He tends to prefer the prosecution evidence in most of his articles about criminal trials.

Think how it seems when the marijuana turns out to be hydroponically grown, and worth anywhere up to $80,000 in Bali, where it is prized by expatriates who are sick of the weak local weed and feel safer buying from a tourist. Big profits.


Fair enough. The "coal to Newcastle" argument from certain of the more stupid Corby supporters deserves to die a quick death.

Keep picturing. The Indonesians learn that Corby, although having no criminal record, comes from a wild and woolly family.

One of her brothers is in jail for burglary and stealing, her mother is on to her fourth partner after having six children by three men. Her father had a minor conviction some 30 years ago for possessing marijuana.


Why is any of this relevant? Why even bring it up? And I love how "her mother is on to her fourth partner after having six children by three men" is up there with her brother being in jail for burglary and theft. SEE?! Corby's a slapper, her mum's a slapper, and the blokes in her family are dead-eyed drug addicts and burglars!

Wake up, Australia - these are the people I rail about in my columns every week! Stop being so sympathetic!

Sure, none of that makes her guilty, but how would all this make Corby seem to an Indonesian? Here's a tip: Not like she came from the responsible land of the straight-and-narrow.


Or, how would all this make Corby seem to your readers? You're not raising these things for the benefit of the Indonesians, now, are you?

This is nothing but muck-raking, and it's as pathetic from Andrew as it would be from the Indonesian prosecution.

I T gets worse. Corby's defence team is soon headed by a salesman who looks like a spiv and is a former bankrupt who still owes creditors plenty.


"Who looks like a spiv"?!! What the hell is the relevance of this sort of tripe?

I guess Corby supporters can just be thankful the trial wasn't heard by Andrew Bolt.

Eventually Bolt gets tired of this game and gets onto the more sensible issue of the ridiculous media coverage. He condemns idiot Sydney radio jock Malcolm Elliott (he who thinks Indonesians are cretinous monkeys because they don't speak English) but declines to criticise Channel Nine, despite its overbearingly populist and brain-dead coverage.

HAVE we lost our heads? Are we really such a vile rabble?

What must Indonesians make of this hissing mob that threatens their diplomats, vilifies their country, blackmails them with aid and treats their judges as the corrupt playthings of our politicians? And all this for the sake of a convicted drug smuggler who seems quite probably guilty, and only possibly innocent.


Again - thank God Bolt doesn't have any actual role in our criminal justice system.

Even our whinges about their drug laws must seem bizarre. Guess who truly has the worst laws -- Indonesia, which gave Corby 20 years' jail for having 4.1kg of marijuana; or Victoria, which meanwhile gave a mere 12-month community service order to a teacher found with 29kg -- and let her keep her teaching licence?


I'd suggest that it's Indonesia, but then I'm a softy lefty. I reckon 20 year jail terms should be kept for serious offences like armed robberies and serious assaults.

It'll be interesting to read what the Hun-reading mob makes of this article. I feel confident that they'll settle down soon, now that Rupert's clan is working so hard on helping them back into their comfortable apathy...

- posted by Jeremy @ 5:47 PM |

Portions of any work of Andrew Bolt are taken from his webpage at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/, are copyright Andrew Bolt, and are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968. Other material is copyright by its various authors, which sort of goes without saying really.