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

Monday, March 31, 2008

BoltAndBlairWatch
BoltWatch is in the process of being prepared for a relaunch. The new version will be collaborative (given my recent "dear God do I have to read the rantings of that idiot? No? Someone else is prepared to? Thank the Lord" approach to the site), will feature a better visual design (read: "an actual visual design"), and generally make the site's first iteration look embarrassingly amateurish (read: not change the way this site is viewed in the slightest).

One question which has not yet been resolved is this: should the remit of BoltWatch expand to also cover a BlairWatch?

Tim Blair, for Victorians who are only here because they've been exposed to Andrew Bolt's embarrassing drivel in the state tabloid, is roughly the NSW equivalent. Only his blog is even more disturbing. It's like Andrew's - very like Andrew's - but with more regular personal attacks on minor lefty bloggers, and considerably angrier Americans in the comments. It is also, scarily enough, one of the oldest, largest and most-read major Australian blogs.

Given how often Tim and Andrew like to write about each other, and given that the whole point of BoltWatch is to help quarantine the rest of the blogosphere from having to constantly taint actual adult political discussion with responses to this sort of right-wing tabloid drivel, dealing with both of them here seems appropriate. Don't bore your readers by exposing them to the Bolts and Blairs of this world - deal with it here, amongst the sympathetic company of people who similarly can't resist reading their rantings, even though they know they'll regret it. What Australian blogger hasn't faced, slightly shamefacedly, comments from readers along the lines of "Why do you write about that idiot? I didn't even know they existed until you pointed it out!" I know I have. And I know I'm sorry.

That's why I started BoltWatch, and readers of An Onymous Lefty have been relieved over the years to barely have to read anything about Andrew Bolt at all. Would they jump at the chance to have the Blair posts also disappear? I suspect the answer rhymes with "oh, f*ck yes". (I suspect the answer actually is, "oh, f*ck yes".)

I note that Timmy Blair is very proud to have had his American fans name an internet "law" after him:
Blair's law. Coined by Australian journalist, Tim Blair as -

"the ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force."

1. The alliance between the radical Left and extremist Islamists is an example of Blair's Law.

The fact that the above example does not in any recognisable way describe the real world in which the rest of us live, doesn't counter the trend Blair has noticed and, with Bolt, ironically illustrates. And which this -watch site could, conceivably, also highlight.

"BoltandBlairWatch - tackling the multiple idiocies of the Australian blogosphere's most giant, useless forces."

Or should we stick with Andy, and Andy alone? Your feedback is important of at least marginal consequence.

Cross-posted to An Onymous Lefty.

UPDATE: Name? "The BoltBlair Watch Project" has been suggested, although I think it might work better as "The BlairBoltWatch Project". Other ideas?

Labels: ,


- posted by Jeremy @ 2:30 PM |

One eye closed
Despite appearances I am actually quite understanding of bias. I'm biased, my site is biased, and bloggers in general are biased -- that's what blogging is all about. But there's bias and then there's bias.
The latest bulletin from Kevin Rudd’s Excellent Adventure:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has announced he will speak with all three US presidential election candidates during his trip to Washington.

Wow! And?
The Prime Minister is visiting seven countries, meeting the US President and the UN Secretary-General, touching base with NATO, the EU and other foreign leaders. It is hardly a holiday and it is exactly the kind of job that the PM should be doing. But what does Bolta do? Dismiss it as spin, spin and more spin when Rudd announces that he has secured meetings with each of the three potential next US Presidents. John Howard used to schedule overseas trips to ensure he was in London for the cricket.

Surely Andy is taking the piss with these articles. Surely.

Labels: ,


- posted by Scott @ 2:28 PM |

Name just ten! (reprise)
Our mate Andy is famous for shrieking "name just ten" at anyone who'd listen while arguing that the stolen generation was a pernicious lefty lie. Of course, when ten stolen children were named he'd start shrieking "name just one hundred" without missing a beat.

Now Bolta has shrieked his famous line in a new context.
Could Steffen name, say, just 10 of the species that have so far been wiped out by this “human-induced mass extinction event” in the 40-odd years of alleged human-induced global warming?

Perhaps my green critics on this blog could help him. Just 10.
Of course, Andy thinks he's being ironic by using his "name ten" line but we all know that it's being shrieked with spittle-flecked lips just as seriously as it was during the stolen generations debate.

Labels: , ,


- posted by Scott @ 2:22 PM |
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

26/3: "Don't boycott China's shame"
Andrew Bolt is not always an apologist for authoritarianism. If it's authoritarianism he can lay at the feet of people he thinks are representative of "the left", he's happy to sink in the boot. Which is good, because that's where we can finally agree on something.

His column today, arguing that the Olympic Games are a fine opportunity to make Beijing choke a bit on the contempt the rest of the world has (or should have) for its outrageous human rights abuses, is fairly reasonable.

Yes, he can't resist trying to have a go at lefties:
Our own protesters like to scream abuse at the West, but at least Western countries and institutions insist that when they give money to foreign nations it’s in exchange for promises to be less corrupt and more democratic.

(I think he's saying here that protesters shouldn't criticise the West because its institutions are at least not as bad as China's. Otherwise I can't for the life of me see the relevance of that remark.)

And he notices the new Prime Minister's (the new MANDARIN SPEAKING PRIME MINISTER WTF OMG) kowtowing to Beijing, in a way he never noticed John Howard's:
Our own Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for instance, can furiously vow to do “everything within our power” to stop Japan’s “slaughter” of whales, but dares only murmur that China should “exercise restraint” in slaughtering Tibetans.

(Strangely enough, Bolt never applauded the Greens for being the only Australian political party willing to stand up to the Chinese leader when he spoke here in 2004.)

But at least he didn't try to argue that we should leave politics alone and come together to celebrate what the Olympic Games are really about - world-class advertising contracts athletes. His article seems to suggest that, no matter what the IOC says or demands of participants in the Games, they (and we) should stick to our guns. The Chinese are certainly going to stick to theirs - which are, of course, not metaphorical guns.

And so what if he tried to turn this into a bit of a bash-the-left exercise? He's got a particular audience, they expect him to at least play some of his favourite hits when they go to his show. So what if he doesn't apply these standards to less convenient targets and in fact goes to some lengths to use this article to apologise for them? I don't expect him to suddenly oppose Western-friendly governments passing draconian legislation - not when he has the handy "at least they're not as bad as China/Mugabe/Saddam" comeback.

The fact is that on this issue, it doesn't matter - we can unite in being appalled at the autocrats in Beijing and wanting to do something about it. China is a brutal, dissent-crushing dictatorship, and it deserves all the condemnation and unfavourable exposure we can give it. Those who oppose authoritarianism in all its forms; and those who oppose it only when it's from a "communist" regime. Together.

Labels: ,


- posted by Jeremy @ 1:23 PM |
Monday, March 24, 2008

Andrew Bolt: shameless
We reported yesterday about Andrew Bolt's dodgy use of blockquotes, editorialising and selective reporting to make a point about the delegates selected to the Australia 2020 summit and smear The Sunday Age in the process. (By the way, he has today added to his list of delegates, deliberately using the same style of bullets to make a point.) In his post he labelled nutritionist Rosemary Stanton as an "anti GM food campaigner" which is bad, you see. She's a filthy lefty hippy, or something like that. One of Bolta's commenters took the bait and wrote the following.
What?????

This is the woman who, and I kid you not, in her book Food for Life, defines nursing as “standing with light activity”

*slams head on desk again*
-- Nemesis12
This comment triggered the kind of response you'd expect until Rosemary Stanton herself dropped into Bolt's blog-of-shame to set the message straight.
Before damning me, you might get your facts straight. I have written many books but none titled Food for Life and none that say that nursing is ‘standing with light activity’.
-- Rosemary Stanton
Without having read any of Stanton's books this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case. It's unlikely that Stanton would make such a statement unless it were actually true. But Bolt's response to this clarification is stunning in its arrogance and lack of ethics -- even for him.
UPDATE

Rosemary Stanton replies - kind of - in comments below.
Can you imagine Bolta's response if he were misquoted, defended himself, and then had his defence dismissed as such? You'd hear the screaming at the Southbank HWT building all the way from Brunswick.

UPDATE (6:45pm): Norbett in comments at GrodsCorp provides further info that seems to weaken Stanton’s denial but still leaves the fact that Bolt supports his commenter’s inference that nurses do no work.

Labels: ,


- posted by Scott @ 4:21 PM |

Bolta quotes selectively (and makes the rest up)
BoltWatch is pleased to welcome The Editor as a regular contributor.

(This item is crossposted at GrodsCorp)

I'm not a huge fan of the government's planned Australia 2020 summit, but Andrew Bolt's hatred of the idea makes me look like a fanatical supporter. I think it's an idea with merit but the way it's been setup and will be run will ultimately lead to very little useful discussion and no real generation of ideas. But Bolta thinks it's a pernicious lefty groupthinking love-in, and perniciously twists The Sunday Age's words to make his point.
Kevin Rudd announces more delegates to his 2020 summit love in. As predicted, the latest confirm that most invitations are going to people who share the Left’s agenda
Here's a list of summit delegates on The Sunday Age's website.



And here's the layout Bolt used in his blog post.



See how he's placed The Sunday Age's list in a blockquote, suggesting that it's a -- you know -- quote? But he's also added names to the list that were in the paper's story text but not in the list. And see how he's selectively added his own extra notes to delegates' bios to emphasise the evil leftiness?



The Sunday Age:
Rodney Dillon, former ATSIC commissioner.
Bolta:
Rodney Dillon, former ATSIC commissioner, stolen generations activist and campaigner for the return of Aboriginal remains.
Campaigner for the return of Aboriginial remains? Evil man!

The Sunday Age:
Waleed Aly, a member of the Islamic Council of Victoria executive and a lecturer in the global terrorism research centre at Monash University who will join the committee dealing with Australia's future security.
Bolta:
Waleed Aly, Islamic Council of Victoria executive member and a lecturer in the global terrorism research centre at Monash University and “war on terror” critic (to go on group discussing security)
"War on verbs" critic and Muslim? He must be a terrorist who wants to bring down Western civilisation!

The Sunday Age:
Rosemary Stanton, nutritionist.
Bolta:
Rosemary Stanton, nutritionist and anti GM food campaigner.
Anti-GM food? Hippy.


But here's my favourite. The Sunday Age:
Ana Kikkinos (sic), best known for the TV series The Secret Life of Us and Young Lions and the film Head On
Bolta:
Ana Kokkinos, director of TV series The Secret Life of Us and Young Lions and the gay cult film Head On
Gay? Cult? Gay cult? Aaargh! Sound the moral alarm! Teh gays are in a cult and they're attacking! They're going to make our kids join the cult and give them teh gay and make them vote Green!

Bolta also inserted some delegates into the list who weren't in The Sunday Age's story.
Andrew Denton, Left-wing TV presenter
Evil, evil lefties!
Fiona Stanley, paediatrician and fierce Bush hater
Evil, evil Bush haterers!
Michael Tate, former Keating justice minister.
Paul Keating? Evil!
Christine Nixon, Victorian chief commissioner who’s project has been to feminise the force and make it "non-authoritarian"
Evil, evil women. Get back in the kitchen.
Sara Haghdoosti, member of the International Women’s Day organising committee and a former women’s officer for the Sydney University Student Representative Council
Women organising? Evil!

But the most telling part is the way that Bolta hasn't added any information to the following delegates.

Bolta:
Professor Joshua Gans, Melbourne economist.
GrodsCorp:
Professor Joshua Gans, right-wing Melbourne economist.
Bolta:
Lachlan Murdoch, media investor.
GrodsCorp:
Lachlan Murdoch, media investor and son of the owner of the largest and most right-wing media conglomerate in the world. Oh, and also the son of the man who pays Bolta's wages.
Just another sly and dishonest effort from Australia's shrillest journalist (sic).

UPDATE (11:50am): Blogger Gummo Trotsky pointed out to Bolta in the comments of his blog his dodgy use of a blockquote and italics...
Nice use of italics to suggest that the list, with descriptions, is quoted verbatim from one of your two sources when in fact the editorialising is all your own work.
...and got a terse response from a clearly rattled Bolta.
There is no intention to mislead, Mr Troll, and a quick click on the links I provided would make clear the facts. But if it makes you feel happier, I’ll take the words out of italics.
That'll make it much clearer, Mr Journalist (sic).

UPDATE II (12:00pm): My response to the removal of italics.



UPDATE III (2:00pm): An angry commenter threw down a challenge to the above comment...
Oh for heaven’s sake. Grow up and make a comment on the actual content of the post or go away.
...so I replied that I had made comment on the substance of the article and provided a link to this post. Unfortunately it seems at this point that I've been SNIPPED.

UPDATE IV (2:40pm): Bolta has responded to my comment about the blockquote and copied bullet points. I believe he has perfected the skill of shriek-typing.



Oh, and my comment with a link to this post is still SNIPPED.

Labels:


- posted by Scott @ 9:40 AM |
Thursday, March 20, 2008

Bolt 20/3: "Rudd's Chinese Friends"
Andy's desperately hoping the Liberals will be able to fashion a scandal out of Rudd's having Chinese campaign donors.
Still nothing sinister, but ever more interesting:

"Still" nothing sinister? Not yet, but we're sure there must be! Somehow! Sinister! It will be! Just wait! He has Chinese friends!

Fairly shameless hackery (not that Bolt's exactly been covering himself in glory this week), clearly direct from Liberal Party HQ.

Still, fortunately for Andy, the Prime Minister did do something harsh and socially conservative the other day that he could praise (announcing cutting off the baby bonus from parents suffering from drug and gambling addictions) - the News Ltd polemicist presumably thinks that post makes him look balanced and fair. Hey, I said "good on" the guy! I'm an objective commentator, who just happens to be desperately hoping he can get the word "sinister" associated with the Prime Minister.

Labels:


- posted by Jeremy @ 10:45 AM |
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Bolt 19/3: "A lawyer's tantrum"
Ignoring Bolt's fatuous attempt to try to attack me through my job today, he does make one very good point: that ancient photograph on my bar profile really needs to be updated. It's appalling. Thanks for reminding me, Andy.

- posted by Jeremy @ 10:56 AM |
Monday, March 17, 2008

Bolt 17/3: "Grab that man!"
He loves him, he loves him not, he loves him again...
Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of America’s National Review Online, discovers a big political talent... Maybe we could use him.

There you are. Andy has forgiven John Howard for not handing over to Peter Costello. And so long as Howard retains an adamant, unshakeable, stubborn belief in a certain magic-bubble fantasy view of his Premiership, he and other people who desperately wish it were true will grab on with both hands.

Such as in this classic "the voters' voice stopped counting when they kicked out my candidate" comedy quote from Bolt's comments:
Not just Americans, but people all over the world are now laughin’ at us for dumping such a great government.

That's the spirit, Gordon! If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Labels:


- posted by Jeremy @ 5:13 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.