G'Day Charles,
Perhaps a TEN YEAR spell in the "Baxter Psychiatric Detention Centre" would be in order for Herr Bolt. The bloody cretin might (HOPEFULLY?) learn a bit of humility.

I doubt it. The man? is a b****y cretin.

frankly..........I don't give a damn!
ignore him!

If Andrew had been of British origin he would know how to cop it on the chin. Fortunately, he is not.

Cant bat....cant bowl

Steven

who ?

I listened to that little spat this morning, it was hilarious. Just the two of them yelling at each other for about 5 minutes.
Good on Stephen Mayne, too. I thought he handled it pretty well. ("Leftie? I was a Kennett staffer!")

If ever I seen a classic Obsessive-Compulsive case it's Bolt. The man requires treatment.

Haven't heard the latest incident but I have always found him thought provoking. Just because he has a different thought to others is no reason to crusify him.

JMTC
Molly

Agreed. But there are so many good reasons to crucify him, principally the fact that he's a narrow-minded bigot who promotes division and hatefulness for money.

Yep, couldn't agree more with you cw... My thoughts from last year on the matter (perhaps a little more blunt than yours)

:)

Heard the carry on, on both days. Given that Bolt took the pretext of the interview with Media Watch presenter Liz Jackson to ring up during talkback and put his point of view - its all part of the Left wing conspiracy against conservatives etc. - giving him right of reply again the following day was overkill. Indeed it was an example of the spinelessness that the ABC has had beaten into it by years of Federal conservatives in power. I.e. one of the Howard's principle cheerleaders can browbeat them into giving him two bites of the cherry when arguably he shouldn't have even had one. Talkback after all is supposed to be for the people not in "elite" positions re media or power.

The Feds and their supporters have spent almost ten years imposing cuts and funding starvation on the ABC, whilst all the while launching attacks on it for "bias". With great hypocrisy they have continually maintained the two are not related.

Bolt is a very good propagandist who never misses a chance to give out his opinions. The business of continually maintaining he is a victim is very good politics, Howard played similar cards in the run up to 96 election and Bush conservatives run the same line. This is why Bolt always sounds so aggrieved.

Its all hooey of course, if anything the opposite is the case.

Bolt gets two, or is it three, columns a week in Melbourne's biggest circulation paper, plus website exposure, plus spots on ABC TV. He is hardly a marginalised and stifled person. Overall the host of conservative commentators in the commercial press and electronic media easily outweighs the radicals (it's hard to think of any regulars unless one counts Adams and Lane) and probably the liberals as well.

During the spot with Mayne on ABC radio Bolt kept almost screaming "its our ABC" though the "our" was undefined. One thing is for sure, the ABC's public charter makes it very hard, if not wrong, for the ABC on air people to respond to criticism or make a case for their organisation other than in reply to specific criticism. On the other hand Bolt is free both to attack the ABC and vigorously defend himself and his employer on whatever level he likes.

His twerpdom factor may be high but most insidious is this continual line that somehow conservatives are not part of the elite, and don't have any power. There is no doubt Bolt speaks to many of everyman's prejudices and interests but he does so selectively, in keeping with his own agenda. And any reading of that agenda is that it favours authority and power and thus those who wield it.

I heard Bolt on both of days that he he aired his somewhat disparaging opinion of Stephen Mayne and the ABC.
I have never read his column and doubt that I ever will as I am not a subscriber to the paper he writes for.
He struck me as a small spineless creature with little active intelligence and even less charm who has stumbled on a position that gives him far loftier access to the media than God every intended.

The Herald Sun (and other Murdoch clones) is to the Howard Government as Pravda was to the Soviet regime, but Andrew Bolt is more typical of Axis Sally or Tokyo Rose, but without their sense of humour.

If the HS must demean itself by employing a "narrow-minded bigot who promotes division and hatefulness for money," they could claw back a bit of respect with recently sacked Age staffer, Gerard Henderson. At least Henderson does not come on like a certified nutter when interviewed.

What a load of twaddle from the commenters about how Bolt is the great right columnist and the left and centre get nothing in the media? Give me a break guys. What about the left's control of Age, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC MediaWatch, 7.30 report, Insiders, ABC PM, ABC AM, Crikey, Quiggin, AFR opinion etc. etc. Wake up posters. Enjoy the ABC bit of theatre for what it is but spare me the great left wing invention of 'right wing conspiracy'.

And by the way I'm rather bemused to see CW allege that it's odious to see Bolt paid to appear on Insiders. Censorship now is it Charles? Why don't we then shortpay Phil Adams or Terry Lane for their political views. Give us a break Charles.

Well done, Digidave, you may have a brilliant career ahead of you writing right-wing commentary.

You've got that finely-honed ability to cut through fact, finer distinctions and all logic, and get right to the irrelevant rant.

More than that, however, you've got the ability to reinvent the language, which means anyone trying to argue with you is going to quickly become completely disorientated. "Censorship" means not being paid. Brilliant.

great blog, Charles. I have long hated the Hun and all it stands for (glossy pictures, celebrity gossip, full-colour pictures of celebrities gossiping, et.al) and must say that Andrew Bolt was a big help in my year 12 exams. After having read his articles over the years in the Hun, I developed a strong sense of bovine fecal matter detection. Yes, Andrew Bolt is full of BS, and it is wonderful to hear that Mayne stood up to him.

Incidentaly, is there a recording of the interview anywhere? I would love to have a listen. A Podcast would be ideal. ;)

~Ozi.

There's a transcript on BoltWatch.

Digidave is confusing places of reasonably serious critical commentary and editorial choice with "left wing". While there is a strong correlation between education and liberal views, the left only makes small appearances in the places he mentions. It's true that more right wing serious editorial can be found in the Australian (Albrechtson aside, she makes Bolt look like a 19th C German intellectual.)

However in terms of the contestation of views and ideas that exists in the real world the left in the shape of radical ideas gets little play at all.

Oh and by the way the sources he mentions basically play to around 20% of the population. The rest live a diet of consumerism, right wing tabloidism and Mr Bolt!

he demands a Royal Commission into the Mistreatment of Mr Bolt????
Really?
Well I just read the transcript and that would be a LIE.

The Bolts and other haters of this world are necessary, if only to remind the rest of us that what we believe in is correct.

[SIGH!!] It's a special kind of lie. One that practised readers know isn't meant to be taken literally. Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?

Oh Ok so its ok for you to tell a lie (if you can discribe it as 'special')to make a point against a right winger like Bolt, but Bolt's hyperbole is "pompous, pontificating finger-pointer " and renders him a "twerp"?
Well if "You have to be able to take it, you see, as well as give it out." then I guess if he starts to tell a few porkies to make you look as silly as you undoubtedly are then that'l be ok too.

No wonder our Prime Minister is having such trouble with irony!

Irony is ok, but lierony is a sin.

"Lierony" I like that. But I wasn't suggesting my comment was irony. It's another figure of speech entirely: hyperbole, where a writer deliberately exaggerates to achieve an effect.

No sane individual could surely imagine that under the Royal Commissions Act of 1902, Mr Bolt's complaint constituted grounds for inquiry.

But whenever one uses a figure of speech, there's always a danger someone - you, for instance - is going to take it literally. For the record, he didn't demand a Royal Commission. What he demanded was a right of reply. Twice, on grounds that were quite spurious.

Hyperbole is an exageration. Like saying that you told millions of lies instead of just one. Exagerating a fact not in dispute.
"he demands a Royal Commission into the Mistreatment of Mr Bolt" is a lie because he never mentioned being mistreated at all.
He simply requested the right to reply to criticism.

"No sane individual could surely imagine that under the Royal Commissions Act of 1902, Mr Bolt's complaint constituted grounds for inquiry." is hyperbole the exageration being that you are sane. Nobody suggested he asked for a royal commision except you.

"What he demanded was a right of reply. Twice, on grounds that were quite spurious."
How could there ever be spurious grounds for a right of reply? Surely one has the right to confront an accuser, even on the ABC.

I'm afraid your understanding of hyperbole is as narrow as your understanding of the way criticism works. It's not surprising you should be such an ardent defender of Mr Bolt.

If everyone mentioned on radio or TV in less than flattering terms was given a right of reply, we'd have precious little of anything else.

Surely if everybody who was criticised on the ABC from the right then you are correct. You see I'm a taxpayer and I demand that my 8c a day be spent on balanced discussion. If Bolt had no right of reply then why was he given air time?

CW??

This guy is the epitome of narcissism. Bolt wouldn't be such a bad guy if he would quit crying for a few minutes, step back, re-evaluate his life, and realise that it is not his right to say anything he wants is not the issue, but his inability to do so without sounding like a pompous and a two-faced buffoon.

I couldn't believe what I was reading when he agreed with a reply on his forum about a guy who wanted to introduce a law that would pass on punishment to the family of anyone who has committed an act of terrorism but was not caught. His rationale or at least the rationale he was agreeing with was, these “terrorist” have strong family values and would be deterred of committing a henhouse act of terror at the thought of having his mother serve life in prison. My God, is the Herald Sun a newspaper or Bolt’s personal, sick diary?