|
Post by tewiremu on Jul 10, 2012 15:44:01 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by tewiremu on Jul 11, 2012 20:19:26 GMT 10
The moderation bottleneck at the bolt blog seems to be taking its toll on the faithful: Hi Andrew I suggest you find somewhere else to put your blog. I think Channel 10 would happily take on your blog and pay someone to moderate it. From their point of view, it would help to promote your Sunday show and increase traffic to their site. It would be a win-win for them and for those of us who like to contribute to your blog. Unfortunately, I expect that you are currently losing a number of contributors to your blog.
Stormy of Croydon Park (Reply) Tue 10 Jul 12 (05:21pm) Two attempts by me to post to the Tips for Wednesday thread failed to make the cut ( both linking to current Guardian and independent articles concerning climate change, both negative from Bolt's perspective). IJudging by the tips replies, it seems that there is no chance of critical comment getting through. Even his fans are starting to despair.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jul 12, 2012 19:03:10 GMT 10
So whats the REAL reason Bolt's blog has been castrated?
I don't believe its just News Ltd staff cuts.
Are Andrew and his wife too lazy to moderate it themselves? Or aren't they allowed to anymore?
Are the lawyers getting nervous about more defamation/vilification suits waiting in the wings?
Or is it something more sinister concerning Andrew's future with News?
I believe his 'views' have dropped to just a few hundred a day now that he's not feeding the monster he created.
First Dog's cartoon on this today is brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by tewiremu on Jul 12, 2012 19:46:19 GMT 10
Angra....I have a feeling that he is downsizing with a view to hitting the eject button. It's clear that the days of lavish staffing for his little pet blog are over; why the hell should News Ltd. sack editors but keep a blogger working from home staffed up with office juniors? I wonder if he will be offered some kind of permanent position with Ten and cut his News involvement even further. It's a funny situation that he has been allowed to blow the trumpet for his lame television show on News Ltd.'s time. This gets to the heart of my suspicion that he's actually classifying himself as a freelancer for tax purposes ( this is speculation on my part, for those afeared of litigation). Things must be fairly bad at News if he's thinking of jumping ship.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jul 12, 2012 19:56:08 GMT 10
tewirftemu - I can't help think about the parallels with the situation of Francesco Schettino.
"I blame myself for being distracted," Capt Schettino said in the interview with Canale 5, a private television channel, which was aired late on Tuesday.
"It is as if all the brains and the instruments on board short-circuited."
Remember that last quote.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jul 12, 2012 19:57:16 GMT 10
Sorry - meant tewiremu of course.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jul 13, 2012 11:40:31 GMT 10
It's the consistency that really brings a tear to the eye ... a tear of laughter, I guess: blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_vs_flanneryRay Hadley tears apart Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery‘s allegations of being the victim of a media set up. He interviews one of Flannery’s neighbours, who isn’t impressed either after being confronted by Flannery at home. Listen here. blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_november_24On our MTR 1377 show today:
- Ray Hadley tells us of his beef with Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery, who sounds like he has a sorry to say. blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_brawl_over_flannerys_waterfront_home/Ray Hadley puts 10 facts to Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery and asks for an apology. Check the comments on those. It's pied flippin' piper stuff. I don't have access to any information that wasn't made public, but it looked to me at the time that flannery was probably right about that story - which isn't to say that ray hadley WASN'T right, but that a third party might have had some explaining to do. Hadley went quiet on it though ... and I dare not draw any conclusions about that. What hadley WASN'T quiet about at the time was the importance of his credibility, and his apparent fury that flannery would do so much as question his integrity. I seem to recall vague suggestions about legal action. Well ... Swan calls the cops onto Hadleyblogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/swan_calls_the_cops_onto_hadley/You probably do need to read that. Then compare it with the more detailed (and probably correct) version of events described my media watch: www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3537340.htmThere's an important piece of information missing from bolt's version. This: A bit after 8 o’clock on Monday morning, the Treasurer’s office fired back with a strongly worded media release:"Story in News Limited Papers Wrong
The service has not been cut and to suggest otherwise is dishonest and grossly inaccurate.
— Office of Wayne Swan, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Press Release, 25th June, 2012" That press release can BEFORE hadley's show aired the "boofhead" and "liar" suggestions. In fact, the discussion seems to have been ABOUT THAT VERY PRESS RELEASE. They had two claims - one from steve lewis, one from wayne swan, and guess who got slandered? Bolta does actualy link to the ABC media watch web site. We can all have a pretty good guess at how many people will follow it and actually ready it though. I doubt if many will ever realise that the "boofhead" business wasn't about the story itself, but the discrepancy between the story and the denial. Anyhow, yes, the following day, when the story had been well and truly debunked, hadly did issue a retraction. But swan wants an apology for the "liar/boofhead" comments. Just like hadley and bolt wanted an apology from tim flannery. And this, apparently, means: "The Government is run by scoundrels with an astonishing contempt for free speech" I'm going to steel myself and try to listen to hadly's june 26th show this afternoon (no, I'm not on the clock). I'll see if I can find the retraction and post a transcript.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jul 13, 2012 12:01:33 GMT 10
Ah, here it is: podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/rayhadley/FULL280512.mp3Starts at 3:22 Yesterday, the deputy premier wayne swan accused the daily telegraph of a whole raft of things over their front page story about students visiting parliament being deprived of water and fruit snacks.
We investigated the matter, as you would expect we did, we sighted a document from parliament house dated last thursday confirming the story.
Wayne swan sent out a media release yesterday morning denying the story, and saying it had no foundation in fact.
Well, we relied on the fact we had the document from thursday, and so did steve lewis who authored the story.
Now, the deputy prime minister's office is saying there was an email sent to a select few people last friday, saying the proposal would not go ahead.
Now, we asked the deputy prime minister's office why he didn't send us a copy of that yesterday morning when we were enquiring about it ... and when I say it was sent to a select few last friday, saying the proposal would not go ahead, it's apparent now that the deputy prime minister was not one of the select few. Because he didn't have a copy of it. He says he didn't know about it. But he didn't refer to the email in yesterday's denials.
Finally, yesterday after the story was published, another document appeared, apart from the email, saying there would not be a stop to the children getting their water and fruit snacks. So it's a victory for common sense. Well done to all concerned. As one might expect, there are a few problems there. It was a bit difficult for the "deputy prime minister" to supply anything in response to inquiries when he wasn't the one being asked. Lewis checked with finance on Sunday, and they were unable to provide a contact for the House of Reps: which is an actual department, by the way, it isn't just a room with people in it, otherwise who would do the vacuuming? It's the same department which was responsible for making, or not making, the decision - none of which apparently had anything to do with the treasurer ... which is why he didn't get the email, because it had nothing to do with him. (Hey - I wouldn't know this either unless I had friends who worked there ... but hockey should have known, and I dare say he probably did) So ... knowledge of how the decision worked: Oh dear. Nothing there admitting the mistake, nothing to explain why the decided that, given two contradictory pieces of information, one of which was unconfirmed, they decided that the treasurer must naturally be the one who is lying ... or perhaps just a boofhead. Nothing so far to explain that the email was a draft, the decision had never been taken at all, that there had never been any contradiction. According to bolta there's another piece to The Correction. I'll have to listen later - things to do.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jul 13, 2012 14:21:00 GMT 10
Mr B.'s continuing vendetta against Anita Heiss (and thinly veiled contempt of the results of his court case) are bordering on harassment in my opinion, certainly on the borders of a psychological dosorder.
He has another "No Comment" piece today, just because Heiss was at the Sydney Writers Festival - back in MAY!
"I don’t feel able to discuss many things here, including the book’s title and matters raised by what you may find by clicking on all the links."
But Andrew - no one can disuss anything on your blog because you've turned off comments! So now you can continue to vent your spleen and expose your hubris via innuendo and suggestion, with no possibility of an alternative view being stated. Not that was ever much of a reality anyway.
The man is sick.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jul 13, 2012 14:33:45 GMT 10
dosorder -
ACCESS DENIED
ABORT, RETRY, FAIL?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jul 13, 2012 14:39:47 GMT 10
"I don’t feel able to discuss many things here, including the book’s title and matters raised by what you may find by clicking on all the links."
My own personal opinion is that if he were "allowed" to say what he thinks, we'd all be staggeringly underwhelmed by how banal it is - the real censorship would occur when rational people flame his blog with fact-based smackdowns.
Guessing (I dare not judge) from what I perceive to be a pattern in the links to these "and another thing" follow ups, I _think_ his problem is that there are people in the heiss family tree who just refuse to be "black enough", as if that somehow proves his original point (a point which I dare not explain in my own words, because nobody EVER gets it right - not even the judge - and would hardly dare to presume to be able to simply re-read the articles and spell out what they're saying in black and white, given that nobody else seems to be able to).
A lot of hand-waving seems to happen around the question of whether anita heiss' maternal grandfather is a NEWS-approved, bona-fide aborigine. It seems that there is some deep significance to the words "My mother was brought up in a Catholic home and my father was from an Irish Catholic background". Is it true that somebody can't be a catholic and be anything else at the same time? Or does being catholic make an otherwise-aboriginal person somehow less so? Conversely, does being aboriginal make one less catholic, and should the vatican be taking this into account before handing out those wafers?
I'd love to be able to just strap on the big boots and spell out what this all really makes a reasonable person call to mind ... but I believe certain people get very, very upset when those sorts of comparisons are made, so I leave it to the braver souls (but recommend against it).
But it might help a section of our population rest a lot easier if our federal authorities did away with the three-part test for aboriginal identity and just replaced it with a colour chart and a checklist of questions which can rule one "out" of the rivers of gold that we're led to believe come with that hallowed status.
Not that I'm saying anyone else said that. It's just a dangerous hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jul 13, 2012 18:27:14 GMT 10
Bolt on David Marr:
What's Bolt got aqainst gnostics anyway?
We all know he hates Muslims, warmists and people who don't fit in, but what have gnostics got to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jul 13, 2012 19:57:34 GMT 10
Jules - presuming he understands anything about Gnosticism (a hard ask I know), maybe it is because they were profoundly non-sexist and were famous gender-benders.
Also Mani was an Iranian, so must be bad.
From "Allogenes": "He is a perfect, invisible, noetic Protophanes-Harmedon. And empowering the individuals, she is a Triple-Male."
From "The Apocalypse of Adam": "….from the nine Muses one separated away. She came to a high mountain and spent (some) time seated there, so that she desired herself alone, in order to become androgynous. She fulfilled her desire and became pregnant from her desire."
From "The (First) Apocalypse of James": "You are to say to him, 'They are not entirely alien, but they are from Achamoth, who is the female.' "
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jul 13, 2012 20:01:24 GMT 10
On second thoughts, they said pretty weird stuff too, which maybe worked by its absurdity and contradiction - rather like a Buddhist haiku.
From "The Gospel of Thomas":
"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
|
|
|
Post by tewiremu on Jul 13, 2012 20:05:56 GMT 10
My own personal opinion is that if he were "allowed" to say what he thinks, we'd all be staggeringly underwhelmed by how banal it is....
Banality is the stock-in-trade of the demagogue.
|
|