|
Post by richard on Dec 12, 2012 20:14:15 GMT 10
'Really? Who would employ him now?'
Fuck knows. But he sure isn't going to easily pick up a choice $100K P.A cushy gig again as a staffer for an LP member.
Spilling his tale for Today Tonight or ACA seems a reasonable short term option.
But then again he has received considerable financial benefit from powerful backers who would like to remain anonymous...
Don't bite the hand that feeds you Jamie.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 13, 2012 1:26:07 GMT 10
One more think for Bolt to escape from, or it may cause him coronary failure. Assange to stand for Senate and an Oz Wikileaks party to formed. That's it - end of civilisation. Gillard was right.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 13, 2012 7:07:14 GMT 10
Oh Noez! Not today but soon
I promised to say what I thought of a Press Council process I have gone through. We are unable to publish today an article I have written on this, but plan to next week. I hope you’ll look out for it, because these are serious issues. I have to admit ... I'm curious to hear about that APC thing. But THIS is what brought him back from the holidays? Not the story about the judge who stole christmas?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 13, 2012 13:40:30 GMT 10
I concede that this post belongs somewhere else on this board: however, considering the small number of posters and the general narrowness of topic I’ll dump it here. Apparently Piers Akerman is: ‘One of the nation's most respected journalists he has worked in New York, London, Washington and Los Angeles.’There is some truth in the above sentence. It deals with Piers’ employment locations. As for being ‘(one) of the nation's most respected journalists...’ not even the Bolter links to his blog. Today Akerman goes with an Assange/ABC conspiracy. Utter bullshit. But this is not the point I am trying to make. From his comments: Assange has ABC support but remains in hidingPiers Akerman – Thursday, December 13, 2012 (6:32am)
I’d have thought the Slipper case being thrown out was bigger news than this, Piers. Can we expect your commentary soon? TheDon (Reply) Thu 13 Dec 12 (06:48am)'You can, Don, as soon as I can pass the lawyer test. The decision was a joke, the Slipper scandal will not go away despite this “judgement”.' An outright lie from Akerman. He feels free to dismiss the judgment as ‘...a joke...’ but yet claims that the law prevents him from commenting on Rares J’s decision. WTF? Yesterday I made a comment wtte that suggested that it would be fascinating to see how the Bolter would spin the Rares J judgment. This was not terribly astute. I neglected to appreciate the monolithic power of the Murdoch press. Since this was a ‘scandal’ of their own creation why should seventy per cent of Australia’s newspaper audience be told that that News Ltd was is cahoots with the LP in a determined campaign for undemocratic regime change? Easy solution: don’t mention it at all...
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 13, 2012 14:33:39 GMT 10
Just how can Ackerman claim the ABC is supporting Assange?
Because they covered it as a news story?
So did The Australian, The Age and half the major international news outlets. So "covering a news story" is supporting someone? Apply the same logic to News outlets and see where that gets you. Blot must obviously support Tim Flannery as he's had so much to say about him.
Antony Green did mention it on his blog and said "What Chance of Julian Assange Being Elected to the Senate? I think Julian Assange has next to no chance of being elected to the Senate at next year's election. It all sounds like a side-show to me, but let me go through the legal and political hurdles that have to be cleared."
So hardly support then.
Is Ackerman sane? Or is he just going by the tried and tested method of repeating a lie often enough and people will believe it. Sounds a familiar tactic (the world hasn't warmed for 16 years is another good example) which has its roots in a certain Herr G.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 14, 2012 6:49:32 GMT 10
Here's the Press Council report on Bolt's statement about "no warming for 16 years" which is presumably what he's planning to mount a campaign against - after a bit of a pause for the lawyers to cast their eyes over it. "Given the great public importance of these issues, Mr Bolt should have acknowledged explicitly that all of the three changes in question were comparatively short-term and were statistically compatible with continuance of the long-term trends in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the article referred to the possibility that global warming has merely “paused” and it emphasised the need to “keep an open mind” on these issues. Accordingly, despite concerns about the manner in which the available evidence is presented, the Council’s decision is not to uphold these aspects of the complaint. The Council emphasises that this adjudication neither endorses nor rejects any particular theories or predictions about global warming and related issues. It observes that on issues of such major importance the community is best served by frank disclosure and discussion rather than, for example, failure to acknowledge significant shorter- or longer-term trends in relevant data." www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1558/?LocatorGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 14, 2012 7:24:10 GMT 10
Left out the critical quote -
" 13 Dec 2012
The Australian Press Council has considered several complaints about an article by Andrew Bolt on climate change. Mr Bolt said “the planet hasn’t warmed for a decade – or even 15 years according to new temperature data from Britain’s Met Office”. His attention had been drawn to the data by an article a few days earlier in the UK’s Daily Mail which drew a similar conclusion that was criticised immediately by the Met Office as “entirely misleading”. The Council said Mr Bolt was clearly entitled to express his own opinion about the data but he did so in a way which was likely to be interpreted as implying that the Met Office had the same view. He should have mentioned the Met Office comment, especially as it had been drawn to his attention by a reader, even if he then rebutted it. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaints is upheld. The complaints also focused on Mr Bolt’s descriptions of relatively short-term trends in sea and ice conditions which he argued did not suggest global warming. The Council considered that he should also have mentioned that they were consistent with the continuance of long-term trends in the opposite direction."
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 15, 2012 9:11:25 GMT 10
More Blot bullshit on climate change today.
"IPCC turns sceptic on cyclones, floods and droughts So who are the sceptics and “deniers” now? The draft of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has been leaked - and it dumps many of the alarmist claims once made about the effects of man-made warming."
As usual he tries to assert the exact opposite of what the IPCC report actually says.
It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."
By "virtually certain", the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man's emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a "very high confidence" – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.
Is there no end to Blots economy with the truth, ignorant misinterpretations and utter bull?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 15, 2012 9:46:53 GMT 10
But yeah, we've been here before. I can barely get excited about this latest "expose". I think I'll just wait until the actual report is released, and leave the gotchas to the people who do that sort of thing. They'll have moved on to the next crowd-derp by that time. They'll be crowing about thermometers being different colours, or something.
There are still people out there who firmly believe that there is no hockey stick, and that prof mann has been "thoroughly discredited", that the CRU emails were some sort of smoking-gun proof of ... something ... that urban heat islands disprove everything etc etc.
I see that the nut is heading back down under for another round of whatever it is he does. Here's betting that anyone who dares to ask him about his birther stance (which is pretty much undeniable now) will be howled down as part of the liberal agenda.
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 15, 2012 11:26:30 GMT 10
I don't get it. Andy had a goodbye post and then several more posts appeared. What gives?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 15, 2012 20:49:00 GMT 10
Whatever it was that dragged out of the hammock, it doesn't seem to have involved the biggest stories of the week.
Not a peep about slipper - not even to repeat his previous warnings about the dangers of believing politically-motivated personal attacks, and claims of sexual harassment in particular. I remember him getting quite het up about things like that ... although it never seemed to apply to al gore, or leftist french presidential candidates, or ALP-appointed parliamentary speakers.
And he hasn't say anything about the incident in connecticut. Not even a "I'm not in favor of guns, but ..." troll-post.
Instead we got a complaint about the press council disagreeing with him (those totalitarians!), and a reference to a similar hit piece from the UK telegraph ....
I'm sorry, but I'm underwhelmed by that tele piece. I actually don't believe that anyone would bother making the threat that they proposed - because it wasn't actually much of a threat. If all you've got is a wet lettuce leaf to menace with, you don't go picking fights. But, having seen the behavior of the Australian conservative press, I WOULD VERY MUCH believe that a newspaper would verbal somebody in order to attack them for being critical of coverage of an MP that included harassing her family. That's what I think happened, and my observation that bolta's reporting it only makes me more inclined to believe so - I'm not saying it's deliberate, I just think he's unlucky.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 15, 2012 21:54:05 GMT 10
MoC - that tells you something about Blot.
A self-obsessed, narcissistic 'commentator' focussed solely on his own importance.
"I am right! and you are all wrong!"
And if you dare to criticise me, it just proves there's a conspiracy to stifle free speech!
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 16, 2012 22:06:48 GMT 10
He's had more farewells than little Johnny Farnham
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 17, 2012 12:28:58 GMT 10
My guess is that Andy has a deal with the News lawyers where he has to submit his more contentious articles to them with plenty of time for per checking (considering his past form).
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 17, 2012 12:37:14 GMT 10
Anyway, One of his last posts mentions this... the Levenson inquiry - Britain’s version of our own Finkelstein witch hunt. Using a loaded term like witch hunt... It makes me wonder abut casual readers/ viewers of such rhetoric and the impressions they take away from it. If you hadn't taken a major look at Finkelstein inquiry you wouldn't have any real idea of what it is about. So by using misleading language Andy is placing in people's mind another piece of detritus that may rise to the surface when the average person is at the ballot box and making a decision about which way to jump. Have the pro Lib/Nat pundits added the media inquiry to the long list of Labor 'failures' (pink batts, school halls etc etc)? Anyway, if it had been a witch hunt Andy would have been the first against the wall.
|
|