The Bolt Report - a whisky with a mate. (Bolt)
It shows . The undeclared mate... in the mirror
20m
The problem is Hanson's supporters are outliers who feel dissatisfied with Labour and Liberals. They voted for Hanson as a protest. Hanson realised she made a gross mistake in the WA election by aligning herself with the Libs. She betrayed her base by giving her preferences to the Liberals and her vote plunged. Unlike her, the Libs weren't a populist party.
Her base is a mix of dissatisfied ex-mainstream voters both ALP and Libs who certainly don't see Company Tax cuts as part of their vision. Somebody woke Hanson up to that fact and so she did a U-turn. "She's decided to put some space between her and the Coalition - and stop wearing the pain for a policy Malcolm Turnbull can't sell."Bolt
Bolt's fundamentally wrong because Hanson isn't as clever as he makes her out to be because she instinctively would company support tax cuts. However as a populist and the royal commission into the Banks Super and now Franchising is on others have made it clear her base simply wouldn't accept the cuts on offer to big business. There is nothing sophisticated there just tactical and Hanson isn't the whizz Bolt makes out.
MINISTER: NO, PETER RIDD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SACKED
Watch: Assistant Minister for Science Zed Seselja criticises the sacking of global warming sceptic Professor Peter Ridd.
23m
What is the Minister going to do? Close down the University? Defund science particularly Marine Science at James Cook? If he did he'd be shooting himself in the foot. Anybody that doesn't read the research and the reviews that have come out of that university will realize it's made it one of the worlds best in the field. Deniers aren't sceptics they simply have a kneejerk political response as opposed to a tested and studied one. Science itself sets the standard of scepticism while simply saying 'no' is neither science or scepticism as it denial based on a wish, self- interest or value. We have seen Bolt's science in action countless times when he's called science just another religion. Bolt does it all the time but then it doesn't matter because he works for Murdoch runs a news-free zone based purely on business and not scepticism. Bolt's a denier he's far removed from being a sceptic when backed into a corner he calls science a faith a religion and fails to test himself on that proposition sceptics always question themselves and leave idiots like Bolt alone.
Ridd has been sacked for his lack of science and bringing the campus into disrepute as James Cook University isn't speakers corner a free for all in ideas. It is an arena of studied scepticism particularly in the field of Marine science and Ridd has crossed the lines of behaviour that he signed to support when signing his contract. He's simply not acting as a scientist and bringing his department into disrepute.
SHARRI MARKSON: ON THE ABC'S LATEST ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS
Watch: Sharri Markson on the latest ABC bias in discussing Israel - letting a Muslim academic rant for minutes on end about Israel's evil, but repeatedly cut off Greg Sheridan when he tried to put the other side.
25m
Shari Markson discovered that Israel was aiding and abetting terrorists fighting the Syrian and Assad Government. She discovered they were assisting our enemy in the Middle East. She was almost arrested for that discovery because it was Israel's secret. They were betraying the coalition forces and doing it illegally from occupied Syrian territory The Golan Heights. In effect, Israel was at war not with IS or al-Qaeda but with Syria supplying those we and the West have labelled terrorists and our sworn enemies.
We were, in fact, jailing Australians for doing what Israel is doing. Sheridan labours the point that Hamas is a terrorist organization and therefore worth shooting. If there are terrorists worth helping logic dictates asking the question how does Israel choose and is their choice justified? It seems there a Well when they started shooting arbitrarily at 40,000 people hitting women children the press and medics they were making unjustified choices. Furthermore, they backed that choice up declaring women and children enemy by not sending medical supplies to the Gazan hospitals to help those shot? No, they maintained the blockade of Gaza instead.
So to hear Markson say if you don't agree with her your wrong is stupid as it has no foundation. and Sheridan say Israel is as clean as the driven snow because they are defending themselves against terrorists is to have her and both Sheridan lying and propagandizing and Bolt simply offering the space to lie.
But what did Markson say that's more to the point. The Q&A panel, unlike Bolt's show, holds debates so of course arguments and conversations are meant to cross over each other and also be directed. Bolt's show is quite opposite, it promotes a single idea holds a series of monologues to promote that idea and in Markson's case, the idea is that the ABC is biased because it presents both sides and if you don't agree with Markson then she's right and your wrong. How childish of the spoilt brat and she will go blue in the face to prove it?
How does she do it? She threatens and cajoles without a single fact but only opinion and that's if you don't agree or question her. If you do your wrong and what more biased and not objective. Wow and she's a senior News Corp Editor how unimpressive is that with Bolt sitting there looking like her adoring spaniel. Give us a break. Markson may be Jewish but she's certainly not one of the millions that have currently turned their backs on Israel after asking questions.
As for Sheridan he merely states the obvious the UNHRC is surrounded by politics and in this case, the numbers stack up for an inquiry and report to justify or condemn Israeli actions only 2 votes against is hilarious.
Why do these News Corp goons not admit to the fact that over 110 and not 62 are dead and that over the course of 7 weeks 4000 persons were shot? The numbers are minimized to the max. No mention of 78 women and 203 persons shot. The Israelis used bullets that expand once hitting the body to cause maximum damage and the then blockaded medical assistance these are facts that Sheridan ignores in order to deflect attention away from Israel. He raves on about Nth Korea Russia and China but did any of these nations commit these offences in territories not their own. Gazans aren't Israelis for a start which makes Sheridan look as if he's simply an apologist. Like Markson, he mentions Syria but not that Israel is supporting those we call "terrorists" and ducks the detail of the false media reporting of the "demonstration" Such as the "clash" Israel experienced when there was none or the 50 Hamas reported dead by MEMRI TV and Israeli propaganda broadcaster.
Israel is a reliable self- reporter because it has sent Israeli soldiers to jail what a joke they are holding children without charge and Palestinian poets for longer that soldiers caught murdering Palestinians wounded just because they were caught on video. If that weren't the case they would have been charged. Basically, they promote the idea that the people shot were programmed by Hamas to get in the way of Israeli snipers Ho ludicrous is this victim blaming and flipping the equation to Israel being the victim none of this in the eyes of the world holds water. Yes, it's blaming the Jews for making the Germans look bad in WW2.
Today the Germans say sorry in their schools and on a daily basis teach the Jewish perspective of history and WW2, In Israel children, aren't educated in any way to what might be regarded as a Palestinian perspective as we aren't and Indigenous one.
WHY HAVE AN ABC WHEN IT'S THIS BIASED?
Janet Albrechtson dissects another case of the ABC's anti-Israel bias: "So it was with yawning predictability that ABC’s premier Sunday political show, Insiders, ... [derided] Australia’s decision to vote against a UNHRC resolution to launch an inquiry into the deaths of almost 60 Palestinians in Gaza last week. " Read on and ask: scrap the ABC?
28m
The Shari Markson attack on the ABC is if you present any side of an argument other than mine your biases. If you present just my side of an argument your biased. If you question either side of an argument your biased so disappear. Albrechtsen does the same as Markson
" I joined the ABC board in 2005 with a similarly naive hope that the national broadcaster could be reformed to meet its fine mandate. Alas, it suffers a similarly entrenched and biased culture as the UNHRC. Given that both institutions are unreformable, it raises the question: why bother with them at all? "
How is it so many board members are from News Corp have been recruited from the Murdochian world and have been then set upon by News Corp? The fundamental issue here is 80% of Australia think entirely differently to Bolt Markson and Albrechtsen. They not only think the ABC is doing a great job but they are the most trusted news organization in the country as well as the most efficient in terms of value for money. Where News Corp is regarded as the worst.
20m
Is Andrew Bolt blowing smoke to cover News Corp's arse? He certainly is any sense of 'continued hostility' China has experienced has been from and in the media and that hostility has always been the loudest coming from News Corp. China kicked Murdoch out of China and Murdoch hasn't forgotten. Diplomats vary their tone and approach all the time News Corp doesn't and it is constant in disparaging China. It single-handedly could affect our economic relationship and one gets the sense that is what News Corp wants to do. It wouldn't be to embarrass Turnbull, would it?
No comments:
Post a Comment