38m
There is only one Duffer here and it's Andrew Bolt
IT’S odds on: a book prize judged by the likes of David Marr, Erik Jensen and Marcia Langton will have rules that put politics above literary merit.
And — bingo! — so it’s proved with the rules for the $15,000 Horne Prize for in-depth reportage on contemporary Australia.
The one good thing about this identity politics is that it should disqualify some of these judges. Bolt
Andrew Bolt had us believe that David Marr was seemingly an instigator in this change and approved of it. There is no mention by him that he was wrong or any forthcoming apology. (ODT)
The fact is
I woke up on Saturday morning to the strange news in the Australian. The rules of the Horne prize – named after Donald and run by the Saturday Paper – had been changed. I’ve judged the prize a couple of times and was due to again in 2018. But not after what I saw on Saturday. David Marr
Bolt simply walks away from spreading bullshit and treating his fans like mushrooms
The destruction of an Australian icon the ABC is at hand and only the ALP can save it. Australian Democracy and values are being eroded and handed over to the IPA and News Corp on a platter in desperation and a last-ditch stand to maintain power. Can we imagine Australia without the ABC the only MSM we trust with news and information and not just pure propaganda? (ODT)
In June this year, the Liberal Party’s peak council voted by 2:1 to privatise the ABC, as proposed by the Institute of Public Affairs, whose alumni includes communications minister Mitch Fifield, an arch-plotter who backed Turnbull over Abbott, Dutton over Turnbull and then Morrison over Dutton. Turnbull and Fifield insisted at the time that the ABC would never be sold, but those assurances are surely worthless now. With News Corp on the attack and the Coalition so bitterly divided, it is hard to see anyone inside the government dying in a ditch over a high-minded defence of the ABC.
The Australian had another extraordinarily well-timed piece this morning [$], in which media diarist Stephen Brook reported a rift between chair and MD, including deep background that Guthrie had been upset at the chair’s push for the quixotic “Project Jetstream” overhaul of the ABC’s digital infrastructure. There was obviously more to that story. Whether or not Guthrie deserved to be sacked so summarily – and she is today reported to be devastated and considering her legal options – the ABC now appears vulnerable, poorly led, and in need of public support more than ever.
Australia has been sacrificed to the Careers and Self-interest of individuals.
Grattan Institute finds the policymaking process vulnerable to hijacking by vested interests at the public’s expense.
More than one in four federal ministers have gone on to work for a lobbyist firm, peak body or other special interest since 1990, a major new
study has found.
The
AFR reports [$] that big business is quietly preparing for a potential change of government in Canberra to the Labor Party, and that this preparation is taking the form of financial donations, meetings with Bill Shorten and hiring politically connected staff.
2m
The question that needs asking is how does Andrew Bolt know the reasons why Michelle Guthrie was sacked when Guthrie herself was still pondering the reasons that remained unclear to her at the time? The one and only certainty it wasn't because she was a woman as Andrew Bolt suggested in his editorial. Bolt is sexist and we have seen him in action often enough. He was the minder to a belly dancer when the belly dancer actually was his fiance who kept him when he was unemployed. He believed he was entitled to the star billing on the Steve Price Show when that title was given to Miranda Devine. He's disparaged Julie Bishop because she was a woman and as such wasn't fit to be PM and he did the same to Julia Gillard. He even acted as an Imam when declaring he had the right to dress his 18-year-old daughter and tell her what was safe to wear in a sexist culture. Basically, Bolt acts like a patriarch.
The suggestion Bolt offered about Guthrie simply wasn't tough enough too timid and incompetent and couldn't stand up to the putch from the leftist staff below deck on the SS ABC "it' was a mutiny from the bottom up and not from the top down" despite the fact that the board and only the board had the right to sack her. A board stacked with women.
Bolt can't even be bothered to ask Gutherie what she thought her removal was all about. Andrew Bolt rarely asks anyone for their view of things particularly women and their views on anything he generally tells them what and why things happened to them. In his personal life he's made it clear he's the only income earner as has to or is obliged to take them on holidays there is no we in Bolt's family it seems. We could list the countless number of times when he's called women liars, frightbats but when they actually get the opportunity to confront him face to face he backs down. Bolt only roars from a cultural pulpit never eyeball to eyeball as equals.
Bolt wacks the ABC for a purpose and Guthrie like other before her wasn't "promoting " Conservative thought. When statutory independence demanded ABC be in the business of journalism examining and questioning thoughts of all sides of politics and not simply a PR agency for promoting right-wing demands as News Corp and 2GB are. Remember Tony Abbott's famous line "who side are you on " a demand that the ABC shouldn't be editorially independent and question the motives of government but only support them. Conservatives want the ABC to be more Goebellian. They should, however, question the opposition and test not support them but not the Australian elite. It's why the then PM Abbott refused to go on our National carrier because it shone a light on his motives incompetence and his arrogance which made him so unpopular. For Abbott nope nope nope had no logic other than the game of adversarial politics and the ABC brought that to light rather than mask it. It revealed their lack of interest in the passing of bills the business of government. But then Abbott had the IPA, News Corp and 2GB onside didn't he leaning like the Tower of Pisa to mask a do-nothing government?
All governments don't like to be questioned but none more than the ultra-conservative Abbott government. The Statutory Independence of the ABC protected it and allowed it to carry out the duties of real journalism to gather data verify it and question the real motives of government and Opposition policies. The Liberal government of the day wanted the ABC, however, to be there's and it was echoed in the voice of Tony Abbott asking "whose side are they on?" Well, the answer is simple they are of Australia's side and question the motives of all policy groups whether government, opposition or think tanks and they put them to the test of justifying themselves to the nation. A test that PM Abbott ran from because he couldn't tolerate his authority being questioned.
He was hiding behind the closed doors of the PMO and was even protected from his own MPs. He had a simple logic that entailed always being in opposition and ultimately doing nothing when it came to the business of passing bills. Other than obstruction the Abbott government did nothing but send the country backwards economically and culturally.
The ABC was paid to do the job of questioning and demanding everyone explain themselves was beyond authoritarians and conservatives because they were generally found out to be scamming the nation on behalf of the few. None more than Tony Abbott caught out in a lie at the Alfalfa Club with Rupert Murdoch in a fake photo shoot to boost his stocks in the Daily Telegraph. News Corp's job it seems was nothing more than constantly polishing the turd in full view of the world and Australia, The strings on Murdoch's puppet were fully visible because the ABC helped show us the reality and it was mainstream media.
When Governments constantly complain about the ABC along with right-wing media you know the ABC is doing its job and it's not fake as are MSM whose only interest is its shareholders. They aren't primarily in the business of selling News and information and but in the business of promoting the interests of its shareholders and governments that will assist in that cause. It's clear as crystal.
Bolt spent an enormous amount of effort generating the disparagement of chairman Milne who he seems to be protecting and applauding the sacking of Gutherie for not putting journalists in their place. Union bashing "She would not take on her role as a champion for this organisation."Bolt Strange isn't it when Bolt more often than not said the same of Milne. Now here he is saying Milne did the right thing but at the same time saying he didn't because the ABC staff collective were running the ship. It seems to me all Bolt is doing is a lot of inconsistent yabbering running two contradictory arguments while plucking evidence out of the air. What is he saying that the ABC board were doing their job? The MD Gutherie that the Union was running the ship while being attacked every which way by a conservative government a politicized News Corp and IPA with massive budget cuts called
" backroom efficiency measures". Budget cuts leaving the ABC to do what they were required to do in 2018 with less than they had in 1984.
1h
Bolt demand is to impose a fake narrative on an inglorious colonial past and says if that's not enforced the country will be in deeper trouble. Construction of narratives naturally come from the elite and powerful down and whose privileged position earned and deserved.
The fact is the majority of Australia will no longer join him in bullshit. Morrisson is scrambling to fix the errors brought to the LNP by none other than the appointed envoy to Indigenous Australia.
1h
There is one thing very wrong about Andrew Bolt's proof. The ABC board sacked a managing director, not the staff and Bolt even applauded that decision. Whose side is he on? There plenty of proof he hated Milne. We know he abhors the journalistic ethics of the staff and he disliked Guthrie. Is there any evaluation of any principles here or just barracking for a side. A side whose independence is set in law. A statutory body whose independence is guaranteed and a body trusted more than politicians, think tanks and private media. all the least trusted in this country.
ABC NOT BIASED? BALLARD BACKS SOCIALIST PARTY
Tom Ballard was host of an ABC show that called a conservative politician a c..t. Now he endorses the Socialist Party. But ABC chairman Justin Milne insists publicly the ABC is not biased. Shouldn't he be sacked, too?
17m
Andrew Bolt can't seem to distinguish between the freedom of individuals and the system within which they operate. The man insists on the freedom of individuals but works in a system that contractually binds them to an editorial position and prevents them from working elsewhere and contradicting Murdochian opinion. The ABC actually supports the freedom of their staff to vote as they please but be constrained by the ethics of their jobs. Diversity is encouraged in the ABC when it's not elsewhere. The ABC represents the real Australia where News Corp doesn't Ballard works for the ABC he isn't the ABC Bolt even worked for the ABC. Bolt, however, is now News Corp and Ballard would never be invited or allow himself to be so constrained in such a narrow box.
Manners are a safety valve as are suits and ties that create safe places for opinionated bores that refuse the same privilege of anger for those that side with the deprived who struggle to be allowed a voice.
Bolt's singular mindset is one directional and that's from the top down any attempt to invert that is "collectivist". This sounds like a simple case of a media bully name calling to me where the elite his side can do no wrong.
3m
Another example of the one-sided commentary of opinion that leans like the Tower of Pisa to the right is the recruiting of Warren Mundine to tell us what Julie Bishop was thinking in the 60-minute interview without bothering to ask. What would The Bolt Report ever do without the ABC?
12m
Why is the 26th so special when the history of this country preceded invasion day and that history has been written to actually glorify an inglorious colonial past that Conservatives fail to acknowledge. How is it Germans can acknowledge their past and Australians can't? That indigenous history needs to be written out of our history rather than celebrated as part of Australia's history. This country should be ashamed that a Multicultural country refuses to accept indigenous Australia as it does so many other cultures. Mind you Bolt's a migrant who feels more Dutch than Australian but expects others to feel more British Christian and Western when we are located in the middle of South East Asia that alone is as queer as
45m
What Bolt is attempting to do makes less sense than what Probyn did and he's named names. Unlike Bolt, Probyn doesn't feel "legally at risk" why would that be? Unlike Bolt, it seems nobody is about to sue him. Australians only need to pick up the Herald -Sun, read Bolt's blog look at Bolt's history to see just how many times he has been sued and lost in our courts. There's never any mention of how many times he's been publicly required to apologize for his fabrications. There are so many times we know of and even more, we don't because his lawyers or should I say News Corp's only allow him to apologize behind legally closed doors in order to keep his reputation less sullied than it already is. Probyn is lily white compared to Andrew Bolt and far far more trusted.
PROOF: ABC HIJACKED BY STAFF, WHO GLOAT THAT BOSS IS SACKED
The ABC sends out an official tweet that gloats that ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie is gone. There is no clearer evidence that the ABC is run by a staff collective and not by its bosses.
No comments:
Post a Comment