Andrew Bolt's Blog, 24/12/18; Access Journalism underlies Bolt's work;

  How 'access journalism' is threatening investigative journalism

 Andrew Bolt hates investigative journalism. He admits he chose to be an Obit writer and jumped aboard the then growing trend of 'access journalism' instead because 'real' journalism was becoming a dead weight to the business of News at News Corp.  He has even, due to the amount of criticism he's received over the years, dropped calling himself a journalist but a commentator instead. However, he's not really a commentator either, if one assumes a truly informed commentary is based on verifiable 'facts' gathered from primary sources rather than secondary links. Andrew Bolt's does neither nor does he format what he does in any way encourage debate or form a two-way discussion. Even the comment sections, where available, are heavily moderated to favour News Corp's sales pitch. In most cases, he only provides an exclusive platform for others to support them using alt-conservatives, extreme right-wing voices or his own written for him monologues and editorials delivered for him to be read off autocues.
The difference is obvious when one compares The Bolt Report and his pathetically produced, first Podcast.

The great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh recently called this new form “access journalism”. In this form, journalists report the access, usually an allegation, and do not either prove or disprove the allegation. This form has the following features:

• the evidence is based on sources who cannot be named

• there is no evidence base (such as a document or money trail)

• it lacks transparency, in that the evidence cannot be independently verified

• it serves one side’s agenda (usually the government’s)

• it uses words in the text that have little definition (especially “is linked to”

• it can be written and published very quickly.

The form is undoubtedly a response to the need for media to move faster for stories with big impact. But while allegations might suit US law, in Australia, where depth of research can be a useful legal defence, it is also particularly dangerous under our defamation laws.

Compare the traditional form of “investigative journalism”, which bears these traits:

• it is based on identifiable sources whose standing and credibility enhance the claims

• it is evidence-based (including documents, finances, and so on) proving a specific thesis or proposition formally stated in the text

• its evidence is available for checking

• it serves no-one’s agenda, in that several sides of the argument are heard, allowing readers/viewers to make up their own minds as to the truth

• it does not use words that unnecessarily pre-judge the final conclusion

• it takes a painstaking amount of time to build the evidence base, allow balance, and get legal advice if needed.