Andrew Bolt is a whacker.
A whacker is a light weight, someone not to be taken seriously. I don't call him a wanker or contemptuous or anything so grandeur. He doesn't really reach those standards because really ... he is just irrelevant. Irrelevant where it really counts... in the serious news media. No media commentator or organisation takes him seriously ... do they? Extreme views that are so far out in the either of wobbliness usually stay out there. For some reason his views are taken on board by some but I think we all know why. They have to go somewhere and hey, why not keep them in one spot. It clears up other media sites for proper discussion. I like the idea that AB can soak up the nutters that would normally go wasting our bandwidth with dribble and drive them to somewhere they can take each other seriously. I was astounded when I saw his web stats but then I realised there must be a few million in Australia who still hold Howard's ugly Australia dear to their heart. This is good though as these whacky people can go from Bolt to Ackerman to Blair and back and never have to enter mainstream again. If it makes them happy ... then I am happy.
Someone once said to me about AB articles, "it's not reporting, it's just too silly for that". It was then it that it struck me that he was right ... it's not reporting or journalism ... it is just plain silliness. His reports are like comedy skits, mocking someone like himself ... an Australian Sean Hannity. It was then I learnt not to get upset over his ridiculous articles because they are just like the commentators from the American right. Pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-liberterian comedians commentators who I read often for a laugh. Now I love him. Like Alan Jones spots on Channel 9 each morning, I now look forward to AB's new insight each day. Light relief.
Now here's a great example of AB doing his best:
Andrew Bolt – Thursday, December 20, 07 (06:43 pm)
Eric Beecher on his Howard-bashing gossip Internet site Crikey:
I mean in terms of the balance, we try to be balanced...
Sure, that must be why Beecher was last month awarded a Walkley award for ”journalistic leadership”.
So how’s that balance going, when the Crikey editor isn’t actually busy smashing Howard pinatas? From today’s balanced Crikey:
The Crikey Choice 2007 - 20 Most Appalling People
Votes %
John Howard 100 8.75%
Tony Abbott 70 6.12%
Kevin Andrews 64 5.60%
Philip Ruddock 52 4.55%
George W Bush 43 3.76%
Alexander Downer 38 3.32%
Peter Costello 31 2.71%
Jackie Kelly 31 2.71%
Janette Howard 26 2.27%
Richard Pratt 20 1.75%
Bill Heffernan 19 1.66%
Marcus Einfeld 18 1.57%
Ben Cousins 17 1.49%
Piers Akerman 16 1.40%
Dick Cheney 16 1.40%
Gary Clark 15 1.31%
Alan Jones 14 1.22%
Mick Keelty 14 1.22%
Andrew Bolt 13 1.14%
Brendan Nelson 13 1.14%
People’s Choice 2007: 20 Most Appealing People
Votes %
Maxine McKew 46 6.98%
Julia Gillard 37 5.61%
Kevin Rudd 27 4.10%
Bob Brown 18 2.73%
Penny Wong 16 2.43%
Al Gore 14 2.12%
The Chaser 14 2.12%
Bernie Banton 13 1.97%
Matt Price 11 1.67%
Cate Blanchett 9 1.37%
Barack Obama 8 1.21%
Paul Keating 8 1.21%
Peter Garrett 8 1.21%
Peter Russo 8 1.21%
Nicola Roxon 8 1.21%
Andrew Denton 7 1.06%
Tim Costello 7 1.06%
David Marr 7 1.06%
Kerry O’Brien 6 0.91%
Michael Mori 6 0.91%
If I had made this up, Beecher would complain the caricature was too crude. Golly, satire is hard when the real stuff is like this.
1/ AB really misses the point doesn't he. People's choice: The 20 Most Appealing People is a reader's poll, not an editorial.
2/ In true AB style, Crikey's choice: The 20 Most Appalling People is not available to the public and can't be printed so instead AB put's up People's choice: The 20 Most Appalling People but forgets to change Crikey's choice to People's choice. Then he claims they are biased because it is Crikey's choice.
This is such a shoddy attempt at creating a controversy that I am still laughing.
And there's more...
For a detailed analysis, there is a dedicated site that watches AB. Gosh he must have a lot of silliness if there is a whole website just to watch him.: Bolt Watch
4 comments:
Hi Terry. I’d agree with you that AB can be loose at times but he doesn’t have copyright on that failing; the left-wing press do their fair share of exaggerating and truth twisting and you only need to refer to AB’s own ‘plain silliness’ as you call it for the hard evidence. The notion that 47% of Australians at the last Federal election and the 50% plus at the previous four who presumably subscribe to a fair chunk of AB’s views and voted for conservative government as ‘nutters’, ‘whacky’ and holding ‘extreme views’ is worth challenging. That is of course presuming one accepts that a sizable grouping such as this has legitimacy. Readers of your piece on AB could be forgiven for thinking that you consider all conservatives illegitimate irrespective of whether or not they are in the majority. Is this your view? Greg Graham.
Thanks Greg.
The flippy, wobbly, pinko, poofta, mongrel, leso ultra left annoy me too. AB though, seems to be a member to the complete opposite of the ultra conservative hootin' tootin' silly party. Surely even the right doesn't agree with all of ABs rants. Don't they?
I don't think anyone agrees with everything Labor stands for nor do they agree with everything The Libs stand for. In fact I actually like a lot of the Greens policies but like bits from The Libs and bits from Labor and bits that none of them stand for.
I find many just vote for a 'team' that their parents voted for. I have always voted Labor because my Dad did but now he is a staunch Lib and loves Howard. I found it hard to change my vote from Labor but I have since learnt they are all dirt-bags. For some bizarre reason I always secretly barrack for Labor until I stop and slap myself.
Religion is becoming ever more important in elections and was clearly part of Howard's strategy. I think many religious folk would have heavily considered voting for Howard except maybe the last election where Rudd played that card as well. The very religious, the new borns/evangelists and the religious right whackos definitely voted Liberal or FF/Fred Nile's Christian Democrats.
It's a blurry line between ideals for Liberal voters but probably a lot more defined for the other parties.
In response to me considering all conservatives illegitimate, I suppose I tend to look at progression as good. I think all political parties do. Is a so called conservative government actually conservative? It seems to be more about conservative morals or conservative values.
The previous conservative government were socially conservative but operated quite differently from their parties conservative ideology by having huge Federal government intervention to control much of Australia especially moral issues. They really wanted to strip the states of as much power as possible and my pet hate was the interference into our rights of self determination and privacy. So what about traditional Liberal Party ideals? Free markets blah blah, privatisation blah blah, gun control blah blah, Separation of church and state blah blah etc. Their actions were not very conservative to me.
These are just my ramblings. But then, why listen to me, I,m just a junkie.
I'm a right-winger (well in a majority of areas) invading your webspace (yeah go boo & hiss at me you lot).
Anyway AB. You all know that he's a warming sceptic etc. Today Bolt published some outrageous claims about organic farming. I made the mistake of calling him on it. As punishment, his assistants declared by I'm abusive.
What they have taken offense at is as follows. Walston is probably less than truthful in his claims. And Bolt has allowed his bigotry in this area get in the way of common sense.
Yep that's enough to be tagged.
Thanks Brian.
No one's booed and hissed yet ... yet.
I can't understand why anyone from the right would want to claim Bolta as one of their own. He is not right wing or conservative, just stupid.
I like how Ron Paul in the US copped so much flak for his policies. Some interviewer, trying to embarrass him, asked if he felt out of place for straying so far away from his party's principles. He replied that the others were straying from the party, not him. Every issue that was seen as radically opposed to the likes of McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney etc. was actually closer to the values of the GOP than the others.
The true republican agenda supported Paul's calls for pulling out of Iraq (Nonintervention), legalise drugs (Civil liberties, health), Getting rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, Homeland Security, reduce the role of the CIA etc. (Small government), Removing the federal reserve and income tax (no personal tax) etc etc.
It seems "the new right" is about religion, dictating values, government control and money. Far from the actual principles.
Andrew Bolt is not a right winger in the true sense.
Your turn to boo and hiss me.
Post a Comment