Andrew Bolt has been a little more testy than usual lately.
He has latched on to a narrative about The Drum publishing a blogger (who does/does not exist and is/is not a send up).
It’s not entirely clear whether his outrage is driven by the opinions expressed or because these opinions are “leftist”, or because they were aired on the Drum. Pick one....
Other things however are very obvious.
His behaviour towards anyone who disagrees with him frequently descends to a refined form of bullying.
I’ve been banned from his blog more often than I’ve had hot dinners, but a pattern has emerged. I get banned, and then get posted again, apparently when his moderators get absent-minded. Whether or not I’m banned in the first place seems to be related to how silly my posts make Bolt look.
Let me give you a few examples.
On 21st July 2009, Bolt posted a thread which claimed that turnout to the 2008 presidential election was less than at previous polls. This was quite wrong, of course, and it wasn’t difficult to access official data to confirm it.
I posted a correction and linked it to the source.
My post attracted no comment from the moderators, but the usual torrent of abuse from his loyal acolytes turned up right on cue.
Next day, I posted again, with a mild comment on an unrelated topic. I was banned in shouty text –
SNIP. YOU ARE SO BITTER IT’S CREEPY. AND SO DETERMINED TO OBJECT TO WHATEVER’S WRITTEN HERE THAT YOU’RE BORING. SO I THINK FROM NOW ON WE'LL BAN YOU AS A TROLL…..”
Click on the screen shot and read the comment from "Andrew of Pearce". He's nailed it.
This was at first confusing, but then I remembered being banned before when I pointed out that Bolt had posted a graph that showed exactly the opposite of what he was arguing. In this instance, that post got through, but it was the next one – again unrelated, and pretty mild, that was snipped.
The graph at the top of this post was the one that got me banned because I pointed out that the trend was upward, and that the downward bits were anomalies. Andrew obviously doesn't know the difference. Pointing this out was what did the damage.
The penny dropped. Bolt doesn’t like being made to look silly on his own blog, so anyone seen as a potential threat is blocked. Because he is slipshod, it usually happens after the event.
The banning was my comeuppance – if a bit late.
His moderators are half asleep, or he doesn’t pay them enough – possibly both.
Another pattern has emerged.
I have two other pseudonyms under which I post. The opinions expressed and the words used to express them are no different from posts under my 1735099 moniker, but I have never been banned or snipped using these other screen names. It's only 1735099 that gets censored.
He’s obviously a bit twitchy about a Vietnam Vet taking him on. It may not got down well with his basically conservative audience.
His work has a couple of basic characteristics.
He has a very thin skin. It's as well I don't - given the abuse I cop from Bolt's acolytes. A very clear double standard operates.
He is prone to bullying and shouting down his critics (other evidence of this is clear from his appearances on Insiders).
His analysis and research skills are of a very low order for someone who claims to be a journalist.
Getting back to his bullying of the alleged blogger referred to above. It occurred to me that he might be prepared to argue the toss with me on a few issues, so I posted this challenge on his blog.
It wasn’t published, so I sent him an email.
Still no response. So not only does this “journalist” have a thin skin, he also lacks the cojones to take on a blogger who might offer him a challenge.
He makes a living out of it, after all – I’m a rank amateur, a 63 year old codger who works for a living and blogs for fun.
I’ve obviously got him well and truly bluffed……
5 comments:
your kidding right? my abc should be doing a better effort then that. its our abc not a left / right wing selective publishing.
it was obviously an false agenda piece that shouldve been picked up before publishing on a national site
cheers
Not at all.
The ABC publishes a wide range of opinions - including Bolt's. He's a regular on the ABC's "Insiders", for example.
If I were to follow Bolt's example you wouldn't get published here.
The ABC's opinion cannot be bought and sold by commercial interests. That's one of the reasons why it's the most accurate, fearless and unbiased media outlet in the country.
I generally read Bolt every couple of days and yes I'll admit that he has a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes when he initially posts a topic. (I have the same problem with my teeny weeny blog)
I don't agree with a lot of his stuff and I wish he would moderate his attitude on Insiders and other TV shows where there are others of differing opinions to his.
But let's face it 1735099, the conservative journalists are very well outnumbered by those of the left who feel it necessary to have an agenda rather than reporting the facts they report an angle.
The Japan story is not about the nuclear meltdown which has had the lefty press hyperventilating the last few days. It's only now they are beginning to tell the story of the real horror in Japan and it has nothing to do with nuclear fallout or meltdown.
If we step back a little, we need to hear both sides of the debate, whatever the topic. Get rid of Bolt, Piers and the third one whose name escapes me and there would be no debate in the public domain except on how much we agree with one another.
viva la difference
(or something like that)
Cav
I would never advocate "getting rid" of any commentator.
I'm simply suggesting that if he makes a living out of expressing his opinion, he should have the courage to debate a dissenting view.
He wimps it every time.
BTW - the third person you're talking about is Tim Blair. He's not up himself to the same degree as Bolt.
My two cents worth is that because Bolt is now the leader of the pack, he gets deluged by every nutter in the country. He is now a magnet for abuse - Miranda Devine is the female equivalent.
I think that if you're getting slammed by knuckle heads all day, you start to see any dissent as being a problem - and you block it. I think he's much more sensitive than he makes out, and when he cops a torrent of mindless abuse, he tosses everything out - and out goes the baby with the bathwater.
I make a point of letting every comment through (barring spam) - but then again, I don't get a bazillion hits per day, and enough comments to fill a dumpster.
Post a Comment