That was before the news broke that the Australian National University in Canberra had increased security at facilities where its climate scientists are working after receiving many death threats aimed at the scientists and their families.
If Andrew Bolt didn't exist we would need to invent him. The News Limited political commentator has for many years been a lightning rod for Australians with dissenting social and political opinions, and his columns are widely read, and commented upon, from a broad spectrum of political perspectives.
Bolt has an opinion on almost everything, and if you don't like those, he has plenty more. Bolt waves what Frank Hardy used to call the finger of scorn at public policies and political figures, a single-digit bullshit detector working overtime.
But today, just as I sit to write a review of the four episodes of his television program I watched, Bolt writes
Global warmists are terrified of debate. No warming activist or Labor minister has agreed to come on The Bolt Report to discuss their claims. Almost no global warming scientists here will agree to debate sceptical ones.
When he appeared on the Bolt Report's first episode Federal Opposition and Liberal Party Leader Tony Abbot wasn't asked a single question about climate change, even though he is (in Boltspeak) a "warmist". "I believe", Abbot told anyone who would listen earlier this year, "that climate change is real and that human activity is at least partly responsible for it". Australia's alternative leader has, in fact, budgeted to take twelve billion dollars from government expenditure for programs to mitigate climate change over four years, a fairly activist putting-yer-money-where-yer-mouth-is political position. The Bolt Report's host might have questioned Abbot's wisdom, given a golden opportunity to, for Andrew Bolt is on the record as believing Global Warming is a great fraud perpetrated by scheming scientists and green enterprises grasping for wads of government money like the twelve billion dollars Tony Abbott proposes to hand out.
The Bolt Report is driven by belief. In a comment on the Victorian State Government's decision to make Welcome To Country Ceremonies optional, where they were obligatory under the previous Labour Government's protocols for state-sponsored events, its host asserts "These welcome events seem very traditional, but were in fact invented by popular Actor and TV presenter Ernie Dingo, and my next guest, distinguished didgeridoo player and artist, Doctor Richard Walley."
"Well, you don't invent welcome to country, the welcome to country has been here for thousands of years amongst Aboriginal peoples themselves", Walley replied.
There followed some banter about us being all Australians, and the whole welcome to country, and Aboriginal thing in general, being so divisive.
"Whatever happens to Aboriginals affects Australia. Whatever happens to Australia affects Aboriginals", Walley observes dryly.
"Well, thank you very much for coming on the show to put your point of view, I don't agree with it but I'm glad you are here to say it", the host wraps up.
Well, hang on. Point of view? Was it a matter of fact that the Welcome To Country events "were in fact invented by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley", in the host's words?
It seems to me that The Bolt Report suffers from post-modernity's great melancholia of uncertainty. Bolt's other media ventures find their audience in a generation swept aside by mighty change, multiculturalism and workplace restructuring, with little left to sustain them beyond belief and shrinking pensions. Uncertainty resonates with the 55-64 demo displaced and made redundant by rationalization and globalization.
But is it fair to assert that someone made something up, and to then disagree with a matter of fact that he did not on the basis that the fact contradicts a belief?
Until the news of death threats to the academics at the ANU and their families I would have said, unreservedly, yes. Let everyone have their say. And encouragingly, Australians are turning to opinion-driven media to find a voice. The Bolt Report's capital city averages are around the same as for many opinion-driven programs on the Community TV stations around the nation.
Now I read reports that Australian media regulator, the Communications and Media Authority, has begun an investigation into a Sydney radio station's coverage of the climate change debate with a degree of trepidation. The last time they did that, Australian commentators were revealed to have been taking money to talk about stuff they didn't believe in as if they did.
So I'm going to reserve judgement on The Bolt Report, for now. It is just possible that I'm old fashioned enough to be entertained by facts alone, and don't need them filtered through a bunch of beliefs, no matter how entertaining, or off-the-wall.
The Bolt Report is on television Channel 10, Sundays at 10 AM. I watched episodes 1 to 4.
"When he appeared on the Bolt Report's first episode Federal Opposition and Liberal Party Leader Tony Abbot wasn't asked a single question about climate change"
ReplyDeleteWere you asleep? Go and have another look.
Seems like Bolta has your number matey.
ReplyDeleteBolt didn't ask the Friar one single question abouit Climate Change???? Are you serious or did you watch the wrong episode?
ReplyDeleteYou're famous. Not in a good way.
ReplyDeleteSo, are you not into "fact checking". Perhaps you should have gone into "climate science".
ReplyDeleteFrom your comments it appears you have yet to watch a complete episode.
ReplyDeleteI think Middleton has a serious credibility problem, but then he's not alone.
ReplyDeleteHow long until Middleton deletes the post? I'm thinking the shame of such an obvious error will compel him to hide it within 24 hours.
ReplyDeleteJust read your article and then went aand watched the interview. I haven't seen the Bolt show before and what a breath of fresh air compared to that trash we get on the ABC.
ReplyDeleteI will be watching Bolt in future just to be sure I get the correct story. To bad you didn't watch it before you wrote this article. You might have been able to print the truth rather that this pathetic rant of half truths and lies.
Steve Middleton can you comment on this discussion about your statement that Mr Bolt didnt ask Mr Abbott about global warming.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm going to reserve judgement on The Bolt Report, for now.
ReplyDeleteErr, no. You've spent the whole article criticising it.
Thanks for promoting the show....it rates higher than Insiders. Not bad for an outsider on community tv
ReplyDeleteYes Steve, I would like facts with that. How about starting with some of your own
ReplyDeleteIf the climate scientists receiving death threats at ANU are as accurate as you are Steve about your 'Bolt Abbot'assertions then maybe they should recheck to see that they didn't in fact receive birthday cards!
ReplyDeleteWell I just watched episode one again. A questions is asked as to why Mr Abbot did not, in his budget reply speech, address the amount by which the carbon tax would reduce global temperature. Then a follow-up asked by how much would your policies reduce global temperature? Both questions went through to the keeper, as it were, as the Opposition Leader referred back to science. He wasn't challenged at all about why the science is influencing policy on both sides, something I would have liked to know on the day. And still would.
ReplyDeleteIn other words the reasons as to why so much money is being spent on what has been described as a fraud went unanswered and uninvestigated. And I was disappointed, as an average viewer who has watched every program.
I wish I could have written a more positive view of this exchange, but I have to say that the host let the interviewee off the hook. Not one question about whether climate change is happening was made, it was all to do with tax/no tax, and the degree to which tax/no tax positions would affect global temperature. The wisdom of either approach was not questioned. IT should have been, Mr Abbott might have opened up to a conservative commentator, many in his position have before. A golden opportunity was lost, I felt.
I'm going to say upfront I don't understand the nuances of climate change politics, debate, and language. It may be that this reducing or not temperature by x,y or z degree is important. But from where I am sitting the whole climate change thing is way out of control, and where I expected to be informed I was offered what? Polemic instead.
I'm reserving my judgement about The Bolt Report because I think it is important, and good for everyone, for everyone to have a voice, to express whatever. But people are getting death threats now, the climate change debate has spun out of control, and until the media people can get it together to ask the hard questions about public policy I'll reserve the right to reserve judgement.
And thanks for the comments, it makes Julie happy XD
Mr Middleton, excuse me but garbage. Abbott did give his reason. It is to meet Australia's Kyoto commitment. Unlike the ABC, I don't think Bolt pretends to be anything but conservative. It's a Sunday morning point of view type show and anyone watching it would know that. Asking Abbott, again, to state whether he believes in CC knowing that he will say that he does when we all know that he doesn't serves no purpose whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't feel you have an answer from Abbott, as unsatisfactory as it is, about his level of belief in Climate Change then perhaps you need to actually watch some interviews, starting with those you purport to be reviewing.
Congrats Steve - wont be long and you will be free. You should also thank Swanny for going to the senate for another $50Billion (to pay for all the impending retirements no doubt). The latest drop in economic growth was due entirely to the drop in coal (carbon) exports. A sign of things to come eh!
ReplyDeleteAnyway AT promises govt support for projects that reduce CO2 output and give an economic or community boost, wheras JG is taxing carbon producers to give herself money to buy votes at the next election. Simple choice.
Like you I was swept up in the coastline rising/ global warming scare and it sounded so logical, however I have read and read everything I could find on it over 6 years now and now believe it all a scam. Follow the money and you will see the truth. Even the greens have a tasmanian office on the coast!
You and the canberra crew are entitled to your view, and I hope that I am wrong for your sake, but I reckon we are heading into global cooling and we will look back at the start of the 21st century as an utter waste.
There can't be two editions of this program. I don't hear a reference to Australia's Kyoto commitment in the one I just watched. Again. Mr Abbott makes the point twice that his policy is a good thing to do anyway, irrespective of anything else, another point allowed to go through to the keeper. I expect better from media types, especially on Sunday morning and especially after Meet The Press.
ReplyDeleteWell I read Bolt's blog and I am well informed on the climate debate.Guess what?I didn't rely solely on Abbott,Bolt or Gillard to inform me.Plenty of sources on the net.I suspect you know there are scientists that are questioning the science behind AGW.In case you don't look up Linzden,Roy Spencer,Tim Ball,Robert Carter.
ReplyDeleteI guess I could do what Gillard,Brown and others do,just listen to one side and denigrate respected scientists because they question the faith.
I see you keep the faith and call it climate change.We all know the climate changes,the question is man causing the climate to change,and if so,will it be bad or good?
CO2(not carbon)is a plant food,it enables us to feed ourselves,a bit more of it could be good,but we never read about that side of it.
"Like you I was swept up in the coastline rising/ global warming scare"
ReplyDeleteWell, no. I'm offering a critique of a television program, and saying that it shies away from asking the difficult questions. I wish I had a different opinion, which is why I reserve judgement, rather than making up my mind straight away. I'm an old fashioned skeptic, give the program a break, I think.
"Until the news of death threats to the academics at the ANU and their families I would have said, unreservedly, yes."
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
Did you happen to catch the rap song put out by the scientists at the NSW Uni I believe it was?
Call "deniers" like me a "motherf&%$ker".
When people call me a motherf$^^ker they are asking for a particular response.
If they don't want to get into a blue maybe they should watch what they say ...hmmm?
By the way your fact checking is shocking. So try and watch something before commenting. You will look like less of a partisan idiot that way.....maybe.
I watched every episode of The Bolt Report. I saw the episode of I think it was Hungry Beast with the rap song you refer to in it. Hmmm. I think the whole thing is out of control, personally, and that the media might take a more responsible position of asking the difficult questions, and putting politicians on the spot over public policy, rather than inflame a public policy debate to the point where ordinary Australians, whether they were on TV singing a song or not, are getting death threats.
ReplyDelete"When he appeared on the Bolt Report's first episode Federal Opposition and Liberal Party Leader Tony Abbot wasn't asked a single question about climate change"
ReplyDeleteGoodness me, before you make a statement at least have the courtesy to watch the interview.
Now if you had stated "When he appeared on the Bolt Report's first episode Federal Opposition and Liberal Party Leader Tony Abbot wasn't asked a single question about climate change - which I wanted asked"
We could at least understand that you have the duplicitous misunderstanding of the hand wringing interbred intelliga & are not just a poor author of a blog.
I’m sure your ramblings make sense to you but leaves you looking foolish in the eye of the reader, whilst reinforcing that critics like yourself love to hear your own voices when thinking but just can’t quite get it down on paper.
Your vile chattering comment about death threats to ANU academics, which you didn’t even attempt to hide behind your sneering accusation that surely students of (Boltspeak) would be behind, is indicative of your not daring to so outright but merely alluding to it.
This allows you to vilely & lift your lips to a satisfied smirk, whilst enthusiastically hiding behind a faded veneer of a lost cause.
Steve, you said specifically that Bolt didnt ask Abbott a single climate change question. You now seem in a rush to back peddal after actually looking at the footage and realising Bolt asked Abbott 3 questions related to climate change.
ReplyDelete1.) Why didnt you ask Gillard how much her policy will reduce global temperatures by?
2.) How much will yours reduce Global Temps by?
3.) Would you dispute calcs hes had done that suggest neither policy would change global temps by more than 0.0005c by 2050?
These are questions that Bolt has asked lots of people - including experts prepared to front him- on plenty of occasions and is yet to get a decent answer from the government.
You say in your responses that you are simply offering a critique of a TV show. Well that is very sloppy work to do that and clearly not actually watch the whole thing. You simply cannot be serious when you say you watched this and didnt consider any of these 3 questions (half of the time he was talking with Abbott) as being related to climate change?
One of the reasons that Bolt is one of Australia's most popular columists is that he is meticulous with research and not afraid to confront those he disagrees with - usually with a list of things he disagrees with them on for them to "explain". Pity his critics arent so competent.
Finally, the reference to Kyoto is clearly when Abbott says his policy is designed "to meet our committment to reduce emmissions by 5% by 2020".
Yes those are indeed the questions about tax policy which I felt didn't ask about climate change, and the questions upon which I based my view that the program could have done better by asking questions about climate change, which led to the statement that the program didn't ask any questions about climate change. I repeat, I watched all the episodes. I repeat, I am disappointed that, given a golden opportunity, the program didn't pursue the Opposition leader over what his policy was based upon. Mr Abbott volunteered his position, in part. He wasn't asked. And yes, I admire the Host's determination. Determination is not enough, in my view. The media must ask hard questions, in my view.
ReplyDelete"When he appeared on the Bolt Report's first episode Federal Opposition and Liberal Party Leader Tony Abbot wasn't asked a single question about climate change"
ReplyDeleteYes Steve he was asked..Sloppy work Steve. Must try harder....
Steve - Im not sure how you can consider the question "how much will your policy reduce global termperatures by?" as a tax policy question, rather than climate change question.
ReplyDeleteIt might not be the question you would like, but its clearly not tax related.
What question would you have liked? Maybe if he had a climate scientist in there he could ask specific scientific questions - but obviously there is zero point in asking those of Tony Abbott - likewise with Julia Gillard.
There is no argument to be had Mr Middleton.
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong.
Try and salvage some credibility and post a retraction.
Thanks David G.
ReplyDeleteI can answer that, because it goes to the heart of my gentle critique.
Television is a revelatory medium, often some probing goes a long way, and a little probing to opening a window into how the Opposition's policy was formulated. It has changed its position from wanting an Emissions Trading Scheme, to wanting a global agreement before an Emissions Trading Scheme, to wanting the scheme of Direct Action Mr Abbott talked about. Along the way one Liberal leader lost his seat, another two (?) lost their job, and the fourth just missed out on power through a deal with the Greens. Any questions which teased out one or all of those events and how they led to the framing of current policy would have been electric, I think. And the Opposition leader may have opened up, is the kind of thing where you never know until you have a go.
Instead, there are questions about tax policy, which may be terribly well researched but left me thinking about lost opportunities. The media has to do better than this, I feel, and perhaps with some gentle poking it might. Instead, we are left with a mess of recriminations and I'm unsure as to where that all leads, with passions so inflamed.
Again.
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong Mr Middleton.
While I reserve the right to get it wrong, I'll stand by what I posted, this time around at least. Doesn't hurt to give the media a poke, however unjust it might appear. And who knows, might get TV Hosts speaking in plain language, one can only hope XD
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is difficult not to conclude your blog piece is deliberately misleading, it is admirable that you have published the condemning posts by Bolt defenders. Most probably wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteAs part of the arts, film making and university community, your conservative bashing is no doubt well received. However, you are now experiencing the same fate as the vast numbers of Leftist journalist, academics etc. Bolt's army of reader researchers are helping Bolt to bring the lies, spin, bias and hypocrisy under the spotlight. Bolt now has the power through print, radio and television to bring ridicule upon those of the Left that publish rubbish.
Happily, I have no doubt Bolt's existence is curtailing the efforts of many in the media. No doubt you too will at least check the facts a little harder next time around.
You have discovered an effective mechanism for boosting traffic on your blog: Make a false accusation against another blogger who received 220,000 unique browsers last month, then hold on as they come after you.
ReplyDeleteWell Steve you got your 5 minutes of fame thanks to Bolt linking to your site. It might be a popular pastime in your community to sneer at Bolt thinking your Academic crowd will all agree with your views, Bolt is an easy target to knock on twitter, Facebook and purile blogs like yours. What his critics can't do is argue against the logic he presents. Judging by the responses here- you got a wakeup call today and will think twice about what you write in future. Now it's back to blog oblivion for you...
ReplyDeleteI haven't yet watched the Bolt report, but for you to say that this is a 'purile blog' is a little mean-spirited, since most who read it find it most interesting. And please, don't assume all who read it are 'academics' (what do you have against academics anyway?.
ReplyDeleteI'll stand by my comments and criticisms of The Bolt Report. I'll also stand by yours, and yours, and yours, of mine. What's the point of debating, otherwise. And I think everyone needs to do a bit better than name calling, Twenty years ago I might have volunteered to produce a television program like the Bolt Report, if only to see the difficult questions get asked.
ReplyDelete@Julie I don't think any of the above posters broke any of the rules to speak of in any major way, and I would prefer to keep all of these comments online please. I'm not above criticism, and everyone is entitled to have not only their point of view, but to also express it. Not the first time I copped some for bring pedantic about television broadcasting.
ReplyDeleteAnother left wing blog that overlooks material facts and seeks popularity by linking to other, successful, blogs. Goodluck.....
ReplyDeleteSomeone linked to us, I don't spam blog comments to get page views. Left Wing? Good grief, we don't encourage cheer squads, or wing-nesses. I'm entitled to have an opinion about television programs, and to write those down without fear. At issue I think is whether my comments are just, given that many seem to think questions about climate change were raised. Hey, I'm saying they weren't, not claiming the world is about to end. Unjust? OK, I'll wear that. Wrong? OK, I'll wear that as well. Left wing popularity seekers? No, won't wear that. But would defend your right to express that point of view to the end.
ReplyDeleteA serious question Steve :
ReplyDeleteWhen people go to an Australian university, do they learn what to think OR how to think ?
Rob, I know you didn't direct your question to me but I would like to comment anyway.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, your focus upon 'Australian' as opposed to a University from another country here, is a cunning way of saying something without actually saying it.
Secondly, your question has a definitive odor of being already formulated as an answer around the limited parameters 'what' and 'how' - one being descriptive, the other prescriptive, as though these are the only vehicles one might employ in order to become competently cognitive.
Thirdly, individuals, who learn different things at a different pace, accumulating and assimilating facts and other information cannot be group here under the word 'people' - for as individuals they bring their own view points, often already formulated into the mix of what is presented to them in a University environment.
Finally, there appears to be an assumption in your question (of course, I may be wrong) that people are empty vessels, blank paper on which a University inscribes its mark or casts a mold. This is not so. Individuals come to and are accepted into a University course because they are already revealed as 'thinkers' and with that their own particular and peculiar way of 'learning'.
I don't know how to answer that from personal experience Rob, I didn't follow any well worn path at all. I went to University as an aspirational adult, and was in trouble from day one for asking difficult questions and rocking sacred cows XD
ReplyDeleteErin wrote to Steve:
ReplyDelete"Nice article.
I also enjoyed this one.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11732&page=1
I missed the January Quadrant, thanks for the link. I liked Max Rheese's article on Wind Farms called Doomed Planet in March, also.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to call comments on this post closed, not officially in terms of locked, but I won't be checking back any more. Thanks for the comments, that was lively XD
ReplyDeleteMy own crit of my own post here, FWIW, is I had a pox-on-all-their-houses moment, and I shouldn't let emotion filter what I write like that. I'm going to try a more thorough and better contextualized review of the Bolt Report after about week seven or eight.