In this post, Andrew Bolt has continued his critique of Victoria’s Police over crime statistics for African refugees. This time, his focus was on the wording of a memo from an Assistant Commissioner. While Bolt’s disputes with Victoria Police, departing Commissioner Christine Nixon, and “gossip site” Crikey are entertaining, I want to draw readers’ attention to an exchange at the beginning of the comments. Here is the first comment, from someone named Mike:
Of course, Assistant Commissioners aren’t astronauts…. but at least someone at HQ needs to draft Cartwright’s statements to avoid public derision.
Mike (Reply)
Fri 21 Nov 08 (02:42pm)
But Mike then felt obliged to respond to his own comment:
Mike replied to Mike
Fri 21 Nov 08 (05:45pm)
Bwaaaa…I mentioned “IQ” in my last post.
Bolta’s duty moderator is the latest Canadian HRC admirer, it seems.
The editing completely blancmanges the derision in my post.
Print it all or reject it all, clowns.
So, it would appear that Mike – while being critical of the intelligence of Victoria Police leadership, a position that one would expect Bolt to support – had his comment modified by a moderator, without any indication why – and without giving other readers any indication that they were not seeing Mike’s comment in its original form.
Mike then followed up with one more comment, and got a reply from the man himself:
Mike replied to Mike
Fri 21 Nov 08 (06:04pm)
Question:How long have Bolta’s moderators been editing posts without some sort of indication the post has been edited?
Serious stuff.
Bolta?
ANDREW REPLIES: Never, to my knowledge. Evidence, please. If we’ve made a mistake, I’ll say so. If you’re a troll, you’ll be banned.
Andrew believes his moderators have never edited comments without indicating (e.g., via the infamous SNIP), and asks for evidence. Let’s help him out.
Back in early September, TBBWP commenter Idlaviv made this remark about the modification of a comment on Bolt’s site:
At 7.15 I posted (above) about Simon of Tasmania’s
post at Bolt’s blog (Fri 05 Sep 08 (06:37am))
which included:
They are opportunistic, pretty much like us white man and they continue to be opportunistic and take everything they can from us white suckers.I posted a comment over there at 8.12am. Idlaviv replied to Simon
Fri 05 Sep 08 (08:12am)
Simon,
How your racist and bigoted response managed to get through the moderators is beyond me.
Unless of course this is exactly the sort of reply Andrew was looking for…Since then Simon of Tasmania’s post has been changed to:
They are opportunistic, pretty much like us whites.His monkeys don’t know this and, boy, are they going me. Would Bolt be enjoying their misguided attack on me?
You bet he is…
They are currently having a nice feed on my post
Idlaviv, myself, and others went back to Bolt’s blog and asked about the change to the comment. We were not fortunate enough to receive a response.
I also e-mailed Andrew on the same day:
Andrew,
I just wanted to make you aware that it appears a comment on your blog has been modified – after users had replied to it, and without any indication to other readers. The relevant thread is from your column “A tradition of pulling your leg” that was published today.
The original comment by “Simon of Tasmania” @ 6:37am was quoted at another site by a user named Idlaviv. Idlaviv replied to that comment on your site (at 8:12am). By 9:07am, other users were replying to Idlaviv’s comment but the original content of Simon’s comment had apparently been changed. There is no indication to anyone reading your blog that a comment was modified, and no explanation of why. The change has affected the reactions to both comments – without the complete context of Simon’s original statement, Idlaviv’s makes less sense.
I thought you might want to look into what happened, and maybe get some clarification onto the blog. (NB: I am not one of the commenters who was directly involved.)
Cheers,
Toby
I didn’t receive a response.
Does Andrew genuinely believe that there has not been a history of comment modification on his site? Or is he playing dumb to preserve his moderators’ ability to control and manipulate the direction the conversation takes? Perhaps his response to the current issue will give us a better indication.
46 Comments
22 November, 2008 at 9:30 am
His moderator makes an excellent scapegoat. Thought I maintain that Bolt himself is a bigger problem than his inconsistent moderator.
22 November, 2008 at 9:34 am
at least with timmy his moderators say when they edit someone’s comments, usually [....edited by tran] or whoever else is there. the other thing andy does is when he decides not to publish a comment he sometimes emails his rightard readers to explain why. twice i’ve seen petulant replies from regular readers demanding to know what happened to their comment especially because there was “no explanatory email from andrew.” if others have had emaisl from andy when their comment wasn’t published it would be good to know that this isn’t just a special service offered to wingnuts.
22 November, 2008 at 10:52 am
UPDATE: Andrew has responded to a comment I left in this thread. His response consists of:
- accusing me of palling around with (pretend) racists and refusing to take seriously allegations by such questionable characters;
- claiming that his blog’s policy is to indicate when editing takes place and explaining why, and arguing that this is more open than other blogs (never mind that most non-commercial blogs do not engage in editing at all);
- giving a generic “mistakes may have happened” non-explanatory non-apology; and
- noting that some information may have been edited, but the records from yesterday are no longer available.
In sum, a typical Andrew Bolt response when faced with a legitimate criticism – distort, deny and denigrate.
22 November, 2008 at 11:15 am
I am going to post my response to Andrew’s comment here, as a way of trying to ensure there is a record of where things go:
22 November, 2008 at 12:09 pm
What is it with Bolt’s commenters and their continual efforts to silence his moderators?
22 November, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“I had hoped for a better display of professionalism on your part.”
You’re dreaming – You already know that Bolt selectively edits, no, censors posts.
“I appreciate you offering an apology if your policy was not followed yesterday”
He doesn’t even follow the Herald Sun’s own privacy policy, the Herald Sun’s own Privacy department (from a complaint) pretty much said that their privacy policy stands except for when Andrew Bolt decides to breach it.
Face it, as long as he keeps bringing in the mouse clicks the Murdoch Empire doesn’t give a damn how he does it, they’ll happily tolerate his dog whistling as long as it means revenue for News Corp.
22 November, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The plot thickens, Tobias.
22 November, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I am pretty sure I have mentioned this before in here, but it bears repeating. My full name was once published on the site – months after I had stopped commenting, as it had been getting too creepy and abusive, and Bolt had even insiniated that he was going to “out” my workplace (although Im not sure if he really knew.) Sue Gant made a comment, and Bolt posted a reply which said “You’re not a friend of Liv MY SURNAME , are you? Very similar style.”
That is arguably a breach of Victorian privacy law, let alone the blog’s stupid meaningless privacy policy. He only knows my surname (or took a guess at it) from my email address. I have never ever used it on the blog. A friend happened to see it, and alerted me to it. I was so furious. There are some total loons in that place who genuinely directed hatred towards me – and Bolt is giving them my surname ??? That was the day I realised that Bolt is quite capable of damaging people, especially poeple he doesn’t like.
And he really didn’t like me.
So, editing comments and not saying so ? That’s chicken feed.
22 November, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Bolt’s claims and behaviour, especially when pertaining tho the moderation of his site, are an illustration of the strange psychological phenomena, whereby those who most acutely display a certain vice, are often the most vocal in accusing others as having that vice and/or most vocal in claiming that they have less of that vice than others.
I am yet to understand whether people like Bolt actually believe their own propaganda, and have a total lack of emotional maturity and self-awareness, are actually very insecure at heart, or are just taking the piss, or if its a combination of these elements, when they spew out their ironic rhetoric.
Primarily I think the driving force behind Bolt; rhetoric and hypocrisy is blinding immaturity and cognitive dissonance, because I have never frequented a more over-bearing form of moderation at any “news” related blog, than at Bolt’s, including at the sites other bloggers in the News Limited Stable.
22 November, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I wouldn’t doubt that that sort of stuff goes on at Bolt’s site at all Liv, there are some very strange and angry people that regularly populate Andrew’s site. I genuinely believe for some of the bloggers there, that it serves as one of the most important things in their lives, and operates as a sort of security blanket for people to be surrounded by people of fellow ideology with support from the host and the moderators. Therefore some get very defensive when an ugly little element – ie someone who challenges the Bolt-church, conformist view point, enters the fray, and disrupts the peace. Though I think most of Bolt’s regulars are just juvenile imbeciles.
22 November, 2008 at 6:32 pm
My entire comment was given a SNIP and I have been labelled a troll. That is what happens when I attempt to follow up on a comment from Andrew in which he claimed his site is “open to debate and scrutiny”. Ironic.
22 November, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Perhaps his response to the current issue will give us a better indication.
Beautifully scripted and carried out TZ.
“Big Cheese” the professional idiot™ exclaims.
Maybe Nixon said the same thing to Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein…
22 November, 2008 at 7:03 pm
[...] I would imagine most of my regular readers also follow TBBWP but, for those who don’t, here is my effort to get Andrew to take a serious look at what appear to be some shifty moderation practices on his [...]
22 November, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Perhaps his response to the current issue will give us a better indication.
Beautifully scripted and carried out TZ.
“Big Cheese” the professional idiot™ exclaims.
Maybe Nixon said the same thing to Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein…
22 November, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Excellent work TZ. No doubt there will be some b-s out of the whole affair.
23 November, 2008 at 6:12 am
” or is he playing dumb ” lol
When i use to post on Andys’ blog my comments have been changed. ( more then once ) with no reason given, so Bolt is lying when he says it doesn’t happen. I think it was because i dared challenged Bolt or his sheep that seem to hang off every word he says. Or he just calls me ( Andys’ favourite word ), a troll. That’s what you get for being able to do your own research.
23 November, 2008 at 11:59 am
Liv: that’s creepy. as chris says there are some very weird people who spend alot of time at bolts. i reckon their pyschologically damaged and thats why they have so much problems with reality.
“He only knows my surname (or took a guess at it) from my email address.”
this is why i use disposable email for all blogs. i started at bolts using my actual real email and then got hit by spam so created yahoo and hotmail accounts using names that have nothing to do with me and nothing to do with my real name. when bolt started publishing peoples email addresses (intentional and unintentional) i suppose it’s good to have an email address that gives no clues to your identity.
the far right extremists like bolt and his sheep are freaks and you just don’t know what they will do with personal private information.
23 November, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Why bother creating a disposable email addy? Simply make one up, that’s what I did when posting at Bolta’s. Whatever took my fancy that day, I’d type in the email addy box and never was I questioned.
Don’t be under any impression that you need a legit email addy for Bolt’s blog. You don’t.
23 November, 2008 at 2:53 pm
is it true that Bill O’Reilly had two haemorrhoids which he scraped off with a News Ltd. letter opener and left in the sun on a window sill for five years, feeding them bullshit and press releases from Karl Rove until they grew big enough to start their own careers as public diary keepers? Just wondering, because I have never heard any body proclaim their parenthood of either of these two dongheads.
23 November, 2008 at 6:23 pm
possum isn’t the only one correcting bolt distortions:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/
24 November, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Looks like Andrew and his moderators aren’t going to allow me to ask questions over there about the moderation policy.
Interestingly, though, his moderators are happy to allow the PM to be referred to as the “Honorable Shit for Brains” while Andy refers to Possum calling Bolt a “nasty little twat” as “undergraduate and vile abuse”. Links to the two instances are over here.
25 November, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I’d recommend taking screenshots of any dodgy activity such as posting a user’s private info without permission.
Also if you suspect a comment will be modified (difficult to predict, I know..), taking a “before” shot gives pretty solid evidence of what is going on.
Posting the “before” shots on Flickr & linking to them in the same comment thread? Priceless!
(Instructions for taking screenshots here: http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/general/ht/winscreenshot.htm )
26 November, 2008 at 8:18 am
As I have just pointed out on Jeremy’s Blog, Bolt has been let off the leash by the new editor of the HUN, hard to believe I know but it is clearly true. I think you can expect more of this stuff and lots more rabid comment threads.
27 November, 2008 at 6:22 am
I have made a couple of replies to him asking him to declare any gifts or funding he receives and the sources. These of course disappear without trace, but it does make me wonder-is Bolt being secretly supported by some of our more right-wing individuals or groups?? if not, why wont he declare all his sources of income? His anti-Loewenstein article today is a case in point.
27 November, 2008 at 8:45 am
Arnold,
Who would these “right-wing individuals or groups” that are allegedly paying Bolt to write anti-Lowenstein articles? Let me guess, would they start with the letter J or maybe Z?
You are a nasty piece of work.
27 November, 2008 at 9:25 am
sorry nic, the Zionists are far nastier peices of work than ill ever be. Or are you disingenously trying to conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism? Let me guess… oh, just realised how similar that tactic is to the way Bolt argues. Hmmm..
27 November, 2008 at 9:52 am
Arnold,
There is probably no point in engaging you in discussion – you clearly are hiding behind the “I’m not a rabidly anti-semitic lunatic because I’m only talking about Zionists, not Jews” excuse.
However, your conspiracy theory is most certainly wrong. Bolt is not paid by any conspiracy, Jewish, Zionist, Mormon or conservative.
Don’t ask about the space-lizards though.
27 November, 2008 at 10:04 am
classic! your real name isnt Andrew is it “nic”? And do you have any evidence to back up your claim that he isnt being paid off? Seems to me u generally simply make bald statements without any argument to back them up.
27 November, 2008 at 10:13 am
Arnold,
Why are you even suggesting Bolt is in the pay of Elders of Zion? He merely posted a link to a Blair post.
You are the one who is making the claim. You have to provide evidence that he is being paid by the Illuminati/Zionist Occupation Government/Stone Cutters/My Little Pony conspiracy. There is clearly no evidence of that, other than in your fevered mind.
27 November, 2008 at 10:14 am
Whilst some pundits are in fact paid off by various groups to spout their opinions, in Bolt’s case it’s more likely than not that he would write the same garbage anyway. Virtually all of his opinions are predictable in advance, suggesting that whoever at the Hun hired him knew exactly what sort of stuff they’d be getting.
27 November, 2008 at 10:39 am
“Nic” wrong again. I merely made a suggestion. You made an assertion, lacking any argument to back it up. Looking at your posts on other topics it’s a common pattern for you.
27 November, 2008 at 10:44 am
it also seems strange to me that you are here on an anti-bolt site. Bolt is clearly a rabid Zionist (defence of Lebanon invasion, continual denial of Israeli atrocities etc etc), yet you seem to be posing as someone who is also Anti-Bolt???
27 November, 2008 at 10:50 am
it also seems strange to me that you are here on an anti-bolt site.
Is that addressed to me?
What makes you think that Bolt doesn’t believe the garbage he writes, at some level at least?
If I were a Murdoch-media editor, and wanted a right-wing provovateur for my rag, it wouldn’t be hard to find someone on all the far-right blogs out there. These guys need little inducement to writing pro-Zionist, anti-AGW, pro-war etc. screeds. Hell, they’d probably do it for free.
27 November, 2008 at 10:54 am
Arnold@10:44 Who is that comment addressed to?If me, I’m not anti-Bolt. I quite like the man.
What evidence do you have for your suggestion that Bolt is in the pay of the Jews? Absolutely none, because it is a racist fantasy to suggest that Jewish people pay newspaper columnists to write articles supporting Israel.
I bet that there is no way anyone can ever convince you that your conspiracy theory is wrong. Even if Bolt did disclose all his “sources of funding” (e.g. his payslips from the Herald Sun and what ever other media pays him), you’d never be happy – because you’d just assume that the Jewish conspiracy paid him cash under the table.
27 November, 2008 at 10:56 am
not to you THR, to “nic”. Completely agree with your points THR. Just seems possible that he would write this crap anyway, but that the right would pay him off and he wouldnt refuse. It would blow a huge hole in his persona if such a thing could be proven
27 November, 2008 at 11:11 am
Arnold,
Are you scare quoting my name and not THR, because you think I am someone else?
27 November, 2008 at 11:16 am
Let me guess, would they start with the letter J or maybe Z?
Jay-Z is sponsoring Andrew Bolt?
I got 99 problems, but a Bolt aint one.
2 December, 2008 at 9:20 am
More racism tolerated by Bolt’s Mods, hence endorsed by Andrew Bolt himself since he’s so quick to ‘SNIP’ dissenters and so slow to ‘SNIP’ ignorant racist twats like the poster who calls them self Ronald Reagun, here’s a bit of retard Ronald’s post:
“Asia is a genetic disaster area.
Sensible India has multi millions of delusional Muslims living in their midst.
China is severely genetically IQ challenged, because of Mao and the Red Guard genociding their smart ones almost totally out of existence. ”
Andrew Bolt is a racist, why else would he tolerate such filth on his site?
2 December, 2008 at 10:40 am
Hmm now there is a post responding and pointing out the blatant idiotic racism and still no action from the Mods.
2 December, 2008 at 11:17 am
The post responding has been removed and replaced with the following post from Ronald Reagun:
“Jon Shang Hai, it is not ‘racism’, just ‘realism’.
You have to be realistic and realise your own limitations, to be successful in life. ”
LOL – And Bolt screams about others bias frequently, what a hypocritical racist!
3 December, 2008 at 9:13 am
” cap’n ahab replied to ronald reagun
Tue 02 Dec 08 (08:33pm)
“ronald reagun” is a moby. Why else would his disgusting faux-right-wing comments appear on BoltWatch-type sites almost as soon as they get put up here? ”
Oh there are some dumb twats at Bolt’s. If RR was a lefty plant then how on earth could he delete a response and replace it with his own? Fact is RR spouted an overtly racist comment but didn’t get moderated, therefore I contend that RR is actually a moderator, not a lefty plant.
cap’n ahab would be better off responding to the vile post of RR rather than conjure up his own conspiracy theories…
3 December, 2008 at 9:16 am
” He’s a Lefty troll trying to discredit this blog. Period.
Too many “red flags” screaming mole, so I never even bothered. ”
Says the Dean, to show us all that he’s equally brainless.
3 December, 2008 at 10:15 am
‘Ronald regun’ is probably the nastiest piece of work who posts on Bolts blog, along with ‘The Dean’ and ‘Macca’.
Arseholes to a man, and there is no doubt in my mind they are moderators. Their ugly, small minded racism and abuse never gets snipped.
Fucking armchair neo nazis, i bet they are pissweak in real life!
3 December, 2008 at 10:30 am
I would agree, universal is another imbecile devoid of the capability to make a decent post.
20 February, 2009 at 8:37 am
[...] if Mr Bolt becomes bored with reading them, and comments at Bolt’s have even been outright edited for content. In that particular case, when the commenter in question asked for an explanation he was labelled a [...]
24 February, 2009 at 5:53 pm
[...] if Mr Bolt becomes bored with reading them, and comments at Bolt’s have even been outright edited for content. In that particular case, when the commenter in question asked for an explanation he was labelled a [...]
Comments are closed.