Homophobic comment about a named journalist? Immediate removal and an apology:
David Marr has alerted me to a comment which snuck through our moderation yesterday and which abuses him in homophobic terms. I am mortified it got through, and have instantly removed it. I apologise to David and have banned the person who put it up, as I have done with other readers who have made homophobic comments in the past.
Islamophobic comments about an unnamed multitude? Um… no action at all (source material for the segment is in this thread).
(NB: Remember to honour this site’s comment policy. Thanks.)
UPDATE: Hungry Beast now has a separate video of just the segment in question, so I have replaced the original link to the full episode.
45 Comments
Well that’s just nit-picking Tobias or as Tony of Canberra writes:
Typical cherry picking by the ABC.
/sarc
Ah, the changing landscape in Murdoch’s world! Before we know it, the Bolt blog will be almost unrecognisable. Which still doesn’t explain why my civilly-worded, but strongly dissenting, comments often never see the light of day there. One man’s offensive comment-snip is another man’s censorship.
To be fair – you could make any site that accepts comments look nutty by choosing a few of its more extreme comments and reading them out – ABC Unleashed or even here- it would take no effort at all. Its a bit of a low act. Most bloggers don’t even have moderation of course.
Eventually some online publication will be sued for a comment that slipped through moderation and all comments will be shutdown (or severely curtailed). That will be a shame.
And Your point is Tobias?
{No, Iain. The point is not “Tobias”. Learn to use commas — Scott}
“Islamophobic comments about an unnamed multitude? Um… no action at all ”
Well, people defend Bolt by saying that the contributers don’t necessarilly represent his views, they’d have some credibilty except tha Bolt himself is never slow to comment against any ‘dissenting’ (lefty views) but hardly ever seems to comment against some of the most “FOUL ABUSE” that is in abundance on his blog, ie he’s very slow to intervene when the participants stick the boot into Aboriginals, Asylum Seekers, Muslims or any non-white Australians.
{Nope — Scott}
Those comments on ‘Hungry Beast’ last night were disgraceful, I wonder why andrew bolt hasn’t banned anyone or at least distanced himself from those viiews with a response.
A question for Andrew: How does something “sneak” through your moderation?
Typical Bolt. He reacts to Hungry Beast’s story by getting the show’s name wrong and not linking to it.
“Gillard: don’t dismiss Hanson’s fans as racists”
LOL – Yes, that’s true, they could just be plain old stupid..
And people say lefties have no sense of humour…
What the Hungry beast found and reproduced clearly is what commentators here and on other sites such as Grods or Blair/Bolt Watch have been pointing out for ages.
The Beast was not necessarily having a direct go at Bolt but rather relaying that there are some seriously disturbed keyboard vigilantes out there.
The bolter has given Hungry Beast and others a spray for claiming that he is responsible for the reprehensible comments of others on his blog. It is worth keeping in mind that this man has in the past made the very same claim about others, for example Marieke Hardy:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/best_and_brightest_barbarian/P20/
There was no ‘immediate removal and apology’ at all Toby.
The context of Bolt’s post, and a number before and after, was his assertion that AGW ‘believers’ were incapable of engaging in an ‘adult debate’ regarding climate change. Marr’s behaviour was apparently proof that they could not.
I replied to the comment Bolt is ‘apologising’ for, and questioned whether such a homophobic remark constituted the sort of ‘adult debate’ AGW denialists were demanding. And suggested that there was some hypocrisy in allowing this comment to be published, having criticised Marr for his behaviour.
My reply was not published. Importantly, he did publish – and personally reject – another comment I made later, which suggested he was an unworthy champion of ‘debate’ because of his refusal to publish posts critical of him. At that time, the homophobic comment was still being published.
The comment was later removed. If he had any integrity at all, he should have ‘SNIPPED’ the comment, published my reply, and apologised then.
But he didn’t. He made a mealy-mouthed apology accompanied by a disgraceful qualification. Totally insincere…
C’mon guys, I would have loved to have debated this, I could go to Bolt’s but let’s face it he just wouldn’t let my post through, and i don’t want to post at his Blog.
“Hungry Beast item on the ABC does underline my point, however, and increase my concern that critics are now deceitfully using the stranger comments of some reader to define my own views and to delegitimise the ones I in fact hold and express. ”
Like I say it isn’t what Bolt says, it’s the silence when these posts should be smacked down, after all we know Bolt isn’t afraid to respond to posts he doesn’t agree with, why doesn’t he respond to the most foul posts made at his site?
Go and slag off Pell or Hanson and more often than not you’ll get a response from Andrew.
“I now face a moral dilemma. My intention has been to allow on this blog a discussion that is as free as possible – freer, in fact, than you will find on virtually any other blog.”
I’d like to call a spade a spade……but I wont! I have personally experienced Bolt’s bent moderation, thus his statement above is simply UNTRUE!/b>.
Is Bernard Slattery still the moderator of bolta’s blog? (A non rhetorical information seeking question.)
If so, Slatt’s own blog would give an insight in to the cut of the jib of the moderation policy at bolta.
You’re stuck with jabbering away at your toxic obsessions like any other half-wit reduced to trolling along in the wake of Andrew Bolt or talkback radio.
I’m starting to like this John Birmingham fellow!
Cheers
Sincere apologies for the slow moderation today. As the four of us all have day jobs, sometimes we all get very busy at the same time. Today was one of those days. We appreciate how frustrating it is to have your comment sit in moderation for hours.
News would do well to require registration, with no free email services accepted, for comments on its various blogs.
“We appreciate how frustrating it is to have your comment sit in moderation for hours.”
Yeah, but much better than bolta’s moderation policy.
To wit. Robj @ comment #5 & #15, mrook @ #13
What’s that old quote from the Immoral Bard? Ah, yes, “Methinks the laddy doth protest too much,”
The thing that seems to be missed so far is that Andrew’s long post sets out to suggest that he should not be held responsible for what is published on his blog. Now my legal training is limited (non-existant) but surely he is responsible legally for publishing any comments on his blog?
I think also that no matter what he says he must take some responsibility for what is published under his name, claiming that it’s too hard to check everything is no excuse. If you can’t check everything to you satisfaction don’t publish. Surely it is better to err on the side of caution?
… and whilst we appreciate the sterling work of the Four Horsemen of the Poisoned Apocalypse, “Don’t give up yer day jobs.” :0)
You haven’t posted at PP before today, eh, Pig Head Sucker? The moderation here is very stern.
Though you’re probably right about the level of crazy shit on the ABC’s free-for-all Internet op-ed page comments.
However, I’m certain that ABC Online doesn’t commission brief, dogwhistling, hit-and-run pieces of less than one paragraph—i.e., the kind of thing that Bolt and Blair often throw out there to give their audiences a Two Minute Hate.
Jesus H Christ. Bolt is talking about moderating the hate speech out of his site and Pedro made a sensible comment.
Next thing you know dogs and cats will be living together.
Andy’s whining about being held responsible for the comments on his blog seems irreconcilable with the issues he allegedly has with comments about him posted at this blog. Of course everyone justifiably laughs at his handwringing.
On Poll Bludger I’ve called out remarks made about certain female politicians. While the offending comments haven’t been deleted, the blog host himself has commented to disassociate himself with those remarks, stating that he doesn’t agree with them. For as long as Andy allows those comments to remain in public view, and/or refuses to disassociate his own views from them, he will be fair game for people who want to attribute those comments to him and his personal viewpoint.
In my opinion he’s just whingeing about his sailing close to the wind on that stuff and being called out for it. Frankly it’s time he realised he’s running a blog attached to an MSM site, not some low rent teenagers fantasy shit where *anything goes*. If that means ditching the moderators and replacing them with people who actually recognise offensive material when they see it, then so be it.
After reading the Bolt blog today I think that Bolt seems to be shaken with the Hungry Beast expose.
As much as a lot of us love to despise the old Bolta (and particularly his myopic view of the world) I personally would not like to see him drown in the swill of hatred that is his comments section. There seems to be a trade off between Bolt and his commentors in that he listens to their lonely hate filled drivel and in return they go and regurgitate his political spin on other blogs. (The Winged Monkeys)
I just watched him on the 7pm Project and Bolt did ok, his tactic of dominating his “adversary” cannot work on that show because everytime he paused for breath all 5 of them tried to chime in … and what would be the point of dominating Dave Hughes anyway?
Surly Simon: “… but surely he is responsible legally for publishing any comments on his blog?”
News Ltd claim ownership of anything published on their websites and with ownership comes responsibility.
Marek: JB has a good blog.
Goodness me, it’s almost as bad as the racist bigotry against Jews posted in comments on the Crikey website:
http://www.danbymp.com/index.php?article=414
Surlysimon asks:
“How does something “sneak” through your moderation?”
Excellent question.
In response to hateful conspiracy theories about Jews and related vile intolerance sneaking through onto this website, Crikey publisher Eric Beecher concedes that it was due to “poor editing”
http://www.danbymp.com/dlpdf.php?document=ajn006sep1109
There you go, that’s how.
Bolt has a choice: either the vile shit gets published or it gets canned. If he decides that it gets published then it’s churlish to refuse to accept responsibility for your decision if someone draws attention to it at a later date. Not *strictly* your *decision* to publish? It’s your blog, with your name at the top. This is adult stuff: what would you accept being published under your name? Homophobic comments? Sexist comments? Racist comments? Ultimately as the blog host you are responsible for the content that appears on it. I’m guessing it’s why comments here are moderated. Bolt needs to cop the Hungry Beast on the chin and learn from his national humiliation.
I didn’t see it, though I can certainly believe he didn’t make too big a goose of himself. But exactly what is the point of an old-fashioned Silent Majority Man going on the kind of effing-arsey-permissive comedy show that, y’know, represents the culture of people under forty?
This is why Tim Blair joked about keying the cars of the Chaser boys when he first met them. He understands that real piss-fartin’-around comedians are the last people he should attempt to engage with his own brand of outrage-fuelled agit prop humour. Jokes about burkas are fine the first couple of times, then they just become plain unhealthy.
Ben, good point, and yes it may be News who are responsible but I bet they will consider their colunmists as being realy responsible. And given this at the end of a the post about a gay couple fighting for custody of a child which has no genetic conection to either person “I do admire, however, the commitment of the gay men to these children. Bravo”
Andrew is really on the defensive http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_readers_or_my_safety/
I just posted this on Andrew’s colunm
“Andrew, you set out with a post to critisise David Marr and in doing so invited others to comment on him and his behaviour.
If you are going to publish anything you have a responsibility to moderate what goes out under your name, if you can’t (for what ever reason) then maybe you should turn off comments. I am sure you would be as upset if some other blog had let a comment offensive to you pass and would, rightly, seek redress in such a case.
To say you are not responsible for what others write is disingenuous, you invite comment and discussion and as such must take some responsobility for what others write. If you don’t want to be responsibility for comments, don’t publish them, allow people to write to you but keep the disscusion private.
We all have a responsibility for what we write, you however carry the extra responsibility of what you allow to be published on the web.”
I shall be interested to see if it is published
Surly@30
“But I now face a moral dilemma.
My intention has been to allow on my blog a discussion as free as possible – freer, in fact, than you find on virtually any other blog or paper.
Even my worst critics, several of whom post on it almost daily, concede I have done as I promised.”
I, and others on this blog, have registered many occasions in the past where measured comment that disagrees with the Bolt ethos gets snipped. Moral dilemma, indeed!
Dudette@27
A fair cop, the difference is that Crikey isn’t trying to elicit sympathy and abrograte responsibility. We all know this sort of thing happens, it is how one responds that is important.
The one thing we are all going to have to accept is that while the internet can provide a way for all of us to share views it can be used by those with views we abhore. the challenge ahead is how we keep a free flow of ideas while keeping the extreem at bay.
surlysimon @ 30: reading through the comments in that post gives indication that Andy’s problem is bigger than simply implementing a registration system for comments. In amongst the harmless nutters who see the hungry beast segment as a labor conspiracy are people who still having a go at Marr. People who unbelievably question his right to complain about whatever homophobic comment it was that got deleted! It’s those people who are attracted to bolt’s blog, and while they still see his blog as a ‘friendly’ space, he’ll keep running into this kind of problem.
And please andy, cry me a river with all that whining about the hard work of moderating. If you don’t want to get pinged for publishing offensive comments, and find moderating out everything too hard, the answer is simple: turn off the comments facility.
I had a bit of a tilt at the windmill and posted a comment to El Bolto’s blog. What are the chances that it’ll get through moderation?
Reproduced below (huge props to Murray @ 12, whose link I unashamedly stole and used) for the amusement of all:
“There are three things that you have to hear:
1. Andrew, you are a grown up. You have only yourself to blame for the type of reaction that your brand of dog whistling provokes in your acolytes so how about you consider growing a spine and taking some responsibility?
2. If you are on record as holding Marieke Hardy responsible for her commenters then it seems hypocritical that you do not feel the same thing about yourself.
3. I can only help but wonder at your concern that one of your commenters might get you sued when you appear to be perfectly capable of getting sued entirely without their aid.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.”
confessions
See @31 it still isn’t published on Andrew’s blog.
I see Andrew is off again today in his column almost repeating word for word what he put up yesterday on the daily forum.
I do not see the Hungry Beast skit as a direct attack on Bolt but rather an example of how close to the surface racist feelings are in Australia.
As an aside why does Bolt keep on saying things like “Bush supporters and opposers, Howard supporters and opposers”… last time I checked these two guys were in charge of not a lot. He could at least say Rudd and Obama. He cannot even try and apologise or explain his position without cheap point scoring.
“That said, I’m curious to know why Beast thought a comment like this was so racist, when it seems to be made about men arrested for allegedly plotting to kill Australian soldiers as part of their jihad, and already defined as just “a few ratbags”: ”
Erm, I heard somebody equating Muslims, not terrorists or Jihadists but Muslims with Pit bulls. How did Andrew miss it?
“So as you can see, against my duty, as I perhaps arrogantly perceive it, to allow as free a discussion as possible, ”
{Nope – Tobby}
C’mon Toby…. Do you believe that statement? Your edit might make others think I’ve gone off the deep end.
OK
I do not believe the statement about Andrew allowing free discussion is true, ie I believe it is untrue!
Another take on it.. Consider Bolt’s blog to be like talkback radio. If someone rings in to a talkback radio show and starts ranting and raving as per the comments the Hungry Beast used then the radio station would be at liberty to either pull the plug and use the 7 second delay (moderation).
If they did not (Cronulla Riots anyone) then the broadcaster would be held responsible. I do not see any difference to that in this case.
Newscorp has a comments policy on their blogs. If the moderators are allowing the comments through then there is an issue. They are either missing them or allowing them through. I hope they are missing them in the mix of the 13,000 comments a week as stated.
If there is not enough moderators then they need to get more. Simple.
I literally LOLd at the title of his column: “The readers or my safety”.
Safety?? Honestly, he’s always so hysterical. An ABC comedy program highlights a few comments on his blog and suddenly he’s risking life and limb in order to provide a service to readers.
Talk about over-egging your cake.
Confessions, I think your comment fits neatly with the ‘victimhood’ issue I have just raised in my new post (follow the pingback at comment 42).
RobJ – apologies; I’m writing and moderating at the same time and so my editing of your comment was abrupt. There were one or two words in your statement that were problematic, even though your point was a perfectly valid one. your comment 39 clarifies it nicely anyway.
No worries Toby, I’m just thankful you’re moderating