An interesting choice of words by Andrew Bolt yesterday [my emphasis added]:
And I’m not surprised by women turning on Rann, after his treatment of Michelle Chantelois, his former lover
Not “alleged former lover”; not “the woman who claims to be his former lover”. An assertion of fact. Never mind Rann’s outright denial that his relationship with Chantelois was a sexual one. Never mind that Rann initiated legal action against Seven and New Idea for publishing claims that the relationship was sexual. And never mind that even esteemed political commentators such as the man they call the Poison Dwarf still refer to Chantelois as “the parliamentary barmaid who claims [Rann] bedded her”.
Why did Bolt write as though the claim is established fact? It seems to me there are two possibilities.
One is that it’s a subtle attempt to smear Rann. There are some reasons that a conservative political pundit might think they could get away with a cheap attempt to damage Rann’s reputation. Rann is campaigning for re-election now – launching more legal action is going to be a distraction and, potentially, a bad look with the voters. The smearer could paint themselves as a martyr to the causes of free speech and open scrutiny of political candidates. And there’s a grey area in terms of the facts, because Seven’s apology did not retract the claim of a sexual relationship. I can see how a savvy partisan commentator might think it’s a win-win situation – either Rann reacts to the smear and creates a new controversy in the midst of a campaign, or it’s ignored and the statement is left to stand uncontested.
Is that what Andrew Bolt did? I have no idea, because the other possibility is that he simply chose his words carelessly. The Rann post was published just before 9am yesterday, just as Bolt was preparing for his riveting liveblog of Kevin Rudd’s appearance on Insiders (which, based on the comments, seems to have saved many of his readers from needing to actually view Rudd’s performance to form an impression of it). Perhaps, in his haste to get the post published and a latte brewed before Barrie started grilling softly interviewing Kevin, Bolt left out the crucial word “alleged” from the Rann post. In that case, one would hope he will realise his mistake and tidy up the language – not to mention taking care to avoid the same mistake in future.
UPDATE: Andrew Bolt has updated his post:
UPDATE
Apologies. I should note that Ran rejects the allegations:
“I have not had sex with her,” he said.
Thus lending support to the Latte Hypothesis.
(NB: I’ve also removed a sentence fragment that I’d left behind while writing and editing the original post.)
21 Comments
It means he can post an “apology” later and still re-post the smear.
Dam buster is right on the money I think. It’ll give him the opportunity to draw attention to it twice for the price of one.
Bolt doesn’t fact check another piece of trash journalism from The Australian:
http://andrewboltliesdeceptionsonagw.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/gore-promises-the-warmist-inquisition/
Bolt is a right-wing {removed – Tobby} – Hence, he writes for Rupert.
It’s Possibility No.1 for me.
BlueGreen @ 3:
The misinformation being put around on AGW by the deniers is getting out of hand. It’s time that some of these media bodies, commentators and writers were held to account in the courts.
It’s a single repetitive narrative…lefties are the baddies and wacko extreme right whingers are the good guys with all the ‘common sense’…on and on it goes, manufacturing rage and loathing, never pausing for logic.
I think you are all just forgetting that Bolt just writes a whole lot of common sense, which is why people like to read him, he tells it like it is, lots of common sense and no spin and lies like you get from leftists MSM journalists. At least that’s what his apologists tell us, Bolt is a voice of reason and “common sense” in a world gone mad.
“Common sense”, pah, some people wouldn’t know the meaning of those words if they bit them on the arse.
Your credibility Dewgong and Bolt’s is with Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.
the phrase ‘common sense’ literally has no meaning when used by people like you.
Quantize, I think you missed Dewgong’s use of the phrase “At least that’s what his apologists tell us”.
The whole common sense argument doesn’t hold any water with me at all. WTF IS common sense anyway?
Please explain how man got to the moon using common sense, or detected the rpesence of nutrinos? I would argue it is the opposite of common sense; it is critical thinking about current paradigms.
Bolt can have his common sense until the cows come home. He will not discover anything new in that time.
The whole common sense argument doesn’t hold any water with me at all. WTF IS common sense anyway?
I think you could describe common sense as a sort of “groupthink” actually, which is ironic in that one of Bolt’s favorite lines of attack is that all leftists engage in mindless “groupthink” and don’t have independent thoughts, to which all of Bolt’s followers who go to him to do their thinking for them obediently nod their heads and agree. “Yes, we are all different, yes, we are all individuals” They cry, and the leftists standing in the corner mutters “I’m not”
But to me, common sense is often a red herring used by people to dismiss arguments that are too outlandish for their sensibilities, or too difficult to comprehend, and it is often used and abused to shut down debate about anything new that frightens people.
Common sense said that if a man was meant to fly he would have wings.
Therefore common sense tells us all that man can’t fly.
And that would be true without the use of the scientific principles like physics and aeronautical engineering.
From this simple example common sense tells us that science should be listened to.
And common sense tells us that anyone advocating not listening to science is uncommonly stupid.
It really is a shame that common sense is so uncommon.
Tobias, To answer what was no doubt a rhetorical question “Is that what Andrew Bolt did?” = Yes, but as well as the points you mention, also because it was a very simply line that creates more news/forum/comments that include his name. It was largely just to create more media coverage of himself and it worked (but as you rightly point out would of worked better for Bolt if Rann had rightly taken legal action). Crazy huh.
I guess Bolt has given Premier Rann a trigger for a defamation case, if Bolt doesn’t apologise. I think its being just a little too kind however, to Bolt, to suggest he may have ‘forgotten’ to use the word allegedly.
I’m not an engineer but I still prefer to look at things from both sides. I might have an opinion about which of the two possibilities is more likely, but the fact remains that they’re both plausible explanations and I can’t say that one is correct and the other isn’t.
UPDATE: Andrew Bolt has updated his post:
Thus lending support to the Latte Hypothesis.
(NB: I’ve also removed a sentence fragment that I’d left behind while writing and editing the original post.)
Interestingly I would have thought the Update isn’t going to be a defence against the possible alleged defamation, if the alleged defamation is still there?
Why am I not surprised by the ‘apology’. In fact it is not an apology at all as bolt has just indicated that Rann (yes it has two n’s) has denied the allegations. There is still no alleged, still no supposedly. If you read Bolt’s article word for word it appears that it happened and that Rann denies it happened.
This is exactly what Ch 7 got into trouble for. Bolt still states that the affair happened.
Tobias
As I was reading it I started to think of that classic line from Yes Minister by Sir Humphrey
“Minister, you are mistaking lethergy for strategy’
In this case I was thing that you were mistaking incompetence for cleverness.
Remember much of Bolt’s intellectual dishonesty is founded in his unedrlying incompetence which is why he pursues a right wing agenda. It’s much easier than thinking.Just a few red rag talking pints and away you go.