Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Barrie Cassidy

Mar 14, 2011

Aunty, we have a problem.

One of the most difficult things that can happen in any friendship is when you find someone you care about harming themselves, inadvertently or otherwise, and realise that they need to

Share

One of the most difficult things that can happen in any friendship is when you find someone you care about harming themselves, inadvertently or otherwise, and realise that they need to be stopped before the damage is permanent. I think that it’s time for us to let Insiders know that it needs an intervention.

The way that Insiders was originally sold to Australia’s political junkies was that it would be a mixture of interviews and discussion that would allow more time for analysis of the political scene, what it’s turned into is just another venue for polemicists to spew their bile and repeat inaccuracies. Throw in the perpetual victimhood expressed by the conservative commentariat that they are ‘outnumbered’, and you end up with a show where accuracy is sacrificed in an effort to reduce the accusations of bias from the noise machine on the right. Worse still, every issue seems to be discussed not on its merits but through the prism of how it will be perceived by the political media, as if those conducting the discussion aren’t a big part of how the political debate is framed.

Yesterday morning’s episode of Insiders provided a text book example of the problems that the show has. Let’s start with Andrew Bolt’s very first contribution to the program, discussing the after effects of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Bolt dismissed the problems that have befallen Japan’s nuclear power plants as a “political symbol”, and warned that the green movement would attempt to “beat it up”. No mention of the fact that the need to shut the reactors down has left Japan without a significant portion of its electricity generation capacity, no mention of the fact that it may take months, or even years before some of these reactors are tested thoroughly and brought back online.

This was on the heels of his claim that the Chernobyl disaster was only responsible for 50 deaths. While Bolt is justified in shooting down some of the hyperbole about deaths linked to the Chernobyl disaster, he’s being disingenuous when he chooses to quote a UN panel that found Only 50 deaths – all among the reactor staff and emergency workers – can be directly attributed to acute radiation exposure but ignore the fact that the same report claims that “4,000 deaths will probably be attributable to the accident ultimately”. It’s cherry picking, pure and simple, and when fellow panellist Kerry-Anne Walsh tried to contradict him he dismissed her and repeated his claim that the result of the Chernobyl disaster was only 50 deaths.

By allowing Bolt to introduce misinformation this way Insiders is actually harming the quality of debate. As the saying goes, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. It’s hardly like this is a first for Bolt, for example at the end of the infamous “University of East Bumcrack” exchange Bolt trotted out one of his favourite lines claiming that “the world has not warmed since 2001“, which is demonstrably wrong, but which was left unchallenged. Despite this Bolt continues to characterise his own appearances as being one dissenting voice as though he’s being somehow persecuted on set.

Insiders yesterday turned from discussion to farce when they gave time to Bolt’s ridiculous Bono / Gillard comparison which was based on the fact that both of them had mentioned the moon landing in an attempt to sweet talk an American audience. The fact that two people who were in primary school when Armstrong walked on the moon are still struck by the event, or that they should recall this memory when speaking favourably of the US is hardly a surprise. That Insiders should spend time discussing a stupid right wing meme is an example of the show lacking a serious interest in the issues that are driving our politics.

This brings us to the way that Insiders manages to reduce every issue to a discussion of how it will play out in the media, rather than an examination of the issues themselves. This is the worst kind of self delusion as Barrie and the panel talk about how different events or policy may be viewed, while blithely ignoring the fact that they are a part of the group that defines how events will be portrayed to the public.

This may be Insiders greatest failing, and this weekend past we saw a perfect example of it in response to Kevin Rudd’s comments on Libya. Instead of discussing whether or not a No-Fly Zone is something that should be supported by Australia the discussion was focussed on what a difference between Gillard or Rudd meant to Gillard’s image. This followed a discussion about acrimonious advisers leaking to the press, and how that would affect Rudd’s standing and role.

Later in the program Kerry-Anne Walsh decried the fact that our politicians are being driven by Newspoll with Andrew Bolt chiming in, with a monumental lack of self awareness, to point out that this is the fault of journalists who are using Newspoll as a way to shape their coverage. Amongst the mutual agreement on set no-one seemed willing to accept that they may have a role in the failings of our political media.

When the issue moved on to the Government’s plan to introduce a carbon price we saw, again, that the main focus of the panel was the ‘atmospherics’ and the image problem being faced, rather than serious discussion about the positions being taken by our elected representatives. The only exception to this was Andrew Bolt, who took the opportunity to declare that reducing carbon emissions is futile.

Insiders is emblematic of everything that is wrong with political journalism in Australia today. Instead of substance, the discussion focusses on playing gotcha. Rather than contribute to informed discussion about issues, the panel talks about who has the best ‘narrative’ and ‘atmospherics’. At the end of the program the viewer is no better informed about the issues that are facing out government, and depending on who’s on the panel they may even be less informed than when they began. Sunday morning political television has always been a niche product, but who does the ABC think that Insiders appeals to in its current guise? Certainly not to the informed viewer with an interest in politics, as Andrew Bolt gleefully pointed out on his blog those viewers seem to be getting more and more fed up with the sub par performance of Insiders and some of its guests, you only need to have a look at the #insiders tag on twitter to see it.

The first step in helping Insiders lays with the program itself. Sure, we need to let it know that we care about it, that we want it to be great, that we want it to stop hurting the people who care about it, but before things can get better, Insiders needs to admit that it has a problem.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Dave Gaukroger

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

100 comments

100 thoughts on “Aunty, we have a problem.

  1. Cuppa

    The more accurate name for it would be ONESIDERS.

  2. GlenTurner1

    What hacks me off is that they don’t live up to the title — “Insiders”.

    The best recent example is their criticism of Rudd for hassling the Japanese government for more information on the failure at the TEPCO reactor. Rudd *is* an insider, he obviously knew about TEPCO’s previous lack of willingness to fully own and explain issues. Rudd was doing exactly what he should be doing — looking after Australia’s interests abroad — and his gut feel that all wasn’t being explained as fully as it should be turned out to be exactly the right call.

    Of course, this week’s Insiders will be spellbound by the thought that a foreign affairs minister might actually get some attention from the public during a major foreign affair.

  3. Paul

    Not sure why the writer ever had a friendship with Insiders, it is a bit like Q&A – utter crap using froth instead of substance and thinking hatchet jobs are journalism. I fell out with it almost immediately, kept watching hoping against hope but finally realized junkies have to want to change and journos have to want to be professional. I even tried writing to them – please don’t laugh.
    What pisses me off is that my taxes pay for the ABC to present this rubbish. My conclusion (6 months into Rudd’s premiership) – slash their budget so they cannot spend our money on this stuff, specify no current affairs, commentaries, Drums, Fran Kelleys, Crabs, Ullmans etc just simple good quality entertainment like Rake and simple news reporting with no commentary or leading questions.
    They say reality tv is cheap tv, well it is not as cheap as the ABC political coverage. Phew that’s off my chest!!!

  4. Idlaviv

    Thanks for the great post Dave.
    I’ve also enjoyed many comments, ie. William Bodie, Gos, & Diogenes.

    But for sheer skill and execution – monkeywrench @56 tops all.

  5. Angra

    AB is heading for a fall.

    I tried to post this on his blog (a bit pointless I admit) but I think he has blocked me since I referred to Press Council complaints against him.

    This report from the NY Times is pretty scary –

    “The two critical questions over the next day or so are how much radioactive material is spewed into the atmosphere, and where the winds carry it. Readings reported on Tuesday showed a spike of radioactivity around the plant that made the leakage categorically worse than in had been, with radiation levels measured at one point as high as 400 millisieverts an hour. Even 7 minutes of exposure at that level will reach the maximum annual dose that a worker at an American nuclear plant is allowed. And exposure for 75 minutes would likely lead to acute radiation sickness. ”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16nuclear.html?src=twrhp

    Makes you wonder how much of a cover-up there has been. Did the powers that be deliberately and conveniently confuse microsieverts with millisieverts?

  6. Diogenes

    Good call Dave, and I’d agree with Jeremy’s comment that Insiders should run a correction next week on both of the numbers Bolt got wrong – the one for the GetUp rally, and the one for the Chernobyl accident. Yes, the ABC can allow guests their own opinions, but it should not be in the business of broadcasting blatant factual errors. Bolt’s overall performance was bizarre, even by his outlandish standards – calling the Government a shambles, the worst ever etc. To me it fits with a pattern … two Saturday’s ago we had the pompous Paul Kelly telling us that Australia had no alternative but to go back to the polls. The Right appears hell-bent on bringing this Government down asap, as if they see this as the last best chance to destroy it before it implements its agenda and perhaps turns around its stocks.

    The other thing about Bolt’s performance was his claim that the Sunday papers were guilty of beating up the nuclear crisis, which he predicted would turn out to be a case of “nothing to see here folks”. If anything, Bolt’s judgment is worse than his grasp of the facts and reality. And if a journalist has neither of those going for him, what’s left?

    As for Gos @93 … do have a Bex and a good lie down! Inviting Assange to pose a question was good thinking. It was a piece of good journalism and it made for good television. It added spice and interest. They did the same with Hicks v Howard. Clever thinking and good for Q&A, definitely the best current affairs show around at the moment.

  7. Angra

    SBS Insight is much better imho.

  8. Gos

    Arranging the Assange question on QandA last night with the calculated aim to create media coverage takes the ABC to a new low.

    In effect the station deliberately hijacked the PM’s appearance to create publicity for itself.

    This discredits the show completely. How many times has this happened before? How many ordinary questions are planted? How often does the ABC use its own staff as “audience members”?

    It also means that the ABC intervened in the discourse between voters and PM. having been criticised heavily, not least by ABC writers, for failing to explain the carbon tax, when the PM does the ABC steals the coverage for itself with a set-up.

  9. William Bodie

    Why can’t they find more thoughtful, less reactionary people from the conservative side of politics on this program.

    The idea of having guests with differing points of view is a good one and should be encouraged, I hate just nodding with agreement all the way through a discussion, but I really can’t see the point in having Andrew Bolt on this program as I know exactly what he is going to say on every topic they cover.

    Singing from the elementary school conservative songbook and breaking everything down into left and right might work for the howling claque on his blog, but for those of us who want something a bit more thoughtful it borders on a parody. Of course he was going to say that about the reactor explosion, of course he says that about climate change, it’s Conservatism for Dummies.

    Surely we deserve better than commentators with his lack of depth and insight, and until we have them shows like Insiders will be a pale imitation of what they should be.

  10. confessions

    ABC at it again.

    [Rudd flick-passes political football]

    That would be an opinion, expressed as a fact.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/15/3164340.htm

  11. calyptorhynchus

    #53 “everyone has a right to an opinion!”

    Yes, but everyone doesn’t have the right to have their opinion expressed on national TV at taxpayers’ expense, this should be reserved for people who can make fact-based arguments.

  12. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    ‘Further to Dave @66 he forgot to add, “…continued efforts to highlight incidents where this is not the case, but only from a lefty point of view. We’ll ignore lies from our friends.”’

    Enlightening as always, Col.

  13. Cuppa

    The Abbott Broadcasting Corporation at it again …

    [
    Gillard piling deceit on deceit over tax: Abbott

    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has branded Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s explanation of why she broke her pre-election pledge not to introduce a carbon tax as “deceitful”.]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/15/3164282.htm?section=justin

  14. Duncan

    The ABC has been heading downhill ever since Howard abolished the position of staff elected director, and stacked the board with his mates.

    Something, admittedly, that both sides of politics have been guilty of.

  15. twobob

    Cuppa
    That would certainly be a worthwhile petition.
    In my view it is a must, perhaps it should be suggested to GetUp?

  16. Cuppa

    Twobob,

    You’re absolutely right on why an institution like the ABC is critical to the media landscape and a healthy democracy more widely. Don’t get me wrong: I’m a firm advocate of a strong, independent public broadcaster. I would never argue for its abolition, even when mightily pissed off by what’s happening in its name. I believe there needs to be a public enquiry into the politicisation and political activities of the ABC. I also wouldn’t mind seeing a petition calling for a spill of the Board and Management positions.

  17. twobob

    It’s not as though they don’t know what could happen if they ostracise enough of the population. So why do they seem intent on pissing off as many people as possible???

    Cuppa it is because that is what they want, it is their objective.
    And even though your criticism of the current ABC is entirely warranted you are playing right into their hands. Without the ABC where would you find news outlets that would even bother reporting the left-ish viewpoint. Fairfax? Dubious at best and for regional Australia (a large and politically important component) there would be a poofteenth of bugger all.
    NO don’t agitate for their removal agitate for a de-politicisation of the ABC. As previously suggested remove all analysis and concentrate on facts and let free thinkers make up their own mind. Don’t let the lying rodent win for without the ABC the left have no hope what-so-ever.

  18. RobJ

    [So why do they seem intent on pissing off as many people as possible???]

    Not as many as possible, just their core audience, they don’t want us, they’d rather appeal to the same demographic as New Ltd, there’s more of them and whilst the ABC may claim they don’t care about ratings the reality is that they do. Like I say there’s plenty of good stuff online so I don’t care if the ABC wants to dumb itself down. Why bother with free to air tv? It’s had it’s day, it’s history.

  19. twobob

    mumof6
    Are you for real?
    Do you really like it when blatant untruths raise the ire of your opponents?
    Do you really like it when polite argument descends to shouting match?
    I suppose you would enjoy seeing those you disagree with beaten to a bloody pulp by some mindless gorilla too, it would fit with your other likes I am certain.
    thanks a lot
    You provide even more evidence that you don’t have to be dumb to be a coalition supporter but that dumb people support the coalition.

  20. Mr Denmore

    Barrie Cassidy’s silence in the face of News Ltd spin is touched on in my latest edition of The Failed Estate.

    http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/2011/03/noise-vs-signal.html

  21. Cuppa

    RobJ wrote:

    [I vote with my feet, I’m just not going to bother watching it anymore.]

    I found the following interesting in light of your comment, plus the many others I’ve read from people who won’t be watching any more.

    Review of the ABC’s Self-Regulation Framework (.pdf) (September 2009):

    [… The ABC‟s independence is fundamental to the ABC fulfilling its functions, especially its functions to inform, educate and promote the arts. Effective self-regulation is fundamental to maintaining independence. Lose enough credibility, lose enough relevance, lose enough public trust, and loss of independence is likely to follow.

    (my emphasis)]

    It’s not as though they don’t know what could happen if they ostracise enough of the population. So why do they seem intent on pissing off as many people as possible???

  22. Cuppa

    Quantize,

    [Obviously the revolting people are clicking furiously..]

    Crikey published a piece recently revealing the stacking of online polls by Liberal operatives …

    [Online reader polls may be a thing of the past for The Australian after the Holt Street 2.0 heavies conceded it was likely the results of two recent polls run on its website were hacked.

    Eyebrows were raised when a poll on The Oz website suggested on Wednesday there had been 70,000 votes (more than 97% of respondents) against the use of taxpayer funds to fly relatives to Sydney for an asylum seeker funeral. By Thursday morning, the poll had been updated to record more than 100,000 votes against the decision.

    And they pointed to another poll run on the website which recorded more than 263,000 people (99.17% in the affirmative) voting on Julie Bishop’s position as deputy leader of the Coalition.]

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/18/online-reader-polls-on-life-support-at-holt-street-2-0/

  23. Brizben

    @Rohan 63 Given the bullying nature of one of the more popular Australian blogs, this is a much safer place to drop rebuttal comments.

  24. quantize

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/some-words-you-cant-use-gillard-on-radio-announcer-20110314-1buo6.html#poll

    If you saw it, I would find it hard to believe anyone thought it was a poor performance..

    Obviously the revolting people are clicking furiously..

  25. quantize

    ‘Further to Dave @66 he forgot to add, “…continued efforts to highlight incidents where this is not the case, but only from a lefty point of view. We’ll ignore lies from our friends.”’

    But isn’t your hero Andrew Bolt doing that for you? Either way this bullshit false equivalence is probably the biggest fib peddled by the hard right…if you gathered up all their lies in one place, you’d need a helluva lot bigger box than the ones from the left..

  26. leone

    I used to watch The Insiders. Now I just see who’s on the panel and who is the politician of the week and more often than not opt to go away and do something better with my time. I refuse to watch if that moron Bolt is on the panel.

    I do, however, come back for Talking Pictures. Sunday mornings on the ABC would be much improved if The Insiders was ditched and Mike Bowers given the whole hour to do his thing. The political commentary of our leading cartoonists leaves the self-indulgent waffle of The Insiders panellists for dead.

  27. Think Big

    Yet Cassidy has been complaining about an upswell in the nastiness of some of comments that have been pouring in. Hello? Anyone home?

  28. RobJ

    Great article Dave:
    [The first step in helping Insiders lays with the program itself. Sure, we need to let it know that we care about it, that we want it to be great, that we want it to stop hurting the people who care about it,]

    I’m afraid not, I reckon the ABC knows exactly what it’s doing, it isn’t ‘our ABC’. It seems that the ABC is responding to the false criticism of bias by becoming more biased towards those who are screaming it.

    Cassidy hardly ever challenges the trollumnist when he spouts his nonsense, always gives him a free kick. Why? Possibly ratings, attracting the Boltard’s to the show at the expense of me.

    I vote with my feet, I’m just not going to bother watching it anymore. There are plenty of online sources for political analysis, I’ll just let the ABC waste my however many cents a day. Sod ’em!

  29. Cuppa

    [Only that Abbott wasn’t really ambushed. His office was told hours before what would be in the interview and the questions that will be asked. That made Abbott’s reaction a whole lot more problematical because what happens when he is truly ambushed.]

    I guess if he was truly ambushed, he’d escalate his reaction to the next level – assaulting the journalist. He is on the record, after all, as favouring “guided democracy” – where the media is kept in service to the state.

  30. Mobius Ecko

    “was worse television terrorism than the Seven Network’s “shit happens” ambush of Tony Abbott by Mark Riley.”

    Only that Abbott wasn’t really ambushed. His office was told hours before what would be in the interview and the questions that will be asked. That made Abbott’s reaction a whole lot more problematical because what happens when he is truly ambushed.

  31. Angra

    Wonders will never cease. In todays Australian, Shanahan leaps to the defence of Gillard. Is he being unintentionally ironic again? He also coins a new term “television terrorism”. This may come back to haunt him.

    “ABC’s ambush a travesty of politics and news reporting

    Watching the Prime Minister cop a pasting from the snow-haired Australian after she defended whistleblowers was as alarming as watching the former prime minister dodging footwear live on air.

    The ambush of Gillard, with no warning from the program, which claims to provide unscripted questions from “you” the audience, was worse television terrorism than the Seven Network’s “shit happens” ambush of Tony Abbott by Mark Riley.”

  32. Cuppa

    Even Dennis Shanahan thinks Their ABC has gone too far with the politicking …

    [ABC’s ambush a travesty of politics and news reporting

    The ABC has gone too far – for a publicly funded, so-called even-handed public broadcaster, last night’s Q&A ambush of Julia Gillard was a travesty of politics and news reporting.

    {…}

    Last night the ABC pre-arranged for Julian Assange, accused of crimes in Sweden and sought for political havoc in the US, to accuse the Australian Prime Minister of “treason”.

    While Gillard kept a good-humoured face on what was happening, the ABC organised for Assange, who has been helped by the government in his court cases, to appear on a video to make his accusation. The program then backed up the WikiLeaks “anarchist” with questions from outside and the studio audience.

    Watching the Prime Minister cop a pasting from the snow-haired Australian after she defended whistleblowers was as alarming as watching the former prime minister dodging footwear live on air.

    The ambush of Gillard, with no warning from the program, which claims to provide unscripted questions from “you” the audience, was worse television terrorism than the Seven Network’s “shit happens” ambush of Tony Abbott by Mark Riley.

    {…}

    At a time when the national broadcaster can’t even competently report on a 24-hour basis on the major disaster in Japan, the time spent “setting up” Gillard was a disgrace.]

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abcs-ambush-a-travesty-of-politics-and-news-reporting/story-fn59niix-1226021429347

    Time for a public inquiry into the political activity of the ABC.

  33. Captain Col

    Further to Dave @66 he forgot to add, “…continued efforts to highlight incidents where this is not the case, but only from a lefty point of view. We’ll ignore lies from our friends.”

  34. Adam Rope

    Rohan @ 63, (BTW is that a Lord of the Rings reference) with respect, no you can’t.

    The authors of this blog do try to keep the dialogue (sp?) factual, and sane.

    Marc Hendrickx’s blog is neither IMHO.

  35. Dave Gaukroger

    Rohan @63, I’m quite comfortable with the lengths that Jeremy and I go to to ensure that our criticisms are based on identifiable evidence. As to the charge of fixation, I’m not about to apologise for wanting our media to operate in a transparent, evidence based environment, or for our continued efforts to highlight incidents where this is not the case.

  36. AR

    I concur with JamesJ@57 – the show is about politics not issues, spin not reality. The thought of innumerate (MegaGeorge being an exception) hacks discussing real world stuff, whether climate change or immigration or economic policy, misses the point. Their sole function is to discuss, tease out and illuminate (oh be still my hopesore heart) how the pollies machinate and the consequences for those of us who have to pay for and live in the world.
    So, happy to have a laugh at Blot & Pierless though I don’t understand why Cassidy, supposedly the moderator/chair, allows them to spout blatant & demonstrable untruths.

  37. quantize

    ‘With respect Adam you could say the same thing about the authors of this blog.’

    Ah no sorry, that’s just silly…i don’t see Jeremy or Dave distorting facts like its a ‘bit o fun’ on our national broadcaster..

    if they’re fixated, thank F they are!

  38. Rohan

    With respect Adam you could say the same thing about the authors of this blog.

  39. james jenkin

    For god’s sake! The show’s called ‘Insiders’. It should be about machinations and politics – not whether issues are right or wrong. That’s what makes it interesting and different.

    Or is that somehow impure? Shall we remove Insiders and Rage and Roary the Racing Car, and replace them with something more educational?

  40. Adam Rope

    Captain Col @44, if you think that Marc Hendrickx’s bizarre never ending war on science and the ABC is ‘factual’ then you have a serious issue.

    Whilst I acknowledge he has had some complaints acted upon by the ABC, the un-remitting serial nature of his complaints indicate someone with a complex bordering on a fixation.

  41. monkeywrench

    B.Tolputt
    Possibly the best comment on the dreadful state of this nation’s commentary yet.

  42. B.Tolputt

    When the 7PM Project becomes the example of political discourse in this country – there is something very @#$%ed up at the ABC. The dumbing down of the political discourse in this nation is a sad thing to behold, and I’ve only followed it for eight years.

  43. Strife

    I hope Barrie was watching 7PM Project tonite. They preety much showed how its done.

  44. Think Big

    Haven’t had a response to my complaint. I suspect they’ve quite a few to get through this week.
    I only watched it because the previous week’s panelists were quite sensible but no, Bolt was back after only a week ot two’s absence.

    Interestingly Bolt on tonight’s 7pm project (groan) was saying only 65 people killed at Chernobyl rather than the 50 he claimed on inciters. Does he just make it up as he goes?
    The scientist they had on was well ready for Bolt’s attack at least.

  45. Bushfire Bill

    I hope Bolt doesn’t come out and say that Dave or Jeremy are 3rd generation Canberra public servant. Also, wow, 800 people only turned up to the pro carbon tax rally, Bolt said so, must be right.

    Cassidy challenged him weakly on the number and then – out of etiquette or lack of courage – let it go.

    It was plainly a wrong number. Out by an order of magnitude and everyone knew it to be so. Yet Cassidy let it through because facts always take second place to farce on Insiders.

    This was an example of bare-faced lying, yet it was deemed “OK” for a national TV audience.

  46. John Reidy

    I think the problem stems from the name ‘ Insiders’

    Rather than discussing policy the panellists seem to be acting as ‘political advisors’ – in an attempt to get ‘inside’ the political process of that week. For political advisors everything is in terms of how something looks.
    Policy is reduced to ‘if this is a good or bad policy’ before moving onto how it will be portrayed.
    Also as you say – so many statements – several every week are unchallenged.

  47. mum of 6

    Was hilarious watching the lefty meltdown after insiders yesterday, I really can’t believe the amount of leftys frothing at the mouth urging people to complain about yesterdays program, You know we of the conservitive side could do the same thing 80% of the time watching the ALPbc but guess what we do reserve the right of everybody to have an opinion! You either agree with it or you don’t that is your choice but trying to shut out the opinion of someone you dont agree with goes against one of things we should be proud of in this country which is free speech and everyone has a right to an opinion! Get over it guys and grow up

  48. quantize

    Capt Coal and AB have a lot in common…’fact blindness’ for one.

    Definitely a desirable quality if ‘shrieking buffoon’ is your desired profile..

  49. monkeywrench

    You know, I actually belive that Barry Cassidy is scared of Andrew Bolt; as if his body language and demeanour suggest a propensity to violence. He certainly lets him get away with statements that might lead to fisticuffs in certain drinking holes in this town.