A comparison of the content of the editorials in some of the News Limited papers today.
Has “News Limited” ever rung as true?
While News Limited has quickly, and understandably, backed one of their most prominent columnists after yesterday’s embarrassing judgement, it seems rather obvious that they are not keen to engage in what was an important part of the judge’s reasoning. The entire thrust of Bolt’s articles was that people were choosing to identify as Aboriginal in order to obtain advantages not otherwise available to them, this was incorrect, but it’s not something that News wants to linger on.
The Australian’s editorial also laughably complains about Justice Bromberg ruling on how a “reasonable person” would interpret Bolt’s columns.
He discussed how the “style and structure” of the articles “invite supposition” and, remarkably, said: “Language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilised.”
Perhaps the editorial writer missed the year 10 English lessons when irony and sarcasm were discussed? As Jeremy pointed out yesterday, the ruling dismissed Bolt’s well worn “I’m not saying…” disclaimer as disingenuous, for the Oz to claim that this is anything but obvious shows contempt for the comprehension skills of their readers.
If News, and Bolt’s supporters, want their free speech argument to be taken seriously then they need to first admit why Bolt lost the case, rather than attempting to muddy the water.