Oct 10, 2011

Blow-ups aplenty At Home With The Bolts

If the makers of At Home With Julia are looking for a sequel, then the last few days would provide plenty of illuminating material for a comedy called At Home With The Bolts.

Stephen Mayne — Journalist and Founder

Stephen Mayne

Journalist and Founder

If the makers of At Home With Julia are looking for a sequel, then the last few days would provide plenty of illuminating material for a comedy called At Home With The Bolts. The first issue causing grief was the revelation by Anne Summers in The Monthly that Andrew Bolt was previously engaged to a former work colleague at The Age. The woman in question has even gone so far as to provide The Monthly with a statutory declaration and showed copies of letters from Bolt. Bolt has quite clearly accused both her and Anne Summers of concocting this fact, but The Monthly’s editor Ben Naparstek told The Australian today: "I have seen letters from Andrew that he wrote to her saying that he was excited to be her fiancé." Oh dear. Either the mysterious fiancee is an elaborate hoaxer and document forger or Bolt is being loose with the truth. The other point of tension in the Bolt household has been over what Bolt claims was a "despicable defamation" of his wife by The Monthly. Jonathan Green, editor of The Drum, last week carried this extract from the 6700-word Summers profile on Aunty’s opinion and commentary site. The most contentious point related to the publication of some appallingly homophobic comments about David Marr on Bolt's blog the morning after Marr famously turned his back and started reading the paper whilst Bolt launched into one of his many climate change rants on Insiders. You only imagine the discussions inside the Bolt bunker in Malvern which led to Green first publishing and then later withdrawing the following two paragraphs, the first being from the Summers profile:
Marr accepted Bolt’s apology and his assurance he had not seen the posts. What Bolt did not disclose was that the person who was moderating the blog and past whom these comments had "snuck" was his wife, Sally Morrell. "It was an official arrangement for his wife to moderate his blog," Phil Gardner, editor-in-chief of the Herald & Weekly Times, told me. That arrangement ended about a year ago, he said, and Bolt’s blog is now moderated in-house at the Herald Sun. (Editor's Note: Andrew Bolt in correspondence on Friday afternoon disputes this point. He says that Sally Morrell was one of several moderators of the blog and far from the most involved. Bolt insists that none of the posts reported here were moderated by her. Documents provided by him suggest that in fact she was not moderating the blog at the times in question and that the posts in question were published by either Bolt or another staffer. He says: "I did much of the moderating myself on those days and through sheer carelessness through pressure of work, I almost certainly let those through myself. Sally helped on the blog for just a couple of hours a day and did not work the particular shift on which those mistakes were made. I deeply regret my error and am horrified that Sally is now given the blame.")
Whilst Bolt might have been mending fences with his wife, this line of defence clearly causes a major problem with Marr. After all, how can Bolt simultaneously admit to Green that he let those comments through, when he denied it directly to Marr and his Herald Sun editor, Simon Pristel, at the time. Marr today made the following comments to Crikey:
"In my view, those horrible posts were Andrew Bolt's revenge after I made a fool of him on Insiders that morning. I don't feel defamed by those posts but here is Andrew Bolt ridiculously hyper-ventilating when this is meant to be about my hurt feelings. "I am absolutely on the side of accuracy in this saga and believe Andrew has got himself into all sorts of trouble because he lied to his employer and he lied to me about who let through those posts. "Bolt simply cannot maintain three separate truths on this matter. Was it him? Was it his wife? Or was it this mystery other party who is "so decent" they cannot be named? "He needs to address the error. He admitted to Jonathan Green that it was probably him, so why did he deny it to me and his editor, Simon Pristel, at the time?"
Meanwhile, the rest of Bolt’s world is also under pressure. Mark Day has today predicted that his six-figure MTR gig is about to end because Gina Rinehart and John Singleton have not been able to get a bid together to buy any of Fairfax’s radio assets. The Bolt Report also produced woeful ratings yesterday and the prospect that News Corp will fund an expensive appeal against the Federal Court judgment is looking less likely by the day, especially now that the original columns are carrying the following in bold:
"The below article was the subject of a decision of the Federal Court on 28 September 2011 that it contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). To view a full copy of the Federal Court decision please access the following link:"
News Ltd can’t even get its facts right on this. The Australian’s Media section editor Stephen Brook today claimed "the Herald Sun has until Wednesday to decide if it will appeal". Truth be known, they have 21 days to appeal after orders are made, but orders are not yet made although some lively revelations are expected in court over the coming days. Facts are important in journalism and for all Bolt’s fury, Summers and The Monthly are not making any concessions on the accuracy of what they’ve published. The same can’t be said for what Marr says about Bolt’s approach to telling the truth. As for Morrell’s attitude, one can only imagine.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

57 thoughts on “Blow-ups aplenty At Home With The Bolts

  1. Michael Harvey

    Is Andrew Bolt really Miles Barlow? I think we should be told.

  2. Bellistner

    Peak Andrew Bolt?

  3. Holden Back

    Viscousness or viciousness- oils ain’t oils, you know.

  4. Son of foro

    The Blotter can be accused of just about anything, as long as he stays in the public spotlight. Even calling himself a ‘monster’ as he did last week is ok, it gives him that warrior air that a strange section of the population are attracted to.

    What he cannot survive is what is happening now: the fact that he is a clown. His credibility is shot; the public record is full to overflowing of his contradictions and nonsense; the monster mask has slipped to reveal a clown mask.

    His time is up. Next!

  5. Stephen Mayne

    Well done to The Australian for responding promptly to this Crikey story and correcting the online version of today’s Bolt story as regards the timeline of any possible Federal Court appeal. See updated version here:

  6. LisaCrago

    What on earth are you trying to do here Stephen?

    We all know that wives and family of the media are off limits.
    Does the fact you are blinded by anti-Boltism excuse this?

    New rock bottom. Muck raking of the highest order.
    You once used to occupy yourself breaking cutting edge political stories leaked from the inside. Stories of substance that were news worthy of paying to read.

    They were the good old days.

  7. michael r james

    @MICHAEL Posted Monday, 10 October 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Your post is so Freudian it made me laugh when you finished off with a cliched gay slur. Who’s in or out of the closet then? Did we suffer at our private boarding school?

    As someone who stopped watching Insiders because of Bolt–especially his contemptible attempt, every appearance without fail, to shout his prepared partisan rant to get the last word–I am grateful for the likes of Marr and George Megalogenis who were exceptionally fearless at calling out Bolt and his attempt to make the facts fit his perverted philosophy/ideology. In the last year I watched, it was noticeable that several of the more articulate evidence-based commentators (including both of the above) had declined to appear if Bolt was on the panel. It was the only rational approach because it was pointless and a travesty for the ABC to allow the likes of Bolt an essentially unmoderated platform. Marr and Megalogenis are particularly valuable commentators because they are impeccably informed on their topics of interest and can argue cogently on the facts while thinking on their feet, something Bolt can never manage.

    As Hitchens says, What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

    This is exactly as the High Court determined. Most rational thinking people did not need the courts to tell them this. And it explains and justifies Marr’s turning his back on the man. After years of bullying abuse from Bolt it was the only dignified response.

    And incidentally both Marr and Megalogenis have an accomplished body of commentary and analysis spanning several decades. They have both published substantive books that remain reference points today, many Quarterly Reviews and endless in depth long-form analytical articles. Bolt publishes rabid shouty opinions (from your post, clearly he is your style guru) based on distorted facts. Just like his one book (Still not sorry) about his disavowal of The Apology, which was quickly pulped and now–such is the demand from his legion of supporters–has even disappeared from Amazon (last time I checked years ago it was at least listed as “unavailable”). But then literacy, numeracy and calm rational thinking are not strong points among his followers, are they Michael?

  8. Filth Dimension

    Well done to Crikey for keeping the pressure on.

  9. urbancynic

    More Bolt hating from Mr Mayne does Mayne no credit. Sadly, Mayne seems to think he has licence to be as offensive as he likes (and continues to be since starting Crikey last century) with impunity. He is little better than a tacky tabloid gossip monger. The fact remains, as it should, he has the freedom to become the ‘king of offence’ in expressing his views – but I fear his view of freedom of speech only applies to that speech which agrees with his view of the world.

  10. David Hand

    I don’t get this story at all. I know Bolt is a figure of hatred among the Crikey community but I am struggling to see any newsworthy public interest content here.
    So someone who remains anonymous claims to The Monthly she was engaged to Bolt. Yawn.
    Somone put homophobic comments on Bolt’s blog and they were removed. Yawn, Yawn.
    No one is sure who the moderator was who let them through. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
    Crikey commenters pile in with heartfelt posts about how much they hate Bolt. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details