Skip to content

Bolt v Flannery transcript

11 June, 2010

Andrew Bolt is still not sorry for being at best grossly careless and at worst dishonest and misleading. Here, he is gloating over the supposed thrashing he gave Tim Flannery for being an alarmist on his 8am spot on MTR 1377:

But on Wednesday – and give him credit – he wandered into our studio at MTR 1377 for some reason best known to himself.

Was it a false confidence, born of years of near unquestioned adulation?

Actually, no. If Bolt had listened to what Flannery said, or read the ‘transcript’ he put on his blog yesterday he wouldn’t be left wondering. So why was Flannery in the studio?

Flannery: You know what I came in here to talk about, Andrew, here? it’s our farm day we’re doing with our Deakin lecture series in Bendigo, at the Bendigo town hall today. And it’s a really exciting event…

Now that’s being “dangerously unresearched”,  Andrew.

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. 12 June, 2010 9:42 am

    Flannery just can’t stand any hard questions but while we are on the subject of AGW check out this PDF file which I found most interesting.
    http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
    warning its a fair sized file

  2. 13 June, 2010 9:17 am

    The subject is actually the shameless deceit of Andrew Bolt.

  3. 13 June, 2010 11:40 am

    Ileum
    I heard the broadcast and I can not see that your contention is at all correct.

    Flannery was not in any way ambushed he had to know that he would be facing Andrew (it is Bolt’s regular spot on MTR after all) and he had to know how things were likely to go but the fact is that he was ill prepared to argue his case .
    He may well have been intending to plug his event but how does that translate into any deceit on Andrew’s part? Politicians and activists are interviewed in the media all of the time and they often get asked about things other than their pet topic of the moment .

  4. 13 June, 2010 4:02 pm

    Bolt wonders why Flannery ‘wandered into the studio for a reason best known to himself’. That’s bullshit, Iain. Surely you can see that? He could have just read the transcript he posted on his blog the day before.

    As for the actual discussion on the consequences of climate change, all Bolt demonstrated was his inability to understand the word ‘may’.

  5. 13 June, 2010 4:38 pm

    Ileum
    Bolt is posing rhetorical questions in the intro to his column, surely you can see that?
    While you claim that it all turns upon the word “may” the point is that Flannery and his ilk have been caught out either whispering or down playing that particular word in just about every prediction and prognostication that they have been making about the worlds climate for the last decade. They have over sold the certainty of the AGW proposition and that flew very well when the tide of public opinion was with the alarmists but in a post Climate-gate age people are not just accepting the doom saying without question any more. Flannery has to be prepared to step up and either defend his previous position or he can change it.
    He was just petulant on the radio and it did him and his cause no favours.

  6. 14 June, 2010 2:40 pm

    No. Bolt knew why Flannery ‘wandered’ into the studio. To write a column the next day suggesting he didn’t is deceitful. The reason for his deceit is to stroke his own ego by painting a picture of the bumbling scientist wandering into the studio only to be slayed by the intellectual giant, Andrew Bolt. Or at least that’s how he wants his disciples to see it.

  7. 14 June, 2010 3:36 pm

    You do understand what a rhetorical device is don’t you? Bolt was speaking metaphorically when saying that Flannery “wandered into the studio” is you seem to be saying that it has to be literally and precisely “true” .
    Flannery would have known who he would see in the studio that morning, and he really should have been better prepared. And of course Andrew wanted to ask the hard questions and of course Flannery was out of his depth mainly because he could not remember or adequately defend the claims that he has made in the past.
    Look it seems to me that you want to suggest that the Evil Bolt lured a poor unsuspecting victim (Flannery) into a wicked trap and then treated him terribly.

    The problem for your argument is that Andrew was in plain sight the whole time and there were big signs (metaphorically speaking) that Flannery should have seen that this would not be a touchy feely non confrontational bit of radio and yet he still chose to go ahead.

  8. 15 June, 2010 12:00 pm

    At this point I’m beginning to doubt my ability to understand English, or at least the ability to express myself with it. If this is so, a rhetorical device may be a challenge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: