The sad part is that Mr Bolt is willing to offer solutions to Indigeneous issues which many people agree are a good idea but few are brave to address. They are happy to have a loathing mentality towards the whites pushed by academia and blame them for every ill. Bolts ideology is very similar to that of Noel Pearson and yet no one would dare call him racist. Free speach has been dealt another blow. The furphy of him not having his facts right could be attributed to numerous Government officials every day. The Governments climate change propaganda is almost without measure. We can have a PM lie to the electorate but the judge focus's on a very debatable point in order to demonise Bolt's often commonsense attitude. Really it is quite disgraceful. I would imagine Bolt has done far more for the aboriginal cause them many of his haters on this forum. He is at least willing to face truth and facts unlike many of those stuck in their idealogies and dogmas which delight the judges decision.

Lexi I have no need to read about Andrew Bolt to know he is as I have said here, worthless.
I too need no research to understand many, like runner and Bazz, will never see him for what he is.
Do not over value the understanding or ability to consider all sides some can not do that.
Any insult aimed so far at Bolt here praises him, he is worse than that.
Now it is time for me to again be offensive!
No other way exists to serve Aboriginal Australia.
Too many, from a bottomless pit of failure to understand, keep them pinned in those shanty's.
I doubt it is worth it but those government jobs are a treasure in rural Australia, wages above country average and full time.
A white holding one after lies is wrong.
I think more than 8.000 whites, it may be four times that,claim benefits as Aboriginal, every thing from special needs to pocket money.
And some, our education system gets extra funds for looking after failures but nothing for Victory's.
IF we polled our country, believe me, this white pretending to be black is not a rare thing.
Bolt knew this he fed his chooks,used terms he never should but hiding the truth is no answer.
IF Noel Pierson, now, entered our debate, we could find how wrong our handling of these folk is.
In a way not using such as him, instead of public servants to help solve these issues is paternalism and in the end racism.

runner,

Gillard went back on a promise, true. I won't defend that too much although I do agree with her decision to do so. She was also pulled up on it (and will probably never hear the end of it) which is more than can be said for the lies, half truths and inflammatory aspersions Bolt injects into the public domain day in, day out.

Even when I've agreed with Bolt's overall position in an article (albeit a rare occurrence), I've always always always found lies and distortions of truth and missing information in his work. He is excellent at what he does, which makes it all the more damaging.

The difference between the Bolt case and anything that goes on in OLO is the matter of audience. Bolt's readership, and that of the Herald-Sun, is unfortunately massive. His paper's influence over public opinion and sentiment is quite impressive, again unfortunately.

When one organisation, i.e News Ltd, has so much influence over the public domain, it is vital that our system is able to hold them to account. Unfortunately, until now, Bolt has been presenting his diatribe of inflammatory and misinforming crap to a large, susceptible audience, most of whom read nothing else, without once being held to account. The lies go unchecked.

The result of this, in my opinion, is a complete undermining of the quality of democracy in this country. If the electorate are being misinformed and unfairly aggravated one way or another, how can democracy be working properly?

Bolt is NOT a journalist. He is a propaghandist. He has people like you believing that he knows more about climate change than global scientific community after all. Now that is genius.

In the most recent edition of "Crikey,"
an interesting summation was given and I quote:

"If Bolt had got his facts right, if he had made
a conscientious attempt to weigh the evidence, then
he probably would have won his case even if his words
did offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate. He would
have been exempted under Section 18D of the Act, which
protects fair comment."

"As David Marr puts it in his piece in Fairfax newspapers
today - Justice Bromberg's judgement is not an attack on
freedom of speech, but on bad journalism..."

And -

"Bolt's methods - not only his factual errors - but the
way in which facts that didn't serve Bolt's purpose
are ignored. "

"The judgement amounts to an expose of which Media Watch
could be proud."

As stated previously - we expect truth and honesty from
newspapers - whether its opinion or not - it has to be
based on fact, not fiction.

We can live and hope that perhaps this will be - as a
warning to others to clean up their act.

Andrew Bolt often points out labor's shortcomings, so it is little wonder many on OLO dislike the guy.

Unfortunately, the truth often hurts, whether you are a labor supporter, an indigenous member or both.

Now if anyone seriously believes that this race deserves all they receive, from the tax payer, then you live on a different planet than I.

In fairness though, ther are plenty of non indigenous people who play the system and play it well.

Dear rehctub,

You also need to get your facts straight.

Try this website:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html