Andrew Bolt’s takedown of Greta Thunberg breached Press Council Standards
An article penned by Andrew Bolt about teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg being “deeply disturbed” and a “strange girl” with “so many mental disorders” did not treat the issues of mental heath and disabilities appropriately, Australia’s press watchdog has ruled.
In its defence of the article, News Corp, publisher of the Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph, said it is entirely reasonable to describe Thunberg in such a way.
Bolt’s vendetta against Thunberg breached the Press Council’s standards
Bolt’s opinion of Thunberg, it said, was based on factual material publicised by both Thunberg and her mother.
Mentioning that she has a mental disorder is factual. Using the terms “deeply disturbed” and “strange girl” are not factual medical terms. Further, a mental disorder does not disqualify you form having a valid point of view. His words are hugely offensive and hateful.
How about Bolt release his mental records so we can be transparent about him. Eyeroll. I wish he’d stop dividing the public. His views are plain nasty and divisive.
His views are divisive – just like CNN ABC
Yes, but he does have common sense and appeals to me an average Australian, sick of do gooders and pc.
Well I’m an average Australian and he does not appeal to me.
Just because someone has a mental illness doesn’t make them wrong about everything by the way. The world obviously wanted to support what Greta had to say too or it wouldn’t have gone so wild. Sometimes it takes a brave person or someone without the same filter to say what a lot of us really want to say.
Disgusting to speak of unwell people this way. Imagine if it was talking about a physical disability – swap out the story to talk about someone with a disability in place of mental illness and you see how wrong this is.
Very glad the Press Council ruled this a breach. So it should have.
It will be interesting if the Australian Press Council pursues Waleed Aly and Pete Helliar every time they make a joke about Donald Trump’s mental state and the anguish that it might cause those with mental health issues to have them trivialised in the name of a laugh or left wing outrage.
The ‘PC’ brigade are immune from punishment.
That doesn’t excuse poor behaviour from the right, or left
– it just highlights the double-standards.
It’s worth noting Bolt hasn’t been ‘punished’ here either. The Herald Sun published the ruling, and the original article includes a link to the ruling, but he’s not been censored or punished.
So it may come down more to who has complained, and what they’ve complained about – as the Press Council doesn’t investigate everything. Also, the Press Council wouldn’t rule on Peter Helliar and Waleed Aly on The Project, as it doesn’t regulate television. That would be the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Here is the ACMA broadcasting complaint form: https://www.acma.gov.au/broadcasting-complaint-form
I hope that somewhat clears up the debate.
Thanks,
Vivienne – Mumbrella
True, but I guess people that disagree with Waleed and/or Peter’s thoughts simply disagree and move on with their lives.
Nice one Harry.
As you point out – they are jokes. Substantially different from published ‘journalism’.
Spare us this false equivalence nonsense. You know better, the APC knows better and so does Bolt.
I like how you are comparing Trump to a child. I’m glad you can see this too.
Agree wholeheartedly
Rules for thee etc.
More of that premium content from Newscorp.
Andrew Bolt is a repeat offender at this and whilst it it great that the ruling happened I think the consequences should be more equivalent to the outcome. I note that the article is still online. Were the newspaper forced to add a prominent caveat to it that ‘this article breaches the standards we set for the press in Australia as it contains material that is likely to cause substantial offence, distress and prejudice to people with a disability and attempts to diminish the credibility of the subject’s views based on her disabilities. There is no public interest served by this article as a result.” it might be more of a deterrant. Whilst such an approach might feed a few conspiracy theories it would enable the casual reader to see it for what it is.
OR
A person could read it and simply make up their own mind about the merit of the article and any wording used.
So Bolt breached the rules (AGAIN) … and what was the consequence? Pretty much bugger all. Our press watchdog needs a power bone.
Her own mother describes in a book the various mental conditions she suffers from.
Dont criticise Andrew Bolt for telling the truth.
If you choose to take notice of her lectures go for it but most people prefer to listen to genuine experts.
Can you please point out any of these ‘genuine experts’ that disagree with human accelerated climate change?
If you would only look for them, you would find them. Just google
Aaron I did post a link, of a letter sent to the United Nations, with 500 Doctor’s, Professors, Nobel Laureates, PHD’s, etc expert’s in their field. But a moderator doesn’t seem to want to allow the comment through. Not sure why? Don’t they like a question being answered, don’t they like expert’s in their field and climate science for that matter, do they not like the United Nations? Hmmmm
“most people prefer to listen to genuine experts.”
Except Bolt et al on anything climate-related.
“most people prefer to listen to genuine experts”
Very true. So not Greta also!
Greta is obviously not a climate science expert.
She is a powerful advocate for how many people feel about the implications of climate Science. Her mission is clearly to challenge people to think about their actions.
Hopefully people like Bolt (and you) get that distinction.
Criticising her for something she is not trying to be is just patronising and denialism.
+1
What the world needs now is compassion and kindness. My heartfelt plea / naive wish is that Andrew Bolt and other influential voices role model open-mindness, care, willingness to listen and the grace to see the world from another’s’ point of view.
Can you please point out any of these ‘genuine experts’ that disagree with human accelerated climate change?
Aaron, sure here you go: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf
List of 500 scientist across the world. Nobel laureates, experts in their fields, from esteemed universities.
Your welcome.
Lots of other scientist and lots of other lists, publications, etc; albeit they are certainly in the minority.
That being said, and I really don’t want all the yelling, I do believe in climate change, it will be a negative effect on our planet and they key is to reduce overall C02 emissions as quickly as possible.
Listening to Greta, Prince Harry in bare feet, Al Gore or journalists isn’t the answer. Never was. Also denying there is no disagreement in the scientific community also doesn’t help.
There is a difference between these two characters.
One openly admits that they have clinical mental issues, but has a crystal clear view on how to ensure a better future for our planet.
The other can only criticise all that they see that they don’t like or disagree with, while self-proclaiming their own mental perspicacity.
Not Anti Bolt by any stretch of the imagination. He makes some good points every now and again …so do most people !). But he only succeeds in making a prize jackass of himself in regard to global warming. As far as I’m aware he has no qualifications , whatsoever, in regard to environmental science. In fact, he has no qualifications in anything…not even in journalism. Yet he insists on arguing about the subject with the likes of senior scientists from the CSIRO.
Neither does Greta.
But unlike Bolt, Greta has science and scientists on her side.
Repulsive commentary by Bolt. A main so steadfast in his righteousness and clearly so horribly wrong in his ethics.
Increasingly, it’s clear that the ideological divide between left and right in 2020 is no longer really about genuine politics or philosophical bases. It’s about people with compassion for others on the one side and people without compassion for others on the other. Simple as that. The right wing have cast themselves as synonymous with being mean-spirited, small-minded and selfish. What beggars belief is that many of them claim to have learned their life lessons and personal politics through their faith in an altruistic and humanitarian God.
If I could add, I’d say that the left is “compassion for all” and the right is “compassion only for our own”
Rubbish. It’s people challenging what others are force fed, and lap right up, from the media. Bolt is often right and I’m sure sometimes wrong. Get over it
Like many of the News Ltd “journalists” their blogs and columns are designed to garner ego stroking from their sycophant following.
In Bolts case with Thunberg it is additionally an unhealthy obsession
Here we go again, A tirade of left wing opinion every time someone says something they disagree with. Truth is a lot of people agree with Bolt but if they dare to admit it, woe betide, the avengers will get you.
Seriously? Bolt equated Greta Thunberg’s autism and ‘mental disorders’ with her being ‘strange’ and ‘deeply disturbed’. He was clearly mocking her in this context. This is so clearly abhorrent from any standpoint, regardless of whether we call ourselves left wing or right wing, wouldn’t you agree, Pete? It comes down to being a decent, compassionate human being, don’t you think? It comes down to having humanitarian values that should precede political values.
I’ve successfully planned away millions from touching this man’s newspaper. Never will the brands I look after sit next this vile man’s words.
Spare me your (not doing your job properly) rhetoric. I feel good about myself and my ethical work. Mental health is important.
Stick it up them Andrew, give them the truth and give them hell.
@Pete What does left and right have to do with a so called journalist making hideous statements about Greta Thunberg?
Trump is on the right, the CCP on the left, both are authoritarian… Comprende?
Why do people bother listening to Bolt. He appears to be extreme right wing. We don’t need extremists right or left they are usually to opinionated and won’t even listen to the alternatives.