Why Andrew Bolt shouldn’t be gagged (even if you don’t like him)

Why should ‘balance’ matter? This is not journalism. You make it sound like Bolt’s show is the equivalent of Sunday. It is not.

Furthermore, your small-l liberal argument in support for the existence of Bolt’s show also applies for the existence of a protest group. Why is Bolt’s show worthy of existing? Just because it can bring in another advertising demographic to television?

There is plenty of infotainment garbage on commercial networks for right leaning audiences, such as any the ‘reality TV’ police shows (Border Security anyone?). I’d be quite happy to support protest groups to urge advertisers away from these other miserable shows too.

Bolt’s core tactic is calling out those who support things he disagrees with. Turnabout is fair play and that’s what his advertisers are getting.

Well said Tim! There is such a thing as freedom of speech – it’s right next to the remote control! I really get tired of people watching these shows, knowing what the general content is going to be, so they can then get outraged at the content!

Tell viewers that something is going to be “controversial” ie a movie, doco, mini-series etc and there will be a certain number of people who’ll watch so they can then complain and threaten advertisers with boycotts! Everyone is different people – some people will watch certain things that you may find offensive! That’s life!

I’m not a fan of Mr Bolt but I do respect his/Channel Tens right to express their views. Last time I checked, that was one of the benefits of living in a democracy!

Bolt might not deny the Shoah, but he does deny the Stolen Generation. That alone is something advertisers might want to shy away from.

I think most people are okay with conservative commentary being broadcast on TV. But some may argue that Bolt is an instrument of the elite in this country, who is given a large public platform where he can misrepresent and distort key vote-swinging issues to the advantage of his backers.

For example, it can be argued that he uses refugee and immigration issues to wedge the Labor voting base in order to assist in installing a Coalition government, such that policy initiatives such as the NBN and the carbon tax, which pose a threat to certain powerful interests, are rescinded, to the detriment of everybody else.

So in this WAR of ideas, some would think it perfectly legitimate to pressure advertisers in such a way as described above (and no, he is not being silenced).

I’m sure Bolt depresses people much more than this Facebook campaign.

Infotainment garbage is such shows as Q&A and other ABC offerings but when someone who has opposing views or is prepared to question the government line they try to denegrate him or cause mischief its so low and depressing that such people have such closed naive minds. They should rejoice in haveing a show that challenges the status quo and breakes new ground in debate wether you like or hate him he does offer a catalyst for intensive debat and that is a good thing in a democracy (unless your against it).

Most of these advertisers did not choose to advertise on Bolt’s show.

And people have a right to inform advertisers if they feel slighted that their favourite brand is being associated with Bolt’s opinions.

Free speech works both ways Tim.

Steve Franks: “They should rejoice in haveing a show that challenges the status quo”

Tim: “He represents a mainstream point of view even if its one that many disagree with.”

Yep. Either Bolt represents the ‘status quo’/’mainstream’ or he doesn’t.

The reactionary conservative myth of Bolt ‘challenging’ the status quo is utter nonsense. His ‘challenge’ is little more than pandering to the bigoted views of a staunch conservative minority and this minority imagines itself to be the ‘mainstream’.

Australia would be down the toilet if Bolt’s views were actually mainstream.

I think he’s a festering boil on society, but getting the baying mob, torches and pitch-forks out is playing into Bolt’s drongo hands.

I really don’t get why Australia has a perverse obsession with prohibition, banning and regulation. It’s the weakest form of action, reflecting poorly on politicians and proponents alike.

His show would likely die a small death from low viewing, but now he is a cause celebre and gaining the oxygen of publicity he needs. Let’s keep his show on so his ad hominem, strawman, prejudicial fallacies can be mocked and pilloried in front of a wider audience.

How on earth could you argue that television is dominated by left-leaning anything?

A Current Affair, Today Tonight, and the commercial networks’ news have way more viewers than anything on the ABC, and it’d be very hard to argue they don’t put forward a conservative position.

Freedom of speech also says you can protest to boycott advertisers

There’s left and right and there’s factually incorrect. Ever notice Bolt doesn’t debate any actual SCIENTISTS on his climate change claims (other than fools like Monkton).

I don’t care about Bolt’s political leanings, but as an independent observer (I have voted both ways many times) I would say that the right side of politics do get very passionate, and tend to immerse themselves in a bubble where they consume media that reflects their world views. Witness the success of Fox News.

And that’s all OK. But for the love of god, at least have people on either side of politics who are witty, entertaining and FACTUALLY correct. That’s the insidious part of a TV show for Bolt. He distorts the facts. As would David Maher if he his own TV show.

On another point. Why can’t conservatives be funny? Look at John Stewart and Bill Maher. When they are good, they are piss your pants funny. And they are both left leaning. Why can’t someone on the right be entertaining?

Maybe right wing nut jobs have no sense of humour?

Such a flawed argument.

Companies have the right to choose when they advertise on TV
Individuals (he’s not a journalist) have the right to write and sell their shows to TV Networks.
TV Networks have the right to pick and broadcast any show they choose insofar as it does not break the broadcasting code
Individuals have the right to say whatever they want about any of the above processes so long as it is not defamatory to any particular individual, just as you have exercised your right to comment.
I am a member of the facebook group. I think his views are despicable and I have the right to express my opinion, as you do yours

xx

Bolt’s free speech is OK but a group of people on Facebook expressing their opinion to companies is not OK? Arguably Bolt is trying to gag the Greens and the Labor Party with his deliberate misinformation and selective use of science.
Regardless of Left or Right Bolt presents his opinion as fact. The Facebook group is openly expressing their opinion (a dislike of Bolt’s opinion) and not dressing it up as science. The media used is different but the outcome is the same – both are expressing an opinion.

You say that Bolt is ‘no holocaust denier’. Right. But he is a climate change denier, which is arguably worse.

Every single major scientific body on earth, every national government, even every major fossil fuel company accepts the consensus position that climate change is manmade and represents an enormous threat that could take many more lives than the holocaust, yet Andrew persists in attempts to convince the public of the outrageous fantasy that it is all just a left-wing hoax, determined to stop or delay life-saving action on climate change any way he can. In my opinion he is arguably every bit as deluded as a holocaust denier, and certainly more dangerous. There is no way he should be allowed to spread such irresponsible and irrational views in a timeslot when impressionable and uninformed young people may tune in.

There are generally two responses to this: One appeals to free speech. I respond that free speech is not an absolute value. We certainly wouldn’t allow any extremist position at all an airing on public television in timeslots that children may see, regardless of the consequences. Anyone who argues we should is a libertarian nutbag with an extreme minority point of view. The other is that ‘people are not idiots’ and should be allowed to make up their own minds. I respond that people are not idiots, but neither are they climate scientists. Climate scientists can easily detect the flaws, misrepresentations, lies and omitted facts in Bolt’s climate commentary, but it is fantasy to suppose that the general public can or ever will be able to. This is why climate denialism has been so damaging in confusing the public and delaying life-saving action on climate change, and it is why it is so dangerous to let fools like Bolt on TV.

I am scared about climate change, and the lack of an adequate response from certain governments, including Australia’s. If you look into the issue objectively, it is hard not to be. The world’s best climate scientists (especially James Hansen, Kevin Andrews and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber) are now terrified that we are not going to be able to respond in time to avert a climate-driven catastrophe, measured in millions and possibly billions of lives. I therefore a proud member of Operation: Bolt-Cutter and will be until he is off the air. If you try to look at the bigger picture and understand my arguments I hope you’ll see where I’m coming from.

Congratulations to Operation Bolt-Cutter – more free promotion for Bolt, which generates more viewers, which generates more interest (revenue) from advertisers.
Ad agencies aren’t stupid – they know which demographic would watch a show like this, and target ad spend accordingly.

It’s the joy and wonder of democracy that we get to hear knobs kid themselves whilst we make up our own mind.

Bolt’s views and show is funded by the richest women in Australia.
http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/.....a-rinehart

Bolt is small beer

isn’t it scarier that a self-interested billionaire (Gina Rinehart) has so brazenly and blatantly sought to change the public’s opinion on the ‘issue of our times’ through her investment in 10 and championing of Bolt’s new show?

how ironic that Newscorp’s own stooge is effectively bolstering the case for the ABC’s continued funding

@Paul – nice trolling!

I’m with Tim on this. I personally disagree with everything Bolt says and stands for, but this Facebook campaign is not about exercising one’s ‘freedom of speech’ and right to an opinion, it’s clearly an attempt to gag Bolt.
Yes anyone has the right to say they don’t like Bolt or his opinions, but those of you contacting the show’s advertisers are doing more than that – you obviously trying to get the show shut down, and in doing so gag him. To argue any other motive seems disingenuous – if companies don’t advertise, the show won’t profitable, and it’ll most likely get taken off the air….voila Bolt has been gagged!

@Dave,

Er…nicely thought out rebuttal of my arguments?

I agree with you Tim, 100%

The way democracy works, is that if enough people want something, they vote that way. If enough people want Bolt on TV, they will watch him. If enough don’t, they wont, and then his ratings go down, and advertisers will demand their ads aren’t shown because the RATINGS ARE DOWN so their ROI is not adequate (NOT BECAUSE OF A FB PAGE), and he’ll be pulled from the air.

All that’s happened here, is given him soooooo much fuel and exposure. In fact I’d consider it a masterstroke if he started this page himself annonymously

Frankly, I’ll never watch his show because I value my sleep more than ANY TV show, (re-runs of The Simpsons, included), and Sunday morning is my sleep in day, but that is me also exercising my democratic right to do so.

And @ Jay Kay, I’m sorry but I do have to put forward a different opinion regarding ACA and Today/Tonight putting on a conservative spin. All they show are ‘where are they nows’, infomercials for the best deals on electric can openers and dodgy tradesmen. Hasn’t been anything remotely along the lines of journalism, right or left wing orientated, for a very, very long time on either show…

I pretty much disagree with everything Bolt says to the point if he told me the sky was blue, I would dispute it.

But I believe in free speech.

Moreover, it seems like most of the people who watched Bolt’s show (including myself) were doing it for the outrage value. People know what he thinks and says, and they know how they react to it, so most people who watched his show probably did so in order to get angry.

I wonder if advertisers realise this, and if they are targeting the right market.

PS I won’t be watching it again, because I don’t like getting that worked up that early on a Sunday.

Let’s close down the Age and the ABC both left wing leaning media and let’s restrict left leaning Journo’s to any exposure in media because that would allow them to expose their point-of-view. Oh, that would be unfair? Who is this tosser starting an anti-free-speech FB page? Wake-up, this is what Adolf Hitler did in the 30’s. eliminate anyone with a point-of-view different to the government of the day. Send this bloke to Syria, Russia (where they kill Journo’s) China or Saudi Arabia and start his Facebook page there, or maybe that’s just where his inspiration for this venture came from?

@Wayne Wood – excellent reply Mr Wood!

@Paul I was merely commenting that while your points may or may not be valid on climate change, my take on this article was that it was to discuss the FB page set up to force advertisers in to boycoitting Bolt. I read your comments as being off topic and said as much with my “trolling” comment.

I totally respect your right to comment and post replies but in my view this particular thread isn’t the place to do it.

@Dave,

Right, but my original post was about the actions of the facebook group, why I’m in it, and why I think that’s the right thing to do, which relates to climate change and Andrew Bolt. It quoted something from Tim’s piece and took issue with it. I don’t agree it was off topic at all.

And for all of those who are so convinced that the facebook group is only helping Bolt by raising publicity, and that advertisers won’t be ruffled, consider that two of the Melbourne advertisers have already pulled their ads from the timeslot. A (relatively) small number of calls and emails can represent a large number of similarly oriented people in the public. Politicians know this and so, evidently, do these companies.

Roy Morgan survey:

As to the reality, 55% of journalists polled describe themselves as left wing or small l liberal, 36% put themselves in the centre, while only 9% describe themselves as conservative or right wing

Wayne, I couldn’t find those survey results anywhere – could you please enlighten me with a link? Maybe it was based on their ongoing survey of the public’s opinions and perceptions (Morgan’s primary single source survey).

I did however find Morgan’s Article 451 (August 10, 2006) where Morgan surveyed MEAA members for Crikey. Of the journalists surveyed who responded to the Political and Commercial Interests section of the survey, this is what Morgan found:

“Of journalists surveyed, more than half (53%) claim they are unable to be critical of the media organisation they work for. In addition, 38% of journalists say they have been instructed to comply with the commercial position of the company for which they work and 32% say they feel obliged to take into account the political views of their proprietor when writing stories — 32% of those who have ever worked in print; 34% in TV; 34% in radio.”

This is somewhat contradictory to your data.

if you also look at the work of Joshua Gans (Melbourne University) and Andrew Leigh (ANU) into ‘media slant’ (their term) iin Australian political coverage, they found that “Australian journalists are close to the centre of the political spectrum, but their editors are more likely to take a party line…”.

They also found that “although most media outlets showed no significant slant in reporting, there were some notable exceptions”. They went on to say “Using the first approach (reviewing media mentions of 100 public intellectuals – one of the three factors they measured), only one out of 27 news outlets had a significant slant. This is ABC Television News, which had a significant slant towards the Coalition in the period 1999-2007. All other outlets (including six ABC radio stations) were essentially centrist.

Of course, this paper all revolves around the definition of “centrist”, but at least there is rigour and robustness in their work.

I also suspect that you and your ilk won’t like their findings and will reject it out of hand, such is par for the course.

Russel Brand had a brilliant anarchic stunt-filled show on BBC Radio 2 on a Saturday night that had a cult-size audience. Literally a few people (under ten) complained about a phone call he made while in the company of Johnathan Ross. However the complaint procedure went ape when the Daily Mail got on board and several thousands of whingers who hadn’t even heard the show put in their sixpennorth because they could. The producer of the show was sacked and Russell Brand walked. Johnathan Ross was carpeted as well I think.
The thing is . . . I liked listening to that show and now I can’t. It was MY freedom that was curtailed by the wailing wallies not just the producers of the programme. Eheu!

he had excellent ratings, even more so considering it was the first episode and mother’s day, he blitzed the ratings for a political/news show if you add the people who watched the morning and PM shows, I’m sure the advertisers won’t care if he continues to rate so well, especially if his ratings improve – works for Kyle Sandilands and Alan Jones 😉 who people find equally as objectionable

@Paul
RE: Bolta’s climate denialism.
Bolta, Monckton and other denialists are basically saying that climate change alarmists are way overthinking the issue and cool heads must prevail before we completely upheaval everything and ttotally restructure our economies and societies to mitigate a potential (and yet another) end-of-the-world scenario. You might be frustrated that these denialists are a dangerous drag on action to ‘do something’ and quickly. But inertia to resist change is a very valuable evolutionary trait evident in all species including humans for a good reason. Huge change, too quickly often leads to disaster. Think of the Bolshevik revolution that ushered in Communism or the rise of Nazism. If only there were more skeptics around in Russia or Germany then !

@Wayne Wood – congratulations, it only took 25 comments to reach the Godwin’s Law comment-singularity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

@MKeystone

Surely you are not serious. The ‘alarmists’ you are referring to are the scientists I’ve namechecked and the IPCC (i.e., the experts), all of whom have been calling for a good twenty years now for serious action to be taken on climate, and many of whom are now terrified that inertia in the climate system may mean we are teetering on (may have already crossed) the edge into a disastrous and irreversible change to the biosphere that supports all of life and human activity. When such people are alarmed perhaps we should listen.

And the ‘cooler heads’ you are referring to are who? Monkton and Bolt, both of them absolute charlatans and frauds. I strongly recommend you look up an excellent series of videos about Monkton starting with this one: https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/5/fbW-aHvjOgM

And have a quick review of this IPCC report on what the actual change required will look like and cost (only 1% of global GDP – pretty cheap for a live-able atmosphere for our kids) http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/

Seriously, it’s a big,real problem, and people need to stop being babies about it and get on board with doing something about it!

Well done Paul, you’re saving the world one blog comment at a time. Bravo sir.

Paul,
you;re on the wrong forum and completely off topic.

As for your scientists, well they are earning a living trying to prove something is happening based on data from between 20 to 200 years, (no historically accurate records before then), about a planet with a changing climate that is 4.5 Billion years old.

There are just as many scientists who claim there is no issue and it is purely cyclical. And they are probably funded by big business polluters.

So my point is that somewhere in the middle is the truth, but now I’m going off topic, so I’m going to shut up now.

Just lets keep this on topic everyone, it’s not about what exactly his views are and are they right or wrong, the subject is should he be gagged by a public protest by people who just dont like him or agree with him.

I agree with about 75% of what Bolt says, but I 100% back his right to be able to say it.

Indeed, his voice of the everyday Australian makes a welcome change to the Osama-sympathising, climate change fretting (‘climate change denial worse than holocaust denial’ someone said above. Really?), public servant defending, open our doors to everyone-demanding ABC, and indeed most of the TV and newspaper media.
Try reading the Adelaide Advertiser, yes, a News Ltd paper, if you want some left wing bias.

People always feign shock when someone tells the truth. I see lots of personal attacks on Bolt here, but no facts. Just playing the man, not the ball.

So advertise, or don’t, but make up your own mind.

Its a show about ANDREW BOLT, called the BOLT report. Thats why we are playing the man- its based on the man!

No, Thomas.

This is about free speech. That’s the ball. Do keep up.

AdGrunt, free speech with none of the responsibilities, hey?

Like how there is a pattern in this comment thread where supporters of Bolt are anon while those who are critical are not.

And you’re not anon with just Glenn, give us a break!

I thnik we should start a blog that encourages people to not purchase the brands that withdraw their support from the Bolt programme, like iPrimus, TeleChoice and Mr Rentals, that encourages freedom of choice and maybe contributes to freedom of speech, something many of the lemmings above don’t support.

for those saying Rinehart is funding Bolt – is that based on this comment from the Hungry Beast site/article

“She is reportedly behind Channel Ten’s decision to give Andrew Bolt, Australia’s most vocal climate change denier, his own TV show.”

I’m not a Bolt fan but quoting Hungry Beast as a credible source is probably dumber than anything he’s spewed out.

err, ummm, Wayne, nice troll…

If that wasn’t a troll and you don’t realise this is the internet, my identity is completely revealed by the hyperlink of my name.

Thank you Wayne Wood for reminding all of us “that 91% of ALL . . (my emphasis) Aussie journalists describe themselves as “left-wing, small ‘l’ liberal or to the centre; leaving only a lousy and totally unrepresentative 9% with a self-description of ‘right wing and/or conservative”. One just wonders what the percentages are in the scraggy Fairfax excuses for ‘quality reportage” and the ABC with their plethora of biased fellow-travellers, ninkumpoops and dolts. No further comment on this undeniable fact is necessary.

And Logic; your addendums above put the matter into irrefutable perspective; who in their right mind (apart from the ‘socialist mafia’ that is) would place any value on utterances by The Hungry Beast.

I for one actually appreciate the opportunity to hear opinions articulated and accepted conclusively by the vast majority of the Australian public – (just witness the recent NSW and Victorian election results AND all of the recent polling federally), calling into question the gross ineptitude and amateurish attempts at governing by the shambolic ALP administrations they replaced. And to have a former Labor federal Leader agreeing; just rubs it in without question.

Thank you socialist whimps; I rest my case.

And as for Mr Bolt; I thank him for his erudite and well-researched and learned articles; we are all far richer for being made accessible to his knowledge.

As a former Labor PM was heard to utter; “never under-estimate the intelligence of the Australian people”.

Touche and riposte. Book, chapter and verse.

@Bucks

For God’s sake I am not off topic! Please try to follow:

Topic: Tim suggests that it’s wrong to try to ‘gag’ bolt by getting him off the air.

Me: Nah mate, not when he’s saying such dangerous and harmful things (i.e., freedom of speech not an absolute right that trumps all others, read my original post), especially about climate change (which scientists tell us is putting millions of lives at risk, already killing hundreds of thousands, etc).

Another posters: But climate change is a lefty myth!

Me: That’s just not a tenable position. I’ll say it again. Every scientific organization, every world government, every fossil fuel company. No one credible disagrees with the basics of climate change. Even the main real climate scientist who does call himself a skeptic, Pat Michaels, is on record as saying that ‘it is getting warmer, and we have something to do with it’.

A couple of posters: Oh Paul, you are off topic!

Me: Only because of the idiotic responses I’ve received and my attempts to answer all the points raised.

Seriously, take my leg, but please don’t accuse me of being off-topic!

also,

@Ben

Hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic or sincere. But look, social change is a large and tumultuous process, and it proceeds in millions of little inane conversations and debates just like this one. I am interested in this debate because firstly I’m in the facebook group and want to get Bolt off the air, and secondly because I’m interested in moral philosophy and public ethics. I think it’s a worthwhile thing to be doing.

I think The Bolt Report is misnamed it really should be called The Tool Shed, because essentially to arguments are put forward by a bunch of tools and Andrew Bolt speaks in a condesending and patronising manner, however, he is entitled to his opinion.

As for the Facebook campaign… looks like they could earn a spot on The Tool Shed, because they are simply acting like a bunch of tools as well.

@Paul: So by “moral philosophy and public ethics” you mean that rather than having a range differing views on the topic that provide different perspectives to viewers, who then go & make their own mind up on the topic, you just want anyone who isn’t spewing out the “correct” view off the air. Got it.

++TV Networks have the right to pick and broadcast any show they choose insofar as it does not break the broadcasting code++

Which of course this does.
The Act demands equal comment for controversial issues.

++TV Networks have the right to pick and broadcast any show they choose insofar as it does not break the broadcasting code++

Which of course this does.
The Act demands equal comment for controversial issues.

@Paul. You are off topic. You started off topic and continue to be off topic. If you dont get that, then you really are as incompetent as you are portraying to all.

No one cares about your views on anything. Stop typing, not because we want to censor you, but because we just dont care what your opinion is.

This was about potential minorty group censorship of a TV program whose views are seen as right wing. You tried turning this into your own soap box on cliamte change and crap.

So I’m now choosing as my democratic right to go ahead and ignore any post by a ‘Paul’ or anything similar (apologies to any other ‘Pauls’ who have something on topic or relevent to add), because that’s how I chose to react to something or someone who I disagree with, or annoys me. I don’t feel the need to start up a Facebook page telling everyone about what twat you are, they can make up their own mind.

@Ben

Er, no, by ‘ moral philosophy and public ethics’ I meant ‘ moral philosophy and public ethics’.

But by the rest of your post I guess you are essentially arguing that what the group is doing is wrong by virtue of impeding Bolt’s freedom of speech. I replied to that argument in my first post on this thread. If you have a read and have anything of worth to add let me know.

@Bucks

Nah mate. As you say, the thread is about “potential minorty group censorship of a TV program whose views are seen as right wing.” Well done. You got that right.

Yet the thread (and article) was not just about repeating the fact that there could be potential censorship by a minority group, it was also about whether such censorship (i.e., the effort to get Bolt off air) is wrong. I argued that it’s not because of the harmful effects of Bolt’s propaganda, and used climate change denial as an example. So as you can now see, I wasn’t off topic in the slightest. I was actually pretty square on the topic. I think perhaps my use of climate change caused your error as you seem to possess some fairly passionate and misled views on the topic.

Anyway Bucks, I wait with baited breath to see your next move my, as you seem to have painted yourself into something of a corner. Either renege on your commitment to ‘go ahead and ignore any post by a ‘Paul’ or anything similar’, or allow me to have the final (and fairly decisive, if I may say so) word here.

What’s it to be? 🙂

Is that the bit where you inferred bolt was an extremist?

Since when did the conservatives become a minority?
Oh, I see, you were all referring to the handful of Billionaires
who own most of the Australian t.v., radio and print media.
Yes, those poor conservatives that struggle to be heard over
the powerful ABC with it’s tiny national audience.

I feel so relieved that Bolt is out there fighting for the rights of
mining companies and multi-national corporations. Yes, now
the playing field is much more level and we can have a real debate.

You guys make me laugh. Since when was the cat afraid of the pigeons?

If advertisers had the right to pull their advertising from any show they didn’t agree with where would we be!

Traditional media would discard anyone who didn’t attract the dollars to pay their way, leading to advertisers sanctioning which speech was ‘free’ and which wasn’t.

In the end we’d have an advertisocracy – where the advertisers decided which democratic views could be published, and which would be restricted to public TV and non-commercial blogs.

Clearly, in defence of democracy, Australia should mandate that advertisers be forced to advertise during programs and alongside articles that contradict their messages – even if their audience doesn’t watch or read.

In fact, all commercial organisations should simply pay a government-mandated fee to all traditional media outlets in order to remove any potential for bias. That way traditional media will be able to discuss the hard issues without pressure from corporate interests or any concerns about whether or not they have audiences.

Just think about it…

The only way Bolt provides balance is if the other side was a Che t shirt wearing,bearded, Marx sprouting, molotov cocktail throwing, Kill the rich communist,. and I dont see them on TV since Citizen Smith.

Just a boring show.
With a boring host.
& sycophants all agreeing with one another.

It will self extinguish