I'm attacking the fallacies and then laughing at the perpetrator. I tried 'reasoning' with Andrew Bolt via his blog however my post didn't get published.(wasted an hour of my time) Andrew Bolt is not a journalist, by the definition you gave. He is a 'hired fallacition' whose skill lies in marketing confimation bias not the in application of the scientific method of intellectual honesty. Would you even care about Andrew Bolt if you didn't share/follow his Faith/opinion/bias? If he 'changes his mind or confesses his lies' would you change your mind?
