gillard gibberish, page-18

Maybe the reporter Andrew Bolt should think before writing you mean. He should write fiction books.

Controversy and criticism
Leak of intelligence document
In June 2003 Bolt published an article criticising Andrew Wilkie in which he quoted from a classified intelligence document written by Wilkie as an intelligence analyst for the Office of National Assessments. It was claimed, but never proven, that someone in Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's office had leaked the document to Bolt.[2] A spokesperson for the Australian Federal Police said that they do not have any evidence to identify the culprit.[3]

Spat with David Marr
Bolt became involved in a dispute with journalist David Marr following the 21 July 2003 episode of Media Watch in which Marr claimed that Bolt's column "A Kick Up The Arts" (2 June 2003) had unfairly represented author Alison Broinowski. In a bitter exchange aired through both the Herald Sun and Media Watch, Bolt demanded Marr apologise for lying about him, while Marr countered that Bolt liked dishing out criticism, but could not take it himself.[4]

Stolen Generations
Bolt has frequently clashed with Robert Manne, Professor of Politics at La Trobe University about the Stolen Generation. Bolt claims that there were no large-scale removals of children "for purely racist reasons". After Bolt challenged Manne to "name just 10" children stolen for racial reasons,[5] Manne gave him a four-page list of names[6] which, Bolt states, includes children rescued from sexual abuse and removed for other humanitarian reasons.[7] Manne argued that Bolt's failure to address the wealth of documentary and anecdotal evidence demonstrating the existence of the Stolen Generation amounts to a clear case of historical denialism.[8] Bolt noted multiple instances of contemporary Aboriginal children being left "in grave danger that we would not tolerate for children of any other race because we are so terrified of the 'stolen generations' myth."[9]

Defamation case
In 2002, Magistrate Jelena Popovic was awarded $246,000 damages for defamation after suing Bolt and the publishers of the Herald Sun over a 13 December 2000 column in which he claimed she had "hugged two drug traffickers she let walk free". Popovic asserted she had in fact shaken their hands to congratulate them on having completed a rehabilitation program. The jury found that the article was not true, that it was not a faithful and accurate record of judicial proceedings and that it was not fair comment on a matter of public interest. It found that the column had, however, been reasonable and not malicious.[10]

Bolt emerged from the Supreme Court after the jury verdict, stating his column had been accurate and that the mixed verdict was a victory for free speech. His statement outside the court was harshly criticised by Supreme Court judge Bernard Bongiorno, who later overturned the jury's decision, ruling that Bolt had not acted reasonably because he did not seek a response from Ms Popovic before writing the article and, in evidence given during the trial, showed he did not care whether or not the article was defamatory. Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. The Court of Appeal later reversed the $25,000 punitive damages, though it upheld the defamation finding, describing Bolt's conduct as "at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless."[11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt