11 Responses to Ever wondered how Andrew Bolt ended up with his own TV show? The answer: Gina Reinhart

  1. janama says:

    ha – and [Gina] is “reportedly” behind Andrew Bolt’s appointment to the new show!!

    Jees Ove – I hope you investigate your own research better than the Beast. You did know that her Dad and his business were on the verge of collapse and bankruptcy when Gina took over the company.

    here’s her views on the carbon tax Ove – you should read it! No doubt she has some of our leading scientists working for her company and advising her.


    Andrew Bolt has been on Insiders as a regular for 10 years, he now has a 1hr radio show every morning with Steve price on MTR1377 and runs the most read political blog in Australian media – perhaps that was the reason Ch10 decided to give him is own show.

    • OveHG says:

      And holds some of the most right-wing and ill informed opinions in the country, and doesn’t seem to bother about the facts behind any particular issue. I can only speak from my personal experience with Andrew – his ability to understand complex issues is appalling. Take what he knows about climate change, for example. Obviously, the fact that Bolt has appeal to a largest audience is not bad for Channel 10. The fact that he holds viewpoints which benefit the big miners and Carbon polluting industries is clearly much more important. I don’t see others (e.g. John Cook of Skeptical Science) who arguably has a much greater global reach than Andrew Bolt being asked by Gina Rinehart to run his own TV show on Channel 10!

      • janama says:

        again I say – you are assuming it has something to do with Gina Reinhart. John Cook runs a website on Global Warming – Andrew runs a political blog – two very different media.

  2. janama says:

    I can only assume your dislike of Andrew Bolt is because he prints articles like this:

    PROFESSOR Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of Queensland University, is Australia’s most quoted reef expert.

    He’s advised business, green and government groups, and won our rich Eureka Prize for scares about the Great Barrier Reef. He’s chaired a $20 million global warming study of the World Bank.

    In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white.

    In fact, he later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.

    In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.

    In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had “a minimal impact”.

    In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef.

    In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he’d seen none at all.


    he rates you at No2 in the 10 worst warming predictions, now that must be some kind of an honour.

    • OveHG says:

      Absolutely. Andrew Bolt is either not very clever or is extremely deceptive given that the account in this posting (as with most of what he writes about climate change) is highly inaccurate for reasons explained here and here.

  3. janama says:

    Why didn’t you reply to Andrew on his site at the time if it upset you??

    • OveHG says:

      I did. And have done so at least two times. But in the BS that flies around that website, no one paid any attention.

      • janama says:

        well – I’ve checked Andrew’s posts and there is no record of your posting. Knowing how tight Andrew’s site is moderated I’m sure you would have been noticed.

        • OveHG says:

          Well I did. Posted the link at his site to those articles – having been written to serve that purpose. Either he took my response down or we need to look harder.

  4. Phil M says:

    Janama, you might not notice with your rose coloured Bolt glasses, but Blots blog is highly censored….for pro agw commenters. He knows he is not an expert & so likes to keep his fans in the dark & on side.

    You are truly living in a Bolt loving snow dome bubble if you don’t think that blog is highly censored & are truly surprised that dissenting views are not published there. I mean the Bolt watch blog has been around for about 6 years before it morphed into pure poison & they specialize in Bolts lies, misinformation & censorship .

    “Knowing how tight Andrew’s site is moderated I’m sure you would have been noticed.”

    Yes…& deleted more like it.

  5. Phil M says:

    Meant to say “if you don’t think that blog isn’t highly censored”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.