Pixelated Semantics

Left-of-reply

The "establishment" must be awfully worried about M. Moore's 9/11 film, to give a 'journalist' Andrew Bolt a double-page spread to rubbish it, with thin pretext, in yesterday's Sunday Mail. As he says, "facts mean nothing" - especially when objecting to things like "pornographic close-ups of Iraqi children blown up by American bombs"; he doesn't pause for a minute to realise that such close-ups wouldnt even be possible had America not been there to obligingly drop some nasty hardware on children in the first place. But never being one to let a little historical fact get in the way of open-slather defamation, Bolt seems content to cement a reputation as an apologist for tyranny with articles like this: "So many deceits. So many wickedly doctored quotes. So many half-truths." This is barely even journalism - there is no attempt to balance the coverage by either the paper or the writer. The question that really needs to be considered is: why would GW Bush need an Australian 'journalist' to defend his reputation against criticism made by an American?

Item posted by AutoEditor at 10:07 am ::