Pure Weirdness

Bloggy wars are nice, and bloggy wars can stop you, from saying all the things in life you’d like to. Accusing Tim Blair of using a sockpuppet is one of them; calling Andrew Bolt a racist and/or a liar is another.

Launched on February 17, Poison Pen is the transmogrification of The Blair/Bolt Watch Project (April 9, 2008–February 18, 2009), which in turn emerged from BoltWatch (February 17, 2005–April 6, 2008). At each step, the targets of the bloggers responsible has been extended, from Bolt, to Bolt & Blair, to Bolt & Blair & (Other) Bad “Journalists”.

one

Things we shouldn’t have said about Andrew Bolt
March 2, 2009 – 2:31 pm, by Jonathan Green

The first thing here is to apologise, sincerely, to Andrew Bolt. The second, to acknowledge the traps for the unwary in tapping too innocently into Web2 interconnectivity.

In recent days, comment strings on the new Crikey blog Pure Poison have been a little too lurid in their attacks on the controversial Herald Sun columnist. There are some things you can’t say in polite journalism. “Racist” is one of them. “Liar” is another. We regret that these things were said about Andrew. We don’t believe he is either, and in no way condone web pages under the Crikey imprint furthering that impression. Which is where the problem lies, of course: the speed of internet publishing running blind into a thinly resourced but well-attended — and well intentioned — web publication. Comments can get under your guard. Things better left unsaid can be given sudden public prominence. Only if you happen to be looking of course (and that probably only runs into the hundreds) but that’s not the point…

two

Correction and apology to Tim Blair
March 2, 2009 – 11:17 am, by Jeremy Sear

In a post last night titled “Sockpuppet Worn” it was suggested that enthusiastic Pure Poison critic “WB”, a character who although we haven’t seen him or her before appears intimately familiar with old allegations about our pasts, had been making comments from Tim Blair’s private IP address. The post, now removed from the Crikey site, included speculation on the identity of WB, concluding that it was Blair. Tim denies this flatly, and notes that people in the same house would share an IP. Commenters to the original deleted post had also made that point.

We don’t know any more than that WB comments from the same private IP. Our criticisms are reserved for whoever “WB” turns out to be.

We unreservedly withdraw any allegation that Tim has been using the “WB” identity, that he had personally used this identity to artificially boost his “hits”, and apologise for any offence caused by the above.

three

Some semi-literate bloke called Robert Mullins pretty much hits the nail on the head with the following: “people don’t read Andrew Bolt for his searing intellectual insight. They read him to be entertained, to have prejudices confirmed…” or to be oUtRaGeD aT tHe StOopId.

Re. “Everything in moderation … even for Andrew Bolt” (yesterday, item 22). I am a regular reader of Andrew Bolt’s blog. I know. I can’t help myself. The man is a genius. He preaches the hot fire of God’s will. He brooks no compromise. He is petty and small-minded, dishonest and evasive. In other words, he has beaten a path through the scrub of the world that only genius can afford to beat. He lacks the intellectual acumen and moral judgment of Robert Manne, or the semi-literate curiosity of Janet Albrechtson, but he has something else: gusto, moxy, vigour, call it what you will. His is a sublime divining of the world; I can’t turn away.

Which is why Crikey’s new blog, Pure Poison, matters, and also why it won’t make an ounce of difference. I frequently find Bolt’s painful, logical contortions frustrating. And I frequently wish his employers would point them out to him. To provide one example, Mr Bolt has suddenly discovered he has a grave concern about fiscal responsibility. Where was this concern during the Bush years, when a pursuit of war in the Middle East and effortless tax cuts pushed the economy into unnecessary deficit? But oh well. Who cares. Bolt is a partisan, we knew that already didn’t we? Likewise his campaign against an outrageous majority of scientific opinion on the issue of climate change is cringingly embarrassing, but it is also engaging. Why not take on the science? An intellectually honest person would have changed their mind by now. But Bolt is not intellectually honest. For him to change his mind at this late stage would look like cowardice and confusion, not honesty.

So I am broadly supportive of the motives of Pure Poison, which has set up a team of bloggers with the challenge of bravely debunking sophistry and false argument put forward by Andrew Bolt and his ilk in the punditry. If it is done properly, Pure Poison will make an important contribution to Australian intellectual life, at least as far as its readership extends. It can remind us of the permanent value of the intellect: its ability to stand above partisanship and ill-tempered rancour. But don’t expect it to reduce Bolt’s readership.

The problem for outfits like Pure Poison, which set themselves up to debunk intellectual dishonesty, is that people don’t read Andrew Bolt for his searing intellectual insight. They read him to be entertained, to have prejudices confirmed, or (in my case) to be enraged, challenged, excited. News commentators have always been thus. Intellectual honesty is important. But it is not the only value we should cherish. Partisanship and loyalty are also important, in their own ways. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than seeing older friends of my parents, content in their embrace of the wisdom of the soft-left, dining out on the platitudes of Phillip Adams, or praising the bracing courage of David Marr.

Make no mistake. Writing like Mr Bolt’s does damage to intellect. But unlike, say, Keith Windschuttle, he makes no claim to outstanding intellect. [Or: Bolt makes no claim, and has no grounds on which to do so, whereas Keef has no grounds on which to do so, and does.] He is a commentator, and a happy and (occasionally) valuable [and well-paid] one at that. He has never advocated harm to another, even if occasionally he has sat idly by while others were harmed (the harmful and unlimited detention of innocent refugee children never did bother him much). But who amongst us is not guilty of something similar?

We make a grave mistake if we turn to the Andrew Bolts or Phillip Adams of the world for permanent political wisdom. We should look to them for entertainment, intrigue, and occasional agreement. Nothing more. Which brings me to me point: The Poison Pen could do something important. If it is, as it claims to be, dedicated to sorting the intellectually honest from the dishonest, it can do something far more important than provide an outlet for readers who don’t care for Andrew Bolt. Intellect and reason are permanent, autonomous. They do not depend on an audience for their value. Without his audience, and the effort he makes for them, Andrew Bolt’s thoughts would amount to nothing. By all means challenge him. Point it out how often he gets it wrong, and why he often does so. But just don’t expect me to stop reading him. I wouldn’t have him in my Platonic Republic. But the earth as it currently turns wouldn’t make sense to me if it didn’t have him in it.

The Boy With The Thorn In His Side
September 23, 1985, by Johnny Marr & Morrissey

The boy with the thorn in his side
Behind the hatred there lies
A murderous desire for love
How can they look into my eyes
And still they don’t believe me?
How can they hear me say those words
Still they don’t believe me?
And if they don’t believe me now
Will they ever believe me?
And if they don’t believe me now
Will they ever, they ever, believe me?
Oh…

Alternatively…