The Bolt Report
In its first outing on TEN, The Bolt Report seemed more interested in guests who furthered the views of the host, than engaging in balanced debate.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under Programming, Reviews
Andrew Bolt’s first show on TEN offered up some of his favourite topics: refugees, climate change and politics.
If the intent of The Bolt Report was to do what Bolt does so eloquently in print and talkback radio -provoke a reaction- it is off to a good start.
But how does it fit with TEN’s news revamp as a serious news broadcaster? Its first outing succeeded more as a forum for its host than its subjects, with a distinct lack of impartiality and balance.
On a Coca-Cola red set, Bolt’s opening editorial let rip at the Gillard Government’s new deal with Malaysia, to send 800 Refugees back in exchange for accepting 4000 of theirs. It was as if the announcement had been timed perfectly for his premiere episode. Bolt made lots of comparisons with the Howard Government’s policy on “boat people” (a term that featured throughout the show) and Gillard’s “disastrous” policy. It was uncompromising, personal and stilted.
It was followed by Tony Abbott as Bolt’s first interview, in a free kick at the government. Bolt didn’t let Abbott finish his first 3 questions, but a friendly Abbott was still happy to congratulate him on his first outing -“May it flourish,” he said.
Bolt didn’t tackle Abbott hard enough on his own policies, laughing when an answer was avoided.
Next up were Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger and former Labor Leader Mark Latham, continuing with the refugee issue. Kroger was the show’s best performer: articulate, concise, covering several points. Latham didn’t defend Labor policies, raising more questions about balance. Given his zeal for the spotlight of late its doubtful that he was looking to push a Labor line rather than a Latham line. As a result it felt like one opinion from three mouths rather than a black and white conversation with a moderator.
More refugee content followed via an edited interview with Riz Wakil, billed as an “Afghan Refugee” rather than “Former Afghan Refugee”, despite telling Bolt he arrived here at the age of 18 -11 years ago.
“I understand your family is still in Pakistan, why didn’t you stay in Pakistan? Why didn’t you stay in Indonesia?” asked Bolt.
Yikes.
A testy discussion followed with Bolt keen to footnote his own views on the back of Wakil’s answers. After more than 15 minutes of anti-Refugee discussion, this did little to show another side to the issue. With no credits (either on the show or on the TEN website) it’s hard to know which producer to blame for this imbalance.
The show rounded out with a Spin of the Week segment (I thought we had been watching it already?) and two more called Under the Radar and Free Speech Award.
Bolt’s hosting of the show was awkward when reading the autocue, but more effective when in a debate.
However, Insiders showed he is more effective as a commentator than host, a role which requires more moderating and less editorialising. Can Bolt possibly have it both ways?
Or is there room for a show where the guests are there to further the views of the host? Ask Glenn Beck of FOX News…
But the bottom line may be about “shock jock” television, to ignite the viewer to become as mad as hell and simply tune in to cheer or hiss the lead player -either may well win them more viewers than a replay of the latest Video Hits clip.
The more considered viewers will stick around for the balance of Meet the Press at 10:30am hosted by Paul Bongiorno. Yesterday it interviewed Greens leader Bob Brown. He wasn’t a fan of Gillard’s new agreement with Malaysia either, but not for the same reasons as Bolt. Questioned by two other journos everybody shared a range of views without raising their voice or being interrupted.
Meet The Press has been on TEN since 1996.
The Bolt Report airs 10am Sundays on TEN.
Share
- Tagged with Insiders, The Bolt Report, Video Hits
136 Responses
A very boring and lackluster programme presented by a very boring lackluster man. Surely the new board members can do better to protect shareholders investments
An drew, Please,Please stand for membership of the Liberal Party and then Leadership you are the first intelligent Member since Peter Coastello and boy does this country need someone who actually knows what is needed. Thanks for your programme it really makes us believe this country has a future. Regards Barry Chapman.
Good on Andrew I think he is doing well, at last we have a different slant on poititics because every other politcal show is all about Labour and how great they are and i am sick of these lefties, commies who can’t see the wood for the trees as far as the Labour parties concerned with their policies and stuff ups, I hope channel ten keep Andrew on.
Sorry got to laugh at the people defending bolt and critising 7pm project for bias. Do you even realise he show got rise from his appearences as a panalist on the 7pm project and is still noted as a fill in panalist as well as his radio show buddy Steve Price who seems to share pretty similar views!
I await the time where this show or any other on Australian commercial television show actual debate where all sides are canvased. This country is full of opinion but little to no debate so how will we ever learn true tolerance and understanding?
I like the way the show is presented by andrew, and I would like him to keep up on the carbon tax in particular the cost and not the science as this angle is worn thin by experts in disagreement without solutions.
In going to Costs I would like Andrew to look at the huge cost of going to the gillard/greens plan of “Solar & wind” this is estimated to be $370 Billion over 10 years taken from the Melbourne Institute Zero Carbon Plan fully documented.
Based on the compared cost of a “Direct Action plan”of converting power stations to Natural Gas over time at $1.2 Billion each (General Electric price) starting with the brown coal plantsa big difference in costs appear.
The difference in the applied carbon tax for each plan is huge and is derived from the comment from Greg Combey that it would take $40.00 per ton to get generators to switch to gas in total for $1.2b x 30 power stations, so it follows that “solar & wind” would cost at least $350 .00 per ton carbon tax to get them to switch to these unreliable sources.
With the public already mindfull of the cost suggestion of $26.00 per ton it would seem that only a switch to say half of our power stations to gas could be arranged on this tax, or if it were stretched over more time it could be gas without a tax at all we did this with steam trains didn’t we?
A switch to gas from brown coal reduces carbon by 70% from black coal by 50% with bonus of 33% increase in efficiency at least 25% of our carbon footprint is derived from coal fired power stations so it would be easy to arrive at total 5% by 2020 with a substancial increase if we do more gas conversions by this time and without a tax.
It seems that if we are to clean up pollution and not just carbon we can afford the direct action plan with no tax, if we go to “Solar& Wind” as a mainstay we should prepare for dark days economics & power included.
I want to express my heartfelt congratulations on an excellently crafted presentation. Your program ranks very highly in my view, and makes television viewing well worthwhile.
Excellent program!!!! I wonder for how long it will be possible to maintain
this “bold” program….finally we are able to know what s happening Outside this country….!
If these views are the views of the majority, then it proves that the majority do not think very deeply or objectively at all anymore.
This was a shoddy tabloid rag on TV. Unciritical, unbalanced and very, very Religious-Right American in format. I do not like left wing propaganda, nor right wing propaganda. I crave an intrelligent debate on serious issues, and this guy just carries on like a rambling housewife who doesn’t want to hear anyone else’s opinion. His smug and supercilious attitude is repulsive.
The show’s Right vs Left mantra is boring, it’s a childish ploy and simply a strawman and an excuse for dressing stupidity up as being vaguely credible. “Lets bash lefties. They’re to blame for everything. They’re all dumb coz they hug trees and use big words”. If this is where the level of thinking is at, then Australia is heading down the same road of Idiocracy that the United States has already sold its soul and future to. This show is just plain stooopid!
Ignorant, one eyed and smug it was like watching Paul Mcdermot giving one side of a debate.
Well, it is obvious that Bolty is much needed. Going by the influx of lefty comment here it clearly shows we need bolt to express the views of the socially sain. It will put these lefty jorno’s to bed finally and get points across that are actually factual instead of the lefty world of make believe.
Andrew Bolt……..Fail……
Somebody posted this elsewhere and it’s almost my sentiments exactly:
“As a liberal voter, Andrew Bolt is the worst face of right wing politics in Australia. He twists facts to the point of deception, which is not what the rightfully cynical public need nor want to hear.
His climate sceptic perspective is profoundly ridiculous; leaving conservatives holding hands with conspiracy theorist nut-cases. Stick to logic and facts to push your political preferences and then you have a message worth listening to.
Verdict: unenlightening to the point of stupidity.”
I usually disagree with everything Andrew says, but all view deserve equal expossure in a free society like Australia. I have no time for people who believe those of opinions different to their own should be muzzled. Long may Andrew be heard and long may he sprook on his beliefs in a free Australia.
Many here label Bolt an extremist without ever giving an example. At best topic matter is thrown up as if that must imply some extreme. Are you guys seriously suggesting that these things cannot be discussed?
The real problem here is that Bolt throws out a viewpoint different to your own. Rather than think through anything said it is easier and lazier to give him a badge such an right wing, extremist, shock jock etc then dismiss his opinion without having to take any responsibility for why you disagree.
The bolt is one sick puppy.
Excellent show! Well done Andrew. About time we got some balance in news affairs. Sick of the socialist government promoting their agenda through the media.
only watched the bolt report today,but never again.its all about his own agenda.labor bashing, and climate change propoganda.i watched meet the press directly after.what a refreshing change to hear mature panelists with fair and honest opinions. channel 10 should do us all a favour and axe it. its pathetic and mindless ranting about everthing that bolt believes. i noticed he only chooses guests that agree with him. he has his own agenda. anyone that biased should not have their own programme. he has no integrity.
thank you for the opportunity.
Andrews’ presentation denies the product. He looks as though he might be sensible, but in fact disappoints when he opens his mouth and reveals his thinking is fixed at median viewer level, where gibberish suffices. Highly opinionated in a direction only to appease the masses and generally missing the point, he was sounding more like an Abbott apprentice, than the free thinking Bolt we would have preferred to see. Too much public appeasing media gibberish for me, I’m afraid. I would not have been surprised if he had touched upon, what Kate and Bill were doing on honeymoon…aheh,aheh,aheh….just like the channel 9 perverts. I still prefer to think he is capable of better things.
I don’t think any political party should have its own talk show…there should be a moderator with some degree of impartiality…I can’t help thinking of Hugo Chavez when I hear Bolt talking.
The Bolt Report is nothing short of a party political broadcast! Could the political preferences of the new board members have something to do with this? Hmmm.
the second show was an improvement on the first. Andrew has some good guests and this week he gave them a little more time. keep that up.
@lita – they are great ratings – supposedly the network was only expecting 40k for the initial show, Bolt’s ratings were comparable to other political/news shows, like Insiders
As a regular guest on the Insiders (ABC 1) Bolt came across as a supercilious person who lapsed into sulkiness when he had to listen to others. On the Bolt Report he was all smiles as all he had to do was ask tendentious questions and get the answers he wanted. Very shallow but conservatives will love it (just like his blog).
I doubt if it will sway too many in the centre ( like myself) but when the ratings start to drop away (which they will) what will happen to the format? Keep preaching to the converted or try a little more balance. We will see.
Andrew Bolt is a self centred person who is only interested in his opinion and that of those who agree with him. I have met him at Bendigo Street and he was more rude to me than anyone I had ever met there, and believe me, you meet some very rude people in the industry.
How distressing it must be for the Boltie supporters to learn of the abysmal ratings of the first episode of the show:
The Bolt Report Ten 163,000 19,000 53,000 52,000 24,000 15,000
The Bolt Report Encore Rpt Ten 123,000 25,000 47,000 28,000 9,000 14,000
(ratings figures taken from here: http://tvtonight.com.au/2011/05/week-20-3.html )
Not as much of a roaring success as they hoped, surely? And I bet, even with all of the money spent on advertising this show to death, that the ratings figures for the second episode will decrease.
Seeing as channel 1) is really only interested in the bottom dollar, it will be hard to keep funding such a sinking ship, especially with lots of advertisers pulling their ads away: themusic.com.au/newsletter/advertisers-pull-pin-on-the-bolt-report