Soren wrote on Oct 8
th, 2011 at 4:18pm:
What was the lie? How is an opinion a lie? Bolt's article wasn'r reportage, it was opinion.
The opinion piece excuse does not really hold a lot of water when you are specifically naming people and making statments of fact which are untrue.
The premise of Mr. Bolt article was that these people had all chosen to be Aboriginal for personal gain.
The fact is that all 9 went to court and showed that they had been raised as aboriginal from their youth.
Mr. Bolt printed derogatory statements about these people which were untrue.
Quote:MEET the white face of a new black race - the political Aborigine
A clear derogatory statement differentiating them from real aborigines.
Quote:But chose Aboriginal, insisting on a racial identity / But she, too, has chosen to call herself Aboriginal / she, too, is an Aborigine, who claims her "country is Wiradjuri"/ She, too, chose to be Aboriginal/.
Born and raised as such – not chosen later in virtually all cases.
Quote:Only started to identify as Aboriginal when she was 19
Well once again its not actually true – she had publicly identified as aboriginal at 14 but had been aboriginal all her life.
Quote:from the age of 10 was a boarder at a Victorian Catholic school.
Apparently according to Mr Bolt Aboriginals are not allowed to board at Victorian Catholic schools – I don’t really get his point.
Maybe he didn't outright lie but it is certainly a terrible oppinion piece when he has made so many accusation and got virtually all of his facts wrong.
Actually come to think of it he has had no problem calling Julie Gillard a liar based on a lot less than this.