Tense Embassy

Andrew Bolt:

I don’t think these protests lately have advanced Aboriginal interests.

Any moment now, it will be reported that Bolt called for Aboriginal homes to be demolished. Riots to follow.

Is James actually Jeremy?

On MTR radio this morning Andrew Bolt fielded a call from "James in Reservoir", who Bolt almost immediately identifies not as "James" but rather as "Jeremy". Could it be that Crikey blogger Jeremy Sear – aka Jeff, aka anonymous – has again opted to challenge Bolt using an assumed name?

Considering this lame non-denial from Jeremy it is indeed possible:

“Andrew Bolt seemed to think a talkback caller named “James from Reservoir” was actually called “Jeremy”. I’m guessing he meant you, though not sure.”

LOL. I’ll have a listen. I’M EVERYWHERE.

Not "everywhere", just everywhere Bolt is, obsessing over every word he speaks and writes.

Undergraduate Humour

Nadia Rao, whose previous achievements include recognising:

Bolt is a dolt. It's true because it rhymes..

this week turned up the heat on Twitter:

The #boltreport - dumbing down the dumbest of the bumb.[sic]

One of the first things you should know about trolling on the Internet, is that if you are going to call someone stupid, you should check your spelling. I called Ms Rao on it. Her response is outstanding:

Dumb is spelt correctly, bumb ass. I have an English degree. What are your academic qualifications?

Presumably her English studies are also where she learned that rhyming equals truth.

Bolt Love

The Bolt Report launched another hatefest on Twitter, which like last week, mainly consisted of a single quite lame gag being retweeted for up to ten hours, until someone could up with another equally lame gag to replace it. This week's wit:

I love the giant word BOLT across the back of the set at #boltreport. Nice of them to give us such sensible advice. #runaway

Retweeted by KarenEap and 67 others

That is, at least 67 people who couldn't come up with their own schtick.

A later, even more lame comment sums up the problem:

I haven't seen the show but shouldn't it be called 'The DOLT Report?

When you've finished rolling all over the floor laughing at this genius, consider something.

He hasn't. Seen. The Show. But why should that stop the bolt-haters obsessing over the program? Having reviewed nearly the whole #boltreport twitter stream, there is almost no discussion whatosever about the content. Only about the host. This is from the same side which always has a big sook about what they call "ad hominem" attacks, demanding you "play the ball, not the man" etc. Boy can they dish it out though.

Whilst Q&A has its own fair share of twitter idiots, at least you could tell what's on the show without watching it, just from the adjacent twitter commentary. In Bolt's case, his haters have ensured the only thing you'd learn is that a man names Bolt hosts the show, and he's worse than Hitler. Really.

This is the same side of politics which is demanding a more "civilised discourse" in politics. Which went nuts when Tony Abbott was within a few hundred feet of a man holding a sign calling Julia Gillard a bitch, yet doesn't seem to have a problem that Julia Gillard's twitter account is following "Bolt is a Cunt".

Funny Left

Andrew Bolt gets a special mention in this truly embarrassing video, featuring "real" climate scientists.



Truly lame. Bolt pointed out that your tax dollars paid for it.

I previously pointed out the total absence of wit amongst Bolt's largest critics.

It's interesting that the "climate scientists" in the video sneer that Bolt's work isn't 'peer reviewed' whereas theirs is.

Peer Schmeer.

Bolt's work is carefully reviewed by a large horde of hostile, motivated and obsessive opponents.

In any case, the fundamental argument of the video, that "climate change is real" is not in dispute.

Climate changes. We get it. It's called "Weather" by most people.

What is in dispute is:
a) Man's direct responsibility for this phenomena, and
b) Man's ability to control it.

Additional to that, is the question of whether Australia's total carbon emissions make any significant difference globally, which might justify taxing us back to the pre-industrial era in an otherwise futile gesture.

Instasmear

As the Left continue their ceaseless hate campaign against Andrew Bolt, this tweet is being furiously retweeted by an ideological echo chamber.

HAHAHAHA BEST AND MOST ACCURATE URL EVER. http://today.ninemsn.com.au/meettheteam/459065/racist-fuckwit

The link goes to Andrew Bolt's profile page on that website.

Isn't it always the Lefties who are having a big sook about "ad hominem" attacks? Or are they only forbidden when its one of their own on the receiving end. Boy they can dish it out.

But is this even genuine? No.

Due to a quirk in their website, if you write anything at the end of the URL, you'll get to the same page.

For example:
http://today.ninemsn.com.au/meettheteam/459065/nice-guy

http://today.ninemsn.com.au/meettheteam/459065/ratings-winner

http://today.ninemsn.com.au/meettheteam/459065/tossers-reflexively-gag-because-of-him

The fact it's not a real URL or some stunning prank, won't make a difference though. As Winston Churchill said: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Feel free to suggest your own links in comments.

Truth in Advertising

Michelle Nicol, who describes herself thus:

Independent digital strategist & digital communities advisor; RushCrowder; recycle, reduce, reuse fan; rock chick; footy chick; good sort. And I love Elvis.

has a lot of time on her hands. She has been sending letters to every advertiser whose commercials appeared during the first episode of the Bolt Report on Channel Ten last Sunday.

She has tweeted this remarkable claim:

Today iPrimus apologised to me for their TVCs appearing on the #boltreport, and stated they have no association with the program's views.

This was followed by several more tweets:

I've written to 5 of them, and 3 have said they are pulling out. They were bonus spots, not scheduled or requested by the advertisers.

Anyone familiar with advertising will know there is a difference between "pulling out" and declining an offer, the former signifying regret as opposed to simply not being interested in paying for further media after receiving a freebie or discounted placement - very likely in a brand new, untested show.

I believe Michelle Nicol is dishonestly trying to infer advertiser discontent with Andrew Bolt. I suspected the letter (if any) she received from iPrimus was simply a polite PR response which would have indicated (quite correctly) that they are not responsible for any program's views. It would have probably included customer retention boilerplate to the effect they were sorry if she had been offended, even though it's really nothing to do with them.

In addition to harassing businesses, Nicol is running a smear campaign and trying to mislead people into believing the advertisers are shocked. Like minded Bolt-haters immediately retweeted her tweets, spreading the smear.

So I tweeted a simple, polite request to see exactly what was said.

Her reply was charming. (Click to embiggen)

I ask for simple proof, and get told to "piss off". She then insists I have to take her wild claims completely at face value, before covering her ears and refusing to listen.

Waaaaaaaah.....

Noting that Michelle Nicol is furiously tweeting her anti-Bolt activities, completely unsubstantiated to date, I repeat my challenge to her. Post your letter (I suspect it's libelous) and their response. Or retract your claims. An Independent digital strategist & digital communities advisor should have no difficulty doing so.

Update 1: The excuses get better.

@DanLew4U I haven't evaded or denied anything, that's all in your head. I'm simply not going to post someone else's mail.

How convenient. It's probably been classified Top-Secret-Bullshit. So I asked her to simply post her own letter then. No go:

Michelle Nicol
@DanLew4U No thanks, I've got "way too much time on my hands" to bother wasting another second on your nonsense claims.

Uh huh. After half an hour of arguing the point. Poor dear is too busy, probably from writing to all those advertisers all day. So I called her on it again. Her reply:

Truly dude, your bully boy behaviour is not winning me over.

Evade, evade, evade...

Update 2: Oh this gets better and better. Referring to this blog, she writes:

@nadiarao Also, just did some forensics. Seems porn sites drive what little traffic there is to his site.

Well I don't know how much traffic this blog gets (clearly her "forensics" didn't extend to reading any of it and noting that I'm only a guest here). But I'm surprised she found the time to go looking. You know, what with being so busy and everything. Clearly too busy to post a simple letter which would show she isn't a liar and a fraud.



Update 3: Professor Bunyip has his own advice on the boycott attempt, known as "Operation Bolt-Cutter". The 18 year olds running marketing at some of these companies should read it.

Personally, I can't understand why any company would worry about their advertising upsetting people who claim they aren't watching. I also wonder whether the silence-Bolt campaign will be asking people to pull their advertising from the Melbourne Herald Sun. Good luck with that. This is the best PR Bolt could hope for. Talk about an own goal for the critics...

Julia Heart Bolta

I previously noted the delightful Twitter comments being aimed at Andrew Bolt about his new TV show, by people who mostly claimed not to have actually watched it (hey, why should that stop them having an opinion on it?)

Someone has even set up a Twitter account named @BoltIsACunt. No big deal and it only has 11 followers. Although one certainly stands out. (Click to embiggen).



Someone at the Prime Minister's Office has a lot of explaining to do.

Someone at Jonathan Green's Crikey office probably needn't bother.

Update:Gavin Atkins notes that the Prime Minister also follows @Faggotface.

The PM has 99,285 people following her but is only following 56,245 people. So it's not the case that she is simply following people back, to be polite. Similarly, I know that merely following a person doesn't imply approval. For example, it's entirely understandable that the PM would follow her political opponents, and potentially enemies of this country, as an information gathering exercise. There can't possibly be any benefit to following these two accounts though. Seriously, what is going on at the PM's Office?

Update 2: Anonymous comments to this post smell a grand conspiracy!

Bolt aside, this is a pretty sick setup of the PM.

I'll warrant, once they were followed they changed their username/profile settings.

Nice try. Except @BoltIsACunt's very first tweet, said exactly that about Bolt.

Apparently it is inconceivable to consider that:
a) There actually are people who hate Andrew Bolt and would say that, and
b) The Prime Minister would ever do something wrong, incompetent, embarrassing...

No. It's all a conspiracy. I await my cheque, for my small part.

Others suggest it's all a big accident:

Gillard's choice of followers is probably done by a computer program - recall this story about Kevin Rudd following porn accounts.

When that happened, the technology was blamed for automatically selecting accounts to follow. Fair enough. But the second time it happens...

The PM's Office has been following the account since 1 November, when they would have received this tweet:

Thanks @JuliaGillard for following! You are totes not a cunt (but I am aware that your genitalia could be crudely called that).

Classy.

Update 3: It's been almost 2 days since I posted this. Since then, Andrew Bolt has noticed it too, briefly mentioning it on one of Australia's most popular blogs. However the PM still 'follows' the aforesaid Twitter account. Maybe she hasn't been briefed yet? I wonder how much taxpayer money is going to the PM's media monitoring agencies.

Raw Nerve Touched...

The Premiere of Andrew Bolt's new Sunday program - The Bolt Report has certain groups seething.

Highlights from Twitter:

Nadia Rao:

Bolt is a dolt. It's true because it rhymes..

Did not watch the #boltreport. Will continue not to watch it. Because nauseating bigotry mix well with my Sunday morning muesli.

Julia Watkins:

163 000 people watched the Bolt Report and 123 000 watched the encore screening. Why Australia. Please tell me why.

Antony Loewenstein: "

#Murdoch must be so proud http://bit.ly/mNsxFA #boltreport"

Sour grapes, anyone? What do you think Antony would do, for his own show? He links to a negative review in (surprise surprise) the Fairfax press.

(Update: Yes, Murdoch would be proud at the ratings, which matter more than the opinion of a Fairfax competitor. Suck it, Antony.)

Ad Roq:

Andrew Bolt has a great sounding voice for newspapers #BoltReport

Keith Walker:

Bolt Report - a load of self-serving crap!!! Andrew Bolt - a dud!!!

Tony Lee:

Andrew reads the autocue in a sing song voice, but I can't see past the slime he's spewing at my screen.

Flemish Dog:

"bolt will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes "

There was another comment by Declan Fey:

"Can't believe they went with #boltreport name for the show instead of The Amazing Racist."

which was retweeted many dozens of times over the course of an entire day.

In any case, the title of The Amazing Racist has already been taken by an American comic with a lot more balls than The Chaser.

Presumably nobody could come up with anything more witty.

It took nearly an entire day for this one to appear:

I assume that someone has already thought to refer to the #boltreport as "The Vagina Monologue?"

Other hilarious plays on the title followed a similar theme: "Are we strapped in folks? The Cunt Report starts on Sunday"

Someone has even set up a Twitter account for no other reason than to make similar hilarious 'jokes'.

Over at Pure Poison, they insisted they weren't going to watch it. Yeah right.

Following the previously created gynaecological theme, comes this summary of the Left's Telepathic Tivo:

@gibbomeister: The #boltreport seems to have thrown sand into a few left-wing vaginas. They all say they didn't watch but still know it was crap. #auspol

Update 2: Via comments, a mini-review in comments at the Age's article:

"I have a close relative who is a journalist and he speaks of ballance [sic] and ethics in reporting, Bolt couldn't spell the words let alone get them into a sentence, the man is a clown.

No. Bolt couldn't spell ballance.

Barrister fails to recognise temperature contradiction

Always super-keen to fault Andrew Bolt, PP boy Jeremy Sear today again accuses Bolt of ignorance:

Andrew Bolt apparently thinks that the following two quotes are incongruent – “Twenty years or 1000? One of these “experts” is hopelessly wrong”:

Andy Pitman: If we could stop emissions tomorrow we would still have 20 to 30 years of warming ahead of us because of inertia of the system.

Tim Flannery: If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

Does Andrew not understand what “inertia” means? Those two statements are in no way contradictory.

Bolt is right, of course: the statements are contradictory.

Pitman says that even if all emissions cease, inertia will cause temperatures to increase for 20 to 30 years before they stabilize. The unstated assumption is that temperatures would at some point in the not too distant future begin to drop.

Flannery, on the other hand, states that temperatures would not drop for up to a thousand years.

Given that the longevity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is poorly understood, Flannery's 1,000 year figure is pure speculation. Thus for all practical purposes Bolt is right.

Update A Pure Poison readers challenges Jeremy:

Perhaps you should explain why they are not contradictory, Jeremy.
Actually they are two different statements. The first says it will take 30 years to reach equilibrium (radiation leaving earth same as that entering). The second says that it will take hundreds to thousands of years for the carbon cycle to reabsorb a significant amount of CO2 for a measurable fall in temperature.

Jeremy goes on the defensive:

“Thousands of years” is of course again exaggerating the worst case scenario Flannery there describes – “perhaps as much as a thousand years”.

Secondly, it depends whether you’re referring to temperature dropping from NOW, or dropping from the high point. It could be that in Pitman’s scenario the world warms for 20 to 30 years before reaching an equilibrium, and then takes another century or more to drop back below the present figure.

Thirdly, any figure that varies from “hundreds” to “perhaps as much as a thousand” is clearly a figure being given with a big margin of error. The climate is a complex system that changes over a long period of time, and only an idiot would try to declare dates of change with any precision. Or demand such figures.

Finally, we’re talking about a scenario that won’t happen, and it’s a bit pointless to be demanding the scientists waste time answering it. The entire world is not going to cease emissions tomorrow. The point is to get to that situation, or minimise the emissions, as quickly as possible to minimise the destructive change.

Flannery is indeed an idiot for predicting up to a 1,000 year time lag for a drop in temperature.

Update II Mr Lefty provides his typically persuasive "Bolt is an idiot" argument.

Obsessive obsession denial

Australia's most entertaining Lefty blogger:

I don’t obsess over Bolt: he simply writes a huge amount of crap that’s then published by the biggest media company in the land. And I – and the other writers at Pure Poison and its earlier incarnations – reckon that material often needs a proper response.

Not obsessed? Mentioning Bolt 2,765 times over 1,468 days indicates otherwise.

Yet with far fewer mentions of An Obsessive Lefty I am accused of obsessive stalking.

It is also worth noting that Jeremy sees Pure Poison as the natural successor to Blair/Bolt Watch, which evolved from Bolt Watch. Thus Pure Poison is nothing more than Bolt Watch with a few other right-wing writers thrown in for the sake of variety. A quick look at the numbers confirms this.

Is this sad or funny?

Crikey blogger Jeremy Sear posts complete bullshit as justification for his indiscretions

Obviously feeling the pressure resulting from his assorted indiscretions, Crikey's blogging barrister goes on the offensive:

My long-term pseudonymous stalker and the two News Ltd bloggers for whom he/she/it acts as a shameless smearer of critics, are amusingly fairly excited today about what they apparently think are two excellent “gotchas” of, well, me.

1. Using a pseudonym. If you believe the attack, apparently the three Bs now think there’s something wrong with using a pseudonym – if you’re not them. My accusers have all either used (or still use) pseudonyms themselves (even when they wrote for a paid site) or regularly publish and link to people who do. So is it wrong or not?

Now since Jeremy some time ago, via his Victorian Bar email account, demanded my contact details for the service of legal documents – that never arrived – and my details were duly provided, Jeremy has to know that I blog under my real name. Thus Jeremy is accusing either Bolt or Blair, or both, of publishing under an assumed name. Good luck proving that one, barrister-boy.

Then there's Jeremy's last-resort "stalker" nonsense. Everything I know about Jeremy is readily available online. He and his intimates really should be more careful in revealing information about him for all to read if he's going to be all embarrassed and cranky when people refer to it.

But Jeremy insists on compounding his errors:

The first [point, above] should remind readers just how much they get away with using pseudonyms themselves, or by linking to cowardly, creepy attack dogs hiding behind pseudonyms doing their dirty work for them.

As I've already stated, and Jeremy well knows, I blog using my real name.

And just to round out Jeremy's persecution delusions, there this:

And Andrew Bolt thinks publicly attacking my fiancee on news.com.au for a private email is legitimate, does he?

This is more of Jeremy's victimisation bullshit: he and his betrothed like to operate as a team, so Keri James is fair game for criticism.

According to Jeremy's commenters his anonymous comments in support of himself, and use of a fake name on talkback radio, are insignificant when compared to years old comments at Tim Blair's personal blog. The Left really does operate in an alternative reality.

Crikey blogger adopts assumed identity to hassle Andrew Bolt

Crikey blogger Jeremy Sear not only comments here anonymously in support of himself, he also pops up under an assumed name – Jeff of Mulgrave – to hassle Andrew Bolt on the radio.

Compare "Jeff's" comments on the situation in Libya here (at 32:30) to Sear's commentary in the latest Pure Poison podcast to confirm that the voice does indeed belong to Jeremy. Also, "Jeff" makes the same points on air made by Jeremy in writing at his personal blog.

Anonymous commenting and using an assumed identity are underhanded ways for a contributor to a "news" site with mainstream aspirations – Crikey – to attack ideological opponents. What's going on here, Jeremy?

Update For the latest, go here.

What did Bolt know, and when did he know it?

The Alene Composta brouhaha refuses to die with moose authority Jeremy Sear, in a surprise move, today taking Andrew Bolt to task for... damn near everything other than the Vietnam war.

Hell, it's been an eventful week at work so I'm tired and ready to unwind and have already downed a few beers so Jeremy's latest hyperbolic rant sort of has me stumped.

Perhaps because Jonathan Green was the editor when Crikey took the PP boyz on board, Jeremy totally ignores Green's decision to publish and later stealthily remove Alene Composta's nonsensical rubbish.

Andrew Bolt, on the other hand, is accused of:

• "abusing his power to bully the hell out of some vulnerable woman who wrote a personal political blog"
• participating in an "orgy of self-congratulation"
• "Fooling his own readers"
• "Engaging in political debate by bashing a straw-person version of his political opponents."
• "sending his keyboard warriors to mock and bully this apparently vulnerable woman"
• "Bolt revels in the deceit"
• And "when confronted with (apparently) a real person who has been misrepresented and (apparently) a victim of “identity theft”, what does he do? He mocks the victim.
  

Jeremy might want to have a nice calming cup of peppermint tea, pet the cats, practice his moose calls, play some video games and calm the hell down.

No price too high for saving the environment

Andrew Bolt today notes that a Victorian Labour government, rather than construct a proposed water-supply reservoir, converted the dam reservation into parkland and built a desalination plant instead. Based on the astronomically high cost of this desalinated water – "13.50 a kilolitre - compared to just $1 for our current supplies" – Bolt deems the desalination plant "The greatest green folly in Victoria’s history".

PP boy Jeremy Sear objects to Bolt's characterisation, arguing that both the Greens and environmentalists in general opposed construction of the desalination plant. True enough, but the Left was almost unanimously opposed to construction of the dam. Without the dam or a desalination plant where was the water to come from? Perhaps all Victorians should follow the Left's conservation lead by bathing and changing bong-water less often.

The Australian and Andrew Bolt Lamberted and PPed on

Australian Lefties are obsessed with News Ltd in general and Andrew Bolt in particular so it's no surprise that both Tim Lambert and Pure Poison – actually some guy named Wayne guest posting – attack Bolt and The Australian for quoting from a peer-reviewed study. The objectionable quote:

Applying both [conventional and alternative] methods to the most comprehensive existing global dataset of natural disaster loss [provided by Munich Re], in general we find no significant upward trends in normalised disaster damage over the period 1980-2009 globally, regionally, for specific disasters or for specific disasters in specific regions.

Both Lambert and guest PPer Wayne accuse Bolt and The Australian of intentionally deceiving readers through omission of the following sentence:

Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already.

So Bolt and The Australian on the face of it look silly for concluding, contrary to the study's disclaimer, that weather-related natural hazards have increased in neither frequency nor intensity.

But since we're dealing here with notorious fact-manipulator Lambert, and the perennially iffy PP boyz, it's a good idea to take a closer look at the quoted study, the first sentence of which is shaky indeed:

Climate change is likely to lead to an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of certain types of natural hazards, if not globally, then at least in certain regions.

That sentence would more accurately read, "Models predict that climate change is likely to..."

But there's more if one looks beyond the study's abstract:

Existing scholarship comes to the conclusion that while natural variability in weather patterns can explain some of the variability in disaster losses (Pielke and Landsea 1998; Katz 2002; Pielke et al. 2008; Schmidt, Kemfert and Höppe 2009), there is no evidence for a rising long-term trend in so-called “normalized” disaster damage, which is the damage after adjustments for wealth changes over time. To be sure, even if a trend was detected, one needs to be careful in attributing such a trend to anthropogenic climate change, i.e. climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, since natural climate variability could provide an alternative explanation.

Thus this latest study confirms prior studies failing to find an increase in natural disasters – if anything Bolt and The Australian understated reality in not noting that a series of studies fails to link climate change to natural disasters.

This is yet another example of Lefties engaging in the intellectual dishonesty they claim to abhor.

Bolt Seared, again

Andrew Bolt yesterday noted that even though the Gillard government now has more asylum seeker children in detention than ever under John Howard, the Left "says almost nothing against Julia Gillard":

It was Howard’s alleged barbarity to asylum seekers in particular that earned him the foulest abuse from people who showed none of the compassion they demanded from him. You know them and their kind, and how they luxuriated in abusing Howard.

“A man with the heart of a caraway seed,’’ jeered Mike Seccombe of the Sydney Morning Herald…

A “cold-hearted prick’’, said footballer Michael Long…

(He has) “bloodless lips of string’’, added Herald Sun columnist Jill
Singer…

“Unflushable turd,” sniggered author Mungo MacCallum.

The then Labor president Carmen Lawrence even endorsed a Rock Against Howard CD with tracks such as John Howard is a Filthy Slut.

Pure Poison's number one Bolt obsessive begs to differ, producing this nastiness directed at Gillard:

Refugee advocate Pamela Curr said the Gillard government was “no better than the last”.

Jeez, it's no wonder Bolt takes no notice of the PP boyz (and Sear in particular) – not only is Curr's observation tepid, the last government was the Rudd government, not the Howard government.

Anyway, Sear sees evil just about everywhere he looks, even refusing to shop at furniture giant Ikea, which he describes as "my idea of hell", fearing that he will enter the store never to emerge.

Really, it's hard to take his incessant whining seriously.

Update A number of Pure Poison posts, including the one linked above, have gone missing. Shenanigans or technical issues? Stay tuned. (By the way, the cached post linked above, while it lasts, is here.)

Bolt-lust shows no sign of waning

PP boy Jeremy Sear’s obsession with Andrew Bolt has now lasted almost twice as long as his first marriage, and shows no sign of ending. Yet way back in February 2005, Sear promised:

I think this is enough Andrew Bolt for a while. ... It was a brief fling, but I'm bored with him now.

From now on, Andrew Bolt-related posts only when I'm desperate for material.

Over the 95 weeks it has been online, Crikey's Pure Poison has produced a cult-like 363 Bolt-posts, 131 of them authored by a "desperate for material" Jeremy. One more year and Jeremy’s “brief fling” will be longer than World War Two.

His mate at Crikey, Dave Gaukroger, is only a novice Bolt-luster, but he shares Jeremy’s gift for stupid. In a recent Tweet, Dave sarcastically wrote that the Daily Telegraph’s “accuracy” was his favourite thing about the newspaper. But Dave’s Tweet was inaccurate. He blames the Daily Telegraph for those bogus naked Pauline Hanson photographs. That was the Sunday Telegraph.