Conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Bolt is in trouble again, this time running afoul of the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Naughty Bolt

That’s from Fairfax, of course, enticing expectant progressive readers to click on a story about Bolt condemning same sex marriage. Not quite:

Sky News has earned a slap on the wrist from the media regulator after a pro-marriage equality advertisement was aired on The Bolt Report without an appropriate disclosure. 

The 30-second ad featured a surgeon, surf lifesaver, firefighter and military officer urging politicians to legalise same-sex marriage.

It aired during an ad break for Andrew Bolt’s conservative talkshow, and also featured a banner that looped across the bottom of the screen alongside the day’s headlines. 

The Australian Communications and Media Authority received a complaint arguing the ad should have come with the usual political disclosure. The disclosure announces which person or political party has authorised the advertisement immediately afterward.

So Sky News got into strife for running an ad without appropriate attribution; the matter had nothing to do with Bolt or the Bolt report. Fairfax’s leftist readers would have been sorely disappointed at having been deceptively click baited.

Update: Bolt at his blog:

So Sky News, not me, accepted an ad. Sky News, not me, ran it during my program. Australian Marriage Equality, not me, forgot to add a disclosure saying it had paid for the ad. Sky News, not me, was found in breach by ACMA. Sky News, not me, was ordered to rectify the mistake.

I did not make the ad, accept the ad, run the ad, comment on the ad or even see the ad.

But to generate traffic from readers it’s conditioned to eagerly expect the worst from me, The Age runs that deceitful headline: “The Bolt Report breaches ACMA rules over marriage equality ad.”


  1. I was of the opinion that Few Facts were circling the Drain last year?

    What happened, did they put their Journalists on a ‘click bait commission package’ to buy a bit more time, or did they get bailed out by a mystery Patron?

    As for the nature of the article, this amounts to an administrative slap over the wrist for airing a Conservative viewpoint?

    Which then begs the question, why is such Bureaucracy against free speech even in place?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s