Tony Morgan writes: Re. “The heart rending tragedy of Andrew Bolt, the most persecuted man in Australia” (yesterday). I would like to compliment Myriam Robin on her article yesterday on Andrew Bolt.

I have watched Andrew Bolt over many years, particularly when he used to appear as a guest commentator on ABC’s Insiders program. Even then he was an ardent climate change denier, for which I personally “downgraded him” as being someone I should take note of on this issue and carefully consider his comments on other issues as well.

After he finished up with the ABC, and I do not know if there was any particular reason for that, I did eventually start checking out his own Bolt Report. I could hardly believe the vitriol he came out with, particularly against the ABC. I watched several episodes to check my impressions and on nearly every episode he found a way to criticise the ABC, whether he spoke about “left-wing commentators” such as Tony Jones or Leigh Sales (yes, even left-wing Leigh Sales for not including words he would have used in an introduction to a story) or other matters. His favourite ploy was to make partial quotes from sentences just to give an alternative impression (usually the opposite) in order to justify his own opinion and comments.

I found this practice to be totally dishonest and deceitful and have never bothered to watch any of his comments on TV again because of this. And this dishonesty appears to be becoming the norm, not only among journalists and newspaper owners but now by politicians. Take this and the previous election, the amount of lies, and quotes out of context deliberately uttered by politicians, or newspaper articles that are found to be untrue. Until we, the public hound these people out of existence or at least hold them accountable for lying or “un-factual” statements, we will never get a fair and just political system.

It all came into focus for me when I heard that Malcom Turnbull had introduced further cuts to the ABC in the most recent budget, but what was the first department to be cut? Well of course the ABC’s Fact Check program — the newest and most effective department to give the public an independent assessment of any statement, claim or suggestion that members of the Australian public would like to ask, with many pollies being caught out. And if you don’t think this has any implications for the honesty and truth of governments I suggest you think again, honestly!

I have no sympathy for anyone who needs to be dishonest in their approach to issues that need honest discussion and debate on major community matters, and one only has to look at what promises politicians of all persuasions made on Great Britain’s Brexit.

Instead of closing down the ABC’s Fact Check department we should be considering how we can not only continue it, but reviewing how we can weave it into how we run this country and not accept that politicians and journalists can lie with impunity.

Save manufacturing

Andrew Gunn writes: Re. “We’re waging a war on young people, but they can fight back” (yesterday). I do wish Bernard Keane would stop taking every opportunity  to bang on that it’s wrong to support struggling manufacturers. He seems to know the price of every industry and the value of none.

To hell with native advertising

Sophie Cordell writes: Re. “How to make money in online media: turn it all into ads” (Monday). Which clever dick ad guru came up with the dumb name “native advertising”?

The title is clearly designed to disguise what is really happening – readers are being duped into thinking they are viewing journalism when it’s just another ad.

I am guessing that Junkee, unlike Crikey is not bound by Press Council regulations that demand a clear line between ads and actual content.

Gerard Henderson’s thin skin

Jock Webb writes: Re. “Men of letters” (yesterday). Oh dear, poor old Gerard Henderson. I did not know he had been so calumniated by Crikey and David Salter. In fact I cannot remember the last time I read anything that he wrote that was of any relevance whatever, so far over the right-wing fence had he lurched, but perhaps Andrew Bolt would embrace him. I rejoiced in his departure form the SMH in the hope that someone less tainted by ideology and more in touch with logic would appear. Alas, we got Peter Reith, but even he is more coherent if no more accurate.