Andrew Bolt. Credit:Justin McManus In fact, her ''apology'' was contained in an 18-page document in which she said: ''I should apologise to him because I 'hurt his feelings' and offended him. I did not apologise for my belief or my intention of trying to explain my beliefs … I believe his obsessive writing about the colour of the skin of particular Aboriginal people is malicious and cowardly.'' Some apology. Showing a serious degree of sensitivity, Bolt then demanded an apology from the public broadcaster, which Q&A host Tony Jones duly delivered on Monday. According to Media Watch, this was even before Bolt flagged defamation proceedings. Maybe Aunty's lawyers wanted to avoid another round of bullying from the government and News Corp. Already it has the Prime Minister's dinner guest and Murdoch pen-man Chris Kenny on its schedule of defamation cases, with Tony Abbott saying the ABC should not be ''defending the indefensible''.

''Next time the ABC comes to the government looking for more money, this is the kind of thing we would want to ask them questions about,'' he said. If ever there was a blatant contempt of court, this is it - threatening a litigant with a monetary penalty if it defends itself in civil litigation. George Brandis must have forgotten the Wran case in which the former premier was found guilty of contempt for encouraging the second jury in the Lionel Murphy case to find the High Court judge not guilty. It would not be surprising if the ABC applied for a judge-alone trial or a jury of 12 in the Kenny case. But back to fair-skinned Bolt. He is unhappy with Jones' apology on behalf of the ABC. He wants it to extend to things for which Langton hadn't apologised. It's all too precious for words. For journalists to be demanding apologies and suing for defamation is undignified and embarrassing. The licence to dish it out has the associated responsibility of being able to take it.

Journalists have ink by the barrel to unload on their attackers, yet here we are with a chorus from News Corp demanding apologies from the ABC because its sulphuric columnists and opinion pedlars sometimes get offended, insulted or humiliated. If it's good enough for racial minorities to cop a bit of abuse in the media, there should be a rule under the journalists' code of ethics that reptiles, who can defend themselves in print, the internet or on air, should not sue for defamation or insist that people apologise to them. News Corp wants to be rid of the offend, insult and humiliate provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act - at the very least. They haven't extended their campaign to amending or repealing the Defamation Act and monetary awards for damage to reputation and hurt to feelings. It's all right to offend racial or ethnic minorities but, happily, the Defamation Act is still there as a back-up for miffed journalists. On Tuesday The Australian floated the likely amendments to the act. ''Offend, insult and humiliate have to go,'' declared columnist Nick Cater. ''Intimidate'' or something similar is likely to stay. Then he turned to amendments to the exemptions provisions of the act, s.18D. It currently says that what otherwise might be offensive, insulting, etc under 18C is defensible if it is said or done ''reasonably and in good faith''. Cater said the ''good faith'' test ''must be removed''. Oh dear, you've picked the wrong one, Nick. If journalists want a defence or exemption with a better chance of protecting them, ''good faith'' is infinitely preferable to ''reasonableness''.

Loading Richard Ackland is a journalist, a lawyer and a former presenter of the ABC's Media Watch. Twitter @JustinianNews