Well, you didn't bag The Australian, which is perhaps less Murdoch-dominated than you think. The dross you decry, I avoid, it's not obligatory. I get news and comment from many web sources, pay-tv news channels, The Economist etc, not of course the nitty-gritty of Queensland politics but a broad, informed perspective on wider issues. Diversity is ever-increasing, less and less a problem.

My main concern with the non-reforms is that, as with other parts of the economy, policies which embrace openness, competition, change and innovation will best serve the community. No forms of material or content should be reserved to any particular mode of transmission - all transmission modes should be free to offer whatever material they choose.

The Prime Minister should support open, pro-competitive media policy rather than washing his hands of substantial change in the face of recalcitrant free-to-air tv vested interests.

Couldn't agree more in regard to the quality of programming, but here's the crux of the problem - ultimately, it's what the people want.

If foreign correspondent rated higher than big brother, one of the commercial networks would snap it up in no time and promptly run it into the ground (Good news week anyone? perhaps this will be the fate of the Glass House too).

We do need the ABC and the SBS, which is why I find I've found the government hostility toward the ABC somewhat disheartening, though predictable.

That being said, a fine line needs to be found where the bulk of the people get what they want, but there is an alternative for those who want a little more quality.

I think we're pretty close to this now, but I suspect we're headed in the wrong direction.

While I agree with the general thrust, it would have been nice if Dr West had checked his facts. It was Nine who inflicted the Aussie, Aussie, Aussie that passed as the broadcast of the Commonwealth Games; they accurately matched Seven's efforts with the Olympics. Thank heavens for SBS when it came to the Soccer.

And I couldn't let it past; it's Phillip Adams who does Late Night Live; Tony Delroy does a wanky psycho-babble session called Late Nights with Tony Delroy. It's an entirely different class of radio that would match well with such high-brow programs (on TV) as Better Homes and Gardens. Phillip Adams: now that should bring out the rabid right; fancy praising his broadcasts!

Actually Peter, I doubt you would get *more* of the same, rather the extra content to existing owners of TV would give you substantially *more* of the old. Extra channels offered to commercial networks (and why would they want more - they already have 3 standard definition digital channels each that carry a copy of what they are broadcasting) would need to be filled with content, which means re-runs or infomercials. No one is more creative than a television executive!

TV and media owners are in a market. Their product is an audience which they sell to the product to buyers - the advertisers. TV, radio and printed press are just the media which brings the product and the buyer of that product together for a fee. The programming inbetween selling slots is just the bait to keep the saleable item's attention - nothing more.

It just ain't democracy - Neo-Economedia.

The Australian motto of a fair go in Politics appears to be flawed when major political parties are awarded $1.97 per vote.

The cost the Australian Tax payers is around the $60 000 000 dollar mark, paidout at the end of each election to those candidates who have received more than 4% + in the electoral votes.

Liberal and Labor normally pocket around $20 000 000 dollars each. With the outstanding amount going to other fringe parties such as the Greens.

It is disturbing to find that Corporate Media have already been given in advance a chunk of the presumed votes dividends for advertising the major parties.

It is then the media's job because of the large amount of future advertising contracts at stake, to push the political parties who has spent more advertising dollars with their business.

A communist agenda of mock and ridicule are part of the strategy to protect these lucrative contracts on behalf of those who are frightened of losing their jobs.

Does this mean that the major parties will have more of a wide variety of media outlets to spend our taxes on for their party campaigns?