I haven't read the full range of sources which Graham has listed, but will do so.

However, irrespective of the particular merits of this case, OLO will continue to be under suspicion as long as its Editorial Committee is so obviously loaded with people with right wing leanings. Kramer, Sullivan, Young and Turnbull all have very public connections with the Liberal party, and there simply is no similar representation from the left to balance this.

The interesting question to me is why this obvious imbalance exists in a forum which claims to want to achieve balance. Why is it so?

I agree with Godo.
OLO is heavily biased towards the ideas promoted by right wing think tanks. Take the piece today by Robert Murphy who is the author of a book published by Regnery Press---which as about as right wing as you get in the USA.
Very much a part of the GOP/Republican noise (lies) machine.
Horatio Algier on steroids and take no prisoners.
Tough titties if you lose.
Tell lies often enough and loud enough and the lies then become part of the accepted "wisdom"--really gross ignorance.

I tend to support Graham's argument. Especially in view of the fact that there are other non-RW board members that were omitted from the Age's list. While many of the published opinion pieces do have a RW flavour, there are plenty from the Left as well. OLO brings together a number of authors and participants of different political leanings so the content while at times leans more to the Right, is fairly evenhanded.

If some from the Left feel there is a greater bias they are always free to submit articles.

If the article perhaps had not been written as news, but about political donations using the Wentworth Forum as an example perhaps the decision would have been different.

These events highlight not only journalistic motives (competition) but the need to look more closely at the whole spectrum of political donations.

As for journalism and ethics - well isn't that an oxymoron in many cases.

The other commentators should look to their own biases. Simply because the site occasionally prints material that is not screaming left wing - that might even be described as conservative - does not make it biased. In my view the site publishes too much material from lunatics such as the anti-population crowd, peak oil nutters, green house activists and the odd economic theory nutter but I think that is part of its fun. Others who visit the site, including myself, will take a shot at that nonsense. In fact, as far as I know, OLO is one of the few online sites in Australia that publishes both sides of various debates, and you will find both sides in the story comments.
One of the features of many debates in Australia - and notably the arguments over the greenhouse effect - is that it is overwhelming dominated by activists of one sort of another. One of the slogans these activists constantly scream into the public megaphone is that their views are being surpressed. What this boils down to is that they are horrifed by any contrary opinion at all.

I'm a bit astounded at suggestions that OLO is necessarily heavily slanted to the right. I have read numerous articles on OLO from both sides - from Alan Moran and other ultra-free-marketeers of the far right to John Passant of the far left, and very politically-correct and leftist articles by Jake Lynch and the defenders of multiculturalism. There are Peter Sellick's articles which defend religion, and other articles that are anti-religious. And commenters come from all directions.

Where's the obvious slant?

If any site in Australia is balanced with a fair share of right and left, or perspectives in between, it is On Line Opinion.

I write as a contributor to OLO. I am not sure if I am left or right wing, and for the most part, I only vaguely care about those classifications. However, a lot of commentators on my opinion pieces seem to place me as "left wing".
I have never been asked by anyone at OLO to trim my work to ANY political perspective. The only changes that the editors make are minor stylistic changes, or typos, and occasionally they suggest another title. I have found the editors at all times to be unfailingly respectful of my work and unfailingly courteous and friendly in all email communication (we have never met in person). I have no idea of what the editors' political views are, nor do I care very much. I didn't even know Graham had been in the Liberal Party until I read this piece.
Helen Pringle

Personally I would be very concerned to get the thumbs up from the propaganda machines such as the Age and SMH. They along with our national broadcasters are a disgrace. All I can say is that you must be doing something right. Just look at the bias that these peddlers of fantasy display with the gw arguement and you will realize how manipulative they are. The loony left who are supposed to be champions of free speech are in fact the opposite. Their idea of free speech is likely to be promoting artists who photograph teenage girls naked.

Oh Waah Waah Waah. 5 Pages Graham? You're showing your insecurity. Just be happy for the free publicity man. Journalists are a funny lot.

Before I got to where Graham asked why ‘The Age’ didn’t publish the story itself, I had already wondered that.

If I was asked to publish a story from a political party, I might read it, but no way would I publish anything written by one politician rubbishing another. If an independent writer wants to reveal something he/she thinks needs to be outed, that’s fair enough. But who wants to hear from one politician bad mouthing another politician? In this case, it is from a Green (extremist with no sensible policies) who should be slinging her venom in the parliamentary arena.

‘The Age’ article seemed to be particularly interested in ranting about all the dreadful right-wing people ‘manipulating’ OLO, forgetting their own reputation as a left-wing rag. I don’t think that any regular reader and poster would say that there is any noticeable political bias on OLO from and editorial point of view.

I notice that Godo tries to give it a run, but perhaps he should first investigate the make up of management at Fairfax before he deems OLO to have one sided controllers.

I don’t usually read other posts before I write my own, but having said what I did about regular readers and posters, I took a look and found out that I was wrong about Godo and Ho Hum, and one incoherent blast at Graham from Houellebecq.

Up to date, the rest, like me, support Graham. With a few exceptions, I think that there are more contributions from left of centre people.

People who think that OLO has any particular bias must be so out on the extremes of left or right, that they will soon fall of the edge of their flat little world.

Graham has explained why he did not publish the article, including legal reasons that had nothing to do with the target of the Green smear.

Good on him! I feel insulted on his behalf by the crap from The Age.

Even if I had to remove the word I replaced with 'crap'!

While the OLO Boards may have some particular political leanings, I have seen no evidence that their personal views have lead to the exclusion of any commentary.

OLO could avoid falling into the trap of old-world labelling (left vs right) by participants ensuring that they provide- to use Graham's words- CONSIDERED opinion. I prefer to use the words INFORMED opinion.

Does anyone really want to read or hear someone else's unconsidered or uninformed opinion? The mainstream media have found that if the "opinionator" is a "celebrity", then whatever they say or write can or should be published. Celebrities don't need to worry about facts- we lesser mortals are supposed to be in awe of their celebrity-ness at all times. Mainstream media now devote a lot of time to promoting the legitimacy of the "cult of celebrity" on their front pages or prime time, so that "celebrity" columnists and "media personalities" can do the dirty work of peddling opinion that is devoid of consideration or supporting information.

As a consequence of their behaviour, we lesser mortals think that we, too, can spout any rubbish we please, particularly when there are so many readily accessible on-line blogs and twitters. Public discourse then degenerates into a slanging match, much like a pub front bar at 10pm.

So OLO-ers- show that YOU are worthy of this great medium that Graham and his crew provides! Show that YOU can rise above the media cesspool that used to be a media mainstream! Give boldly of your opinions- just try to base them on verifiable information or logically connected consideration. If we do that, the media cesspool will be seen as the graveyard of ideological dinosaurs that it is!

Dare I say it, but I think OLO is "fair and balanced" on the whole. Though Graham has just been given the kiss of death by everyone’s friend "Runner".

Keep up the good work, BTW at least this site marked their work as opinion, some of what The Age laughingly passes off journalism is hardly even that.

I grew up in Brisbane with the courier mail, not even good for toilet paper, getting better lately but still a long way to go. When i heard about Fairfax starting up the Brisbane times, i was cheering Cm's demise until i got onto BT's website, what a disappointment, even worse than CM's or the Australian's website. None of which offers the option for a comment directly on an article.

Even Crikey which started well has degenerated into allegedly professional journalists showing blatant bias and attacking posts which dare to differ. The punch has been no better either, in both cases crikey and the punch are ahead of the morning papers and the 6 0clock news, but only just.

Frankly the only hope i can see of any future opportunity for Australian people to stop being sheeple, is engaging in the open debate i have seen so far on OLO. I have seen an equal measure of articles from extreme left, right and somewhere in between, plus comments, replies, etc.

Totally open fearless honesty is the only way, keep it up OLO.

I see we have the usual view of "balanced" by some people as no conservative views at all.

A bit like when PM Rudd was elected many journalists and radio/TV comperes insisted that all conservative or "right wing" journalists be got rid of.

Yep, balance all right, just depends on where you place the fulcrum.

Isn't it interesting that the conservative types tend to do less of the barrages of insults and attacks, tolerence is expected from the conservatives and never given to them is it?

I agree with curmudgen on the poking of fun at the eco/climate/population types who want to regulate everything, must be more balance they want e.g their ideas and no one else's.

These two images (accessed from Mumford's The Pentagon of Power)give a stark description of what Western Civilization is really all about--especially in the last 500 years.

1. http://dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

2. http://dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panal14.html

The "culture" of death thus rules to here.

In my opinion all of right-wing opinion and cultural advocacy, especiall and death saturated paradigm. And the "religion" which is an integral part of this power drive. This is especially true of such outfits as Regnery books and all the right-thinking outfits that link into it.

Re the politics of the time I find that Jules Henry in his book Culture Against Man(1963)summed it up perfectly.

"In Western Culture today one must make a distinction between the culture of life and the culture pf death. In the minds of most people science has become synonymous with destructive weapons,i.e. death...Where is the culture of life? The culture of life resides in all those people who, inarticulate, frightened, and confused, are wondering "where it will all end". Thus the forces of death are confident and organized while the forces of life---people who long for peace--are, for the most part, scattered, inarticulate, and wooly-minded, overwhelmed by their own impotence. DEATH struts around the house while LIFE cowers in the corner."

Meanwhile I find that this site provides access to the best of the best critiques of the ruling death and destruction machine.

1. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com

Plus this site exposes the activities of an institution much admired and strongly supported by the Regnery hooligans

1. http://www.soaw.org

I fear that many of the above posters have missed the real issue, although that's understandable since the intention of Young's piece is to distract from the core problem: OLO's protection of Malcolm Turnbull.

Historically, OLO has been mostly even-handed in publication [though clearly anti-environment]. That's what makes it so odd that OLO should not only refuse an article scrutinising Turnbull's financing, but refuse an author who has had all of her previous 13 articles published.

The Turnbulls are deeper into OLO than any other Liberal clan, and that's precisely what makes this deviation from editiorial policy so noteworthy.

Also, be aware that it's been 2 weeks since The Age article, but there's been no OLO discussion about it. That's because all threads on the topic were rejected until Graham Young was allowed to publish and therefore set the terms of debate.
I'm short of time and I'll write more tomorrow, but check out Crikey's article and Young's consecutive, contradictory statements about why the article was pulled.

Oh, and Turnbull just Newspolled the lowest approval rating of his career. Wouldn't it be nice for him if he had some friends in the online media who might help prevent further scrutiny of his conduct?

Fascinating stuff.

Overall, I think that the articles that OLO publishes are quite well-balanced in terms of "Left" vs "Right" perspectives. While their quality is somewhat patchy, I think that the editorial balance is at least as good as most comparable forums based in Australia.

And Fairfax has gone to sh!t lately - but they're certainly not alone among the printed media.

Having said that, Graham doth protesteth just a little too much, methinks. While 'New Matilda' is an equivalent online project to OLO but from a decidedly "Left" orientation, I doubt that their legal and journalistic resources are any better than OLO's.

Not to mention that, on certain topics, OLO's commentary is often more rabidly "right" than that which is found in even the most tabloid of the MSM forums.

Then again, that's one of the aspects of OLO that I find most interesting. Nowhere else do I encounter more extreme views expressed from the anonymous commentariat, including those who post on Fairfax and Murdoch sites - and the most extreme are invariably from the far "right".

I've never encountered more religious fundies, climate delusionists, gender tragics or ranting xenophobes than I have at OLO - but I have to admit that's a big part of the attraction. It's both informative and amusing, and above all distinctly Australian, which is why I tend to participate more here than elsewhere.

Disclaimer: CJ Morgan is a member of the Qld Greens :)

ooh! C.J. I didn't know you found me attractive.

seriously, I agree with you that OLO is one of the most unbiased sites for public discussion, that's why I like it too.

CJ, I agree with most of your post but do think that "the most extreme are invariably from the far "right"" is a matter of perspective. I agree that we have some from the right who regularly horrify me with hwo extreme their views are but they are matched from the left who do as well.

The Left and Right are not the only categories where that's the case. I'm regularly dismayed by the venom from some of the anti-feminists and by comments from others which I'd expect feminists to disown but which are ignored in favor of easier targets. Some extreme's on both sides of that debate.

I expect a lot of the perception of a lack of balance which some might have is more a reflection of where their own views sit.

R0bert

Sancho writes
'Oh, and Turnbull just Newspolled the lowest approval rating of his career. Wouldn't it be nice for him if he had some friends in the online media who might help prevent further scrutiny of his conduct?'

Why would any conservative vote for someone who is even more delusional about climate change than our Prime Minister. Personally I would vote for Mr Rudd before Mr Turnbull. The Liberals have shot themselves in the foot. Here we have the most incompetent Government since Gough Whitlam and yet the opposition can't make any ground. It does say something about the mentality of voters but also about the state of the Liberal party.

I guess Left or Right is all a matter of perspective for individual OLO’ers to decide as their relative position is often “topic” sensitive. I have yet to see any of the mainstream media in news or current affairs provide the broad spectrum of articles or opinions to compare with OLO.

Rather than criticize OLO, perhaps The Age should consider why their turf is shrinking?

Where in mainstream media, can we find broad spectrum reporting, critical analysis, investigative journalism? Where else can we find interesting, entertaining, thought provoking or informative commentary on critical issues?

Sure we have extremes at either end of the spectrum, not to mention the passion that often accompanies these. We have a right to these diverse views and to express them. We also accept that we don’t have the right to be right, which is possibly where the media falls down; they are not exposed to interactive feedback and as a result, are becoming isolated

"Where in mainstream media, can we find broad spectrum reporting, critical analysis, investigative journalism?"

Programs like:

4 Corners
Sunday (when it was on)
Lateline
Landline
7.30 Report
ABC News Radio
Mainstream print journos like Megalogenis, Grattan, Kelly, Sheehan, Waterford, etc.

There's plenty around. When you add them all up you get broad spectrum reporting, critical analysis and investigative journalism.

I agree with others here that Graham does go on a bit, but the basis of his argument is sound. The original piece is a news item, not a opinion piece, and on that basis doesn't belong on OLO. Its political orientation is irrelevant.

Also, weighing in to the left-right discussion - it always intrigues me that the centre is always left out of the balancing act. Somehow, the centre is routinely considered to be sane, rational, moderate and open to innovation, when in reality it's the very opposite. The centre is every bit as reactionary and vengeful as the extremes it so despises. Ironically, it often goes to 'extreme' lengths to protect its turf (aka the status quo).

Throughout history, virtually all the great progressive changes were initiated and fought for by 'extremists', often at great personal cost. Yet, the centre - perched on its moral high ground as both the guardians and controllers of 'majority' opinon - vigilantly maintains its own fiction that all extremism is violent and antisocial.

i pretty much agree with cj morgan and sjf, though wondering if sancho has a point. no question that young has his hobby horses, and the god-on-their-side christians and climate crazies and IPA loons can be tiresome. but they are usually just entertaining, and somehow young's lack of quality control is part of the energy of the site. and in between the loons there are some excellent articles, and excellent contributions from posters.

C J Morgan (i did enjoy the honesty of your post) & other left wing/feminists plus Robert take note as well, when posting i carefully use 2 strategies in my wording.

1, i do mirroring, or hold a mirror up to my "opponent's", and reflect the level of their own rhetoric/hatred/entrenched-position/labels straight back at them, maybe one day, the penny will drop.

2, i use fearless, open, present in the moment honesty, together with plain, simple, Logical, English when confronting them with obvious "inconvenient truths". Or in other words, why not, call a spade, a shovel?

EG, from decades of extensive research into abused children/survivors we now know, that the resulting damage is usually similar in all of them regardless of the type of abuse or severity, therefore everybody who abuses/neglects children is a "paedophile" and worthy of equal opprobrium/punishment. We also equally know that broken homes/families have always damaged children. Left wing/feminist, "family break up" law, therefore abuses children, ipso facto all feminists/leftwingers must be paedophiles.

Formersnag,

Hahaha, you're way out there man. I think you're calling a spade a furry kitten aren't ya?

Hey do you think the moon landing was real or the start of Armstrong's acting career?

It sounds like your holding a mirror up to one of my acid flashbacks.

You may argue that both LW/Fs and Paedophiles are varities of Child Abusers Formersnag, but that doesn't make them equivalent. It's like saying cats are dogs because they're both mammals, and then expecting your cat to deliver your morning paper. The subtle differences can be significant (frustratingly so).

Harry c, sorry but it does make them identical; the damage inflicted on the victims is identical regardless of the type of abuse or it's alleged severity; the methods used when grooming children for abuse are also identical;

lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles, seek employment in DV refuges giving them access to vulnerable women and girls who can be offered tea, sympathy, a shoulder to cry on, an opportunity to join the sistahood, an opportunity to make fast, easy, money out of those bastard men in porn (much of which is made by women today) or prostitution, (many madams are lesbian or bisexual and work in the DV refuge industry)

they become social workers in DOCS, family services, family court, for the same reasons; they network in "rings", local, statewide, national, international where they plan how to break up families, damaging more children (again different type of abuse but same scars left on their victims, same vulnerability to further abuse), who can then be groomed for woman/girl love;

these "rings" are networked ruthlessly to promote lesbian, feminazi, paedophile, lifestyle with members in unions, political parties, journalism, police, judiciary, lawyers, academia, etc, all to spread their influence/cover up problems.

Cripes - we seem to have another gender tragic in our midst.

This one apparently doesn't know the rules about posting on topic.

CJ

The topic being about how "balanced" OLO is.

ROFL

I agree, this discussion on pedophilia is so tangentially on topic that it has only just survived thus far. Anymore discussion of pedophilia, feminazis etc. on this thread will earn someone a demerit point and possible suspension! Unless they are discussing it as a way of getting us back on topic.

I just hope The Age links to this page in it's next article about this!

RobP,

<<Programs like:

4 Corners
Sunday (when it was on)
Lateline
Landline
7.30 Report
ABC News Radio
Mainstream print journos like Megalogenis, Grattan, Kelly, Sheehan, Waterford, etc.>>

Your ARE joking? Right?

Spindoc,

Nope - but maybe I see the world differently to you.

4 Corners is prepared to lift the lid on dirty little secrets in society - the ones that other programs tend to ignore. Lateline is into the latest piece of breaking domestic and international news, current affairs and opinions. Landline is into grass-roots stories in the rural sector. The 7.30 Report is into stories, mainly with a human element involved, that hardly anyone else reports on. ABC News Radio has many good interviews on the state of thinking in the political parties etc.

I know these are nominally left-wing leaning but it's not their fault they're dominating the field. If the right wants to get involved, it knows what it needs to do ... get it's hands dirty and get involved.

Graham

While Formersnag is, no doubt, grateful for your leniency, please point out the tangent when you stated:

"his discussion on pedophilia is so tangentially on topic that it has only just survived thus far"

Your edification would be appreciated.

BTW, you were quite correct in not publishing Lee Rhiannon's article on Turnbull's funding raising as it was a substantial piece of investigative journalism as opposed to opinion.

Cheers

Graham

I fully endorse Fractelle's query. Would you mind explaining why Formersnag's comments on pedophilia and feminism - in particular his/her statement that '... lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles, seek employment in DV refuges' is 'tangentially on topic'?

His/her claim is not only way OFF topic, it seriously borders on hate speech and is disturbingly defamatory to the people who work in the domestic violence field, many of them as volunteers.

Spindoc I thought exactly the same in RobP's list, clearly not a single conservative person or organisation there and all ALP/PM Rudd apologists. (Gratton balanced .. what?)

Have a look at say 730 report when the coalition are on, it's generally a savage cut across your bows never let up attack session and if the government is on it's a lovely fireside chat, with little bits of help with answering if they find it hard going, lots of time to spin whatever they want.

Hardly balanced, but as I mentioned earlier, depends on your personal placement of the fulcrum, RobPs is way off down where the ALP wants it .. good for you RobP you're exactly what the ALP sees as a loyal supporter, are you a.

RobP .."I know these are nominally left-wing leaning but it's not their fault they're dominating the field." it is their fault since they exclude conservative views - name one conservative working at the ABC..?

"If the right wants to get involved, it knows what it needs to do ... get it's hands dirty and get involved." really, when they get involved they are shouted down and denigrated. Let's see Sunday Insiders with 3 conservatives and one liberal thinker.. that would be something to watch, since it is ALWAYS the other way around with an ex-ALP staffer compering. Let's see the ABC hire a conservative journalist .. just one!

Balance .. I wish! This country is choking in liberal points of view and is poorer for it.

odo,

The general problem with today's conservatives is that they are so busy being right that they're not prepared to mix it with their opponents (there are always exceptions to that rule - Tony Abbott being a prime one in recent times). They simply don't want to get their hands dirty and pretty much only do so when forced to. I think that is VERY MUCH our problem and their weakness.

Re being an ALP supporter, I'll give credit where I see it - I don't give a continental if it's the ALP or the Liberals that do some useful things for people. What about you - what's your position on this?

Are you saying that the programs I mentioned are completely UNrepresentative of the population? Are you saying that there's no such thing as a good leftie? I think they very much have something to offer if only on the human side of the equation. They also tend to be into awareness raising only and couldn't solve a problem if they tried, but someone has to start the ball rolling. The conservatives certainly won't do so as they know all the answers (that are important to them) and don't want to move outside their comfort zones; they don't want to upset the apple cart. And in that sense, they get what they deserve ... little influence.

Re balance: the closer one looks at what's going on, the more imbalance one sees. But that doesn't mean that the overall situation is not balanced out by all the competing forces - the seen and the unseen.

Fractelle,

a) Stop being difficult.
b) Sucking up wont get you anywhere either.

SJF,

'disturbingly defamatory to the people who work in the domestic violence field'
I think not. For a start how can you be defamed by someone who is patently a fruit loop. Secondly, all he said was they *seek* employment, doesn't mean they are successful.

But thank you for bring back the fond memories I have of the South Park Hate Speech episode.

I fail to see how the length of a piece reflects on it's content or the integrity of the author. Ditto any leanings.

Surely, the opportunity to reply, comment and check source material is a welcome serendipity for all of us who feel passionately about contemporary issues that define 'right', 'left' or just plain old superstition advanced as "moral" intent. Yes, there are religious devotees aplenty who a generation ago [or is it just pre-Howard?] shared rooms with Napoleon and Elvis.

But this venture here, allows mainstream Australia to inform homophobic, racist apologists we think they are simply offensive. Or, as Justice McClelland stated today - "repugnant". [ http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/31/2642010.htm ]

It's only through constant use of varied descriptive terminology - as opposed to pure cherry picked nonsense - that we can raise awareness, influence erroneous intuition, break through the shackles of religio-political conformity, expose sabotage of democratic processes and indoctrination passing as education. Schizotypal personalities that embrace meta-magical thinking remain due to evolution favouring their reproduction.

On the other hand being confronted with opinions one feels must be commented upon, or deconstructed forces one to articulate such objection and, IMHO, is most informative in revealing how durable or effective ones ideas are in a public arena.

http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/06/sapolsky-on-religion.html

RobP, many Australians read “a” newspaper, (often in a quiet place where, you know, you can, sort of, concentrate). I suspect most catch up with news and current affairs via commercial TV/radio news, ABC TV/Radio news.

As you suggest, these are “nominally left-wing leaning”, which is the point I was making in terms of media “balance”. Let’s face it; the full spectrum of public media is in the business of forming and shaping public sentiment. If the fulcrum point is to the left then so too is public opinion which is in my view, very unhealthy.

OLO on the other hand is a warts and all examination of every possible issue from every perspective. OLO’ers are not too lazy to do their own investigations and research, not to mention sharing their sources and being open to challenge.

I would like to see each of the media you listed, nominate a presenter to represent them on OLO. They would poop their pants.

Who would like to hear from Megalogenis, Grattan, Kelly, Sheehan, Waterford, etc or Kerry O’Brien on these pages?

Ooooh yeah.

At the risk of repeating myself- perhaps I'll paraphrase myself:

Rather than making assertions of bias, why not raise the level of discussion with a few facts- ie examples of bias. These could be of the form of minutes or column cm considered un/favorable left vs um/favorable right, or whatever metric you please. For all of the assertions paraded above, I can't find any data at all to support the claims of bias.

Opinion, yes- but please inform OLO readers so that they can form their own opinions with a few facts- or would that spoil a good argument?

Houllie

<< Fractelle,

a) Stop being difficult.
b) Sucking up wont get you anywhere either.>>

What a bossy-boots you are.

Now, point a)

Graham's allowance of F-snag to post pieces like:

"lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles, seek employment in DV refuges giving them access to vulnerable women and girls who can be offered tea, sympathy, a shoulder to cry on, an opportunity to join the sistahood, an opportunity to make fast, easy, money out of those bastard men in porn (much of which is made by women today) or prostitution, (many madams are lesbian or bisexual and work in the DV refuge industry)"

Apart from their inaccuracy and defamatory nature, indicate a lack of respect by Graham for not taking his editorial duties seriously when rubbish like this is permitted on a topic about the publication of an article about Malcolm Turnbull.

I am as far from "being difficult" as you are from recognising a back-handed compliment when you read one. Which brings me to point b) of your comment.

I stated that I agreed with Graham's decision not to publish Rhiannon's article, as such a well researched FACTUAL article has little place on an opinion-based web-site. Get it? The bulk of articles on OLO have little basis in fact - as Graham himself has identified "On Line Opinion is an opinion site, and opinion in this case is a specific genre. It excludes reportage and investigation and concentrates on analysis of generally public facts", therefore he decided not to published a news-based piece of journalism.

Just off the top of my head, examples of opinion-based articles are anything by Peter Sellick, and numerous articles on pollution of the planet's environment - with particular acknowledgement to Jennifer Marohasy and her pronouncement of the well-being of the Murray-Darling system.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

"I would like to see each of the media you listed, nominate a presenter to represent them on OLO. They would poop their pants.

Who would like to hear from Megalogenis, Grattan, Kelly, Sheehan, Waterford, etc or Kerry O’Brien on these pages?"

Spindoc,

Well, Megalogenis has a blog at the Australian. While he says that he doesn't like the play-the-man stuff, he lets on dissenting opinions so long as they make a point and are civilly put.

So what are you saying about these journalists exactly? That they don't fill a legitimate niche, are biased or maybe they don't concentrate on issues that interest you? Of course, if Kerry O'Brien were to freelance here he'd lose all credibility because he'd automatically be seen to have an opinion (which cuts against the whole grain of the culture of public TV). We probably all know one of his nicknames - Red Kerry - but even though he has strong leanings, tell me who would do a better job of articulating the plight of those in society that get the sharp end of the stick, say. He does a decent job of that, so isn't he filling a legitimate niche?

Re OLO, I think there's some heavy rock-breaking going on here that doesn't happen anywhere else - so it's very valuable. I'm sure there are plenty of interested onlookers in media and political circles that are tuning in in the background looking for new ideas or the next political opening. At the very least, OLO is a political experiment that you can observe from your lounge room where real people participate. As Graham has kind of said, OLO's a place where, bit by bit, we chip away and get to the truth. It also fills a legitimate niche.

RobP, it is my second paragraph I was hoping you would address, the generic issue of positioning of the media in general, that of balance. We know that commercial news and current affairs are lazy, inaccurate and sensationalized. Many newspaper journalists likewise, syndication has sapped much professionalism. The ABC and SBS broadcasts “grate” on many like fingernails down a blackboard, shallow, transparent, tainted and sadly, so predictable. It matters not really, if this is from the presenter or the producer, for many who sit there waiting for the other side of the story, and there always is one, it is frustrating.

I don’t care quite frankly, if the position is as you put it “nominally left wing leaning” or for that matter nominally right wing leaning. The issue of balance is critical because of the influence of modern media on public (often lazy) opinion. That power must be accompanied by an equally heavy burden of professionalism and accountability. That, IMHO, is what is missing.

So yes, I would like to see Kerry O’Brien for example, test his professionalism and accountability on OLO.

I gave up buying The Age a long time ago because of the feeling that I was being force fed a particular line, with any competing thoughts not to be entered into. I find OLO refreshingly different.

By the way, can someone tell where the idea came from that all politcal views (as well as other views) find themselves on a one dimensional continuum that can be described as a distance to the left or the right of a particular point?

Perhaps it was France. Whatever, maybe the line had some value somewhere, once upon a time. But I suspect people and their views are more complex than that.

"I don’t care quite frankly, if the position is as you put it “nominally left wing leaning” or for that matter nominally right wing leaning. The issue of balance is critical because of the influence of modern media on public (often lazy) opinion. That power must be accompanied by an equally heavy burden of professionalism and accountability. That, IMHO, is what is missing."

Fair enough, Spindoc. In an ideal world, everthing would be properly balanced. Of course, in reality, there are some big factors that militate against balance. A prime example is in a ruthless political environment, when your opponent is going to box you one if you drop your guard or don't reach a certain standard.

An advantage of imbalance is that it forces movement in the political process. If everyone was nice to each other and perfectly in balance, the polity would fall asleep and nothing would be achieved. The way things are is probably the way they need to be. And we very much live in an imperfect world. The catch is that if you have a good run over a period of time, you'll eventually have a bad run as well. Or vice versa. It all evens itself out in the long run, one way or the other.