@Shadow Minister: Remember the campaign against work choices. The ALP and unions used exactly the same tactics.

Work choices was in part a direct and deliberate attack against the unions. If I was going to compare the way the Unions lashed out at it to something, it would be the way miners reacted to the super profits tax. The way both the unions and the miners attacked the government of the time using the media is eerily similar.

The AGW debate looks entirely different to me. The organisations and individuals leading the debate don't look to be under any major threat. There is no expensive media campaign. Its just a whole pile of hot air produced by talking heads in opinion pieces, apparently done only because they like being the centre of attention.

Both sides of politics appear to making a right royal mess of it. The right strategy is probably to appear to be earnestly doing something while doing as little as possible. I think that is the track Gillard would have taken by choice, as I have now decided she is the purest populist I've seen in Australian politics in my time. I seen things crawl out of my garden with more willing to take a personal stand than she is. She doesn't have the choice of taking the populist road this time of course. No doubt you enjoy watching her squirm.

Abbott's "we will bride industry not to pollute" policy has no such excuse. The guy is a curates egg - brilliant one day, a moron the next. That policy choice was made on one of his more moronic days. I didn't think it would come back to haunt him as much as it has. Apparently there is a limit to how long his liberal mates can pretend to like something. I find that really heartening.

'Newscorp has FAR greater reach and influence than Fairfax.'

Could that not just reflect more right wing people than left wing people.

I think people read the paper that tells them what they want to hear.

Although I read whatever will make me the angriest.

Spindoc;

What I actually wrote just then was:

"When...media ownership is so concentrated there needs be action to ensure real diversity of ownership; and representative inclusion of diverse viewpoints."

Concentrated ownership can affect "representative inclusion of diverse viewpoints". But it's not *just* conentration of ownership, but effective and inclusive pluralism that counts.

That's not really in contradiction with what I wrote earlier. When I take of "right-populist monopoly media" I'm not saying all commercial media fall into this category.

re: your comments about the counter-reformation - I've been a non-denominational Christian much of my life. I think the true Christian church is all who are in Christ - *regardless of denomination.* But I think Christians have persecuted Christians over the years so often because of the misapproriation of the faith by others for ulterior motives.

I'm actually quite thankful to have the opportunity to write here as well; I think I reach enough people to make my efforts well worth it. One day it would be nice to reach more people; But integrity is always important; and the flexibility I have writing for OLO means I can balance writing with study.

Tristan, I’m fully aware of what you wrote. Your problem is with “meaning”. You fail to comprehend the relationship between symptoms and causes.

The crux of your case is criticism of some sections of the media. You feel that the diversity of viewpoints is somehow restricted (by concentrated ownership) and therefore “your” viewpoint is not well enough represented.

To make your case you must first demonstrate this “limitation” in views or perspectives. Good Luck. I can’t think of a country that is blessed by such diversity of opinions as Australia. That said Tristan, we are listening and await your case.

Like I said, you need to first establish the “problem” before you speculate on a “solution”. Creating a pseudo-problem of your choice will not cut it.

There are a number of phrases you also need to consign to the “utter bollocks, polli-bable diatribe” garbage bin. These include but may not be limited to, “representative inclusion of diverse viewpoints”, “inclusive pluralism” and “Right-Populist monopoly media”. Get rid of this stuff and you might sound less like a pseudo- intellectual smart assed dork.

As to your response to Lutheran model, I think we can conclude from this is you did not study English comprehension or History. Bull dust might baffle brains but you need to choose your audience more carefully.

Over to you.

ho hum "H-S outnumbers the Age by a huge factor - sometimes 50 to 1."

Why do you think that is?

Because the Age is a biased rag and not worth reading and even the H-S, lean as it is, is a better read than the over opinionated Age .. the SMH not much better.

The News Corp papers sell, because they have better journalism, not everyone wants the idealized pulp of the left wing elites.

So now Tristan wants, "What we need is more diversity in the media at all levels. But how to achieve? Perhaps a media diversification levy? Combined with new cross media ownership laws?"

That'[s forced censorship, let the market decide and the market, the people have decided the Age is rubbish.

You can't force people to buy it, next will be government grants to give it away, with the same result, it won't be read - those opinions are not relevant to the average Australian.

BTW - they tried this in the USA, forcing radio stations to give equal time to the left, it died miserably, no one listened, and no one would advertise.

You kid yourselves if you think there is some evil plot that makes people move to the right, away from the flailing loonies screaming the world is ending and you have to pay to stop it.

OK, I confess to a significant level of pedantry but I still think English usage is important. As the author is a qualified teacher, he presumably knows that 'phenomenon' is the singular and 'phenomena', the plural. If he doesn't, let's hope the children of Victoria are safe from his teaching - and his political views.