[Abuse of author]

Agreed, I disagree for instance with the ABC's leftist greenie activism but do not want them silenced, merely that they hoist an equal number of conservative articles and opinions so that balance is achieved.

I do not see the ABC role as having to balance average media coverage in Australia .. if the conservative media was completely silenced, would the ABC then move to fill the void by leaning over to conservatism, given that the Fairfax media may even still exist at such a time (fantasy I know).

I doubt it.

The ABC needs to be completely objective and separated from mainstream media, not duplicate what is already there.

The government's privacy agenda I fear is more about silencing disagreement and dissent than protecting individual's rights.

Completly agree- this new campaign my the government regarding privacy is all about distracting attention from the governments poor polling and policies.

Great article and good arguments.

It is interesting to note that the defining point when an African tin pot dictator is in trouble is when he starts attacking the media for spreading misinformation.

Now that Juliar is in trouble, it must be the media that is at fault of spreading misinformation as it couldn't possibly be her policies.

Did One notice , that when Senator Bob Brown was making his Media Statement, he had difficulty keeping a Smirk off his face. He just couldn't help himself, playing pure politics to the Media.

By all means, Have an enquiry into the Australian Media, ALL Media, not just Murdoch.

Also it MUST include Fairfax and evenly more importantly , the ABC.

The ABC was put on this earth to inpart NEWS.. not Political Beliefs.

Only the lefties and the Greens think that their ABC is without Bias!

Perhaps so!
But if you do a Google on the author you will find some interesting stuff about his less than honorable background.

People on the right are always grizzling about the presumed left-wing censorship of "conservative" or right-wing points of view, and how such writers are even somehow "punished" for their presumed contrarian opinions. Keith Windshuttle wrote such an essay in todays Oz.

Never mind that ALL commercial media is owned by powerful corporate interests which by their very nature are conservative, and when push comes to shove, right-wing.

Noam Chomsky has been telling us this for decades via his many copiously foot-noted books.
So too does Media Lens http://www.medialens.org
Third World Traveler http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com
And the lesser known Project Censored http://projectcensored.org

Re Media Lens: it features the work of Sharon Beder who is the author of the well researched book Global Spin in which she points out that most of the "news" is created and placed by the right-wing think tanks and their associated "public relations" firms.
Which is to say that most of the "news" is corporate SPIN.

Re Project Censored: the many items featured here are more likely to be featured and discussed on the the ABC, or what remains of the Public Broadcasting system in the USA, than in any of the commercial "news"-papers.

Even before the latest Murdoch revelations, I thought that some sort of official inquiry into the Australian media (i.e. all proprietors and media forms, including the ABC) is warranted in light of the rapid changes in communications technology over the past decade or so.

The fact that Murdoch, who owns 70% of the newspaper market here (including the only major daily paper in several capital cities), has been exposed for illegal acts in the UK, is all the more reason for an inquiry here. Also, that Murdoch sees himself as a 'kingmaker' in Australian politics, and that his flagship newspaper has 'declared war' on a political party is of further concern.

Let's have the inquiry, with suitably broad terms of reference. Let those with most to hide keep on bleating - they doth protest too much, methinks!

I note that Mr Rowswell has edited his author profile, which now reads

>< Brendan Rowswell is a Melbourne based lobbyist and public affairs professional. ><

It used to read:

>< Brendan Rowswell is a Melbourne based lobbyist and public affairs professional.

Brendan holds a Bachelor’s Degree with a double major in Political Science and History. He is completing a Master’s degree in Public Policy and Management at the University of Melbourne.

Brendan was an adviser to a member of the Howard Government from 2004 to 2007 and remains active in the Liberal Party. ><

Why the coyness? Surely he doesn't think that his background as a Liberal Party hack is irrelevant to his credibility in writing this article. It's Liberal Party spin - nothing more, nothing less.

YES! and =US= Labor/Green left ABC filth do not stop bringing down police officers in the UK sending reporters to prison just watch out!
WE also must be stopped at all costs, from putting links to newspapers from America and Great Briton further muddying the issue with truth.
After all in Australia truth is not seen much in media reporting its about comment not news.
I however get great joy and comfort in knowing truth will out,and soon.
That we will see the power privilege fair, and bought, and paid, for influence of the Murdock team/gang look now at UK papers every day, gee stop them some one!
British press is actually reporting these issues what? Murdock's Dad would be rolling in his grave.
In his day he wrote the headlines for them in Australia at least.

On July 10 the Herald Sun published the following online comment from Mark of Panania "Someone needs to assassinate Julia Gillard NOW before she totally destroys our way of life"

Given this and the recent politically motivated right wing terrorist attacks in Norway I think a debate about media ownership in Australia is very relevant to the sleaze committed by News International. Would even go further and include the corporate espionage and anticompetitive behaviour of News America in the debate.

The neocons like to talk about smoking guns. Well here we have an arsenal.

It goes without saying that Fairfax, the ABC, SBS and anyone else should be included.

Besides all that the Ho Hum google results raised a chuckle: am reminded of a certain chair sniffer with the same political affiliation and a rhyming surname.

morganzola is correct: public affairs professional = spin monster

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8664704/CNNs-Piers-Morgan-told-interviewer-stories-were-published-based-on-phone-tapping.html
In this section of OLO you will find posted in the last week, this mans words .
Used at that time to try to prove nothing was going on.
Here is words are used to? well one way or another he lies.
Yes threats suggestions we Labor greens left should be deported/desexed/taxed out of existence/ashamed of our selves can be read here.
However while keeping federal police busy it only shows we are now not the lucky country but increasingly the bigoted one.
Shock jocks?maybe but first look at Tony Abbott and his front bench!

Actually when I chose my OLO name I was thinking of a pigs rear end as in pigs bottom (just in case the real word ending with UM is taboo on this site)

Meanwhile my very favourite Truth Telling journalist, writer, and academic too, is Chris Hedges especially via his books:

The Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy & The Triumph of the Spectacle
and
The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress.

You might also like to check out the essay he wrote for Truthdig in response to the slaughter in Oslo.

The Liberals claim the need for industrial relations reform, rejection of the Carbon tax and anything that is not within their political ideology, especially when it comes to reviewing the media and their "godfather".
What access do the public have to balanced information in the media, South Australia has three newspapers The Advertiser, The Australian and The messenger each owned and controlled by Newscorp.
Thats why a review of the media is needed, to once again have balanced news.

kipp, you can't force people to buy newspapers they don't want to .. News Ltd is successful because their papers reflect what people want.

Fairfax is dying because they don't have a demographic, they pander to people who are in a minority, and thus the paper has become unprofitable - of course, like the ALP and others, it's the customers fault, not their product's fault.

How will reviewing the media produce "balanced" news, if they all look and sound like the ABC and Age/SMH, will that be ok for you?

Not for me and many others, the ABC and Fairfax preach, hold particular environmental and political views which I just don't want or need, they do not report news, they attempt to fashion views.

No thanks ..

You have to stop blaming the media for the poor policies of the government, the poor job of selling the carbon tax and the poor job of trying to move everyone to the far left.

If you got rid of News Ltd, that would not make Fairfax or the ABC suddenly balanced, whatever you mean by balanced - I suspect you mean no criticism of things you agree with.

If you want other information, then there is the internet of course .. you seem capable of using it. Do you buy newspapers? I don't. If News Ltd and other shut down online news, I'll subscribe and probably to News Ltd, at least I can stomach their reporting style and they DO NOT hide stuff from me.

This government's big ego is their great weakness, they cannot understand it is their policies that stink, that they are out of touch and people dislike them, so they blame the media as if it is their fault .. like some tinpot African despots, Juliar and Bobby Brown, blame the messenger, and their minions, good little soldiers, follow suite.

So Ho Hum and Morgonzola obviously think they are morally superior to Mr Rowswell?

Ho Hum draws attention to some indiscretions he committed 5 years ago when he was a university student, as though that has some bearing on the arguments that he raises in his article.

I deleted Ho Hum's first comment because a reference to that indiscretion was all it contained. He's now made it in the same post where he raises some substantive issues about the article, and it has become part of the conversation. Does this get him around the original moderation? I don't think so. He can spend some time out. If he wants to make discussion threads nasty he can find other forums to exercise his rights.

Morgonzola claims that Rowswell has altered his biography and infers something sinister from that. In fact authors have no power to alter their biographies as the editor puts them into the system. So if Morgonzola wants to complain about anyone it is me.

But there is nothing to complain about. If you look at Rowswell's biography you will find that it is both the shortened biography that Morgonzola cites, which is his tagline on the article, and the longer one, which is what appears on his author page.

If I don't get a retraction and apology from Morgonzola before tomorrow I'll look at applying a penalty to him. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable on the forum.

GrahamY is quite correct. I was wrong to suggest that Mr Rowswell had edited his author bio to conceal the fact that he is a long-term Liberal adviser, and therefore retract any statement or inference in my comment that refers to Mr Rowswell.. My sincere apologies for any offence or embarrassment that may have been caused by my error.

My mistake arose because the piece was so obviously Liberal spin and the tagline so short that I googled him, and the longer bio was one of the first entries returned, so I made an incorrect inference that would reflect poorly on Mr Towswell if it were true. I intentionally avoided mention of any of the salacious references to him that abound on the Internet, but I genuinely think that the author's long-term involvement with the Liberal Party is relevant to the position he's taken in the article.

Anyway, my mistake. I certainly didn't set out to mislead or offend anybody, but I offer my sincere apology if I have.

Oops. I made a typo with Mr Rowswell's name.

My apology for that too :)

Morganzola,

It would be a pleasant change if you debated the issue, not the author.

This sudden new interest in a media enquiry is simply a thinly veiled opportunistic attack on the press.

Phone hacking in British Isles is not defensible.
I believe it is like a crate dropped in transport a crack opened that uncovered much more.
Now with America and all of the British Isles looking past the bubble wrap, we stand on the brink of a scandal
Not getting involved with two posts but Shadow Minister I am baffled by your intervention.
Do you too think much more is to come, or did you just want to intervene in something that is not mine or your business?

RPG short answer, Newscorp own 70% of the Australian media, do you call that balance.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-26/murdoch-s-influence-wanes-as-cameron-slams-downing-street-door.html
I remain amused and a bit baffled by the pretense this issue is not about Australia.
And the lifting the carpet and sweeping the whole thing under a very big carpet.
Laying claims it is about phone hacking, and only in England.
This link is one of 20 I have posted, for the most part from Great Britain and America.
A long read but haveing done just that read the lot ,IT describes both Labor and Conservatives, lets say seeking advice, from this mob.
Now rest easy, yes right now Murdock is very much trying to, lets say Socially Engineer, Australian politics and policy's.
Few honest, not every one is, people can not see he currently is the tail wagging the Conservative dog here.
He has wagged the ALP dog too.
What purpose Democracy if one mans toy can buy it ?
Great Britain, the paper the link leads to says, is concerned about how much Murdock owns.
Yet he owns 80% more in Australia, than the percentage he owns there.
Only the blind would not see for America and Briton this has just begun, Australia can not refuse to see it has privacy only as part of a truly developing explosion of evidence.
That evidence will make some comments burn at a future date.
Australia must not cringe from an in depth look at this firm.

Kipp,

Newscorp does not own 70% of the Australian media. Considering that Television is considered to be far more valuable, in which he controls only a small slice, and radio and internet are relatively free of his influence.

However, he does own the newspapers with 70% of the distribution in Australia. This is largely because of good management, his newspapers have become far more popular than the others, and whilst the number of papers has not changed much, his distribution has.

This is typical of Australia and its hatred of the tall poppy syndrome. If he published a little read rag like the Green left weekly, that was read only by a few effete lefties, then supposedly he could be taken seriously?

SM he does publish right wing crap rags Herald Sun, Advertiser, Telegaph and The Liberals The Australian just to mention a few!!

Kipp,

I guess "right wing crap" is anything that does not support your left wing drivel.

kipp, if Australians prefer right wing crap to left wing drivel, then I guess that's the way they like it..

You don't like the message from a medium that Australian's clearly prefer, you shut it down .. I expect to hear that from tinpot little dictatorships but not here

What next .. state ownership of all property?

So when the ALP and Greens, and the Green Indies come whining about the nasty press, give me a break - the Coalition and John Howard suffered endless ridicule at the hands of the media and particularly the ABC where someone called him "an unflushable t*rd".

It seems to be a behavior of the left, the Democrats int he US are the same, they don't understand why the Tea Party started, they blame all manner of things, when it was their policies that were the problem, the waste the spending. To prove they didn't understand, they re-elected Polosi as their party leader.

The government needs to change their policies, or go to the people.

The government's policies stink and the public has turned, and as usual the ALP/Green Indies have to have a scapegoat as they do not believe it could be them, it must be some "agent" stirring up trouble.

no it isn't .. it's them, and they need to take responsibility for their actions, stop behaving like a child who insists they are entitled to whatever they want, (to listen to Senator Conroy, you'd think he owned his part of government)

It's not the fault of the media, and if they carry on this way for the next 2 years, well actually .. fine by me

Lets agree to disagree as I believe in social justice and human rights, if that make me a lefty in your thinking, instead of being a me, me, me rightwinger, then I am happy to be who I am! Humanity must always come before greed!!

kipp how do human rights and social justice demand an end to free speech?

It's a convenient crutch, hey I'm different, in another post you were calling for censorship of News Ltd .. because they are popular, now you're hiding behind your politics says, tomato tomatoe we're all just different

no, sorry, you can't just slink away from what you were demanding, that free speech be curtailed because you disagree, and it has absolutely nothing to do with human rights or social justice.

How is News Ltd against human rights and social justice .. they are not, but they do criticize and hold people to account who BS, like our current coalition government.

man up and admit it, you don't like News Ltd, because they are popular and people prefer their message to the constant negative drone of the left .. otherwise, leftie newspapers would rule .. yes?

Right wing crap + left wing drivel sums it all up quite nicely.

The media merely reflects our childish and dysfunctional political duopoly.

Take TV for example. It could have been a wonderful thing. Instead it has become the most inane waste of time invented. Why the commercial stations interrupt perfectly good commercials with crap programming is beyond me. Same with commercial radio.

I prefer to read and don't have time for a daily paper so I subscribe to both the Weekend Australian and Weekend AFR. Lasts me a week. Everything else comes via the net and radio.

Both papers are fairly well balanced apart from the few obvious dingbats.

The problem with Murdoch is he is not only becoming increasingly toxic with governments around the world but also with his own shareholders. It will be that latter that bring him down.

Refer to my post on another thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12380&page=0

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-29/british-phone-hacking-inquiry-opens/2815008
Kipp you will in time find your combative fellow posters are uninterested in truth balance or fairness.
This link asks questions.
Why is it not seen in the propaganda and power farming Murdock press?
Why is any attempt to review that power and privilege seen as left wing?
Other links will be opened on going to this one.
Australia, largely because of Murdock power, is not seeing the full story.
Watch how ever, and it may well take place! if Murdock arranges[he has that much power] new Labor leadership.
Those today crying left wing beat up will soon bleat another tune.
For our country's future our only interest in the matter should be has he and his firm done wrong.
Tea Party need to win, no matter how is sad.

Belly "Australia, largely because of Murdock power, is not seeing the full story." If you only read the Fairfax pages and the ABC, you would have been totally surprised by PM Rudd's downfall, you might even be surprised there are other views on man made climate change.

You see, if you do not read the only viable alternative to those sources, you do not get the full story .. and that is why we do not want News Ltd closed down.

The journalists at News Ltd are allowed to investigate, they are allowed to be journalists, in the ABC and Fairfax, they must be evangelists, and shape your views .. no nasty counter stories to the glory of man made climate flagellation there, no siree.

Now to be fair, the ABC occasionally allows a mention of climate skepticism, but only so 20 articles can then be written damning any disbelievers - that's not news, or opinion, it's religion.

Do you wonder why News Ltd is popular, we don't necessarily want the left wing and climate religious views constantly thrown at us, nor do we want alternative sources in the free press closed down by a minority who dislike contrary opinion.

Would you like to ban people off OLO with contrary opinions?

You'll want to control all TV next, and then we'll be offered the ABC or SBS .. cool eh? /sarc

News does have some token investigatory journalism but to suggest that they alone have that and do not engage in their own brand of evangelism is pure and simple right wing crap.

The true art of newspaper investigative journalism has diminished as management has slashed costs. A paper requires revenue to survive and with declining readership comes the decline in advertising revenue. Management are then forced to contain expenses and true investigative journalists are alway the first to go as their lead time does not add to the bottom line.

Inevitably a lot of what passes for so called investigative journalism is mere opinion dressed up as fact. Fairfax is currently going through this stage under a new CEO.

To argue one side or the other is superior is mere brain dead ideological bias.

The 70% ownership of newspapers is a valid point. If someone owns 70% of something then it is likely that they will have 70% of customers. In some states News is 100% and punters will buy it anyway despite their own personal bias.

Given Murdoch's increasing toxicity it would make good business sense to flush him out to unlock the estimated 25% of value which has been discounted from the share price due to his nepotism, unsound business practices and increasingly unprofitable fetish with newspapers.

The Australian has always had articles exposing failures of government policies. That Labor is presently in government automatically implies that they would be the focus of scrutiny, and negative press. The alternative would be a compliant media that gives bland Ra Ra support.

I have seen in both the fairfax and news ltd papers opinion pieces supporting both sides. However, with the litany of policy failures and taxes that are wildly unpopular, it is not surprising that the press, in reflecting public sentiment, are not wildly complimentary.

The reason that the government is the focus of criticism is because of its blatant incompetence, it is not biased to report what you see.

shadow minister .. hear hear, completely agree

The 70% ownership by News Ltd was never an issue when Howard was in government, he accepted criticism and didn't bleat about it.

I'd like to see the ABC less biased, but don't expect it to happen overnight. (I reckon we should put them up for sale, and then sell them to the lowest bidder, who would then gut them and keep what is going to work, get rid of the benevolent leftie retirement village mentality.)

If Fairfax have genuine investigative journalism, it's unfortunately lost in a sea of vested interests, biased commentary and barracking for personal interest areas, like "earth day", or whatever it is. Little wonder it is in trouble.

I can see where this is going though, the NYT is in trouble, and progressives in the US have suggested the taxpayer should fund it now, or lose an "important" source of alternative news .. if the progressives won't pay for it, why should anyone else? Same with Fairfax, let it die and maybe the people masquerading as journalists will go and get real jobs.

rpg you very clearly are both overly self confident and rather poor at looking at posts other than your own.
My links, and they could have been 3 times the number mostly came from America and the British Ilse's.
Senior police now soon, the head of the press council and heaps more have been forced from their job even sent to prison.
I read, every morning, on line editions of Australia's best paper the Fairfax Sydney morning Herald.
The Melbourne age,West Australian paper too.
Australian, can not finish the bias bigotry and lies sicken me.
Sydney Telegraph, as above.
Goggle Australia/New Zealand/Canada English And USA following the links.
I finish with the Guardian and English Telegraph New York Times.
So much for your observations made I think in haste.
I long ago saw you are welded in to defense mode uniterested in truth.
Much pain on the way, News International run on rails that Rupert Murdock wants and its problems are international and will be the end of this purchaser of power.

oh dear, belly I'm not interested in, nor care for your links, you can find anything you like on the internet, that's all it proves, big deal.

So you read a bunch of left wing papers online, but probably don't subscribe, and thus fund, any, but bleat they should survive and Murdoch not.

News Ltd readers are prepared to actually buy his product, what does that tell you?

Oh jeez, I better tell you, they care enough to make sure the News Ltd substance continues, what are you prepared to do?

Apart from demand someone else should pay for the sustenance of your political beliefs propaganda vehicle? Or insist that the government regulate what you are not prepared to back .. typical sense of entitlement stuff, get over the fact that most Australians are conservative, who occasionally dabble in progressive thought, but not for long. On the whole they are conservative.

The Sydney Morning Herald, is but a phantom image of the Age in Melbourne (or vice versa) and yet they still can't make a buck, any wonder when their content is rubbish and only read by penny pinchers .. have you ever bought the newspapers and read the content that is not published online?

If you did you would know the quality of the News Ltd papers is superior. The journalism is way better written and is deeper in thought, do you know that?

Like the New York Times, the SMH and Age are all dying, for lack of subscription, why is that?

I used to try to read the Age and SMH, but it just got too much, too much left out, too much evangelizing and too much elitist talk down your nose, finger wagging at the masses and telling them what they should do and believe.

no thanks, are you an inner city eco snob .. ?

Tell me I'm wrong ..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-29/fresh-hacking-allegations/2815254
This link comes from the New York Times.
It leads to a page that has many other links about this story.
A story fast developing and changing, A conservative Baroness, unlikely to be other than entrenched conservative?
Has been forced from her job.
We, every one of us,are chess pieces being moved by other hands.
But lift your head fellow posters, look no further than rpg.
Those comments are so blind, in defense of such a crime, and extremism with in Sir Robert Menzies Child Liberalism.
After my leader, Dysfunctional Julie Gillard falls, she will, after a split ALP vote sends greens and Labor over the other side.
What of Australian politics? rational debate is dead for some.
Liberal Labor, middle Australia, is justice in the Matter of Murdock, dependent on our biases?

uh belly "look no further than rpg. Those comments are so blind, in defense of such a crime, and extremism"

That's verballing and misrepresentation and could even be regarded as the usual leftie hysteria, but what's truth got to do with anything.

I have not defended the hacking crimes, just defended free speech.

But I guess from your perspective it's the same thing.

I expect an apology mate .. call me for what I am, not what am not, but the left never apologizes does it, just fabricates, exaggerates and moves on to the next lie or "framing of the story" about the evils of conservatism .. and you wonder why rags like the leftie newspapers are dying, sheesh.

rpg the chances I will say sorry to you, for expressing opinions of you based on your posts is nil.
You rebut your self very well, I am no lefty in fact the loony left is as much my enemy as your extremist views make you .
You need to understand.
In debate truth has Merritt.
Also to both over estimate your self and under estimate your opponent is to defeat your self.
I rarely see such blinding extremism linked to such bigotry.
Your reference to left is clearly such.
I do not feel the need to give you reason to continue your charge away from truth and honesty or your unfocused rant.
It is clear, just wait, Murdock has gone too far too often and your humble pie will be immense.

RPG, can you name a Leftwing newspaper or media outlet, that one can purchase read or watch?
Thought not! As the rightwing paranoia borders on irrational thinking; rightwing upbringing has a lot to answer for!!
Did your mother never tell you? There are no reds under the bed!! :)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/camillagate-scoop-raises-questions-for-murdoch-20110730-1i5cf.html
If Australians just read this link.
Look at the time it took place.
How the information was gained.
How and why it was used.
Then each of us, if we care about the very foundations of our Society.
Fairness/equity/ rule of law/implications far more important than privacy.
Are we served by a printed and broadcast media more interested in a story than its impacts.
Than the law, or balance.
Can we prop up the hate talk from such as rpg,is it true any concerns about the above are to be seen as lefty loon's at work?
Indeed we , if we fail to lift the rug, put the spotlight on, Murdock's International Media, all of it, we can forever understand we indeed are pawns not meant to be in control of our own thoughts and governments.
Are some crimes to be seen as ok?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/29/what-next-for-rupert-murdoch-conversation
This link leads to a two sided debate about Murdock the man and his billion dollar play thing.
It in my view is balanced, I long ago formed and stand by my view he has not only too much power, but badly miss uses what he has.
I am convinced we will not, yet, see this open look at the much bigger implications than privacy involved here, bothy links are not going to be matched in this country, that leaves questions we must address one day and will.

kipp "RPG, can you name a Leftwing newspaper or media outlet, that one can purchase read or watch?"

The Age, SMH and ABC (you can hear and watch as well as read on the internet) in Australia, in the USA, the NYT etc etc .. )

you can apologize now, thanks .. or do you think they are right wing outlets? They admit to being upright chanting and howling lefties, why do you "deny" it?

belly, give up the links, no one cares .. you seem to have recently discovered the internet, everyone else has been here for many years, it's not clever to post links .. do you notice you're the only one who does it .. why do you think that is, it's because, you're a Luddite and an ignoramus and behind the times .. I hesitate to call you names, you might not understand them.

RPG,

Posting links to back up your opinion is far better than simply venting hot air.

I seldom agree with Belly's opinions, but with links to his source of opinion I can at least take him seriously.

I personally believe that Murdock's News of the World paper which was less than 1% of his interests had a rogue element. There is nothing to indicate that the other 99% is also rotten.

http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2011/07/30/prince-william-admonished-murdoch-execs/
This link is both of interest because it reported the words of a Royal victim.
Spoken to those who offended against him.
It includes a gee! have we not said sorry yet!
From Rupert's son.
But of most interest to me, is the opinions of ordinary Australians that comes with the link.
Now thanks SM, some balance here from you.
rpg however? it clearly is your exercise comes from jumping to conclusions, and puffing your chest out.
I have over 4.000 posts in OLO, not my first forum, been here from about 2005.
Your constant references to left, informs me you have no grounds to comment on politics.
Your requests for me or anyone to say sorry have me ROTFL!
My minds eye now has drawn a picture of you, some what unfaltering, no need to share it with you, it greatly amuses me however.
I think you can be saved.
Just follow these instructions, buy a mirror.
For a few minutes before posting look in to it.
Say *I am not a God*
Lefty's are Citizens of Australia* every one is more left than me*
Hope it helps.
Too if you can remember opinions are free free speech is a right, and now law or rule ever existed that says even remotely you are always right the world wrong.

belly, I expected abuse after the fabrication and lack of ethics, and you're true to form. (160 words of abuse, self centered preening and bragging, I would suggest you might have a look in the mirror yourself.)

Just what I deserve trying to converse with a leftie, should have known better, now I do.

You say free speech is a right, but want Murdoch closed down .. amazing, anyway, I'll not bother again with abusive people.

Shadow Minister, I believe Belly has taken your post as encouragement to be abusive .. pity about that.

So much for free speech, and rogue elements.

Belly, RPG, et al,

Having read both the Australian, and the SMH pretty much every day, I see articles attacking both sides in both papers. However, the main difference (and this is my own observation) is that while the SMH tends to be reserved in its criticism, the Australian is not.

For someone that is in trouble and bearing the brunt of the criticism, as the labor party is at present, the no punches pulled style of the Murdock press would seem to be bias.

News corp does not own 70% of Australian papers, it simply owns the most popular ones. It must be doing something right.

In debate, no matter what the subject, two sides exist.
Those two may both be only partly right.
Amicus rpg [who by the way insults me in every post] have only one side to their debate.
And a miss placed certainty that they only are right.
This thread infers privacy is the only issue, and not here in Australia.
I strongly think phone taping, is only a symptom of the Problem.
And I think, as of yet,we have little or no evidence that has taken place in Australia.
Amicus, if you wish me to consider you a worth while opponent to discus politics with,you wait in vain.
Do me this favor, look at Liberal/Labor leadership, tell me when we last had such failures on both sides.
It plainly is not good enough! to ignore the true nature of Tony Abbott.
Both you and poor old rpg, who has been here years less than me.
MUST first look at your posts, all of them.
To condemn me for rudeness, without noticing the silliness of the idiotic use of the word lefty is.
Well gentlemen/Lady's evidence of lack of ability to understand this/maybe any subject.
Shadow Minister you are aware I have said your team is home in the next election.
But if I was a conservative, and I am not, my demands would be the same as for my team.
They are.
dump current leader and some on front bench.
Put policy's out now, fight only ones we dislike for our country's sake.
Put the greens last both sides and consider removing the senate.
My Dysfunctional fellow posters may remember I find the left as bad as I find them, the dog whistling right/tea party.

I've just had my attention drawn to this thread. It appears that my earlier intervention had little effect except to ensure that the author didn't suffer anymore ad homs. The rest of you seem to be, generally speaking, throwing them about rather freely.

So, from this point on, can I ask that you return to dealing with each other civilly? I'll be deleting if you don't.

Graham (Moderator)

ok I now leave this section of OLO.
I how ever want to go on record saying the term lefty has been used more often to denigrate me and my party.
I see no reason other than one of those who began this slander in the form of debate calling for help for intervention.
I will continue to post in other section but question just how much insulting is enough?
I hope Australians will not forget those on both sides of the fence are still Australians.
Also that, no leave it, the use of that term is in my view uncalled for and insulting.

Pheeew. Might get a word in amongst all the kettles calling the pot black.

Just like a lot of the post 9/11 legislation that further intruded into, disrupted and controlled peoples lives, any enquiry into media ownership should only be feared by those who have something to hide. Won't mention the usual cliches about what goes around comes around, karma, good for the goose etc. Won't mention that they were enacted by paranoid governments that were clueless on how to treat a crime as a crime either.

On the bright side of this however, my fridge has never been attacked by terrorists, boat people, Labor, burqa's bearing bandaids, Greenies, dinks, nimby's, mobs, muggles, droids or any invented enemy since John Howard sent me a magnet to protect it. Australia is safe while my Coopers is safe. So there is bound to be an upside if any further liberty depriving legislation is enacted to keep us even safer from the evil media that brainwash the braindead.

Finally an observation about paranoia. Just because you are paranoid does not mean that your thing is not out to get you.