I'm very concerned about an Australia where the Govt monopolises the broadband network and proposes their own form of internet censorship, the Prime Minister tries to bully the media and will not disclose the outcome of clandestine meetings and together with the Greens she seeks to suppress freedom of the press. It is certain that the Greens, like all totalitarians despise democracy, because it gets in the way of their wish to impose their ideological righteousness on the rest of us.

Imposed secularisation of society, centralisation of power, huge and inefficient infrastructre schemes, the decreasing wealth of the individual and the diminishing status of democracy are a very concerning trend and bear an eerie similarity to some very dysfunctional regimes from the past.

For a Prime Minister to threaten certain parts of the Press because they express opposing views is concerning and a denial of the fact that it is the voice of at half of the nation who don't vote for the Left. The community must fight against this to the very end because if we lose freedom of the press, we have lost all freedoms.

I'm also concerned at concentration of media power, but to suggest that the government is the main culprit is ridiculous.

Right commentators like Graham laud private ownership because it allows control of the media by their ideological soul mates. Note the glib way in which Graham notes that News Limited 'might dominate newspapers in the eastern states', as if this is unimportant. The dominance of the media by a small group of powerful individuals and companies is bad for democracy, and does not provide the diversity we need. Does anyone think that an editor of The Australian who suddenly began to run good news stories about unions would keep his/her job? Consider the right wing rent-a-crowd who dominate The Australian's opinion pages. Look also at the very calculated plans by Murdoch/Rinehart to shift Channel Ten to the right.

Without limits to media ownership, the Murdochs of this world would have complete control. The UK hacking scandal is of peripheral relevance here, but it does indicate the unscrupulous activities which journalists are capable of, and therefore is another argument for limiting domination by a few and placing the media under constant scrutiny.

It's important to remember Connell's comment years ago that the media don't just favour big business; the media ARE big business.

Is this opinion or is this news? It's so hard to tell these days...

When a media outlet runs what seems to be a campaign for or against something, should I be worried?

Editorials used to be restricted to one page, but then it;s all about the advertising. Real news does not attract lots of "clicks" and comments.

Graham,
You wrote “It's all about "bias". Of course it is! You are a good example of the unavoidable fact that humans are incapable of objectivity. You seem to be an intelligent, liberal, caring person who values open debate, and yet – to cite just one example you refer to the Greens statements as ‘platitiudes’. This is an unsupported value judgement, no?

Do you chose not to, or are you unable to, use value neutral language when discussing the Greens or any group or idea you disagree with?

Re an inquiry into Rio Tinto; I did think that this would have been a good thing. I assumed it didn’t happen because big corporations do pretty much whatever they want. That is my bias and I am fully aware that this assumption is biased and based on the way I see the world. Why is your world view more 'true' than mine?

“Calls for News to be investigated are all about political advantage.” So is there anything in politics that isn’t all about political advantage? Do you examine everything that Tony Abbott does with the same attitude that things done for political advantage are bad? If not, why not? Incidently, do you think that Malcolm Turnbulls comments yesterday were motivated by a desire to ‘tell the truth’ or was it for political advantage?

You also say.“ They are rife with conflicts of interest and not to be trusted. They also illustrate the Greens' tendency towards authoritarianism and paranoia, as well as a failure to grasp the new media reality.” So if the Greens are this bad why worry about them? Surely this ‘fact’ will become obvious to people over time? Do you think that emotive and unsubstantiated assessments will persuade anyone to your point of view

There is not much disagreement about the growing failure in ethical reporting in the media, many breaching their own Code of Ethics in relation to fact checking, inviting opposing comment and a commitment to writing in a more bipartisan style.

BUT there is not much any government or political party can do about it formally and nor should they. The only people with that power are consumers and while they are soaking up the growth of inanity and entertainment there is probably not much hope in that either.

Prime Ministers all over the Western World are meet with media moguls for more than a cup of tea. Lots of schmoozing on both sides - the business end wants access and the politicians want more favourable reporting.

It is hardly a positive state of affairs in a modern democracy.

An inquiry into the concentration of media ownership is more than warranted. A 70% Australian holding is too high to promote a wide variety of viewpoints.

It is no better than the Chinese governing by suppression when media is owned primarily by one player in print, online, digital and radio.

There is no agenda that I can see to suppress the media more one to address the issue of power distribution. The media is not like any other business and inquiries into media ownership are not new. This link makes some good points about the importance of distribution of media power.

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/pluralism/index_en.htm

The Greens and the ALP are not pushing for suppression of the media - this is nothing but scare mongering tactics. All politicians accept there will be both negative and positive commentary throughout their careers.

An Inquiry into concentration of media ownership and tightening up laws about intrusions into privacy that go beyond normal investigative journalism (such as hacking) are discussions worth having IMO.

I have faith that any Committee in Australia and Australians in general would buck up against any efforts to reduce accountability of government via the media and the Greens are no different.

I don't mind seeing an inquiry into media in general, but only if it can be balanced and deal openly with corporations. Corporations don't like being looked into, so good luck with that.
My guess is they will simply stonewall the Greens, and wait for the exigencies of political power to pull them into line.
The most interesting side show in Canberra over the next little while might be watching the Greens struggle from rural conservationist into urban socialist.
And what's with Senator Conroy's mandatory internet filter? Any news agency willing to hound him and his PM over that is doing the public a favor.

Mollydukes - you are accusing Graham of the sins which you are committing.
Pelican is a lot closer to the mark when he says that there is nothing that governments can really do, nor is there anything the media can do. The technology and the market are moving influence-peddling out of the control of the monolithic organisations which use to dominate them, and news itself is drifting decidedly down market.

Much of the change in newpaper content and perhaps even the phone hacking scandle itself is result of increased competition from the likes of the web and i-everything. However, the phone hacking business probably does owes more to the peculiar nature of the UK market, including intense competition among tabloids, which have been factors for decades over there. Australia use to have something similar with intense competition between evening tabloids notably in sydney. The reporters on those would go close to the line ethically, if not well over. But that paticular scene ended back in the 1980s.

To have an inquiry here over a scandle resulting from the structure of the UK market is absurd.

Mollydukes, I've never claimed that anyone is unbiased. That is why I run a journal which tries to provide balance between contributors. But that doesn't mean that writers can't strive for objectivity, and I try to do that.

Just watched the ABC news, and there was Alan Kohler referring to "platitudes" uttered by Belusconi. Do you object to that too? I used the term in an opinion piece, which is what we publish, not a news report. In any case, the bulk of my article shows that statements by the Greens about diversity are "platitudes".

When it comes to politics, my point is that the calls for a media inquiry are about political advantage, not morals or ethics or diversity, so should be treated as such. In which case the political motive looks pretty shoddy.

You'll find plenty of evidence of me criticising both sides of politics, that's why I got expelled from the Liberal Party.

I'm having trouble with your logic about criticising the Greens. Are you suggesting that we should only criticise organisations that are doing the right thing?

Godo, I think you've missed the point. 70% of east coast newspapers is nowhere near 70% of the media, especially when most people get their news from other media.

Initially I thought is wa great that Ruppert Murdoch was publically embarrassed over the phone hacking by World News.Then we learn that this practise was wide spread within the media industry.So why was News Corp being targeted? On Sky News Murdoch does allow shows like "Freedom Watch" hosted by Judge Napolitano who supports Ron Paul.Ron Paul is shunned by both sides of politics because he wants to end the control of the central banks who create all the money for the US Govt to function.

Fox has also allowed ads by AE911 truth called "Building What?" and aired some contraversial evidence by Geraldo Rivera on WTC7 which must have upset the establishment.

I think the Murdoch media have been perceived to be stepping out of line in some of their programs hence the move to dismantle their power base.Murdoch also having such media dominance also makes the elites just as vunerable as us to media manipulation.

So if in dire circumstances News Corp were to suddenly develop a conscience,then the elites would be in dire straights.

In all events that really matter,always ask the question,who benefits?

"The Greens in particular have been looking for an excuse to defang News"

For balance, the right in particular want to neuter Fairfax. So the right is rabid, the left don't have balls. And?

"As illegal activity has occurred, News is no longer a fit and proper organisation to publish newspapers or hold broadcast licences."

Own goal! Yes, I read it in in the Billy Tea Party Newspaper and they were quoting an authority from OLO. Must be true!

Rio Tinto an example? Weak as.... Three employees were convicted of bribery/corruption and jailed for a one off incedent. Rio sacked them. Must have missed Tom Albanese giving the Sergeant Shulz defence before the National Peoples Congresss.

Right wingers using communist judgements as a precendent for their own ideological purpose is ...a joke? ...hypocrisy? ...spin for the ignorant? ...a poor example? ...lame? ...epic failure? One with the lot thanks.

To be continued...

continued...

News International sleaze has been going for years and their closets can no longer contain all the skeletons that are continually bursting out.

News America has coughed up USD655m for three corporate espionage and anticompetitive law suits. Criminal cheating, for those who are not afraid of being politically correct.

Rupert, the architect of News Corp, is at the helm of News International, News America and News Ltd. No worries, two bad apples out of three doesn't spoil the third. Especially when the Big Apple knows nothing and has no responsibility. Ignorant until proven guilty right?

The neocons assured the gullible that their paranoid, invasive and liberty depriving war on terror legislation should only be feared by those who have something to hide.

So too any inquiry into media ownership should only be feared by those who have something to hide.

As a Weekend Australian subscriber, I admit it would be a shame to miss the apoplexy of responses to Phillip Adam's articles if News Ltd were true to form with their international counterparts.

PS. Narrowcasting to 580,000 Australians? ROTFL. It would have been more effective to spin 'narrow' using 0.00058 billion Australians.

Curmudgeon

Lol, I don't think it is a sin to be biased and thus I didn’t mean to ‘accuse’ Graham. I aimed to point out the irony in writing a biased article in which bias and attempting to score political advantage, is seen to be a sin. Seems like nit-picking, quibbling? I do that well.

My point is that we are all necessarily biased. It’s the way our brains work. So to critique someone or something as biased is not a particularly useful or a cogent criticism.

I do welcome any information about my own biases and think that I can regard such criticism as an opportunity to further refine and construct my own biases.

Graham,

You do run a site that attempts to provide balance between contributors and I admire that. I’d like to see less of the warlike competitive interaction and more emphasis on people attempting to understand what the other person thinks and why. Do you think that sometimes the question is more useful than the answer?

I do believe that you strive for objectivity so I was pointing out the areas in which your striving is deficient. LOL sorry, very arrogant of me. But I didnt mean it to be an oppositional criticism, at all, although I am learning that most people would see it that way. Perhaps neuro-typical brains are primed to regard discordant opinions as negative. I can see that this would have been functional behaviour in earlier societies, but in this society, as with eating more than one needs to survive, it has become a dysfunctional response.

As for Alan Kohler. If I should ever have the chance I would tell him that he does uses emotive and biased language, although he’s pretty good at that laid back, I’m so cool and rational stance, lol.

Totally agree that all politics is pretty shoddy but don't we all know that? Thus your criticism of the Greens for being 'political' is not particularly useful, in terms of you developing an understanding of what they and their supporters are all about, or for encouraging uncommitted people to view them with suspicion.

Criticise away I say, the Greens will only benefit from any critique, especially when it is biased and emotive, as this provides supporters like me, with more information to understand why you object to them. Your assumption that they want to ‘defang the news’ indicates to me that you do not understand the Green philosophy the way I understand it and you are tilting at windmills in your attempt to ‘defang’? them.

It pains me to quote Captain Smirk, but I thought he was on the money here.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-licence-to-print-good-news-no-thanks-20110719-1hn4w.html

Starting a debate about media bias is one way to get the focus off the carbon tax.

Mollydukes

Welcome to OLO.

Your posts are very cogent and a wonderful read. Now I must declare, at the outset, my bias - I am also a Greens supporter and, as such, understand there is no truth to the claim that the Greens are out to "defang" the News Ltd. I think that News Ltd is doing that to themselves, given the responses thus far from Murdoch Jnr and Snr.

Here in Australia, at 70% of ownership of the printed media it needs a jolly good wash and trimming. A little competition would reduce some of that predictable flab it is carrying by way of an excess of pandering to neo-cons.

Remember more people read these pages than post. People will, over time, reveal themselves in ways they do not realise - all one needs is a good and critical eye.

Sorry Molly, but if we followed your rules then no-one would be allowed to criticise anyone else's stance and debate would cease. So would progress.

My point about the Greens is predominantly that they have a barely-hidden agenda that one should take into account in assessing their calls for intervention in the media market. I wouldn't say it is illegitimate for a political party to try to get power per se, although I would say it is not legitimate to try to do it by nobbling independent commentary using the powers of government.

If you look at the Greens' media policy you will see it is slanted towards increasing the power of public broadcasting, from which one can legitimately infer that they find the ABC's view of the world more congenial than other media's.

I'd also dispute that my article is biased in any sense other than that I come with a world view, which includes, amongst other things, that free speech is close to an absolute good. It's an honest attempt to look at the issues objectively. No hidden agendas.

I'd also dispute that I dislike the Greens. I criticise whatever party I think deserves it, and have at times criticised Liberal, Labor and One Nation. My even-handedness led to me being expelled from the Liberal Party.

Mollydukes
I must agree with GrahamY - your standards are far too high for any debate, particuarly as you don't come even close to following them yourself. Time to stop these absurd efforts to claim the moral high ground and start making relevent criticisms, if you can think of any.

Arjay
Phone tapping as common practice? Think you've gotten confused there. Phone tapping is not common at all but breaches of the law, particularly technical ones, are common. I think that's what your sources mean. No newspaper in Australia, for example, would hesitate to publish a confidential government report if there was public interest, although its illegial to do so. But they would certainly hesitate to steal it.

Maybe 'progress' of the matter would be helped by focussing upon some of the essential practical elements involved rather than conjecture upon a fog of conceptual peripheries.

Quite simply 'The News' is not the news. Overwhelmingly it is opinion crafted to advance the ideological and economic positions of the media owners and their major clients. Moreover, such polemic is presented not just in isolated commentaries but via strategically implemented campaigns by the mass media entities.

Most heinous within this technique is the complete omission from the 'news' stream of matters of very significant public interest. The following link presents a good example.

http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2011/08/06/population-question-gets-scant-coverage/#more-9950

This method of concerted omission is essential to the sustenance of industry and political agendas that are essentially false in their acclaimed premise base and unproductively narrow in their accruable benefit. It enables a 'big lie' to prevail and endure.

The problem is that the majority of constituents DO perceive this propaganda stream as the news, either by their simple faith in the medium or by the sheer inundatory power of the 'tuned' message being deployed.

These private media entities operate in public space and overwhelmingly affect public consciousness. There is no 'free market' in this realm as there are many 'buyers' and only a few 'sellers' with very close ideological alignments. Neither, by definition of the problem, is perfect information available within the marketplace.

It is not just acceptable, it is imperative that a public enquiry be held upon the suitability of this media condition being an information cornerstone within our society.

The article linked below discusses elements at the very heart of this matter.

http://www.geoffdavies.com/Commentaries/Media.html

The mass media controls our social conversations by what it feeds into them as 'fact' and which section(s) of them it then publishes, and does not publish, and which it might variously resonate by way of repetition and contextual framing.

It is repugnant to humanity to tolerate this social manipulation solely upon an argument framework limited to suit only the mogul's case; bases like 'market economics' and 'right to publish'. A public enquiry on this crucial component of society is way overdue.

Graham
I didn’t think that I had set any rules or claimed that criticism or bias is a bad thing. How come you read that into my words?

What I do want to know is if you really believe that a polarised debate about the Greens or media ownership - or anything else really - will sort out the problem of how we should proceed/progress.

Curmudgeon,

Perhaps my standards are too high. Is that why I’m still waiting for you to explain – in that other forum - why it’s okay for you to take a postmodern stance and claim that in the case of climate change, white male science does not provide the real truth.

Spinoza said if you want to see the truth, then hold no opinions for or against anything. Now that’s a high moral ground

I can only read what you have written Molly. For example "Thus your criticism of the Greens for being 'political' is not particularly useful, in terms of you developing an understanding of what they and their supporters are all about, or for encouraging uncommitted people to view them with suspicion."

I'd take"particularly useful" as being a criticism of what I wrote, and I'd take what you said in your posts as saying a deficiency in my article is that I am "biased".

I'm certainly not promoting a polarised debate. The Greens have a policy position, which I extracted in my article, which appears to be aimed at taking Newscorp out of play to some extent. Bob Brown has frequently expressed hostility towards The Australian.

There is no reason that I can see that they should be able to take this line without people like me drawing attention to it.

I frankly don't see that there is a bias problem. You have the ABC and Fairfax on one side of the spectrum and the Australian on the other. Most of the News metropolitan dailies, such as The Courier Mail, seem to be pretty unideological. It doesn't matter who is in power, they're looking for stories that will sell newspapers and both Bjelke-Petersen and Beattie at various stages thought about withdrawing government advertising from them.

Apart from that most people get their news from broadcast media, where most of the bias is in what they choose to report, not how they report it.

If there is a bias problem it is towards the left. Every survey of the voting habits of journalists shows that they tend to vote left of centre as a class. And despite what conspiracy theorists think, the journalists are in control of what makes it into the media. Editors don't write copy, they get to select it.

As a political professional I regard anyone who whinges about the bias of the media as being incompetent. You work with them, or around them.

"Most of the News metropolitan dailies, such as The Courier Mail, seem to be pretty unideological."

Graham, are you serious?
If so you have a curiously calibrated measuring device.

Of course I'm serious. Give me evidence of how the Courier Mail, which I know best, is ideological.

Letters Courier Mail political campaigns include:

A sustained attack on the Water Minister Robertson for not reducing dam water levels prior the January flood. In fact water was released to keep water supply at 100% and designed flood mitigation capacity left empty.
Ignores the fact that LNP members Seeney and Springborg both lambasted the Govt. at the time for not allowing the dam level to increase above 100% of the water supply volume.
No letters published pointing out this LNP hypocrisy.
Is published attacking Water Minister/ALP governance.
2010 articles reporting Seeney/Springborg attacks removed from web archive.

Sustained, high profile, editorial attack on Gold Coast armed robbery squad over an alleged list of serious procedural shortfalls and illegalities.
Bullied Govt. and CMC into full investigation.
Senior officers put under huge public pressure. Squad disbanded. Many highly competent officers quit force entirely.
Robbery and associated violence on the Gold Coast escalates.
After two especially vicious robberies, including fatal shooting of officer, C.M. blames Govt. and Force for incompetence in managing GC crime. Demands action! Had the hide to:
- assert lack of designated capacity to deal with violent crime.
- make a huge media feast of the dead officer.
CMC returns findings of only minor improprieties, mostly technical in nature.
CM prints low profile report on CMC outcomes.

Local residents fighting corrupt development process try to get coverage of evidence of connection between planning minister and developer. CM ignores completely.
CM later tries to hit Terry Mackenroth over supposed corrupt land dealings.
Can't get evidence on story.
Runs story on developer/Planning Minister/ labor lobbyists to try to create collateral damage.

Give me the time, and the motivation, and I'll give you an encyclopaedic summary.

Perhaps the reason you perceive CM coverage as reasonable is because you know little about Qld. issues and cannot recognise the vital things C.M. DO NOT print, thereby rendering a grossly imbalanced picture of events and causalities.

That said, if you can't see the imbalance within the CM's reporting on the carbon tax issue then you must be wearing a balaclava on backwards.

Graham
The way I understand it, to reduce bias and increase objectivity, we need to follow the rules of scientific debate. One of which is to use the most ‘value-neutral’ terms one can think of. And ‘not particularly useful, in terms of...’ was my attempt to do this. Was ‘platitudes’ the most value-neutral term you could think of? It certainly raised my hackles and my immediate emotional response was to assume that it wouldn't have anything interesting to say to me.

But that is just my response. Do you find that oppositional argument ever leads to any change in attitude? I am interested in your opinion about this because you have had so much experience with this type of debate. What benefit do you see in this type of interaction? Counterpoint did an interesting piece on the evolutionary significance of argument. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2011/3215253.htm

Re the Greens calling for a media inquiry. I don’t think that there is much use in any of this political manoeuvrings. I believe that it’s over for this civilization and to take much notice of things like this, reminds me of a Johnny Cash song which goes ‘eternity is down the hall and you sit there bending spoons”.

I don’t see evidence that Bob Brown has an agenda to muzzle the press. I think their agenda is to offer something different than is currently on offer by either right or left. And as long as the ABC is available in its current biased form, I’ll not bother thinking about the issue.

But the bias I appreciate on the ABC is their bias toward new and interesting ideas, toward big picture issues, and diversity of opinion, the commitment to scientific knowledge. I do believe that their attempt to be objective and fair politically, despite their personal biases is done better than any other media outlet.

Wallumi, none of what you have given is evidence of ideological bias. If the newspaper is going to uncover a scandal in government, which is what I would hope they would do, then it's the government who is going to be on the other end of the criticism, not the opposition. I'm sure they'll be just as searching on Campbell Newman when he wins. I'd be very critical of a news outlet that wasn't running these sorts of stories.

Molly, I think the use of the word "platitudes" is defensible. The use of the word was "trite" and "prosaic" and as I see it not related to what they actually intend at all, which appears to be a greater role for the public broadcaster and more of their view of the world, rather than less.

I wouldn't agree that we should use the scientific method in debate. Debate is about persuasion. I'm not suggesting that debate should be illogical, but it should resonate. You use the words that are appropriate. It is not inappropriate in an opinion piece to express one's opinion. I'm not writing a scholarly piece it is a piece of communication. Just because I don't cover off every single thing that someone might object to doesn't mean that my piece is deficient. I had 800 words to say what I had to say.

If I wrote as you are suggesting no-one would read it, and people who used more colourful language would be more persuasive. I wouldn't be in public debate at all, but off in some cloistered academic corner of society.

Graeme, the clearly evident ideological bias is toward elite private interests rather than the public interest in, and the basic social need for, factually accurate and objectively balanced reporting of significant events. The arena contest of the pseudo-left and right dialectic that consumes your attention is a secondary, although not insignificant concern.

The salient matter is that the CM's self-serving editorial behavior makes it impossible for the electorate to reasonably understand and decide upon matters of grave public interest. Those few I've noted present the tip of a near endless iceberg of media-managed public mis-information and confusion. The paper fundamentally and persistently skews and limits relevant report content and context without regard for adequate truth or reason. Society will ultimately sink due to the accumulating impact of this iceberg.

There is a place for such nonsense in a 'free' society, and Murdoch arguably has a right to produce it, however not as the monopoly daily publication that dominates public opinion in each major city and town. By convincingly, but falsely, presenting itself as the daily 'news', this masquerade develops a community driven by ignorance, superficiality and fear, and it engenders a political regime observant of the media master's dictum over and above a duly proper concern for evidence-based community interest.

A public enquire should properly investigate how well communities are being served by this current monopolised distortion within daily news reporting. There are many ways to remediate the situation if we genuinely want to be as objectively and reliably informed as we like to suppose we all are in this modern age. If we don't then let's stop pretending that we're any better informed than medieval serfs.

Well said wallumi

Facts are facts.

The above has little to do with left or right political ideologies.

Definition of an oxymoron:

Disputed fact.

We see a lot of that in our media - disputes over facts - almost laughable, if not for the ignorance it spreads.

Many vigorous, autonomous organisations are more likely to present facts rather than a monopoly - which only has to serve itself (and the biggest shareholder of course, which amounts to same). The ploy of the so-called influence of "mum and dad shareholders" being just another bit of the smokescreen pulled over what passes for choice and individual rights in the 21st century.

Wallumi, your premise falls at the first hurdle. None of the things you evidenced have anything to do with "elite private interest". How are "elite private interests" advantaged by keeping a government under scrutiny on how it handles water supply and the police? Your land corruption story seems to be a complaint that they were too late to the party, rather than what they wanted to cover.

And what do you propose to do to make News not the monopoly print publication in Brisbane? As though that is a particular problem when most people don't read the publication anyway and get their news from other sources.

The interest of the paper in its own agenda, above that of the public interest, is an elite private interest.

The Govt. isn't held to any useful account by the dissemination of spurious accusation supported by lop-sided, essentially incorrect information. In fact, the result is highly counterproductive when that distorted 'account' can prevail solely due the lack of any prominent, more accurately complete alternative reporting.

If the Govt. is to be held to account for 'not releasing enough water' prior to the January flood event, then the opposition should also be properly held to account for wanting to retain even higher level in the dam.

The immediate dividend of such accurate balance would be an improved capacity for public attention upon flood enquiry recommendations rather than being consumed within a rabid frenzy of false blame mongering.

Similarly the police 'expose' directly caused the wrongful loss of the strategic investigation unit needed to preempt crime activity that the CM then blamed upon the Govt. How can anyone possibly excuse, let alone defend, this sort of self-indulgent, publicly damaging agenda?

Beyond the directly selfish dividends of maintaining its social influence, a current CM objective is to deliver an LNP State Govt. at the next election. That is offers no public advantage if, on the balance of available but suppressed fact, they're even more incompetent than the presiding ALP product. That's not a free or competent political marketplace. It's a dangerously sick Punch and Judy show scripted by a psychopathic puppet master.

There's neither time nor room left at this moment to begin an outline of options for mitigating this problem. In lieu you might check out this link previously posted:
http://www.geoffdavies.com/Commentaries/Media.html

As for the Courier Mail not being a dominant influence, I think you're wrong. I'd suggest that of all Brisbane 'news' media, it has the highest consolidated reach. Add to that the resonant presence and authority of the printed word. Internet agencies tend to greatly overstate their impact. Taken overall, and in comparison with hard copy news monopolies, the internet is a virtual Tower of Babel to most people.

Ummm Wallami, if all you're saying is that newspapers tend to follow their own interests, then you're not talking about any sort of bias that is curable by anyone. All media organisations do that, even public broadcasters.

I'm not sure how you'd determine whether their interests diverge from the public's either. You could poll public opinion at any one time, but given the public would never be in possession of the facts that the newspaper is, then the poll wouldn't be very useful because the facts might change their opinion.

I think what you mean is that the paper doesn't always follow issues the way that you would. But that doesn't make them biased, just different to you. Perhaps you could set up your own paper, if you think people would rather read you than the CM.

In terms of them not being a dominant influence, most people don't read the CM. Most listen to radio or watch TV. That's where they get their news. I'm not sure what you mean by "highest consolidated reach".

I don't have time to read Geoff's article, so unless you have time to advance the proposals, I'll let them lie.

Graham, you're obtusely missing, or assiduously avoiding, recognition of a significant aspect of the Murdoch press behavior that clearly constitutes bias. Bias can be reasonably described as favoring or pursuing one option or viewpoint over another without due regard to the readily available facts. It has nothing intrinsically to do with party political motivations as you seem to be requiring as your test.

Furthermore, when I review your basic proposition in this opinion piece, as summarised at the head of the comments page, I see your need to protect it with such limited definitions.

It is perhaps this tightly cultivated understanding of things that enables you to assert the highly subjective and ostensibly unreasonable premise that you have. Your argument on bias makes it quite clear why you cannot conceive of the simple purpose and reason the Greens most likely have for seeking review of how monopoly corporate mouthpieces for elite interest might be made more accountable to readily available fact, and thereby to the public interest. You have to see it in party political terms. You can't avoid it.

Your view of public opinion and the facts is a curious one. Obviously if people know more about a matter their opinion will vary. That is the whole point of my expressed concern. You seem suggest that news publications are entitled to withhold facts for the purpose of 'adjusting' public opinion. My view is that doing this to any serious extent should dismiss their credential as a news publication. Ideally they should be ridiculed and vilified for it. But by whom when they are the only rag in town?

The underlying problem is the monopoly involved. It is what enables the bias to be so extreme and blatant, and what make the bias so damaging upon public opinion.

I think you underestimate the power of hard copy, high circulation print. It lingers longer and enables greater definition of detail and nuance than does the rapid fire, evaporative content of TV news. And as I've already said, the Internet is a dog's breakfast unless you already know what you're looking for.

Graham you are doing a great job of defending your opinion on many fronts. Are you ‘winning’?

Surely you see that arguing in an oppositional way doesn’t achieve any real gains; whereas science, using rules to minimise the emotional content of opposing viewpoints, has made ‘progress'. Why not aim for this way of finding the 'truth' about bias and the media?

Your article provided an emotional argument that gave you and people on your ‘side’ some reassurance, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the capitalist ideology, if accepted by everyone and if everything is done the way it ‘should’ be, can continue to bring about progress and a good life for all.

It seems obvious to me that this assumption is flawed. It’s just not good enough to continue to assert that the disinterested pursuit of wealth will lead to a good and fair society. The big picture question is where are the ethics? What does Murdoch believe in? What do those cynical left wing journalists who write for him think they are doing when they write ‘crap’

Wallumi would have a politically correct (according to the government of the moment) imposed on all the newspapers.