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.