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.