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.