This is one time you and I may see eye to eye John.
There was a time when almost anyone could get a letter to the editor published.
Now the space for the public contribution is not only severely limited, but, it seems, regularly censored as well.
Not all that long ago, I submitted an article on essential tax reform.
Reform is absolutely essential on any number of grounds, be it the destiny of demography, that sees fewer and fewer taxpayers, paying more and more tax!
Or bracket creep, which sees more and more of the 40% of Australians living just above or below the poverty line, having their often meagre incomes subject to increasing levels of entirely unethical tax.
Or the now endemic and quite massive avoidance, that makes some or any of this unethical practise necessary in the first place.
My very modest contribution was rejected on a number of quite risible grounds.
Firstly the "Editor" thought that unavoidable recurrents, were the same as the GNP?
Hard to believe I know, but that's what he came back with.
Second he confused an expenditure tax with a wealth tax?
Sure the wealthiest may pay more tax, but only because they spend more.
Former PM John Howard, [once described as an economic illiterate,] at an early Telstra luncheon address, and not long after the imposition of the GST, was quizzed by a reporter, why he had preferred a GST?
To which he replied, well, it was either that or a transactions tax, and a transactions tax was thought to be regressive, Quote unquote.
In hindsight, he was never ever more wrong.
Yes John, the press is not only not free!
But arguably controlled by patent control freak Ideologues?
Let me conclude with another quote or homily, "never let the facts get in the way of a good story".
Or indeed, the seemingly endlessly increasing patently partisan opinion pieces, that now by and large, have I believe, replaced good investigative journalism!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, it is true that many of the papers are a joke, but i feel there is plenty of opportunity to get your message out there with Internet.

I mean how many people actually read newspapers. I would not waste my time, albeit i use them when scanning for info on a given issue.

Time will tell if the newspapers are an obstacle for Aust finding a more appropriate balance between market forces and govt intervention.

I am optimistic, but we shall see if this country disintegrates further now the illusion of past policy acceptance is being broken day by day.

@rhrosty. You are correct. But it is not just the so-called mainstream media that is unwilling to pay for and otherwise support investigative journalism. Or even take some modest risks and publish material that is outside the mainstream discourse. Many fear being labelled "conspiracy theorists" if they publish something not approved of by the powers that run the show. The Kennedy assassination is a case in point. I recently made a complaint to SBS about their broadcasting an American news item that had the sole purpose of reinforcing the official myth that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King. SBS have never broadcast the fact that a civil trial in 1999 found that King was killed by agents of various state organisations. Their response was that the news item was of "interest" because it was about the arrest of Ray. That is simply being wilfully obtuse.
Pilfer has made a number of important points. I think the most important one was that there is an incredible concentration of ownership of the print media in Australia. That is being countered to some extent by the growth of online publications, but even they, OLO included, are not immune from the virus of censorship of unpopular views, or perhaps more accurately views they fear might disturb their readership. Not in the comment sections, but in the articles commissioned. That type of control is just as insidious as that exercised by the msm.

Pilger is again a million years behind the times.. the media he thinks he knows is disintegrating or at least changing very rapidly. It does not have the luxury of classifieds and has to compete for readers in a fragmenting market.

His extreme left views are a luxury of the old media world when journalists were a separate caste with a quite different viewpoint to the bulk of their readers. However, there is still enough to the caste for generally favorable coverage of indigenous affairs. I can't think of any coverage of indigenous people being lazy as he states. Maybe there is less coverage in general, as such issues do not attract readers, much as many journalists would like them to.

But I'm sort-of curious. Does anyone pay any attention to Pilger these days?

James,

I am curious. What do you mean by

'but even they, OLO included, are not immune from the virus of censorship of unpopular views, or perhaps more accurately views they fear might disturb their readership. Not in the comment sections, but in the articles commissioned. That type of control is just as insidious as that exercised by the msm'.

Chris, how many articles have you read on sites like OLO that discuss the financial crime that is at the heart of the 9/11 attacks; or that the Assassinations Records Review Board published more than 2 million documents that completely blow away the Lee Harvey Oswald lone nut killer hypothesis of popular mythology; or that Martin Luther King was killed by elements of the FBI, US military and the Tennessee state law enforcement agencies (even the fact of the civil trial in 1999 was not reported); or that John Howard lied to parliament in February 2003 when he set out the case for Australia joining the invasion of Iraq; or that bin Laden was an agent of the CIA before his untimely death in 2001. They are uniformly terrified of being labelled "conspiracy theorists" without acknowledging that conspiracies are at the heart of most state crimes, as Lance De Haven Smith has brilliantly pointed out in his recent book (not reviewed in Australia). This timidity is perhaps explicable in the msm who are for the most part agents of the powerful few, but it is less explicable in the so-called alternative media. I do not exempt OLO from this criticism although Graeme to his credit does have a robust comments forum, something that has largely disappeared from the msm as rhrosty has pointed out above.
I do not necessarily adopt any or all of the alternative theories that are advanced in serious discourse (I try and exclude the obvious nutters), but the fact is these alternative views exist and are worthy in many cases of serious consideration. My complaint is that not only do people not get to hear about them because of the censorship that exists, they are thereby denied the opportunity to consider alternative explanations than those put forward by the msm.

I too feel the frustration of censorship, bias and omission from our MSM and public broadcasters but probably for an entirely different set of reasons to Johns.

My reasons might include public broadcasters proselytizing things that they think are important, failing to investigate stories they feel are not important and blatant journalistic activism.

I also think that John’s criticisms are more about a rapidly changing media world that no longer offers him the opportunities for his own journalistic activism.

I have my doubts that there is much future for journalists like John. He will just have to write on-line articles, which leaves him, like everyone else, with the challenge of making a case to those who can think for themselves, apply logic and use cognitive skills.

Apart from regularly complaining that the world is not what John ordered, he also seems to be suffering relevance deficiency syndrome. It’s worth noting that when you have Rhrosty on your side, things are not looking too good at all

Julian Burnside, barrister and human rights advocate
wrote an excellent article in March 2012, "Better
Media is Good For Democracy." He's watched the
mainstream media transform and with it observed the
consequent decline of policy debate on the issues that
matter. Burnside pointed out that "It is a strange
paradox that, while we live in a torrent of information,
there is such a limited range of available views."

Burnside confirms that media ownership in Australia is
"notoriously narrow. Mainstream media offers previous
little diversity, and such diversity as there is runs
along predictable lines. The economics of print and
electronic media tends to drive opinion in the direction
of populism. This has unhappy results now that both major
political parties have, it seems, abandoned their founding
principles and form policies by reference to media coverage
and to news polls and focus groups in particular."

But it is also the case that the internet offers a vast
supply of news and-especially opinion. However as Burnside
tells us, "to dive into that pool in order to learn something
different is to risk drowning."

Just as mainstream traditional media are full of voices
(mostly strident) telling government what to do, so the
blogosphere and social media are full of voices - more
numerous and diverse, and often more strident - doing the
same. As Burnside says, "those of us who are torn between
the desert of mainstream media and the jungle of the internet
need a place where rational but diverse views can be found
on matters of enduring importance."

In these circumstances we're told that it is more important
than ever to have an outlet which is rational and principled,
without being biased to any social or political position.

But finding such a place is no easy task. However, it helps
to research a wider variety of outlets and public libraries
are a good place to start.

ok, i woukd like to see any subject at all discussed, assuming that it is based on reasonable evidence.

I would assume that OLO is as good a place to do so.

to digress a bit, one of my biggest dissapointments about Aust is shows like Q&A and even the Insiders whih hardly debate the real issues of concern, such as our economic predicament and where we are heading.

I think that if Q&A got real players up, such as farmers, we would get a different picture of things, and our policy elites may indeed work harder to find better solutions

I'm pleased to see that Pilger has some admirers, including me.

There are so few journalist who are willing to tell it as it is or are allowed to do so. The bulk of journalists are 'Yes-Men', as in 'Yes, boss, whatever you say I'll write! Now bend over and I'll kiss your ass!'

Of course, Australian politicians of all shades have ensured virtual media monopolies as if their political lives depend on it, which they do.

Pilger does not compromise. He stands alone.

David G. I seem to remember a quote that went, if you and your boss invariably share the same opinion, then one of you is clearly redundant!
Spindoc, as usual, you play the man and not the ball.
Perhaps one of these days you might care to actually address the issue with some unusual for you, intelligent relevant commentary?
I just won't hold my breath!
Rhrosty.

John Pilger is right.Since now only a few Corporates control our media and Govts,there is no democracy.Even the rule of law has little impact as the criminals who caused the GFC and the wars of imperialism,are totally free to pursue their evil agendas.

Pilgers admirers?

Well there’s Arjay, there’s Rhrosty, there’s David G, there’s James O’Neill and there’s…er? Well that seems to be about it really.

Not much support for the drastically waning career of a journalistic activist. The problem I see with journalistic activism is that it compromises both the activism and the journalism. They cancel each other out and you’re left with…..? Er, ah yes, nothing.

Spindoc, I was left with nothing after I read your comment.

Perhaps you could emulate Gandhi and spin your own cloth. Then at least your spinning might serve some useful purpose!

David G,

<< I was left with nothing after I read your comment >>

Yep David, that’s what I said, nothing.

Perhaps when I said there is nothing left you had the expectation that there was a hidden something. Perhaps you read but don’t comprehend? Perhaps you thought there was some socialized context that you had missed? Perhaps you feel that “nothing” is intended as an insult? Perhaps your intellect demands that to tell you nothing is nothing, requires a response that no, nothing of the sort, it’s nothing.

When I suggested there was nothing you said there was nothing. I agree but, isn’t that what I said in the first place?

Have you ever considered joining a political party? Could I suggest that you have all the qualifications for membership of the Greens party? Well you have one qualification for sure; you don’t make any sense whatsoever.

Isn’t that great David, you are indeed qualified for something.

When it comes to spinning David, how’s that outfit you are spinning for the Danish King going? You know the one that’s invisible? How’s that one go again? You know the CAGW clothes for the king. Didn’t a child beat you all to it declaring, “The King, the king he has no clothes”.

If I remember rightly, it all started in Copenhagen, the home of CAGW. Wasn’t it all started with a “fairy story” by Hans Christian Anderson? If my memory serves me correctly, all the intellectual “adults” bought into it and were all taken down by a child. I think it was all intended as a moral tale of course, way over your head no doubt as I suspect you take the contrary view that you are not actually a child

Its interesting to see Julian Burnside, barrister and human rights advocate crapping on about the media when to my way of thinking, his law society compatriots have done more to abolish justice & accountability than anyone. Sure the media is a tool of the 'ruling classes' (or maybe its the other way round) however the part played by the legal establishment shouldn't be overlooked. First we had the leeches wangling their way into politics where they rearranged the rules to their own benefit. Around the same time they decided their time was worth several times that of the hoi-polloi (thereby making justice inaccessible to all but the uber-rich). Once established with total control of their own benefits, the rules were again adjusted to ensure justice was too complex for any but their erstwhile compatriots, and that there could be no effective opposition to their nice little rorts (appointment of friendly governors / governor- general, establishment of ostensibly 'independent' renumeration tribunal which in reality is anything but, incestuous relationship with media barons, appointment of cronies to key positions, creation of quangos / flogging off 'assets' to avoid any semblance of accountability ....... and so it goes). The 'human rights advocate' bit reminds me of a certain other high profile individual promoted by the media as similar. I recall an occasion where I inquired of said person about writing a fairly straightforward letter. Response was a demand for $1500 'to consider whether or not the job would be accepted' plus another $1500 per hour 'if accepted' for a junior sidekick to do the work. Seems this 'human rights advocacy' business is exceptionally profitable !! Cynical folk like this little black duck might even harbour the view that where the legal fraternity (and of course their bloodsucking parasite political cronies) are involved, money takes precedence over any moral imperative.

Spindoc by name and nature fails constantly to address logic or the truth.His/her central theme is ad hominem and personal insults.

Note on Russia Today,there are reports that Israel is using Depleted Uranium on Syria.Another war crime goes unreported in the West.

To be an extreme rightwinger, do you have to be a selfish individual and sod any one else, as some on here are!

Hi Kipp,

All you need to be a left winger is to borrow someone else’s opinion, avoid forming your own conclusions, switch off what’s left of any cognitive capacity, demand respect rather than earn it, base your life on the envy of others, try to impose your adopted ideology on your fellow countrymen, demand public spending for minority interests, accept no self responsibility, stand behind the high moral ramparts and point the finger at others, appease you own social guilt by insisting that others pay for salving it, demand more and more from the state (other peoples money) and adopt a fairy tale life that avoids either reality or solutions.

Finally, you call anyone who fails to agree with your own mantra a nasty name, like selfish sods, whilst utterly failing to understand what makes you unhappy.

Spindoc, whats the betting you post letters on The Australian letters column, having a go at the ALP in particular Julia Gillard.
It is hilarious to read The Australian letters column, all these avid right wingers, just whinging at each other; and nobody is listening!!
To make your day, our household votes Green................