Dear Leo,

From your posts I can see that you are also inclined to
perceive facts selectively and to interpret them
accordingly. Therefore you Sir, are in no position to
make any comments on "balance."

You are of course, entitled to your opinion - and your choice
of "balanced," journalism.
As I am to mine. That does not make you right and me
wrong or vice-versa. We both interpret things in very
different ways, based on personal values and experiences.

I've written in the past on this forum that -
if the world consisted simply of some self-evident reality
that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there
might be no disagreement among observers. But the truth of
the matter is that what we see in the world is not determined
by what exists "out there." Rather it is shaped by what our
past experience has prepared us to see and by what we
consciously or unconsciously want to see. Inevitably, then,
we will all be guilty of some measure of "bias," - the
tendency, often unconscious, to interpret facts according to
one's own values.

For me this one has now run
its course. I look forward to more robust discussions with you
in the future.

Have a nice day.

Since when has commercial media been "balanced"? The only thing in balance is the unanimous support for multiculturalism, immigration and anti racism in the traditional media, heck if the parliament doesn't reflect the views and opinions of real Australians then why should media corporations? The views expressed in Fairafax and Newscorp papers and the numerous TV, Radio and online news outlets are those of the globalist managerial classes, multiculturalism and anti racism are essential to the globalist commercial/consumer culture, these values don't exist among the myriad real world cultural groupings.

Foxy,
I’m guessing you are a woman for four reasons.
• Your nom de plume
• The way you carefully pre-type your posts elsewhere before cutting and pasting them onto the blog
• Your bleeding heart, hyper sensitive take on the issue.
• Ending a post with “have a nice day”

“…but if you see that what you are doing is hurting someone, and hurting them deeply, than surely as a decent human being you should stop doing what hurts.”

True but….
That only works when the status of the person in question is passive. However if they continue to act in a general manner which caused the original criticism then they are putting themselves in the spotlight and fully deserve whatever acclaim or derision ensues.

What kind of lopsided public forum of ideas and issues would we have to suffer if I could make comments about you, but in return you could not criticise me because, sob, my feelings would be hurt.

If you don’t like the heat then remove thyself from the kitchen.

Fox, "but if you see that what you are doing is hurting someone, and hurting them deeply, than surely as a decent human being you should stop doing what hurts"

Yet you and some others display no sensitivity where the violation of the 13yr old child minor's rights, privacy and wellbeing are concerned.

Why would an avowed feminist be dismissive of the rough justice, public humiliation and media violations of this girl child and her family?

As someone who provides 'professional services' to migrant advocate groups and is an enthusiastic advocate for the endless-diversity-Australia-has-to-have and critic of 'whites'(sic) from England -because Australians are 'Nullaboring'(?!) - you obviously don't really care about the rights of a 'white', even though she is a girl and child minor.

There is obviously a hierarchy of priorities where feminists such as yourself are concerned, especially where the competing, sometimes conflicting political correctness of multiculturalism and victim narratives of are concerned.

It must be confusing sometimes.

A visitor to Australia would never believe that a child could be treated so abominably and all of the while there is a Royal Commission into Child Abuse going on and the State and federal departments are being urged to set up special bureaucracies to handle domestic violence (and indigenous DV is a priority).

How is it in a country like Australia that the abusive treatment and denial of the rights of a 13yr old girl and her grandmother carer can be accepted and justified(?!). A large, exceedingly well paid professional footballer felt 'gutted' by the word 'ape' and that made the violation, rough treatment and public humiliation of a child all necessary, OK and even laudable?

No, it doesn't make it right at all. A public inquiry is warranted.

The situation can be reduced to this:
A grown man carries on like a big girl, and fans boo him.
He refuses to take any action to redeem his situation, and continues to be booed.
If he does not want to fix the situation, and continues his nonsense about “racism”,who cares?

<Is booing Adam Goodes racist?

RITA PANAHI

The fallacious notion that only a racist would boo Adam Goodes is both simplistic and senseless.

Anyone capable of critical thought can work out why Goodes polarises the community.

It’s all too easy to frame the debate in terms of race but it is neither accurate nor helpful in curbing unruly crowd behaviour.

This may come as a shock to some in the media and the AFL but decent folk don’t like being falsely portrayed as racists.

There is little doubt that part of the ongoing booing of Goodes is a backlash against the strident, finger-waggling of media hacks and club officials who want to dictate how people should behave and who they are allowed to like or dislike.

The Goodes booing brouhaha has exposed an enormous rift between the media and footy types and the rest of the population.

It’s hard to think of another example where the bulk of the media has so spectacularly missed the mark.

Not only have the views of the silent majority been misrepresented but decent Australians have been patronised and chastised for refusing to accept the assertion that only a racist would boo Goodes.

In yesterday’s Herald Sun poll 80 per cent of the more than 60,000 respondents said that the booing of Goodes was NOT racially motivated.>
[Herald Sun]