Graham, the nature of news has completely changed through .television bringing completely uptodate matters to the publics attention. So, newspapers are being completely placed on the back foot through continually being hours behind what has been happening.

The other matter is that newspapers present an ideological view; the Murdoch press provides a neo con slant, while FairFax press takes a leftist role. The ABC has been loaded up with senior right wing people since Abbott was the Coalition leader.

There are now a number of enewspapers available apart from Crikey, which provide competition to the major newspapers and OLO. It is also possible to access overseas newspapers such as the Washington Post, New York Times, ThinkProgress, Seattle Times, The Siberian Times and many others.
The Siberian Times provides good information about what is happening in Siberia in relation to climate.

I occassionly talk with friends about OLO and describe it as a right wing mouth piece on the basis of the comments; not in relation to the articles presented. I write mainly about climate change and cop much abuse as a result.

My attitude to the abuse is that when it is resorted too, it's a flag to indicate that the critic cannot find any strong counter points

So, there is a huge increase in media available, the ABC has little impact. The ABC does not display the obvious ideological bias of some of the private media.

Aka:

"OLO gets a clique of posters who dominate and attempt to intimidate."

As far as I can see everyone has an equal right to speak and to expressed their views so exactly how is it possible for any person to dominate? Everyone has exactly the same restrictions on the amount of posts to which they are entitled so it is not like you can shout others down.

Why would anyone attempt to intimidate another? What would be the point ? Intimidation means trying to frighten another. What is there to be afraid of? We are all anonymous so we can hardly be hurt by anyone else. All we have is words and words cannot hurt anyone.

Why do you feel the need to return to the forum just to criticise it? Surely if it is not worth contributing to then there is no need to even contribute your criticism? Perhaps it is just a matter of people not agreeing with you enough and that shouldn't matter if you are sure you are right.

I think both 'The Drum' and On Line Opinion' are good for democracy both in the articles published and the blog function. I am sorry to see 'The Drum' go, as it had a lot of expert analysis. Partly countered the biased opinion and lies that 'the Australian' tries to pass off as analysis.

The real threat to OLO is, as Aka says "OLO gets a clique of posters who dominate and attempt to intimidate' i.e. the 'right wing loud mouths'. I would classify them as 'troll- like individuals' characterized by their relentless unsubstantiated negativity sometimes directed at the personal integrity of others. It's obvious who they are - there are probably less than ten who really lower the tone of the site.

Graham this is a real problem for OLO because it turns off a lot of readers whom I think would otherwise be regular bloggers. Surely there is something you can do - some more moderation? More rigorous moderation criteria? I know this costs money and time. Perhaps just limit the number of posts per week/ month / article from any individual (with the exception of writers answering bloggers)?

I am concerned as I have been a contributor to OLO and found you/ your editorial committee to be fair and even handed, admitting right wing affiliations (in contrast to my left leaning) but still publishing articles that are anathema to the right. This is laudable. But letting a pack of right wing loudmouth savage others on the site whenever they please really is detrimental to OLO and holding back the potential of the site.

"It's obvious who they are - there are probably less than ten who really lower the tone of the site."

Well if it is obvious then no one will be offended if you name them. Making unsubstantiated comments like that is one of the things that lowers the tone of the site. Cowardly hiding behind those kind of statements does not maintain the integrity of the forums.

"pack of right wing loudmouth savage others on the site whenever they please really is detrimental to OLO"

Even more detrimental to the quality of discussion is using emotive terms to exaggerate and dramatise the situation. You cannot 'savage' anyone with words.

I gave up beating the track to the homestead to watch the ABC long ago; and for all the reasons stated here!
Apart from Father Brown, would there be any other reason to waste precious time?

PS: I might be considered one of the dastardly ten if discussing homosexuals, but other than that subject I may be acceptably civilised!