Well, the author, generally a worthy contributor himself, has come out a little on the catty side with his opinion on who else is entitled to an opinion, apart from himself.

There is a lot of truth in this article. Much of it I agree with, particularly the parts apportioned to praise for the authors of this site OLO.

If they do join the orchestra of the opinionated herein, it is not to derail open comment by manipulating thought towards any chosen direction of their own. It's a freewheeling rollicking show, and much appreciated. Truely a rare gem.

The back end of the article then attempts to describe the situation of a changing world in which we live. Never an easy task. It is somewhat biased, but so what, OLO is the engine room of "opinion".

Dan

Given the article I did think it was a bit delicious seeing prompts to "Be the first of your friends to like this".

The media landscape has changed. So much of it has become independent and not directly beholden to advertisers. Multiple sources are now available at the click of a button and the influence of Murdoch's machinations are being ignored by the younger generation. To me this is a good thing.

The ABC instead reaches out to them in ways the old media can't and as a result I think we have an increasingly well informed group who is prepared to do things like march for action on global warming.

But leaving that aside I would like to support this sentiment from the article and "join in congratulating the Editor, Graham Young and the Editorial Board of OLO on their outstanding achievement over the past twenty years and wish them well for the Journal’s continued success."

Indeed ttbn

Its good the author marks OLO's 20 years, but his subsequent display of conservative intolerance somewhat soils his good intentions.

As an subscriber for most of it's life , I congratulate OLO on 20 years of publishing. It has had an excellent and diverse range of articles and authors in this time covering an wide range of beliefs.

If OLO has a weakness , it is the quality of many of the comments that it's articles attract. More is the pity but this can be avoided but ignoring that section ,populated as it is , by the usual suspects.

Congratulations to all concerned with OLO over the last 20 years and long may it continue.

I would like to join in Congratulating Graham and
his team - on the 20th Anniversary of OLO.
I wish them continued success on a difficult job
well done. May OLO continue to remain successful.

I also wish to congratulate OLO of 20 years online, whereby contributors can "voice their views" and opinions.

Says it all to me that the forum of OLO "congratulations" has less than 10 responders.

And more "possibly" about those political "activists" - and yes we know who they are, who continually use this forum for their political activism.

Congratulations Graham for 20 years of great work.

For selecting fine articles covering so many subjects.

For tolerating my occasional lapses.

And for keeping me stimulated writing 3,927 comments since 2005.

May there by 20 more years of OLO.

I dedicate this humble song I wrote, about me and my ancestors, including my forebear

King Edward I, to you http://youtu.be/HG2UMO6rZd4?t=1m16s (something to play LOUD at the office :)

Cheers

Pete
Dynasty de Plantagenet

.

Happy 20th anniversary, Graham to you and all those who collaborate with you on OLO.

Freedom of speech is freedom to express one’s opinion. OLO truly is the personification of that very precious individual right which we all share.

OLO is the modern agora in the pure tradition of the ancient Greek city-states.

Congratulations to you all – and many happy returns of the day !

.

Congratulations to all who are responsible for OLO, happy 20th.

OLO stands alone both for the freedom which it offers and for its archaic design, which I think works very well, not everyone needs all the 'whistles and bells' that one finds on other sites.

I just checked on myself and I've been around since 2006 (off and on).

plantagenet,

Seems we share more than OLO, the 'Hammer of the Scots' is in my tree as well.

I'm not sure but it seems some people are congratulating someone for having something to do with OLO.
As much as I am pleased for it's existence, I'm not sure what all the back-patting and back-slapping is all about.
In fact now I know I am confused.
Why, you say?
Well upon reading the 'header', it was clear in that it stated, 'who gave these news gatherers the special mission of interpreting the facts, let alone being self appointed to represent the public'.
Can you imagine my surprise when I started reading some of the comments, only to find I must have been on the wrong Post.
So in keeping with the OLO policy, I find I agree with the header and it's sentiment.
I have always promoted free speech, no matter if it happens to offend.
It is not a true opinion forum if it is not allowed to hear ALL the opinions.
I am forever incensed by media representatives who give opinions.
Unlike us, they are not supposed to be biased or show favoritism of any kind.
Q&A recently, chaired by some maggot, who was terribly biased in favour of the left, and it did not go un-noticed.
Can't wait for Tony Jones to get back and take charge.
Unfortunately there is more and more of this kind of journalism, and it must not be allowed to continue.
People like Koch, and others are not experts in any of the topics they speak of or interview people over, yet they persist in giving opinions.
They twist the facts to make the story more interesting or controversial, all to get better ratings, to hell with the truth, they actually attack and challenge guests to try to 'catch them out', all for the sake of sensationalizing the story in their favour, and in the hope they might trick the interviewee into saying something bad.
I am buoyed when I see someone being interviewed, 'fight back', by yelling the interviewer down and puts them squarely back in their place, leaving the interviewee with the upper hand and the last word.