Grace. I'm away right now, but when i get home i'll try to find some references for the research i was using. There have been a few studies - usually from America, but also including UK and Oz.
We do deserve journalists who report without fear or favour - but unfortunately nearly everyone has some bias and this is reflected in the way things are reported. Journalists are people too remember not heartless robots with 100 per cent objectivity.
And most papers, radio programs and television in Oz is biased some way.
You mentioned Murdoch press which leans to the right, Nine and seven probably do as well.
The ABC and the SMH lean a little left.
I think for the most part they all tell the truth - just from a different angle.
You only have 35cm or two minutes to tell the story, so not everything goes in, only what the journo thinks is the most important.
Both sides selectively use the truth.

t.u.s.

Thanks usual suspect, I look forward to further information on your quoted survey at another time. Incidentally, I have nothing at all against hard working journalists in the mainstream media. And I do not believe that pure "objectivity" is necessary or possible in journalism. This is an old furphy that has thankfully been put to rest.

But let's not confuse reporting the news, which is mostly done to a high professional standard, and the opinion pieces on the editorial pages of newspapers and on television news (not to mention radio talk-back). So long as readers and listeners understand that such opinions might often reflect the interests of the powerful and not their own, then there is no problem. But I am not convinced that is always the case. And with the concentration of media into fewer and fewer hands, we are increasingly denied the full spectrum of opinion, and we are the poorer for it.

My contempt is reserved for those higher up in the media hierarchy in this country. The Murdochs, the Packers, and yes even the ABC board, stacked as it is with political cronies. These are the real movers and shakers, who set the "frameworks" within we all must try to discern the truth, journalists included. But that is another story.

Habib does not have much support outside of the usual assortment who hate Howard on principle and who even if Habib had been welcomed back to Australia with a public reception fronted by John Howard and given a pension for life, would now be condemning Howard for not going far enough. So it is perfectly reasonable for Howard to say stuff-em and to give Habib bugger all.

Also unfortunately, for Habib he made such a pain of himself in his local mosque before he had his unfortunate brush with the Pakistani authorities that he does not really have any real support even among his fellow Muslims. A few half-hearted comments welcoming him back and that is about it.

Habib should really count his blessings, and thank the good lord that his stupidity hasn’t cost him his life.

The Habib supporters might also turn their attention to getting the Pakistani and Egyptian governments to provide Habib with some compensation. However, I suppose that Egypt and Pakistan get a free pass on this issue from the multiculturalists in the Habib camp. After all, it is so much more rewarding to stay with what you know and to keep on condemning Howard and Bush. Supporting Habib is so much more satisfying for Bush and Howard haters then say protesting about the abuses of women in Egypt and Pakistan.

Howard is on safe ground—the hypocrisy of the Habib supporters is so egregious that Howard can literally tell them all to get stuffed.

JB1 - I am not sure that Pakistan has anything to answer for in the Habib case, apart from letting american operatives drag visitors off buses without charging them and then spiriting them out of the country. I suspect the legal system there would just shrug its shoulders at any compensation claim.

Habib was then taken by the americans authorities to Egypt with its international reputation for brutal torture. Any country that routinely uses torture to extract confessions is unlikely to possess a legal system that we would recognise, and through which compensation claims could be made. In fact, that's why the americans took him there in the first place.

By taking Habib on to Guantanamo Bay, which the Bush administration had constructed as a legal vacuum where torture could continue, the american authorities were hoping that once again Habib would have no recourse to the law. That is also why the americans did not let Habib fly over american airspace on the way home. Unfortunately for the Bush administration the american court system has now lifted the veil on the legal status of Guantanamo Bay, deciding that it is indeed subject to american law, and Habib now appears to have recourse to a recognisable legal system that will listen to his complaint.

Both the american and australian legal systems have evidence laws that disallow the use of torture in extracting confessions. Any confessions that Habib might have made under torture are not worth the paper they are written on. That's why the americans were unable to charge Habib with any crime, and why the australian government cannot either (apart from the absence of any relevant laws in force at the time of his alleged terrorist activities).

On the other hand, both countries are possibly liable for compensation claims for the cruel and inhumane treatment metered out to Habib. And further, those american operatives who interrogated Habib and Hicks are now likely themselves to face a court of law for breaking the law. What a farce.

As to the claim that Habib was released without charge in order not to compromise the intelligence sources that led to his kidnapping as an "enemy combatant" three years ago, anyone who believes this must ask themselves why Habib not released three years ago. The intelligence would have been just as much compromised then as now. No, the americans wanted Habib tortured for further information, and with the acquiesance of our government, we are now all guilty of condoning lawless barbarism, no better than any terrorist. Unless we complain.

You can reduce all this to hypocritical "Howard-hating" and "Bush-hating" if you like JB1, but by doing so you really miss the point.

Take the hypothetical case of an australian (white) christian missionary in the southern Philippines who is suspected of assisting an islamic insurgency, just because he happened to be muddling around the same area at a crucial time. This person has made a nuisance of himself on previous occasions in the local area, and he happens to have some professional skills in electronics, which suggest he might have been involved in signals intelligence. He is kidnapped by american operatives who take him to Egypt where he is tortured, and then to Cuba, where he is given similar treatment. He is incarcerated for three years without the australian government making any protest. How would you feel about that, JB1?

Thanks Grace, JB1 has entirely missed the point, you are correct in saying that the case of Habib is about a denial of civil rights. We should all very concerned, I wonder if JB1 was ever caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and was placed under indefinite arrest, how he would feel then? I don't know if Habib is innocent or guilty I do know that our legal system is under threat as a result of the methods used to detain Habib.

"rights" ... interesting concept :) there is no such thing apart from a power relationship. "I am strong, u may do this and that, but no more" <== that is a right.
Unless u can point to a power bigger than all of us, who can determine that there ARE rights applicable to all humans and which have enduring, eternal applicability, I have to follow the logical atheist view that the concept of rights is an artificial one. But then, I'm not an atheist :)