"...unashamedly advancing an agenda that is out of touch and alien to the overwhelming majority of Australians."
Where is the evidence of this? If this were so, wouldn't people stop watching/reading or start up their own media outlets? (A form of accountability.) What relevance is their not being elected? I thought Mr Flint was against government control of the media.

"...under firm editorial direction, ... freer than ever before from editorial and managerial control."
Riiight. And giving them greater scope for abuse will magically fix this. I'm for increased freedom of communication, but that won't promote responsibile journalism. Nor will it lead to "A clear distinction [] between the objective search for the truth, the news and opinion." That's up to the editors/managers - unless the left-wing elites who enjoy advancing their agenda get their wish and are legally prevented from advancing their agenda.

"The villain in this has above all been the unelected and unaccountable US Supreme Court, which in this and other fields has unashamedly usurped for itself a legislative role."
Wha??

Mr Flint considers LGF and Powerline to be "humble" bloggers, which makes it very hard to take him seriously. It was one fraudulent memo btw, the attack itself was otherwise well supported -- but that was lost in the scandal.

Talkback is good for raising issues and differing viewpoints, but it is not a replacement for proper news coverage and the nature of it often prevents proper evaluation of opinions. I also get the distinct impression from the lack of a full quote that Flint is misrepresenting David Marr.

On another note, how does the moderation work around here?

Deuce,

The election results mate. There's your evidence.
Remember Ray's worm? it veered to the left mate!

The date being April 1st, I am probably walking into a trap here, set by some prankster who can parody most beautifully the biases, betes-noirs and idiosyncracies of our favourite conservative apologist. But I'll take the risk, just in case it turns out to be genuine - it is such a delicious mix of rant and irrelevancy.

From Wayne Sawyer's single comment he grandly infers "much of our children’s tuition has been requisitioned to promote a left-wing political agenda". Love it!

From David Marr's observation that fascists make lousy journos he smugly draws the conclusion that "the elite media now serve the public a never ending diet of partisan opinion " Exquisite!

We then hear once again the refrain, why can't the media elite (I do so wish someone would tell me who these folk are, and in whose opinion they are 'elite') all see the world with his absolute crystal clarity.

I think however, he can rest easy in his bed, and without fear there may be reds thereunder, given how few of us plebs actually watch the programmes he loves to excoriate. Face it Flinty old chum, we are all glued to the commercial channels' visual tabloids, and are comparatively rarely exposed to that insidious pinko ABC's soft-left view of life.

Stop baying at the moon, accept that there is room in this world for more than one approach to life, and that the pursuit of bald unvarnished facts in the media is illusory. Should we automatically accept Al Jazeera's view of life, for example, on the basis that it is about as far from "soft-left" as you could get?

David dear how utterly and totally refreshing to read another fine absolutely un-biassed article from the master of fair and unprejudiced writing. Some of the nasty people who inhabit this forum could say that you are still smarting from your "Media Report" trouncing or drubbing and your subsequent sacking from a very nice earner - the broadcasting board.Have you ever thought of writing for little jonnie? or adolf hi - no he died didn't he? fond regards, numbat

Deuc, Sayeret, Pericles and Numbat well said all! David needs to get a life.
Cheers

In our whimpish society it is easier to appeal to our human weakness than our courage to achieve.Hence the growth of left wing journos.We are so concerned with safety,protection and crying out for the Govt.to keep us that we do not see the reality in the slavery of private enterprise of both small business and it's workers that supports this perverted system.The Soft Option Brigade [SOBS]cry too loud and often.The real workers don't have the time and are just too damn exhausted from supporting the non doers.Just look at the profile of many in this forum.Most are in the public service.

Anyone notice how Flint looks like a mix of Gengis Khan and Vicktor Yushencko?

Arjay, while I kind of agree with most of your post your generalisation about people in the public service is being unfair on the many who do work long and hard even if the employer is the government or a big company. There are bad apples in both big and small business and good workers in both.

Pericles, are u suggesting that 'one clearly uttered statement' is not enough to base a view of bias on ? Hmmm rather weak in reasoning I'd say. Surely one doesn't need many degrees to realize that it depends on 'what' was said, 'how' it was said, to whom, and rest of the context.

I'd say that to bemoan a particular government being re-elected as indicative of a failure of achieving specific educational goals is PRETTY CLEAR. In fact, I'd say it doesn't get much clearer than that ! to be clearer, it would take a transfiguration I think.

I can remember a classic example of left wing bias during the One nation campaign. Afternoon news (when few people are watching news)story showed the immigration spokesperson and reported/showed the first few points of the 1nation immig policy being read out. By the time everyone got home for the 7.00 o'clock news, the story had been re-hashed to put just one point across "The 1-nation immig spokesperson has serious conflict with the Federal Minister" absolutely ZERO about their policies. I'd say the ABC especially is left biased, though LANDLINE is my all time fav. 4corners is pretty good too. 7.30 report I quite like, and Kerry Obrien seems to be quite unbiased to me, another top and worthy Journo would be Maxine McQew (however u spell it)

But one point has to be recognized, unbiased media is an illusion as u rightly pointed out.

The holy grail of any political party seems from my observation, to be 'control' of the ABC, even though this might not manifest itself in much of the day to day running, if Prof Flints reporting of the 'soft left' job qualification is accurate, sounds like its just getting all the pieces in place for the real action around election time or for those times when disputes over tenders for major projects are festering.

Mr Flint, thankyou for your well written piece. I have a couple of questions and things to clarify.

Firstly, have you ever read "The West Australian"? Would it be fair to say that none of the Left-biased "media elite" are working on this particular paper? Perhaps the awesome power of the Lefty media elite has failed to sweep all the way across to ... well, the Left hand side of the country (assuming you're looking at the Earth with the North Pole in the "up" position, which is a totally arbitrary way to view an object in an infinite universe, but I digress [or do I?]).

Secondly, when Mary Kostakidis said "the so called 'weapons of mass destruction'" that one time, was that Left-y? Is that what you mean?

Thirdly, given how much we hear about the effect of the media on popular opinion, how is it that this softie Leftie media elite has failed to get a Greenie elected PM? Why do we still have mandatory detention of asylum seekers? Where are the female Premiers and Prime Minsters? How is it we still get more people at the footy than at those Lefty peace protests? I reckon the Left media "elite" must be a bit crap! Elite means "the best or most skilled of a group" doesn't it? They're rubbish - what effect have they had?

You obviously know more about these things than I do - you certainly read a lot more media. And I might be just as Left as you are Right, thus enabling me to be just as biased in the way I read things. I don't know. I just don't see the impact of this Lefty media elite.

AH

about the only useful comment in Flint's piece was recognition that our defamation laws need adjustment. The rest wasn't exactly evidence-based.

I believe the media serve the right wing, and some of the evidence is:
a) a significant international report saying that 60% of the world's ecosystems are in decline was mentioned briefly on the ABC news, but doesn't seem to be covered in this weekend's Australian or the Canberra Times.Gee, we wouldn't want to question the need for growth, would we?
b) a total lack of critical perspective on the current Pope. It's just too un-PC to mention how he went after the liberation theologists in central america, and even collaborated with the CIA to identify them.

Sarah, there are a lot of assumptions about many things in your posts.
One being that the 'liberation theologians' are correct ? While they may have some good things to say, what counts is how what they 'say' accords with the position in the Church and the Churches position on particular issues. If they 'take issue' with that, they should leave and speak from their individual viewpoint, not from within the Church.

I'm not a Catholic by the way. If u want left wing bias, listen to Philip Adams for a few hours.

David Flint is quite correct. There have been some members of the extreme left media who have calaimed that there were no weapns of mass destruction. Were that to be true it would mean that the war in Iraq was illegal and 100's of thousands had been murdered.

Don, If there is ONE thing that I take extreme exception to, it is the concept of 'legal and illegal' when it comes to war. I would agree to moral and immoral, but NOT 'legal' as IF there were some high human authority which is 'without sin' that it can cast stones at others, without some rebounding on themselves.
You would HAVE to be on the left of Marx somewhere, because the obvious sign is that terminology u use. "legal war".. When the Germans attacked the Poles it was quite LEGAL (to them) but it was immoral to all. The UN (if that is what ur referring to as the basis for legality and its pet "international law") I have to just roll my eyes and sigh.

The concept is defeated before it begins, and its for the same reason 'socialism' as an ideology and political system failed and continues to fail, 'human nature, greed, envy, hatred, ego' etc etc.
Capitalism, on the other hand, 'succeeds' but newsflash, as a political system it will doom us to the on going scrap heap of history as it seeks to draw worshippers to the tabernacle of 'shareholder value' and economic rationalism.
By now u must be confused, "where does THIS guy stand" ? well, I'll save you the trouble of wondering. I'm what is usually called a'Godbotherer' in these forums.
I have the belief that no matter which political system we have, either left or right, it will inevitably fail to deliver true justice and responsible stewardship of the planet unless the hearts and minds driving the agenda are renewed by the indwelling of Christ. Theocracy u say ? not at all, just people who are able to govern under guidance of the still small voice which utters "this is the way, walk in it".

Ah, now he is hearing VOICES... watch him..... I'm referring to concience, which is sharpened and focused by a relationship with God thru Christ.

Boaz
I agree with many of your sentiments. I find the idea of legal/illegal war repugnant. The invasion of Iraq is immoral. I also agree that there is little difference between right or left wing governments in Australia - while economic (ir)rationalism rules, we are governed by the greedy and opportunistic.

You are right about conscience, mine is in constant vigilance. However, where we differ is that you believe to solve all this we just have to let jesus into our lives. I don't accept that christ is the one and only answer, maybe for you but not for others. I also find this concept simplistic. I wish it would be that easy. Human nature is fickle and a one answer solution doesn't work. I don't know just how we can inject some honesty and accountability into goverment and big business, but a sharpened conscience is a good start.

With regard to bias by our media - which ever government is in power - right or left, if criticised by the media then it is assumed that the media is biased in the opposite direction. Really just a way of condemning free speech.

Peace.

Somebody else commented about the futility of making ironic statements in these forums. Actually don, the reason the yanks have been shooting journos in Iraq is that the wicked Bolshevik scribes hid all the WMDs just to make the neo-crusaders look unjustified in waging war against a much weaker enemy.

The non-existence of the WMDs is a commie plot hatched by Fidel Castro and David Marr. As they say, Bush and his dogs of war know that Saddam had WMDs - because they still have the receipts!

Why, I bet all those WMDs have been secretly hidden in a bunker below the ABC Gore Hill studios. [Deleted for flaming. Author has been suspended].

Morganzola
You always bring a smile to my dial. This forum would be much poorer without you.

Have a little sympathy for flinty - he's not got much to do these days. Eeeek what am I saying? I'm just feeling too tolerant - must get back to feisty provocateur mode.

ciao

>>Pericles, are u suggesting that 'one clearly uttered statement' is not enough to base a view of bias on ?<<

Boaz, that is exactly what I am suggesting. It does of course indicate the prejudice of the utterer, but it is unrealistic to extrapolate that to the entire medium. If that were the case, how would you ever hear dissenting opinions on anything? We would have instead narrow channels exclusively catering to an individual bias.

"Say, I'd like to hear how the neo-cons think, I'll tune to CNN. Now I've heard that, I'll check on those soft-lefties at the ABC" People tend to have different views, they should be allowed to express them without the automatic assumption that the platform they use is also dedicated to their message.

On reflection, I think that may be where we are heading, and could also be the reason folks like Flint spend so much of their time demonizing the ABC. Once you have persuaded the world that the organ of free speech is in fact tainted, it is so much easier to suppress it.

Pericles, do I detect a glimmmer of a 'conspiracy theory' emanating from your quarter ? (tainted free speech can be supressed)....

No, of course I don't, your just going in your usual colorful way about the topic.

Philip Adams remains my prime 'Biased ABC' epitomy. Though Terry Lane would be in the running if he were still more involved there.

Ringtail... yes, u better get back in that kitchen :) .. and take those shoes off ok... (well, u did say u were going to be a provocateur, so I jumped in ahead).. *smiles*

Morgan, you will be more valued if u take a more balanced look at things u disagree with :) (is this the pot calling the kettle black ?)

Yes Boaz, you are absolutely correct, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It is however an observation of mine that there are an awful lot of David Flints and Philip Ruddocks out there, warbling on about left-wing bias at the ABC and how it should be nipped in the bud. They give the very strong impression that, given their druthers, such commentary should be banned.

And I wouldn't get too steamed up about poor old Philip Adams. Radio National rates around two percent, hardly enough to foment a revolution of the proletariat, I suggest. And way, way behind those right-wing shock-jocks who dominate talkback radio.

But on the topic of Mr Adams, why is it that so many self-appointed guardians of our moral health perceive him as such a threat to civilization as we know it? Could it possibly be that behind that veneer of worldly sophistication there is still enough of the human being to respond occasionally to the call of the soul?

Guilt, anyone?

Before running off with the idea that Dan Rather did in fact make a fraudulent attack on George W Bush Mr Flint should read the article in the April 7 issue of the New York Review of Books which comments on the report of the panel established to review the performance of Mr Rather. It is at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17871.

The author, James C. Goodal, is an Adjunct Professor at Fordham Law School, the former Vice Chairman and General Counsel of The New York Times and represented the newspaper in the Pentagon Papers case.

The article concludes, "The panel was unable to decide whether the documents were authentic or not. It didn't hire its own experts. It didn't interview the principal expert for CBS. It all but ignored an important argument for authenticating the documents—"meshing." It did not allow cross-examination. It introduced a standard for document authentication very difficult for news organizations to meet—"chain of custody"—and, lastly, it characterized parts of the broadcast as false, misleading, or both, in a way that is close to nonsensical. One is tempted to say that the report has as many flaws as the flaws it believes it has found in Dan Rather's CBS broadcast."

But, what an extraordinarily virulent attack! Amongst many others of the right Mr Flint fails to understand the role of the judiciary and the separation of powers. And a great deal more!

No no David Flint is completely wrong.
The media in this country are absolutely the fairest and most undbiased in the world.
Why just today I saw an article in the Age titled
"Traditional morality, the way forward"
In the SMH i saw
"Refugees go home"
and on that most unbiased of I institutions, "our" ABC, I am looking forward to the documentary about the Moral Justness of the Vietnam war.
You're quite right

David Flint is paranoid.

SLUMLORD.. I just couldnt wait for your take on the issue, with a nick like that ? :)
Actually, on reflection, I think we tend to react to ANYthing which is out of our philosophical comfort zone as being evidence of bias against us and our position. But the 'moral justness of the Vietnam War' ?.. That HAS to be a 'grabber' to get peoples juices going in order to make them watch. Hmm perhaps they contacted the sponsors of the appropriate demographic group "Anti War generation" and assured them of a wide audience ?

PERICLES.. Poor old Philip ? yes, I tend to concur, Phil has lost a lot of his 'edge' lately and in spite of the fact that age has not entirely removed his socialist malignancy, he is quite mellow and almost lovable in his presentation, dare I say warm hearted ! Philips 'anti' Christian position I think needs to be re-interpreted as anti-a 'peverted manifestation' of Christianity which I think he experienced as a child in a catholic school. "Dont sleep with your hands under the blanket boys !

SHOCK JOCKS I guess your referring to Neil Mitchell there, if he is still around, or maybe Derryn "Hunch" ? ->"sick I say, verrry sick" (DH)

I'm still waiting on your reply to my question about the Brooks.

Pity about ideologues, once grasping the reins of power they collectively introduce their ideology and despise anyone that opposes.

Over the past century, Australians labored (sic) to not only promote the values of Social Democracy but stand as a global beacon for the egalitarian outcome.

When the energy dependant post-war economic boom trickled to a standstill as Oil-laden nations grabbed profits, the (Cold War supporting) anti-collectivist economists told us to trust gov't to move from the social values based 'demand management' to the 'rational' logic of 'supply maximisation'. Unfortunately, this transition gave a massive opportunity for neo-conservatives using - you guessed it - collectivist tactics to impose their 'sacred' beliefs.

Despite Flint's neo-conservativist views, journalists' reflect on the diminishing ideology of Social Democracy and ask why (to their discredit, all too often by inference). At least someone is asking what benefits society will accrue from the imposition of neo-conservatism; generally undertaken paternalitically with neither debate nor rational explanation.

As 'Left' is the side for opposition, labelling the media 'elites' as 'left' is hardly helpful to his cause. What he needs to show is why journalistic opposition to his feted beliefs is unhelpful - and he fails in this regard!

That both Flint and the media 'elites' to which he despises developed their beliefs under the comfortableness of the Social Democratic past, suggests Flints' antagonism towards his antagonists may be fuelled from something other than an ideological passion.

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I ask "Can anyone guess what the underlying cause may be??

Careful Boaz, your irony-detector needs servicing. I suspect in your haste to provide a witty response to slumlord you quite overlooked the point he was making.

I don't think Phillip Adams (my apologies to him, I carelessly left off one of his 'l's last post) needs your pity. After all, whatever you think of his politics, he has been a successful journalist, a respected columnist and is generally viewed as a thoughtful and compassionate person. Whether you like him or not would, I suspect, be a matter of supreme indifference to him, although I would also entertain a suspicion that he would be quite interested in your views. Much as an entomologist might examine a particularly fine example of hemiptera reduviidae that just crawled out from under a stone.

>>I'm still waiting on your reply to my question about the Brooks<<

I can't remember your question on this topic, sorry.

Pericles, my question about the Brooks has now been posted in about 3 threads, trying to catch your attention. I was just surprised that you even knew about them at all, let alone some detail that one of them allowed the missionaries into Sarawak to work among indigenous people. Its not the kind of everyday chunk of history that people delve into. So ? may I know the background of your understanding of that matter ? general reading, photographic memory ?

I was not hinting that Philip Adams should be anything'ed by my comments. I simply say that he is becoming more warm and mellow from my observation.

ODDBALL Now to you ! err were u reading from some 'manual' to gather together all those EXTREMely dogmatic and ideological terms ?
Did it not strike you, as you wrote, that YOU were advocating a particular ideology as if all normal human beings with an ounce of intellect would 'naturally' applaud this as 'the way to go' ? It seems to me that the pot was calling the kettle black there, with you sniping at ideologues of different persuasions 'collectively imposing' their views while you are espousing one yourself.

It just reinforces my long held view that most socialist journalistic types believe the world starts and finishes at the door of the lygon street cafes where they gather to solve the challenges of the world :)

By the way, I don't know where u get 'despise' as the only attitude that collective ideologues have to have towards those who disagree with them. As a Christian, I'm comfortable with the fact that we have to struggle politically with our 'enemies' but for goodness sake, despise ? thats way over the top. U don't have to despise someone just because they don't share your views. But for the record, the most vitriolic hatred I see on these forums almost inevitably comes from those of a clearly left view of life. Not to say that we godbotherers never have our moments of 'oops' when it comes to dealing with those enemies.

"So? may I know the background of your understanding of that matter ? general reading, photographic memory?"

Boaz, this is so far off topic to be impolite, but just this once.

General knowledge.

Pericles,
off topic ? indeed, but I'm of the view that issues don't exist apart from real world people. I find it rather difficult to just discuss 'issues' when there is a thinking living person behind the type. Does it seem inappropriate ? If so, I'd love to have some back and forth about the Borneo situation by email which would not impact on the general forum readership. 'General knowledge' about the Brooks, seems just too easy, when it is a time and area and 'era' of little interest to most Australians. Please drop me a line.

jdrmot@bigpond.net.au

Nobody has answered my question, if it was rhetorical there wouldn't have been a question mark.

Penekiko

Nah, I see more like the love child of Liberace and Bernard King. Which explains a lot.
This is on topic because it is directly about David Flint and the subconscious reasons for his stance on the media.

;)

Robert yes I'm being too harsh on the public servants since I know quite a few.I used to work for the Dept of Education and know the mindless rule book mentality that is designed to protect bureauocrats.
Yes,there are many well meaning workers in the PS system who will eventually succumb and just do the time.There are many in the PS who do the right thing,but in NSW the growth it is totally out of control.
A friend who worked in private enterprise for 30yrs who now works for the Govt,describes it thus,"THE PROCESS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OUTCOMES."
Need I say more?

ABC TV have a special reporter with a microphone who follows John Howard 24/7. This is why we have the prime miniature,s left wing comments on everything from Afghanistan to cricket and the weather.

Peace

Well done David, a very refreshing article.

It comes as no surprise to me that a lot of those who responded of "Progressive" bent, do not understand what he's talking about. Moreover, simply attack his character by painting his writtings as the paranoid ramblings of a right-wing extremist.

Given your political beliefs, you do not feel repulsed by a constant bombardment of subtle left-wing messages because these messages are "fact" right?

Kinda reminds me of the other night when the left-wing media watch was trying to paint those who dislike the societal adoption of politicheskaya pravil'nost as being worried about the "political correct boogie-man".

Also reminds me of how many will use the term "red's under the bed" when their "father-figure" was a former leader of the Marxist Australian Fabian Society.

Penekiko and Ringtail, I'm still struggling to figure out how unflatteringly comparing David Flint's physical appearance (which he has no control over) to Bernard King, Liberace et al constitutes vigorous intellectual debate?

Oh, that's right, silly me, it DOESN'T.

Next time, try a inject a little thing the rest of us like to call "substance" into your forum posts. You might not embarrass yourselves so much.