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??