What corporate sponsorship is determining your opinion?

The media is populated by spoilt, arrogant brats who, these days, can hardly use the tools of their trade - words - in an educated and coherent manner.

The average Australian need not take one iota of interest in the current hub hub about new media laws. It does not affect us. There are so many different ways of gaining knowledge and finding the truth now that the organised, preaching media is almost redundant.

Does a healthy democratic system depend on reasonably accurate reporting of facts and separation of these from comment which may well add context by referring to previous accurate reports?

If this is true then it is the main source of worry about media concentration.

Does media have to be profitable, excepting the ABC and to a lesser extent SBS yes.

Has the media been good at reporting? No.

Iraq is a prime example about which many people have analysed the content of media outlets and found them wanting in terms of my stated expectation of media role?
The recent Lebanese /Israeli I spat and Koreas petulant explosion of a bomb are examples in which the context necessary to both understand and devise approaches most likely to lead to practical outcomes. In these two cases as in others the media was along the lines “they are wrong, we have the might they will do our will’
Sounds a bit like Iraq and democracy!
Were media outlets subject to proprietor direction?
The finding would indicate yes by choice of journalist and source.
So we return to the problem how can a media be profitable and accurate embracing many sources, particularly when much of the readership is not interested apparently in much that goes on happy to trust their leaders?
I am not in anyway happy with Professor Flint’s analysis.

Perhaps David Flint should have read this article in the New Yorker magazine before he said that proprietors don't control the content of their media outlets: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061016fa_fact1

It shows pretty clearly that Rupert Murdoch can, has and does use his media outlets to influence the public. He doesn't have to be a superman to do this - all he has to do is select the outlet with the most influence/largest audience. The point is clear, I think - media ownership really does matter.

And as for the point out Fairfax/Channel10/WA Newspapers not having press baron owners - didn't Kerry Stokes just buy a large chunk of WANewspapers, and what about all the rumours of a PBL bid for Fairfax? Doesn't that mean they'd have a pressbaron owner?

Still, I like his final question - why aren't we trying to address 21st century issues? Like encouraging the spread of truly high-speed broadband access and more digital broadcasting? Doing things like that would give people access to many more choices.

I think the establishment of a bias assessor at the abc raises an important point. There is no regulation or even measure of bias and news content in the journalism industry.

Imagine if every news and current affairs show was rated on news content and bias, just like normal shows are rated on violence and sexual content or perhaps how fridges are rated on energy usage.

Opeds by Philip Adams and John Laws would be rated high on bias, 6:30 current affairs perhaps low on news content.

It will be interesting to see how the assessor will measure bias. Seats around the discussion table, seconds of air time? Quality of commentators? Just how many views should be represented just liberal v labour or those of splinter groups as well? And how should say airtime be allocated, should each group get an equal share or are they allocated on popular support in the community.

As for the assertion that commercial papers are not biased I would ask Mr Flint to read the West Australian for a couple of weeks. Not only is it extremely biased its standard of journalism rivals the Melbourne Truth. Sadly it is the only paper in town and thank god for the 2 out of 3 rule. The money I used to spend on the paper now funds my internet connection.

Does anyone seriously believe that a media 'baron' like Murdoch or Packer, or even formerly Ted Turner, would not try to influence public opinion on issues of vital importance to themselves and their high profile (but especially the very low profile) political and business mates via the mass media organisations they control?

True - Messrs Murdoch and Packer cannot possibly edit and dictate every item that appears in their media, that would be physically impossible, as well as highly impractical (read: unprofitable), but surely that is what they employ editors and sub-editors they influence for?

The journo hacks and 'celebrity' reporters write what they want to write but virtually nothing they write remains in the form they originally wrote. Just like' letters to the editor' the articles are edited for 'brevity', conciseness, punctuation and spin etc. (Most often so they can fit more paid advertisements on a page or in a news hour)

In every organisation there is a heirarchy. Each level of the heirarchy pays allegiance to it's superior - to fail to do so earns the wrath of their boss and promotion or even their very jobs depend upon this age-old tradition in big business as well as politics.

Therefore anyone (or any small elite) who owns a media enterprise is able to exert their influence throughout the entre organisation by way of censorship and rewarding of those who follow their master's ideology and i do not have the faith that Mr Flint seems to posses in the ultimate benvolence and altruistic natures and non interference policies of such powerful men (rarely are they women).

Listening to talkback from popular radio shows reinforces in me the doubt that the majority of people are able to form intelligent conclusions from the drivel they get fed in todays media. This mostly provides a very limited level of honest and accurate information without someone's personal or employer's bias.

Failing to try to address this issue (was it ever possible to be addressed seriously?) can only worsen an already appalling division of public understanding on those issues that we face each day.