Feminists are quick to scream foul when people with differing opinions join 'their' organisations, however they see nothing unethical about cherry picking 'statistics' and 'facts' to bolster their arguments.

It is not as though feminists have always declared their allegiances when lobbying, or when taking up public positions. How many employers are conscious of the invisible networks they are signing up for when they recruit a feminist for a job? What about feminists who do not declare a conflict of interest up-front when they pursue jobs in public agencies that handle (say) education, families and children's policy? These are targets of feminists, right? Should a feminist who believes that marriage is an archaic, patriarchal institution devised by men to enslave women not dedclare those beliefs prior to seeking a job as a counsellor to do with Family Law?

Returning to the main source of complaint of the author, I might not agree with the policies of anti-abortionists however I also do not agree with the unethical stance of feminists that abortion is the sole choice of the woman and the father should have no expectation of being consulted.

Ethics is always subjective, but it does not have to be one-eyed.

Correct but there is always 2 sides of the matter.

people are told and expect to be told everything not just that, that is only the parts they they want us the people to hear.

Also refering about feminists well they do have problems but have also chosen to take a more robust path.

It is not up to what i would say as the bible on an altor to make descisions for the people but the people and when it comes to oneself that is your right and not somebody elses belief to tell you what to do.

Religion is what some of these problems comes down too and when this opposes the rights of an individual re oneself then that is unlawful.

So in the end to this discusion all facts should be presented and the author told but media should give all sides not just their agenda approach

tapp,
I am sure on this occasion you are incorrect, or are you saying the good people like the Packers and the Murdochs really set the agenda as to what we are told and what we are not told.

And that sites like OLO are essential if the common man are to be heard?

The problem now is that journalists themselves are no longer abiding by their code of ethics. Maybe they should preface their articles with the studies they undertook at University to see whether they have been programmed to join in the current liberal anti-West chant. They are increasingly becoming irrelvant, helped along by the internet and blogosphere. We can seek out information across the globe ourselves and join the dots just as well. Cos you know, we're generally all better educated now.

Cornflower, you are kidding aren't you, or do you need some HRT? So any woman who considers herself a feminist, whether she is active or just a regular gal, must at her job interview give details on the general philosophies she holds. Well, maybe guys should be made to tell their bosses about the porn they watch to determine the degree of misogyny they have to see if they are suitable to work in a mixed workforce? To have parental guardianship over their children, especially girls? How far do you want to go with this, Cornflower. Get over feminism, it's well over you.

chrisse,
I think you will generally find both journalists and Editors know what their wealthy bosses want them to report, even the ABC is changing now to suit the Liberal Party appointments on the board, it's a sad world if you want independence and honesty in your news services.

Leslie is apt and correct. Ingrained bias rules politics and the more covert the group the better they are at getting away with it in a democracy.

I cannot see how Howard could survive his children overboard and WMD’s and support for the dinosaur industry of nuclear power without the media spinning for him. This begs the question, why do the media do it?

There is much innuendo that corporate sponsors of the Liberal party were the drivers behind Howard’s unsustainable AWA’s. Wether or not that there is truth to that lobbying can create reputations for all companies and individuals donating to political parties, smearing the innocent. Still the question remains what could motivate a donor to a political party other than the expectation of something in return? Especially as there are many needy people in the world which the dollar could benefit more. Famed are the church agenda groups posing as abortion and prenatal councillors.

All such things are anti democratic and serve to undermine democracy.

Steps to clean the practice require an independent regulator to track political donors and lobbyists and match the speeches and corporate policy activities with that of not only the ruling political party but all active political parties. The independent regulator should have the power to request ministers, or even the Prime Minister himself to be sacked and prosecuted if it appears the government panders to sponsors and lobbyists.

Organisations should by law publish preambles on their websites and published documents and any form of advertising outlining who they are and what their explicit agenda is.

Such measures would give security to citizens, certainty to investors and credibility to governments.