Transperancy is the proverbial 'take two asprin and call me in the morning' for the various diseases of our political system. When the banks can buy Alan Jones without repercussions and Howards appoints a (previous) chief scientist who keeps right on working for Rio Tinto, then knowing who the pimp is becomes of merely academic interest. Democracy is dead, stop fiddling with the corpse. (ps. this comment is probably illegal under new Sedition laws - QED).

Goodness me, anyone actually read what the author wrote? A few have but most have concluded what the topic is before reading as far as I can tell.

As Rhian has written "The main issue in any policy debate should be the quality of the argument and evidence presented". I wish! Not a quality used by many here, or on most web sites, blogs and media. All of it actually.

For those who doubt the effect of the media (and media control itself) on the population's opinions could I ask you watch the movie "Outfoxed" before commenting further.

Leslie asks if it matters who or what any media report etc is motivated by. That is the question everyone should ask before considering what is written. Until that question is answered any quality of argument or presentation of facts is irrelevant.

Tapp points out that media coverage is limited, covering only those they wish to. It would seem he is right. The exception is for someone to become an irrestible media target as Pauline Hanson was, and is. To actually say what you think, and believe. Right or wrong that gets attention but usually the "let's demolish this before it becomes a big problem" kind of attention. As instructed, as opposed to the worthiness of what was said or done.

In that regard the current attitude is to totally ignore any small group unless they can be demonised and ridiculed. They don't bother until there are nervous signs from Canberra.

The author throw her net wide, however the following two paragraphs from the text appear to outline the key concerns she had in mind when drafting the article:

“Well-known anti-choice activists and several women with links to Opus Dei recently became directors of Women’s Forum Australia, which asserts feminist grounds for opposing the drug regulator’s control over RU486, transparent advertising requirements for pregnancy counselling organisations and stem cell research." and

"The Coalition Against the Decriminalisation of Abortion seems like a new pro-life grass roots organisation, but shares a mailing address with Catch the Fire Ministries. In its first year of operation, Cadoa found about $34,000 to fund anti-decriminalisation newspaper ads.”

Taking the first example, what would be the ethics of rejecting the ‘several women’ directors on the basis of suspected religious affiliation? What is the point of enforcing a monoculture for board members (if this is what the author wants) and how would this affect the accountability of members of boards?

Taking the second paragraph quoted, there does not seem to be any evidence of wrongdoing or misrepresentation. In the commercial world mail addresses may be shared, organisations diversify and directors can sit on many boards. At least in the example given, the ‘offshoot’, if indeed that is what it is, seems to be quite above-board in that it is allegedly doing what its name implies it was set up to do. What would the author have this organisation do differently, accepting that there cannot be one rule for organisations she dislikes and another rule for the remaining organisations at large?

I have no interest in the organisations quoted above, my objections are based on practical reasonableness alone and I cannot imagine what remedies the author might propose for the two examples quoted.

Itis desirable that journalists and others could disclose more often what interests they represent, however the lessons of history show that it is the black arts of clever rhetoric and propaganda we should be more wary of and no writer or orator is likely to disclose it when he/she is reaching into that bag of tricks.

Cornflower
"“Well-known anti-choice activists and several women with links to Opus Dei recently became directors of Women’s Forum Australia, which asserts feminist grounds for opposing the drug regulator’s control over RU486, transparent advertising requirements for pregnancy counselling organisations and stem cell research." and

"The Coalition Against the Decriminalisation of Abortion seems like a new pro-life grass roots organisation, but shares a mailing address with Catch the Fire Ministries. In its first year of operation, Cadoa found about $34,000 to fund anti-decriminalisation newspaper ads.”

The author is demonstrating the dishonest strategies the superstition industry engage in. The abortion debate is a good example as pro-life (an oxymoron) organisations employ deceit, fabrication and character assasination in their quest to gain power to dictate to the non-superstitious how they must live.

I don’t buy the concern about the innocent man in jail because black people have been the victims of injustices for years without too much concern from the white man.

In the real reality of White man’s law the 100 guilty men that will be freed will probably be white and the innocent man in jail will be black.

Jolanda,
So you're a realist, arguing against red neck extreme right wing capitalists I wish you luck, please remember logic and common sense was a concept of the 20th century. Now they do what the Cornflours do, just rabbit on with any old nonsense which makes neither sense nor logic, but keep going lady your doing well.