After being frustrated for years about the general lack of public information and education about dangers of poker machines in our communities, I was pleasantly surprised to discover one political jounalist at least, who allowed a full and transparent 'blog' debate of this and other issues in the recent coverage of the Victorian elections.

John Ferguson of the Herald Sun made true his promise to allow all blog comment that was fair and reasonable, despite his own opinions. John also made some perceptive comments himself and indicated to me that he was not into manipulation such as your article suggests.

While political journalism may be subject to bias traditionally, so long as journalists are supported via feedback and blogs, I believe that such media journalism may become more responsible and transparent as result in future.

Thank God for blog and comment sections in all web-based media...I believe that via the internet, any blocks to media presentation will be much reduced. Traditional 'power mongers' must hate the net and its potential to challenge their interests, in my opinion. The net will change the 'status quo' that has dictated what we read in a way never previously thought possible.

Political journalism is a 'two way street'. The journalist writes, yes, but we read...and it is up to the public to support our journalists also, to challenge or to encourage them. The public has been offered a golden opportunity for feedback via the web and we must use it, to provide input on which true public debate rests.

Just as we probably get the government that we deserve, we also get the media that we deserve so it is no use bitching without offering our services also as appraisers of public media opinion, that may help to educate a public that now has real chance to influence public political policy. Power bases ARE changing via online media and we all must recognize our responsibilities as well as our rights, in development of a responsible media.

When I worked as a press secretary in Canberra, and had a pretty close idea of what was going on in Cabinet and the departments, I coined the "one-ninth rule" about political journalism.
The journalists knew and wrote about one-third of the items which were on the government's main agenda at any particular time. Two-thirds they did not know about. What they knew and wrote about these items was one-third of the truth, and two thirds was wrong.
Hence what we read and hear from the Canberra press gallery represents truthfully one-ninth of what is happening.
Apart from the over-confidence of reporters, and the ignorance of the electorate in a compulsory voting democracy, I also doubted the effectiveness of the academic profession of political science - which based much of its thinking on what was published in the newspapers.

I agree with chainsmoker in the much of what passes for journalism these days is little more than opinion - or at best a few facts put forward to underwreite an opinion soon to follow.

There is nothing wrong with opinion - and at least they are usually badged as such - but they are now the dominant feature of most of the papers.

And the real down side of that is people tend to g follow the lead of those who opine with some kind of blind faith rather than look for the truth that they mind find in straight reporting - the letter to the editor reflect that regularly.

And that is where you get the opinions of the Bolts, Ackermans, Pearsons et al carrying such weight - and yet there are those on the left who do proffer opinions but nothing like the avalanche we get from the conservatives these days

Then next after opinion mindless speculation - leadership challenges come to mind

since the political press is writing about events outside the interest of the civilians, their standard need not be high, a "clayton's" political commentary is sufficient.

the civilians have no interest in politics, beyond that of gossip, because they have no power to influence events, and such information as is published is in any event, of historical interest only.

if you but grasp the significance of aristotle's description of democracy well enough to realize australian society has no common elements with democracy, current affairs come sharply into focus: there are continual 'anomalies' in australian democracy simply because it isn't a democracy.

unfortunately, this article doesn't reflect any perception of this, the author is essentially saying: "this horse doesn't run very fast," while looking at a burro.

Spot on Peter,

Reading the papers, and seeing all the print dedicated to a pointless drunken dispute between two rivals at a work function makes me quite angry. What other stories could have filled that space? The last time I was drunk and disorderly at a work/uni party, I can't remember if there were comments the following day. But Milne has a go at Mayne, and we want to write a novel.

It's a conundrum. I almost hate journalism for it's prissy arrogance, and yet I really love being published. Give me a column in any of the newspapers and I'd become just as relaxed and comfortable as the next journo. And I probably wouldn't see the error in devoting a few hundred words to a petty rivalry if I was in that plush leather chair, semi-reclined and looking out to sea from my mahogany lined office with built in putting range. No, wait, what was I saying...

And I absolutely agree that OLO is a vital resource. As a blogger, I've got a lovely blog, but apart from bots who leave pornographic links, it's hard to guage the response and readership that you're actually getting.

Yes to find out what is going on a lot of time searching not just newspapers and journals but much more, even then the skill of politicians/business/Church in hiding something may beat you
Julie Macken recent articles in New Matlida on Nuclear power and the reasons for the sudden interest in climate change by Howard is an example A different spin. She Might be wrong so more checking.

But this is democracy modern style. A trend noted by Alex Carey of designing information and its release to achieve a desired end, long ago. Chomsky did further analysis of the trend as did McLuhan. These can be dismissed as left further argument not needed or so the brainwashing says like finding a homosexual who is a great mathematician who helped solve the German Code machine, one or other occupation will be concealed or derided, or the person suicides. Societies rule is established media wise.

The Record of a News paper talking of the an American newspaper by Friel and Falk shows how much spin a newspaper can impart For the Iraq War propaganda some American newspapers have apologised, the Australian never.
WE are of course taught to trust in large measure the media’s meanderings treating opinion as opinion but FACTS as Fact. Trouble is fact is now designed fiction. Goes too far and if ever we lose a war there is waiting the Nuremberg Trials where precedent for hanging n editor for bias can be found.
If we all learned I F Stones, a reputable journalist there are still some but commerce rules, who stated “Governments lie”
The Internet is a bit better than just blogs I can access and use for cross checks any number of media sources. Using this I and many others came to the conclusion the Iraq war was a con job. Confidence trick, before the event.
Illegal too but few papers are suggesting prosecution by international court for trashing another country and causing 650,000 extra deaths plus or minus confidence limits of 300,000.