good solution keith- i am often inclined to just say the hell with it myself. you're one of the reasons..

ozzies cannot seem to grasp that public affairs are none of their business. not that they don't try to pretend they are grown-ups: like every adolescent they are filled with opinions and share them whenever they can. but they don't grasp, or are unwilling to admit, that they have no actual role in managing australia.

politics in australia is a guild craft practised by about 1000 people. nobody not in parliament has any official role in directing the nation. australia is an oligarchy, masquerading as a monarchy pretending to be a democracy. because of thought-control propaganda built in to oz culture, no one seems to notice that a society calling itself 'democratic' has no popular input to national policy, much less control. orwell coined 'doublethink' and 'newspeak' to describe this phenomenon.

so in future, would you please stop saying 'soandso must do this'? unless of course you can also explain how you are going to compel them..

pollies, and journos, will go on going what they think best to further their careers. this will include lieing to you, selling out the nation to special interests, and not giving any thought to long term planning for the nation. they discovered long ago this maximizes their profit.

mate, find out what democracy really means and force yourself to say: "we ain't got it". only then can you make any sense of public affairs.

Demos

It is your attitude that is truely sad. Here's why.

I regularly contribute to media by way of article and letters. I have made many approaches to government agencies and politicians to change laws and regulations that have had adverse effect on myself and others. I have cordial relations with many politicians on all sides and have found most all to be decent people trying their very best. Rudd is one of a very few, in my opinion, I have found to have a deeply flawed character. I lived in Griffith for many years and moved only this year.

I have had some small successful influence on changing some things that are fairly mundane but which can have dramatic effects on some peoples lives. I haven't had the need to seek publicity at all and have not indulged our flawed media in any of my little 'campaigns'. Indeed their presence would probably have limited the actions I eventually elicited from the 'lawmakers'.
I once for a brief period joined a political party. In hindsight it was an error as I found the operation of such so constricting and domineering it just didn't suit my 'can do' personality.

So my point is I haven't gone about launching attacks on the governmental system, nor the people in the system but I have attacked the 'third estate' for not being a 'third estate'. I think you've justifiably done that too. But I have also operated on what others see as the verges or as I prefer to think the very heart of our system in an endeavour to make some changes. That's the aspect that appears to be missing from your understanding and has lead to a lack in input that would in all likelihood have moderated your tirade against us and our imperfect system.

'Let me just say this', from my view your criticism is at times very much a self-criticism.

Kindest commiserations Keith.

ps can you please quote where I have said "'soandso must do this'"?

Bulldust keith. It's all well and good to moan and say the media haven't put Rudd up to much scrutiny, but quite frankly, I think that's crap.

Those on the far left point to The Australian, Murdoch and Alan Jones, and say we have a conservative, unreasonable media.
Those on the far right point to the ABC and The Age and say it's all a Liberal media conspiracy.

As far as Rudd goes, go visit the Herald Sun's website and read the apocalyptic rantings of Piers Akerman. 99 per cent of his articles are along the lines of 'Rudd's an evil dictator who will murder your family' or something along those lines.
Albrechtsen, Bolt et al, all hammer him. There was the striptease fiasco in new york, the brian burker sage, there was the false dawn service and there were numerous others.

The media is going with what people are interested in, and the public aren't responding to the negative aspects of Rudd.
He received a bounce after the stripper issue in New York.

You can claim it's about the media representation all you like, but that's just shooting the messenger, and quite frankly, it's the copout answer every arts undergraduate loves to spout.
The truth is, the public really seem to dislike Howard, so they're not listening to the attacks on Rudd any more.
Plus, Rudd is doing his damnedest to minimise any negative exposure. This too has been commented upon, but the public isn't interested.

Don't stop there, TRTL. At the Australian alone there's Frank DeVine, Caroline Overington, and Malcolm Colless who, since joining the paper, has produced a steady stream of columns critically dissecting Rudd.

Then there's the occasional writers who all get their share of ink: business reps who have an investment in Liberal power, government politicians, conservative uni lecturers, and the various right-wing "think tanks" which exist to provide de facto campaign material under the guise of balanced research.

Rudd gets as much scrutiny and vilification as Howard. The difference is that Howard has had eleven years to demonstrate his callousness and greed. After a decade of Labor government Rudd will get pulled up on his past performance, too.

In my life experience there are three genders, male/female and journalists. So I just can't see the need for these parasites ( press gallery) when more and more people are turning to the internet for information on matters that concern them from a variety of sources.

Just look at the internet I can get my e- mails and find out what is happening in other countries live without commercials, so listerning to the opinions of a bunch of fossils in Canberra seems like a waste of my time that could been used to run my business.

Anyone who thinks the media in this country at present are not overwhelmingly biased in favour of Kevin Rudd is living in a fantasy world.

There are a few classic examples of the bias.

1. Did Theresa Rein's alleged mistreatment of her workers receive the same critical treatment as the alleged mistreatment by John Howard's brother of his workers?

2. The media did not mention that at Brian Burke's infamous dinner in Perth the majority of attendees were W.A. Union heavyweights, including MacDonald; however they did highlight the attendance of 'Businessmen'. They never pressed Rudd when in not one of his 'explanations' he ever mentioned the attendance of his union masters. I'd go so far to say he was deliberately avoiding that becoming general public knowledge. One wonders why the media didn't pursue that aspect. Would any coalition politician have been given such leeway from scrutiny?

3. Would any coalition leader or any coalition politician have received the same uncritical treatment if they had been found pissed at a lap dancing club while representing this country overseas?

4. The debate overwhelmingly was awarded by the media to Rudd. I watched pay TV and the all the media reps discussing the debate claimed John Howard won ... but no-one dissented when Glen Milne said Rudd won on presentation but Howard won on substance. That was largely ignored and an obvious pack mentality was on display.
A viewer’s survey rated Rudd at 48, a draw 2, and Howard the winner at 50. That was consistent over two days but receive no attention and the media continued in it's claims Rudd had won.

5.Everytime Rudd has made an obvious blooper or suffered some sort of public humiliation the media consistently try to 'balance' such events with vaguely similar events during Howard's campaign. (eg. Rudd's specific dressing down by the pensioner in Tasmanian is attempted to be 'balanced' by the foul mouthed general abuse Howard from a passer-by.) The reverse is not always the case. (Eg. Remember Howard slipping on those steps... headlines galore.)