Is it okay to dare to mention the term quarry economics which owing to extra droughts, etc, it is minerals, including coal that has been keeping Australia going.

Thus from Liberal and Labor, we have the resultant pitstock politics, with no mention what Aussie-Land will rely on when all the limited underground resources run-out.

As one going on 88, guess there is no need for me to worry, but as well as having 14 great-grandkids, with one going on 17, reckon one should be allowed to peruse a bit over it, especially being one who has done well in his retirement from our farming coy, not so much in golf but very much so in political science and international relations.

Finally reckon we could still learn a lot from Socrates with his not only Out with the Gods, and in with the Good, but also about letting our thoughts run deep to really find the Good.

Now with ultra-modern communication devices, not letting thoughts go much deeper than just behind the eyes and ears, no wonder we cannot forecast the future for our great great grandkids, as a modern Socrates if we can find one, would surely let us know.

Have Fun, BB, Buntine, WA.

The reason we have little balanced political commentary is because the 'simplistic Right' as Chris Lewis calls them appears to be totally consumed by hatred of anyone with a slightly left of centre view. This means they are too busy hurling personal abuse to spend any time actually considering that these arguments might have some validity. In the minds of people like Janet Albrechtson, Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt etc., anything that suggests governments could have any role to play other than protecting their Property Rights is equivalent to Communism.

Plus they are no doubt paid to generate as much reaction as possible, so being deliberately inflammatory is obviously the way to go.

How nice it would be if commentators from both political wings would, when hearing arguments from the other side, spend some time identifying what they can actually agree with. My bet is there would be quite a lot.

It would be nice to see the media give some more space to the right, apart from the 4 or 5 people who have managed to retain their positions. There are entire media organisations who have no one from the right at all - e.g. My ABC. Is it any wonder you don't have a wider range of balance in commentary?

Recently when responding to claims of bias, the ABC responded they could not find anyone who held opposing opinions to their 5 to 1 biased perspective - and promptly found that was OK and thus - no bias. Don't worry about the taxpayer, as long as you think its OK.(sarcasm)

I guess the right are less hysterical and populist and therefore less popular with editorial management who want sensation and controversy in order to get attention, and thus sell papers, win ratings competitions, win awards like a Walkley .. who cares if you don't offer balance(ABC ?).

So back to your point .. the reason is .. there is a lack of commentators from the right .. so maybe if they weren't shouted down every time they appear, you might get some more.

Blimey, what planet does rpg live on? What can he possibly mean by saying there are a lack of commentators from the Right?? Just switch on AM radio, open The Australian, peruse the Daily Telegraph.. Almost all the commentators in the commercial media (Fairfax apart) appear to be from the Right apart from the odd token Leftie (Philip Adams once a week in the Australian). Fairfax seems more balanced but even there we get treated to the likes of Gerard Henderson, Michael Duffy and Miranda Devine venting their spleen.

Yes the ABC is biased in the opposite direction (very boringly so unfortunately), but this is mostly reflected in their serious journalism and in depth documentaries. There are very few programs on the ABC providing 'opinion' as such - really only Philip Adams (with Michael Duffy now providing some, limited balance). I suspect the problem here is that the pay and conditions of the ABC don't attract people from the political Right.

And what on earth does tpg mean by "hysterical and populist" if he's not thinking of Alan Jones, John Laws etc? Or maybe he thinks they're Lefties.

RPG,
You really should get your facts correct rather than right.

1. The Walkley’s are for excellence in Journalism NOT sensationalism or political leaning. A list of the major winning subjects would clearly show this.

2. The media generally is geared for the interests of businesses as these are their source of income. The retail price of the paper would hardly cover the staff’s national coffee n’ bickies bill.

3. All Shock jocks and most talk back radio tend to politically 'conservative'. (supportive of the status quo in power systems or returning to 'good old days' that under scruitiny weren't that 'good' just 'old'.)

4. The ABC board has more than enough ‘conservative’(pro Libral) members.

5. I would dispute your assertion that the A BC is Right/Left/centre or in Einstein’s dimensional space. To claim it has any political leaning/agenda is politically self-serving and preposterous. The News and most of the current affairs shows are by and large OBJECTIVELY conducted.

6. The ABC doesn’t avoid issues that might not favour political issues because it may embarrass the Labour party. In fact I’ve seen Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones mercilessly rip up a labour ministers simply because the poli’s stance was weak (obfucasious spin), That’s his job. Compare that to the backroom deals done to stop a series of articles that examined Murdock’s wife (exposed on Media Watch) while laying it on Rudd’s missus.

BALANCED simply means that both sides get to say their piece (equal time) regardless of its merit is frankly, a waste of time and effort.
Neither side(?) has the sole franchise on what is best. Surely then issue is OBJECTIVITY (including in our mass media)regardless of our enotional or self interests. That means all argument being held up to scrutiny and dismissing the objectively unsupportable nonsense. A rational search for truth.

It is interesting to note that a majority of Australians WANT aunty to remain (objective) as it is.
P.S. Right/Left are subjective lables with no definitive meaning and as such serve to obscure the truth which resides exclusively in neither alleged perspective.
Examinator :-)

I am sorry but examinator must watch a different version of Lateline to me. The problem with Tony Jones is that he fails to ask the left leaning politicians the hard questions when he needs to. if they say something particularly stupid he will go them but he fails to test them when the points made are debatable. Whether this is because his personal philosophy makes him blind to the shortcomings of the arguments, or whether he does it deliberately, he definitely exhibits a bias. The problem with the ABC generally is groupthink and smugness.