Paul...I guess I should be thankful you tried to comprehend it but you basically withdrew to a position that does not fit with the reality. It may fit history to some extent, even a large extent. But it does not fit with reality. Let me simply mention straight with your contention that religion has been almost non-existant. This is simply outrageous. Religion has categorically influenced politics through a 'back door'. Politicians with their private religious beliefs have defined a large amount of policy. The most recent and obvious case is gay marriage, perhaps stem cell research, for example. In terms of economics, I think the religious feed off the state to a massive extent and wield economic influence in this way. They have influence over the media which has a distinctly christian viewpoint. I wouldn't of course expect a partisan like you to care about this or know how these religious groups connect with each other, so I won't bother continuing. The fact these things never even registered with you is predictable.

examinator
In fact I did read your post and understand the points you made. I simply question your assertion that the ABC and SBS are more objective than the commercial media. They all have their biases. The ABC makes more effort to pretend it is even handed but the reality is that it is not. The Australian for example gives space to both Albrechtson and Adams so you do get the spectrum and has articles written by politicians from both sides. If the editorials have a slant, so be it, but you at least can compare it to other views from both sides. The ABC presents a monotone. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.

TBC
"Right wing liberal economic policies emphasize lower taxes, but also less gov’t spending, allowing workers to keep more of the money they earn and allowing them to make their own decisions on what is best for them. The left generally support higher taxes and therefore greater gov’t spending believing the gov’t is a better vehicle for delivering the services and support that people need."

This is too simplistic, there is more than one dimension to the political divisions in the population. The 'right' are divided between the authoritarian (e.g. fascist) and libertarian (e.g. Ayn Rand), just as the 'left' are similarly divided (e.g. along the communist/anarchist spectrum). One can be simultaneously a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian (like Kevin Rudd). The system is far too complex to be defined in such a one-dimensional way.

To me the key question to be asked of any particular policy is "cui bono?", who benefits? Does this measure provide improvement to the life of the ordinary wage-earner, or does it improve the bottom line of a corporation and increase the wealth of its shareholders? This is the real faultline of politics in the 21st century, and it is not seriously addressed by the policies of either political party. Both sides are too dependent on the corporate dollar for their survival to do anything which might interrupt the flow of golden eggs.

Chris, the balance is in the eye of the consumer and depends on the content available. When consuming the australian newspaper,balance and choice is apparent and satisfying. The fin review in not comparable. The age, smh and couriermail etc, pander to the local audience with little depth or balance except to moddy coddle the nimby to capture increased circulation. The abc's lateline and 7.30 report close off issues of interest too early and spoil a possible balance and therefore lack depth that may arrive to satisfy my thirst. Commercial TV is purely entertainment. Q&A is a cheer squad prank with an agenda and narrow terms of reference akin to enquires with predetermined results to satisfy so called balanced audience.

On the left and right we have the interested, players & political activists which produce content which is light on, heavy, sideshow, blind alley,fillers and distractions etc with no go areas which do not fit popular agendas or supply the contributing agent with a "hit" for assurance to support their politics. The internet wins hands down with the australian newspaper coming a close 2nd. The left have had plenty of time and support and now have overplayed their hand on globlal warming. Wanton greed now effects the left and their comrades in arms. It is a real pity that housing prices were forced up to serve the social engineering labor states "national housing constraint with wedge agenda" and the silly mob went along with it. Now the architects will tell us that they need to win more awards for vertical phallic construction to house living spaces suitable for families except it won't be their family, to be continued...

Again no insult intended (ggf and others).
My concern is as stated I have issues with boxes and labels and on a more meaningful level, definitions. Therefore my posts are usually intended in the context of the whole.

Sure the presenters on the ABC sometimes have perceived biases and weaknesses like all of us but one can be objective about them, considering what else might be at play. If Kerry/Tony gets too tough with a poli (particularly in govt) they may then:
• Create waves inside the ABC (remember the hoo-ha about his salary being outed in revenge and distraction)
• Refuse to come on the program then where’s the show?
• Do what Bob Carr used to do say his piece then close his tent and go.

The point of all this is that programs on the ABC have unseen constraints and in this context we shouldn’t expect/demand too much of the old troll and her monotonal utterances.

For example brilliant political comedy/analysis (Chasers is not that) if it gets too politically biting the show
• gets squashed ether by the power that be, or
• is ganged up by the subject of criticism’s ‘cheer squad’. Most likely,
• bores the socks off the majority of the ‘great unwashed’ who simply want to be entertained not educated. At best they want their gristles aired(not really debated ) eg Q&A, Insight etc.

Put another way we shouldn’t expect the media to do our thinking for us when it does it’s rarely in our interests. Even in the days of Ben Franklin the press was biased. UNBIASED AND A TOTALLY INFORMATIVE MASS MEDIA IS A MYTH.

Like the prospector said “Gold isn’t found in the safety of your veranda … You gotta go where it’s HIDDEN…The trick is not letting your laziness get in the way of deciding between fools gold and the real stuff… You have to test it.

As Chris Lewis correctly said ‘intellectual laziness can never be excused.’ Fixed opinion are exactly that.

Good contributions Sympneology and Dallas

Sympneology's contention is nuts. Rudd has no libertarian qualities at all, by any stretch of the imagination or honesty...it's like describing John Howard as a Muslim. It's so fradulent it requires grand delusion (which members of the left -such as Craig Emerson- have recently shown such qualities they hold in spades- see Emerson's Dark Green Barbarians article here, for example)

I want to warn people not to start a stupid media is biased debate. It is biased, but to start talking about left/right bias is ridiculous. Honestly it serves no purpose and since the "left and right" can drift together as they are currently drifting to the right, to label the centre of such a drift as balanced is delusional. It's also a stupid thing to say. Journalists who think that sitting in the centre is balanced are ignorant and lazy and dare I say uneducated. Also saying, "to hell with it, the media is always biased so you can't say anything about it" is extremely dangerous and lazy.