There is nothing more pathetic than seeing someone like David Silkoff whining about people who don’t agree with his point of view: The Herald Sun, those dreadful people contributing to “…dangerous stream of thinking which exists in Australia”; 84% of letter writers who are anti-illegal entrants wanting them returned and, of course, that perennial punching bag, Andrew Bolt.

Silkoff doesn’t actually call for a ban on freedom of speech, but he points out that much of it is “odious”.

He is also too fired up to recognise the fact that fact that Herald Sun and people like Andrew Bolt cater for free-thinking conservatives, and also ignores the fact that, there are more left wing rags around to cater for the intellectually challenged and easily led.

Another silly comment is: “Every single one of them (9 letters) proclaimed outrage at the actions of the refugees.” Dear oh dear! That couldn’t be a popular opinion, surely? There should have been 9, preferably 10, letter writers proclaiming the opposite!

And, how dare Andrew Bolt, in a free press, voice his opinions on the Government’s too soft approach to illegals when he should be spruiking about a “concern that parts of the world are in grave and dangerous states of upheaval…”. The cheek of the man, to be concerned about his own country and not the troubles foreigners have brought on themselves!

“It is not that these opinions were expressed that is worrying, but rather that these opinions are expressed in isolation, with no dissenting voices” moans Silkoff. Perhaps there are no dissenting voices in the wider community; just the few he is appealing to on OLO. He also drags up the old bushfire one, as though Australians are not going to be more concerned for their own people than someone they don’t know. Get real, Mr. Silkoff. Particularly as you believe that opinions contradicting your own are “reactionary” “hateful”.

"There is nothing more pathetic than seeing someone like David Silkoff whining about people who don’t agree with his point of view:"
But there is, way worse... people who try to defend the morally and legally indefensible and miss (thereby prove) the whole point being made in this article.

The article wasn't about asylum seekers per se it was about the lack of objectivity balance in the Herald Sun. It is up to the the dissenters of this article to prove that the argument that the Herald Sun isn't biased..... not the asylum argument.

BTW We as ordinary folk don't know enough about the 'asylum' seekers specifically to make a definitive conclusion.
But that never bothers some.

Good luck... we'll wait...any one know any good jokes we might be here for a while?
Bolt is an entertainer (?) (a written equivalent of a shock jock) a panacea for the intellectually/scientific illiterate and those not being prepared to think.(particularly beyond their own self absorbed interests)
Allen Jones has a similar following.
Personally I long since got over what either says as it never objective,fair,balanced. They solely preach to their own and never engage with others on a meaningful level even if they don't know what they're talking about.
Comments on this site are commonly of the same ilk.

I agree Examinator.
"They solely preach to their own and never engage with others on a meaningful level even if they don't know what they're talking about.
Comments on this site are commonly of the same ilk." You said it. Have a look in the mirror.

".........and also ignores the fact that, there are more left wing rags around to cater for the intellectually challenged and easily led." (Leech)

Really? THAT is a judgment call from someone who is surely intelligent enough to know that ANY media outlet can distort and edit to its heart's content to achieve the results it wants. That such behaviour is NOT reporting the facts, but distorting the facts - IS dangerous.

To defend that, and refer to the 'intellectually challenged'...EXCUSE ME?? Even you Leech, should have the mental capacity to see that many of the 'hang 'em high' contributors to that paper, in making some extraordinary statements and claims are, at the very least, questionable in THEIR intellectual grasp;-yet you defend them!!

Which of course is predictable, because they are doing your dirty work.

Which tends to call into question YOUR intellectual capacity.

Truly; it's hard to take you seriously.

Examinator,

The average cost to get smuggled to Aus is about $10 000. This combined with their skipping of all the other countries in between that would accept them (such as Malaysia) leads to the conclusion that they are neither destitute or running for their lives.

There are many others much more worthy.

That there refugees worthy of our compassion, there is no doubt, but the illegal immigrants are not them.

Excellent article, David, not that it will cut through to the target of your comments, as shown here already.

Queensland's tabloid equivalent, The Courier-Mail, has actually done a surprisingly good job at presenting all sides of the argument. There hasn't at all been a one-sided slant in the letters published. This could of course be interpreted to mean that the average Queenslander is more enlightened than his southern counterpart, but really all it proves is that the editorial team at the CM has aimed to foster fair and balanced debate, rather than stir up fear and hatred as its poor southern cousin has done.

Shadow Minister

"The average cost to get smuggled to Aus is about $10 000."

They don't all pay that much, and many of the ones who do pool together with other families and sell all they own to get one member to safety, usually a younger man. The majority are not wealthy as you imply, but even if they were, that doesn't preclude them from seeking asylum.

"There are many others much more worthy."

Who are we to judge that? Even if we could, how do you suggest we rank them and order their progression through a so-called 'queue'? You obviously know nothing about conditions in refugee camps. There's no queue and no hope of creating one. The ones who get out are either plain lucky or fortunate enough to have the means to bribe their way out. People who are desperate enough to undertake a terrifying trip acros the ocean in a tiny unseaworthy boat and are strong enough to survive it are worthy enough for me, especially keeping in mind many haven't seen ocean before and can't swim.

"That there refugees worthy of our compassion, there is no doubt, but the illegal immigrants are not them.'

Again, who are you to judge? Besides, it's not illegal to seek asylum, so get your terminology right. Incorrectly using the term 'illegal' tends to show you up as ignorant, not suggesting you are of course.