I haven't read the full range of sources which Graham has listed, but will do so.

However, irrespective of the particular merits of this case, OLO will continue to be under suspicion as long as its Editorial Committee is so obviously loaded with people with right wing leanings. Kramer, Sullivan, Young and Turnbull all have very public connections with the Liberal party, and there simply is no similar representation from the left to balance this.

The interesting question to me is why this obvious imbalance exists in a forum which claims to want to achieve balance. Why is it so?

I agree with Godo.
OLO is heavily biased towards the ideas promoted by right wing think tanks. Take the piece today by Robert Murphy who is the author of a book published by Regnery Press---which as about as right wing as you get in the USA.
Very much a part of the GOP/Republican noise (lies) machine.
Horatio Algier on steroids and take no prisoners.
Tough titties if you lose.
Tell lies often enough and loud enough and the lies then become part of the accepted "wisdom"--really gross ignorance.

I tend to support Graham's argument. Especially in view of the fact that there are other non-RW board members that were omitted from the Age's list. While many of the published opinion pieces do have a RW flavour, there are plenty from the Left as well. OLO brings together a number of authors and participants of different political leanings so the content while at times leans more to the Right, is fairly evenhanded.

If some from the Left feel there is a greater bias they are always free to submit articles.

If the article perhaps had not been written as news, but about political donations using the Wentworth Forum as an example perhaps the decision would have been different.

These events highlight not only journalistic motives (competition) but the need to look more closely at the whole spectrum of political donations.

As for journalism and ethics - well isn't that an oxymoron in many cases.

The other commentators should look to their own biases. Simply because the site occasionally prints material that is not screaming left wing - that might even be described as conservative - does not make it biased. In my view the site publishes too much material from lunatics such as the anti-population crowd, peak oil nutters, green house activists and the odd economic theory nutter but I think that is part of its fun. Others who visit the site, including myself, will take a shot at that nonsense. In fact, as far as I know, OLO is one of the few online sites in Australia that publishes both sides of various debates, and you will find both sides in the story comments.
One of the features of many debates in Australia - and notably the arguments over the greenhouse effect - is that it is overwhelming dominated by activists of one sort of another. One of the slogans these activists constantly scream into the public megaphone is that their views are being surpressed. What this boils down to is that they are horrifed by any contrary opinion at all.

I'm a bit astounded at suggestions that OLO is necessarily heavily slanted to the right. I have read numerous articles on OLO from both sides - from Alan Moran and other ultra-free-marketeers of the far right to John Passant of the far left, and very politically-correct and leftist articles by Jake Lynch and the defenders of multiculturalism. There are Peter Sellick's articles which defend religion, and other articles that are anti-religious. And commenters come from all directions.

Where's the obvious slant?

If any site in Australia is balanced with a fair share of right and left, or perspectives in between, it is On Line Opinion.