I write as a contributor to OLO. I am not sure if I am left or right wing, and for the most part, I only vaguely care about those classifications. However, a lot of commentators on my opinion pieces seem to place me as "left wing".
I have never been asked by anyone at OLO to trim my work to ANY political perspective. The only changes that the editors make are minor stylistic changes, or typos, and occasionally they suggest another title. I have found the editors at all times to be unfailingly respectful of my work and unfailingly courteous and friendly in all email communication (we have never met in person). I have no idea of what the editors' political views are, nor do I care very much. I didn't even know Graham had been in the Liberal Party until I read this piece.
Helen Pringle

Personally I would be very concerned to get the thumbs up from the propaganda machines such as the Age and SMH. They along with our national broadcasters are a disgrace. All I can say is that you must be doing something right. Just look at the bias that these peddlers of fantasy display with the gw arguement and you will realize how manipulative they are. The loony left who are supposed to be champions of free speech are in fact the opposite. Their idea of free speech is likely to be promoting artists who photograph teenage girls naked.

Oh Waah Waah Waah. 5 Pages Graham? You're showing your insecurity. Just be happy for the free publicity man. Journalists are a funny lot.

Before I got to where Graham asked why ‘The Age’ didn’t publish the story itself, I had already wondered that.

If I was asked to publish a story from a political party, I might read it, but no way would I publish anything written by one politician rubbishing another. If an independent writer wants to reveal something he/she thinks needs to be outed, that’s fair enough. But who wants to hear from one politician bad mouthing another politician? In this case, it is from a Green (extremist with no sensible policies) who should be slinging her venom in the parliamentary arena.

‘The Age’ article seemed to be particularly interested in ranting about all the dreadful right-wing people ‘manipulating’ OLO, forgetting their own reputation as a left-wing rag. I don’t think that any regular reader and poster would say that there is any noticeable political bias on OLO from and editorial point of view.

I notice that Godo tries to give it a run, but perhaps he should first investigate the make up of management at Fairfax before he deems OLO to have one sided controllers.

I don’t usually read other posts before I write my own, but having said what I did about regular readers and posters, I took a look and found out that I was wrong about Godo and Ho Hum, and one incoherent blast at Graham from Houellebecq.

Up to date, the rest, like me, support Graham. With a few exceptions, I think that there are more contributions from left of centre people.

People who think that OLO has any particular bias must be so out on the extremes of left or right, that they will soon fall of the edge of their flat little world.

Graham has explained why he did not publish the article, including legal reasons that had nothing to do with the target of the Green smear.

Good on him! I feel insulted on his behalf by the crap from The Age.

Even if I had to remove the word I replaced with 'crap'!

While the OLO Boards may have some particular political leanings, I have seen no evidence that their personal views have lead to the exclusion of any commentary.

OLO could avoid falling into the trap of old-world labelling (left vs right) by participants ensuring that they provide- to use Graham's words- CONSIDERED opinion. I prefer to use the words INFORMED opinion.

Does anyone really want to read or hear someone else's unconsidered or uninformed opinion? The mainstream media have found that if the "opinionator" is a "celebrity", then whatever they say or write can or should be published. Celebrities don't need to worry about facts- we lesser mortals are supposed to be in awe of their celebrity-ness at all times. Mainstream media now devote a lot of time to promoting the legitimacy of the "cult of celebrity" on their front pages or prime time, so that "celebrity" columnists and "media personalities" can do the dirty work of peddling opinion that is devoid of consideration or supporting information.

As a consequence of their behaviour, we lesser mortals think that we, too, can spout any rubbish we please, particularly when there are so many readily accessible on-line blogs and twitters. Public discourse then degenerates into a slanging match, much like a pub front bar at 10pm.

So OLO-ers- show that YOU are worthy of this great medium that Graham and his crew provides! Show that YOU can rise above the media cesspool that used to be a media mainstream! Give boldly of your opinions- just try to base them on verifiable information or logically connected consideration. If we do that, the media cesspool will be seen as the graveyard of ideological dinosaurs that it is!

Dare I say it, but I think OLO is "fair and balanced" on the whole. Though Graham has just been given the kiss of death by everyone’s friend "Runner".

Keep up the good work, BTW at least this site marked their work as opinion, some of what The Age laughingly passes off journalism is hardly even that.