Houllie

<< Fractelle,

a) Stop being difficult.
b) Sucking up wont get you anywhere either.>>

What a bossy-boots you are.

Now, point a)

Graham's allowance of F-snag to post pieces like:

"lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles, seek employment in DV refuges giving them access to vulnerable women and girls who can be offered tea, sympathy, a shoulder to cry on, an opportunity to join the sistahood, an opportunity to make fast, easy, money out of those bastard men in porn (much of which is made by women today) or prostitution, (many madams are lesbian or bisexual and work in the DV refuge industry)"

Apart from their inaccuracy and defamatory nature, indicate a lack of respect by Graham for not taking his editorial duties seriously when rubbish like this is permitted on a topic about the publication of an article about Malcolm Turnbull.

I am as far from "being difficult" as you are from recognising a back-handed compliment when you read one. Which brings me to point b) of your comment.

I stated that I agreed with Graham's decision not to publish Rhiannon's article, as such a well researched FACTUAL article has little place on an opinion-based web-site. Get it? The bulk of articles on OLO have little basis in fact - as Graham himself has identified "On Line Opinion is an opinion site, and opinion in this case is a specific genre. It excludes reportage and investigation and concentrates on analysis of generally public facts", therefore he decided not to published a news-based piece of journalism.

Just off the top of my head, examples of opinion-based articles are anything by Peter Sellick, and numerous articles on pollution of the planet's environment - with particular acknowledgement to Jennifer Marohasy and her pronouncement of the well-being of the Murray-Darling system.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

"I would like to see each of the media you listed, nominate a presenter to represent them on OLO. They would poop their pants.

Who would like to hear from Megalogenis, Grattan, Kelly, Sheehan, Waterford, etc or Kerry O’Brien on these pages?"

Spindoc,

Well, Megalogenis has a blog at the Australian. While he says that he doesn't like the play-the-man stuff, he lets on dissenting opinions so long as they make a point and are civilly put.

So what are you saying about these journalists exactly? That they don't fill a legitimate niche, are biased or maybe they don't concentrate on issues that interest you? Of course, if Kerry O'Brien were to freelance here he'd lose all credibility because he'd automatically be seen to have an opinion (which cuts against the whole grain of the culture of public TV). We probably all know one of his nicknames - Red Kerry - but even though he has strong leanings, tell me who would do a better job of articulating the plight of those in society that get the sharp end of the stick, say. He does a decent job of that, so isn't he filling a legitimate niche?

Re OLO, I think there's some heavy rock-breaking going on here that doesn't happen anywhere else - so it's very valuable. I'm sure there are plenty of interested onlookers in media and political circles that are tuning in in the background looking for new ideas or the next political opening. At the very least, OLO is a political experiment that you can observe from your lounge room where real people participate. As Graham has kind of said, OLO's a place where, bit by bit, we chip away and get to the truth. It also fills a legitimate niche.

RobP, it is my second paragraph I was hoping you would address, the generic issue of positioning of the media in general, that of balance. We know that commercial news and current affairs are lazy, inaccurate and sensationalized. Many newspaper journalists likewise, syndication has sapped much professionalism. The ABC and SBS broadcasts “grate” on many like fingernails down a blackboard, shallow, transparent, tainted and sadly, so predictable. It matters not really, if this is from the presenter or the producer, for many who sit there waiting for the other side of the story, and there always is one, it is frustrating.

I don’t care quite frankly, if the position is as you put it “nominally left wing leaning” or for that matter nominally right wing leaning. The issue of balance is critical because of the influence of modern media on public (often lazy) opinion. That power must be accompanied by an equally heavy burden of professionalism and accountability. That, IMHO, is what is missing.

So yes, I would like to see Kerry O’Brien for example, test his professionalism and accountability on OLO.

I gave up buying The Age a long time ago because of the feeling that I was being force fed a particular line, with any competing thoughts not to be entered into. I find OLO refreshingly different.

By the way, can someone tell where the idea came from that all politcal views (as well as other views) find themselves on a one dimensional continuum that can be described as a distance to the left or the right of a particular point?

Perhaps it was France. Whatever, maybe the line had some value somewhere, once upon a time. But I suspect people and their views are more complex than that.

"I don’t care quite frankly, if the position is as you put it “nominally left wing leaning” or for that matter nominally right wing leaning. The issue of balance is critical because of the influence of modern media on public (often lazy) opinion. That power must be accompanied by an equally heavy burden of professionalism and accountability. That, IMHO, is what is missing."

Fair enough, Spindoc. In an ideal world, everthing would be properly balanced. Of course, in reality, there are some big factors that militate against balance. A prime example is in a ruthless political environment, when your opponent is going to box you one if you drop your guard or don't reach a certain standard.

An advantage of imbalance is that it forces movement in the political process. If everyone was nice to each other and perfectly in balance, the polity would fall asleep and nothing would be achieved. The way things are is probably the way they need to be. And we very much live in an imperfect world. The catch is that if you have a good run over a period of time, you'll eventually have a bad run as well. Or vice versa. It all evens itself out in the long run, one way or the other.