There is so much discussion on the worm at the moment. I taped the Election debate from 60 minutes, uploaded it on YouTube, and within an hour: 500 viewings.

Australians are worried about "the worm".

OK, so I have some free advertizing and wave my flag, 3 other YouTubers have copied my video (they do that). OK but this is also a free service for you to refer to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHwb6B7X_2U

Sorry Graham but it seems my channel is causing some interest in debate, and I imagine people who missed the great debate on 60 minutes might like to take a look.

If you look at John Howard, he looks like he is watching the worm, trying to "get it up". It was like trying to watch an old man painfully failing his Viagra.

Beside that statement, I open debate on the worm.

Was Channel 9 wrong to keep the worm against the wishes of the Press Club? Or with the ABC coverage of the same debate without the worm, should authorities interfere with a private enterprise television network's coverage style?

People could watch the ABC, the Government channel by choice.

It's on the radio, it's on the news. So I imagine, its worthy of OLO debate to figure out what the fuss was about.

Early on that day I watched on the ABC [maybe it was a repeat] the Andrew Olly, sorry if that is miss spelled address.
He was a reporter much loved and respected, that debate touched on freedom of the press.
It should be shown along side this debate, I do not care about the worth of the worm, but another worm is at work here.
It eats freedom of speech and a free press, it is an insult that the press club leadership played any part in it.
Some one must go, no debate just go.
No government must ever again claim ownership of such a debate.
Given the polls it is likely more damage than good will come to this government from its part in this shambles.

an easy question for me, as a would-be democratic citizen: if you have to watch the worm to know what to think, you deserve to be ruled by pollies.

since almost all ozzies are cattle, consumers of entertainment in politics as elsewhere, channel 9 was right to make a dollar by offering this service.

and since there is no way to prevent the use of the worm being broadcast on youtube, protesting against it is futile, only serving to underline how out of touch with technology and current custom that old man is.

incidentally, there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in oz, what made you think there was?

Demos made an interesting point there. Howard made it clear he did not want the worm and seemed to think he'd gotten around it. In this day and age anyone who thinks they can stop people doing what they like with communications technology simply doesn't understand it.

Between YouTube, broadcast feeds, liveblogs and everything else we have these days, telling people you don't want a worm is a challenge more than anything else. People in WA who were planning to watch the ABC watched Channel 9 instead. By the time it was 7.30 over there they'd already heard about the kerfuffle.

The worm itself doesn't add anything to democracy and is sheer entertainment, but trying to stop it made it a political issue about democratic principles. The National Press Club should be held accountable and especially Glen Milne. Another old sad sack with no idea about the world he's living in.

The worm is a type of subliminal to encourage the viewer towards a certain thought.
I wouldnt trust its sincerity for a second. Someone holds the worms' power in their hands (satan looing over that persons shoulder).
Its a bit like those UFO subliminals that appeared on television advertising back in the late 1980's before they suddenly disappeared. They were there for a purpose (click on "The Cosmic Conspiracy" by Stan Deyo). Television if constantly manilulating for certain slants on things. Its no longer reliable re: truth.

Beware the Satanic Vermes!

And UFOs!

Thanks for that Gibo - I needed a chuckle :)