Thanks Fractelle.

'While there is much that is great about OLO - we do need transparency with regard to the organisations behind the publications. Otherwise Online Opinion is appearing to be Orwellian Opinion.'

Exactly. This isn't rocket science - every publication with op-eds deals with this kind of issue on a daily basis - and there can be no denying that transparency and impartial rules are helpful for the brand and will help attract new readers and keep older ones. I certainly don't think it is too much to point out to the OLO editors that 3 anti-AGW articles by IPA contributors in single week, treading almost identical ground, is, any way you put it, an aberration. Fact is, it doesn't happen elsewhere, and wouldn't be possible here with accurate bio lines for contributors.

Now, I don't expect a huge expenditure of effort through investigative journalism, but when an affiliation is fairly trivial to find, but perhaps not for a Mum and Pop, (see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation) it is hard to deny no effort has been made by OLO to prevent this type of scenario, where an organisation uses a clever diffused media strategy to bypass the cooldown period.

'Just the fact that Col Rouge has heaped praise indicates a certain bias does it not?'

I wouldn't say that, though I did find it somewhat odd that Susan apparently saw fit to give unqualified endorsement to a poster who jumped into this thread, without reading it, to heap invective and scorn on objections that were offered in a civil manner and in good faith. I do attribute that to malice, however. I just think she hasn't bothered to read the thread closely either. I think she has fixed in her head that this is an attack on the editors, by passionate greenies who are obsessively counting pro and against articles.

Sorry. That was meant to say "I do NOT attribute that to malice, however".

But there is little I can do about it except repeat my point, in clear language, and try to dissuade those who are determined to misread me by specifying again and again that I am not talking about the count of for and against articles in a period, (obviously one week is a poor sampling period to try to assess balance), nor am I calling for censorship of any kind (either against anti-AGW articles or the IPA as a whole on any issue).

BBoy “rather than fess up that you jumped to conclusions without reading what was actually said - you then come up with this lame red herring.”

I repeat, you are being just too precious… YAWN

Fractelle “Just the fact that Col Rouge has heaped praise indicates a certain bias does it not?”

Think what you want. I am free to praise the work of some just as I am free to criticize the small mindedness and “preciousness” of others.

BBoy “I did find it somewhat odd that Susan apparently saw fit to give unqualified endorsement to a poster who jumped into this thread,”

The part of my post which SusanP was supporting was

“I would suggest you maybe need to consider a longer time period of testing before claiming any particular bias.

For instance, I see a flurry of anti-porn articles recently and an absence of (say) abortion choice articles. So what! Things which get presence are invariably “topical” and that means a greater prominence to a topic which will wax and wane accompanied by the availability of suitable articles which suddenly proliferate then decline accordingly.”

The editorial staff are free to concur with reasoned observation just as they are free to delete some posts, without referral to yourself.

BBoy “I just think she hasn't bothered to read the thread closely either. I think she has fixed in her head that this is an attack on the editors, by passionate greenies who are obsessively counting pro and against articles.”

Yep, too precious.

As for “(obviously one week is a poor sampling period to try to assess balance),”

Sounds like you are actually starting to agree with me. Strange.