In a recent article a poster came up with an interesting thought.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9652&page=0#154888
That the editors of OLO manipulate the topics to further their own political (party's views) one could assume religious purposes as well.
Given the editors are Liberal Party and Christian. Do you see evidence of this? and do you think it affects the potency of your views?
Do you think OLO has a bias?
Do you thing it is a true discussion site or simply two sides battling without an outcome?
Why? explain.

You can get away with calling them Liberal and Christian and not suffer a torrent of abuse and name calling and no calls for censorship either. Now that says something.

Try even getting a thread like this up on most sites, for example those with a green left or AL bent and you would be out on your ear together with your post.

"Do you think OLO has a bias?"

I did twelve odd days ago when the site went offline. I'd been fairly outspoken on my loyalty to QE II in one thread, as well as pointing out that Swan River Colony of WA wasn't settled as a penal colony, as some of the other states were, another post in the Ending It thread that may have possibly resulted in some sort of ban, without notification.

With great relief I read that quite a few others had similar problems with a few posts missing after what seems to have been a backup restoration.

Considering the complexities of my opinons, some rather eccentric right-wing and left-wing views, the strong patriotism I have for this land I was born, at the same time desperate to get away from the very society that is killing me, and how I have been free to post my honest opinions, though I expect very few might see the integrity that melds such a range into one thought pattern, (Seano must be mad), I appreciate the tact that the moderators seem to tolerate people like me.

I' sure that no matter which side of politics or religion this forum might be biased towards, at least half of the stuff I post must go against it.

All I'd like is that those like myself who spend 12 hours a day here, we might have the postal quotas based on quarter-day periods, so I'd not have to be so selective where I rant. 500 word limits would also help improve my style, but there will always be someone who wants more of one thing or another.

Nah, it's very unbiased IMHO, and the limitations help contributors think a little more carefully before hitting the New Post button. I don't have any other Australian-based forums to compare with this one.

I will never be a pocket piddler.
Till I die say it like I see it.
About three times I have been refused publication of a thread.
Only once did I not agree.
Once, maybe more? a post has been removed.
And once I was challenged for slagging a poster , not the one I was charged with.
Early on I must admit I doubted I was in GY,s good books.
But this site is fair, no concerns at his politics, or religion, I question evidence to say he is overly Christian.
I may be wrong but Australian politics is part of this threads title.
We once had a forum by that name.
It was owned By and ALP member, no bias was evident there.
Show me a better forum in this country.
It however would be good to know all deleted posts and threads that never got a start, only as information.
I doubt both would give any evidence of bias.

Being relatively new to this site, I will say that I have never felt any bias in the choice of articles or comments allowed.

Graham seems to be a fair person. One of the criticisms I have would be that some posters seem allowed to SHOUT a little too often. I see no point in allowing that, as it is very rude.

I also wonder at allowing a few very 'passionate' posters to rant and rave for exceedingly long posts, with scores of links we are supposed to click on, that seem as though the confused poster has some sort of psychiatric disorder!

I do really enjoy the site though, even though I am now heartily sick of climate change as a subject.

Hi, before this thread goes too long I should spell out a few things. I was State Vice-President of the Queensland Liberal Party between 1994 and 1997. I was expelled from the party two years ago and I am not currently a member of any party. I generally vote Liberal, but not always. And I am a practicing Anglican. I play the organ weekly at church and I take religion very seriously, but you are not likely to see me introduce it into a debate that is not about religion in the first place.

As Chief Editor I do not make most of the day-to-day editorial decisions, nor do I see most articles before they are published. That is the job of editor Susan Prior. As far as I know Susan does not profess any religious faith, although I understand that she was baptised a Roman Catholic. Again, as far as I know she has never been a member of any political party.

I moderate the forum.

When I established this site I involved as wide a range of organisations in it as I could. Over the years they have included NGOs from both the left and the right, as well as one trade union and four universities. The Catholic Church has also been involved, and the Rationalist Society is also currently a supporter.

I do have a classical liberal philosophical point of view, and part of that point of view is that free expression is a good thing. So yes, I do have a bias. It is a bias that is a necessary prerequisite for a site like this to exist in the first place. It is also consistent with my religious point of view which puts a lot of emphasis on free will and personal responsibility.

this is so so funny. Has the ABC announced yet that the latest mass murderer did it in the name of his god? With regular posters like Foxy and CJ to claim bias from Graham Y is the most silly I have heard for a long time. It's not April 1 is it? Just because Mr Rudd is spitting the dummy over being exposed over his gw scam does not mean everyone else is so blinkered.

runner, this was posted almost 8 hours ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/07/2736058.htm

You seem to be conflating so many issues ... what is your real problem?

GrahamY, you said "I do have a classical liberal philosophical point of view, and part of that point of view is that free expression is a good thing. So yes, I do have a bias. It is a bias that is a necessary prerequisite for a site like this to exist in the first place."

Do you mean your bias in favour of free expression or your bias in favour of classical liberalism? I seem to recall another thread where you suggested that OLO reflected your classical liberal views. I personally think that a wide range of political/ethical standpoints; from anarchism to secular humanism, would see a forum for the free exchange of ideas as a good thing. Indeed, it is only authoritarian doctrines (religious or ideological) that would suggest otherwise.

GY has spoken for himself, I think his case is a good one.
Suzeonline, you are a great gain for this site, I enjoy your contributions.
You highlight a freedom given [in my view] by this site.
Some appear to have issues such as those you mentioned.
Clearly they can be ignored or debated with, but not always will rational debate be achieved.
Now such as I often rush in and grab the bait, nearly did in the post above, one that seems to ignore GY post just to kick him for being who and what he is.

Specifically freedom of speech JohnJ. It isn't exclusive to classical liberalism, but that doesn't make classical liberalism irrelevent to my position.

Time for me to fess up,

Of course there is a bias, see my post "How much etc."
Is it a problem for me? Short answer No! I simply don't generally read the absurdly Liberal philosophical driven diatribes from the think tanks and that wanna be science journalist.

While GY may not have any motive in publishing them, the same can not be said for the actual authors but that's not really his problem.

I don't and never have thought of GY as some hell bent ideologue at least in his moderating etc. My take is he simply isn't, otherwise I would have picked up my puny intellect and moved on.

I saw the comment and wondered how wide spread it was and also wondered if some suggestions my ensue.

I have one really, to choose a wider range of topics. There is more to the debate about what is best for Australia than AGW, Freedom of speech (sic), asylum seekers, and political personalities and religion. Then again that's me. Either way, over all, GY does a good job with the resources at hand.

I note two things…

It tends to be the ‘liberal’ minded who support the value of free speech (and who, coincidentally, tend to support other Australian “Liberal” values).

It tends to be the left of politics who support the silencing or curbing of opinions when they are not in align with their personal perspective or see merit in censorship (the Krudd government internet consorship program.. a process which was consistently rejected by the previous liberal government)

Any number of lefties here on this board have demanded, from time to time, I be silenced and banned from posting, largely because, I presume, they just cannot deal with the perspective I hold and values I express (their problem).

Yet like GrahamY, I value and would protect everyones right to free expression.

If I wanted to write on a board where almost everyone agreed with me, one dominated with the views of rightwing posters, I would visit debate-relate more often than I do.

If I wanted to see real censorship and repression of opinion I would go to some of the left wing boards and see how long my posts would last there before being bounced as “inappropriate” by the installed thought police.

Of course the originator of the thread is possibly dealing with his own personal issues and projecting his own shortcomings and misconceptions on to others (in this case GY)… it would not be the first time.

OLO is very fair and balanced. You only have to look at the history of articles for and against the validity of climate change, religion, politics, gender and the like. I would expect much would depend on the quality of articles submitted for publication that determine acceptance rather than the content.

Would OLO would have the following if it was heavily skewed one way or the other. Probably not.

Col I would disagree with your rose tinted view. Free speech is highly valued by both the Left and Right of politics as they exist in Australia. Extremes of Left and Right in other parts of the world perhaps not so - Communism and Facism being representative of the worst examples

One of the reasons that I like OLO is that it presents a wide range of views in its articles, which in turn stimulate very diverse opinions in the commentary. Over time, I've observed that Graham's moderation is about as scrupulously fair as it is possible to be for an individual of any persuasion.

The best thing about OLO is its commitment to freedom of speech - which, as pelican suggests, is neither the preserve of the "Left" nor "Right" - but is a feature of small "l" liberalism that is also neither "left" nor "Right".

Having said that, there are certain topics - such as religion, gender, climate change and recently asylum seekers - that have been done to death at OLO, such that any commentary quickly polarises into quite nasty rock throwing by the same old mostly anonymous extremists. I tend to avoid such topics these days, unless there is an article or comment that introduces a fresh perspective that is worth commenting on.

CJ I'd be happy to take other suggestions as to what other subjects we can publish apart from the ones we tend to now. A lot of it the agenda is driven by what is sent in, but we do solicit as well.

I think Graham tries to maintain balance in the selection of articles, except where Malcolm Turnbull is involved.

Can you remind us, Graham, of the Turnbulls' relationship to OLO and yourself?

When one submits a topic here, it has to be approved beforehand.

I have a BIG problem with that.

Being a born again Labour supporter I understand and support the absolute and undeniable value of freedom of speech (the union movement has fought long and hard for this for centuries); it's an intrinsic part of the Aussie way of life. There's politically correct conservatives who'd love to thrust down your throat "only" their point of view and their version of political correctness (no shortage of those types here), and there's politically correct people on the other side in Australia who would love to do the same thing.

Freedom is about ALL people being able to express an opinion about ANYTHING.

GY, ditch this "approval" rubbish, it doesn't reflect well on the site. Topics, just like any post, should be subject only to normal moderation. Let anyone post ANY Topic for discussion without "first" vetting it ............. just like it's done for any post.

If a topic presents legal problems, then take the appropriate action (even if it means deletion as a result) AFTER it's been posted. This would be what's done with any post.

Having a condition that a topic must require approval BEFORE it appears only creates suspicion regarding the "real" level of freedom of speech on this site.

Belly, thank you very much for your kind words earlier today.
I do appreciate the sentiments.

TZ, I agree we should have our say about anything at all on this site, as long as the subject or people involved are ok to be put out there on such a public site.

However, if an article was submitted and put up on this site, and then found to contain illegal comments such as slander etc, wouldn't the horse already have bolted?

The writer, and GY, would be in trouble surely

I've never had a thread rejected - and in
my dealings with Graham Y. I've always
found him to be fair. After all, he does
allow such a wide range of topics (from
all sides) - and that's part of the
attraction of this Forum for me.

I must confess however, that I have sometimes
had the occasional thought - "Why doesn't
Graham stop this (insulting language, and personal
attacks) that hinder a discussion?"

Then I realize that I've forgotten
that this is a Public Forum -
where you won't always get well-reasoned, and
balanced points of view, especially on emotive topics
such as religion, politics, gender, race, sport, and
so on. Not everyone has the same social graces, or
education, or skills necessary to not stoop to
name calling, petty insults, or bullying tactics.

Some people are simply trolls, bullies, or gauche
creeps - who get their jollies by using language
and tactics that - are purposely flaming
and baiting - in the hope of getting a reaction
rather than contributing anything worthwhile to
the discussion. It's then that I simply take
a break from the Forum.

My own impression is that Graham, Susan and any others involved in running the site do a very good job in trying to make the site a genuine discussion forum rather than a propaganda piece for particular view points.

They have come under fire for the proportion of articles representing particular viewpoints before, most notably in my memory the number of articles speaking in one way or other against the more established climate change/global warming models. The argument as I understand it is that the number of articles is not indicative of the level of scientific support for those viewpoints.

I've certainly never seen signs of editorial bias in regard to applying censure againstr those who seriously breach the sites rules. Those times when I've seen the cause of a suspension it's been a clear breach.

I've pondered at times if there is a viable way that the site could show what has been rejected without that becoming a trigger for discussion on other threads. At times it would be nice to read see what people have tried to put up as a discussion topic which has been rejected. I've seen times when posters have dropped a rejected thread topic into another thread and occasionally wondered why it was rejected. I've also wondered at times why some threads have been allowed, one former posters constrant stream of wack a mossie, wack an unbeliever, wack a teenage girl threads did not seem to do the site credit.

Most of will not agree with every editorial decision but I get the impression that it would be very difficult to find a site that covers the range of topic that this site does with the openness it has to different viewpoints. I also like that often people who strongly disagree on some topics are able to express agreement on others and that people who disagree on much can still respect one another.

R0bert

I think I have always been forthright in my views, and that those views could often be described as 'radical' or 'left wing' by people of Graham Young's political/religious persuasion. I have however, always tried to avoid personal abuse and name calling, and on several occasions have decried others for these offences.
I have never asked that another poster be censored, and as far as I am aware, have never had a post of my own rejected.
I can't complain.
Thank you, Graham, and Susan.

This thread reminds me of what Abe Lincoln is supposed to have said….

Something like “You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time”.

Pelican “Free speech is highly valued by both the Left and Right of politics as they exist in Australia.”

So that explains why the previous liberal government refused to censor internet sites and senator Conroy leapt on the opportunity to do so… and when I objected even sent me a letter telling me why he knew best…..

Or maybe it explains why freedom of speech in Victoria has been curbed by the socialist government using the excuse religious vilification.

I note it is always the “left” of politics who tend to demand to regulate our every action and our thoughts and the “right” of politics who tend to remove pointless regulation and support individual liberty, freedom of speech among them.

Your claim, that free speech is highly valued by both sides of politics, is at odds to the actions of most socialist government actions in Australia today……

including the school teaching socialists who, through their union, wanted to make “teaching socialism” part of a childs educational curriculum (brainwashing)… rather than leaving children to grow and make up their own mind.

Back to OLO… it is balanced.

Of course, those who feel their ‘valued contributions’ are being manipulated and subverted by “evil right wing influences” are perfectly also free to vent their objection by posting elsewhere.

With respect Col, I don't think your conspiracy perspective on the teaching profession is having much effect on the populace at large given that Australia has really lost any fragment of socialism. Where are all these soclialists you speak of?

Do you really think the ALP stands for socialism?

As for censorship, I did not see the Liberal/Coalition government install Muslim, Hindi or other religious 'chaplains' in schools, only Christians. Where is the secular society Howard boasted about in that decision?

Also, speak to many academics and public servants who advised Howard during that time and you will plainly see that any advice contrary to the government's agenda was met with derision and in some cases public humiliation and at worse sacking. Look at those that were removed from the CSIRO, grants once approved then not given to charity groups after making negative comments about Australia's dealings with the Timorese on natural resource deals. The list goes on.

Do you think Howard did not send letters to people telling them he knew best when met with opposition to any of his policies? That is what governments do.

Our biggest mistake as voters, in my view, is when we lose our ability to fault those on whom we would normally align - whether it be on the more conservative side or otherwise.

Do you agree with every decision made by the Liberal Governments or indeed every decision made by Maggie Thatcher?

Those of us who have been around a bit longer than others have said we do not find the site biased.
I too am welded on Labor and trade unionist.
Will be until I die, proudly.
Now it is a good time to be both, forget NSW that dead beast is beyond help.
But union membership is growing, Labor under extreme pressure is way out in front.
Bias? do you see my gloating posts being taken down?

I really appreciate this site.

I have written several articles for onlineopinion. One was rejected by Susan, but the grounds for rejection were reasonable.

I have been an editor myself. It is perfectly reasonable for an editor to reject either articles or discussion threads. Having seen the variety of opinions presented I doubt that they were rejected because of their opinions.

Graham Y has been forthcoming with his background. I am generally in favour of the Labor position in regards to social justice, the Greens position in regards to the environment and the Liberal position in regard to free expression.

In regard to OLO the last position is necessary to allow views on the other issues, and I think Susan and Graham have done a good job in that area.

I too appreciate OLO. I do not detect bias. Sometimes the signal to noise ratio goes astray but it does that at virtually blog/opinion.

I have no opinion about people's religion or politics, but it's nice hear that Graham puts fingers to the keyboard on Sundays!

I agree that the moderator has to much say.
Without being tested, i am not allowed to post a new topic about the amount of off site material being used on an opinion.
Whose opinion is it.

On average,Graham is reasonably even handed.He has been accused of being both left and right in his bias.In the real world of survival,you have to weigh up short term political expedience against long term survival.

It is about surviving the BS to reveal the truth.Many have been corrupted in the process,as revealed by the decadence of the West.

INSIDIOUS IS THE usual spelling but the meaning is obviously sly and cunning. This is how you describe someone you don't like.But if you are on their side of an issue, you might describe the identical behavour as clever and capable and experienced and altruistic.Never met him but I'm sure he's all of that.

Graham Young is not insidious
Graham is not even hideous
In Utah all girls marry young
Brigham, that is, was well hung
I trust him as an editor
As he is not a predator

I think we all should show a little gratitude to Graham. At a time when all the mainstream media was dead set against climate skeptics, OLO published their opinions. When I rant against the outright paganism of our legal system, my thoughts find a place. No other public forum, goes anywhere near allowing such frank discussions.

When a Roman Catholic Priest who is also a lawyer, and another public figure from SBS went on a confidence trick trip, around Australia pretending the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not enacted as law in Australia, OLO published criticism of them. The Liberal Party and Labor Party have their quota of con men, spivs and less than honest people in them, but also have some fine members, pretty much the same as society as a whole.

Rob Oakeshot as an Independent asked the Attorney General about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He got a written answer that flies in the face of published Statute Law. Robert McClelland should not be called The Honourable, because he lies in writing.

On the other hand, The Honourable Brendan O’Connor has put it in writing that after 30 years, the Commonwealth Government will stop interfering politically with the Australian Federal Police. It is true that they may still fail to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth, but without political interference, Commissioner Tony Negus may just lead the Commonwealth back to a representative democracy.

A number of requests have been sent to the Governor-General and others, to have the Governor-General exercise her undoubted power, to make every State appointed Magistrate a delegate of Her office, so that the Royal prerogative of justice, will be available in every nook and cranny of the Commonwealth. It may be a little inconvenient for the Honourable Kevin Rudd, if the Governor-General and the Australian Federal Police Commissioner take their jobs seriously, under s 61 and 70 of the Constitution, and S 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, but at last after 109 years, we may just get One Nation, without a redheaded leader