Dear RobP,

Anyone on "Meet The Press" would be under
considerable pressure to maintain certain
guidelines set by the program to avoid controversy,
and perhaps there may have been a more subtle
undercurrent to avoid expressing -
Murdoch's biases.

For example, Andrew Bolt, who sometimes is quite
open and critical in the press but on the ABC's -
"Insiders," on Sunday mornings -
he seems to present a somewhat more moderate image.

So yes, there are reasons for the way people behave
in the media, and everyone has their biases - as well
as the reasons for them.

Interesting that no one seems game to comment on how we might feel if the international new items that have been suppressed by our media, were related to a big international banker or multinational corporation?

RobP, you say;

<< I don't want to forget the topic content because this is where problems are actually resolved and rectified. >>

I presume you mean “resolved and rectified” as in by public debate? This is of course true and is the way it should be however, how can we debate such news items if our media does not report them at all? We are being denied “critical analysis, dissemination and opinion”.

<< It's obvious to me that you're seeking a "regime change". But, how do we know that there won't be just as much bias, if not more, in your preferred regime? >>

I’m not suggesting regime change and I don’t have a preferred regime. I absolutely support freedom of the press and self regulation. The ABC is positively not alone in suppressing some of the news items, although given the announcements yesterday about the “restructuring of the ABC’s management”, your regime change comment is somewhat prophetic.

Our Forum members DO read international media and access many other forums; we absolutely and positively know what news is breaking internationally. Accordingly, we are also fully aware of what is NOT being covered by our media. The difference is therefore, that we do cover those suppressed news items, we do subject them to critical analysis and dissemination, and we do form and state our opinions.

Those relying upon our traditional News and Current Affairs are therefore excluded by editorial censorship. It is hypocritical of our media, to pounce on totalitarian regimes for censorship when our own media does precisely the same.

>> Interesting that no one seems game to comment on how we might feel if the international new items that have been suppressed by our media, were related to a big international banker or multinational corporation? <<

Interesting indeed spindoc, but why stop there?

Your original post singled out the ABC, it seems you are now mellowing somewhat to be more inclusive - good move.

I would agree that there are ‘forces’ out there with a much bigger agenda than I could ever understand. If you do have a handle on it, please enlighten us - it's your thread anyway.

Your comments as to why the mainstream media (whatever their bias) did not report on a truly newsworthy event is mind numbing.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/03/terror.fatwa.analysis/index.html?hpt=C2

It was/is being discussed here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3507&page=0

For one who appears concerned about news suppression, censorship, bias, etc ... your conspicuous absence is telling – but, you too may not have been aware.

>>Interesting that no one seems game to comment on how we might feel if the international new items that have been suppressed by our media, were related to a big international banker or multinational corporation?<<

Spindoc,

I watch a fair bit of news and current affairs and I agree that the media, particularly the commercial channels, only tokenly cover big, "unsexy" news items and issues. You just have to look at how skin-deep breakfast TV is becoming to see the trends on commercial TV.

I did, however, note a very competent analysis of the investigation into the Lehmann Brothers collapse by Stephen Long on Lateline. However, it was tucked away in a 3-4 minute slot at about 11 pm on the ABC. But, if people want to find out more they can always get FoxTel and tune into the US commercial news networks for more in-depth analysis.

As to people's feelings on these issues, it depends on how it affects them personally. At the end of the day, the media is providing content for an audience. The audience obviously isn't much interested in what big issues are going on overseas and so stories about them aren't being played. In the world of images and sound bites, they can't compete with the more salacious pieces on the latest celebrity escapade or whatever.

Another take, is that we should primarily focus on domestic issues and problems which we have had a hand in creating (and thereby are in a position to solve). Talking about issues that have originated elsewhere, is purely academic from our POV. Unless, that is, by talking about them we can force the originators to fix them.

I've just spent a week watching much more TV than usual, due to inclement weather on a fishing trip and a lack of reading material. The place where I stayed had Austar as well as all the free-to-air channels - and I have to say that the ABC remains head and shoulders above the rest for intelligent viewing, including its news and current affairs. I'd rank SBS second.

Given the utter dross for which media consumers are apparently willing to pay, the ABC remains a bastion of quality and reason in a sea of mostly lightweight rubbish.

Long may Aunty continue to annoy the Spindocs of the world :)

qanda/spindoc

One could *guess* that the media is so parochial and the story has a narrow APPEAL for the target demographic. Bumped by a juicy murder here tales of Abbott's daughters virginity who knows.
The government want's to stop a panic?
There are diplomatic issues.
I don't remember seeing to much of the 'dry' important issues in other countries that may have affect on us.

The emphasis of all media it is entertainment and self interest.
Their job is to sell advertising or their owners interests. Public information is down the list.

What mystifies me is why given our basis of society i.e. capitalism etc *why anyone would expect anything more?*