Trouble is if you start imposing rules on what is "fair" you will get a whole lot of disagreement on those rulings. Best to avoid the gutter press.

Wikileaks is not the same, it is an organisation that provides the raw data in the form of official documents and lets the viewer/reader decide. WL does not make commentary or draw conclusions.

I choose, for the most part, to keep faith in people's ability to sort through spin, bigotry and self-serving agendas.

King Hazza, have you any idea how long it took me to clean up the mess you caused?

There I was with my toast and coffee, munching and sipping peacefully, when I read your line “much better news institutes like Reuters and BBC”. The BBC? That was so funny I nearly choked. There I was thinking you were posting a serious comment.

Pelican's right, 'fairness' is of course desirable in media reportage, but who decides what's fair? I can see it being interpreted in much the same way as 'balance' seems to be, whereby (for example) crackpot AGW deniers demand the same media coverage as factual reports based on credible and reputable climate science.

I'd settle for honesty in the MSM. As the current 'freedom of speech' case involving the horrible Andrew Bolt demonstrates, truth and facticity seem no longer to be criteria for publication. In the past couple of days the Murdoch online media have published at least two articles incorporating blatant lies about the Greens, which have subsequently been edited without acknowledgement of their falsehood, presumably because of the number of complaints. Check out The Punch and you'll see what I mean.

I'm all for fearlessly robust media reporting and commentary, but it's got to be factual, not defamatory lies.

pelican:>> I choose, for the most part, to keep faith in people's ability to sort through spin, bigotry and self-serving agendas.<<

An extremely poor decision pelican.

spindoc:>> There I was with my toast and coffee, munching and sipping peacefully, when I read your line “much better news institutes like Reuters and BBC”. The BBC? That was so funny I nearly choked.<<

I join with you spindoc in your choking with laughter on the news that the "moneys" media is enslaved to facts rather than agendas.

Speaking of Andrew Bolt - he was seen harping on this morning's ABC Insiders about the demonisation by those who use terms like "purveyors of hate speech" arguing that it is wholly unfair when people will sometimes just disagree.

Any truth he might have alluded in that statement was lost when he then proceeded to use the same tactics when discussing the Greens or those with a perceived Left agenda.

Aren't the Greens or those with different views to Mr Bolt allowed to also express those views.

Just goes to demonstrate that perception is largely dictated by one's belief systems and the same latitudes and free passes one gives to their 'side' of politics is not often granted to the other. Mr Bolt is not alone in that human failing.

SOG
"An extremely poor decision pelican."

The growing support for organisations like Wikileaks and a growing activism around FOI, transparency and accountability feeds me with hope.

What is the alternative? Media censorship.

:)