I flatter myself that I read a wide variety of material from both the left and the right. I try to seek out thought-provoking pieces from both sides and attempt to sort quality analysis from partisan point-scoring. The question is: how do you tell them apart?

To my way of thinking, to be taken seriously, you should acknowledge that neither side of an argument is intrinsically better. You need to take the arguments of both sides with a grain of salt and if you're genuine, you criticize both.

Consider the current Australian political climate. Most believe that both parties are failing us, to a lesser or greater extent depending on personal preferences.

However, those who focus entirely on the negative (or positive, but that's rarer) aspects of just one side can rightfully be dismissed as partisan shills when it's very clear that there are failings on both sides.

I also think that negotiation isn't a dirty word and realists acknowledge this.

As examples - on the right side of the spectrum, I consider Christopher Hitchens, Tom Switzer, occasionally Paul Kelly and Greg Sheridan write decent pieces. I think that for the most part, Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen trade on ridiculous tirades and attention seeking rhetoric, but I can admit that on rare occasions they make a decent point.

On the other hand, I consider Piers Ackerman, Alan Jones, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to be partisan shills, incapable of holding their personal grudges aside long enough for any meaningful analysis.

On the left, I've no time for Mike Carlton, John Passant, Germaine Greer or anyone who takes PETA seriously.

On the other hand, on social issues Mike Steketee and George Megalogenis lean a little to the left and are fantastic journalists.

This is crucial, because I fear that our political climate is descending into the kind of partisan sparring that's characterized the US political climate recently. Those accelerating this draw-no-quarter-never-negotiate attitude tend to be those who can't analyse with rational objectivity. That impairs the function of our political system and accentuates divisions in the populace.

Reasonable assertion? Your thoughts?

Partisan ranting seems to be the political modus operandi, some of the worst offenders you have mentioned already.

I think the more hysterical rants are made in the hope that some of the 'mud sticks' and the hope that people won't analyse more deeply the face-value commentary. We are more educated than ever before but less clever or able to distinguish politicking from content. Or so it seems.

Lindsay Tanner makes mention of similar in his book Sideshow as regards the entertainment emphasis in reporting to the detriment of more honest, fact checking and ethical approaches to discussion around issues. I know this is not exactly what you are referring TRTL but it contributes to the standard of debate. It is a global disease in the West and the negative impacts on the democratic process is being felt more while politicians attempt to appear to be doing 'stuff' than actually doing stuff.

Let's face it, Left and Right commentators are mainly preaching to the converted. Bolt is particularly bad and doesn't attempt to hide the lack of analysis particularly on his new show on Ch10. Bolt demonstrates some of the worst interview skills and his attempts to put words in the mouth of his guests with constant interruptions are cringeworthy. I recently watched the episode around the Carbon Tax and while I do not support the tax, I found Bolt's approach more damaging to that position.

Maybe this partisan rant style is contrived for the sake of ratings. Alan Jones seems unbelievably to have a large audience so who is at fault. The punter that buy into the 'perpetually outraged' phenomena or the media for fuelling it?

We all hold biases, it is only human but the mindless nitpicking, dishonesty and inanity in some political discourse is disheartening. My pet hate is the 'socialist' or 'watermelon' tag which is applied too liberally as a method of disagreement without any rational argument. It is as if the mention of 'reds under the bed' absolves the need for any further discussion.

turner...you ask how to tell the difference
when clealy there is no difference...

party loyalists...owe the party
only serve 'the voter'...when the squeeky wheel forces them to act

they are owing their second loyalty to the press
that has become so centralised...radicals can reach near all australia via re transmitting stations...now running biased programing
[with only tokanistic attention to local issues]

i guess i draw the line..in them serving the media
and party line
over representing..the intrests of the voters

my cure would be to mandate media to fully report the issues
with actually them printing or reading the proposed legislation

that goes to the people...
that validates their PROPOSED changes[or rejects them]

not hearing them say later
'i allways believed that'
[but thats not why we voted for you
and not what you said...when asked pre election]

we hear in hindsight...that mates get mates rates
like the 2 1/2 million given to a solar farm

and bailouts...
[or fed mandated state subsidies for solar..'input's'..]
that saw elect-ricity rise 9% last year alone

or such things as state land for one dollar
[as reported on 7' currenty affairs only last week]

noted juliar visited the murdoc press
today...[so the press boys-club influences..needs to be dimminished]

recieved the handout..re spinning global carbon trading
if business wants to trade carbon..let the market set the price
not mandate it near double that everyone else has set its values at

we hear on insight tonight..that the cost of solar has halved
and that soon it will be cheaper[but dont add cause the cost will double]..

then we got the lobby/gren industry saying spin..like we need infastructure..that meets peak demand...[after the sun goes off..

when those with daytime solar credits...get their peak demand
paid in full..by the mugs...paying double its true worth
for base power]

or that 'other' infastructure...[ie paying to put in gas lines for monsanto..to export frakking gas to gladstone]

or how about when qld govt bailed out the gladstione magnesium plant
[that never got built]..for half a billion EACH from beaty..and howard

the siogns are all there
the people have odious debt burden[70 billion for qld alone]
thrust upon them by acts of treason...by the two party patsies

[the media silence is clear
collective complacent guilt]

thus govt should seize the media
and print the true facts

charge the watchers to watch govt..not report police spin
[im sick of the demonic media broadcasting murder/cop/cooking shows]

shooting is too good for them
take away their abusive instruments
then cast them out of these lands...bannish them

send them *home..to their masters...
who's adgenda they are ALL really serving
bnefore they steal all the wealth...and soon our health
[noting gmo infertility issues..dont show till the 3 rd generation]

by then the treasonous creeps will be long gone
and their loot [booty]..well spent
or safe in some familie trust

Thanks Turn Right Then Left, a discussion worth haveing.
I am told I am partisan, do not truly think it is true.
No side,at least once, had all the answers, my views held today would have made me a Liberal if held in 1975.
I fear, yes true meaning of that word, our future is being tainted even turned by the nature of political debate here and in America.
Look at these subjects, find any balance if you can,find any attempt to just find out what is true.
Global warming
World refugees
Starvation in the world.
OUG you must tell us, what do you think, taking human nature as it is in to account, is the replacement for party politics.
And too, as so very few support this view how can you get people to go that path.
Assuredly my Friend as you think I am blind on this subject I think that of you on it.

belly..""what do you think,
taking human nature as it is in to account,
is the replacement for party politics.""

skills based talent..
trained to specific minesterial oversight over specific roles
that is mainly overseeing budgetry expenditure over their portfolo areas..[ie auditing what others 'selected']

where we vote..[nominate]..who gets the training...
then the best [who passes the tests]..gets the specific job

the govener general would need qualifications
in international law..constitutional civil and statue law

a minester for agriculture would need experteaze in agriculture
foreign affairs need diplomatic experience[and the party whip be expected to actually do the whipping

i want truth in politics
where there is continual oversight
to prevent lands minesters giving away govt lands

or finance minesters bailing out mates
or party hacks getting all the seats

the elect-ion proces..
should elect from the elect in their field
we should have full acces to their 'skills base details'
not pick a pig in a blind poke

lawyers will make law[just as they do today]
but knowing that an expert ]minester's dept]..is studying the books
holding those to account..not meeting a part of the press in private
[after publicly putting them on notice]

how rotten is that stinking
the press should not have 'private acces..
to those who can make or break them....seems they all have done it
well time to end that deception..

[no minester is to meet in private with anyone]..
a public official MUST meet/greet in public

all lobby is..MUST BE..
"on the record*

no special deals for mates
yiour here to serve the people

keep the bar-stards honest

those serving other other adgendas
must go to jail..no pension..
no power..no special terms

or special deals/titles or honours
able to be held fully to account...long after their 'power' ends

even their children/family name honour..
should be able to be held to account..

[and certainly any family trust
should be on the line..if bad people do bad things]

to whom much is given
much more was only to be expected