Ah WOBBLES, you've put up a good arguement against the benefits or otherwise, of taking regard to what's said on talk back radio. Interestingly too, many of those who do like to have some input, are repeat callers, most with some particular issue, as you say often couched in emotion, where the absence of fact is of little consequence to their tale. Yes, I'd have to agree with you with some callers, though not all.

Many I've heard present a balanced view, or opinion, devoid of any apparent emotion, and often quite well argued. Just who then, does the responsibility for the accurate dissemination of fact belong ? Initially, the media ? Or is it up to us ? Is it not our collective responsibility to not blindly believe everything that's been reported in the media ? Yes of course it is. How many times have we heard it said '...you don't believe everything you read in the papers...' ?

Thank you for your imput WOBBLES.

o sung wu
The media is supposed to hold government to account but oft times the buzz of being part of the inside group or pack means reporting may be less than honest in some cases or resemble a mouthpiece for a particular group. Although this is subjective, generally if a journo writes something you agree with they are beneficial if not, they are injurious.

The ABC is copping a hiding at the moment by being declared as anti-Labor and then anti-LNP depending on which politician just got a grilling from Leigh Sales or Tony Jones et al.

The media is at it's worst when it becomes part of the problem of governance or when through profit motives is hellbent on selling papers with histrionic titles and falsehoods with little regard to fact checking and at it's best when it exposes some form of corruption or provides interesting perspecitve, history and commentary on a particular issue in a fair and balanced approach.

This is rare. But we are all guilty if we continue to encourage the worst offenders by buying their product.

HI there PELICAN...

'...When the media become part of the the problem...' ! Excellent observation there PELICAN.

As I see it, the primary function of Media, is that of reporting News. The operative word being 'reporting', or communicating, not interpretating, explaining, or constructing the News.

Most of you will recall when journalist were described as reporters, and 'report' was what they did. There were many current affairs programmes back then, where a presenter would put his own 'spin' on a particular news event, and it was simply just his or her own opinion, but it wasn't the news.

The days of Eric Baume, Bob Santamaria, Brian White, and ors. (their names have escaped me, I'm sorry) they often took a particular stance on some issue or other. And when it came down to political matters, they were (patently) of either the left or the right. Irrespective of their political proclivities it was after all, still just an opinion.

Today, there seems no longer any bounds with respect to maintaining some ethical constraints on Editors, to ensure those journalist's that come within their aegis, preserve accuracy in their news reporting. Moreover until the media take some responsibility to ensure there's a degree of fidelity, and the keeping of ethical standards, in determining impartiality and accuracy in their news reporting. There will be many consumers who'll simply dismiss their efforts, as yet another negative step for some pseudo image of improvement.

Thank you for your contribution PELICAN.

Dear o sung wu,

Barrister and Human Rights advocate Julian Burnside
wrote an interesting article last year entitled,
"Better Media is Good For Democracy."
In it he stated:

"It is a strange paradox that, while we live in a
torrent of information, there is such a limited range
of available views."

Burnside goes on to tell us that, "Media ownership in
Australia is notoriously narrow. Mainstream media offers
precious little diversity, and such diversity as there is
runs along predictable lines. The economics of print
and electronic media tend to drive opinion in the direction
of populism. This has unhappy results now that both
political parties have, it seems, abandoned their founding
principles and form policies by reference to media coverage
generally, and to news polls and focus groups in
particular."

He also points out that "just as mainstream traditional media
is full of voices (mostly strident) telling government what
to do, so the blogosphere and social media are full of voices -
more numerous and diverse, and often more strident - doing
the same. "

Those of us who are torn between the "desert of mainstream media
and the jungle of the internet need a place where rational but
diverse views can be found on matters of enduring importance."

Hear, hear. But where do we find this place?
Where do we find an outlet which is rational and principled,
without being biased to any social or political position?

I don't have the answers to those questions.
I try to do my research on issues that I consider important
through various websites, data-bases, newspapers, and
television programs (Q and A, The Insiders,)and other news
outlets. That's about all that I can do.

Good evening to you LEXI...

Many thanks for your most interesting Email, particularly that part which is attributed to Mr Burnside QC. A very very clever gentleman to say the least.

Additionally, I look forward very much to anything you may be able to find, in relation to the functions and responsibilities of the media in this country. However, as the night is quite late, and my tired ol' eyes are now giving up the ghost, I'll need to take my leave, and bid you all a goodnight.

Cheers...Sung Wu.

Dear oh sung wu,

I'm not sure I get the hate you and others heap on the ABC. We are damn lucky in this country to have such an institution and it should be valued and supported by all thinking Australians. I personally get up in arms about our political leaders having to 'visit' Murdoch in NY whenever they were in town, or putting up with Gina getting on the board of Fairfax or Channel 10. these should concern us far more yet nary a whisper. Murdoch has the newspaper business in Australia largely sewn up in so many States and often the only challenge to that dominance comes from 'OUR' ABC. Without it we would be so much poorer.

You claim that; “I believe the ABC is merely an advertising extension of the Australian Labour Party. Those individuals in the Parliamentry (sic) Press Gallery amount to naught when it comes to impartiality.”. I totally disagree and invite you to make your case with solid evidence.

As to the police being afraid of the media could you please tell me why there were so many camera crews present when the NSW detectives arrested Craig Thompson recently? Investigations in England have revealed how arm in arm the police and the media are and there is little I see here that would lead me to believe it is much different in this country.