Shane Dowling, self-proclaimed journalist, and
a rogue blogger, was jailed for contempt of
court, for 4 months, after he breached
non-publication orders, in naming two
women accused of having affairs with network
Seven boss Tim Worner. The judge found that
Shane Dowling's conduct "borders on obsession."
He "flagrantly" and "ënthusiastically" breached
the non-publication orders in naming the women
on his website.

Too Foxy threats have been made against journalist who broke the ban on telling us Pell had been found guilty
I think freedom of the press is worth defending
Here we have some thing different, *unproven charges sold as fact*
Things said that the author and other commentators know have seen no charges laid after investigation
And, in my view, an overall panic response to the coming defeat of the government

Dear Belly,

Yes I agree freedom of the press is worth defending.
But we need to be selective in our choices of
who we support. Media ownership in Australia is
notoriously narrow. Mainstream media offers precious
little diversity and such diversity as there is
runs along predictable lines. It is difficult to
find outlets which are rational, principled
without being biased to any social or political
position.

Foxy in time the propaganda arm of a certain political movement will be held to account
It nearly was in England
The threads intent was to blacked a man, to say charges are true even if in some cases police said differently'
We are about to change government
Unless the next week is about LNP policy, not smeers it will be decisive
I doubt rage and anger will work just as raw bias never will

GrahamY,
I admit it was slightly unbalanced. Half hour current affairs shows generally don't try to balance each individual story; instead they do followups when needed. The ABC subsequently interviewed Barnaby Joyce (who tried to shift the blame onto Queensland's state Labor government) though that may have been on Lateline rather than 7:30

There seems to be a major discrepancy between your link and Foxy's as to whether the purchase actually resulted in any additional flows.

I don't think we've heard the last of this, though the investigation may have prevented it from becoming a significant election issue. What we can say, though, is that your original claim (that "there is no allegation they paid too much") is refuted.

Remember the huge focus on Abbott's past when he was PM? The comments on how he winked at someone? The long and the short of it is that Shorten history includes a lot of dirty deals and deeds and if Shorten becomes PM it is sure to be dredged up again and again.

It might be as if Craig Thompson was PM.