There's been quite a few articles about media bias
including one that stated bias was OK
as long as you were honest about it.

The article questioned the fact that:

Is there such a thing as a neutral journalist?

The argument put forward was that journalists
all have moral instincts and points of view
that will colour their interpretations of the facts.

The suggestion was that surely if journalists
and commentators -
showed an awareness of their own political leanings
(like for example Andrew Bolt does) it can
actually make them more trustworthy than if they
denied them. Can the same be said about the ABC,
News Corp and others?

Your views please.

very few commentators can rise above their bias.

it is one's views and values that often shape an author's perspective, their opinions, and only articles that thoroughly research all sides of the arguments have the potential to make appeal across the political spectrum.

also, most readers have their own bias so any understanding of an article will have to overcome this

Thanks Chris for your comments.

Today, we take the barrage of media and its influence
for granted.

We take the flood of information into our homes for
granted, forgetting that much of it is highly
selective or distorted. News programs, for example
tend to feature the visually exciting or emotionally
moving stories that draw large viewing audiences -
even if this means omitting issues that are more
sober but perhaps more significant also.

Fictional portrayals too, often overrepresent some
categories of the population, such as the wealthy or
physicians, and underrepresent others, such as the
aged or minorities.

There are of course legitimate stories that have to
be pursued. The media's job should be unflinching in
providing Australians with independent news and
information. It's job should be to pursue evidence based
reporting and the truth. But often it's what sells
that matters more.

I suspect if not for Bolt the man the High Court found innocent due to corrupt Police, abc witch hunt and totally ignorant Victorian judges would still be in prison.

what about lawyers who kept appealing as soon as cases were lost.

Bolt merely took up Pell's plight and other media places helped with fund raising

runner,

In light of the high court ruling there is now
opportunity for reflection.

The ABC editorial policies make it very clear that
it is the job of the public broadcaster's
journalists to report:

"Without fear or favour, even when that might be
uncomfortable or unpopular."

Some of the language thrown around in the aftermath
of the high court ruling in Cardinal Pell's case
about "prejudice" and a "witch-hunt" seems to
ignore the first principles of journalism and the
facts.

Cardinal Pell's case was unquestionably a legitimate
story, one that had to be pursued. The ABC is not a
police force or court. It's job is to be unflinching
in providing us with independent news and information.

It's job is to pursue evidence based reporting and
the truth. For example - the high court decision was
published online on ABC News Digital and read out loud
by news presenter Joe O'Brien on the ABC News Channel
as was Cardinal Pell's entire statement which was both
published and read aloud.

The judgement summary was also published. Future reporting
will continue and it won't be a "witch-hunt". It will
be responsible public interest journalism.