[Tuttyd]

From what I've seen I don't see your media as being all that different from ours other than the reach your state media has. Among your independent outlets I haven't seen much but disdain for the proposed regulations. I wonder why.

The right in Australia has every legitimacy to express disdain with the media legislation. The legislation will not get through without some modification.

Even if the legislation were successful it would make no difference. The procedure should be to present the information to the public in an objective way. This is never possible, but the media can make an attempt to follow this guideline. And usually does in most cases.

There is no need to present the legislation as a false dichotomy. The legislation would not result in our media industry becoming a Pravda publication. This type of stuff is sensationalist, false and misleading.

The link you provided did make mention of a sensationalist editorial in one of its publication and the right defended itself by saying it was only suppose to be,"light entertainment with some humour".

The difference here is that newspapers(right or left) has the right to say these things in public, so long as they are prepared to take a public responsibility when they do.

Tut

[paraclete]

The purpose Tut, is to set a direction for the future. The media is Americans too. Some are more biased than others.

A biased american now I didn't think there could be such a thing.

Our media is kept relatively straight by the fact that we can and do absorb media from beyond our borders thus it is difficult to suppress a story for long, our media is not the tame dog of the ruling party hoping for a bone

[speechlesstx]

Editorials are just that, they aren't intended to be taken as objective reporting.

[paraclete]

Whose talking abot editorials I can't remember when I last read an editorial

[speechlesstx]

whose talking abot editorials I can't remember when I last read an editorial

Tut did, "The link you provided did make mention of a sensationalist editorial in one of its publication and the right defended itself by saying it was only suppose to be,"light entertainment with some humour"."

You may not read them but every Aussie paper I've browsed is full of them. The left here equates them with "news" for some reason. Editorials are by nature biased and I have no problem with that.

[tomder55]

We believe in the free and open exchange of ideas... the left ;not so much.

[NeedKarma]

we believe in the free and open exchange of ideas

Have you ever perused the forums of right-wing websites?

[tomder55]

I've viewed both left and righty web sites. They both can tend to be on the crude side.

[NeedKarma]

So you see, it's not a "right is better" issue.

[tomder55]

Yes it is ,because it's the left that wants to control it . I'm fine with it .

[NeedKarma]

What??

[speechlesstx]

Having comprehension troubles still? No one on the right is trying to silence others, the left not only tries on a regular basis they've expended much energy trying to legislate the free and open exchange of ideas. We believe in free speech, them not so much.

[NeedKarma]

How are they trying to legislate against the free and open exchange of ideas?

[speechlesstx]

Liberals have been trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine in some form for decades. We've discussed it here many times, they can't compete with conservative talk radio so they want it gagged or equal time, but mostly they just want it GONE.

[tomder55]

Liberals have been trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine in some form for decades. We've discussed it here many times, they can't compete with conservative talk radio so they want it gagged or equal time, but mostly they just want it GONE.

And the same is true in Australia where Red Julia is just itiching for regulations to control the press.

[NeedKarma]

so they want it gagged or equal time, but mostly they just want it GONE.

Isn't that an editorial? Where's the legislation you referred to?

[speechlesstx]

Isn't that an editorial? Where's the legislation you referred to?

I realize you're just trying to trap me but it never works out for you. The answer to both of your questions was in my post.

Liberals have been trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine in some form for decades. We've discussed it here many times, they can't compete with conservative talk radio so they want it gagged or equal time, but mostly they just want it GONE.

(Hint: notice the big heading at the link that says "CNN Opinion", hence my acknowledgement of what they "want"). Try and keep up.

[talaniman]

Has it changed the law, or is it still in the hollering stage?

[NeedKarma]

notice the big heading at the link that says "CNN Opinion", hence my acknowledgement of what they "want")

CNN isn't a political party that can change law nor do they represent liberal platforms.
No law has been changed and Obama has been at the helm for how many years now?

[speechlesstx]

Well that was a totally pointless response to my point.