cam . # .

He is cherry picking though: ... just about all the newspapers endorsed Howard. There was only a couple of regional papers that endorsed Latham, and the SMH stayed out of it by not endorsing anyone - which is the correct response IMO. However given that the rumour was The Age was forced to endorse Howard over their editorial board\'s objections, the SMH may have ducked out to avoid a shoot out there.

The newspapers also seem to think that objectivity means putting a rabid left and rabid right on the same page. Having Ramsey and Henderson on the same day gives the appearance of balance, when it is not. I like how Ramsey uses primary sources and quotes to develop his argument. But don\'t agree with him much.

Miranda Devine is the worst. Her kind, the ad-hominem/attack article writers who uses one fact to base a rant on should be kicked out of the mainstream papers. Applebaum in the US does this as well. The whole internet is geared toward ranters and ravers, I can read that kind of thing anywhere.

I don\'t really care about objectivity so much in the media, it is pretty obvious when a source leans one way or the other. Fox is almost farcical in its support of the government. I think the greater danger is not when the media leans one way or the other, but when it becomes statist and pushes a statist agenda. This surrenders the media being critical of the government. Which is important IMO.

The New York Post, Washington Times and Fox News are all this style. They are deftly uncritical of the government. The NYP has carried on its frontpage, language; \"Our steadfast leader\", whatever your opinion of Bush, that is not cool.

The other aspect is that governments are critical of the media no matter what. When Keating was PM , I recall him berating SMH reporters with claims they had no brains. There is also this one;

Reporter: You don\'t talk to ordinary people!

Keating: \"Who says I don\'t ? Who says I don\'t ? I mean I see as many people as perhaps anyone in public life could...\"

Reporter: How long is it since you\'ve been to Fyshwick Markets ?

Keating: \"Not long, not long. In fact if you get down to woollies at Manuka on Saturday I\'d probably run over you with a trolley as I did a journo recently.\"

Not quite the systemic political lean that Abbott is trying to elude too, but an example of how politicians view journalism and media as an impediment to their power. Why else would they manage the media so tightly?

Bush is so scared of it, despite the uncritical support of Fox, NYP, WT, Talk back radio - that he only allows reporters one question and no follow ups. He also doesn\'t hold much in the way of press conferences.

I think a government getting upset with the media is like that quote by Harry Evans;

Governments always want to remove any obstacles to their power, and the more power they\'ve got, the more they try to remove the residual obstacles. You\'ve got the Victorian government dismantling the Auditor-General, for example. It\'s got a majority in both Houses, but it\'s not willing to put up with even that residual check. Governments just naturally drive for absolute power, and people just have to be awake to that and resist it, because unless you have checks on power then you go down the slippery slope.

I think it is about a government who has the majority in both houses seeking to silence any impediment to their power and this is the stick by which they are trying to blunt it.

cam