Yes you are an idiot for expecting the likes of Patriot not to descend into mindless abuse.

Anyway Gillard is clearly guilty as the WA Cabinet Minister whose Dept was involved said the Theiss contracted for services and recived them so there was no fraud.

This means Gillard fraudulently let wingnuts like Patriot delude themselves. A cutand dried case. Gillard should be immediately found guilty based on the complete lack of evidence. I mean she denied wrong doing but then she would wouldn’t she. If she was guilty she would deny wrong doing. She has denied wrong doing therefore obviously Gillard is guilty. Simple when you apply Patriot type logic isn’t it?

It would seem that Patriot is now demonstrating that Patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel but also the refuge of mindless stupidity and insult!

In this poisoned atmoshpere then his own dispicable conduct and behaviour is disguised.

If the oposition spend all their time beating up this non-issue why is the govt held equally to blame for the poor debate?

Of course if we had a fully funtioning media he would be called out and the blame sheeted home

Those claiming this is an ethical issue should remember this quote from abbott “”Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament.”.”

The quote becomes more interesting when you think that he wasn’t misleading the ABC, he was misleading it’s viewers - ie the voters.

Well, I suppose it takes a tool to do the retooling. Just imagine, George Brandis and Julie Bishop are likely to be senior ministers in a year’s time. It doesn’t bear thinking about. Julie Bishop, who used legal procedures to delay justice in the hope that her client’s victims will die. What evidence do I have to make this remark? Well, as George and Julie have shown, who needs evidence?

The Herald Sun is not obliged to offer both sides of an argument because:
1. It doesn’t critique other outlets
2. It is a free market: a publication is free to shape it’s content relative to its readership

Please show where Crikey has been biased- pointing out that the opposition has not presented any evidence for their assertions is not bias it is reality.

I have absolutely no qualms in not embracing Bolts ‘opinions’
firstly he dresses his opinions as fact, when most of the ‘facts’ he presents are clearly wrong, and secondly he is logically inconsistent, search his opinion pages and you will constantly find contradictory posts.

If you admire this poor presentation, then that says more about your biases, than mine. Bolts blog is written from a clearly partisan point of view- there are many posts on Crikey where Bernard criticise the Labor Party, and the Greens, however there are probably slightly more criticizing the Liberals, because they say more silly things.

Finally any media outlet has the right to call out any other if they can show evidence of false or misleading information or hypocrisy- why shouldn’t they, it is a competitive market place; if your opposition is wrong its in your best interests to show it.

You missed my point.

You’re also generalising by automatically assuming I subscribe to Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones etc. because I disagree with this article and Crikey’s politics coverage. That is a generalisation.

To quote Christopher Hitchens:

“There is a tendency on the Left, that if you disagree with them it must be for the lowest possible reason. If you’ve found the lowest possible reason than that must be it”.

There is a fundamental difference: Andrew Bolt, as an example does not write for an outlet that proclaims moral superiority on media and political matters, and it doesn’t critique other outlets. At least not as an entire section on its own accord. Crikey, however, spends a lot of time critiquing the “media” (because Bernard Keane apparently isn’t part of the “media”: he must watch down on people from his Ivory Tower), and was a staunch support of the media inquiry. And yet, it offers the same unbalanced, unfair coverage as those the inquiry looks to criticise. What, because Crikey says it’s right that automatically makes it so?

Also, I am not saying Bernard’s coverage in this instance is bad. In fact, I admire it and embrace it, because it’s opinion, just as I admire and embrace Bolt’s opinion (the day you stop embracing another person’s opinion is the day you tread dangerous water).. However, don’t critique the media and say it is unbalanced when your own coverage is just as one-sided and unbalanced. You either go down the pro-ALP/Greens route and ditch the media critique, or retain the media critique and offer both arguments.

The Herald Sun is not obliged to offer both sides of an argument because:
1. It doesn’t critique other outlets
2. It is a free market: a publication is free to shape it’s content relative to its readership

Those points also apply to Crikey…but it’s dangerous when an outlet advocates for media accountability and balance when it fails itself in that regard. If only one side is pushing the accountability, there is something wrong. That was at the core of the inquiry fundamental flaws.

“Just Googled Achmed and… oh dear! Easily offended lefties probably shouldn’t watch.”

Yes, how applicable. Like his fearless dishonest leader.

“It is not incumbent on an accused to prove innocence”

It is once a prima facie case has been made. Gillard will have to respond to the evidence and offer an explanation. Something more substantial than “sleaze and smear” and “I did nothing wrong” will be required when she appears in court.