I thought of opening my wallet, then rejected it. Whilst I have a great deal of respect for many of the contributors, the editorial hand is shaky at best.

The final straw for me was the removal of inoffensive comments relating to Penny Wong's family arrangement, simply because a well-known public figure (Cheryl Kernot) objected to them, whilst far more egregious comments about other commenters are ignored.

Double standards are not worth supporting.

I think the editorial team do their best, and I believe those commenting have a pretty fair go, recalling one particular person whose name no longer appears. and rightly so.
I'm not aware of the comments you refer to, but I do respect the graciousness of Penny Wong for more than one reason.
She's a loyal member of the Labour Party and you never hear her denegrating anyone therein, not like some we read of.
I still believeThe Conversation is well supporting and I do enjoy many of the submissions, one can always learn something new.

"reality isn't made of stories"

No. But our experience of reality is.

We do not possess all the facts.

From the set of facts we do possess we tell ourselves nice little stories in order to make them fit together.

The more facts we have, the fewer the fictions we need to create.

That the truth is independent of these stories is useful to remember, but that doesn't free us from the requirement to connect the dots somehow.

Even the messy complexity of the world is a part of the story.

"No. But our experience of reality is."

Yours might be, mine certainly isn't.

I don't experience stories, I acknowledged my lack of information and attempt to recognise and work around my own biases.

Truth is not democratic, nor are facts. Pretending otherwise is counter productive.

Geoff,

re: "the intensity of feeling against her surprises me"

Starting with Nietzsche: "Corruption. The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

I think that it was probably inevitable that Grattan's arrival would spark a little bit of a frenzy. I also think that some of our fellow readers seem to objecting to Grattan on principle. She seems to have the ability to polarize no matter what she writes, which leads one to ponder where the "ability" actually rests.

No matter how hard I tried, I struggled to find anything in her article to make my blood boil, or pustules break upon my scalp.

I am sure she can handle whatever comes her way. And a lot of the responses are quite amusing.

regards

Geoffrey
The League of Geoffs

It's true, the Conversation does contain mostly quality articles and analysis. It's true also that the failure of mainstream media in this country is why we are here. Editors of course want to attract a variety of readers both from left and right, and centre - that's understandable, and healthy, but Editors must also be accountable.

Every little persons action adds up. I boycotted Matt Hardy's articles on the Middle East a long time ago because I found them mostly 'fluff' and simplistic. Also, last year I decided to boycott the Conversation entirely until 2013 because of a complete and utter shithouse article on Christianity, that contained none, nil, no, real evidence. How did the editor let that one through? I have no idea.

The only way I can see the author of this article redeeming herself, is if her next article is dedicated to seriously analysing and dissecting Tony Abbott, the person, the politician, his policies, his history. If not, I suggest all those here that hold the same view boycott her articles! I will be. Make your next article a good one please Michelle.

"The choice to read is yours to make" - and I choose not to read his articles, nor comment on his articles - nothing personal towards him. I visit other sites for serious news and analysis on the Middle East, no skin of my back buddy.

Can you please explain what the difference is between 'boycotting' an author and 'choosing' not to read articles by an author? Please.

If Michelle's next article does not explore Tony Abott with the same standard as her last, I will choose not to read her articles also. I am a nobody, she isn't, she has more to lose, with respect.

Redemption? What I meant was there are many comments here by people unimpressed by her bias and spin, and I suspect they will not give the time to read her articles in the future if she doesn't come up with something real in her next, and I gave Matt a number of goes - is that irrelevant to those behind the Conversation. It's all about numbers, 600 and something thousand unique visitors a month, 250 people donated, etc etc etc etc all about the numbers. I was honestly two clicks away from donating yesterday, and I still will donate, but now only if Michelle gives us a proper piece on Tony Abbott, the Liberal Party, the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, and their policies. It's up to the Conversation editors and Michelle to redeem my donation.

Ha, what have I achieved, hardly a blip in the graph but still a blip, I'm not dillusional. But as I mentioned, every little persons actions add up. What I do assume, is that behind the scenes at the Conversation, the computer puts out all types of graphs. Graphs on the amount of readers per article etc, amount of readers of an author per month, per year, and if those graphs show, one by one, less and less readers for those particular authors then something is up. If I'm the only one, then fine I have achieved little except stand up for my principles which means more to me than anything, the graph won't notice me, but I'm not much different than everyone else, so if I'm thinking it, there is a good chance others are also. Poor mans power bro.

P.s the situation in the Middle East, does not deserve 'flippant' remarks. Nor is it appropriate.

"Can you please explain what the difference is between 'boycotting' an author and 'choosing' not to read articles by an author? Please."

- A boycott is generally accepted as a form of protest. Protests usually have a desired end.

"I am a nobody, she isn't, she has more to lose, with respect."

- What does she lose beyond you readership?

"...there are many comments here by people unimpressed by her bias and spin.'

- You can go back through her contributions at Fairfax and find multiple criticisms of Abbot and the Coalition. I do not believe she is not biased. Criticism of the party you may support does not constitute bias. From what I know of her work, Grattan is severe, but I don't think that constitutes bias.

- Spin? What is it she is spinning? Please provide examples.

"I was honestly two clicks away from donating yesterday, and I still will donate, but now only if Michelle gives us a proper piece on Tony Abbott, the Liberal Party, the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, and their policies."

- So, you are writing to say you will only donate if they write X. Do you understand the concept "editorial independence." You are withholding payment and advertising that fact. Do you seek to influence editorial decisions through financial persuausion?

"It's up to the Conversation editors and Michelle to redeem my donation."

- No. It's up to you to decide whether you donate in order to protect editorial independence. It says on the front page 'Make a donation to help protect our independence' not 'make a donation to influence what we publish.'

"What I do assume, is that behind the scenes at the Conversation, the computer puts out all types of graphs."

- No need to assume. David Glance's article yesterday discusses it.

https://theconversation.edu.au/sex-and-click-counts-the-use-and-abuse-of-link-bait-and-using-sex-to-sell-12223

"P.s the situation in the Middle East, does not deserve 'flippant' remarks. Nor is it appropriate."

- Personally, if I didn't laugh, I would cry. And have you seen Mat's post on the Iranian Stealth Jet. If you can't laugh at that then you are a very different person to me.

What is or is not appropriate is pretty individual. But seriously, some of the funniest stuff I have read is also some of the most insightful stuff I have read. Comedy can be a fantatsic vehicle for getting to the nub of a problem. The modern popular reductio absurdam. I don't believe that it is always inappropriate to laugh.

Geoff, sorry but I will not go back and read anything in Fairfax because in my opinion Gina Reihart is unAustralian, like Murdoch. Boycott! Hehe. Comedy and a laugh sometimes good, as is a bit of drama to stoke the fire yea.

Look at the numbers of Fairfax and News ltd, in decline, dying, perhaps she has contributed to that, I don't know of her enough. I am only interested in what she contributes here in The Conversation, and I want balance, and I want fairness, and if she is the big political expert then I'm sincerely also interested in what she has to write about Tony Abbott, the Liberal Party, the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, and their policies. Then I will judge her. However, you coined it, 'editorial independence' - right on - but before I donate I need proof. Proof! That was my point. Is she a Coalition Chiwawa or not, I still do not know and I want to know. It might turn out that I fall in love with her!

I have a pile high of critism for Labour and the Greens and I write to them and voice my opinion (albeit not recently because I am sick of Australian petty politics). So no, I have no problem with critisism of the Labour Party, and Michelle's article above is not that bad, it has some good points.

However, the article above subtly implies like the spin of the day going around town that Abbott has already won the next election and that is total crap. Crap Geoff, and I believe you are intelligent enough to understand that.

Rudd is their best chance, in my opinion, but that transition and course of events is highly complex, and not guaranteed. Gillard may also well win considering she is up against Abbott. Let's see.

But first lets see Michelle redeem herself on The Conversation with some balanced political analysis on other important political topics such as Tony Abbott, the Liberal Party, the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, and their policies. Let her earn our respect

"Let her earn our respect'

Only valid way to get it is to earn it.

"However, the article above subtly implies like the spin of the day going around town that Abbott has already won the next election and that is total crap."

Personally, I wouldn't call that spin. I think that there is a real sense that this election is Abbott's to loose. To my mind, spin involves putting a positive gloss on a really bad deal. Basically fibbing.

I don't think the widespread belief that Abbott is an unbackable favourite alone constitutes spin. Crap? Debatable. Crap that could compromise the vote? Possibly. But I don't see it as spin.

Nice chatting, have a good weekend.

"government WAS elected"

No. This government was formed. Legitimately. But I wouldn't say it was elected.

Yes Geoffrey. Way to find the error and miss the point. An attempt to use our courts to circumvent our Parliament in order to force an election, semantics over "elected" or "legitimately formed" aside as we can never have a truly "elected government" in this country governed under a "representative democracy" formed by the members of the House of Reps., is the biggest story in Australian politics for some time. That contempt of the system shown here and by Obeid's cabal of cronies are what's wrong with politics, Michelle Grattan and the rest of the media's reporting of politics are what's wrong with the media. Can we get some help from a lazy 4th estate? Please?
I mean, Obeid's a story now, sure, but it wasn't broken by the media. Where were they on that, Quintin Dempster aside, and where are they on the "LNP Ashby" debacle? They should be framing the import of this story and not letting it go for a minute. The article above is drivel when one considers the material available to write about in politics. Just my opinion and I'm sure your's may differ. Peace.

"That contempt of the system shown here and by Obeid's cabal of cronies are what's wrong with politics"

It probably goes a lot deeper, and a lot wider. I would say, politics is whats wrong with politics. It's a job lot. Any age, any time, people will seek advantage where they can get it. Machiavelli wasn't writing something new, just what he knew.

"The article above is drivel when one considers the material available to write about in politics."

The problem , of course, is that there is always something else to write about. Always something else that we believe is more important. Michelle has been Canberra Press Gallery. They have a specific role. They are not investigative journalists, they report on politics in the capital as it happens. They gather the info as they can and try and break down the machinations for the lay-man.

Try an imagine political analysis without someone there gathering and relaying the info. Hansard doesn't even tell us half the story.

Obeid? I don't think that is politics. That is crime. And unless someone breaks ranks, or an investigative journalist catches wind, from what I know of the accusations it doesn't seem an easy thing to catch. You are waiting for someone to screw up or get screwed over.

Machiavelli was lamenting a lost republic and the return of an autocracy led by a Medicci while trying to become gainfully employed in the court of said Medicci through demonstrating his understanding of the cut and thrust of ancient politics, while maintaining plausible deniability of it, if his gift was taken the wrong way. We live in a democracy.
You left out the "LNP Ashby" debacle in your quotation of me, I assume intentionally, as the other example of what's wrong with politics. I'm an Australian citizen that values the Federation that fought for the rights of a man to earn a living wage (establishment of the IRC after the Sunshine Harvester ruling) before the rights of a corporation to remain competitive in the international slave labour markets. I assume you are less concerned about the damage caused to this democracy via the "alleged" actions of the LNP regarding the Ashby case? If that is the case, my condolences to you, but you have every right to aid in the destruction of accountability of those in high office or trying to get back into it, even if it does lead us to a very polarized and darker polity.

"I assume intentionally"

Assume away.

"I assume you are less concerned about ...'

I am "less concerned" about a lot of things that other people are concerned about. I guess you are also "less concerned" about many of the things I am concerned about. The abundant use of false dichotomies, for example. Especially ones premised on assumptions. That's pretty spectacular.

What was that you said before? Peace?

Oh my god! You're a troll! I thought you were genuinely wishing for a conversation. No worries Geoffrey, my mistake.
On a lighter and more friendly and conversational note, I am genuinely concerned about the lack of coverage of the Ashby affair in the media. Are you?
The forensic wash perpetrated against the PM over the AWU affair seems to have less leads than the LNP/Ashby debacle and yet I don't see anywhere near as much coverage of it.
What are your opinions on the Ashby matter Geoffrey?
I look forward to your response as I would dearly love to discuss what ramifications, if any, you believe it may have on accountability of elected representatives and those that wish to be?
Best regards,
As Above

Nicholas,

"Oh my god! You're a troll!"

Sorry, but when you make such an obvious logical fallacy on the back of an assumption, I see no reason to let it pass. You can call it trolling. That doesn't worry me.

"On a lighter and more friendly and conversational note, I am genuinely concerned about the lack of coverage of the Ashby affair in the media. Are you?"

Do I believe it is a serious issue? Yes.

Am I concerned? I think we each choose our battles.

"What are your opinions on the Ashby matter Geoffrey?"

That it was scandalous attempt by a desperate opposition to achieve the power Tony Abbot still seems to believe was stolen from him. He told the independents he would do anything to form government. He has shown himself, in contrast to much of his behaviour, true to those particular words.

"I look forward to your response as I would dearly love to discuss what ramifications, if any, you believe it may have on accountability of elected representatives and those that wish to be?"

We talking what should happen, or what will happen?

I think that in the current parliament, both parties are so compromised that very little will be done. Abbot will obviously not pursue it should he gain power, and I doubt that Labor will either. I honestly believe that politicians are that cynical that they won't want to set a precedent that might raise the bar of what is morally acceptable, let alone address the legality.

Wouldn't want to limit your available options.

Again, on the tone you used with regard to calling me out on the use of an "obvious" logical fallacy which, I might add, was employed by allowing my emotions about the issues to cloud my logic. If it was so obvious as you put it, why did you use the incorrect category to describe it? :)
Please have a sense of humour about this.

Do you mean my call of False Dichotomy is the incorrect category?

If not then ignore the following.

If so read on.

I call it a false dichotomy, because you imply that if I we do not agree in all respects on P, then I must desire Q to the exception of other possibilities.

The fact that we do not express equivalent opinions on P does not mean I must necessarily desire Q.

"A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

More formally, I guess I could call it a non sequitur, but the ubiquity of false dichotomies in argumentation really annoys me.

Yes I do. That isn't what I did. It was a straw man argument. Have a look again. I never once stated that we didn't agree on P, therefore you must think Q, and Q is wrong. I developed a straw man. It's just semantics, but you seem to enjoy that. Sadly, it appears you don't have a sense of humour either. More's the pity.

2PP 50.02% Labor Vs Rest 49.98%...30,490 votes. Informal was approx 5 % up approx 2%.

1998 election 2PP 51.02% Vs Rest 49.98% approx...Rest won by 6 seats (?) from memory.

Safe to say 100's of K of voters "not well represented in that democracy"?

"look at their circulation numbers released today: in the toilet. Dropping nearly 15% in a quarter."

Is that Physical Paper or online numbers? I think the distinction is probably relevant.

"So many of Michelle's colleagues have either left or been shoved out the door because of the loss of readership..."

Nothing to do with the well documented problem that is almost universal in print media - you know that thing called the internet you are using and the decline of traditional revenue streams. No link there you reckon?

"And it's going to happen here at The Conversation pretty soon too."

As per my initial point, it would be helpful if you could tell us whether you are referring to print sales our online readership. The Conversation has no print arm to prop up, and obviously has a different financial model. Probably wise make sure that we are comparing apples with apples or maybe even pears, as opposed to oranges.

"their doom and gloom message"

Oh noes! There is bad news in teh papers! Moar kittehs and snoflakes and rainboes plees!

"Face it, Geoffrey, newspapers are soon to be history."

This is not something I need to "face up" to. Print sales decline has been discussed at great length for a number of years. This is not news to me.

I raised the issue of print vs online that you skipped over. I raised because I believe it provides a much better explanation for job losses in the media.

"an unhealthy dose of Gillard hatred"

Criticism is not hatred. Would you like to provide examples of Grattan's hatred for the PM?

"Criticism is not hatred. Would you like to provide examples of Grattan's hatred for the PM?"

Not running away. Just bored with this conversation. I'm not your research assistant. Go find the evidence yourself.

You sound like someone who loves to have the last word, so I leave the floor to you Geoffrey.

I hardly tried at all. I have plenty left in the tank.

Ian,

I have voted Labor since I first attained the right. Hawke 1990.

Even the idea of voting for the Liberal Party is foreign to me.

Would you like to rephrase your comment to remove the implication?

Hi Craig,

Fascinating and frustrating in equal degrees. Though you may have been engaged in a little irony so that probably doesn't need to be states.

It seems for some that unless a political commentator writes unstinting praise of their team then they are somehow "the heart of the problem in the media" or and indubitably partisan advocates for The Reich or Uncle Joe.

Megalogenis was mentioned in reference to star-shopping somewhere above.

Crikey interviewed him about quality journalism a while back. Grattan is in his top ten by lines and this quote seems pertinent:

"With each of these people, even if I know how they feel on certain topics, I don’t know how they vote when I read them. To me that’s the most important thing reading a print journalist. I don’t want to be able to guess having read their first paragraph how the rest of the story will read."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/14/george-megalogenis-profile-quality-journalism/

The dodgy contractors were accredited under the scheme, so what does that say about the way it was run?

Another disconnected comment, Stephen. Surely it's less effort to simply click "reply" than scroll all the way back to the top to "Comment on this article"?

You're right Craig - so much easier.

Everything's connected in one way or t'other.

And from all the crapola that seems to filter its way thru to this forum I thought I'd add a bit more.

Ah well, Stephen, if you want to play silly games, I'll know not to bother reading stuff under your byline. I can't be bothered looking for the comment you're responding to and without context your comments aren't useful.

Craig

i know you're reading this even tho you said you wouldn't.

I read the comments and digest the opinions and thoughts of not only you but most of the others.

Russell was commenting in part that Malcolm Turnbull couldnt get anyone to go to Margaret Ollie's funeral.

I find that interesting and sad in that MO was a major figure on the Oz art scene.

Hence my (silly) comment about the overwhelming disregard for The Arts in Australian society.

The Australian psyche these days is to its detriment (in my opinion) only wrapped around sport,
with a sprinkling of politics, facebook & twitter and My Kitchen Rules, and more sport.

The article is the stimulus for those individual conversations, which all then take on their own context. If a response is orphaned by being directed at the article rather than the conversation to which it belongs, it loses that context and hence becomes less meaningful.

The comments become a cacophony of unconnected statements rather than a discussion. I can get that in any pub, I don't need it here.

Hi Craig

with respect your last comment seems to be having two bob each way.

And in many instances comment lines are already (as you say) -
a cacophony of unconnected statements rather than a discussion.

In point - this one we are having right now.

I couldn't agree more, Garry. There is an uncomfortably close relationship between media and politicians, especially on the Left, with more than one senior journo being in a personal relationship with a politician. The journalists do not disclose these relationships as a matter of course and there is a tacit agreement among all the players, both political and jounalistic, not to publicise them. While I accept that journos are entitled to protect their privacy, it seems to me a serious ethical breach to fail to disclose a relationship that may be informing the political coverage they provide, especially when they get involved in analysis or promote specific agendas. The Conversation's disclosure statement should be a prominent feature under any serious journalist's byline.

Then there is the problem of careerist politicians generally, who see their primary allegiance not to their constituents but the party machines that appoint them as candidates. Gillard is perhaps the most obvious current example, owing her position to the support of Ludwig and his AWU proxies. The interesting question is why the AWU would do so knowing of her involvement in the fraud perpetrated in its name. Perhaps Big Bill thought that she could be easily controlled by virtue of his knowing where the "bodies" of that seedy chapter are buried? Her willingness to turn her back on the principles of Emily's List, the group she was instrumental in founding and has been itself instrumental in her personal political career is hard to fathom when she has been very willing to do other things that are unpopular.

She's not the only exemplar, of course. Nearly the entire Federal caucus is beholden to some form of patronage.

On the other side, the relationships are less clear, tending to be implied rather than explicit, but they no doubt exist nonetheless. The only saving grace for me is that they are less about entrenched political power blocs and more about the influence of lobbyists, which can be quite transparent, although there are undoubtedly those (Hockey, for example and Turnbull) who are firmly in the corner of specific interests via their family connections, which are kept just as close to the chest as those on the other side.

I do wish I had any kind of suggestion for changing that, but unless the political/media/legal class that is, as you say "born to rule" is willing to legislate for complete disclosure of such relationships and transparency in their dealings, I can't see how it can be changed and I can't see any incentive for them to do so.

Craig
I think you are seeing things not there and missing things that are there . Chris Ulhman and Abbott , Gina and Joyce/Bishop for starters . The PMs involvement with the AWU thing ? Perhaps the AWU acknowledges that it was one or two of their own that that let them and Gillard down . Would Emilys list be disapproving of the Peris pick ? How you come to make a statement regarding that group and the PM in a negative way eludes me . Abbott has his buddy interviews with the usual suspects including the ABCs Chris but comes a cropper against Sales . Forget it , your post makes no sense .

You may be right, Geoff, I don't claim any special knowledge. However, I think you've missed my point, which is that such relationships represent potential interest conflicts that should be disclosed.

I'm not talking about interviews here, but personal relationships, such as that between David Penberthy (editor of news.com.au among other roles) and Kate Ellis, a Gillard Govt minister, to whom he is engaged.

Of course they are quite entitled to fall in love and marry and I wish them the very best, but they have gone to quite extraordinary lengths over time to keep the relationship sub rosa (they did announce their engagement late last year and are intending to marry before the election, I believe).

There are other examples, which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

On the subject of Peris, the one sacked, Crossin, is a founding member of Emily's List. The motto of that organisation is "when women support women, women win". The group felt sufficiently sensitive about it that Tanja Kovac, the current national co-convenor wrote a rather unconvincing apologetic some days after Crossin was given the boot in favour of Peris and Crossin herself clearly felt aggrieved that Gillard had not arranged a sinecure for her old colleague in feminism.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-choice-of-peris-is-a-tribute-to-crossins-successes-as-a-senator/story-e6frgd0x-1226565415112

It seems that Gillard was dancing to the tune of an altogether different piper.

Ludwig was intimately involved with the Gillard/Wilson fraud investigation when it was first uncovered. There are documents yet to be disclosed in relation to that matter that Ludwig would be likely to be in possession of, or to know the details of if they have been destroyed. He would also be very likely to know what Gillard knows and possibly fear it. Ask yourself why a right wing machine strongman like Ludwig would back a candidate from the left so strongly. He has not maintained his stranglehold on power in the cesspit of Labor internal politics for so long through being a nice guy and Gillard has shown herself to be every bit as unscrupulous.

It will all come out in the wash when Gillard and Wilson face the court or if they maintain their silence, when the Royal Commission is initiated by an Abbott Govt. Either way, it will finish the AWU as a force in the Party and possibly as a Union.

Good riddance to Australia's Worst Union.

Would Emily's list be disapproving of the Perris pick? Well, you'd think they would, seeing as how Trish Crossin was a founding member of Emily's list. Seeing as how they didn't seem to have a problem with it, you'd have to wonder how consistent their values are.

As for Chris Uhlmann, you know who he is married to, don't you? I'll give you a clue - it's not Tony Abbott.

Simon I was referring to Chris and his soft cock approach to interviewing Abbott and his rapid fire interruptions to the PM . One could be a fireside chat and the other an interrogation . Uhlmann may be m,arried to a labor woman , so what ? . He tried his hand in politics with the Osborne group , anti abortion and anti euthenasia . He is also like Abbott a former seminarian . Are you suggesting a man must vote or think to align with his spouse ? I have no idea if his wife is right , left or centre but makes no difference to what I said .

A case in point: the news.com.au site had the recent Galaxy poll of women voters, which found that support for Gillard among that demographic is rapidly dwindling, while support for Abbott and the LNP is climbing, in the splash panel at the top left of the screen when I looked at 4:30 this morning.

By 7 am it was nowhere to be seen, even as a secondary story, with the only evidence it existed being in the "most read" list.

I have no evidence that Penberthy was involved in burying it, but perhaps he doesn't have to be - the best kind of power is when you don't have to tell people explicitly what to do - they simply do it because they know what's expected.

A senior journalist, especially one in a senior editorial role, should ensure that any possible perception of conflict of interest is expunged by openly declaring any that may exist so that the situation is transparent and explicit. Especially when the conflict involves politics or other potentially high-stakes topics.

I rarely bother with ABC TV, preferring to get my information in as pure (if such a term can be used about politics) a form as possible, so I can't comment on Uhlmann. Perhaps he is a man of genuine integrity who puts his ethics ahead of his family affiliations. I have to say that he and Brodtman seem a spectacularly odd couple, if the potted biographies are remotely accurate.

Craig
Whatever our opinions are or how we view things we are not in the position of journos or paid commentators . Grattan has had the same article as this many times over the years with only some tweaks to make it relevant to the timeline . Stale , predictable and irrelevant and the pity is she didn,t retire to pass on her skills while she still had them . As it is Grattan may as well be doing cut and paste like Bishop .