Sorry Misha

bit I too think that MG became too partisan in most of her articles over the past few years.

Mind you the Age itself seems to be a shadow of the paper it once was.

Hurrah! I don't have to read her - the dullest political commentator of all, I could sense Fran Kelly's relief when she managed to get Bongiorno on to replace her. She has no opinions, merely regurgitates the known facts.

Whilst Im sure her experience will be of value and im sure she will be competent in her role - I have to say I do find most of her writings out of touch with reality and all these people calling her Far Left, really have no idea

As an Age addict over the last 50 something years, I have been disappointed and at times enraged by recent comment by M Grattan ( including her comment on S. Crean when he was Opposition leader ). On the extremely rare occasion she had something faintly approving to say about the Gillard government it was usually followed by a two-hander e.g. If the polls improve , X will be seen as a good move : if the polls go down,X will be added to the list of govt mistakes. Profound, really. I hope her contribution to The Conversation is heaps better.

First, Rudd now hates Gillard with a passion.

Second, many in Labor harbour a deep distrust of him because of the 2010 campaign leaks.

Third, Rudd is still trying to find the numbers to knock off Gillard.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/pm-battens-down-the-hatches-for-seven-months-in-a-leaky-caucus-20130204-2dulk.html#ixzz2JyjUTRA7

One final slash at the ALP before leaving eh, Michelle? Listen, just go already - we've all had just about enough of your tripe.

As a faithful ABC RN listener (and The Conversation reader) I have been moved to switch stations during Fran Kelly's segments with MG for all the reasons outlined above. I am disappointed with The Conversation's decision to give this type of journalism a 'voice'.

I have a deep respect for Michelle... I have very little for either Julia or Tony and their respective ALP or Coalition Parties. In the forthcoming 2013 Federal election, a truly unique opportunity is about to arise. It is possible that the Australian voter will be offered a 3rd alternative to our current "2-party-by-default-preferential system." They will have candidates offered nationally, who are independent but supporters of a common electoral process platform. That platform will offer each electorate community member the chance to vote on all legislation that comes before the Houses... an adaptation of the Swiss Citizens' initiated referenda. It will also see the abolition of States as the first referendum undertaken with a merge by them into a new Federal or a new Local government. The soon to be better educated Australian voting public will at last be given an alternative to this poorest of poor offerings by "Leaders" and Parties. Those who condemn should be prepared to offer themselves as candidates.

Looking at the comments,I see that I am not the only one that is underwhelmed at the thought of Michelle Grattan joining 'conversation'.My own disappointment at her joining is based on the belief that she epitomises the type of journalist that has made The Age a shadow of the paper it once was.

This being so,I will be taking myself off the the conversation mailing list so that I don't have to watch this online journal go the same way.

Misha, you are right about Marilyn - her comments were unkind, but that's the way she rolls.
However, Marilyn is also right about Slipper and Thomson, and right to criticise Grattan, along with all 'mainstream' journalists who have failed to do real investigative work into the confected, politically motivated cases against these two men. There looks to be pretty solid evidence that the reality of their situations is very different from what has been projected by the media narrative, and it is highly likely that they have been victims of extreme political deviousness.
No case will be brought against Slipper for sexual harrassment, and just reading the 200 Ashby texts provide a very clear picture of why, and of the relationship between the men, and the conspiratorial activities of Ashby.
Rares got it right. But the political damage has been done, along with the destruction of the reputation of a man whose real 'crimes' appear to be very minor indeed.
As for Thomson, his treatment has been quite alarming. I don't know how he can be found guilty of fraud for misusing a credit card that seems not to have specific conditions on its use - putting aside any possibilities that his claims to being set up may carry some truth - but i guess we will find out via the court case.
Nonetheless, everything about his handling has been done to create maximum humiliation and intimidation and, most recently, to project maximum sleaziness and even dangerousness. I find it frightening, and the uniformity of behaviour - and the extraordinary coincidences of timing of various developments - of some Liberal politicians, media and police raises the spectre of conspiracy. There is political rough and tumble and there is corruption, and these cases appear to be teetering on a fine line between them, at best.
I remain positive about your appointment of Grattan...after all, even should you part company, such a coup helps to raise your profile. And that is a Good Thing.

Firstly I want to wish Grattan every success in her new role at The Conversation and her University position.
I think it's going to be quite the eyeopener being surrounded with young, eager to learn, opinionated students with a different view on the world due to social media and technology.
I also think that Grattan will enjoy the immediacy of response that The Conversation allows through its post first/moderated afterwards comment system.
Whatever the leaning of Grattan's political view point it will be welcomed because we all get to express our opinions as well.
Any intelligent discourse over the next several months as we head towards an election is a good thing and I personally am looking forward to the opportunity to read Grattan without 'The Age' overhead and without a paywall.

Ouch! A big baptism by fire welcome for MG!

The piranahs are obviously rabid for some truth. They're sick of being fed with empty weaselwords. With fabricated MSM spin?

The mushrooms are turning toxic in the compost. They're positively revolting!

Maybe MG will be like a phoenix rising from the ashes of The Age in joining in The Conversation?

Don't think these piranahas & mushrooms will tolerate much spinning empty b..s.. here?

I joined the Conversation to get away from the likes of Grattan. Looks like I'll be going elsewhere for political reporting.

Michelle, Congratulations on you ability to now write for "The Conversation."

A few weeks ago I asked Ian Harper from University of Melbourne about editorial conditions and he replied
"The only qualification for writing for "The Conversation" is an affiliation with one or more of the participating universities. At least, that's how I qualify. If I were not emeritus of the University of Melbourne, they would not publish my work. The intention, as I understand it, is an attempt to steer clear of vested commercial interest. One must also affirm a declaration to this effect which appears alongside the article. Apart from that, I certainly signed no other legal document and certainly not an editorial direction of any sort"

IIRC, earlier editions carried a disclaimer by primary authors concerning conflict of interest. I can't find a similar disclaimer of yours. Can I please ask if you signed or otherwise agreed to one because it is entirely possibly that I missed it.

The Home Page carries these words under its Charter: "•Provide a fact-based and editorially-independent forum, free of commercial or political bias." Have you been asked whether and/or how, given your background interest in commerce and politics, you are going to abide by this Charter? What one reader will see as "free of political bias", another will see as full of it. What is the resolution?

Was it explained to you, in terms similar to Ian Harper's, that if a non-academic submits an article, it will not be printed? Does it follow that your participation, by virtue of an award given to you, includes your right to write, whereas I am excluded, even though I might be immensely gifted in my knowledge of certain fields of interest to the community? Why should taxpayers subsidise writing by academics who restrain writing by non-academics?

How does the Office of the Chief Scientist qualify as a member, or the corporation "Southern Health"? How do these keep free of commercial bias? What about groups with bias known in advance, like MCD University of Divinity or Foundation for Rabbit Free Australia?

Michelle, it seems to me that you are entering into a pressure group, even a propaganda group, with a Charter including morals and ethics that on simple analysis will be impossible to satisfy.

Have you made the fundamental flaw that a piece of paper donated from a University entitles you to the use of State funding that is denied to others?

This set of words is not directed particularly at you, because it could be asked of many authors at "The Conversation". I'm afraid that I selected you on your proven ability to explain rationally and because you are too new to the group to have picked up any bad habits that might later change you.