The critical analysis of Habermas, dropped nonchalantly into the last paragraph, seems little understood, even by academics. The public sphere was by definition inclusive, but entry depended on one's education and qualification as a property owner. The idea of a neutral social space for critical debate among private persons is a wonderful ideal, but it is not as it seems, or as routinely presented, anywhere available. To test this, try avoiding marketing, or any publicity via advertising, for even one day. Q&A simply does not qualify except as a street market of second-hand views, shopped by disingenuous hucksters and self-interested parties, keen to sell their opinions. For some strange idea of balance, dumb ideas are casually represented as viable alternatives next to brilliant ideas. No wonder the "public" are often represented in qualitative research as confused. Many comments, to this and other articles, on the power relations of the media, do however, perhaps more by instinct and intuition, get Habermas's point regarding the manufacture of consensus by media institutions functioning as publicity machines for this or that powerful interest group. This is particularly true when people say how much they seek to avoid the mainstream media. This is the only attitude to have: avoid it, it is bad for you. Habermas argues that mass media is sublimely powerful. It attempts to manipulate and create a public where none exists, and to manufacture a consensus that "this" is what is real and on your mind, beyond anything else "you" could invent for yourself. The sincerely believed nonsense spoken in the UK by Murdoch editors, that they were merely doing what their readers wanted, is the clearest recent example of the all-pervading invisible veil that sits over and obscures this manufacturing process. It even fools those who work within the factory. As nice bourgeoisie, we would like to see ourselves as open and benignly public, and would hope our opinion is well-considered and personal. Yet the central takeaway from Habermas is that "public opinion" is difficult to define or measure. All the group behaviour methodology in the world cannot nail it down, except as a series of possibles, not any exact thing. One thing is certain, it is being made for you, if you cannot think of it for yourself. This does not mean humans are dumb agents, incapable of original thought, but it does mean the manufacturers of consensus are gifted manipulators. Do not look into their eyes.

This sounds interesting but I agree with commentators who suggest some method of testing political knowledge of respondents from the public. I assume there would also be knowledge of voting behaviour required .

It would be interesting to find out if the level of "disengagement" has increased or decreased . How is "engagement" measured? My hunch is that hostility to the present government is far greater than dissatisfaction with Howard but how could you validly measure that , as retrospective opinions would not be reliable. It could be said because of this hostility there is actually a higher level of emotional engagement though it might not translate into any action . And it might still be expressed as "I'm sick of politics".

The side-show stuff (clothes swim-wear etc) is now old hat - media are completely focussed now on the Labor leadership , with plenty of media comment in so-called news - fanning the embers .All of 2012 was about very serious issues and huge amounts of hostility,both in parliament and the main stream media . The serious issues are attempts to force out a legitimate government by attacking its legitimacy , not only through "ordinary" politics about the ALP leadership, but also the unrelenting attacks on Slipper ,Thomson and what Gillard was alleged to have done 20 years ago.

I used to watch Q&A regularly but am pretty much turned off now ,because the party political stuff is so predictable and strident,with Jones's interventions often smart-alec and not impartial.

Interestingly the Q&A to start 2010 with Rudd the sole guest was my first inkling that he was not coping. The audience was of young people, and Kevin seemed to expect it to be relatively friendly, but from the first question "why haven't you kept your promises?" or similar, he got more and more defensive.

On the other hand two solo performances by Gillard were considerably better. No doubt that reflects my bias . I'm by no means the only interested observer who believes the main stream media's attack on Gillard personally - veiled as "lack of judgement" usually - has been unprecedented. Compare that with media reactions to the Costello challenge saga, or the debate about the Iraq involvement, undertaken on Howard's sole say-so, and only assented to by parliament after the commitment.

If journalists are willing to be frank - and this probably could only apply to some who have left the main stream stables - interesting info could emerge. For example that unusual confession of Katharine Murphy when she was still writing for The Age, just after Rudd's unsuccessful 2012 leadership challenge- "We all knew ( about problems Rudd was having) but we didn't write about it". And the facts that information about how things were going in the months before the change of leadership was published in Oakes's book "On the Record" in Nov 2010, but journalists kept on stating that the reasons for Rudd's replacement were unknown. Then when several ministers explained those reasons in the lead-up to the 2012 vote, their statements a were characterised as "hostile", "scathing",etc or even ridiculed as "look at me moments" (re Crean).

However ,it is intriguing that Fairfax writers not involved in political "analysis" and political news, such as Ross Gittins have consistently examined tax and economics issues in a far more balanced way. Rather like the professional economists . But the louder voices of party spokespeople and political reporters seem to dominate.

A good recent example was also Tim Colebatch's examination of the 457 visa figures.