This had to be one of the dullest 'Australia Talks' that I can remember. It was even more dull than I remember Richard Fidler's interview with Paul Kelly about his (misnamed) book "The March of Patriots" last year being.
Whose decision was it to make two of the three guests journalists who work for two Murdoch-owned newspapers?
Don't Atkins and Kelly already get more than enough opportunity to push Uncle Rupert's prescriptions of what is supposedly good for this country without them taking up more than half of one of only three programmes each week in which ordinary people can express their views before a National audience?
Whilst I thought I could just discern a slight difference in opinions of Dean Jaensch (from looking at what he has written online and not from listening to the program) from those of Kelly and Atkins, very little of what he writes seems likely to fire people's imaginationWhy so little participation from callers?
Was that all that phoned in?
If so, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have given them each individually more time than to give so much time to allow Kelly and Atkins (and presumably Jaensch) to waffle on about those same tired all themes, "uniting the party", style in dealing with the states, how they play the Senate, credibility as economic managers (seen through the prism of Rupert's World view), was Rudd's apology genuine? (of course it wasn't), etc.?
Paul Kelly, Editor-at-Large, The Australian
Dennis Atkins, National Affairs editor, The Courier-Mail
Dean Jaensch, Professor of Political and International Studies, Flinders University
2010 is an election year.
Ask your local candidates what their position is on Murdoch's infiltration of our public broadcaster.