I AM still laughing. It was like getting four suicide bombers to debate whether some Muslims might be violent.

But let shiny-eyed Matthew Ricketson, who once taught tomorrow's journalists at RMIT University, describe what happened at a packed "human rights" forum in the city on Monday.

Wrote Ricketson in The Age: "Gather together four luminaries of the media to discuss whether the media is biased and what do you get?"

Well, Matthew, in this case you get a perfect illustration of that very problem, even before a single person opens his mouth. The roll call of the four speakers just said it all.

Luminary one at this Wolfgang Sievers Human Rights Forum was Michael Gawenda, a former editor-in-chief of The Age who last year admitted most of his staff were "on the left: pro-environmentalist, pro-feminist (and) anti-American", and he himself "had never voted for the Coalition" and "could not imagine voting any other way" but Labor.

Luminary two was David Marr, the Sydney Morning Herald Howard-hater and former Media Watch host, who has boasted that "the natural culture of journalism is kind of vaguely soft-Left inquiry".

Luminary three was Prof Robert Manne, the "stolen generations" propagandist and ideology chief of The Monthly - a self-proclaimed Leftist who complains the "Left-wing bias has been successfully removed" from some ABC shows, making the broadcaster "potentially dismal and disabling".

And luminary four was Peter Mares, the ABC's National Interest host and anti-Howard campaigner, whose idea of a debate on global warming was to have the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Ian Lowe, agree with Alarmist of the Year, Tim Flannery.

What's more, the whole thing was chaired by Mary Kostakidis, the former presenter of the World News on SBS, and as likely to vote Liberal as I am to vote Green.

What a splendid joke. If I'd wanted to prove the unconscious bias of the media, I would have picked exactly such a panel, and watched to see if anyone actually noticed the screaming absence of a single conservative voice.

As it turns out, reporter Ricketson did not, or not enough to point it out. But, then, he works for The Age which this month sacked its last remaining conservative columnist, John Roskam, on the grounds that this articulate Institute of Public Affairs head was appearing "everywhere". And so, I understand, his spot is to go to a columnist who appears "nowhere", another of The Age's wall-to-wall Left.

Astonishing. And at this forum's demonstration of the unthinking, unknowing bias of so much of the media, we got a demonstration of the danger of such groupthink - the back-scratching praise of failure, and the mutual encouragement to believe the improbable. Roll the tape:

Marr: But Robert, you've made absolute mincemeat of Andrew Bolt on the stolen generation issue.

Manne: But he keeps going on and on.

Marr: You mustn't confuse going on and on with victory.

Manne: But he seems to be winning in the public domain.

See? Here is the Left congratulating each other for having "won" a debate over the "stolen generations", without troubling to consider why it has actually lost.

It seems the fault lies purely with the Herald Sun for letting one writer say what the rest of the media will not - that Manne, over several years and despite several attempts, still cannot name even 10 of the 50,000 Aboriginal children we're told were stolen just because they were black and not because they were in trouble. Not 10.

To Marr, it's not Manne's failure to back up his claim with evidence that explains why the public now doubts.

It's . . . it's . . . who knows? The public's ignorance? Gullibility? Evil hearts?

That's why none of those four at the forum would themselves ever report Manne's missing names. It's why no program, paper or magazine they've run have reported them, either.

You see, which of them would dare let you hear all the evidence, all sides of the debate? You might then not reach the "correct" conclusion, and that would be a sin. Ask the panel.  Source