Jeff ~ we absolutely do not need a more reliable measure of outrage, and certainly not some 'random poll'. I'm outraged that you even proposed that. Let the 'media' keep stirring the pot ~ it's working beautifully. I reckon we should adopt a George Orwell style '1984' approach. Let the proles have their tittilating publications, lotto, and tv programmes, but otherwise ignore the lot of them. If contemplation of mildly sordid tales about Matthew Johns, or latest Chaser episode, or who lost how much on The Biggest Loser becomes the opiate of the masses, maybe they'll stop bugging the rest of us who have better things to do.

I dont think Matty should of been sacked myself. The Chaser one yes .

Bring back Matty Johns. He was sacked simply as a quick escape for channel 9, who wanted to distance themselves from him instead of sticking by his side. Go onto facebook and search for all the "support Matthew Johns" facebook pages, there are many of them, with thousands upon thousands of members who want Matt back, and who will stick by him all the way. and the Chasers, well, that skit was just horrible, but i think if you look at the context of their show, it shouldnt be a shock to anyone. The series is no-where near as good as their first few.

Jeff you are articulating the meaning of the word "tabloid"? There's always a crowd of enraged white trash baying for blood whenever someone is arrested for some nasty crime--the irony is that some of those lynch mob people appear to be just as capable of committing outrageous crimes themselves. (or have behaved badly on the sidelines at junior sports events at least) I always think the disproportionate outrage of the extreme PC fringe (militant feminists as one example) causes far more harm than the original transgression--when people lose their job over some tasteless prank or sexist remark eg-the ruckus over Tony Newman . There is an interesting writer on the subject-Helen Garner's book "The First Stone" examines the consequences of this manufactured outrage in Academic circles

Moral indignation is one of the cornerstones of journalism. When one thinks over the years the various persons who have been fed to the lions by the media for percieved transgressions are voluminous while members of the media who should come under closer scrutiny (ie. TV Exec goes on a stage and tries to punch another person in front of everybody and the other exec who driving home affected by liquor, does a runner) almost no publicity. If a person wants to see others frequently behaving badly, go and stand out the front of the Journalists Club in Sydney at closing time.

After viewing Media Watch’s criticism over the Chaser incident, it became increasingly obvious that with all the people apologising and taking “full responsibility” , from the ABC CEO to the Chasers themselves, that the most expendable person would have to go. How far they would have to go would depend on how long the media induced outrage would last. In a slow news period it lasted into the following media week. Hence the sacking of an insignificant player. What is everyone’s understanding of “full responsibility”. It has become a catchphrase used by politicians in particular to represent themselves as leaders of great integrity, with the logo of “the buck stops here” planted on their mantelpiece. It actually is about grabbing 5 minutes of media time to look tough, decisive and responsible while they look for someone to blame. A lot of the ubiquitous media as you describe, is unfortunately out of our control. There exists only the pretence of self regulation within the established medias (Radio Television and Press). Truth and decency are some of the casualties when profits alone determine newsworthiness. Sadly, placing a monetary value on outcomes is not just restricted to corporate bosses, our society is conditioned to expect it. A case in point is the recent treatment of Pauline Hanson by the nation’s media. Most people seem to be content that she will make a pretty penny by suing those most responsible. Everything is fine is it? Let me say first, that Pauline’s politics is as remote from mine as you can get. The publication of a photograph, however, of a teenage girl in intimate circumstances, without her permission, is in my view a sexual assault. It represents one of the grubbiest interludes in Australian media history. After the Sunday Telegraphs publication, it only got worse. Every other organ of communication in Australia reproduced the image with the only accompanying discussion centred on whether the photo was authentic or not! As young people we all have made some errors of judgement. Are there young woman out there today who will be lost to public office in the future because of a trivial indiscretion with a picture taking mobile phone? Are there lowlifes out there now planning for their retirement by taking random photos in girl’s change rooms, in the hope that they may be powerful enough one day to extract a ransom? A couple of weeks later all the feminists led by Prue Goward and others were jumping out of their skins, condemning young stupid footballers for not having respect for women. Apparently only politically correct women count. What to do? There is no line in the sand, no moral compass. I don’t believe in censorship. I believe the mainstream media itself should always represent the truth and community values as opposed to corporate values so that at least people have a measure of comparison. We need perhaps a media judiciary, made up of senior journalists and community leaders (no Politicians) armed with a charter of expectation and real power. In the Hanson melee, the Sunday Telegraph would have got two weeks and rest of you guys would have got heavy fines for meekly following them down that moral low road. It might not fix everything, it might be a start however to take publishing opportunities away from those with the eye on the share price index and not thinking about what sort of world they want their sons and daughters to grow up in.

In both of these incidents the people involved sort out media to promote themselves or their shows. They put themselves willingly into the lime light. So equally any adverse media must be taken as par for the course. There is a deficit in Australia today in all walks of life to take responsiblity and be accountable for one's own actions. The media in these two occassions forced out responsiblity and accountability. I do not agree with the methods at times, but i am glad for freedom of press.

Regardless of your view of the morality of Matthew Johns’ action, the reason that he suffered the fate he did is that his only “saleble” asset was his reputation as a “good bloke”, “likeable larrikin” and as a “face of rugby league”. All that went down the toilet with the incident in NZ, and Channel 9, faced with the ire of their advertisers, had little choice. It was a decision between Johns and the money which keeps Channel 9 and ultimately the code itself going. Indeed this episode went close to sinking the Cronulla club, and it may still yet with the other associated “scandals” hitting the club. With respect to the Chaser incident, while the skit in question was in poor taste, it seems to me to be simply a case of the ABC heads seeking a scapegoat, so that they could be seen to be doing something, as was their two week suspension of the show and the public mea culpa, which strikes me as the sort of punishment a headmaster would hand out to an errant student.

I am sick of being told by the media what I should think. We being told to feel sorry for the bar mat thief because she can't go on a holiday. I am told I should be outraged by a proposed brothel in 'rontO. well on both counts I'm not. I think the problem is reporting the news and opinion writing is being blurred better watch out Jeff you could become obsolete if this trend keeps going

Simple: we were outraged by Matthew Johns because it was reported as rape! and we were outraged by the Chaser because sick and dying little children are off limits to satire!