I didn’t like the look of Latham and so that explains my second voting for him: then Howard mentioned Nuclear Power and that seemed odd… he was supposedly smarter than to mention that!

The point is: Howard under more ordinary circumstances would not have served as long a term and I fail to recognise his positive contribution- he simply got lucky in that people needed something stable at that time and if that meant not changing Government then that is what provided the mental comfort that the majority needed to cope with the post-traumatic stress of said aforementioned event!

…this is my excuse and I do feel better now!

How do you win a History War?

By crushing the other side so heavily that they admit defeat. If i’m ever in charge, remind me to never employ Gerard in the Defence department.

In order to include a pro-Howard commentator, I would sample the writings of various respected academics and commentators, see which ones supported Howard, then interview them.

Fine @113

I do not necessarily suggest Liberal Rule was impartial. I do suggest it accurately presented the basic facts about the years of Liberal Rule.

Some working definitions:
Impartial – no preference.
Biased – prepared to distort or omit facts to favour one’s own position in the face of a compelling case inicimal to one’s own.
Accurate – faithful to the facts.

I think it is possible, but I may be mistaken, that the makers of Liberal Rule were anti-Howard in the sense they thought his government was poor and that Howard was personally an objectionable person. This is also my view on Howard and also represents the LP consensus on Howard. So I think the impartiality of Liberal Rule is open to question (especially since pro-Howard voices were not included).

But I think that LIberal Rule was accurate and unbiased…and unbalanced.

To remind you, Katz, I am arguing that Liberal Rule was imbalanced in that it did not provide space for any pro-Howard commentator, not that it was biased against Howard or incorrect in any thesis.

But how does a “pro-Howard commentator” identify him/herself to the makers of the program? the practicalities of that are messy and the professionalism of that are questionable.

Think about the following:

“Dear Gerry,

We wish to interview you in relation to the Howard Years. We understand that in the past you have been a pro-Howard voice.

We rely upon you not to have had any second thoughts about this question.

If you have, and you express them in your interview, then in the interests of balance we will exclude your comments from the program.

Yours faithfully,

The Docomakers.

It’s just not sensible or professional.

I agree the makers of Liberal Rule are free to make any kind of doco any way they want to. If they want to make an unbalanced doco they are completely free to do so.

You did not ask me for an example of an impartial documentary. You asked me for an example of a documentary where “Much of the power of the documentary comes via deconstruction or validation of the subject’s claims via impartial expert testimony.”. Liberal Rule is such an example.

My contention is that Liberal Rule is unbalanced.
You are saying “who cares, its a good doco”
I agree. Its a good doco. An unbalanaced good doco.

The passage you quoted means, in part, that some of the anti-Howard voices of Liberal Rule said that Howard had a “personal paranoic grip on power”. It was not meant to mean that the anti-Howard voices of Liberal Rule said that the prosperity of the Howard Years was due to Howard’s “personal paranoic grip on power”. i.e. the anti-Howard sentiment expressed is about Howard’s paranoia and how he sought to brutally, pragmatically (via electoral bribery) and slyly maintain his grip on power. Hope that is clearer.

Just as a correction to both yourself and myself, Katz, George Mega, a commentator, not a Lib politician, also talked about Howard’s bribery of the electorate (as did Costello). This means that anti-Howard (though unbiased) voices did critique Howard’s pork-barelling, contra you @105. This means I have not, as you asserted, “misstated an important aspect of the commentators’ views and misidentified the source of the critique of Howard’s pork-barrelling.”. Would you agree ?

I disagree that I need to detail every argument that the anti-Howard commentators made and compare them to a pro-Howard argument on the same topic in order to demonstrate imbalance. To remind you, Katz, I am arguing that Liberal Rule was imbalanced in that it did not provide space for any pro-Howard commentator, not that it was biased against Howard or incorrect in any thesis.

By “balance” I mean ‘space for competing viewpoints’. Liberal Rule only gave space for one viewpoint “Howard sucks”. How about a bit of time for the opposing viewpoint “Howard is brilliant (or at least good)”. Is there really NO thoughtful commentator available who holds those views?

Wouldn’t it be merely fair to include at least one or two commentators of the competing viewpoint ? Isn’t is true that Liberal Rule demonstrates imbalance (not bias or inaccuracy) by omitting the competing viewpoint? You have so far studiously avoided these points Katz. I would be interested in your comments.