> Err, we have a media which is in a symbiotic relationship with the government. > I would not consider this free. Some journalists will always trade independ

> Err, we have a media which is in a symbiotic relationship with the government. > I would not consider this free. Some journalists will always trade independence for access. However, I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate that Australian media has been captured by the government. But frankly, you've made a pretty nebulous accusation, followed up by a conclusion that doesn't necessary follow from the premise. I'd invite you to study the recent happenings in Poland and Hungary to see what a non-free media landscape looks like. > There are few genuine journalists out there looking for the truth and they have little impact on the masses. We have a robust media that regularly holds the government to account. The main public broadcaster, in particular, puts out hard hitting journalism with broad reach. So I don't know what this 'truth' is that you think 'they' are concealing from the 'masses'. > The one that did (Assange) has a trial going on as I type this. You make this sound like Assange was arrested for reporting he did on Australia. Wikileaks never made any major disclosures about Australia. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Australia https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Australia