An "Age" of preaching to the converted

Given the virtual propaganda campaign waged by The Age against the government’s policy on illegal immigrants (i.e. people who attempt to migrate by illegal means), I wonder how many letters in support of the government’s policy (or merely in support of balanced coverage) have been omitted from your pages.
The level of bias that has permeated your “comment” articles and even your news reporting on this issue should be a worry for all your remaining readers regardless of their views.
The Age used to have a fine tradition of intelligent analysis that required an attempt to understand and communicate a range of opinions. Your editorial before the election against the government was not (as it should have been) an “on balance” judgement made after observing the election campaign. It was merely the last statement in The Age’s own campaign against the government.
Why is it that the majority of Australians, who voted in disagreement with your editorial, do not feel that they can express their views within your letters column ?
It speaks poorly of your readership if they read The Age to seek repeated confirmation of their views and vilify all who disagree. It should worry The Age staff that they increasingly speak only to the “converted”.
Whose interest is served by turning The Age into a newspaper that is used to propagate a consistent political opinion rather than be a forum for the most coherent expressions of all views. The Age staff should ask themselves what bias will they be asked to adopt next.