You want evidence of bias on Radio National?

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/02/abc-bias-hits-news.html

and

http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/06/richard-glover-forcibly-tattoo-climate-change-realists.html

Some charming comments from Richard Glover, one of Radio National's presenters.

Sorted.

Hmmm, so Jon J "sorts" it out for everybody by linking to the right-wing 'climate sceptics party' (sic) and the equally right-wing 'menzies house' (sic) - no bias there.

Richard Glover responded to the screaming banshees here:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave-of-hate-20110609-1ftix.html

Sorted.

Radio National - our enemies talking to our friends

No Bias huh "The listeners who respond on comments pages online, or ring in on talk-backs seem a fair cross-section of the courteous listening audience. The rude people who inhabit the Internet are not given space"

So anyone who is "rude" is not given space, which begs the question, Who decides what is Rude? Is disagreeing with the compere "rude"?

Seems like a very good way to ensure you get rid of anyone who disagrees, declare them to be "rude" .. so what was that about bias?

Nice courteous people with nice comments of course are the kind of people we want to listen to our elitist radio national, and the riff raff, "rude" people should just go away, go to shock-jock talk-back radio where they belong .. have I got that right?

Those are Australians, whose taxes help support Radio National as well, and whether they are "rude" or not, is beside the point. They are entitled to their opinion.

Radio National listeners, the ones who cannot tolerate "rude" people, or disagreement and questioning, are elitist.

Shut it down, it's a waste of time and money and only panders tot he elitists out there.

I'm sure I'll be cast now as "rude", for having a contrary opinion to the author .. BTW, Robyn Williams admitted on JJJ that in believer climate science "you have to exaggerate to get people's attention" .. nice one Robin, full of bias there eh, and he was quite "rude" to the young interviewer on JJJ who kept returning him to the point as he obfuscated and dodged and weaved around the question, but finally, cornered, admitted that 100metres of sea rise by the end of the century, was an exaggeration to "get people's attention".

Robin Williams, that's not science, it's propaganda and hysteria.

Reply to Amicus: The comments published on Radio National programs are both positive and negative as you will see by looking – but trolls are not admitted. Several well-meaning media sites open to all have gone under by allowing trolls or even not detecting them quick enough. 'Rude' means rude.

rude means rude, is completely arbitrary .. what may be rude to me may not be rude to you.

If you go online for comments, you get everything and trying to determine who or what is a troll, is usually determined over time, it's best to tolerate everyone, since even trolls may be taxpayers .. you seem to think it's OK to exclude people based on an arbitrary criteria (elitism once again) .. fine if you fund the ABC on your won, but you do not.

(I believe the Australian sites with the greatest collections of trolls, is Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, and they deal with it and do not shut them down.)

"Several well-meaning media sites open to all have gone under by allowing trolls or even not detecting them quick enough" now that is starting to sound like hysterical exaggeration .. again, and with respect to the ABC, it would appear to be a method of skewing your data, by declaring those you do not like or disagree are trolls or rude.

What are these sites you speak of?

The ABC allows all manner of comments for and against on its Drum website from what I can see, some of them are way past "rude"

As soon as you apply filters like this rudeness test, you lose all credibility as it is obviously a method of censorship .. for the maintenance of a service for an elitist few.