C.J. Morgan says (31 December 2009 2:18:36 PM):"Clearly, the problem with the ABC is that they ignore emails from obvious conspiracy theory frootloops." But did he read this in Daggett's article?

"Perhaps if the 9/11 Truth science project were backed to the tune of 10 billion Euros, like the ITER Project, the BBC and Australia's ABC would take it more seriously. After reading particle physicist, Michael Dittmar's damning analysis of the ITER project, "Fusion Illusions," in Sheila Newman (ed) The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto UK, 2008, however, I think the Science show should be more cautious about Dr Dudarev's ITER-association, let alone his theory on 9/11 building-collapse." http://candobetter.org/node/966

The referenced publication is the only independent analysis of fusion projects I have ever found. It is so important, it should be widely known.

Yes, unfortunately the ABC lends authority to theories that are held together by thin air, dollars and government propaganda and participates in manufacturing consensus on them. This is why the public is relentlessly swamped with 'facts' like how high immigration benefits Australia economically and this is why a scientist benefiting from the inflated importance of the ITER fusion scheme commands authority and serves to further alienate procedural and scientific questions regarding official investigation of 9/11. It's not that the ABC only endorses 'reasonable' theories; it's that the ABC decides what it presents as 'reasonable', and you either swallow it or turn it off and write your own blog. Why is the US government such a sacred cow? Why can't we ask questions? Why are so many members of the public such keepers of the [manufactured] status-quo?

I think the whole media-system needs an overhaul; editors, like academics and teachers should have tenured independence from owners and government and so should journalists. We tax-payers deserve better.

Like many, I am concerned by the number of Murdoch journos on the ABC and the lack of biological and physical science representation, the marketing of property development and population growth as the irresistable natural order of things and the associated devaluing of both common, verifiable perception and verifiable science.

CJ Morgan "Have you gone off your medication James?" CJ Morgan has to be lowest form of life ever to frequent OLO.He constantly uses invective,inneundo personal insults on this forum and gets away with it.

You have no shame and your personal inadaquacies are reflected constantly by your attempts to bring others down to your low standards.

So have a good look in the mirror tonight CJ Morgan and see what we see.

I love you and the other conspiracy nuts too, Arjay - but not as much as I love the ABC.

My question to James was prompted by the sudden flurry of nutty posts from him after an extended period of sanity, at least at OLO.

Thanks, Nero and Arjay,

If it wasn't for the fact that in the past I was on the receiving end of long bouts of nasty unrelenting harassment from CJ Morgan, I would pity him rather than feel disgust and anger.

It's completely beyond me what would motivate someone, who purports to oppose injustice in the world, to spend months attacking others who are trying to tell the truth about the principle pretext for the "War on Terror" and the resultant deaths of well over a million in Central Asia and the Middle East and without even once articulating his own reasons for rejecting those views.

I challenge anyone to produce any evidence whatsoever of CJ Morgan's comprehension of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82 or anywhere else.

To on the one hand attempt to claim the high moral ground by demanding unlimited accommodation other cultures, including Islamic cultures, by Europeans whilst effectively promoting the murderous lie of 9/11 that has caused the deaths of so many Islamic people, as CJ Morgan has done, would seem to me to be the ultimate hypocrisy.

---

Also Christopher attacks me here for having stood as a candidate in the Queensland State elections.

I was the only candidate, of whom I am aware, who actually raised the issue of privatisation in those elections (even though I repeatedly tried to get the Greens, amongst others to raise this issue).

Presumably Christopher would have preferred that no-one had offered that choice to voters, and presumably he also approves of the ABC having censored those views during the elections.

---

I have documented how these views, that have been the view of the overwhelming majority of Queenslanders for years were censored by the ABC in my article "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09 at http://candobetter.org/node/1159 .

In her reply to that article on 10 June 2009, (published in full on our web-site at http://candobetter.org/node/1316 but not yet responded to by me), Kirstin McLeod of the ABC's Audience & Consumer Affairs ... (tobecontinued)

(tobecontinued) ... confirmed that the ABC had manipulated the outcome of the Queensland State elections in one sense at least, that is, in the sense of having precluded a large vote for Greens and Independent candidates.

She confirmed this when she wrote:

"The ABC's approach to election coverage focuses on the Government and official Opposition on the basis that one of the two major parties will ultimately form government and thus represent the principal points of view."

Given that a hung Parliament was a distinct possibility, these words confirm that the Queensland ABC violated its charter.

On at least two occasions leaders of the major political parties told ABC audiences that a hung Parliament would have been the "worst possible outcome." On one occasion it was Lawrence Springborg, leader of the Liberal National Party who said this. On another occasion it was a senior Labor Government Minister. I don't remember whether it was Paul Lucas, Anna Bligh or Andrew.

No ABC journalist asked why it would be preferable from the point of view of the Queensland public to have a Parliament in which the Party with the absolute majority can, at its whim, limit debate time and restrict the right of independents and Opposition MP's to put motions such as a motion calling for a referendum on privatisation that I asked an Independent MLA to put on my behalf.

Thus, the ABC is clearly directly culpable for having brought Queensland politics to the appalling dictatorial state in which it now lies at the start of 2010. Just when it seemed that matters could not possibly get worse, we now find a further attempt to restrict the public's access to information about planned privatisation. (See story "Anna gags asset sell-off talk" of 2 Jan 10 at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,26543344-3102,00.html)

One way that Queenslanders can begin to redress the injustice that the ABC helped to inflict upon them is to sign my e-petition calling for the resignation of the Queensland Government and for new state elections at http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1360&lIndex=-1

James Sinnamon

Brisbane Independent for Truth, Democracy,
the Environment and Economic Justice

Australian Federal Elections, 2010

So the bias in the ABC comes down to not giving enough air time to 911 nut jobs. Love it, that's what the right side of politics has to offer that 911 was a inside job.