In Nov 2009 http://www.911oz.com/ was doing one of their many protests outsided the ABC Studios in Ultimo Sydney.Not only will they not air the new evidnece for the need to a new investigation into 911,they also want to censor their staff from making up their own minds.

Their staff in the past would often come enquire and take literature and CD's.On this occasion one of their staff informed us that they were instructed not to take any information from us.

So if you want to keep your job at the ABC,tow the line and have their blinkered view of the world.

So the ABC leans to the left - so what? Most of the main stream media -ie,News and Fairfax,leans to the right - so what?

Bias will always creep into the conversation.There is no way that can be prevented.It is up to the citizen to keep informed and use whatever wisdom they may be blessed with to form an opinion and the more varied the input the better.I believe that we still do live in some resemblance to a democracy.

<< So the ABC leans to the left - so what? Most of the main stream media -ie,News and Fairfax,leans to the right - so what? >>

Yes Manorina, I would say that the mainstream media is very biased. But then they set the norm. So, if the ABC is different, it is biased compared to the norm!

I’m inclined to think that the ABC is not ‘biased’ enough. It needs to be considerably more strongly positioned to the ‘left’ (whatever the left actually is) in order to more significantly offset the bias of other mainstream media.

Whatever the case, ALL of our media are TERRIBLY biased towards philosophies, policies, politicians and public opinion that steers us clear of properly considering the really big issues of population policy, the achievement of a sustainable society and getting away from our utter dependency on oil – which are things that we are hearing next to nothing about in this election lead-up.

Or are these things just my biases shining through??

Of course, I would say that I hold the eminently sensible unbiased position and that everybody who sees it differently is biased!!

As Graham says;

<< … balance is a notoriously difficult thing to measure. >>

LOL This article was originally published in the Murdoch media,the propaganda department of the Coalition,or perhaps it's the other way round,it's difficult to distinguish one from the other.Brilliant satire.

Graham, you write that 'concern about the arts and the environment normally denote left-wing allegiance,' What do you mean by 'left', and why?

In the 1960s 70s and 80s, to be left meant that you were a socialist. Small 'l' liberal views were considered to be moderately right wing. Equal opportunity was, for example, seen as a moderate right goal.

Since then, there has been a determined campaign in the United States to depict liberal ideas as radically left wing. The campaign has two functions--to demonise, and to try and re-define where the centre is, so that people who (absurdly) suppose that the middle of the road is the rational place to be will vote for the Republicans, and generally reject policies which threaten the power and affluence of the dominant classes. In Australia, there is a trend in the same direction.

So it matters.

And in passing, on my limited understanding of statistics, a correlation of .7 still leaves 51% of the variation unexplained.

ha .."73% of those surveyed around the same time by Newspoll think climate change is "currently occurring"" - so 27% of ABC respondents to the poll don't think the climate is changing .. I suspect what's more likely is that they didn't understand the loaded question.

The ABC is very biased, you could give examples all day long - one I heard recently was when someone from the Liberal party made a comment about school funding and the head of the teachers union was allowed to rant for a full 9 minutes about it - even the compere eventually got embarrassed and tried to be reasonable - but it was way gone by then.

I go to the USA a lot and over there listen to NPR, National Public Radio, it's a little to the left occasionally, but tolerable and certainly not hostile to conservatives as the ABC here is - watch Kerry O'Brien any night and compare the way he deals with the ALP and then the Coalition - tell me that's "balanced" .. on reflection, it probably is to him, I just want to know where the fulcrum is.

Just about all commercial Telly has no journalist anymore, only shock jocks, opinion pieces and tabloid crap. The SAD part is the ABC is headed in the same direction. Journalism is dead art, and I think that is the heart of the issue. If all news outlets Telly and print actually employed journalist and reported the news rather than give us their opinion it would be a great thing.
As a lefty I don't watch the Drum mainly because I'm not interested in hearing other people’s views on these topics. Can you just give me the facts.

My definitions of Leftist: 1. Someone who disagrees with George W. 2. Someone with more compassion than Genghis Khan.

Left used to mean socialist, but there aren't many of those left. Now it means someone who actually wants some information, instead of just fact-free shock-jock rants.

So you see the alleged "left" bias of the ABC is a bias towards actual knowledge. And without knowledge there is no civilisation. Just barbarians like this author, and The Oz.

Yes and of course the commercial media are grossly biased to the right, but that's alright. We still have to pillory poor old Auntie for actually knowing stuff, because anyone who's well-informed is a threat.

It is not surprising that the ABC audience and perhaps its presenters have a leaning to the “Green Left”- the “bias” is inherent in its charter http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/ABCcharter.htm:

...to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard...
(and)
to provide:
...broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community;

How does this connection between “Green” and ABC “bias” work? Simply, the charter speaks both explicitly of “intellectual” activities, in terms such as “innovative” and “inform” and implicitly in terms such as “high standard” and “cultural diversity” and the Greens are now predominantly the party of the intellectuals.

I use the word “intellectual” not as a compliment or pejorative, but in its dictionary sense:

“...capacities for abstract thought, reasoning, planning and problem solving, the use of language, and to learn (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectually).

This is not to imply that the Greens have any monopoly on intellectual activity, or even to suggest that their intellectual activities lead to correct or better outcomes than others- it is just that they have a greater propensity for using these mental activities than other significant political groups.

Until recently, the so-called “Right” had little use for intellectuals- some would even suggest that “Right-wing intellectual” is an oxymoron in that libertarianism emphasises self-interest above the collective interest that obsesses the minds of the “Left”. The likes of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand were amongst the exceptions and it is not surprising that they are the idols of the so-called “Right-wing think tanks”. Their sentiments can often be heard on the ABC Radio National’s program “Counterpoint”.

The ALP, once considered the natural home for intellectuals, is now characterised by institutional rigidity and decadence coupled with individual pragmatism and opportunism. Hardly a place for innovation or the free flow of information.

Hence the rise of the Greens- the party of ideas and ideals and the belief in collective action for the common good- and its natural alignment with the ABC’s prosecution of its charter.

How about someone telling us whether OLO is biased?

Arjay,with respect to an investigation to what really happened on Sept 11 I would not be at all surprised if there was a world-wide absolute suppression order on this issue ever being discussed in the mainstream media.

Even though hundreds of thousands (even millions) of people are familiar with the various alternative well researched explanations that are available both in print and online.

The results would be too shocking.

Meanwhile this essay describes how the media works. Such is particularly true of the right-wing media--Fox and Murdoch "news" for instance.

http://www.dabase.org/popdisgu.htm

The token right-wing show on the ABC, namely Counterpoint, is so intellectually vacuous and culturally illiterate, as to be painful.

With occasional rare exceptions it is full of mediocre right-wing group-think. The two hosts never seriously challenge their guests.

The fact of the matter is is that the ABC is a valuable cultural resource which enables any and everyone to access all sorts of resources elsewhere---from both sides of the culture wars divide.

Commentators like Tony Jones and Kerry O'Brien give both sides of political spectrum a run for their money and have a heightened BS meter.

Much more so than a Bolt or an Akerman would towards a Conservative. Even Albrechtson rarely concedes a point to the 'other side'.

All media has a bias, a good one will reveal it less frequently than another.

ABC is pretty good in this regard.

Bias in media is dependant on where one's frame of reference begins.

In comparison to the Murdoch media, the moderation displayed by the ABC would appear to be left of centre. However, compared to Green Left Weekly, or say some Public Radio stations or other such media, the ABC looks more mainstream, if not veering towards the right.

Whatever ever 'right' and 'left' means any more, anyway.

Generalisations like "believers in climate change are left leaning" or "those who fear boat-people are right leaning" are as absurd as they are misleading. I find it hugely ironic that Rupert himself accepts climate change as having anthropomorphic origins and Labor is as complicit in fear mongering about boat-people as the Liberals.

The ABC is held to more standards than any other media in Australia. For example, someone like Andrew Bolt would not last a minute in the ABC as his commentaries would not pass even a light scrutiny for facts.

Finally if Auntie's slip is showing (and I do not believe it is), would someone please tuck in the Herald-Sun's jockstrap? Not pleasant to see and completely useless if searching for truth in journalism.

I often listen to the late night radio on the ABC, but not much more. This is a far cry to when all the tuners of my electronic media gear was rusted on to the ABC, when they still gave a reasoned presentation.

For the last couple of mornings I have been a little slow retuning my radio, & have found myself listening to AM. What a garbage red rag that is.

Some woman, labeled, I think, a political reporter, was doing interviews with politicians from each side of the spectrum. This occurred on both days, so must be a segment.

The interesting thing, both days was that she started with the liberal, & it was her aggressive "bull dog" argumentative attack on him made me aware of the radio. It was quite virulent. This was, remember, two segments on 2 separate days.

She was then all sugar & honey, [it was dripping off], dealing with the labor polly. In both interviews she was actually gently leading them to what she wanted. It would appear she thought that she could put them in a better light than they could themselves. Not surprising really, it was obvious she has a very high opinion of herself.

This lady was the type you would not want on your side. She is so biased that you would expect any thoughtful person would be turned off whatever she was pushing.

About the only useful thing the ABC can do today, is to keep the chattering classes busy talking to each other, & out of real peoples hair.

To many of us in Gippsland ABC Radio is the official 'green' broadcasting media. A secondary use is as a broadcaster of Government propaganda.
High Priestess Jill Redwood rings Reporter Mark De Bono and dictates the events to be reported on. A current big ticket item is that Hazelwood Power Station in the Latrobe Valley is to be closed. Generating a large proportion of Latrobe Valley electrical power, some of us wonder why such a minority as the Greens has had so much media power gifted to it.
A year or so ago, some joker placed a newspaper advert stating that the East Gippsland Greens HQ had moved to the ABC Radio studios in York St Sale.

Graham,

If the ABC leant to the left, it would be OK. It would just be another leaning tower among the skyscrapers of misinformation.

The problem with Aunty is the lack of a solid foundation.

There, as suspended in mid-air, this group of people, always the same, repeat themselves at nauseam, quote here and there some decrepit have-been with a string of letters after their names and bore their audience to tears.

It is their duty to do so, by order of the State, which, as we know, pays them as well as Politicians, Academics, Policemen and a host of Public Servants for the sole purpose of annoying you and me.

The other skyscrapers of misinformation have solidity in bankers, industrialists, insurers, professional and all sort of groups with aspirations legally justifiable.

And so, you and I, not entirely innocent either, pay our taxes in order to exactly be annoyed.

Somebody sometime thought of a name for all this. Was it Leviathan?

I not surprised that this appeared in the Aus?
The facts are selectively chosen and the conclusions are a strrrreeeeeeetch.

Reporting (aka journalism) in the lame street media is designed to attract an audience for commercial reasons, consequently they are unreliable.
e.g. Our local paper has published 3 ads 14 coalition front 3 page, articles, 3 editorials V 2 page 3/4 and one general Lib V labor single topic comparison , nill green or other (3 of them). When challenged for bias they blamed the other parties for not supplying photo ops of ministers etc!

Off line I've been told it's partially allocation of resources and commercial agreements (buy one get editorial space)and low hanging fruit.

This raises two points in my mind with the commercial media favouring the opposition for commercial reasons are the Libs begrudging a credible alternative to the 47% (5-6%swinging voters) space?

The ABC's 'balance' (side A's View then side B's)be seen a either bias or mistaken for objectivity. The media's idea of balance personality or media skill based not necessarily factual or informative.

In fact Aunty has it's survival motivation it needs to attract an audience i.e. entertain, sensationalise.

ABC 24 opened with the " exposure" of *ex* PM Rudd not attending every national security committee meeting! However, he did attend the important ones and was informed of what took place. In short an irrelevant beat up and unhelpful to labor.

Additionally there are a plague of talking head discussing "horse race politics" (discussing endless polls),retro-analysing strategies, that smirking Canberra reporter telling us what we have just watched and complaining about the lack of simplistic differences.

Where is the analysis of the other parties and what the policies really mean.

PS: the GW reference to AGW happening comes from Aust Science Institute survey.
Which in my mind confirms that we as a nation are in scientific literacy is going backwards. Perhaps what is commercially efficient isn't necessarily appropriate in Education (or health).

Auntie Goes with the most easily salable story and is simply media light.

“….ABC viewers are more likely to be older, better educated, in a non-manual occupation, rural, politically interested, left-wing, and favour the National Party and Greens leader Bob Brown”.

Perhaps, I am missing something in the above statement. Where are the similarities between the National Party and the Greens?
However rather than dwell on that point, any article that spends every paragraph quoting percentages of this group, attitudes of that group, staff versus corporate attitudes, entrenched or otherwise, is bound to have been created be a frustrated statistician.

The poor old ABC.

The original publisher of this article was the Weekend Australian where collected under one roof are the Murdoch trained conservatives. The deservedly much-maligned, erstwhile Australian Murdoch saw the recent expansion by the ABC into a 24 hour TV news channel as something he decreed was not in the interests of good broadcasting, a subject of which he sees himself as the undisputed master with his trashy Fox TV rubbish, poisoning the airways with misrepresentations and the worst city newspapers, The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun.

Be thankful that we have an alternative service of dedicated and yes, unbiased reporters from around the globe, producing shows like Foreign Correspondent, Four Corners, Media Watch and the best radio broadcasting for news and foreign affairs.

Long may it continue. It is unique in the world.

Go and find some ABC bias, write to the media people at the ABC stating your concerns and then be prepared to receive back a detailed explanation of the circumstances and statistics to justify their approach, whatever it was. They’ll be right because they do take their role seriously and because they have the temerity to comment of the feckless Abbott and his tribe of incompetents, remember they also comment on the disloyal and superficial Gillard and her rightwing, leftwing, anywing at all, sycophants.

For the choice of candidates you have this year, don’t blame the ABC. You will cast your vote for one, who will be as bad as the other.
222 years since Australia was settled by white folks, and this is the result.

PS. GY You will have to explain to me one day how NP voters (LNP in qld)
are left of centre. All the country sites I've seen are marginally right of Chauvin although watchers of and critics of Aunty.
Most Of the them wouldn't bother with online polls.

It is hard to find a better example of ABC bias than in its treatment of climate change. The ABC takes the position that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a fact. This is evident in ABC news and current affairs programs (particularly 7.30 Report , Lateline, am, pm, the World Today, ), the Science Report, and Catalyst.

In today's 666 ABC Canberra and the Australian National University presentation of Beyond the Spin (a federal election series on the issues that matter): "Bottom line on climate", see (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/08/10/2978720.htm), all of the six panel members were pro-AGW.

The ABC goes out of its way to report uncritically on all pro-AGW claims/reports.

In fact, climate science is not settled. As there is no scientific proof that AGW exists, a fair-minded ABC would be expected to give fair coverage to those who question the reality of AGW. Not so. The ABC goes out of its way to censor out any anti-AGW claims or reports.

I'd have to begin by saying that there is no left-wing media in this country, though admittedly Aunty at least dresses on the Left in an overall context of debauchery. This has more to do with intellectualism than bias; conservatism is synonymous with traditionalism after all; no need to think, just look it up. The ABC at least strives to observe a minimum standard of rigour. This contention is easily verified by comparison; one need only listen to or watch commercial news media (vulgar variety) to be saluted a la Benny Hill: a news version of stupid grin and lolling tongue and idiotic incomprehension. And then compare that to the content on radio national and ABC news programmes: 7.30 Report; Media Watch; Four Corners; Insiders. There's nothing on the commercial media that can touch any of them (60 Minutes is a joke) because they just wouldn't rate.
All the beat up about the need of a "right-wing Phillip Adam" brought us "Counterpoint", which I listen to assiduously; nothing but an embarrassment (far worse than Aunty's slip showing) whose compares manage to shoot themselves in the foot nearly weekly!
The commercial news media is on the same level as "Funniest Home Videos", and just as sick and unfunny.

Sorry Aunty, there's are always going to be morons who scream "show us yer tits!" when they ought to be sitting at attention!

The ABC's mantra is anti- corporate, pro-environment and everything that is anti-conservative.The reality is that they are in the pockets of the big corporates and their agenda is not to dig too deep so as to upset the status quo.

They will not for example take the banking industry to task and will not tackle the really important issues, only hide behind flaky issues of sexuality,feminism,racism,etc When it comes to issues of what really matters,they are seriously left wanting in substance.

Their left wing stance is only a camouflage for their weak kneed analysis of our oligarcical system.The ABC are anti-corporate only to the point of trashing traditional stero-types.They will not take on the likes of Halliburton or Hamid Karzai's UNOCAL OIL.Their analysis of Afghanistan is superficial.

Aunty is controlled by our GOVT, hence by big corporate interests.The game of the left/right paradigm is just distraction to keep us arguing,while the real puppet masters pull our strings.

Geoff Davies says: : “So you see the alleged "left" bias of the ABC is a bias towards actual knowledge. And without knowledge there is no civilisation. Just barbarians like this author, and The Oz.”
ROFL

Well, I guess if you get your jollies praising GETUP
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10808#179300
Or spruiking AGW
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10762#178678
Auntie might well be right up your alley.

But for those who don’t share such leanings. The ABC would seem too much of a one way street .
Take a listen to The Science show any Saturday or Monday – it’s packed full of pro-AGW presentations, with nary a contrary word.

Here’s one tiny gem from that show:
"So just imagine, if you like, you're in a car, travelling fast and in two seconds you're about to hit a 50-tonne truck. You do three things; first you call a meeting of all those who may be affected and gather their thoughts, secondly you consult all the authorities who may be interested (the lawyers, insurers, officials) and get their reactions too, and thirdly you can choose to reject the physics. It is a post-modern world. Reject gravity and Newton's laws. Have a nice crash"
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2965350.htm

I could not believe this was held up in all seriousness as a realistic analogy!

Yes, the ABC is bit biased. I suppose those on the right find it hard to say the things that may appeal to the majority as 'can do' and 'social concern' messages are easier to sell and more appealing.

But I love the ABC (and SBS). I would miss out on a lot if they did not exist, including international and rural perspectives. While i do have differences of opinion with some ABC commentators, they are brilliant for informing me about issues I know little about. I include the shows by Philip Adams and Geraldine Douge on that list.

Manorina, Ludwig and skeptic seem to have missed an important point: if commercial media are biased to the right, that's their business. They're private entities, and can do more or less as they like. They'll be judged by ratings and income.

The ABC, on the other hand, is a public entity, whose charter specifically states that it must be, 'accurate, impartial and objective and thereby avoid bias'.

Not so long ago, I too would have laughed off suggestions of ABC bias, but if I see one more photo of a smiling Julia juxtaposed with a shifty-looking Tony, then my growing suspicions will be confirmed.

Clownfish

You mean there are photos of Tony Abbott NOT looking shifty? Here's me thinking that his appearance was just the natural alignment of his features.

Indeed, Severin, there are.

Just as there are photos of Julia Gillard *not* looking like a smug ferret. ;)

Thank goodness for the ABC.
Can you imagine the Australian media landscape without it ?

If it injects a little intellectual equilibrium into the mostly mindless blather of commercial media in the country - that can only be a good thing.

The ABC is not Left wing; there is no Left perspective in this country. Neither is it unduly biased. The editorial line of the Science Show, for instance, has always been opinionated, but it is based on conservative Liberal Rationalism; whatever its editorial line, the content of the show is based on hard science--which of course has zero impact on minimifidianists.
The ABC media mostly presents "intellectual" fare (even its satire) that is bound to be confronting to those who "react" rather than "think". Kerry O'Brien grills Labor MP's even harder than he does the conservatives for mine.
Conservative viewers and listeners of course much prefer the "balanced reporting" of Alan Jones, Stan Zemanek (who gets a run on "Insiders" btw!) and the goofy anchors of "Sunrise", "Current Affair" and the rest of the motley crew.
The ABC is not biased, it is Enlightened within a generally benighted media spectrum.

Squeers, I didn't realise that Conservatives listened to the dead.

Stan is certainly an "insider", although he hasn't much company in the box he's inside of.

Squeers is indisposed but asks me to convey:

Thanks Bugsy :-) How do you make a blushing smiley face?

I meant Piers Akerman.

Anyone who still falls for the "Left wing bias" BS clearly has learned nothing from the last decade.
Taking and reporting all respectable sides is not "bias", it is proper analysis, something held in very low regard by the commercial media. Also excluding minority nut-cases (such as anti-evolution and anti-science in general) is also not "bias" it is part of presenting a balanced case.
A good example of exclusion bias is the run-up to the Iraq war: Every bit of evidence that the "reasons" for war were propaganda, and there were many, were excluded from our news. All we saw was reasons to go for it. Only later was it admitted by US officials that oil was the reason. This was not reported at all.
Bias on the other side can be seen with Global Warming. Even though the science is *very* settled, has been for a while, and is only getting stronger, the media gives credence to fools like Lord Mockton, who has zero credibility and has been shown to be speaking rubbish. the trouble is these "I've not studied the details but I do know this..." sceptics is that they are reinforcing each other, giving the impression of "the other side to the argument".
The "Left" of modern nations is usually highly educated, professional trades and less religious. I'm not surprised the "Right", which represents uneducated, semi-skilled and highly religious would disagree with the Left...but I'm concerned that they are actively trying to spread themselves by destroying media impartiality (A-La Fox in the US), destroy education (by getting involved in policy) and generally trash civilisation by encouraging politics over information.
Culture wars indeed!

Yes, I was beaten to the punch but it was Piers Ackerman, lover of everything Murdoch-y, conservative, not too bright and a really good supporter of the feckless Abbott. Piers in a pod, so to speak.

Just as Insiders has its Labor leaners, so we have the man from Melbourne Herald-Sun, Ackerman and Henderson and they are matched by an equal number of 'lefties', as in the old days, lefties. These days Gillard's turncoat activity in June makes such distinctions hard to read as she is now an avowed leftwing, a newly converted rightwing and any other wing you care to mention as well.
'Whatever way the wind is blowing' Gillard, that's where you will find her. As for Abbott, unless someone tells him, he wouldn't know the wind was blowing at all.

What a choice.

What this example should do is to show how much trouble they go to to get some balance at the ABC. Without a non-biased emphasis, would any organisation ever pick Ackerman to do anything but work at The Daily Telegraph, the worst newspaper in Australia.

That 'newspaper' deserves him and he deserves that 'newspaper'.

Ozandy: " Bias on the other side can be seen with Global Warming. Even though the science is *very* settled, has been for a while, and is only getting stronger, the media gives credence to fools like Lord Mockton, who has zero credibility and has been shown to be speaking rubbish. the trouble is these "I've not studied the details but I do know this..." sceptics is that they are reinforcing each other, giving the impression of "the other side to the argument"."

You are typical of warmists by making a series of assertions about the AGW hypothesis, which you are unable to justify. If you had "studied the details", you would find that there is no scientific evidence to quantify the influence of the socalled greenhouse effect on global warming. Nor could you quote any scientific evidence to quantify the extent of CO2's role in the greenhouse effect. Consequently, like other warmists, you cannot prove that climate science is settled.