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.