Email correspondence with the ABC related to the events above can be viewed here: http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/abc-bias-yields-no-apology-for-mr.html
Further examples of ABC's botched climate coverage also there, including one error that ultimately resulted in the IPCC correcting part of their latest report (see http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/p/himalayaipcc.html)

A very topical article in the context of the seeming advertising placement boycott of On Line Opinion instituted in late November 2010.

(For those unfamiliar with the circumstances and possible consequences of that advertising placement denial in relation to OLO, Graham Young's article published on 7 February, 'Wanted: new financial backers', is the one to read for background. It can be found here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11583&page=0 )

Towards the end of the article Mark Hendrickx asks these very pertinent questions:

"Why did it take so much effort to remove
the offensive comment? How did Phillips
obtain permission to run such a biased
and unbalanced opinion page at the
taxpayers' expense?

In an era where there are a multitude of
opportunities for ABC staff to express
their opinions by setting up their own
blogs or personal web pages, how does
Mark Scott justify the use of taxpayer
funds to foot this bill?"

Even more topically Hendrickx observes:

"It's not about shutting down the debate,
it's about moving it to an appropriate venue.
One where the taxpayer does not have to wear
the cost, or bear the risks of paying out on
defamation cases brought about by poor moderation."

For those who have observed the attempt to sanitize the attack upon freedom of speech constituted by the orchestrated disruption of OLO's advertising revenue, by making out that the issue was one as to moderation standards, this article provides a timely and instructive read.

Use of tax payers funds to provide free entertainment and information to a demographic that can well afford to pay for it is just another form of middleclass welfare. If ABC continues with its opinion content it should do so under a subscription model.

Online Opinion is the sort of web space ABC staff could be using to voice their views, rather riding on the back of the tax payer. The savings of cutting ABC's opinion pages would not be insignificant and could be used to pay for additional reporters, some of whom may be able to cover some of those missing news items. Alternately this money could be used to support sites like Online Opinion, or used as seed funding for other independent media/opinion outlets thereby helping to counter the media concentration currently dominated by News/Fairfax and the ABC. A million dollars scattered around a few independent sites like this would make a significant impact.

(Funds of course could be directed at other gov priorities or returned to the tax payer)

Mark Hendrickx does an outstanding job of holding ABC to account at his website abcnewswatch.blogspot.com. Well worth a visit.

The bias of the ABC is obvious and shameful. An example was Q&A last Monday where the ABC underscored Julia Gillards "One Nation" comments about the Opposition during Question time on Monday by putting One Nation representative right next to Barnaby Joyce, and implicitly associating them. That, and Tony Jones' blatant bias on so many issues, particularly climate change, are just more examples of how our taxpayer dollar is being used for partisan purposes.

In this new era of enlightenment I have taken the liberty to submit your tale of woe to the Ultimate Adjudicator for expert analysis and opinion...The forthcoming judgment from Rupert's Froggy Akerman is positively assured.

On Line Opinion is a poor comparison as it lacks transparency and accountability.

Michael.