Thanks Valerie. Another excellent article and worth reading just for this line, already commented on: "The rude people who inhabit the Internet are not given space." I too think RN is great even though Fran Kelly and Philip Adams are occasionally rude when they interrupt unnecessarily. I'm not sure why people commenting on this particular forum are so rude, but it does put me off. Life is difficult enough without having to battle your way past all the abuse. Censorship of rudeness? Why not? Surely people can make a point without attempting to destroy the integrity of the other in the process.

Is it not a fact that the presenters of Radio National's Science Show took a position some years back to accept anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and ignore articles that question AGW ? If not, why do they not attempt to present balance on this issue?

Instead, it is evident that they go out of their way to publish articles by AGW proponents, but ignore (or should that be censor out) articles by those with opposing views. If Radio National feels that this is not the case, perhaps it could enlighten us by releasing the number of pro-AGW items and the number of anti-AGW items that have been broadcast on the Science Show in each of the past 5 years.

Listening to commercial stations means unadulterated unashamed bias repeated over and over.
As for rudeness on these stations! If you accept the definition, ' lacking refinement or propriety', (Penguin dictionary) - it's often unbearable!
I cannot understand why people get so het up re bias on the ABC.
If it is so biased I wonder why I find the need to argue loudly so often with presenters - especially during breakfast programmes.
I maintain that dear aunty does a very good job and she gives balanced views.
PS My taxes are used to support heaps of things I disagree with. I like to live in a democracy.

Thanks Valerie for this piece. I couldn't agree with you more. After listening to almost every Radio National program over the course of the past 5 years or so, I have to say a big 'Thank you' to the ABC.

Listening in has raised my awareness of issues, inspired me to question and research further what I read and hear about with respect to various issues and offered me much to think about.

There is no other station that offers the broad variety of topics and access to information. Long live Radio National!

A science program deciding to report science isn't bias - it is sticking to the topic.

If there is a slant to RN it is to the cerebral, reflective and academic. Some friends of mine find it quite bemusing that just about everyone interviewed has written a bloody book!

This is quite different to political bias. Here I think the 'bias' is to accepting the current institutions. There isn't a program that regularly explores anarchism, sociocracy, deliberative democracy, citizen juries and so on. There isn't any party political bias that I can detect.

Hi Valerie,

I too like you like to hear the opinions and evidence that backs the opinions of experts.

At this point I'd like to refer you to a finding of one of Graham Young's survey regarding bias on the ABC after numerous complaints regarding it's favourable Labor bias and anti Conservative attitudes.

His survey found the ABC was a case of labor commentators talking with their labor friends. I took that to mean that the vast majority of the ABC audience is labor leaning and the commentary and programming merely reflect that, or vice versa.

My personal experience with the ABC seems to reflect that. I once used to contribute but found my conservative comments were always met with stoney silence and a polite thankyou from the presenters, criticism from other callers and a focus on rebuttal, as opposed to leftie views being discussed by presenters, almost universal praise from other callers and absolutely no rebuttal.

yep but of course I'm biased.