There are times when I struggle to understand what the issue is - couples of the same sex want to make the same commitment as those of the opposite sex. What's the problem? Now I understand, thanks to Bill. The issue is that we should privatise the ABC immediately!

Chris, I also struggle to understand what the issue is. If the gender mix in a marriage doesn't matter, the number of people in it shouldn't either. If 3, 4 or.... make the commitment what's the problem? Just define marriage however you like.

Oh dear why do Christ-stains hate so much...isn't their religion meant to be about peace and love.
Nothing you said actually refutes the ABC fact check.

All that you have done is expose yourself.

Now I'll need to check my facts but I can guess that..
Many black people reset white people world view that they were the higher race... I think there were more than a few whites that you would have considered very partial to the black agenda.

I would also guess that many of the people who fought (fight) for equality for Women was shock horror Women... Do you see where I'm going here?

Bible thumpers have little grasp of facts they can't have otherwise they wouldn't believe half of what they do. Their world view is based on a lie so I’m not surprised that when that world view is challenged by facts they have trouble.

Lastly your worried about were your tax dollars go well how about we start by cutting off tax breaks for churches? is your lobbly group tax exempt?

...The most efficient and acceptable means of removing ABC's fixation on homosexuality, is to replace the existing management urgently.

since when did those wanting to practice perversion become interested in truth. The same mob deny that an unborn baby is human. Bill is right but its certainly no new revelation. Funny enough the ABC also push their gw theology.

It is important to remember that this is the ABC fact checking unit and that ABC 'facts' are not always the same as your everyday facts.

For instance, one woman plus one man does not always equal one ABC married couple.

The majority of the population cast a conservative vote yet are forced to pay for the narrow minded drivel of the ABC.

Hardly anyone cares about gay marriage. Many gays don't even care. Its just a wedge issue for the Left to continue their imaginary war against the church and conservative politicians.

Abbott needs to introduce some balance into the organisation or privatise it.

I've got just one word for this article, and it's spelt, see are eh pee!
Rhrosty.

Conservatives, instead of complaining about bias at the ABC, apply for a job at the ABC and be the change...there's 18 jobs available right now and one is a senior reporter, no less.

Wow!

You seem to ascribe every reference by the ABC to 'experts", historians and/or authors as being homosexual.

How precisely does this homosexuality (and non disclosure to boot) disprove their contention that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman". Would you expect in a media article a five thousand word essay on the background to the statement?

Also why is "the leftie Media Watch" leftie? Because they dare to point out glaring untruths and exaggerations designed to mislead? Too "close to the bone" on the Murdoch empire perhaps?

They used to use "Howard Haters" as a term of vilification but you must REALLY hate the ABC...I guess it threatens your extreme right wing prejudices.

PP,

The problem with the ABC is not just that its reports are slanted to the left, it is also that the ABC often actively pursues an activist agenda. A typical example is the series of reports and discussions on the welfare of a Iranian woman pregnant with twins supposedly in detention on Nauru. The source of the story was an unnamed "Activist". The reality was that there was no pregnant Iranian woman, and the whole beat up was due to an ABC journalist who was not prepared to corroborate a story from a dubious source and was only too happy to push the leftist agenda.

Hiring conservative reporters is not the answer to a tax payer funded left wing mouthpiece. The problem resides directly with the editorial staff and the management.

Bill presumably thinks that the more words he uses, relevant or not, the more convincing he will be.

In paragraph 2 he says "Take the recent "fact check" that had to do with Tony Abbott's claim that marriage has always been about one man and one woman. That happens to be quite true. Have there been some rare exceptions along the way? Sure, but exceptions do not make the rule."

He then goes on to talk entirely about homosexuality (hoping we won't read the ABC article, which also gave prominence to polygamy), about the sexual orientation of its authors (irrelevant) and about Nero's character (irrelevant).

For those not terribly well informed, but who are more interested in the facts than Bill, polygamy has been a great deal more than "rare exceptions" to the rule of one man, one woman marriages. I don't have scholarly references to back that up (actually Bill doesn't bother with any scholarly references either) - but I've had friends my age who were brought up in polygamous households.

Bill obviously hopes that his rant will discredit the ABC - if you got that impression, read both articles again, and see if you can find anything in the ABC article that Bill shows clearly to be wrong.

And Bill - you might have deceived me if I'd only read your article once. and not read the ABC article - but should you, as a Christian, be trying to do that?

Ye Gods another Christian(i use the word loosely)sticking his nose into other peoples business,as long as it has no effect on you Bill mind your own bloody business.
You get sick of the Bible bashes filling kids heads with BS and egged on by the ignorant and uninformed on here.
Your entitled to believe what you want Bill even if you cant prove a word of it, cause you know it was made up by a bunch of blokes with no sense of humor.
GO AWAY

Democritus,

I don't know where you are getting your info, perhaps direct from Andrew Bolt or Piers Ackerman but...
16 October 2013, 02:28PM Amnesty International web site

"Amnesty International is calling for the immediate removal from detention of two pregnant women currently detained in the Nauru Regional Processing Centre."

Also...
theguardian.com, Tuesday 15 October 2013 12.44 AEST

"A second pregnant woman is being held in immigration detention on Nauru, the UNHCR has confirmed to Guardian Australia.

The woman, of Rohingya descent, is thought to be about 30 years old and is seven months pregnant with twins, according to UNHCR and other sources who did not want to be identified."

I can't see any evidence of poor reporting by the ABC can you? These are independent articles on the issue so your bias is showing.

So if you are going to give examples of the "tax payer funded left wing mouthpiece" at least get your references right!

Oxymoron; ABC factcheckers.

The stewards of the ABC have trashed it's reputation. They are by large majority Greens voters, i.e. radical liberals (central government domination of all aspects of human life), and by self-selection exclude conservatives and diverse perspectives.

Captured by a strange mixture of deformed Christianity and reconstructed Marxism, and now a billion dollar bureaucracy unaccountable to any minister let alone their charter - they must mean to us the end of our ABC's, barring massive purging of staff and decentralisation.

The loss of a true public voice has only played into the hands of the plutocrats they claim to oppose with: regulation, redistribution, social amelioration and global government. The rise of omnicompetant state, ABC-Greenism, works hand in glove with the plutocracy.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/tocqueville-on-the-individualist-roots-of-progressivism/

"The liberation of humanity from all partial and mediating groups and memberships finally culminates in what Tocqueville famously calls “the tutelary State”—the rise of a new form of tyranny, “democratic despotism,” particularly chilling because it comes about not through the imposition of force and violence, but at the invitation of an individuated and weak democratic citizenry. No longer able to turn to the old orders and organizations to which he might once have belonged, “he naturally turns his eyes toward the huge entity which alone stands above the universal level of abasement”—the State—amid his individuated weakness."

Silly young graduates of Australia's dark schools of journalism have a well salaried sheltered workshop in the ABC, the grubby secret of politics is that both sides benefit from a massive spruiker of central government and federal politics. The ABC is simply a ridiculous green-left church - the lie that they're disinterested public servants has been completely absorbed into hypocrisy. The ABC can't be reformed now, which is a huge public loss. Royal Commission time.

WTF Martin,

Unbelievable diatribe from you that is incoherent codswallop!

"The stewards of the ABC have trashed it's reputation. They are by large majority Greens voters, i.e. radical liberals (central government domination of all aspects of human life), and by self-selection exclude conservatives and diverse perspectives. "

Get a grip...on the board are three AOs, 1 x AC, 1 x AM and a QC. You could not get further from "The ABC is simply a ridiculous green-left church - the lie that they're disinterested public servants has been completely absorbed into hypocrisy." if you tried. Most are LNP appointments and even if you look at individual programming balance; on any episode of Q and A or Insiders there is more often than not more LNP spruikers than Green or Labor combined. Even the odious Piers Ackerman, Gerard Henderson and before he got his own gig, Andrew Bolt are regulars.

I think you need help if you seriously believe your comments.

@Peter King. The fact remains. There are no conservatives in a news or broadcast role at the ABC, none. The sop called 'Counterpoint' implies even soft moderate/conservative liberalism is somehow fringe. The people you call odious or 'regulars' represent the beliefs of millions of Australians, and are outnumbered in those programs you mention 3-8:1 by secular liberals, giving the impression to the weak minded that conservative beliefs are marginal or politcally partisan. The voting behaviour of ABC employees has been measured it is overwhelmingly Green Party. This egregious bias isn't news, a person has to want to be deceived at some level to not recognise the state of the ABC and news media.

Here are some more numbers: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-03-023-f

".. The numbers are mind-boggling: 43 stories on secularist Democrats, 682 stories on traditionalist Republicans. In 1992, the Times alone published nearly twice the number of stories about Evangelicals in the GOP than both papers did about secularists among the Democrats for the entire decade. The bias is even worse among television journalists, ..
.. The message was clear: Traditional religion makes people oppose abortion, vote Republican, and adopt intolerant attitudes. There was no similar connection between devout secularism and its link to pro-abortion fervor, Democratic loyalty, and anti-religious prejudice. “And thus it is not surprising,” say the authors, “that ANES survey results indicate that the more attention a person pays to the national political news media, and especially to television news, the more likely is that individual to believe that Christian [traditionalists] are ideologically extreme and politically militant.”

Ombudsmen for the NYT and WaPo http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/worlds-thickest-bubble/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/our-american-pravda/

It goes on and on . . academia http://mangans.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/princeton-donors-were-99-to-1-for-obama.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html? http://mangans.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/liberal-privilege-in-academia.html

And Hollywood 8min undercover Ben Shapiro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcPvGJMZPsk

The ABC are in denial, if they want a platform for their elite culture war prosletysing they should do it on their own dime. At present they are a public disgrace and their hypocrisy, of historically grievous magnitude. Royal Commission time.

@Martin,

Are you discussing secular versus religious beliefs or partisan political leanings?

Please provide evidence for "The voting behaviour of ABC employees has been measured it is overwhelmingly Green Party. This egregious bias isn't news, a person has to want to be deceived at some level to not recognise the state of the ABC and news media. "

I don't doubt that Piers Ackerman or Andrew Bolt or Gerard Henderson share/represent the beliefs of a large number of Australians.

The fact I find their views offensive does not negate their right to have their views...but I can find no evidence in your comments that they are repressed by the ABC. Rather they are often given more opportunities to extoll their opinion on Q and A than the opposition; usually results in my turning off the TV or at least screaming at Tony Jones for not challenging their statements.

if there was no ABC how would alternate views, shared by at least 48% of the population, be able to be heard? Certainly not via Murdoch press, certainly not on 2GB, nor on Sky News, Channel 7 or Nine.

We would then have curtailed democratic free speech.

Peter King, "if there was no ABC how would alternate views, shared by at least 48% of the population, be able to be heard?"

Even if what you allege is correct, that media corporations responsible to shareholders and Australian law censor and present a slanted view, where is it in the national broadcasters charter to do as you say, ie represent 'alternate' views?

Apart from that, having watched the most recent Q&A, those 'alternate' views you talk about are certainly in abundance on the ABC, if the treatment of Peter Hitchens is anything to go by. If the roles were reversed the Left would be up in arms claiming that the show was loaded against him from the start. Not to forget either how others were allowed by the compere to talk over him while he was speaking. The compere not helping either by interrupting or applying the guillotine if Hitchens managed to hold his head up while swimming against the tide.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3868791.htm

onthebeach,

"Even if what you allege is correct, that media corporations responsible to shareholders and Australian law censor and present a slanted view, where is it in the national broadcasters charter to do as you say, ie represent 'alternate' views?"

I am not saying they should only present alternate views but should allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest.

It is a bit rich to suggest that because Jones allows panelists to talk over each other he is unhelpful; watch Christopher Pyne in action on QanDA every couple of months. In respect of Hitchens, I would have to re watch it but I think he did his fair share of talking over the other panel members such as Don Savage and some "off camera" snide comments directed at Germaine Greer...but how does that demonstrate left wing bias? Is the topic of homosexuality really your bench mark for assigning the "leftist ABC" label?

Ah that is it isn't it? You are offended by frank discussion and you respond by passing it off as partisan commentary. Perhaps instead of on the beach you're actually below the high water mark.

Peter King,

You know that Christopher Pyne was not on the panel. He is an irrelevancy introduced by you to divert attention away from the obvious loading of the panel four to one against Peter Hitchens. The other four being Germaine Greer, Hanna Rosin, Dan Savage, and of course the very 'progressive' Tony Jones himself.

In the end, Dan Savage outed himself as the usual egocentric, bullying bigot that one is accustomed to encountering in political activists and the rest of that overblown side of the panel did not present much better and they chortled gleefully at his potty mouth excesses.

Your catty, dismissive post is a good example in microcosm of what happened with the Q&A panel. In the end it was freedom of speech that brought Savage et al undone, as their hubris encouraged by the permissiveness of Jones revealed their bigotry, supreme self-interest and half-baked ideas.

Perhaps Jones did a good job after all, even if the outcome was probably not what he had intended. After all, give them enough rope..

@Peter King. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-easy-being-green-at-the-abc-survey-finds/story-fn59niix-1226647246897 The ABC has a legislative duty, instead of fulfilling this, its culture of evangelical secularism, (the Green's Party has only marginal support in the Australian communiity) prompts anxious program stacking and exclusion/demonisation of the view it feels most threatened by. They are allergically anti-Christian and therefore anti-Western civilisation http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/print.aspx?article=5&loc=b&type=cbtp and anti-family 'Family Diversity and Political Freedom' (Family Research Council) http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09H36.pdf it's clear the organisational culture is too far gone to reform itself. It needs outside intervention. A Royal Commission.

To not do this is extraordinarily dangerous, as this extent of group think always is. We can categorise them quite simply - 'The New Ruling Class' [Cater]. Turned in on itself and its own imperatives it is diminishing and dividing us - acting as counterfeit established church imposing its disciplines, authorising whatever expands temporal and spiritual domination of central/global late-stage liberal government they're umbilically connected to. Spectacularly critical of all concentrations of power they're in competition with, blind to the massive one proximate to them. Spectacularly observant of the hypocrisies of the past - 20/20 vision in hindsight - but utterly incapable of seeing its own hypocrisy. Taxpayer salaried self-interest tied to the prestige and power of this general revenue creating centralised national government. Every issue must needs be lifted up into national/global significance, everything turn on federal-national-global action - issues require a level of analysis that technocrats, gov. experts and graduates of gov. funded journalism schools claim unique competance in. Issues of justice receiving focus by spectacular coincidence are those uniquely favouring the interests of the ruling class http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print.

A reminder of our context, one that will never be provided by those spiritually buried in it. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/20/3763423.htm or again Patrick Deneen http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/patrick-j-deneen/

The ABC is gross and perilous weight on our public life, their culture warring divides us, and their ideological blindness obscures real internal and external threats. We have finite intellectual resources and they are being squandered attending to the idiocies of the well resourced ABC. Royal Commission time.

Free speech Bill, but gosh, I'm glad your lectures are confined to theological colleges, where the agenda is known. The sad thing is, the agenda is absorbed.

This is what Peter King says the ABC should do. They "should allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest."
 
Speaking of Q&A, this year on 18th February Q&A ran a discussion which lasted perhaps 15 minutes, a good percentage of the entire hour, on the subject of creationism and creation being taught in schools. Yet they did so without asking a creationist to be present on the panel. (?!?) This is the ABC version of ‘balance’.
 
The main guest that night, Prof Laurence Krauss, an atheist physicist and cosmologist, spouted his naturalistic views on the the origins of the universe and mankind. Creationism as a viewpoint was ridiculed and abused. But in their version of 'balance', the ABC couldn’t bring themselves to ask a creationist in to the discussion and hear their view, the view from the other side.
 
What’s wrong with this? Well, I would think it pretty obvious. But I’m probably going to have to explain to Peter King. I shouldn't have to explain it to him because he explains it himself in his statement above, but yet I probably will have to.

If you write a letter of complaint to the ABC, if you ask why wasn't a creationist present when the topic of discussion was creationism, you'll get a one sentence dismissal explaining that, of course we're balanced, we're the ABC. "We said what was so good about our side, then we said how bad is the other side." - the ABC version of balance.

If you write to complain to the media authority, you'll get a Peter King type ABC supporter who closes ranks behind the ABC. He'll give them all benefit of doubt. The ABC can continue unfettered abusing people, creationists, Bible believers, or whomever it is they don't like.

The ABC is answerable to nobody.

It's time for them to go. They're beyond reform.

The national broadcasters publish their broad formal editorial standards, but they have informal policies too and they are not published or discussed. Why not on both counts?

I think you may have answered your own question, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Creationism as a viewpoint was ridiculed and abused. But in their version of 'balance', the ABC couldn’t bring themselves to ask a creationist in to the discussion and hear their view, the view from the other side. What’s wrong with this? Well, I would think it pretty obvious. But I’m probably going to have to explain to Peter King. I shouldn't have to explain it to him because he explains it himself in his statement above, but yet I probably will have to.<<

The statement in question was:

"[They] should allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest."

In what way is Creationism of interest?

Sure, to a tiny fringe group of dedicated folk it is a critical component of their lives. You would not expect (or perhaps you would - there's a thought) Q&A to avoid mentioning UFOs, or alien abductions, or Roswell humanoids, unless the panel contained a ufologist, a conspiracy theorist and a host of "Paranormal TV".

I am aware that creationism is an important project of yours, Dan S de Merengue. But you need to be a little more realistic about its place in the wider world. In this instance, Creationism was discussed in relation to education, which is a controversial subject. Creationism itself, however, is not a topic for rational real-world debate.

It might get a run on ACA or Today Tonight, though, if you found a sufficiently tacky angle. Could be worth a shot.

Pericles,
You ask, 'In what way is Creationism of interest?'

I'll explain, it's something everyone seems to have some kind of opinion on, including you, including me, including the ABC, including Q&A, and including the panelists they invited to speak about it. It's a public issue. I didn't ask the ABC to do a feature on it. I just ask the ABC to do its job properly, which as Peter King explains, is to "allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest." 

On the 18th of February, the ABC failed in that they seemingly deliberately didn't invite participation from one side of the debate. (But such failure has no consequences, as the ABC is answerable to no one, time and again.)

The ABC is incapable of doing its job properly. I await Peter King, or any other rational person to come and try and explain why. 

(If I need to spell it out, the job of the ABC is not to take sides on a controversial issue, but to present all principal viewpoints in a balanced manner.)

DSM

Where in hell would the ABC get a creationist? They presumably don't advertise or appear in Yellow Pages. As mentioned before "public intetest"".is the missing element

I think you will find ctedibilty is a prerequisite

Have another think about it, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, You ask, 'In what way is Creationism of interest?' I'll explain, it's something everyone seems to have some kind of opinion on, including you, including me, including the ABC, including Q&A, and including the panelists they invited to speak about it.<<

Merely "having an opinion" on the topic doesn't qualify. The issue being debated was not creationism itself (sorry, I'm fed up with giving it a capital letter) but the ridiculous concept of teaching it in schools.

We don't "teach" kids about UFOs, even though the subject may get some airplay when an appropriate opportunity arises. We don't "teach" kids about alien abductions, except when the topic crops up in another context. We don't "teach" kids about paranormal apparitions in haunted houses either, even though they may watch Ghosthunters on TV. We simply explain to them that some elements of society find it more comforting to believe in ghosts.

Whether it is acceptable to you personally or not, society in general has decided that teaching children from a relatively scientific perspective carries a great deal more, and lasting, credibility than filling their heads with magic and mythology.

And this is where you are absolutely and categorically wrong:

>>It's a public issue.<<

Creationism is not a public issue. It is a belief system held by a tiny proportion of the world's population, and carries no weight whatsoever in terms of its impact on society. It is very much a private issue, in fact. Creationsism, UFOs, ghosthunting, alien abductions are all privately-held beliefs. Which are all quite permissible in our society - no-one is going to slap you in jail for holding them - but they are not topics for school curricula.

>>If I need to spell it out, the job of the ABC is not to take sides on a controversial issue<<

It is only controversial to you. To most of us, it is about as "controversial" as believing that houses are haunted by the spirits of our ancestors.

And that if we use a special camera, we can see them.

DSM,

Further to Pericles' last post; the ABC has always allowed balance on its panel in respect of mainstream religious issues...despite many of the topics over the years going to an "imaginary friend in the sky".

When Richard Dawkins appeared to discuss his view on the non existence of any God, George Pell was invited to provide the Judeo-Christian balance. The secular and religious views are given equal opportunity in recognition of a large percentage of believers in our society, as should be the case. Had "the ubiquitous worm" been used by the ABC,it is likely to have been a close draw in that particular debate judging by audience reaction.

However, "creationism" is an extreme religious belief and as such does not deserve equal time for an advocate. Therefore the ABC is well entitled to ignore the few proponents.

Peter King, "Where in hell would the ABC get a creationist?"

Same place they get other 'experts' they elevate into the spotlight and give a free taxpayer-funded podium I suppose.

A certain gentleman who had a one man 'national' organisation opposing vehicle in particular 4X4 springs to mind. Described by a politician as one man with a phone and a fax, this fellow was so regularly trotted out that he eventually gained the prominence he craved. The national broadcaster would sensationalise the most silly, unsupported statements he made and front them up to such busy people as the CEO of the NRMA and others to defend, which was an impossible task, since the respondent would have to start at tors to describe the wrong basis of his outrageous claims. Not once did the ABC ever inform its viewsers of the status of this fellow's 'organisation' and its claimed 'national representation and membership'.

Similarly the national public-funded broadcasters TV and radio, regularly give a podium to the grandiosely titled spokesperson of a similarly egg-shell 'national organisation' 'representing' gun control, without ever informing their audiences of its membership, sponsors and so on. Yet the same highly secretive 'organisation', which declines membership could have links with overseas organisations, eg Soros, that are trying to influence domestic politics. There could also be links with NSW Greens.

Further on that to illustrate the publicly-funded national broadcaster's informal but very real and hard-line editorial policy in action, it rarely if ever invites representatives of the many thousands of respectable licensed Australian firearms owners any right of reply. It doesn't even give the Australian Shooters and Fishers Party equal time to rebut the allegations of the secretive one or two persons who are the gun control activists behind the site (and could be on the public payroll themselves).

The taxpayer-funded national broadcasters push 'progressive' politics and they should in all conscience and according to their own editorial policy be up-front divulging that in writing in their programs, goals, editorial policy and in annual reports.

onthebeach,

I am struggling to understand who you are referring to on 4x4 topic...I watch most episodes and this does not come to mind.

Here is a cross section of episodes of the last 6 months (space prevents listing them all and I have ignored leadership debates).

David Knox, Managing Director and CEO, Santos Ltd; Carol Schwartz, Chair of the Women’s Leadership Institute; John Symond, Founder, Aussie Home Loans; Elizabeth Proust, Chair of Nestle Australia; and Graham Bradley, Non-Executive Chair of HSBC Bank Australia. (pretty balanced reps of Australian business (large))

Christopher Pyne, Education Minister; Joel Fitzgibbon, Shadow Minister for Agriculture; Ray Martin, Journalist and author; Wendy Harmer, Editor in Chief, The Hoopla; and Judith Sloan, Economist and businesswoman. (2 conservatives, 1 Labor, 1 comedienne and a journo[leanings unknown])

Barnaby Joyce, Minister for Agriculture; Tony Burke, Labor frontbencher; Amanda Vanstone, Former Howard Government Minister; Vince Sorrenti, Comedian; and Rabia Siddique, Lawyer and Author Equal Justice. (2 cons, 1 Labor, 1 comdian and a lawyer)

Arthur Sinodinos, Assistant Treasurer; Penny Wong, South Australian Labor Senator; Warren Mundine, Chair of the Indigenous Advisory Council; Jeff McMullen, Journalist and author; and Lally Katz, Playwright. (2 cons, 1 labor, 1 journo and 1 playwright)

Clive Palmer, Leader of the Palmer United Party; Mark Latham, Former Federal Opposition Leader; Larissa Waters, Queensland Greens Senator; David Williamson, Playwright; Rebecca Huntley, Social researcher and writer; and Nick Xenophon, South Australia Independent Senator. (1 of each flavour, 1 playwright, 1 social researcher)

Tanya Plibersek, Minister for Health & Medical Research; George Brandis, Shadow Attorney General; Michael Kroger, Former President of the Victorian Liberal Party; Lenore Taylor, Chief Political Correspondent The Guardian; and Graham Richardson, Labor powerbroker turned commentator. (1 Labor, 1 ex Labor "turned", 2 cons, 1 journo)


cont...

Archbishop Mark Coleridge, Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane; Dr Mohamad Abdalla, Imam; Venerable Robina Courtin, Buddhist Nun; Josh Thomas, Atheist, Comedian & Actor; and Deborah Conway, Jewish Atheist Singer-Songwriter. (1 Catholic, 1 Muslim, 1 Buddhist, 1 atheist, 1 Jew)

And on and on it goes, balanced and nuanced but no instance of ideology that I can see so please cite actual episodes that support your contention. You will note that very often there is a panel member(s) that is outside the direct sphere of discussion such as author or playwright or comedian; they provide a viewpoint that frequently reflects the GUP WTF response.

Peter K,
Thanks for a more measured response to my posting. Your former post was entirely unreasonable. Saying that the ABC 'didn't seek the opinion of a creationist because they couldn't find one' is plainly ridiculous (while also reflecting poorly on the ABC's investigative powers.) With five minutes on the Internet, finding a spokesperson for creation becomes within the investigative grasp of even the ABC. Try creation.com. 

The reasons they did not has more to do with their own ABC biases and philosophical leanings.

Sizing the Atheist Pope Dawkins up against Australia's highest ranked Catholic, Bishop Pell, was probably quite appropriate for Q&A. However, when Q&A planned a discussion around creationism, it would be appropriate for them to seek the opinion of a proponent of creation (you'd think). Finding a Bible believing scientist with similar background and qualification in physics and cosmology to present in opposition to Lawrence Krauss would not be hard.

Polls in the US show that creation is a popular, probably majority view. In Australia, it must evidently have some support if university graduates such as school teachers are inclined towards it. In evolution, there is no greater scientific theory championed by academics in ivory towers while appearing more doubtful to everyone else.

Notice the typical ABC dodge. When the ABC feel the need to promote evolution and hammer creation, they bring in an atheist sharp shooter like Krauss. Yet if a creationist asks why they weren't invited to give a counterpoint, or get right of reply, they're sniggered at by the ABC and dismissed on the grounds that there is no issue. Well, I'm sorry, but the ABC can't have it both ways. Either there was an issue worth discussing or there wasn't. And there was an issue being discussed; it appeared on Q&A across the nation on the 18th February. And to the issue, both sides ought to be given a hearing (but apparently not in the ABC's system of 'balanced' presentation.)

I'm thankful that this website, Onlineopinion is fully open and reasonable in its concept of 'balance' in presentation, without undue censorship. Each side of an argument will get a hearing. But this concept of fairness isn't rocket science. For even you, Peter, understand it yourself, and say it ought to apply to the ABC. You said he ABC "should allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest." 

But such a system of fairness and open discussion apparently will not apply to a position found on the wrong side of what the ABC deems politically correct.

Scary statistic, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Polls in the US show that creation is a popular, probably majority view<<

But I'm pretty sure that the figure would have been closer to 100% when the US came into being.

So it would be far more accurate to say that belief in creationism is slowly dissipating, as we learn more and more about our environment, and are able to explore more of the universe around us.

I expect you could track this decline on a graph, if you wanted to, and align its gradient with the greater level of education in our society.

Knowledge is a powerful weapon against a belief in magic.

Dan S,

Your reference to the February 18th program is a furphy.

The discussion was not about "creationism" but whether religion should be taught in science classes.
"So I want to know from the panel what your attitude is towards the teaching of religion in science classes and to Tanya and Greg in particular, what you and your parties will do to stop religion being taught in our science classes? "...Question by Kary harrison at 10:52 into program

"My research has shown some of these organisations teach that men and dinosaurs once lived together, that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that children will burn in hell if they don't read the Bible every day. How might teaching such things to children in state education affect Australia's future? "...Question by Cathy Byrne 12:50 into program.

Neither of these questions needed response by a "creationist" to be unbiased.

Having watched the original program and reread the Transcript it is clear that the panel including Greg Hunt, Tanya Plibersek etc were debating the merit of religion being taught in science. They might just as easily have referred to Judaism for all it was worth.

Pericles,
The debate was never about numbers; it’s about taking sides. (Our tax payer funded national broadcaster is not supposed to take sides.)

Peter K,
Thanks for taking the trouble to look into the transcript of this episode of Q&A. I’ve also seen the transcript. And it’s pretty clear that one of the main issues discussed that night related to the ideas of ‘creation’ as opposed to ‘evolution’ with regards to the origin of life, their value, and place in society.

-Question by KARY HARRISON: I was a bit angry when my son was taught a CREATION ‘story’ about the origin of the universe in his Year 11 physics class at a local high school. … So I want to know from the panel what your attitude is towards the teaching of religion in science classes …?

Answered by TANYA PLIBERSEK: … I don't think there are many scientists who would accept the literal interpretation of the Bible CREATION of the earth.

Answered by (atheist) LAWRENCE KRAUSS: People ring me and say to me: "come to Australia" and giving me a lot of examples in Queensland of the fact of CREATIONISM being used in science class.

-Question by CATHY BYRNE: How might teaching such things [dinosaurs once lived together, that the earth is only 6,000 years old] to children in state education affect Australia's future?

Answered by (atheist) LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I’ve recently, in the United States, just stated that teaching CREATIONISM is child abuse and I think it is. … EVOLUTION is the basis of modern biology and teaching things that are basically lies, even if they are well intentioned, is child abuse. …

Answered by (evolutionist) JOHN DICKSON: … most mainstream Christians are very comfortable with science and with all of the discoveries of science, including the 13.72 billion years ago there was a bang and EVOLUTION by natural selection. … I’ve got plenty of friends who are SIX DAY CREATIONISTS.… I just think they are wrong. Wrong on the science. Wrong on the Bible.

KRAUSS (in response to Dickson’s comment on creationists): There are a lot of people who think that science will remove their faith …that's the same thing that drives the Taliban …

-Question by TIM HUBBELL: Isn't it bad parenting to force your children to learn that people EVOLVED from the ancestors of monkeys without letting them have the opportunity to think about it logically and come to their own conclusion?

Answered by (atheist) KRAUSS: The evidence tells us that evolution happened.

* * *

In summary: according to ABC’s carefully selected panel of ‘experts’:

CREATIONISTS are: liars, child abusers, wrong on science, and wrong on the Bible, motivated by fear like the Taliban, and are holding a minority position amongst scientists (this last one is true, but science is judged by evidence, not democratic vote),

While on the other side:

EVOLUTION happened, 13.72 billion years ago, and is ‘the basis of modern biology’,

This evening was seemingly another vicious beat up on creationists by the ABC. Lots of evolutionists on the panel; not one creationist. Not surprising that the creationists got shafted. Who is giving the balance? Who is putting the other side?

I hope the point is clear. The ABC is duty bound to put both sides of an issue. On this occasion the counter argument was not given; those of the differing view were not even invited to give their side. What disappoints me most is the impression gained when trying to point out this type of imbalance to the ABC, is that they don’t really care. They know who is in charge of this corner of government funding. It’s them. And they’re answerable to no one.

Dan,

Debating with you "creationism" is likely to as rewarding as climate change denier debates. No amount of logic or science can change your mind; this is how beliefs can overpower or suppress reality.

I suggest your beliefs represent less than 1% of the population and so I see no requirement for the ABC to give you and supporters equal time.

Notwithstanding that, what would you have done with the ABC? Would you like it privatised, disbanded or what?

If so do you want to allow this, the "worst government" in Australian history, to go totally unchallenged for the next 3 years? Because there is no commentary on their performance from any of the Murderocracy media.

What, Dan S de Merengue. On everything?

>>Pericles, The debate was never about numbers; it’s about taking sides. (Our tax payer funded national broadcaster is not supposed to take sides.)<<

Does that mean you would similarly require any segment on, say, the activities of the Bandidos to be balanced with the view that they are just a community-minded group of family men? Which is how they see themselves.

http://www.bandidosmc.com/

Or perhaps you expect any discussion on pedophilia to contain an ambassador from NAMBLA?

We do - and should - rely upon the ABC to exercise a modicum of common sense on the issue of taking sides. Don't you think?

Peter K, Pericles,

Fair questions.

I agree that I would expect the ABC to be discerning in apportioning appropriate time to various views. At some point they'll have to make some judgement calls. But look what happened in this (not unusual) situation. The ABC gave time and prominence to hard line atheist, Lawrence Krauss, who used the occasion to label his intellectual opponents as 'child abusers', and aligned in their thinking with 'the Taliban'. Is that being discerning? Such an extremist view would hardly represent more than 1% of the population. 

As Onthebeach noted before - 'right of reply', the ABC has never heard of such a thing.

The point is that if Krauss can get so hot and bothered about a subject, there must be something brewing somewhere. So why won't the ABC let us hear the other side?

On the subject of life's origins, most people, even most scientists, happily and constructively go about their daily routines without it being in the forefront of their concerns. So it makes sense that the ABC does not run a creation evolution debate every day or every week. But when it does present the issue, it needs to present the whole issue reasonably and fairly.

Broadly, the issue divides into three camps: 
1) those who are creationist (the belief that God created the universe);
2) those who are evolutionist (the belief that physical processes alone gave rise to our universe);
3) those who attempt a theistic evolution compromise (God somehow created without getting too involved).
The people who take a genuine interest in these three views are roughly equal in number in my experience.

So I'm not asking for equal time. I'm looking for proportionate time. But precisely WHEN has the ABC ever presented the issue fairly?

I've read the ABC code of conduct and other such documents. They sound good in theory. It's the practice that bothers me.

It would be sad if the ABC had to be disbanded. For one thing, they give excellent cricket commentary. When teams come to play Australia from Asia or the West Indies, there's no slander or bigotry served against teams of other ethnicities. They even invite guest commentators from the visiting nations giving the commentary a more well rounded perspective. Perhaps we could let the cricket commentary team do the news and current affairs, or maybe let them teach the others the meaning of the words 'balanced presentation'.

I'm not saying that commercial media is balanced. But it's driven by the need to satisfy their customers. At least there's a sense of democracy in that. But if the ABC only exists to satisfy the concerns of their own select elite, then we don't need it.

Bible believing Christians such as Muelenberg and I are tired of what's served up as being 'in our best interests' and 'in good use of our tax dollars', from people who people supposedly know better than what we do. Unless the ABC can have a big shake up, then we're better off without it.

Are we talking about the same thing, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Broadly, the issue divides into three camps:
1) those who are creationist (the belief that God created the universe);
2) those who are evolutionist (the belief that physical processes alone gave rise to our universe);
3) those who attempt a theistic evolution compromise (God somehow created without getting too involved).
The people who take a genuine interest in these three views are roughly equal in number in my experience.<<

I don't see a problem (nor, I suspect, does the ABC) with the belief that God created the universe. Christianity is a widely-held belief system, one that does not in any way affect the fact that the universe has been around for 13.8 billion years, and the earth for 4.6 billion.

Your idea that there is a need for "compromise" is erroneous, except for the very small number of people who take the bible semi-literally, when estimating the age of the earth.

The idea that the earth came into being 6,000 years ago is a singularly minority view, and to teach it to young people is simply irresponsible. I suspect it was that angle that the ABC felt required no rebuttal.

Yes, Pericles. We do seem to be talking about different things. But I know whose side you're on. You'd do well down there at the ABC, helping Australia to decide what's good for us.

I'm thinking of the gravity of what took place. 

On the evening of February 18 this year, during a nationwide television broadcast, guests of the ABC said that I and people who believe what I do are: liars, child abusers, and motivated by fear similar to the Taliban. (See the transcript above.) Can we think of any worse insults than those three?

The ABC said these things without allowing for anyone to be there to represent our view on the night, without offering any right of reply, without apology. When we write to complain, they tell us to we have nothing to complain about. "Our broadcast was fair and reasonable."

The ABC and their supporters say the numbers of those holding our beliefs within society were too small to deserve representation on the night, but obviously not so small that we shouldn't be vilified, denigrated, and abused.

This is behaviour consistent with the words bigots or bigotry. You have to wonder what the B stands for in ABC.

I understand that you might be somewhat aggrieved at the tone of their observations, Dan S de Merengue.

>>...guests of the ABC said that I and people who believe what I do are: liars, child abusers, and motivated by fear similar to the Taliban<<

But there's really nothing controversial in what they actually said. Certainly, not sufficient to justify the accusation of bias that you apply to the programme content.

You need to see it in context.

No-one really has much of a problem that you believe in young earth creation, that's entirely your prerogative. But at the same time it is entirely reasonable to object to anyone presenting it to children as factual material.

It is not factual, it is entirely a faith-based issue.

In order to believe it as you do, it is necessary to apply a literal interpretation to the Bible. In order to take the words of the bible literally, it is necessary to accept its religious foundations. In order to accept its religious foundations, you need faith. Ergo, young earth creationism cannot be described as factual.

Therefore it was entirely accurate to describe teaching young-earth creationism as promulgating lies - that is, passing off a faith-based belief as factual. And it is not a particularly controversial to describe the teaching of lies to impressionable minds as a form of abuse. Not the physical sort, of course, but it is a term that does not need any particular justification, or deserve a rebuttal.

And the concern that science will drive out faith is evident - palpable, even - in every six-day creationist. How could you possibly object to that description? And how could you possibly deny that it is the same fear that drives the Taliban to adhere to the most egregious application of their religious beliefs?

No case to answer there either.

Peter King. Are you there? I was hoping you might avail yourself of the final word. Are you not going to defend Your ABC?