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?