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.