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.