Good article and yes the ABC's constant and blatant bias and left-of-left wing propaganda is nauseating.

There is no reason why government should be running radio and television services and the ABC should be abolished immediately. The argument that it is justified to provide services that commercial stations won't, is the same as saying that it is necessary to provide services that no-one is willing to pay for. Why? Why is that a legitimate function of government? Why should people be forced to pay for services they don't want or aren't willing to pay for? How could such end up as anything but propaganda? Even if it was majoritarian propaganda, so what, why is that desirable?

Why is it not a complete solution that those who want the ABC's services pay for it voluntarily, and those who don't, don't?

"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent the mistakes being made". But it is what constitutes a mistake. Global warming is a left wing conspiracy to a conservatives as are other progressive policies.

Policies have to be measured by how they benefit the common good, not by the narrow bias of an ideology. This also applies to authors like G K Chesterton.

Lea Sales' interview with Malcolm Turnbull last night should have been enough to calm any thinking person--as opposed to hysterical nationalists. Hyperbolic and paranoid nationalism is what Abbott is spruiking and appealing to and there's plenty of that in OZ.
Perhaps the ABC's alleged left-wing bias, compared with the population at large, reflects a proportionately better educated set of people, or a preparedness to think critically (as journalists are meant to do!). Education should always trump prejudice, whereas on this issue too, Australian populists, including our prime minister, cynically appeal to popular fears and prejudice.
Abbott knows he's on safe (popular) ground turning humanitarian issues into matters of national sovereignty, even if most of his own party squirm uncomfortably with it.
The ABC refuses to waive the flag in mindless (unreflective) celebration--of nothing but good fortune and schadenfreude--and is condemned for being "unAustralian". If being Australian means arrogance and a pull-the-ladder-up mentality, I'm with the ABC.
If Abbott's stance on such issues gets popular support it's just another instance of the failure of democracy.

Democracy appears to be working fairly well at present, even though it isn't well supported by the ABC or the lefties of the parliamentary press gallery. It is all very well for the ABC to adopt the high moral ground and follow the lead of the Guardian, but when the timing of these revelations makes it look like the blame lies at Abbot's door one rightly questions the motives of the ABC. I didn't see any genuine attempt by the ABC to shift the blame to those to whom it rightly belonged.

David

even if most of his own party squirm uncomfortably with it.
Squeers,
did you just make this up now ? Where's that party lot that squirms ? I think it's just wishful thinking of some ALP lemmings.

Hi Jai,

Interesting ideas. Thanks.

Are you up for a chat? If so, where can we find that "recent survey" on the political inclinations of ABC staff?

How recent, Jai?

According to Sarah Homewood's research that was not the case in 2012. And indications since then suggest that the shift towards strong pro-Coalition affiliation has accelerated dramatically. In the News and Current Affairs units, anyway.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/25/speaking-of-media-independence-how-does-aunty-fare/?wpmp_tp=1

Happy to discuss further, Jai.

Cheers, AA

Yes perhaps we should ask the USA Koch brothers and anyone associated with the USA Republican Noise Machine re the best way to abolish and/or privatise the ABC.
Meanwhile re the real threat to democracy by the REAL elites (that is the captainns of finance and industry) especially in the USA, and as promoted by the Koch brothers and ALEC too everyone should become thoroughly familiar with the writings of both Henry Giroux and Chris Hedges.
Australia is of course very different to the USA but I would argue that we are slowly heading in the same direction, and NOT because of the chardonnay swilling inner city left wing "elites" or chattering classes who have no REAL power

Speaking of the USA Repugnant party they are certainly leading the way in deliberately dis-enfranchising thousands of people who by tendency vote for the Democrats. They are doing so by putting in place rock solid legislation based gerry-mandering mechanisms which make it virtually impossible for Democrats ever to be elected, and which grossly distort the way in which the USA President is or can be elected.

yep the denialist are out. The same ones that will be resisting a proper look into the crimminality of unions, the same ones that want perverted marriage introduced in society, the same ones that hate Israel, the same ones that scream at a shark being killed while thousands of unborn babies are slaughtered yearly. To be paying huge wages for the likes of Jones to smirk at anything half decent is obscene.

Could it be that 40% of journalists in general belong to or favour the Greens? Could it be that journalists in general are well-educated individuals with a good grasp of the political situation who realise that the Greens have sensible policies that are good for Australia and the world?

There is no reason that journalists should be representative of the less well-informed general population. If they were they would be of little use. There is no reason that the ABC should defer to corporate interests as the commercial channels which depend on advertising do. I think the ABC is great as it is. Whatever party is in power tends to whinge about the bias of the ABC against them. That means the ABC is an effective watchdog which is what bugs the government whatever party is in power.

Well I suppose this will come as no surprise. Murdock has made a big investment in the Liberals and he is a canny operator. The expected return of course is a diminishing of the ABC's capacity to produce content free from outside influence. Talk about paying the piper.

I have friends who work in the Murdock press at an editorial level and they are seeing a stripping of quality, investigative journalism, the kind that protects individual freedoms and challenges the powerful. Any citizen from whatever side of politics they might lie should be seeking to preserve the independence of the ABC because in many ways it is the final preserve of those seeking transparency, the kind of which is vital to any decent democracy.

SteeleRedux, "I have friends who work in the Murdock press at an editorial level and they are seeing a stripping of quality, investigative journalism, the kind that protects individual freedoms and challenges the powerful."

Of course you do. Storytelling on the world-wide web is full of possibilities. LOL

"Research has shown.."
What research?
Research among members of the IPA and the LNP or is this an example of the alleged biassed comments of which you are accuse the ABC?

This accusation (among many other similar recent government comments) is but an opening salvo in the softening up of public opinion for the intended carve up or dismantling of the ABC and SBS.
Rupert's calling in his favours.

When it comes to public comments about the media, here are but a few -

"You have got to say, when politicians complain about the media, it strikes me as resembling footballers complaining about the umpire" - Tony Abbott July 2011

"I think it's very important that we always have in this country a diverse and dynamic media" - Tony Abbott July 2012

"This is a government which blames everyone else for its problems" - Tony Abbott Sepember 2011

Then again, hypocrisy has always been his strong point.

Hi Alan,

Thanks for taking the time to consider my thoughts on dealing with what many perceive as biased reporting from the ABC.

The research I refer to, which was conducted in the first half of 2012, was conducted by a senior academic at the University of the Sunshine Coast and a summary of the findings can be found here:

http://theconversation.com/whose-views-skew-the-news-media-chiefs-ready-to-vote-out-labor-while-reporters-lean-left-13995

I was primarily interested in the findings concerning the ABC, but it suggests that journalists generally are far to the left of the general population.

It's only short coming is that it was a small sample size of ABC staff, but I expect quite indicative of a what could be expected if the sample had been larger. Of course that is purely an educated guess.

Regards,

Jai

And how do you ensure balance?? There is a number of ABC "reporters/commentators" that could be labeled "right wing".

Dear onthebeach,

To make the story more unbelievable one of them is coming over next Friday, to join a few other unbelievable types including a one (if he gets off his arse this time) who was quite senior in the Age's finance department for many years, for a card night.

Frankly I will not care how imaginary they are as long as their money is real.

But did you have anything to say on the topic of the ABC or did you just drop in for a dig?

Fortunately the intellectual capacity of ABC journalists is well above that of the average citizen.

Anyone capable of clear, analytical, thinking would find problems with the views expressed by David Flint or any of his disciples. They probably thing that Adam Smith was an advocate of markets dominated by large corporations. Smith's butcher, baker and brewer in a village is a far cry from the present situation.

The comment made earlier on the Koch brothers and the dopey tea party members is very much to the point.

I have tried to encourage people commenting on this type of article on this site to do some pertinent reading. I suggested the speech by Dr Stephanie Kelton, Chair (Dean) of the Economics Department, UMKC and a few other blogs at neweconomicperspectives.org. They might also learn from the book The Entrepreneurial State written by Professor Mariana Mazzucato of the University of Surrey.

Jardine K. Jardine

I disagree, public broadcasting is a classic case of a public good, which the market will not provide efficiently, especially for high-quality and specialist programs. Commercial TV does not make money selling programs to audiences, but by selling audiences to advertisers. In this instance, there is no “market” for me to pay for high-quality news, documentaries and current affairs progammes that the ABC, for all its bias and peculiarities, does far better than the commercial channels (or, even better, buys from the BBC!).

The ABC could do with some reform, but I don’t think it should be sold or closed.

As to those who think that ABC journalists’ left-wing bias reflects their superior intelligence, it is interesting to note that the occupation groups most likely to vote Labor are overwhelmingly unskilled or semi-skilled:

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/party-vote-by-professions-december-2012-201306140318

The original business case for establishing the ABC was pertinent way back then, but could it make a similar case now where there are so many sources of news, information, culture and whatever? The Net is widespread and accessible.

What about the SBS?

Is it absolutely necessary to maintain two publicly-funded national broadcasters with all of the duplicated management overheads and infrastructure?

SBS seems to have sorted its funding and it doesn't recycle as many BBC programs. Why not combine the ABC with the SBS? Where the public is continually being asked to tighten belts and user-pays is the rule not the exception, why shouldn't the two publicly-funded national broadcasters be doing their bit?

Two separate entities is stretching it.

In any event the public is sick to death of so much politics and 'current affairs' shows on Aunty.

Interesting link, Rhian. But did you look at the Greens voters? Arguably much smarter than the Liberal voters.

The idea that the Left-leaning among us tend to be more intelligent is a bit more than a passing musing: http://tinyurl.com/kavpghl

With the exception of a couple of the Greens voters, I think the comparison you've linked to more supports the idea that voting is influenced by a person's employment.

AJ
yes, I agree about occupations
I don't actually think Labor voters are uneducated, but nor do I accept the idea that ABC journos are left-wing because they're brighter than the rest of us.

Hi Jai,

It looks like the government is not going to go head to head with the ABC and SBS ideologically. The terms of reference however, seem to leave little doubt the ABC will soon cease to exist as we know it?

They are set to go through the ABC like the proverbial “dose of salts”.

ABC AND SBS EFFICIENCY STUDY: TERMS OF REFERENCE

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/01/mark-scott-managing-director-of-the-abc-published-this-statement-yesterday.html

Whatever the electoral system, it should ensure the equal representation of states and not fail to neglect regional Australia.

I don't think this sentence says what you meant it to say.

'Fortunately the intellectual capacity of ABC journalists is well above that of the average citizen. '

Foyle sums up the attitude of the 'progressives'. So intellectual that they swallowed the gw fantasy hook line and sinker, so intellectual that they bad mouth the Australian navy before checking any facts, so intellectual that it is full of anti Israel bigots, so intellectual that they ignore truth consistently in favour of political correctness, so intellectual that they ignore the diseases involved in the lifestyles they promote, so intellectual that they fail to see how small minded and bigoted that their worldview has kept them in. Intellectual? No just predictable dogmas.

Hi again Jai,

Thanks for that link. An interesting read indeed.

No, I don’t think the sample size of ABC staff is the only problem with that survey, Jai. One major problem would seem that of the 89.5% who responded to the survey, “less than two-thirds of the journalists ... revealed their voting intention.”

If, as anecdotal evidence suggests, the ABC News and Current Affairs teams have had strong recruitment over the last three years of committed pro-Coalition activists, then naturally those recruits might be reluctant to respond.

So already it's not possible to draw any conclusions, is it?

The other major problem is the reality that many of those 'journalists' contacted work for Murdoch’s News Corp, which has been shown to employ staff who routinely lie – in court under oath, in their written articles, to Parliamentary inquiries, to the Press Council and elsewhere, as required.

[There is another piece here at OLO today with further evidence of this.]

Out of interest, Jai, can you point to a recent example of an ABC News or Current Affairs report which you believe showed inappropriate bias towards the Greens or Labor?

There would seem several available of bias towards the Coalition.

Thanks, Jai. Good to chat.

Cheers,

Alan A

The relevant sample for the ABC is the remuneration its propagandists receive:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/on-air-and-off-the-abc-spares-no-expense-on-its-stars/story-e6frg996-1226763878649#

The ABC is a propaganda outfit; it's bias is palpable and could be taken from Sarah Hansen-Young's collection of quisling comments about various issues.

The cost of the ABC is not just the $1.2 billion but the effect its bias has on shaping policies which cost Australia dearly:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/can-australia-afford-abc.html

If the left and the greens want the ABC to continue so badly they should support it financially as Wood does with the Global Mail; oh that's right he's pulled the plug:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/global_mail_dies/

There are about 12 million adults in Australia; if they all put in a 100 bucks the ABC could continue. Let the lefties put their money where there mouths are for a change instead of bludging off other people.

In any artistic or intellectual group you'll find leftwing views are prevalent. This applies to the ABC. Its as it should be.

Even if I disagree with ABC lefties I'm more comfortable that they're on the Left rather than having intolerant, limited conservative views.

Turfing out ABC talent just because its not in accord with the Government of the Day's political flavor would severely handicap the ABC.

I recall a good female journalist being sacked from the ABC in 2002-2003, on Howard's orders, just because she opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Drawing ABC talent on a state-territory quota basis would dumb-down talent. The Labor Party always suffers in quality from picking Ministers on a State and Wing Factional basis.

Sounds like some of you would rather get your information from newspapers owned by an American,who is a Briber,perjurer,phone hacker, police briber,all round liar.
If you want that view watch FOX NEWS you will have to pay a lot of money for but it should make you all very happy,Murdoch's Tea Party boys have wrecked the Republicans in the US & given enough time will destroy the Liberals.
The commercial networks have news programs as well,trouble is they are aimed at people with the metal capacity of a 10 yr old, which pretty well describes the Right in Australia including Abbott.
Abbott will dig his own grave soon enough and putting some clown on her to write articles about something he knows bugger all about astounds me,anyone who hangs around and follows those comedians in Cando and whats more believe what the head clown Flint has no credibility
Not sure who wrote his bio but he looks like another wet behind the ears boy who has bugger all experience out side of his chosen group,speaking of CANdo how is the Dictator Newman going in QLD,also Bernardi the nutcase if you dont like the ABC dont watch it,just leave it to the 70% who trust it on NEWS which is a damm sight than trust Murdochs papers and Bolt the Racist

John Ryan,
As it happens I just watched an ABC journo interviewing Newman about a 3/4 hour ago. Newman put the journo in place after he became stupid in his questioning.
I mean it's a bit rich having an asexual questioning the Premier about bikies.

Ha ha John Ryan; what a litany of clichés, slogans and leftie junk.

If you want the ABC you PAY for the damn thing.

I don't have to watch Murdoch and I can inform myself.

The supporters of the ABC just don't get it; it is an outlet for hard left and Green ideology. Why should people who recognise this ideology for the pernicious rubbish it is have to pay for it?

Cohenite,
I am a lifetime LNP voter and also a lifetime ABC listener/viewer.
At various times in my life it was all there was. It has served me well, kept me informed and entertained over the years.
Nothing is perfect, to expect it to be so is foolish. I take what I want from the ABC as I do any media source.
SD

runner,
I often wonder if you have ever read anything but religious tracts and right wing economic nonsense such as Ayn Rand.

You need to get your head around Adam Smith for example but do it properly. Read both his "Wealth of Nations" and his excellent, but difficult to read, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". Some knowledge of up to date economic theory might also provide you with some enlightenment. I've read AYN Rand and Smith and read as much as I can on what might overcome the major problems which threaten the wellbeing of the Australian society.

I suggest the an earlier comment summed up what is happening in our society.

Rupert Murdoch and his minions helped Abbott, Pyne and the others mislead the public into voting them into office with the help of one politician on the other side, who couldn't govern adequately, and couldn't realize that his own interests were much different to the interests of the Australian citizens.

Now the Murdock interests are intent on destroying proper reporting and the right wing government is intent on helping them. It is a "you scratch my back" situation.

Shaggy, I too was a life long ABC listener, & viewer. I used to tune in from even places like Guam.

To day I never turn the radio to the ABC, I just get upset at being lied to. It is impossible for any fair minded person not to see they are being lied to, so it never goes on.

It is only about the last 6 months that the ABC TV news became impossible to watch. It is too painful watching the cogs turning in the head of the silly little girl they have recently inflected upon us. It is so obvious she, & those who direct her do not have a clue about anything but the "arts" that I just can't watch.

Of course, they have to talk crap I suppose, to appeal to twits like the last poster, or have no audience at all

I'v just been in NZ for a three week vacation. No ABC, no SBS and piss-poor TV as a result.
Sometimes she might get up the nose, but let's keep Auntie. She livens up the debate, if nothing else. And ditto for SBS.

The TRUTH is the ABC news and its current affairs shows are in competition with News Limited. So it would be an advantage for News Limited if Tony Abbott cut funding to ABC. So ask yourself which major newspapers backed the Coalition at the last election? And take a guess at what private conversations happened behind closed between Tony Abbott and News Limited. Read between the lines people.

Hands off the ABC rabbott.
This is one thing I, and I doubt I am alone, would be prepared to riot in the streets over.

Right, so the argument is we keep the ABC with all its rotten Green bias because it keeps Murdoch as bay.

Murdoch supported Rudd and has supported many ALP governments. Murdoch has 32% of the news and media print outlets in this country but has 70% of the readership.

And this is why the elite hate Murdoch and want the ABC; the average punter reads Murdoch and doesn't watch or accept the ABC's message.

And we've seen how the elites want to deal with the average guys' choice of media: Finkelstein:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13348

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13900

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13951

The ABC is a vile form of censorship; it uses public money and excludes what the public want to hear and watch and read. It has a preoccupation with fringe issues and in relation to the big issues takes a steadfast Green view.

The ABC is not healthy for our democracy because it does not support that democracy; even Stan Grant agrees with that:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_has_lost_stan_grant/

The ABC has sided with the previous ALP government and its Green masters. It made its choice and did everything to ensure Abbott, a genuine, decent family man was maligned and Gillard in particular escaped any scrutiny.

Anyway, it is a failed media outlet and should face commercial realities and not be subsidised along with equally censorious outlets like the execrable The Conversation.

I am still waiting for one of its supporters to say they would pay for it from their own pocket and how much.

Cohenhite
Any evidence for ' Abbott, a genuine, decent family man was maligned' (any part of it)?

Ha ha, evidence that Abbott has been maligned by the ABC! Count the abc contributors and regulars amongst this lot:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/will_kevin_rudd_be_likewise_asked_to_denounce_this_disgusting_abuse/

You were probably amongst them candide with your snide little comment, "(any part of it)?"

Do you have any evidence that Gillard was subject to any meaningful scrutiny on a personal or policy level by the abc? Of course not it wouldn't enter your closed little mind that Gillard deserves scrutiny.

What grubs the left are; and I know, I used to be one.

@Cohenite,

Your passion is palpable, but your case is not convincing.

The ABC may have been as you describe back in the Whitlam era. Or perhaps during the dark days of Howard’s children overboard treachery.

But haven't you noticed the dramatic shift in News and Current Affairs over the last seven or so years since John Howard appointed then chairman Maurice Newman and current CEO Mark Scott?

Here is one example:

Last September, ABC Lateline introduced Reserve Bank Director and Fairfax Chairman Roger Corbett at the start of an interview. The reporter did not mention he was a Liberal Party member.

First question – paraphrased slightly – Can you please tell us what a disaster Kevin Rudd has been as prime minister?

Corbett went on and on for more than a minute, maybe two, bagging Rudd as “discredited”, “incapable”, “destabilising” and so on.

The reporter followed that up with a hard-hitting “So now tell us how wonderful you think Tony Abbott will be as prime minister” or words to that effect.

Actual wording verifiable here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-04/fairfax-chairman-roger-corbett-attacks-kevin-rudd/4933128

That discussion – which couldn’t have been better written for the Coalition had it been scripted by the IPA – ran 17 minutes and was played on continuous rotation on radio, TV and the website for about 24 hours – until someone complained that Corbett was a Liberal Party member.

The item was then pulled from TV. But when the Labor Party asked for equal time, that was refused.

Barry Cassidy later observed in passing, “Reserve Bank board member Roger Corbett caused a stir when he said Rudd was a leader discredited by his own conduct since being ousted in 2010. But his comments probably struck a chord with the electorate, and with many Labor supporters as well.”

See here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/cassidy-abbott-reveals-his-plan-for-a-more-selfish-australia/4938828

The item aired on the Wednesday before the 2013 election, timing which could not have been better for the Coalition.

So, Anthony, can you recall a similar ABC item which had the effect of promoting either the Greens or Labor that that piece had in promoting the Coalition?

Thanks, Anthony.

Cheers,

AA

Hasbeen,
Yeah I do not watch 7.30 Report that much these days. It does have a slightly hysterical feel to it.
As for listening. Classic FM is about it.
I do get most of my news on line, and from various sources.
Overall I watch little TV and the little I do watch is usually ABC. Much of the entertainment on the commercials is pitched at a younger audience base than one of my years so it has nothing to do with standards, ethics or whatever, plus commercial breaks do little for me.
I just like what I like and have a bias to Auntie as a result.
Guam eh, a bit out of the way.
Take it easy.
SD

I'm sure the ABC was sraping the barrel to find that Leigh Sales. You couldn't get a more tunnel-visioned & opinionated & indoctrinated presenter than her. 7.30 is plumbing new depths with that one on the mic.

Hands off the ABC rabbott.
mikk,
correction, Hands off Abbott ABC. As far as rioting goes don't bother we do have more than enough idiots on the streets already, one more though probably wouldn't make any difference anymore.

Indi,
Nothing is forever and that includes the style of the Auntie and Prime Ministers.
Both are imperfect and are subject to change which has to be a good thing, especially in the case of Prime Ministers who are really only people with over-sized egos, little practicality and a bag full of half baked ideas.
Take it easy.
SD

The ABC and its sister the SBS provide excellent, timely examples of the worth of sunset clauses in legislation. It is a very long time since the ABC was established and even then its formation did not involve any real examination of public need and other options, apart from simply lurching along from its PMG origin.

I have asked a number of times in threads what business case could be made for the establishment of the ABC and the SBS for than matter if either did not already exist today. There have been no takers and for good reason I suspect. Emotion and habit retain the ABC.

Government is expected to expend the taxes it collects wisely, putting first the fundamental purposes for which it (government) was created. The lesson of the stones and sand in the bottle is relevant: if the sand is put in first the stones do not fit. Place the stones in first and a lot of sand can fit. However government is continually giving priority to the populist 'sand' and there is a lack of planning for the very big issues, the 'stones', such as aged care.

I submit that in modern times the publicly-funded national broadcasters are big enough and ugly enough to be set free from government control and from the taxpayer's teat of course. However if some interests demand that the taxpayer continue to stump up for them, that must be under sunset clauses, where these well-fed quangos are annually required to present a proper business case for their continued preferential treatment and public funding.

Where age pensioners and unemployed youth request support, be that a dollar extra a fortnight, parliamentary scrutiny is always tight and never forgotten. Parliament is parsimonious in those cases. What about the ABC and SBS? Will it always be that sauce for the goose is not good enough for the gander?

Shaggy Dog,
It's simply a case of ABC leftie bias overdose & indoctrinated presenters. Too much, time to get out the red hot poker. Also, the insanity of promo playing is starting to reach intolerable levels. Time for some sanity don't you think ?

OTB,
Sunset clauses are inherent in nature.
Everything comes to an end eventually. Some sooner than others. The ABC will fade out eventually, well after Tony Abbot I imagine.
Legislation is usually the result of someone trying to impose their view on somebody else.
Take it easy.
SD

Cohenhite

Using Andrew Bolt as a link to support your 'case' was a joke, no?

I have made no comment about Julia Gillard, so your demand that I produce some sort of evidence to support something I haven't written is just silly.

Alan
Your paraphrase of the Corbett interview is a complete misrepresentation. The interviewer began by referring to a recent poll showing that public trust and confidence in Rudd had fallen below Abbott, and asking why Corbett though that was.

The second simply asks “What about Tony Abbott, what kind of Prime Minster do you think he’ll make” - a rather bland but entirely neutral question.

Abbott’s poll ratings have fallen sharply. If a Labor supporter was asked “why do you think Abbott’s popularity has fallen so sharply since he became PM”, would you regard that as a biased question?

I agree Corbett’s Liberal affiliations should have been identified, though.

Hi Alan,

Jai’s article is framed by the research showing political affiliation of ABC staff. But trying to convince the “customer” that their perceptions about the ABC are wrong, is not a good look.

You depend far too much on “narrative theory” to make your case, which tries to retell your “objective truth” in order to convince the former ABC audiences that their perceptions are wrong. Is you case for ABC based on a moral/value proposition that the rest of us don’t actually share?

To test your ABC narrative theory you would need to make exactly the same case for the Global Mail, The Guardian Australia and Fairfax. Three fine media outlets with closely aligned, if not identical content output as ABC.

It is not the political alignment, the party memberships or organizational affiliations of journalists that matter, it is their output and what their customers “perceive” of it.

Graham Woods has announced the withdrawal of his funding for the Global Mail, The Guardian Australia is sinking into further financial trouble and Fairfax has gone from share value of $5.00 to $0.60c in the last five. The SMH and the Age are now going to tabloid format.

These publications can’t win a sustainable audience because too few customers are prepared to pay for what they offer. Likewise you will have to convince us that the ABC is sustaining its audience and reach by its similar treatment of News and C/A’s. Otherwise your only case is emotional/ideological and/or moral/value based and your narrative theory based rhetoric is invalid.

Top 20 rated ABC program at No14? “New Tricks”, just to add insult to injury there is not one single ABC News or C/A production in that top 20.

So what is the case for retaining the ABC in its current form? The ABC looks like being Australia’s last bastion of left wing propaganda and you want the rest of us to indulge you financially, right?

Your task is to convince Australian audiences to support the ABC not offer the same responses as we get from the ABC when we complain to them.

Turnbull's financial enquiry into waste at the ABC will lead to it being gutted. And good riddiance. Who needs talking heads to be paid 100's of 1,000's of our dollars?

Such a waste.

The ABC does not need to be gutted, as it really needs a new funding arrangement. If possible this should be as efficient and gentle as possible.

What I would suggest would be two tier arrangement, where the programs are streamed as well as being broadcast. The streamed programs would be available at a cost of say 50 cents per week, which should not deter any committed listener.

The programs would also be broadcast in the current manner, but would contain sufficient advertising a la SBS to cover taxpayer costs.

With this model all parties should be satisfied. Those who do not want advertising would only pay 50 cents per week, and everyone else could still watch for free.

As far as bias is concerned, others have stated that you can expect an intellectual/artistic community to be left wing. That is not the problem. What we need is real response, where ABC sacred cows are rubbished.

A prime example would be a serious program discussing the benefits of bringing back hanging. Most lefties are so incapable of a reasoned discussion of this subject that they fall back on emotional words such as "barbaric" to describe it.

The ABC serves us well in presenting ideas, but they need to present a broad spectrum, not just one side.

plerdesus
I'm sure that if the reintroduction of capital punishment was on the political radar the ABC would be in there covering the debate with bells on. It would be broadcasting gold for a range of existing radio and televsion programs.

I can't see it happening in the current economic climate as it is very expensive. Didn't California propose ditching the death penalty purely as a cost saving measure?

Your ‘find’ is farcical Alan.

The ABC is wall to wall anti-conservative; listen to these leftie fools, Faine and Cassidy:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/so_what_if_theres_a_little_union_corruption/

And you really can’t go past this as the symbol of the ABC’s attitude towards anything which it does not approve of:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abcs_trioli_farewells_a_conservative_guest/

Why is Trioli still employed?

Anyway what interests me is AGW and the subversion that ideology is having on the media through the Western world and the distortions that are occurring in policy because of that media influence.

The ABC is the number one advocate for AGW in Australia. It will not host sceptics and promotes AGW unquestioningly. Its main technique is subreption and I remember well in 2008 when the infamous Steig paper on Antarctic warming came out and was treated in usual gushing fashion by the ABC. Of course the Steig paper was a farrago. But the real scandal came after Steig’s paper was published. A rebuttal was submitted for publication which showed Steig’s methodology to be hopelessly wrong but that rebuttal paper took 2 years to be published because Steig was one of the anonymous reviewers. Not a mention from the ABC.

Nothing from the ABC on the email scandal, Gore’s hypocrisy, or Flannery’s weirdness or the failure of renewables or any of the contradictions to AGW. None because the ABC is not a news outlet but a political and ideological advocacy agency. Has it ever broadcast anything bad about the Greens, especially this fool:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/02/01/television-isnt-always-real/comment-page-1/#comment-1174215

And it is full of misanthropes:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

This is what the ABC does, it allows these fringe ratbags to crawl out from under their rocks and gives legitimacy to their junk.

The ABC is a threat to democracy; it has no control or balance but great influence despite not representing the majority of Australians. It gives succour to Islam, the declared enemy of the West, and allows hypocrites, malcontents and weirdos to peddle their mischief.

And the rest of us have to pay for it while getting insulted.

How much are you going to cough up to keep it going Alan?

If we didn't have the ABC, coenhite, you'd have nothing to be angry about and might implode with suppressed rage. I am happy to contribute my ten cents a day to keep you in good health. In fact, I'd cough up twenty cents if it meant fewer repeats and some more local drama.

Good morning all,

@Rhian: Yes, the wording of the questions was not the issue. Concerns were (1) timing of the pro-Coalition promotion, (2) failure to indicate it was a party political announcement by the Liberal Party, and (3) no equal time offered to Labor.

@Spindoc, thanks for that incisive analysis. Most constructive.

To answer the specific questions:

(1) Is your case for the ABC based on a moral/value proposition that the rest of us don’t share?

I no longer believe there is a case for ABC News and Current Affairs to be retained. Quite happy for them to be split off and sold. They now not only run the same pro-Coalition line as Murdoch and Fairfax, but often use Murdoch and Fairfax personnel, including some who have been proven by the Press Council and in courts to be liars.

Yes, I probably do have a moral/value stance others don’t share. It places a premium on accuracy and completeness of information. But that is not unique.

(2) So what is the case for retaining the ABC in its current form?

The ABC is not a monolith. Sections which provide an important service – Parliamentary broadcasts, specialist programs and in-depth documentaries such as Encounter – are justifiably publicly funded. As are TV shows which nurture talent. Happy to flog off the others.

(3) The ABC looks like being Australia’s last bastion of left wing propaganda ...

No. Today, there are some left-leaning broadcasts, just as there are some right-leaning broadcasts. On balance it is now a bastion of right wing propaganda. Witness frequency of commentary by Peter Reith and Amanda Vanstone.

@Cohenite, again your passion is clouding your logical faculties.

Candide is correct. You cannot quote Andrew Bolt without destroying your credibility. He was found by the judge in the Eatock matter to have violated the racial discrimination laws by concocting more than 19 false allegations against Aboriginal people. He and his publisher are convicted racists as well as liars.

He has other convictions as well.

Do you have an actual item, Anthony, in answer to the earlier question?

Thanks,

AA

One of the ABC's values is that it is not perfect!
Its reporting of news and current affairs sometimes makes mistakes, just as the commercial media such as newspapers, radio and TV.
A difference is that many of the population are fed conformity by these outlets, and conditioned to social behaviour, responses, and the acceptance of what is seen as 'usual' content.
When the ABC challenges these populist assumptions, it is berated as 'left wing'.
If that's the case, then the left is right!

So, the validity of my point is negated because the examples of left bias I provide are at Bolt's blog?

Are you denying Faine and Cassidy said what they said? Are you denying what Trioli did? Are you denying that once again Sarah Hansen Young's stupidity and infantile destructiveness didn't happen? Are you saying the ABC has not practised subreption about AGW? Are you saying the ABC has not undermined Australia through its lies and misreporting about the Navy and before that the phone-tapping done by Rudd and Gillard so that Abbott would get the blame? Of course you are because if the ABC did not show them they must not have happened and if the ABC did do it, it must be right!

The leftist Candide offers 20c for the poisonous ABC; typical leftie! It will cost a bit more than that dear; the left are notorious bludgers and I can't see them providing $1.2 bill for the agitprops at the ABC.

If it were simply a matter of the money I'd be happy to pay a large regular sum for the ABC, just as I do for some journals, but unlike the neoliberal minions here I don't subscribe to the pseudo-logic that everything should be privatised. The ABC should remain 100% publicaly funded, indeed funding should be increased so that it could sell more content overseas like the BBC.
The ABC is a sanctuary from the commercialism that inundates our lives and its editorial line is anything but left-wing. It amazes me that people can exaggerate and fabricate some perceived bias at the ABC while the commercial outlets, across the media, with their outrageous bias, crassness and corporate lapdog utterances are aloud to peddle the puerile, bigoted, denialist and otherwise backward agenda their audience (whom I've no doubt they despise) demands.

So squeers, you hate my journalists and I despise yours, right?

The problem is, which you lefties can't get your thick heads around, is that I pay for your propaganda and you don't pay for mine.

So, that makes you a bludger, as I say.

It's a waste of time talking with anyone who can be so delusional as to say the editorial line of the ABC is not left-wing as you do but that aside your elitism seeps through when you say the ABC is a:

"sanctuary from the commercialism that inundates our lives"

And the other anti-corporate shibboleths that now doubt you learnt during your arts/humanities doddle through uni.

This is the point, the ABC supporters are terrible snobs, they supported Finkelstein because like Finkelstein they thought the hoi polio were too stupid and too susceptible to the pernicious private media which needed to be muzzled. They think people are stupid.

But how does that sit with wanting to have a PURE media outlet like the ABC preserved? For one I suppose it sits well with the notion that the left deserve to have their indulgences paid for by other people who are too dumb to understand what the left do.

However, contradictorily, in wanting the ABC to stay open doesn't it speak of the insecurity and the inherent dumbness of the ABC lefties; the reason being unlike the average punter who recognises BS when it is sprayed at him, such as AGW [which MURDOCH SUPPORTS!]irrespective of what media outlet does the spraying, the left NEED the ABC because they are incapable of getting the truth [sic] elsewhere.

Actually I think the left are just irrevocably vain and like their media to be a mirror of what they think and the ABC fulfils that role.

In either case, vanity, stupidity, the left should not be paid for by the rest of us. Bludgers!

There he goes again, sickening ad hom and vitriol from an ideologue 'lawyer' - way to win a case, not.

Hi Alan,

Whilst you are entitled to your perceptions, it is the ABC audience perceptions that count because we are paying customers. If we don’t like it, we don’t support it and are entitled question the business model and its funding.

I asked you the following question;

<< Is your case for the ABC based on a moral/value proposition that the rest of us don’t share?>>

To which you kindly replied <<I no longer believe there is a case for ABC News and Current Affairs to be retained.>>

Pure rhetoric and as such doesn’t answer anything. That’s the problem with rhetoric, it raises more questions than it answers, especially when you’re asked to explain it?

Questions arising:

Why do you no longer believe there is a case for retaining ABC N&C/A?
When did you reach this conclusion?
Is it because it is based upon your moral/value position?
Is it because that position is increasingly rejected by ABC’s own customers?
How do you explain your tactic of changing a moral/value proposition into the metrics of “accuracy and completeness”, which are not “moral value” attributes, they are job description attributes?
Do you see The Guardian Australia, The Global Mail and Fairfax as competitors to the ABC in N&C/A?
If so what do you think the impact will be on these outlets if ABC N&C/A is eliminated?
Should ABC compete with commercial outlets and why?
When you say << I probably do have a moral/value stance others don’t share >>. Who are these “others” to whom you refer?
In retaining Parliamentary broadcasts, do you envisage a real-time CCTV type production or is the ABC political commentary on sessions still required?

I suspect the public is increasingly sensitized to ABC’s rhetoric and is the primary cause of its demise. But at least you have the opportunity to explain your rhetoric.

From Reachtel poll, Canberra Times,

Overall, 32.2 per cent believed the ABC was biased towards the Labor Party, while just 8.2 per cent said it was biased towards the Coalition, 59.6 Neutral.

Pity they didn’t include the Greens?

Turn it off if you do not like it.
My set, radio and TV are fitted with an on/off switch and have a channel selector as well. I thought most did, obviously not.
If I do not like what is on, ABC or Commercial I turn it off or change channel.
I am no intellectual or snob, just an LNP supporter, or was until recently, not too sure what I am since the last election, who watches some ABC and very few commercials.
Take it easy.
SD

How would funding for the ABC and SBS be rated if the public were given the opportunity to list their order of priority, compared against other areas where funding has been declared to be short or unavailable?

It isn't 'Just 10c or whatever a person a day' is it? There are many millions invested in assets that have to be upgraded continually and the millions in running both the ABC and SBS. Why shouldn't the taxpayer be consulted directly and allowed to express a view that takes into account all options and not just be herded into a choice of for or against?

From a check of the TV program alone, public broadcasting - all funded by the taxpayer - has diversified into all sorts of areas where the needs are already being met by private and often free services. Why should ambulances be ramped outside hospital emergency departments waiting for a bed to become available while taxpayers' money is being blown on redundant services? Particularly where the public broadcasters are competing for and serving the same audiences.

Hi again Spindoc,

Yes, all good questions. Happy to respond.

“Why do you no longer believe there’s a case for retaining ABCN&C/A?”

Because the newsroom no longer gathers news. When I was there in the 1980s and early 90s reporters were out and about or working the phones. No-one read newspapers. Fairfax and Murdoch had teams of ‘reporters’ listening to the ABC all day to learn what was happening. Following funding cuts and personnel changes during the Howard years, that reversed. The ABC now reports what the Murdoch papers have already run. Occasionally, the ABC will run something another newspaper has uncovered – such as the spying on Mrs Yudhoyono from The Guardian.

So ABCN&CA no longer offers a unique service.

“When did you reach this conclusion?”

When ABC News started running a continuous stream of stories reporting “The leader of the opposition today criticised the government for …”

That is not news. That is unpaid political advertising. Started in late 2009. Example:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-06/abbott-accuses-govt-of-trying-to-muzzle-free-speech/4179798

“Is it because it is based upon your moral/value position?”

Yes.

“Is it because that position is increasingly rejected by ABC’s own customers?”

Not sure. Hope not.

“How do you explain your tactic of changing a moral/value proposition into the metrics of “accuracy and completeness”, which are not “moral value” attributes, they are job description attributes?”

Can they be both, Spindoc? Hope so.

“Do you see The Guardian Australia, The Global Mail and Fairfax as competitors to the ABC in N&C/A?”

No.

“If so what do you think the impact will be on these if ABCN&CA is eliminated?”

Probably not much if the ABC now just recycles Murdoch’s news.

“Should ABC compete with commercial outlets and why?”

Don’t know. Don’t care. Just want accurate reportage.

“When you say "I probably do have a moral/value stance others don’t share". Who are these “others” to whom you refer?”

Those who disagree with me(!)

“In retaining Parliamentary broadcasts, do you envisage a real-time CCTV type production or is the ABC political commentary on sessions still required?”

No opinion. Have never watched them.

Happy to discuss further, Spindoc.

Cheers,

Hello again,

Everything Squeers says is correct. I could be his evil twin.

@Cohenite:

Yes, the validity of any point is negated if the reference is Andrew Bolt. He has been found by at least three judges and countless other reliable arbiters to be a serial liar. Life is too short, Anthony.

“Are you denying Faine and Cassidy said what they said? Are you denying what Trioli did?”

No, not at all.

“Are you denying that once again Sarah Hansen Young's stupidity and infantile destructiveness didn't happen? Are you saying the ABC has not practised subreption about AGW?”

Just not my area, Anthony. Can’t comment. Sorry.

“Are you saying the ABC has not undermined Australia through its lies and misreporting about the Navy and before that the phone-tapping done by Rudd and Gillard so that Abbott would get the blame?”

Of course it hasn’t. The ABC is one of several outlets which reported what was known. That’s what newsrooms should do.

Yes, there was some misreporting. It should have been made more explicit that Mr Yudhoyono’s outrage was not at the spying – that was old news long since resolved in private diplomatic channels – but that when the illegal espionage became a public scandal in 2013 an appropriate grovel from Australia was required. This came eventually, but far too late to prevent serious damage to the bilateral relationship.

This complex matter is analysed in some detail here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/indonesia-crisis-entirely-of-tony-abbotts-making,5922

Happy to discuss any aspect of this.

Regarding your suggestion to Squeers, “I pay for your propaganda and you don't pay for mine.”

Really? Are you sure? Who pays Andrew Bolt? The advertisers in the Herald Sun who include Woolies, Coles and Dan Murphy’s. Think it through, Anthony.

Finally, I provided a pretty glaring example of a major news story that could only have been produced by a pro-Coalition media team. And another is included in my response to Spindoc, just above.

Can you produce an example of a news item which demonstrates the ABC News or CA support Labor or the Greens?

Thanks. Anthony,

Cheers,

Alan A

Turn it off if you do not like it.
Shaggy Dog,
I want to but they still keep taking it out of my tax.

Alan, you are not on the same planet. To equate taxes propping up a den of green and left propaganda with where you buy your groceries in the market place is too stupid even by your imperturbable standards. Do you understand what choice means?

I've given you Faine, Cassidy, Trioli, the lack of reporting about SHY, the completely biased reporting of AGW, the puerile and defamatory comments about Carter, Monckton, McIntyre. You blithely dismiss the scandalous lack of facts to support the ABC's imputations against the Navy by saying this was what was known; that is garbage, the ABC invented what it reported.

There is so much evidence of abc bias; Red Kerry is a good place to start:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abc-picks-sides-while-the-editor-in-chief-watches-on/story-fn59niix-1225896320487

But it doesn't matter what evidence is produced you don't respond; you are impossible to have a discussion with; you remind me of those punching bags which always comes back to the same spot.

Ozdoc; actually I sympathise with squeer's panegyric about commercial free media but then I can't watch or listen for more than 5 minutes to the smug, arrogant commentators on the ABC with their confected outrage and demonstrable bias.

Every news bulletin I listen to, especially about AGW, I note the lies, the subreption, the misleading support for proven to be wrong evidence and I think if that is the price to pay for being commercial free, it is too bigger a price.

Anyway I'm coming around to Toddlers and Tiaras and Funniest Home Videos. With shows like those who needs the ABC.

Now go off and have a good sook.

Hi Alan,

You’re fast becoming a joke.

My translation of your answers.

Q. Why do you no longer believe there is a case for retaining ABC N&C/A?

A. Because the case I first made was unsustainable and the ABC will get changed by TA.

Q When did you reach this conclusion?

A. When I got hammered on OLO for not commenting on the full terms of reference for the “review”.

Q Is this because it is based upon your moral/value position?

A Yes.

Q Is it because that position is increasingly rejected by ABC’s own customers?

A. Yes.

Q How do you explain your tactic of changing a moral/value proposition into the metrics of “accuracy and completeness”, which are not “moral/value” attributes, they are job description attributes?

A. If I hadn’t tried this trick it would have exposed me to questions of my real moral/value proposition as an “adoptee” of left wing ideology.

Q Do you see The Guardian Australia, The Global Mail and Fairfax as competitors to the ABC in N&C/A?

A. Yes, their output is identical as evidenced by the ABC’s willingness to “collaborate” with them.

Q If so, what do you think the impact will be on these outlets if ABC N&C/A is eliminated?

A. Nothing, they are all doomed to decline because not enough Australians are willing to pay for what they produce.

Q Should ABC compete with commercial outlets and why?

A. Yes, no, maybe. I’m schizophrenic on this. Depends on what you mean by “compete”, “commercial”, “outlets” and “should”?

Q When you say << I probably do have a moral/value stance others don’t share >>. Who are these “others” to whom you refer?

A. Err? Well those who don’t support the ABC of course.

Q In retaining ABC Parliamentary broadcasts, do you envisage just a real-time CCTV type production or is the ABC political commentary on sessions still required?

A. Well the latter of course, we have to retain some political propaganda opportunities. Parliamentary issues are far to complex to be interpreted by the public.

Do the anti ABC OLO crowd want a totalitarian media situation in Australia, that Putin has put in place in Russia?
Do you want to censure the Australia media and free speech in Australia to your political beliefs?
Do you truly support democracy?
Constructive comments are welcome !

How is wanting the ABC curtailed or closed similar to Putin's Russia? Putin controls the State owned media.

The ABC is financed by taxes but supports similar political orientation to Putin. For instance Rhiannon is a communist who supported the Soviets against Alexander Dubcek. The ABC has never criticised her allegiance to communism.

I would think that closing or curtailing the ABC, as a mouthpiece and supporter of the likes of Rhiannon would reduce the chance of Australian media becoming like Russia's.

Anyway even the ABC is starting to think about the bias and poor job it is doing:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_orders_reporters_to_stop_hypeing_boat_people_stories/

That fine bit of reporting comes from Bolt using first sources and checked evidence. What a great reporter and what a shame a labour judge using a bit of labour legislation maligned him.

It would be a great double for the ABC and RDA to go at the same time.

Hello again,

@Cohenite, re: “To equate taxes propping up a den of green and left propaganda with where you buy your groceries in the market place is too stupid even by your imperturbable standards. Do you understand what choice means?”

That is precisely the point, Anthony. You have no choice in paying for the ABC if you pay tax. I have no choice (when in Australia) in paying Andrew Bolt if I want a telephone, a car, petrol, bank account and countless other services provided by monopolies or cartels which advertise with News Corp.

Perhaps I could choose to live without those services. But then so could you choose to live on an income so low you didn’t pay tax.

Re: “I've given you Faine, Cassidy, Trioli, the lack of reporting about SHY …”

No, you haven’t, Anthony. You’ve provided links to the convicted racist and Murdoch’s liar-in-chief Andrew Bolt.

For the third time, can you link to an actual broadcasted ABC item which gives an unfair advantage to Labor or the Greens over the Coalition?

I have already posted two examples of a grossly unfair advantage given by the ABC to the Coalition. Here are four more:

All are still on the ABC News website. Their news content is zero. But they all present then opposition leader Tony Abbott as at the centre of Australian political life, looking extremely prime ministerial. Where are similar election campaign photo promotions for Ms Gillard or Mr Rudd?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/tony-abbott-question-time/4582462

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-04/tony-abbott/4551380

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/tony-abbott-delivers-his-budget-reply/4695102

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-16/tony-abbott/4633424

Is there any possibility these electioneering photo puff pieces could have appeared in an election year spruiking Mr Abbott – with none promoting any other candidate – if the News department was controlled by pro-Labor activists?

Re: “You blithely dismiss the scandalous lack of facts to support the ABC's imputations against the Navy by saying this was what was known; that is garbage ...”

Not at all, Anthony. I have been extremely conscientious in documenting everything meticulously.

Refer here, and please follow all the links so you don’t misunderstand the situation again:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-inadvertent-abbott-governments-indonesian-crisis,6075

Happy to pursue further, Anthony,

Cheers, AA

Do you truly support democracy?
Kipp,
Of course but where do you get one ? You know full well there's no such thing in real life. Just like an unbiased ABC.

Alan this is deja vu; you are trolling; you dismiss or ignore the links and references I make and your links prove nothing.

Your Corbett interview has been critiqued by Rhian at 1/2/4, 11.58.44AM above. It does not support your point about ABC bias towards Abbott. Neither do your latest ones which link to parliamentary broadcasts and a picture of Abbott!

In your bizarro world Alan Orwellian principles apply, white is black.

Your preoccupation with Bolt and Murdoch is neurotic. Faine and Cassidy said what they said; SHY's gaffe at the Senate enquiries shows a lack of understanding which should concern all of us. BUT the ABC did not touch this instead focusing on Bishop's mispronunciation of Rudd's old electorate.

As I linked to before, the ABC's head of news, Gaven Morris, has now warned all journalists about their coverage of the entirely confected Navy scandal. Are you going to say this didn't happen because Bolt reported it?

The subreption [look it up] by the ABC about AGW is a scandal. Faine stated he would not discuss the emails; how does that sit? Jones appears at pro-Green occasions:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/8634/on-the-money-trail-with-tony-jones/

http://asiancorrespondent.com/8634/on-the-money-trail-with-tony-jones/

No where and at no time has the ABC discussed the fact that temperature rise has ceased for 17 years.

And how do you explain the Red Kerry interviews with Keating and the execrable Anne Summer's interviews with Gillard?

What conservative has ever been interviewed?

And why does Trioli still have a job?

Alan Austin, I'm flattered that you deem us politically related.
It's a waste of time arguing with minimifidianists I'm afraid, and cohenite is of course a seasoned AGW equivocator--which makes him impervious to argument generally.
I must say, cohenite, I'm disappointed you don't have any new material to support your denialist dogma. The evidence continues to pile up against you, yet you continue to ignore it. But it wouldn't matter how much evidence there was or how irrefutable; you're not about weighing evidence on any issue, just pushing your barrow.

Hi Anthony,

Just asking if you have a link to an actual ABC News and Current Affairs item which gives an unfair advantage to Labor or the Greens – in the same way as the six items linked above – directly to the ABC website – show clear electioneering for the Coalition.

This is the fourth ask now, Anthony. So you will understand why we think you have no case.

Yes, we will certainly dismiss references to Andrew Bolt. I presume you would similarly dismiss someone calling upon Sarah Hanson-Young as an authority. Except that Ms Hanson-Young has not been convicted multiple times of being a racist, a liar and a defamation artist.

I have no preoccupation with Bolt and Murdoch, Anthony. You are the only one who has made references to Andrew Bolt. Why you would go to a proven racist and fabricator is a mystery. Do you have no-one else?

Have checked your Gavin Atkins link. He has nothing to offer on this matter either. We are just seeking an example of an ABC broadcast which is anti-Coalition – along the lines of the six direct links which are pro-Coalition.

Re: “It [the Corbett interview] does not support your point about ABC bias towards Abbott”.

Really? Then why was equal time not offered to Labor for a secret Labor member on a government board to bag the other side relentlessly for 24 hours?

Re: “And how do you explain the Red Kerry interviews with Keating and the execrable Anne Summer's interviews with Gillard?”

Because they are ex prime ministers, Anthony.

“What conservative has ever been interviewed?”

John Howard here: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/09/09/3313846.htm

And here: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1212701.htm

And here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/john-howard/5224540

And here: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2031023.htm

And here: http://mags118.blogspot.fr/2011/09/interview-with-john-howard-video.html

And there was the ABC's $1million production ‘The Howard Years’ broadcast in 2008.

The ABC would love to interview Tony Abbott, but he prefers being interviewed by Andrew Bolt.

And why does Virginia Trioli have a job? Because of this, Anthony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HdpfesWv7s

Cheers,

Alan A

Alan, look up subreption; lying by omission. I have given you numerous example of where the ABC's partisan view of the failed theory of AGW has omitted salient facts. I still remember Adam Spencer's interview with LM where Spencer hung up on LM [which you can google]. There are just so many other examples. The Drum no longer publishes sceptical articles, neither does The Conversation which the ABC financially supports. As for a link about AGW and the manifest ABC bias, an example is provided here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/can-australia-afford-abc.html

I'll give you Howard which I had forgot about and I won't get into the approach taken in each of the respective interviews except to say that Summers' approach was of an adoring besotted teenager and Red Kerry's approach was deferential. Neither Gillard or Keating were asked the tough questions, that is possible criminal charges or pig-farms.

Howard was not spared.

Trioli's coverage of Reith and the children overboard simply sits with your world-view Alan and the antics of boat people since, discarding identity documentation, rioting, fabricating and colluding with false views such as the recent concoction about Navy cruelty vindicate Reith's and Morrison's approach. I haven't seen Trioli or anyone else from your ABC castigate anyone from the Gillard government about the 1500 or so boat people lost due to her and the psychopath [as described by his own party] Rudd's policy. Regardless of that interview's worth, or lack of it, it does not excuse Trioli's disgraceful taunt of Jones.

Hey Squeers

was that you I saw stuck with Chris Tunney in that Antarctic expanding pack ice over Christmas?

Hi again Anthony,

Yes, well aware of subreption. That was one of the key areas of the failure of the pro-Coalition mainstream media – Murdoch, Fairfax and the ABC – throughout the Rudd/Gillard years.

You may recall this subreption piece from last June:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15123

It is continuing under the Abbott regime. Refer here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/eleven-questions-abbott-will-never-answer--because-theyll-never-be-asked,6054

If you want to talk subreption, Anthony, I'm up for a chat.

But that is not what we are discussing here now. We are exploring the relative frequency of direct, blatant party political electioneering.

Six ABC items have been directly linked which show obvious partisan support for the Coalition. Four of them have absolutely no news value whatsoever. Just campaign posters.

We are now seeking examples of obvious partisan support for Labor or the Greens.

So far, nothing.

Cheers,

AA

You are hilarious Alan. You say:

“So far, nothing.”

Obviously none that you can accept or even acknowledge. I mean in my last post I linked to an ABC report on AGW which had NO sceptics on at all; here it is again:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3859430.htm

And again here is a critique of this report in case you can’t work it out Alan:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/can-australia-afford-abc.html

The ABC report is wall to wall alarmism; it’s junk, contradicted by all research on sea level rise such as these:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/jaeger/Moerner_Parker_ESAIJ2013.pdf

http://www.nc-20.com/pdf/NC-20_NCGA_6-12-2012_flier_both_sides.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397

Sceptical scientists who have done research on sea level rise such as NSW scientist Phil Watson, Bob Carter, Peter Ridd, Stewart Franks etc, none were consulted. Where’s the balance? There’s none because the ABC deliberately excludes salient evidence.

That’s subreption! Your idea of subreption, based on your links, is due to people ignoring your views! And that’s really revealing isn’t it Alan. Because you identify with the ABC; so if your suggestions are being ignored that somehow balances what the ABC leaves out.

What a joke.

Anyway, you haven’t dealt with Trioli. What she did should be a sackable offence. Just imagine if something at your bogeyman, Murdoch, or another private media outlet did that; well we don’t have to imagine, do we? Look at Michael Smith and Glen Milne who published the allegations against Gillard; both sacked. And don’t forget who raised the allegation: my hero, Bob McClelland. Someone who obviously puts integrity before the tribal corruption of the rest of the ALP and trade union parasites.

So, there’s Trioli, the personification of ABC bias, still mouthing her smug inanities. Along with every other ABC presenter, a leftie and Green supporter. Name one who isn’t and don’t bother trying to justify Trioli because you can’t.

Paul Sheehan writing in the Canberra Times,3Feb2014,

'ABC and SBS merger simply makes budgetary sense' Well worth reading.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/abc-and-sbs-merger-simply-makes-budgetary-sense-20140202-31uwl.html#ixzz2sFPAPYXw

This comment is interesting,

"However, a second ethics audit has been commissioned by Spigelman into the ABC's ''treatment of the debate about asylum seekers''. This, too, will be a waste of time if it is merely restricted to issues of bias in individual reports. The problem with the ABC over the asylum-seeker issue runs far deeper than bias.

The ABC has been unhinged by the issue. It is obsessional. It is not the content of stories and comment which is the main problem, but the sheer scale of its coverage. This brings into question the judgment of the news and current affairs division, and its self-perpetuating, cultural proclivities at the most basic, granular and reflexive level. Unless this audit considers the scale of the ABC's obsession about asylum seekers, across all platforms, it will be another bureaucratic exercise in self-preservation and self-vindication."

The obsessional remark is spot on. A similar comment could apply to other subjects as well.

Good morning all,

@Cohenite, no, once again you are just not convincing.

Our noble quest is for an example of an ABC news item which gives an unfair advantage to Labor or the Greens over the Coalition.

The clip you have just posted supports my assertion, not yours, Anthony. It contains no effective criticism of the Coalition policy on climate change, does it?

It shows a statesmanlike Tony Abbott with minister Greg Hunt being sworn in by the Governor-general. All highly positive for the Coalition government. The Liberal Party councillor Sally Betts also gets a highly positive run. Then it closes with a warm and fuzzy ‘the minister has promised to join us soon.”

There was no invitation to either a Greens or Labor spokesperson to comment. Why not? Because that might have allowed criticism of the Coalition? Hmmm …

You may not agree with the embedded views on the science, Anthony, but that is not the issue. It is still a pro-Coalition news item on balance. There is nothing whatsoever pro the Labor Party or the Greens in that report.

Fair analysis?

So do you have an actual clip showing a pro-Labor or pro-Greens news item? This is the sixth time you have been asked, Anthony.

If you don’t, then your motion that Virginia Trioli and “every other ABC presenter [is] a leftie and Green supporter” lapses for want of a seconder.

@Onthebeach,

Yes, I read that story. Interesting. It is arguable, of course, that even modest coverage of the asylum seeker issue will appear excessive to those who want no coverage at all.

I expect that will be the ABC’s defence. We shall see …

Cheers,

Alan A

"There is a real story building about the ABC which none of the hysteria has covered. The most critical element unfolding is a move to rationalise the three state broadcasters supported by Australian taxpayers: the ABC, SBS and National Indigenous Television, at a combined current cost of $1.5 billion a year.
Advertisement

Expect a significant restructuring. A big merger. This is the most likely proposal to emerge from the efficiency review announced last week by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The ABC, SBS and NITV could be merged into a single public broadcaster with a multichannel structure that exploits the rapid convergence of media technology.

A consolidation of the networks into one multichannel broadcaster would produce both cost savings and raise revenue via the sale of valuable broadcast spectrum freed up by the restructuring."

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/abc-and-sbs-merger-simply-makes-budgetary-sense-20140202-31uwl.html#ixzz2sGTOqb9R

Reference the last para concerning consolidation, AGREED! ASAP please.

Alan you are a troll; you say:

"The clip you have just posted supports my assertion, not yours, Anthony. It contains no effective criticism of the Coalition policy on climate change, does it?"

That is rubbish. It is pro-AGW. Your tactic is simply bait and switch and other troll machinations.

Anyway this is a waste of time. You must be the only person in Australia who doesn't think the ABC is biased.

The ABC is biased; it is an advocate for far left and Green ideology as manifested in such issues as the boat people, AGW, the Navy non-scandal and so on.

And I could go on providing evidence until you were blue in the face but you would still wiggle out of any concession. Crazy.

Hi Anthony,

Of course the ABC is pro-AGW. No-one denies that. But that’s not what we are discussing.

If you go back to the original article, the first paragraph quotes a survey showing percentages of ABC staff who support Greens, Labor and the Coalition. That is all I have ever been addressing here.

I am simply asserting that those who claim ABC News and Current Affairs support the Greens and Labor today are way out of touch. They have not been paying attention.

I have provided six recent news items, with links to the ABC website, which are clear election campaign items supporting the Coalition. Six, Anthony. Count ‘em.

You have provided another clip which shows the ABC is pro-AGW. But that clip also shows it is pro-Coalition.

So that’s seven. Pretty sure there are plenty more.

No-one has found a single item which shows ABC News supporting Labor, have they?

Focus on the issue at hand, Anthony. Focus.

Cheers,

A

You haven't shown anything Alan except your persistence and inability to be reasonable.

To say the ABC is biased towards AGW but equal in its treatment of the Abbott government which has some members who think AGW is crap is a contradiction in terms.

The ABC blanket coverage of the boat-people issue, which is now not an issue since Abbott stopped the boats, and its invention of peripheral boat-people problems such as the lie about the Navy also demonstrates a gross bias.

You seem to be saying that just because the ABC has a manifest bias about a number of issues it doesn't mean they are biased against the coalition and to the Greens even though the ABC's bias is consistent with the Green's policies and the opposite of the coalition's.

That is a distinction which only exists in your mind.

Anyway talking to you is like digging a hole in the wrong place. I think you should road-test your views about the ABC at Catallaxy where the inmates there will do justice to your elaborate concoctions.

The unspoken editorial policy of the ABC is consistently 'Progressive'. Likely it apes the BBC in that, but the ABC's slant is more obvious and consistent.

That contrasts with the formal policy advertised by the ABC which requires independence.

The likely origin of the informal 'Progressive' editorial policy is the weighting of recruitment criteria to suit the strong affirmative action policy of the federal government. That is both sides of government since both are 'informed by' and of course heavily influenced by the feminist elite that is educated and middle class. As a quango the ABC has far more elbow room to implement 'Positive' affirmative action.

Recruitment that is 'sensitive' to 'positive discrimination' will very quickly result in a self-fulfilling prophecy with a monoculture developing in its staffing. In this case those with a 'Progressive' and radical feminist bent. If surveyed, how many of the 'common herd' would say that they ABC staffing and programs reflect them at all?

Naturally enough, the quick-witted educated middle class is always well placed to capitalise on any opportunity that comes to light. It is true that when government dabbles in social policy there are always unexpected negative consequences. However as a check, can it be demonstrated that the ABC reflects the interests and expectations of a very large majority of Australians? That is, not just the identified victim groups who have their own lobbyists entrenched in government.

Why do the 'common herd' so despised by the arrogant, know-it-all 'Progressives' and feminists -the educated middle class feminists are not so happy with the expectations and decisions of women who do not put career first- refer to the national broadcaster as the GhayBeeCee and other rude names? There was a time when the ABC was known affectionately as Auntie and seen as independent. It had credibility then. But back then it didn't mount 'Progressive' crusades either.

It bears repeating that my first concern is for public broadcasting to deliver value for money for its stakeholders, the Australian taxpayers and public NOT 'government' - as in which political party dominates the parliament.

What about this:
"..three state broadcasters supported by Australian taxpayers: the ABC, SBS and National Indigenous Television, at a combined current cost of $1.5 billion a year"

www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/abc-and-sbs-merger-simply-makes-budgetary-sense-20140202-31uwl.html#ixzz2sJdPmMKK

The public have had decades of tightening their belts. Now the taxpayer pays at least twice for services that previously were delivered 'free' within the Budget.

Where ambulances are parked outside emergency departments of hospitals waiting for beds to become available of course the public would be looking for savings from the publicly-funded national broadcasters. They not only duplicate what is available from free private outlets including the Net, but they also duplicate themselves. Surely in a country with a small population we only need one efficient national broadcaster and not the several that presently swing from the guvvy teats?

Morning all,

@Cohenite, re: “To say the ABC is biased towards AGW but equal in its treatment of the Abbott government … is a contradiction in terms.”

No, Anthony. ABC News clearly campaigns for the Coalition. Your clip, above, demonstrates this.

Re: “The ABC blanket coverage of the boat-people issue …”

Nonsense. We get more information from the Jakarta Post.

Re: “now not an issue since Abbott stopped the boats”

He hasn’t, Anthony. He has stopped information on the boats.

If a boat had landed on Melville Island with 100 Sri Lankans yesterday and Australia’s navy had rounded them up and shipped them back into Indonesian waters and sent them in lifeboats to Rote or Sumba, how would you know?

Last week’s admission that at least one refugee was admitted to Christmas Island’s hospital confirms the boats have not stopped, doesn’t it?

Re: “such as the lie about the Navy also demonstrates a gross bias”

Not true, Anthony. The lies are all from the government, as anyone in the foreign service will readily confirm.

Last week, 30-year veteran diplomat, Tony Kevin, wrote this:

Operation Sovereign Borders “has compounded the offence by an insincere ‘apology’ that claimed falsely that our Navy ships made ‘positional errors’ in Indonesia's complex archipelagic waters: a lie so readily refuted by commonsense logic and seamanship as to be grossly insulting to Indonesia.” [Google Eureka Street]

You are being kept in the dark, Anthony. And being lied to. In a liberal democracy you really should not accept this.

Fortunately, in Indonesia there is open and accountable government and freedom of information:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/01/27/australia-s-turn-back-boat-policy-there-always-a-choice.html

Re: “they [the ABC] are biased against the coalition and to the Greens”

The opposite is true. We have seen seven clear examples of news items which are straight pro-Coalition electioneering. Four have no news value whatsoever.

Correct?

For the eighth time, can you produce one item which campaigns for Labor or the Greens?

@Onthebeach, those are astute observations and intriguing questions.

Is it possible, however, that the ABC appears “progressive” largely because the media milieu in which it operates is so conservative?

Cheers,

AA

Alan Austin, "Is it possible, however, that the ABC appears “progressive” largely because the media milieu in which it operates is so conservative?"

No. You are using a false comparison anyhow because the political 'Progressives' are anything but progressive. 'Progressive' was chosen as a deliberate masking of their goal of Fabianism aka International Socialism. They are the 'Wolves in Sheep's Clothing' so they say. To imply they are in any way progressive is false advertising and a conceit.

Would you like to address the redundancy and excess of having a several publicly funded national broadcasters?

Here is the article I linked to earlier for you to refer to and it was
Paul Sheehan writing in the Canberra Times,3Feb2014,

'ABC and SBS merger simply makes budgetary sense'
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/abc-and-sbs-merger-simply-makes-budgetary-sense-20140202-31uwl.html#ixzz2sFPAPYXw

Alan you are remarkable; you must be the only person in Australia who believes the ABC is not biased against the conservative side of politics and especially the Abbott government.

Your links were jokes, one being a photo of Abbott looking Prime-ministerial in a suit! Conversely you have ignored every link and point I've made and somehow convinced yourself that an ABC bias towards AGW [what a surprise!] doesn't mean a bias against the coalition and even the link I provided to the Bondi beach rising seas junk was somehow supportive of the coalition when it was wall to wall green propaganda!

The ABC supports every progressive issue; yet you say this blatant support is not a bias against the coalition which has policies in direct opposition to every one of these progressive issues.

Subreption, which you do not understand, is a classic ABC methodology; no mention of Gillard's history, no mention of the ALP's union corruption, most recently with the CEFMU's thuggery on building sites and connections with bikies. No mention of the mass of contrary evidence against AGW; no mention of the fact that Abbott's policies on the boats are working.

And you have the nerve to say the Indonesian press is better than Australia's! Who are you Pilger!? Even Scott has come out and apologised for the ABC's slurs about the navy.

What are you a fifth columnist; we know the ABC is anti-Australia and a pro-UN advocate, are you?

Anyway, you make no sense and the major issue is whether a mature democracy needs a publically funded media outlet which has been taking over by the Greens and progressives and other weirdos; I have directed you to Catallaxy before and they have a thread on this very point:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/02/05/the-abc-fails-the-adam-smith-test/

I urge and encourage you to present your interesting and indeed unique views there.

Hi again Onthebeach,

Thanks for that response.

Regarding: “You are using a false comparison anyhow because the political 'Progressives' are anything but progressive.”

Depends on our definitions, don't you think?

Labels are interpreted differently by people at different positions along the spectra – progressive/conservative, right/left, wet/dry, socialist/capitalist.

Here in France I'm regarded as a right wing conservative because of my support for the interventionist policies of the world’s most successful right wing government between 2008 and 2013.

That’s according to the two major conservative policy institutes in the USA.

Heritage Foundation has the motto underneath its business name: “Conservative policy research since 1973.”

Its mission statement is: “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Heritage Foundation’s survey of economic freedom over the last few years ranked Australia first among OECD nations and third in the world behind Hong Kong and Singapore. This reflects progress in freeing capitalists from government obstruction in starting and running businesses.

Refer: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

So, according to Heritage, Australia under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd was the most effective conservative or right wing government in the Western world.

The Cato Institute “is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.”

It also rated Australia under Labor as extremely well-managed, with special accolades for its privatized Social Security system called “Superannuation.”

Refer: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/unexpected-praise-australias-private-social-security-system

In Australia, Labor and Liberal are sometimes seen as ‘left’ and ‘right'. But in the rest of the world they are seen as ‘conservative right wing economic rationalists’ and ‘nutters’.

This was evident to all at the recent World Economic Forum at Davos where Australia’s PM was regarded by all as an ignorant buffoon.

Refer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGMeXeFfZRw

Re: “Would you like to address the redundancy and excess of having a several publicly funded national broadcasters?”

Yes, I agree with Paul Sheehan. Rationalisation is warranted.

For reasons expressed above, ABC News and Current Affairs should be sold off or shut down.

Cheers,

Alan A

Hi again Cohenite,

Re: “Alan you are remarkable”

Yes, I get that a lot.

Re: “you must be the only person in Australia who believes the ABC is not biased against the conservative side of politics.”

Not at all. No-one in the newsroom has any doubt about who they are employed to promote.

How else can you explain Roger Corbett on 24-hour rotation bagging Kevin Rudd as “discredited”, “incapable”, “destabilising” and so on, and lauding Mr Abbott – three days before the last election?

There was no revelation Corbett was a Liberal member. No right of reply. And you believe Labor sympathisers engineered that?

Re: “Your links were jokes, one being a photo of Abbott looking Prime-ministerial in a suit!”

No, Anthony, there’s not just one. There are heaps!

Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/tony-abbott-question-time/4582462

Mr Abbott close-up, neat suit, furrowed brow, pondering deeply, most prime ministerial.

News value? Zero.

Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-04/tony-abbott/4551380

Mr Abbott close-up, suit, smiling confidently, moving forward, in a TV studio, very prime ministerial.

Headline: “Abbott appears on morning TV.”

Wow! Hold the front page!

Well, what did he say? Nothing.

News value? Zero.

Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/tony-abbott-delivers-his-budget-reply/4695102

Mr Abbott close-up, suit, furrowed brow, steady gaze, addressing his opponents in the Parliament, approving colleagues right behind, extremely prime ministerial.

News value? Zero.

Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-16/tony-abbott/4633424

Mr Abbott ultra close-up, suit, furrowed brow, pondering deeply, penetrating gaze, addressing opponents in Parliament, approving colleagues behind, supremely magnificent prime ministerial material. Tony is da MAN!

News value? Zero.

Anthony, there is no chance a newsroom could produce so many adoring election posters unless there was a concerted campaign to promote that particular candidate.

Correct?

Re: “The ABC supports every progressive issue.”

No, Anthony. It supports some issues you disagree with, which you label ‘progressive’ to denigrate them.

Your subreption paragraph, Anthony, is just too silly. Please go to the ABC website and search those topics.

For example, here: http://www.abc.net.au/

Enter ‘union corruption’ in the search box.

You will get “Page 1 of 6,553 search results for union corruption”

If you are genuinely seeking the truth on this, Anthony, it is not that hard to find!

Cheers,

AA

Go to Catallaxy Alan, test your views!

I'll leave with a superb example of investigative reporting which really demonstrates the subreption practised by the ABC. Michael Smith compares the failure of the ABC to cover the Gillard scandal and the reasons the ABC gave for not doing so with the ABC's coverage of the phony Navy torture stories and the reasons it did that; first the Gillard story not covered:

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/02/this-email-exchange-between-a-very-diligent-reader-and-the-abc-leaves-many-unanswered-questions.html

And now the Navy non-story covered:

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/02/3-formal-statements-from-the-abc-including-md-mark-scott-on-what-sort-of-untested-allegations-abc-ne.html

Not an ounce of consistency or intelligence; the same reasons offered for not covering the Gillard story are the same reasons for covering the Navy story.

That's as blatant an example of bias as you could see.

Go to Catallaxy Alan; you deserve it; being as you're a "right wing conservative" and all. Ha ha ha.

Alan Austin, "Yes, I agree with Paul Sheehan. Rationalisation is warranted. For reasons expressed above, ABC News and Current Affairs should be sold off or shut down."

Thanks for your civil replies and dry wit.

I reckon that some of the current affairs shows while intended as a public service and to appeal to a younger set, have negatively affected the ABC's credibility, acceptance and broad appeal as well.

While I would much prefer to keep Aunty, the creation of the SBS and indigenous national broadcasters showed that Labor did not trust the ABC to perform those roles. I am not saying that to score petty points. Claimed 'diversity' in broadcasting is parasitic for the ABC, and corrosive of its raison d'etre.

Since the victim lobbies and PC are powerful forces in Australian politics, it is likely that the other 'PC sensitive' public broadcasters will cannibalise the ABC. They have done that already. The trend towards celebrity journalists on Aunty will hasten that outcome, exposing the ABC to the complaints being seen here.

What do you say to that?

Hey Alan, how about this as a classic example of subreption by the ABC:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abcs_priorities/

Is that you with the flag?

Actually I think this is funny and Bolt is being a bit of a wowser complaining about it.

Hi again Onthebeach,

Yes, I agree with most of your observations there.

Re: “some of the current affairs shows while intended as a public service … have negatively affected the ABC's credibility, acceptance and broad appeal as well.”

Yes, perhaps. But news and current affairs by their very nature shine light into corners someone usually wants kept dark. So negative responses from someone will usually follow sound reporting.

The questions then are: who is upset by the reports, and why?

Re: “the creation of the SBS and indigenous national broadcasters showed that Labor did not trust the ABC to perform those roles.”

Not sure. The Indigenous broadcasting network was funded as part of a positive move to give substance to Labor’s policy of Aboriginal self-determination and self-management. I don’t really know about SBS.

Re: “cannibalise the ABC” and “trend towards celebrity journalists”, you may be right. Not sure.

My principal concern has always been limiting the misinformation which is so rife in Australian news services and ensuring that important topics are covered.

@Cohenite:

If you read and listen to Andrew Bolt and Michael Smith, then of course you are going to misunderstand what is happening, which clearly you do.

They are ludicrously wrong on the ABC’s reporting of the Navy. And, along with several other Fairfax and Murdoch reporters, have seriously distorted the Gillard/AWU allegations, as the Press Council determined last September.

Refer: http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/press-council-finds-fairfax-fabricated-awu-gillard-stories,5741

You will never understand the world as it really is, Anthony, if you read Smith and Bolt and other liars employed by the criminal Murdoch organisation. They are paid to fabricate and distort. They know they are fabricating and distorting. And when they see people like you believe their fabrications and distortions they laugh at you.

Don’t let them suck you in, Anthony. Stay with evidence-based research and reporting. You will be a lot happier as well as a lot more useful to the world.

Cheers,

A