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.