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