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.