The comments: "The activist zeal with which the ABC pursues issues such as action on global warming, promoting same-sex marriage, opening the floodgates for people smugglers and would-be asylum seekers, etc, etc has many wondering whether the ABC is just too far gone to reform." are highly pertinent.

ABC Media Watch commentator, who supports same sex marriage, castigated them for not having a balanced broadcast on the issue. Over the period there were 16 panelist comments vociferously supporting same sex marriage while not one speaker was found against the issue!-Media Watch questioned the impartiality of the National Broadcaster who, by their own Code of Practice, is SUPPOSED to present a balanced view on issues as under:

ABC Code of Practice 5 • open-mindedness; and • opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed. . . .then degenerates into ABC 'doublespeak' until
• the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate. Standards: 4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality. 4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

The last point, 4.2 doesn't appear to have seen 'light of day' for many years - 16 to 0 is not presenting a diversity of perspectives. It would appear that demonstrably ABC broadcasting aims are not in line with the Code?

The federal government is being very slow to awaken to the simple, incontrovertible fact, reality, that the distribution business model and technology, everything, of TV and radio is old hat, superseded.

The federal government is not known for forward planning. In the case of the national public broadcaster the fed is throwing good money after bad. The federal government should be divesting itself of (presently) marketable bits of the ABC while there is still time.

That is an entirely different consideration to whether the ABC is biased or not. Although most people do recognise that while the ABC has a public editorial policy of 'independence' it seems to have an informal one too that is at odds with that claimed independence and balance and the ABC is NOT prepared to discuss that.

When political parties are equal , in times when an election has been called the parties get equal air time.

When one party is in power, they are in the news and held accountable of what they say on air. What good is it to give to the opposition equal air time. That has never happened.

How can you define bias when it comes to interviews, or stories, as long as the stories are factual I do not see any problem. Interview interrogation has never been any different.

A person that believes bias has occurred, is driven by their own political leanings. As Toni says ‘ If you don’t want bad press do not make bad news’ that is what he said when the labor party was in the same position.

Abbott said the ABC should be talking the economy up, how can the ABC do that when you had Abbott and Hockey telling us of all the consequences that would happen if we did not do this or that.

As far as the public is concerned not all are political ratbags, and there is no hope of customizing the ABC to favor any in power party.

The author is one hundred per cent correct. Just reduce the budget by a billion and set the pay of the executives and board. About the levels of a country hospitals should do it. That would soon trickle down through the ranks but let it be known if bias is perceived there will be further cuts.
You watch them, they will be unable to go anywhere else because no one else would have them. I say this as a viewer who only watches the ABC too.