The ABC should not use fact check to push an agenda!? (If it can be said, it may or may not have?) Neither should any anti-abortion advocate, including the Author.
Alan B.

If you are relying on the abc to report anything beyond its lying liberal feminist agenda you are either naive or extremley optimistic. One wonders when someone will have the guts to drastically cut their funding in order to drastically cut their lying narratives. They are champion virtue signallers lacking any morality.

Having had some experience with ABC current affairs over many years, I can sympathise with the authors that its coverage of topical issues is typically agenda-driven and this particularly dictates what is not said and who is not interviewed for fear of undermining what the broadcaster wants to convey.

This is far from objective journalism, but it is really only apparent to those who already have a solid knowledge of the topic at hand. To the vast bulk of the ABC audience who have little in-depth knowledge and are in any case already supportive of the ABC's various agendas, its current affairs coverage is beyond reproach. To them, it is entirely appropriate to have, for example, Four Corners coverage of the Murray Darling Basin Plan dominated by (12 to 1) interviewees who believe we are diverting too much water to food production.

Just to hand and minutes ago, the NSW parliament has passed the abortion bill.

As for the water in the Murray Darling Basin, its allocation? Conflicting interests have conflicting views. Clearly, there would seem to be a green view on the ABC?

The hard left of the green movement would seem to be a brainwashed element with absolutist views on everything and the allowed green solutions.

They demand carbon-free power but eternally reject the only reliable dispatchable energy that fits that description, based entirely on a mountain of misinformation and selectively selected "facts"?

Have an agenda that allows for one billion human survivours (all of them) to inhabit the planet and all the natural disasters ought be allowed run their course and take out all the surplus population.

Not understanding, this hidden green agenda is a death warrant for that which they, allegedly want to save, as the human race struggles against environmental adversity as they always have. Consuming everything in a desperate survival mission as evidenced in drought-ravaged Ethiopia, as the effected dirt poor population ate everything that clawed swam or flew!

Chopped down entire forests in that endeavour and consumed what couldn't be eaten as firewood! Leaving in their wake a lunar landscape where once stood verdant forest alive with life! This is our future if we allow fundamentalists like the greens to take charge of anything and or effectively decide outcomes as the play both ends against the middle and promise/say anything to achieve power and then, their insane hidden agenda?TBC
Alan B.

There shouldn't be any shortage of water on an island continent, surrounded on all sides by water and with a large inland much of which is both permanently arid and below sea level, by up to 15 metres in places.

Along the length of the entire Muray Darling there are are a number of salt springs, some of which would reportedly, be twice as salt as seawater?

Many of these with substantial permanent flows have been piped to divert them from the river system and piped directly to sea. This same water could be first put through deionisation dialysis desalination and the desalted potable water returned, the remaining much smaller volume allowed o continue its piped seaward flow!

This would ad Gigalitres that could be channelled to critical food production permanently, as could much of our treated effluent! Which currently flow out to sea as millions of annual litres. As does also wasted stormwater, on the driest inhabited continent on earth!

Piped to underground taped applications, this same water could be reserved for both our current water-hungry cotton and rice crops much of which could be grown on arid land only needing an application of permanent reliable water. What prevents any and all of this now essential water recycling infrastructure? Just the asinine privatisation of the public's water. Water that first fell from the skies as God's gift!

What will it take to reverse this insanity and the blatant theft of increasingly scarce, privatised water! The complete de-privatisation perhaps and the affected compensated for proven financial loss!

Finally, there are parts of our coastline that are principally, sandstone. This could be drilled about five hundred metres inland, the bottom of the holes made into very large tanks with a jet of circling water at the bottom of the finished hole and then allowed to fill via natural reverse osmosis from endlessly abundant seawater, thus ensuring endless reliable drinking water, that then can be diverted after, to the above!
Alan B.

Why not admit openly, that television is a propaganda tool to sway the masses.

It's uninteresting, irrelevant and totally unentertaining.

Now from there, the AB what?

Dan

Alan B,

I quite agree, as I have written before, in my plan I would demand the services that were originally public, be returned to their original status and owners; the Australian people.
In my version, I demand the govt TAKE these services back under the public wing, where they were, and belong.
In my version, I would not compensate the current owners, as they 'stole' them in the first place in collaboration with certain govt hierarchy and have been gouging us from the start, so they can go and get stuffed.
Let the compensation be the huge profits they ripped out of us while they controlled these entities.
The underhanded manner in which the govt's of the day went about 'giving' these entities away was disgraceful.
Typically, telling us stupid comments like 'we are paying too little for our power, so the price must go up'.
The price went up because the mates who were looking at buying the electricity generation, for example, wanted to gouge more profit out of us, and said they were not interested at the then rates of return, and told the govt to up the returns and bottom line, and they will reconsider.
And that's what they did.
Slowly they 'turned the heat up' on the price of electricity, until these scumbag pigs were appeased, and then and only then did they end up buying.
Well we've paid more than enough, these are public utilities and they should be back in the hands of the public.
If enough people annoy the sh!t out of as many politicians, you never know.
As far as I am concerned if someone looking to be elected committed his platform around re-acquiring the public assets so as to be under public control again, I would definitely vote for them.

There should be no disputing the fact that the statistics show that the annual average for the eight years ended 2016 is 38.88 percent (39 percent rounded) higher than the annual average for the nine years ended 2008.

The exercise should make the authors and others aware that the ABC mindset is such that the ABC would never acknowledge that it is biased,in cases where it undoubtedly is.

There is no longer any justification for the ABC to be taxpayer-funded. It should be abolished or privatised.

On the very same day – with the Greens to thank – and demonstrating their priorities

Animal sentience recognised under new ACT laws
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/act-animal-sentience-recognised/11550946
* https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6407314/act-passes-australia-first-animal-sentience-laws/
Human sentience irrelevant under new NSW laws
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/abortion-decriminalised-in-nsw-as-bill-passes-lower-house/11549436

Alan B: (26/9/19 12:56:06 pm) wrote of our island continent: "much of which is both permanently arid and below sea level, by up to 15 metres in places". This does not seem to me to be correct. The following map suggests that only the Lake Eyre region is below sea level:

https://www.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0013/12640/GA11759.gif

I note that the lake as it is represented in that map seems to be in the shape of a rather bedraggled duck 'standing on its digs'... but that must be because I'm a loony leftie and all that sort of stuff.

I'd like to comment on the Howe/Le Mire article, but I probably won't get time to do so properly. My initial reactions were that their 39% (raw numbers) increase in late-term abortions since 2008 was credible/plausible - I still think that.

Yet at the same time, now having read the Fact Check analysis, I am inclined to accept the 'Wrong' prognosis. After all, it said that Howe-Le Mire used 'raw numbers' to arrive at that figure, and that the Fact Check analysis seemed to suggest that what Howe-Le Mire did not factor-in was the increase in population ... and (by implication?) that the 39% increase was calculated on a pre-1969 population percentage figure, while the ABC Fact Check reviewed it as a percentage figure based on late-term abortions - and a burgeoning population - following that 2008/2009 cutoff.

Raw numbers or then-and-now population percentages?

CORRECTION: Oops! Don't know what I was thinking when I typed in <pre-1969 population>. I'm sure I meant <pre-2009 population>!
MORAL: You only see your errors once you have made them...

Stopped heeding the Australian Bias Corporation years ago. Occasionally useful as a contra-indicator.