Repeating what the ABC is supposed to be doing under its charter is a waste of time because we have never had politicians with the guts to ensure that the organisation is made to do what it is meant to. With conservatism - what very little of it that's left in Australia - a dirty word, the situation will not change. We are stuck with an expensive dinosaur and a bunch of Leftist political activists.

As for Trump and US activities, who cares? The ABC's Trumpophobia and foreign affairs fixation is another example of the ABC's misuse and abuse of Australian taxpayers' money. A mere 25% of the population are 'friendly' towards the ABC, but successive Coalition governments have continued to fund it and pander to their enemies. Don't blame the Left, for whom the ABC is a favoured weapon; blame the cowardly Right (so-called) for doing nothing to defund their greatest enemy. Howard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison - all cowards when it comes to the ABC.

I am surprised by the narrow focus on just Charlottesville. With the ABC, Fairfax, the Guardian and all the other left wing media, they have three major hobby-horse issues: climate change, asylum seekers and Trump. The article could have focussed more broadly in my opinion.

The ABC rightly is continuing to expose the sports rorts affair. I don't recall it being quite as zealous in exposing the earlier "white-board" affair on the part of Labor. Labor similarly pork-barrelled the unions with public money, paid public positions, and legislative favour (e.g. unions' role in industry supperannuation) without much adverse criticism from the ABC.

Pretty shambolic piece in my opinion. Slam the ABC for left wing bias which it clearly does not have, call it out for being apparently speculative but then write something like this "There is some evidence that the permitted peaceful protest did not occur because it was violently blockaded by armed Far-Left militia members." without any evidence, and basically imply that although a member of one side committed murder we should regard both as being tarred with the same brush.

ABC for left wing bias which it clearly does not have
SteeleRedux,
What are you on today ? I'd like some too.

The ABC is well worth watching and listening to if only because of the absolute crap put up by the alternative.
Not everything they say/show is great or worthwhile but, in general, it beats the majority of the opposition commercial organisations hands down.

That the ABC is hopelessly biased toward the left viewpoint both as regards Australian, US and indeed global politics is hardly disputable. My feeling is that most politically-savvy viewers of the ABC would consciously or subconsciously factor that inevitable bias into their evaluation of issues covered by the ABC.

That perhaps too many less aware viewers might fall for the ABC groupthink partly explains at least some of the angst displayed by that viewership. For example the ABC spent the 18 months leadig up to the 2016 US election telling their viewers that the whole thing was basically a coronation of the inevitable winner, being Hillary. The left wing press in the US ditto. So when the real world interfered with their left wing fantasies, the left succumb to TDS virtually overnight. They have yet to recover.

Trump then compounded the pain by succeeding where they said he'd fail. The left can (sometimes) be quite forgiving (eg Hewson, Fraser) but they can never forgive being shown to be fools.

The ABC's coverage of events like Charlottesville simply mirrors that of the MSM in the US who can't forget that event and have already long forgotten the name James Hodgkinson (the Bernie Bro who shot Republican Steve Scalise and others).

Privatisation of the ABC is clearly a bridge too far. It now has way too much power and its primary aim is its own survival. Equally, changing the culture is near impossible short of sacking 3/4 of the staff.

My preferred solution is something close to what the UK is now considering. Making funding dependent of viewer support. Make the ABC pay-to-view with the government matching all subscription 3 to 1. See how important Australians think their ABC is then.

Dear mhaze,

You write; "That the ABC is hopelessly biased toward the left viewpoint both as regards Australian, US and indeed global politics is hardly disputable."

What rubbish. Name another organisation which has undergone so many inquiries into bias, or even have protections against bias in its charter. There are none.

The ABC time and time again gets pretty well clean bills of health yet Murdoch drones like yourself keep banging on about bias where there is none.

The ABC went hard after the Greens in a 4 corners expose which was brutal and far nastier than anything directed at the Liberal/National party They also dug through the entrails of the Rudd/Gillard split to a demonstrably far greater degree than what occurred after the Abbott/Turnbull or Turnbull/Morrison leadership changes.

Further name a single ex Labour MP who has a radio show an hour long twice weekly on the national broadcaster.

You are a miserable lot of whinging snowflakes who are trying to bully this institution out of existence because it doesn't follow lock step with your toxic ideology.

Sick of the bloody lot of you I'm afraid. Grow up.

Probably Tony Abbott's biggest failure as PM was not to defund this marxist/feminist empire. They strongly backed his backstabbing as they fawned over the regressive Turnbull.

Only the likes of our SR can state bald faced lies as if they are global truth.

He makes an utter fool of himself with this behavior, as even most lefties will admit the ABC is their mouthpiece.

Stating black is white SR is a sure way to lose any credibility you ever had.

Onya SR. I`m with you.
Bunch of right wing whingers.

SR,

"Name another organisation which has undergone so many inquiries into bias..."

Come on, SR, even you aren't this clueless. The others don't have enquiries into bias because they aren't required to be unbiased. They are required to be profitable.
I've never said the commercial media isn't biased. Of course they are. Anyone who believes otherwise is just plain thick. Not as thick as someone who thinks the ABC isn't biased, mind you, but up there.

But because the ABC gets lavishly funded by the taxpayer they are supposed to be unbiased. Hence the inquiries.

The trouble is the inquiries are rubbish. Take your example from above. Appoint someone who started their career on the public broadcaster, ended it on another public broadcaster, and spent the rest of the career exposing lefty beliefs. Hook him up with yet another person who sups at the public teat and then ask them to be unbiased. The results were written before the ink was dry on the appointments. Surely you can't believe this was a valid inquiry.

"Further name a single ex Labour MP who has a radio show an hour long twice weekly on the national broadcaster."

Huh? I file that under whatthehellishetalkingabout.

But while you try to work that out, perhaps you could name one or two ABC TV presenters who are from the right.

The place is overrun with left wing bias and even the occasional right wing voice ultimately gets suppressed - eg Gerard Henderson.

There have been some surveys (not fool proof ones, mind you) that show up to 40% of ABC staff favour the Greens. So what they consider unbiased is perhaps a little different to what the rest of the country thinks.

"Sick of the bloody lot of you I'm afraid. "

Yes I'm sure you'd feel much better if everyone would just agree with you. But then we'd all be wrong.

Hey SteeleRedux,
"although a member of one side committed murder"

Whats the difference between murder and manslaughter?

Answer: Intent.

I'm not convinced James Alex Fields Jr intended to kill Heather Heyer.
I do think both sides were just as bad as each other, both sides determined to get what they wanted.

What I don't understand is the lefts rampage to tear everything down at any cost.

The left: Let's tear this statue down.
The right: Lets just leave it there.

- Pretty obvious which side is causing the problems.
The side which cannot accept things the way they are and wants to take the fight to everything they oppose, their fragile undeveloped minds molded by their demented university professors.

The left probably saw Heather Heyer's death as a win for their cause.

Dear Hasbeen,

You miserable old sod. How on earth do you think you can call me a liar on what I have put in this thread?

You can't. You just vomit that crap up because you don't have anything else. You didn't challenge a single thing I have said have you. There is one thing for sure, people like you don't get to call anyone a bald faced liar since that is the most singular thing you bring to this forum, utter bull, time after time after time. Complete and utter garbage the level of which is breath-taking. In fact your twisted pathetic notion of the truth wouldn't pass the test even in the most Orwellian of worlds. Go kick rocks mate.

Dear mhaze,

Jeez mate you do prattle on don't you. What to make of your last post? Is there a single substantive point you have made in the whole 300 plus words? If there is I'm struggling to find it.

'oh they are biased because I think they are therefore they are'

'oh there are no rightwing commentators because Amanda isn't from the right and Gerard has been put out to pasture'

'oh any jouno who ever crossed an ABC doorstep is irrevocably a mindless leftwing automaton even though they have been a private sector journo for most of their career'

'oh they all vote Green' even though “experts told Fact Check that the ABC sub-sample was too small and the rate of undecided and non-response too high to be able to draw accurate conclusions from the survey on ABC journalist voting intention, let alone voting intention of all ABC employees.”

Just because you and your tawdry companions think the ABC is biased it doesn't mean a jot. You have zero empirical evidence to back it up and there is plenty to say the opposite.

Dear Armchair Critic,

So the statues of Stalin should have remained in Poland and Ukraine?

conservatives constantly accuse the ABC of bias but they never ever provide even a single piece of evidence and when questioned they just spout the same lies over and over again.
Pathetic.

Heres an example/evidence of RIGHTWING bias on the ABC.
I listen to my local ABC radio and they recently interviewed mad mark latham about his nuclear power bills. The interviewer was very sympathetic and supportive and even suggested possible local sites for for future nukes.

Left wing bias my foot.
You lot are living in some sort of dream world.

hey SteeleRedux,

"So the statues of Stalin should have remained in Poland and Ukraine?"

I think I've opened a can of worms here.

Well I suppose that's up to the people of Poland and Ukraine after they were no longer part of USSR.
They have a right to self determination and a right to decide on issues for themselves.

But if you'd said statues of Stalin in Russia, I'd probably say no.

Statues don't have to mean what they originally meant;
(Commemorating the deeds of the personified)

Though I'll admit that to a small segment of people they may inadvertently keep a flame lit for a generally unwanted past ideology.

But it doesn't have to mean you support the ideology of the person.
It can also be a reminder of past mistakes, and to not make the same mistakes.

Robert E. Lee statue

It seems more about the left wanting to attack things that the members of the right value in that part of the US.
But that statue is also a reminder of Civil War.
And maybe we should be reminded of the death and carnage that ensued there.

The bigger lesson is that 2 sides are facing off like they want another Civil War, to the tune of guns and bloodletting over a damn statue.

I don't understand statue smashers, just don't see what the point is.
Should we all go around to museums and smash everything of antiquity as well?

These same people would probably want to erect new statues of those they consider worthy, (I could imagine statues of Margaret Sanger for example) and eventually the process just repeats itself.

- I imagine there's plenty on the left in the West that would gladly take ownership of and reinstall those Stalin statues.

Risible rubbish! And shovelled by the shipload.
Alan B.

Hear, hear and well said, Steele! The time that demented old fart was told where to go and where to put it.

Q: How do you know when the old bar steward is on the level
A: It dribbles equally out of both sides of its mouth.

Onya.
Alan B.

It is hard to believe, but I'm starting to think that it is actually possible that SR really does believe most of the garbage he posts on hear.

It really does prove that a good command of the language does
not in any way indicate there is any intelligence in those that have it.

SR,

Oh dear.

"If there is [a single substantive point] I'm struggling to find it."

Well yes SR. I think I've pointed out before that you often miss the substance of an issue, concentrating on the piffle on the periphery instead.

But my post had enough substance to blow-up your shtick about ABC's bias inquiries. Can't ran away from that fast enough, n'est pas?

Oh, and I did ask for examples of right-leaning TV presenters to offset the myriad left-leaning presenters. Another substantive issue you're struggling to see?

Oh and perhaps we can ask about all the movement between ABC staff and Labor pollies and staff - leave the ABc to join the ALP, leave the ALP to join the ABC, inter-marriage between the two. No real examples of similar things vis-a-vis the Libs?

Oh and while we're talking substance, I never said "'oh they all vote Green'". And I did point out that the surveys were less than convincing, merely indicative.

Its little wonder, SR, that you've been so wrong on so much over the past coupla years - Trump, Warren, Russian collusion etc etc etc - if you don't understand that the ABC is offering you highly filtered information. GIGO in spades.

SOL today Alan.

Perhaps you should back out now before you asphyxiate.

All very interesting, but nothing new here.
I'm one of the seventy five percent of the population which has zero to nothing to do with the ABC. And live very happily in that broad groove.

Dan

Its only the regressives who oppose the abc having to pay its way. If it operated in the real world it would have far less than their decreasing supporters. Good socialist always spend workers money to push their putried Marxism. Morrison needs to get some courage and do what needs to be done. Surely he should of learn't you can't appease Marxist who push their dogmas despite all facts saying otherwise.

Dear mhaze,

Mate, you really need to move on. Repeating the times you have gotten yourself completely cleaned up can't be good for the soul.

Now you are trotting out tripe like this;

"Oh and perhaps we can ask about all the movement between ABC staff and Labor pollies and staff - leave the ABc to join the ALP, leave the ALP to join the ABC, inter-marriage between the two. No real examples of similar things vis-a-vis the Libs?"

For God's sake, right wing government after right wing government have stacked the ABC board with either Liberal party sycophants like Michael Kroger or hard right caricatures like Keith Windscuttle or Janet Albrechtsen.

Former chair of the ABC Justine Milne, past business partner of Turnbull, told the MD to sack a journalist who criticised the government.

It was John Howard who abolished the staff position of the board.

And you have the gall to say your side of politics are hard done by?

Grow up.

SR,

"the times you have gotten yourself completely cleaned up "

Well keep telling yourself that and maybe, one day, you might believe it - although I feel even you are that thick.

"For God's sake, right wing government after right wing government have stacked"

Stacked? You mean appointed one or two people out of the seven? Stacked? What a berk. Do you even know how the board is appointed? I'll leave you to look into it (it'll do you good) but the government of the day has minimal say or no more say that the opposition.

Whatismore, the board has no control over editorial policy, which makes the leanings of the board membership neither here nor there.

Now, SR, did you notice what I did there? You raised an issue which you (hilariously) thought was supportive of your claims, and I addressed it. Granted, my rebuttal probably wasn't to your liking - in SRland anything other than 100% support for your jaundiced views is to be lamented. But I did address it.

Now contrast that with the way you've utterly failed to even acknowledge, let alone address, my points concerning the lack of right wing voices on ABC TV's presenter list, and the revolving door attributes between ABC staff and the ALP.

Basically you run a mile whenever the obvious, but unpalatable, is raised. That just makes my point even more convincing.

Ponder that.

SR; There's a passage in the Christian bible that states, cast ye not your pearls before swine. And good advice! What they all have a problem with are, the unvarnished truth and the facts being presented without a political bias or position!

Thank God for an impartial non-partisan ABC, and demonstrably so!Onya mate!
Cheers, Alan B.

Dear mhaze,

Mate you still fall for this time and time again. I set you up with a claim which I purposely don't backup with a reference and you fall for it every bloody time. You are a delight in so many ways.

Me: “For God's sake, right wing government after right wing government have stacked the ABC board with either Liberal party sycophants like Michael Kroger or hard right caricatures like Keith Windscuttle or Janet Albrechtsen.”

You: “Stacked? You mean appointed one or two people out of the seven? Stacked? What a berk. Do you even know how the board is appointed? I'll leave you to look into it (it'll do you good) but the government of the day has minimal say or no more say that the opposition.”

The reference I had at the ready was this;

“Documents obtained by Guardian Australia show that of the five most recent appointments, all were direct recommendations by Fifield.

Although the Coalition made much of establishing a merits-based nominations process for the ABC and SBS board appointments in 2013, it has either circumvented or ignored it in recent years.

Of the appointments since 2015, two did not go through the nomination panel at all; two were considered but not recommended by the panel and were still appointed by the minister; and one was deemed by the panel to be “very suitable” but withdrew before the final recommendations, only to be then urged directly by the minister to accept a place.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/27/abc-board-members-appointed-by-fifield-despite-being-rejected-by-merit-based-panel

Vanessa Guthrie for god's sake? Head of the Minerals Council with no media experience?

Now I know you will lament 'It's from the Guardian' or 'Labour done it sir'or some such tripe. I also know in a few months time you will be spruiking this as a victory with complete disregard for the pasting you have just received but that is about all you have to cling to old boy. Perhaps I should just give you that at least.

Anyway memo to mhaze: Do Your Homework! Mainly because this has been getting repetitive for a while now

'R; There's a passage in the Christian bible that states, cast ye not your pearls before swine. And good advice! What they all have a problem with are, the unvarnished truth and the facts being presented without a political bias or position!'

yet to see any pearls from Steelie so no need to worry Alan. The gw religion only has fake stones.

In our house we only watch the ABC, sometimes it's biased because all institutions run by human beings are biased, particularly in the eyes of those who are in disagreement.

The ABC only runs adds (advices??) for its own programmes so its presentations can be viewed without interruption and it has by far the best offerings on TV.

SR,

I'm glad you bought this up since it demonstrates my point. But first:

1. The stuff you finally dug up (at my urging) is years old.
2. It claims that 4 members of the board were appointed by the government two of which had been rejected by the review panel.
3. That's two out of eight. Stacked?
4. The government rejected the claims in these unseen papers.

This whole issue arose as the media sought to circle the wagons to try to defend the utterly incompetent and very left wing Alberici. Not just the ABC mind you but the entire left leaning media.

The thing is that in the battle between the board trying to take action in regards to Alberici's erroneous reporting and the left leaning journalist community, the board lost. The chairperson went and the journalist stayed.

You might recall that I wrote: "Whatismore, the board has no control over editorial policy, which makes the leanings of the board membership neither here nor there."

Thanks for helping me to prove that.

In the meantime, I can't help but notice that you continue to run away from the truth that the ABC TV doesn't have a single right leaning presenter to offset the myriad left leaning presenters and that many of the ABC journalists see working for the ALP and/or the ABC as interchangeable vocations.

I've now invited you several times to comment on this proof of ABC bias, yet you continue to avoid addressing it. As such we just have to assume that you agree with this proof of bias.

Dear mhaze,

Good lord. Really? Come on mate I thought you would have at least given a better account of yourself than that.

Two rejected by the committee PLUS two who the minister chose who didn't even go through the committee process because they wouldn't have got a tick anyway. Further the committee doesn't pick either the MD chosen by the board itself, nor the chair chosen by the PM, nor the staff choice. That leaves 6 board positions which the committee was suppose to adjudicate on. The minister ended up instead dictating four appointment out of the six.

Some of those current board members include Vanessa Guthrie who is head of the Minerals Council was picked by Malcolm Turnbull. Joseph Gersh was a direct ministerial appointment. Kirstin Ferguson is a direct appointment of Scott Morrison.

Then you wrote; “You might recall that I wrote: "Whatismore, the board has no control over editorial policy, which makes the leanings of the board membership neither here nor there." “

What? This after the big stink when the Chair insisted the MD sack a journalist critical of the government.

Time to walk away from this one mate. You are done and dusted once again.

As to rightwing presenters Amanda Vanstone is one counter balancing Adams if you like. Michael Duffy had a run but the ratings stank and the list goes on. Now tell me who you think are left wing presenters.

SR,

I can see your floundering on this so I won't push too hard.

"The minister ended up instead dictating four appointment out of the six."

Well there are 8 board members appointed. If you're talking about "stacking" the board, that (8) is the relevant number. Even allowing for your 4 (which is wrong, but I can't be bothered battling it out) that still means the board isn't stacked.

"What? This after the big stink when the Chair insisted the MD sack a journalist critical of the government."

Yes and the chair lost. The journalist still works for auntie - but the chair is gone. QED the board has very little power.

"As to rightwing presenters Amanda Vanstone is one counter balancing Adams ...."

I've been very careful to only talk of ABC TV since I know its a standard ploy of ABC apologists to talk about some RINO on late night regional radio as somehow offsetting the presenters of Q&A or 7:30 or The Drum.

So again who are the right leaning presenters to offset the left leaning presenters on the ABC TV market. And who are the right leaning staff oscillating between the Libs and ABC employment. You know, the Barry Cassidy, Maxine McKew types.

Dear mhaze,

Are you really that wilfully ignorant?

The independent panel only gets to recommend 6 positions. Of those 6 the minister inserted himself into the process and dictated 4 of them.

The PM dictated the 7th, the Chair. So that is 5 directly dictated by the government. That is a majority. The MD is then selected by a board primarily made up of Liberal government dictated members. And of course the Chair is a direct appointment by the PM.

That old salt is stacking in anyone's language. You on the right just can't bloody well help yourselves can you. How on earth are you the victims in this?

As to your left/right presenters I'm at a loss as to how you think I'm to make that distinction. Is a belief in AGW an automatic ticket to the left flock? Is the humane treatment of refugees the same? What about concerns about the over reach of the Department of Homeland bloody security?

Are we talking Anning or Hanson territory? Or Abetz and Abbott? Is Trent Zimmerman
still regarded by you as on the right thus a presenter with his political leanings would qualify as right?

Your call.

SR,

"Of those 6 the minister inserted himself into the process and dictated 4 of them."

No the Guardian claimed that he dictated 4. The government disputed that claim. It remained unsupported. That you'd choose to believe it is obvious but the facts aren't so obvious.

As to left leaning presenters, if you can't think of a dozen on ABC TV without trying, then you're much further down the rabbit hole than even I thought.

I'm over playing semantic games. Just as an example: Is Barrie Cassidy of the left?

abc reported on Ms Wongs outburst at trying to silence another Labour Senator because she was childless? Thought not! Just fake outrage for months when Tony Abbott pulls a facial expression when Wong's childless friend Ms Gillard goes on about misogyny. You could not make this stuff up. I thought the democrat backing media in the US were bad. Nothing on these ones at the abc.

Dear mhaze,

You put; “The government disputed that claim. It remained unsupported.”

It remained unsupported only because the government refused to allow the list of nominees to become public. It was only last year after tortuous FOI requests that is was released .The Government had been claiming it was a cabinet document, but this was ultimately discredited.

Barry Cassidy certainly had connections to the left side of politics just as someone like Chris Uhlmann had a history with the right side. But what of it?

The question surely is whether overt bias was shown. Both received plenty of complaints but very few if any were substantiated.

As to Milne's attempted interference it only came to light because of a disgruntled MD, namely Guthrie.

But you are sitting in your little group think bubble spouting on about the 'left leaning ABC' while there are plenty who think it performs the opposite function. Here is a couple of clips from Friendly Jordies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWXDGGWB3Mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INZUcj51_tg

He makes the case that the ABC has been cowered into something that no longer does its job because of a hypersensitivity to any charge of bias. I in part agree with him.

The right really don't want it privatised because they have so sewn up the support of virtually all media in Australia that to have the ABC privatised and beholden to large corporations would show just how much of a facade the whole thing is.

You lot have got it so good. Why don't you stop whinging for once and celebrate.