David you mean to say that you are not biased towards the dysfunctional British royal family. Not biased towards the liberals and howard? How you can waffle on so after you made such a twit of yourself with you dealings with jones. Of course you would be completely biased towards him also but your saving grace is that you are not left wing but right wing. Right wing people and royalists have views the others are left wing propagandists. I am getting sick and tired of those who constantly parrot howard's view that the ABC is to the left of stalin. I suppose you read the liberal times also known as the australian, no right wing bias there eh? Yes 'petal' we know 'media watch' was hard on you.I wonder if this nasty, nasty horrible little man at media watch is the cause of your spleen towards the ABC. So you/we often hear the views of both sides of politics on the ABC, then the greens or democrats say the same a labour so the ABC is unbalanced. Should all parties agree and then the news will be balanced - get a life mate. By the way this is the same ABC that howard has the board stacked with his cronies is it - no left wing bias here eh petal. regards, numbat

Mr Flint, your argument comes across as the foot-stamping of a six-year-old who was teased in the playground. "Miss, he said nasty things about me miss" is not a good look on a supposedly mature person.

It is entirely consistent, perhaps, with the behaviour of someone who can write to Alan Jones "Alan you have an extraordinary ability of capturing and enunciating the opinion of the majority on so many issues", while at the time holding the position of Chairman of the ABA. Not so much that you wrote these words, of course, but that you failed to understand their inappropriateness from one in the position you held.

What you may not realise is that all across the land there are people who are capable of thinking for themselves, and recognizing the difference between Alan Jones and Mike Carlton, Janet Albrechtsen and Philip Adams and so on. We tend to see their work in the light of what they profess themselves to be as people, and make the appropriate allowances. Unfortunately, the arguments you present here, such as they are, paint you in a particularly unappealing light.

WELL SAID Pericles regards, numbat

Both Numbat & Pericles miss the point. Your personal view of Flint or Howard are irrelevant. The ABC is supposed to be "our" ABC but even an idiot can see it's biased toward the ideology of the left. That doesn't lend itself to balanced reporting for all Australians. I can just imagine the indignant shrieks if the ABC suddenly turned into the Australian version of Fox News.

The arrogant and obvious ideological bias of the ABC does not represent fair and accurate reporting for ALL Australians. Fair and accurate seems to be something that the left have never assigned a high priority.

If the ABC ever make a swing to the right I'm sure we could rely on Numbat & Pericles to fight the good fight.

David, I read half of your article and it made no sense.

I have been listening to/watching "our" ABC for over 40 years ( I am an original baby boomer) and I must have been so infected by the left wing bias I don't even recognise it. I would appreciate it if those who do see the bias could let me and others know where we should go - TV, radio, press etc - to get completely fair and balanced, totally unbiased news and current affairs. Who are the commentators we should look to counter balance the ABC. We know David admires Alan Jones - should he be our role model for unbiased presentation?

Don't just knock the ABC. Tell us the alternative so we can judge for ourselves where the critics sit on the bias spectrum.

Oh! Cranky: You must be winding us up surely? Personalities do matter. I mean flint talking about bias. If howard spoke about honesty and decency that also would colour the argument.

"even an idiot" thanks for that, I hope I am a nice idiot. Are all who disagree with your well thought out and wonderfully completely totally unbiased views also idiots? "arrogant(bias) obvious to whom" To you maybe but you are so modest and so far ahead of us idiots so please be courteous,nice and gentle to us as we can't help it - being the idiots we are. Yet who knows one day we may reach your exalted level then and only then will the horrible left wing bias on the ABC be visible to us. Have patience Cranky. Regards, numbat

What was the point I missed, Cranky? As far as I could tell - and it really is a very bad piece of writing - I was hearing a familiar rant by a well-known conservative talking head, with little of substance, and definitely nothing original, to say.

You are right though, I would be very disappointed if the ABC suddenly turned into a version of Fox News. A situation, I have to observe, that has become far more of a possibility with the recent appointment to the ABC Board of a columnist who already takes Rupert's shilling. As for the phrase "fair and accurate", if you believe that Flint represents those qualities to "all Australians", then you don't get out much.

"If the ABC ever make a swing to the right I'm sure we could rely on Numbat & Pericles to fight the good fight."

Do you know, I'm not at all sure you are correct on this. You see, I don't actually think that any one presentation is irreplaceable these days. Thanks to the Internet there are literally hundreds of sources that one can interrogate, and arrive at an approximation of reality. For example, I always cross-check CNN's take on events in the middle east with Aljazeera and the Jerusalem Post. All of which, you understand, present the news in a "fair and accurate" manner.

If it is important, rather than merely someone's flaccid opinion piece on a tired and irrelevant topic, I will make the effort. But because we all contribute to its upkeep, the ABC will always be a political football. Cope with it.

The ABC has always been, and will always be whipped by the Government of the day. Grow up David!

Thanks David. I gave up watching Media Watch some time ago because of it's lack of balance.

The media offers little in the way fair debate and that includes such 'soft-left' institutions as the ABC

numbat, rossco, Pericles - you’ve missed the point again! It’s not about personalities, it’s not about finding other points of view in the media, and it’s not about coping with it.

The ABC is the people’s broadcaster, paid for by taxpayer money. It is obliged by it’s charter to provide non-biased services and it fails to do this. It might be numbat’s, rossco’s & Pericles’ ABC but it’s not mine and it’s not most other Australians. Australians don’t want the ABC being a political football or a whipping boy for the government of the day.

What’s CNN, The Jerusalem Post or bloody Alan Jones got to do with the ABC? Last time I looked those three were all commercial concerns primarily occupied with generating profit. They can all be as biased or unbalanced as they like. The ABC is supposed to be the national news provider for the people, generally people who don’t have the time or the resources to gaily flit from Aljazeera, to The National Review, to the Outer Hebrides Daily Bugle. The ABC has no business being biased one way or the other.

If you don’t care, don’t comment, and don’t whine if, (hopefully not), the shoe’s ever on the other foot.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, no-one has taken up the invitation to nominate an alternative fair and balanced unbiased alternative to the ABC.
Come on David, Cranky and Hazza, tell us where we should go to get our unbiased news, current affairs and commentary. Either put up or shut up. Don't just keep bashing the ABC if you are not prepared to be honest about where your own bias leans.

Cranky, you are wrong about "most Australians". Most Australians like, even love, the ABC just the way it is and don't consider it biased. It is just a vocal minority, of which you are part, who can't accept that the full spectrum of opinions, including left wing, are, and should be, presented on "our" ABC.

David, I have now read your article again, less tired than before. It is however all over the place and almost unreaderable.

You fail to convince me that Media Watch is biased. It can't be biased according to your left-right political spectrum because it is not reporting news or current affairs. It is possible for it to be biased in other ways, but you didn't convince me of this either. Claims that personal attacks against you constitute bias have no credibilty coming from you the "victim", such claims to be taken seriously, would have to come from an objective source, so there is a bit of hypocracy in your argument as well.

You certainly haven't convinced me that the ABC as a whole is biased. It is water tight, you haven't even provided one valid example of bias anywhere on the ABC.

You did mention that they only employ one conservative comentator, but according to your previous paragraphs ABC television doesn't even have 'left-right spectrum' commentators presenting their personal political views, only presenters, which are all as objective as possible. How then, do you know the political left-right spectrum views of any of the television presenters? You could only know this personally as I, as a viewer don't have a clue who any of them vote for.

Cranky,

Everything that you have said so far makes sense, except the claim that the ABC is biased. No one one this forum or in the original article has provided any evidence of bias on the ABC.

Provide evidence or your case is blown up in your face.

Not aiming this quote to anyone in particular - BUT if it fits Cranky wear it :Quote: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts" - Bertrand Russell (1876-1970)

An excellent article David, that sums up the ABC very well. In fact the only issue on which I would disagree is his implication that only left-wingers are disrespectful of authority. I adhere to the convict tradition, which may be summed up as follows:

1. The Government is the Enemy of the People.
2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency to be made up from the sale of politician’s assets.
3. The main problem with elections is the no matter whom you vote for, a politician is ALWAYS elected.
4. Always vote NO in referendums.

Journalism has an instinctive tendency to lean left because human nature dictates that the only important news is bad news. Being therefore constantly confronted with the mishaps and disasters of humanity they could not last the course without a “bleeding heart” outlook. In addition, they have a vested interest in change, because change is news. None of this is new, and was described by a French writer back in the 1930’s as “La Trahison des Clercs”.

I became an enthusiast for our Constitution and the Monarchy after the events of 1975, when the Prime Minister of the day was wiped like a dirty rag by Her Majesty’s representative. I considered this an extremely democratic move, as a dismissal must result in an immediate election, as the new PM would otherwise be unable to secure supply, meaning that the people had the opportunity to cast judgement on the issue. Another thing I like, as per item four above, is that only the people can alter the text of our Constitution, not the politicians. I gather that the only other country that we share this with is Switzerland. If only we had citizen initiated referendums

I’ll try again!

Rossco, answer your own question and tell me where would you go if you wanted unbiased reporting in this country? Or more to the point, where SHOULD you be able to go to get this unbiased information? The answer is the ABC. I don’t give a toss if you can’t get unbiased information anywhere else in the universe, you should be able to get it at the peoples broadcaster. At the moment you can not. That is the point. No other news service matters. The ABC are publicly funded and have a mandated obligation to provide unbiased information. Packer, Murdoch or any other media owners are not publicly funded and have no obligation to unbiased coverage. And what do you mean that I can’t accept that all views, including left-wing should be aired on the ABC? That’s exactly what I’ve been saying!! More than views, it should be the truth, fair & balanced. And if the left or the right or the Christians or atheists don’t like it, well tough.

Penekiko, four words articulate ABC bias – David Marr, Liz Jackson. Here’s a link for you that provides all the evidence for bias you’re ever likely to need. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

I wonder what context Russell said that quote? Probably not in the context of media bias. I’m not surprised you picked that one Numbat, you’ve probably had it pointed out to you your whole life.

OK, let's get back on track here. Cranky keeps telling us we are missing the point, and that this is all about ABC bias, which is supposedly plainly obvious from programs like Media Watch.

But as we all know, but have so far been too polite to mention, is that the entire article was just another attempt by David Flint to paint over the Media Watch expose of cash-for-comment, and the good professor's passive role in the whole shameful episode. It is simply a sustained attack on the credibility of David Marr, following the Lateline programme that again demonstrated how Flint had abused his position at the ABA through his reluctance to move against his mates.

Let's revisit that for a moment.

"TONY JONES: But can I ask you why, to pick up David Marr's point, can I ask you why it wasn't a public scandal, from your point of view, that this was happening? That sponsors were paying, secretly it appears, for opinions from radio broadcasters?

PROF DAVID FLINT: It was never shown that they were paying for opinions. What was shown was that they were paying in contracts to a presenter to do certain things, but certainly it was never established that they were being paid to give opinions."

So let's call a spade a spade Cranky. This is a person of little credibility, using the good offices of OLO to attempt once again to divert attention away from himself and his hypocrisy.

This is not an article about ABC bias, but the self-serving apologia of an individual who had been caught with his metaphorical pants round his ankles.

Cranky,

Is this bias on media watch traditional left wing/right wing poltical bias, or is it some other type of bias?

I think I now understand Cranky's problem with bias. As she has indicated, Packer, Murdoch and the rest of the commercial media are free to pursue a right wing agenda because they are not publicly funded. And this is what the commercial media in Australia do to the best of their ability.
Accordingly, main stream media (press, TV and radio) has a strong right wing leaning. So anybody playing it straight down the middle, being properly balanced,is going to be well to the left of the main stream. It is all relative.
Cranky, you ranting and raving about the ABC left bias doesn't make it so. It is only your opinion. I believe the ABC does satisfy its charter and like it or not my opinion is as valid as yours.

As always, bias is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to see it you will regardless of any objective assessment.

I would be considered a 'Lefty' and yet, I have to say that the religious ferver about the cartoon of Mohammed is totally outrageous. There have always been cartoons about Deities of all religions, get a grip people. It just shows that religion = hate = violence, and round and round it goes. All I can say is get a sense of humour, or get over it. No one was physically hurt by the cartoon, unlike the violent knee-jerk reaction.