As a conservative I don't see the ABC's occasional left wing opinions as a problem. Its slogan that its "our ABC" does not make it a Federal Government Information Ministry - thank God!!

The ABC's content also presents an excellent foil to the often tendentious and commercially driven "party lines" of the 3 commercial TV stations.

Keep it up ABC!? You may get it wrong now and then. But you provide diversity when one considers our media choices overall.

Yawn. Ben-Peter Terpstra must have had a bet going to see how man adjectives he could prefix with “anti”. Anti-American, anti-Israeli, ant-capitalist… Hey – you forgot anti-Christian!! “Chattering classes”? -- Gee, that’s original. “Old socialist windbag”? -- Ouch!!

[Predictably enough, the ABC Shop sells Michael Moore “documentaries”.]

Good use of scare quotes

[…the ABC website also recommends: Super Size Me DVD, The Corporation DVD, Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism DVD, Soundtrack to War (an anti-Bush music spectacular) DVD. Curiously, all of the above “documentaries” have been discredited by serious academics.]

Again, good use of scare quotes. It’s also clever how Mr Terpstra prefixes academics with the word “serious”. You see, conservatives will tell you that plain old “academics” are “anti-American”, “anti-Israeli”, “anti-capitalist” traitors. So when a faculty member of a tertiary institution says something conservatives like Mr Terpstra agree with they need to be distinguished from those other bad academics – that’s where “serious academics” come in. Then “academics” can still be used as a term of abuse. By the way, care to name any of these “serious academics”?

[One of the ABC’s weirdest “mom and pop” conspiracy theory documentaries is Outfoxed - RupertMurdoch’s War on Journalism. Nevertheless, “our” national broadcaster describes it as a “brilliantly executed exposé of the moral and ethical corruption of Fox News”.]

No, the ABC doesn’t describe it that way. That’s what the blurb on the back of the DVD says. If you look on the internet numerous websites selling Outfoxed describe it in exactly the same way, word for word. But don’t let that get in your way of accusing the ABC of taking sides.

[What we do find on this unintentionally comical documentary, however, is that Bill O’Reilly - an Irish-American TV host - raises his voice at some left-wing guests. That’s true. But he raises his voice at right-wing guests too.]

Sure, I bet terms like “neo-con”, “warmonger” and “bigot” fly out of his mouth thick and fast.

[Michael Wilson’s documentary is more than an “interesting” documentary.]

What? No scare quotes around documentary this time?

It's interesting that Ben finds the documentary on Fox News an example of conspiracy theory. The ABC's culture of left-wing bias of course is not conspiracy theory but an objective observation. Hmmmm.

If you really wanted to turn the ABC around so it resembled the Nine Network you'd have to pay commentators and journalists Nine Network salaries. Somehow I don't think the Australian Government is about to do that in this era of "lean and mean".

Looking at his other contributions, I do worry that Ben finds the likes of Ann Coulter hilarious. Actually, she is but probably not in the way she intends.

Spot on Ben, spot on!

Finally someone has had the courage to take on the cultural elites working for the ABC.

I doubt anything will happen though to reform that organisation until it is sold - and I can't wait for that to happen. Then, perhaps only then, we will get some more balanced material.

And like Ben said, Manne's criticism of a conservative being allowed to put forward his views are typical of the democracy haters that are ever prominent on the left.

Bring on Ann Coulter, D'Souza and Buchanan (the last two Ben forgot)! Especially in our taxpayer funded ABC Shops which as Ben exposed eloquently, are just propoganda shops for the left side of political debate.

[Finally someone has had the courage to take on the cultural elites working for the ABC.]

"Cultural elites"? David Flint -- Is that you?

[I doubt anything will happen though to reform that organisation until it is sold - and I can't wait for that to happen. Then, perhaps only then, we will get some more balanced material.]

It’s funny you should say that, because conservatives in the US constantly complain of the left’s “domination” of the media over there – and how much of that media is owned by the public?

[And like Ben said, Manne's criticism of a conservative being allowed to put forward his views are typical of the democracy haters that are ever prominent on the left.]

Manne didn’t complain that a conservative was allowed to put forward his views – he complained that interviewers didn’t question him on his role as an architect of current US foreign policy, particularly in regard to the Iraq war. That’s something quite different.

Sammy Jankis, you forgot to mention the use of "anti-semite". Quite a fun description of a Saudi Arab, don't you think? Sort of encapsulates the intellectual rigour of the whole piece.

Interesting that Mr Terpstra mentions 'Team America: World Police' in his article in that context. Left and right alike seem to enjoy this film. One interesting difference I have noticed between their responses however is that the left are capable of laughing at them selves (except maybe Sean Penn!) whereas the right do not even notice the sardonic way the USA is represented. The movie was about uninformed arrogance on both sides, and represented it brilliantly.

In response the remainder of your article, this "bias" issue is getting quite tedious. Of course documentaries are bias; any film student will tell you that. Certainly Michael Moore does not try to hide his politics.

The real bias on TV is in the news, not in the bias reporting of it, but the strategic omission of certain stories and, on that ground, the ABC is not guilty. Whether the same can be said of the commercial networks is questionable. Surely we have all had the experience of watching the 6 pm commercial news followed by the 7 pm ABC news and noticed that some rather interesting stories did not warrant an earlier mention…

"The Corporation" was actually aired on SBS so if we're talking about "left-wing bias" then critics of the ABC need to be more specific regarding their facts.

Dinhaan wants to "bring on" Ann Coulter and Dinesh D'Souza. A privatised ABC, ie: one that resembles Seven, Nine or Ten, is unlikely to bring on relatively obscure Americans (to Australian audiences). Sure, a clown like Coulter may be funny for a soundbite or two but commercial stations don't feature serious conservative academics like D'Souza now. Look at so-called current affairs shows. They're all about shopping rip-offs, people with weight problems and various other hard-hitting issues (not!). The commercial stations here are not a right-wing counterweight to the ABC; they're a trivial counterweight. And even the ABC features a lot of rubbish such as bad sitcoms - except they're usually British to balance the American malarky on the commercials.

The news items on all stations is much the same. All stations feature bombings in Iraq, the latest car accident and so on. In contrast to Ben Terpstra, I'm amazed at how similar the ABC and the commercial networks actually are.

No, if you got rid of Lateline and the 7.30 Report, which I suspect a lot of the complaints about "left-wing" bias stem from, and sold the ABC you'd be disappointed. You wouldn't get a right-wing Lateline. You'd get more "Big Brother".

good, now we need an expose on how right wing types are attracted to the military and everything will be balanced

usual confusion and slippage using the label "anti-american" for "anti-bush regime", or is it deliberate painting over the cracks of what a loyal opposition is all about

Why is it that those who accuse the ABC of left wing bias do not clearly state what "balance" in media coverage is?
(Besides it not being Leftist?)

Or is this in effact a swing and time warp to the Right?

I'll let the song takover here:

Narrator:
It's just a jump to the left.

All:
And then a step to the right.

Narrator:
With your hands on your hips.

All:
You bring your knees in tight.
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Let's do the time-warp again.
Let's do the time-warp again.

Magenta:
It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me.
So you can't see me, no, not at all.
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention,
Well secluded, I see all.

http://www.weddingvendors.com/music/lyrics/song-785.html

I do get sick and tired of liberal lovers telling me that the ABC is left wing. If the ABC criticises howard or the libs out come the government sycophants screaming lefties, lefties. Do these pathetics want the national b/caster ALWAYS crawling to the libs, always saying that "the man of steel??" is wonderful?? To those who consistantly rubbish the ABC - get a life, watch the ugly commercial stations. I have noticed that during any election howard's choice of TV stations is SOFT ask no awkward questions,always compliant ray martin. SURELY that must tell you something about howard - Surely! numbat

Back again and forgot to ask, would a Right wing version of Roy and HG be funny? Who would replace Kerry O'brien on the seven thirty report? Someone who asks John Howard Dorothy Dixer questions..?
He regularly savages both sides of the political fence.

Yeah ok Ben, yes the Cold War is over, but then why say that if you are talking about the ABC in terms of "left wing credentials", "left wing bias", anti- American, etc etc. Sounds to me like you are looking for the "reds under the bed" from the 1950's, despite being the 20-something you say you are. Whilst the ABC is far from perfect, at least it more balanced, than the corporate 7, 9 and 10's of this world. Have you ever watched Media Watch on the ABC? That program often challenges the ABC news and current affairs depts, on matters such as bias, plagarism, unethical reporting, etc.

One important thing you fail to realise here Ben, is that in the general scheme of things, the ABC is quite consevative in alot of ways. I wouldn't call it "left wing" at all, especially in this day and age of cost cutting and economic rationalism. Its funding is subject to mores of the Govt of the day. On the other hand, the corporate chanels seem to becoming more and biased toward certain economic and political interests all the time. ( the big boss and certain pollies feed of each other, eg Rupert's Fox and Dubya Bush) Give me the ABC any day.

Now that we have a neo-con Federal Government in full control of Parliament, we need alternative media outlets to offer different shades of opinion. On this forum we observe all shades of opinion, we need the media to do likewise. Does Ben believe we are going to get reliable information from Fox?

Conservatives don't like being caught out, and so don't like strong investigative journalism. It was a conservative who called the Prime Minister a "lying rodent"; not a "leftwing" journalist. WE need a strong media not a dumbed-down tame one.

ABC biased ? nah :) how could this be?

I mean.... when the 1 nation spokesperson on Immigration was giving a 'POLICY' launch, they at least showed in the afternoon coverage (when a large proportion of the voting public is at work) that the 1nation policy was 'population' based, and reported at least the first 2 points of her press release..

So, same day, EVENING news when EVERYONE is watching. How was the same story presented ? like this ==> They
1/ 'noted the fact of' the 1-Nation immig spokesperson making a press release
2/ Reported ZERO about the actual policy
3/ Reported ONLY that the 1-Nation person had SERIOUS CONFLICT with the Coalition minister of immigration.

Now that would have to rate as one of the all time shabbiest, most biased, selective, deliberate most politically motivated journalistic exercises of all time.

But Kerry Obrien, Lateline, 7.30report, 4corners generally give pretty good analysis, except for occasional trysts with political and liberal bias.

Howard tells his obedient, sychophantic troops to denigrate an un-compliant ABC. Then this - at times, with his bottom lip is, a mussolini look-a-like. Now comes the imitation duce's latest pronouncement "Obedience to the party comes first" Next the boots then arm bands finally the roman salute. Then Howard can lead his black/brown shirts in an attack on the ABC :-) And people see a man like this as wonderful? numbat

What I notice about Barnaby Joyce is that he is actually making the Senate do what it was CONSTITUTED to do... 'protect the rights of the states and be a genuine house of review'... GOOOO BARNABY !

Next time Mr Heffernan comes over to 'advise' you.. give him a bit of a hip and shoulder :) (kidding)

Cheers and Hoorays for those who have the courage to stand up for righteousness and do what their constituents put them there for. (where it is a genuine issue of fairness) And more joy that he is sticking to his guns after (apparently) the Government tried to 'bribe' him and make him go away by upgrading HIS phone and HIs communities (but not the rest). I don't in any way blame him over this, we need more like him in our political arena..

Onya Barnaby

The bias/non-bias of the ABC is a perennial unlikely to go away as long as individuals hold opinions. I believe that the ABC leans to the left, but I watch the 7.30 Report most nights for the same reason I read the left-leaning posts in this forum - noone is wrong or right all of the time. But, my main pleasure in the ABC derives from SOME of the entertainment sans commercials. I certainly do not rely on it for information or edification, because of the bias.

Claims of ABC bias seem, to me, to be vindicated by a rush of defenders of the ABC who regularly display 'lefty' opinions on every subject known to man - with the exception of Plantaganet who describes himself as a "conservative". But even he admits there is a "slight" bias which he enjoys as relief from the right wing commercial networks.

Some suggest that the answer to the ongoing argument about the ABC is to cast it adrift and make it self-reliant, get it of the taxpayer tit. But, look at SBS with it's commercials. Nothing has changed there. And, if you really looking for bias ........

Boaz, the abc should not be a vehicle for policy launches by any political party (being add free means no liberal propaganda at public expense like the compercial channels), what do you expect them to do in a news report?, tell everyone how wonderful the one nation imigration policy is? you'd probably like that but i'd be screaming 'right wing bias'.

is it possible that they didnt give it much time because it wasnt new(s) or that the confrontation between the one nation person and the coalition minister was much more interesting?

one of the constant cries of the 'left wing bias' crowd is that the abc dosent represent all taxpayers. ok lets run with that for a bit. what was one nations percentage at the last election? oh yes 1.1% and falling. kinda generous then that they gave an afternoon and a slot on the news to an extream minority group

The ABC Television broadcasting station is as biased as the other public stations available in Australia.

Once again controlled by a small network of executives closely tied to wealthy and prominent persons.

It does not help that it is also proportionally funded by our Australian Governments of the day. ABC is affected currently by our Liberal Government.

The same corridor silence and public deception that effects our parliament, effects every Australian institution under its influence.

[Bring on Ann Coulter...]

...

From FOX News' Hannity & Colmes:

COULTER: I don't think stupid and evil don't exist in the world, but I notice that Howard Dean doesn't give any examples. This is a party that supports killing, lying, adultery, thievery, envy.

COLMES: That's ridiculous.

COULTER: And they're going to call -- I mean, the platform is violating the Ten Commandments one by one. And they're talking about evil?

...and...

COLMES: Would you like to convert these people [Muslims] all to Christianity?

COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

...

From CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer:

"Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists."

...

From Coulter's nationally syndicated column:

Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:

"Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!"
"More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!"
"The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab"
"You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So Fast, Mohammed!"

...

From Coulter's National Review column:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

...

On George Bush:

COLMES: Are all the American people that don't support him dumb?

COULTER: No. I think, as I indicated in my last book, they're traitors.

...

On Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

...

Is this the "balance" some want to see in the media?

Leigh, nicely said.

I think that the serious programs (news/current affairs) on the ABC are getting a bit more even handed.

I'm undecided about the comedy shows, where politics are touched on they appear to my biased eye's to give the right a much harsher time that the left. Ridicule is a farly potent tool for manipulating public perceptions. It's not as if there is nothing major to ridicule about the lefts leaders and key characters. That observation applies to most comedy segements on all channels. Is the right comedy impared and in need of some affirmative action or is there active discrimination against the right for hopefulls trying to break into comedy?

The City News in Brisbane does run a good written column which seems to target whatever part of the political spectrum sticks its head up on issues.

R0bert

‘Right-wingers’, Capitalists, the ‘controlling bodies’ et al understand the need to appease those who wish for a more just society. Media under the control of Government is allowed ‘reasonable’ freedom of political comment accordingly. The ABC & SBS are far from ‘left Wing’, merely doing what they should by representing a diversity of point of view within the cultural & legal boundaries of this country.
Can we have the Authors definition of an ‘anti Semite’?

Terpstra forgot to call the ABC a Soviet-style collective (he used most cliches). That's another epithet opponents of the ABC's programming like to use. I would suggest that if the ABC reporters agreed with the government of day on policy then it really would resemble Soviet-style propaganda.

The taxpayers' money argument is regularly used. Interestingly, I've heard this line used more often in regard to the ABC than SBS. But in any case, individual taxpayers don't have a choice in directing their tax dollars towards their preferred government activities and services. We all pay for things we don't necessarily like. My tax money goes towards paying Liberal, National and Families First politicians. I also fund religious based charities such as Centacare and Mission Australia. I would prefer not to. However, setting up a tax system whereby individual taxpayers nominated every government program and initiative they wanted their money directed to would be an administrative nightmare (and would require more tax money to set up).

If Ben Terpstra is a 'freelance writer from East Anglia (UK)', on what basis does he refer to "our" ABC? Further, it seems obvious from his article that he is basing his opinions derivatively, rather than on direct analysis of ABC programming - which is actually very diverse, particularly if you include radio.

For those of us who live in the Australian bush, there is a strong feeling of 'ownership' of the ABC (so we get a bit touchy when a Pom lectures us about it!). We watch ABC TV and listen to ABC Radio because we trust 'our' ABC to give us accurate information and intelligent analysis, unlike what we get on the commercial channels.

If it's such a left-wing organisation, why do all of us National Party voting rednecks love it so much? Hands off our ABC - and this particularly refers to Poms when we're in the middle of a Test series!!

BIAS is a difficult little beasty to control.
The 'Left'/anti creationist/atheist' mob seem to delight in accusing the rest of it, while denying they are guilty of it.. (it seems)...

A classic but unrelated example, is this from The Age (a leftish rag now) today where in a column on 'intelligent design' the claim is made

"Creationists deny that the evolutionary process described by Darwin ever took place"

Which is either an admission of ignorance by the author, or a willful barefaced lie.
Creationists DO accept natural selection as a means of change and adaptation within species. We don't accept that new species are brought about this way.

The same type of bias, is manifest in all media it seems and in the opinions of most posters here. Example "If you oppose migration of Muslims" = "You HATE Muslims".. I suppose the 'right' is as guilty in some ways when suggesting of the Left "You want open slather and all and sundry to come". (or are they ?)

My observation of the ABC is that when labor is 'in' it gets filled with Lefty Labor types, and when the Coalition is 'in' they try to shift things back, only to find a kicking and screaming of opposition etc.... (which kind of comfirms the theory, why kick and scream unless one is afraid of the ideas the new appointees may bring ?)

The Coalition has been 'in' since 1996 yet we still get people like Ben Terpstra alleging ABC left-wing bias. Why this paradox? After all, when it comes to ABC appointments the buck stops with the government of the day. Why isn't the Coalition doing its job properly and getting an ABC that tows its party line?

Partly it goes back to my earlier point. If you want more Mike Munros or Ray Martins in the ABC, you'll have to pay 'Ray Martin wages' - just like Packer does now. Conservatives, particularly intelligent conservatives, don't work for peanuts. Someone like Janet Albrechtsen might be happy to be on the ABC Board. But she's hardly likely to give up her contract with Rupert Murdoch to front an ABC current affairs show for sweet FA. She's got a lifestyle to support.

Forgive me, but what on earth does an article in 'The Age' about creationism have to do with Terpstra's article here about supposed left-wing bias at the ABC?

Did I miss something?

Mauswara, I missed something too. But since you brought it up Boaz, since when has The Age been a "a leftish rag "? I would also think evolutionalist theory is not exclusive to the left side of political theory.

Anyway, as Mauswara reminds us, we are talking about the ABC. Thank the heavens the ABC can't afford the likes of Ray Martin and Mike Munroe. At least the ABC (along with SBS), seems to still have a grip on the concept Current Affiars, eg Four Corners, Lateline, 730Report, etc What do the networks call Current Affairs huh? Today Tonight and Current Affair? Chasing single mothers with kids to 5 different fathers, around suburban shopping centre carparks? (That was Today Tonight) Providing a list of possible benefits (including remote location assistance), then iferring the poor woman they are harrassing is claiming them all at taxpayers expense. Then they forgot to tell us she was working? Well Media Watch on the ABC, picked up on that poor excuse for "journalism" and told us the truth. I think that example goes to sum up why we need the ABC (and SBS).

Any so called bias within the ABC is actually of no relevance because so few people actually watch it.
My only problem with the ABC is that they should have advertising.
They are allowed to advertise all their crap like bananas in pyjamas and merchandise associated with programs but no-one else is allowed to peddle their wares on the station. This is anti-competitive. They either allow all adverttising or none. They can't have their cake and eat it (That's another cliche especially for DavidJS).

t.u.s

The shame is that the ABC actually produces good programmes with unbiased insight.Too often the wheels just fall off in an orgy of singular thought deprivation.

Two years ago I sent an email complaining about their inherent left wing bias.To my surprise I got a reply,perhaps a standard email that denied any bias and blaa, blaa ,blaa we have the highest ethical standards etc.

They state their position through innuendo,and smug remarks,without ever really defining what they really believe.This annoys me more than any leftist prattle that appeals to my weaker side.

The ABC should just be honest and admit their reliance upon the sweat of free market funds that gives them a prividledged existence of so much self indulgence,that no communist system could ever dream of providing.

The ABC are at risk of becoming dinosaurs of our new age,since most of our population are moving towards the philosophy of the self reliance of the individual,rather than the impotence of Government over regulation.

How do we wean them off the nipple of security, without turning them into just another commercial media entity of little intellectual substance?

"How do we wean them off the nipple of security, without turning them into just another commercial media entity of little intellectual substance"?

Perhaps if we just got all the right wing dinasours [who roam this website looking to create yet more dead carcus debates]
to take over every creative and executive position available in the ABC things would change.

It'd certainly be the best free to air comedy channel available and we desparately need ur own version of Little Britain. Only this one would be real.

Mauswara. yes it must have been a little bit of a mental jump to see the connection of the Age +Creationism' with the ABC....but I was simply illustrating 'bias' from a very recent (that day) example.

The best program on the ABC without question is...... LANDLINE :) my all time fav.

The others seem pretty ok on the surface (Lateline, 7.30 Report, 4corners) but sometimes one has to dig behind and do some more backgrounding to see just how much selection and emphASis has gone on.

I think they have pretty much the best journalist of all Australia in Maxine McQuew (however her name is spelt) she comes across as sincere, warm hearted, intelligent and interested in the story
MAXINE FOR PM !

As for the 'reasons' the ABC was very selective on the 1 nation immigration story for the evening news... during an election period.. wellll pigs will fly on the day I believe that was not very calculatingly deliberate.

It seems that 'arjay' complained of his "perceived!" left wing bias of the ABC. When he did not get a grovelling reply admitting that their head office was indeed in the Kremlin and that they were all card carrying reds then he, 'arjay', gets stuck into them. Please 'arjay' take a cold shower. numbat

Well this is a crummy article, I'm surprised anyone bothered to comment given the author's support for Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. But good points have been made. When some popular right-wing documentaries exist, when there is a market for such documentaries and when they aren't shown or sold by the ABC, then people can and should complain.

It seems to me that most claims of left-wing bias are either commonly denounced or inane, eg. B_D's claim re: The Age. The short title of Darwin's book was "The Origin of the Species" and "[creationists] don't accept that new species are brought about this way" but they don't deny that the evolutionary process described by Darwin ever took place!?

OK fine, they don't deny the entirety of Darwin's description of evolution, but if we're going to get picky then someone better warn The Age not to claim that flat-earthers deny the Earth is round, since any informed person knows that they accept parts of it are. Actual bias should be limited and groups should have procedures to reduce it, but a lot of claims are merely veiled annoyance at those who aren't being cosy and accomodating to their position, most often when the facts are against them.

Forget "fair and balanced", the media should report the facts and then be as ruthlessly abrasive and inquistorial as possible when purported facts or evaluations are involved. Equal time should not be given to positions that aren't equally well supported and evaluations/opinions can't be reduced to a one-dimensional scale, so balance is difficult.

I recall a general knowledge question on the Eistein Factor calling for the surname of a wrongly deported citizen, I believe it was the German lass. Sure it was news at the time but fair dinkum, general knowledge?

Then there's the warning to Aboriginals & Torres Strait islanders when footage of deceased A&TS islanders is about to appear (aboriginies had TV and cameras when their culture evolved?). Do you think ONE Aboriginal or Torres Strait islander has ever turned away in response to these warnings? Do they watch?

Then you've got Media Watch, where do you start? How about taking issue with Andrew Bolt's quoting of Islamic hate sites out of context, which wasn't really out of context anyway.

And the rest. The rest that you would expect to see in a TV station predominantly staffed by inner-urban lefties who I'm sure will reply that the above is normal and justified. But that's the problem, you are lefties and not representitive of the wider community. If the ABC was staffed by a better cross section of the community, a community which voted by a clear majority for a conservative party, a community which is forced to fund the ABC, then you wouldn't get the above tripe, or at least you'd hear a bit from the other side too.

(BTW, check out 'The Panel' if you want to see ABC style opinions on a commercial station)

I’ve found the ABC is ‘usually’ quite balanced in both content and presentation but definitely more thorough and offering a much more diverse range of views than say 7, 9 and 10. If more balance means “look how many germs we found in you kitchen wetex”, or Ann Coulter, PULease leave ABC as is.

And if we are referring to ‘our’ ABC let’s not disregard ‘our’ public. According to Newspoll, “4/5ths of the Australian public believe that the ABC does a very good or quite good job of being balanced and even handed.”
http://search.abc.net.au/search/cache.cgi?collection=abconline&doc=http/www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/newscaff.pdf.pan.txt

In a Roy Morgan poll when asked: “Which TV stations do not accurately report the news?” the ABC scored lowest at 6.5%. The survey includes some very interesting responses from journalists!

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:6wsth068qksJ:www.roymorgan.com/resources/pdf/papers/20040903.pdf+survey+media+bias&hl=en

I think for real media balance you just have to get it from a variety of sources but if you can’t then the ABC is a pretty good second option.

Of course those of the soft option persuasion find the ABC even handed and unbiased.Many of their workers have moved from the protected environs of home to school to perhaps uni and then to Dear old Aunty.Why would they want see another side to the real world ?

"How dare those facists Libs preach self reliance and personal responsibility.Social security,free health are a right and the Govt should do something."How often do we hear the words"the Govt should do something."?We are the Govt and it's better that we do more things for ourselves,since Govt will cost us three times as much.

Self-reliance and responsibility? Apart from the private school system, the aged care industry, private health insurance corporations and any other company that receives bucket-loads of government handouts I'd say Australians are pretty much self-reliant. But in regard to the ABC, to me it's a service I pay for that happens to be government run. Big deal. It hasn't undermined my self-reliance. In fact, often I'm actually able to change channels all by myself without the Minister for Communications telling me. And what do I find? Usually unwatchable sitcoms or "reality" programs. Not that the ABC is not guilty of that. But it'd be nice to find something different. How about "The PP McGuinness Hour"? Or "Miranda Devine in the Morning"? That'd brighten up my day.

"Miranda Devine in the Morning"?!?

Sweet heaven forfend!

Nice to see a bit of irony in this forum.

The left wing bias in the ABC is inherent because the ABC spends more time on news and current affairs than any other station and journalists are overwhelmingly left wing, as David Marr said last year.
I have been a journo for a few years now and must say that I am very much outnumbered when it comes to being a conservative.
The problem is that a lot of journalists see themselves as progressives yet they are still living in a world 30 years ago. Gough Whitlam is no longer Prime Minister, communism has failed and for the most part Australians have moved on.
A lot of people are conservative in this country and the views of many journos are in stark contrats to the public - who have voted in a conservative government four times in a row.
Perhaps that is why the ABC and SBS (without the cricket)have the lowest ratings and newspapers such as The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are losing readers at 3-4 per cent per year. Yet The Australian is growing and many regional papers are growing where they match the opinions of the wider community.
The ABC isn't biased of itself, journalists are.

t.u.s

[Of course those of the soft option persuasion find the ABC even handed and unbiased.Many of their workers have moved from the protected environs of home to school to perhaps uni and then to Dear old Aunty.Why would they want see another side to the real world ?]

And maybe many have. I can't help quoting from my favorite old lefty, Bob Ellis in 'First Abolish the Customer, 202 Arguements Against Economic Rationalism':

"In the Australian Broadcasting Commission of 1967, for instance (of which a fair number of this readership will know little) there were unusefully employed in various apprentice, menial, underworked, superfluous and clerky positions Michael Charlton, Mike Carlton, Richard Carleton, Bruce Beresford, Bruce Best, Peter Best, Paul Murphy, Maurice Murphy, Andrew Olle, Bob Connolly, John Hepworth, Bob Ellis, Bill Peach, Carl Schultz, Caroline Jones, Margaret Throsby, Pru Goward, Robyn Nevin, Ray Martin, Ray Alchin, Tony Morphett, Geraldine Dooge, Clive Robertson, Ted Robinson, Ted Roberts, John Tranter, Chris Masters, Kerry O'Brien, Geoff Barnes, Andy Lloyd-James, Jim Davern, Roger Hodgman, Allan Ashbolt, Storry Walton, Gil Brealey, Gerald Middleton, Stewart Littlemore, Spike Milligan, Peter Luck, David Salter, Michael Pearce, George Negus, Bruce Petty, Graham Kerr (the Galloping Gourmet), Graham Kennedy, Peter Couchman, John Penlington, Bob Moore, Bob Carr, Peter Collins, Robyn Hughes, Robin Williams, the Oscar winner John Seale, the Oscar Winner Dean Semler, the Oscar nominee Richard Francis Bruce, Rober Gibson, John Weiley, who directed Imax's 'Antarctica', John Duigan and - in the mail room - Ric Birch, directory of the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games of 1992, 1996 and 2000."

I don't presume to know the careers of many of these people. Of the one's of whom I have heard, I think Australia is a culturally richer place for their media careers. If these careers could only start because of a sheltered, soft start in the ABC, then three cheers for the ABC. Perhaps they needed to take jobs in this protected environment because daddy couldn't find them a job in his company.

I feel prividleged to be quoted so often,perhaps I'm hitting a few raw nerves.

If people like Bob Carr knew something about business and economics ,perhaps NSW would not be in the mess it is in today.

I don't know about the likes of raving Bob Ellis, but, yes people like Andrew Ollie were magnificient,but also from a more disciplined era.

Too much leftism has made us too self indulgent.

In 1967 Graham Kennedy was 33 years old and was two years off his final IMT show, which first aired in 1957. In 1958 he won his first logie.

(http://www.theage.com.au/news/People/A-life-in-showbusiness/2005/05/25/1116950723374.html)

Thank God the ABC was around to offer him "unuseful, menial" employment so he could learn the ropes and be the success he eventually became, right Bob?

That one stood out to me as I read through the list so I checked, can only wonder how many of the rest shouldn't be there.

It's weird how you get some people whinging about overstaffing in organisations like the ABC because they are often the same people who then whinge about the unemployed not doing any work and living off taxpayers' dollars. Maybe they are unable to see the contradiction.

The ABC has made much of it's services to regional communities as a convenient hook at budget times but my recent experience is a real eye opener.

Property Rights Australia held a march in Brisbane on 12th August to protest against the destruction of some very fundamental civil rights under the Qld vegetation legislation. Rights enjoyed by drug dealers, paedophiles and murderers, like presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, defence of innocent mistake of fact, defence of bona fide claim of rightetc, are not available to Qld farmers.

ABC Radio and TV were well aware of the march but made no mention of it in days prior, supposedly to avoid promoting political activity. But they did announce, as news, that students would be protesting changes to a hundred odd dollars in Student Union Fees, prior to their march a day earlier.

Neither ABC Radio nor TV carried any mention of the march by more than 200 farmers. Most had foregone an entire day off work to attend. They did include repeat cover of the student march, attended by only 50 students who could leave campus, do the march and be back for lectures within 2 hours. If the students had been faced with a 16 hour round trip then attendance would have been the big zippo.

The question is not whether the ABC is biased. The question is whether the ABC has totally abrogated it's democratic role as "media of record" for the rural minority. It is all very well to have the flagship "rural content" programs (read, smarmy bucolic voyerism for urban dilettants) but the real test of integrity is in the way delegated discretion over "newsworthyness" is exercised.

The ABC's capacity to avoid expert comment that might demolish blatant green propaganda is legendary. The resulting "balance" is invariably between a well prepared green "General" and an unwitting farming "Lance Corporal".

The quality of drama content does not bestow credibility to in-house news by association. The ABC obtains it's funding benefits by deception.

DavidJS, by your reasoning we can solve unemployment by giving everyone on the dole a job in government departments, any job, web surfer if need be. Or perhaps we could just make "welfare bludging" a legitimate profession, that would tidy up the figures wouldn't it?

You see people who work at the ABC _are_ living off taxpayers dollars, and are often not contributing to society sufficiently to justify their drain. They may as well be unemployed for all it matters to us "whingers", hence the criticism.

Very weird that you needed that explained.

I think you'll find the Federal Government has "tidied" up the figures in the way you just outlined. Not only that, they give people like Tony Abbott and Kay Patterson jobs.

That's funny DavidJS, last time i checked, Tony Abbott and Kay Patterson were elected representatives, who if enough people disagree with or dislike, can lose their jobs at election time. I don't know what this has to with an article about ABC bias - except for the fact that maybe a lot of ABC journalists agree with you.

It probably doesn't have a lot to do with supposed ABC bias. However, a point was made about "tidying up" (doctoring) unemployment figures and I illustrated how the current Australian Government does this right now.

But back to the ABC, as the Howard Government has been in power since 1996 and still there are complaints about its supposed left-wing slant (including from Liberal politicians). I can only assume Howard and Co don't care enough to actually do anything about this perceived problem. They are often good at rhetoric but don't actually deliver.

[That one stood out to me as I read through the list so I checked, can only wonder how many of the rest shouldn't be there.]

Maybe you're right. This list could be totally fictitious. On the other hand it might have been an honest mistake. The point I was making was that the ABC has been a starting point for many journalists, some of whom have moved freely between public and private broadcasting. I suspect, although cannot prove, that some of them would not have been able to have the careers they have without a public broadcaster that was prepared to employ them. If the environment was sheltered then perhaps that is what is necessary to nurture developing talent. Ignoring Bob Ellis's list entirely, I'm sure you can think of a few examples.

We cannot compare the Graham Kennedy era of the 60's to the present.The ABC of the 60's ,was more conservative than our present Coalition is today.So to conjure up heros of a bygone conservative era just gives weight to our stance of a self indulgent,self destructive ,weak leftist mentality that exists today.

Strong,courageous people have far more capacity for compassion than a weak leftist mentality,since courage,hard work,tenacity,and intelligence provide an excess that can be taxed,for the arts to indulge themselves in adolesent rebellion.

Too often the latte left take for granted ordinary workers who provide the taxes for their excesses.

I’d like to have my above post removed if possible (I will replace with more appropriate links). Maybe someone could give me a 'buzz' in the morning.

Ta
Alan 0415 765 283

G'day Al. Thiose links are very interesting, particularly the part about invasion of people's privacy.

No-one appears to have asked whether a full stand alone broadcaster is the most effective way of delivering the claimed benefits of a public broadcaster. It would seem that most of the quality drama series (ex BBC etc) would certainly end up on the commercial stations if ABC had not got them first. And this would mean that either the ABC outbid the commercials to get first bite or that a closer deal exists between BBC and ABC to give each other preferential treatment based on exchange of programs.

If there are programs that a community (regulator) might deem there is a public interest in going to air, but which commercial stations might shun because of some shortfall between program cost and capacity to raise sufficient revenue from, then the best use of public funds would be to fund the difference, not the entire program.

This approach could also be taken in relation to Australian content. The ABC funds the entire program when partial funding may be all that is needed to get the same product out on a commercial station.

It is my understanding of the current TV market that there is a drastic shortage of content. So there is more than sufficient available time slots for content that has a public good element.

With this side of the argument dealt with, we could then get down to the question of why left wing political journalism is being publicly funded while right wing political journalism is not. Commercial journalism is not a synonym for conservatism or right wing views. It is what it says it is, commercial journalism. It pays for itself.

But the pure public political debate between the two poles does not pay for itself. It is severely distorted by public funding and resources to the green/left political camp and a lack of funding and resources to the free market ecology/right political camp.