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)