What a devestating critique of the ABC,I never realised the organisation's sinister agenda and incompetence. From now on I'll use the commercial media as a source of accurate information,particularly the Murdoch press,that exemplar of unbiased and accurate news.

This article should have been saved for April 1st.

The words of a Fox anchor, "alarming contradictions", seems so appropriate to our ABCLP. (smug is another good word)

The incident with David Marr reading a newspaper while Andrew Bolt was talking should have had him and the host of the Insiders show both carpeted, but of course that would be out of character wouldn't it.

That was a gross display of arrogance and contempt and was totally unprofessional, but par for the National Broadcaster.

Regardless of what you think of Bolt, if you invite him onto the show, you should show him respect and insist others do too, after all it is a public broadcaster isn't it?

ABC Local Radio is still pretty good, but it's telly is crap, thanks goodness for the BBC, nothing the ABC makes locally is any good, both drama and Science docos. their news is down to dunny these days as well. It seems like if it didn't happen out side their CBD office then they are a bit lost. The main perk for an ABC juno is to get an overseas posting, so you can do some cheap travel will churning out crap shallow reports. oh well look on the bright side with three abc channels now we can have repeats galore. The ABC used to do a few things very well, now they do a lot of things badly.

What a rubbish article.
Aunty never puts out any garbage. It has all been sanitized beforehand.
Ever since the licenses for listeners/viewers was scrapped they have been beholden to the Government for funding.
Sir Humphrey Appleby rules apply.
Their Code of Conduct is never broken.
Heads they are right; tails I am wrong.

Yes Ben specializes in crap.

Why does Online Opinion continue to feature him. He never has anything intelligent to say about anything.

Anyone would think that the ABC was the only network in Australia. It regularly gets a caning for its bias on this site and elsewhere, but nary a word of criticism for the commercial networks: possibly because their main purpose is to insult everyone with even more insulting advertisements than entertainment and to Americanise our language and attitudes.

Sure, the ABC is staffed by left-wing twits. Sure it has a left wing bias. So why watch or listen to the bloody thing just so that you can criticise it! Although the ABC, particularly television, is an arm of socialist politics in Australia – even when the socialists are not in power as they are now – watching it is not compulsory.

The only thing good about ABC television, in my opinion, is the British drama they put on; when they are not in recess as they are now, slavishly following the tradition in Australia that nobody watches much TV for a couple of months before and after Christmas. At the moment, the only things I watch on ABC are ‘Taggart’ and ‘Lilies’. The rest of the programmes are not fit even for Channel 10.

If I want to be ‘informed’ I rely on News Radio, which goes for reporting more than the biased comment that the other arms of the ABC indulge in. It is also bolstered by the BBC and US and German content. You can actually hear interesting things you won’t hear elsewhere, without being continually hectored by ABC employees with their predictable views. Like Monica Attard, for instance, trying to get NSW’s new premier to agree that she should hate being called ‘mother of two’ when the men don’t have to put up with that ‘indignity’. Much to Attard’s chagrin, the premier didn’t give a damn.

And we shouldn’t give a damn about the ABC. Take your few cents worth if you feel it is there, and ignore it altogether if you don’t.

The ABC is taxpayer funded, and has a charter to which it should be kept, so that there is value for the taxpayer in accordance with the terms of the constitution of the service.

It should act like a contractor, and produce the value it is obliged to deliver, or be brought to account, or terminated.

We have enough shelters for subversives, in our community, and some of them should be converted to a useful, or at least less damaging existence, particularly the ABC.

One of the worst aspects of it, is its training of staff to be left wing grubs, to then go off and infect the commercial channels, who in many respects do the same damage as the ABC, because they employ people with that background.

The drivel about global warming on the commercial channels could have been written at the ABC, as it consists of the same baseless lies.

The continual wrongheaded, dishonest thrust of the ABC spoils the flow of interesting material that is worthwhile, and which should not have to be accessed by stomaching distasteful rubbish, the flow of which is never interrupted for long.

Fair cop. All media outlets deserve this kind of fact checking. Ben has chosen the ABC. Every dog can choose the tree up which it will bark. Others can do commercial TV.

Ken, to a point I agree with you. It's important to keep media organisations on their toes and I think it's an important job.

What I don't like, is the way Terpstra implies that the ABC is totally unreliable. The goal of this piece is to destroy the credibility of the network.

I view all things as being relative. Given that the other networks are the commercial ones, it seems self evident to me that aside from SBS, the ABC is by far the most reliable and accurate news provider.

Something Terpstra appears to try quite hard to avoid mentioning. Of course, were he to actually make some kind of objective comparison he'd have to, well, be objective, which I suspect would leave his argument looking rather weak.

The BBC has acknowledged and justified its censorship and delays in its coverage of Climategate on ideological grounds. Robert Black of he BBC has also confirmed that he received the “hacked” files from the CRU five weeks before they were made public. That makes the BBC actively complicit. Their credibility in the UK has gone through the floor.

Our own ABC has not fared much better, it took Kerry O’Brien ten days to touch just the emails. I like much about the ABC but as a public broadcaster in news and C/A, they should be slammed for censorship.

Our media screams loud enough about freedom of the press, yet can abuse that privilege

The bias of the ABC is over-rated. Indeed, any media bias isn't as influential as many fear. Way back in the 1970s, I lived in a rural area where the ABC was our only source of news. No commercial TV back then and the commercial radio stations just plagiarised the ABC's news headlines. It was the time when the ABC was fawning over Gough Whitlam, even more than they do currently with Kevin Rudd. Yet, come the election, the local Labor candidate lost his deposit, he polled so badly. Clearly, the then extreme bias of the ABC had no effect on the actual poll. I think many of those concerned about ABC bias overestimate the ABC and underestimate the punters. Australians are better than most at recognising bulldust. We are quite capable of watching or listening to ABC News and seeing through the bias. Don't worry, folks. Aussiers have a strong sense of fair play. When Kerry O'Brien harasses a coalition spokesperson in a way he wouldn't dare with a Labor person, the coalition vote is more likely to go up than down. Virginia Trioli's "incident" with Barnaby Joyce didn't do him any harm - he's been going gangbusters ever since.

I'm really pleased for Ben that he has never ever made any errors in what he has said or written.

Leo, you are welcome to join the Friends of the ABC and help them make those important points to the government, which is responsible for passing on the taxpayers' funds to the ABC.

The ABC once had five orchestras and several children’s radio and television programs some 25 years ago. ABC television led the field in Australian drama -- so much so that a minimum Australian content quota was required of commercial stations. Now, because of drastic budget cutting by successive governments, the ABC itself falls below that quota, and SBS has been forced to breach its charter of independence by taking advertisements to supplement its paltry government funding.

Investigative journalist Chris Masters (Four Corners) was guest speaker at the FABC's annual general meeting on 11 December 2009. He stressed the importance of an independent broadcaster in fighting corruption. Last year's guest speaker was veteran actor Terry Norris, who gave a performer's perspective of the ABC. I will quote from the 2008 minutes, Leo, and you will see how closely his thoughts match yours:

"Terry spoke of the hive of creative activity, training and nurturing of talent that had disappeared from the ABC with the erosion of its funds over many years. He stressed that the ABC Charter must be foremost, and expressed concern that, while the desire for quality programming has never been greater, the ABC's inability to identify and focus on its core audience had resulted in a chase for ratings and ABC local radio wandering into commercial radio territory.

"Terry urged supporters of the ABC to hold the Labor Government to the ALP's platform commitment to provide adequate triennial funding for the ABC to deliver quality public broadcasting services, including substantial levels of Australian content."

The shocking situation with regard to the ABC's battle to maintain even minimum standards against commercial interests which see free-to-air broadcasting as unfair competition, and those on its Howard-stacked board who agree with them, is revealed on the FABC's website -- www.fabc.org.au. If you truly care about the ABC, join its Friends and fight to save your public national broadcaster.

Thanks Polly Flinders.

<< The shocking situation with regard to the ABC's battle to maintain even minimum standards against commercial interests which see free-to-air broadcasting as unfair competition, and those on its Howard-stacked board who agree with them... >>

I'd been meaning to point those facts out in response to this woeful article, but hadn't got around to it yet. To return to its formerly very high standards, the ABC needs to be wholly funded by government and at a substantially higher level than it is currently, after years of neglect that started with Keating and were exacerbated by Howard.

Even in its shadow of its former glory, 'our' ABC is by far the premier media organisation in Australia. However, particularly lately, that's not saying much for what else is on offer.

I think that SBS has the best Australian content these days. After 12 years of underfunding the ABC is just a shell of its former self. I wouldn't rely on the commercial media for any news stories.

As for Ben's story, I am sure the ABC is much less biased than Quadrant which hosted his article originally.

Anyone who comes with in a bulls roar of Quadrant and the other bunch CIS and it doppelgangers is as about as credible as Ackerman

"Anyone who comes with in a bulls roar of Quadrant and the other bunch CIS and it doppelgangers is as about as credible as Ackerman"
-John Ryan
Oh take that comment back this instant John!
Even Akerman has WAY more credibility than this guy!

But I do suppose the author DOES have a point about junk shows- after all it DID air "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to prove how "fair and balanced" it is.

Besides, as already said, you can take your average ABC program like... Play School, compare it to every show produced by any of our other channels (hell, even the overseas shows they actually got licenses to show) and find that even with the poor quality, they STILL blow the rest of these abominations out of the water.
Not to mention it's the only channel with home improvement shows that aren't aimed at talentless mugs.

I don't care if Quadrant, commercial radio or Green Monthly is biased - that's the whole point, they respond to the people in their demographic who want that product and are prepared to prop it up out of their own pockets.

The ABC is PUBLICLY funded and it is a p*ss weak defence to compare it to privately funded media. They can't exist nor should they without public funding, so they should be more balanced in their output.

If there is not enough privately funded left wing politically correct media for you, then do something about it - don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for your prejudices.

The ABC board has little or no effect on the day to day prattling of the staff, they set general and broad policy, that's all.

If you think they're balanced as to left/right political views, please name all the conservative announcers who balance out all the left leaning Fains (Jon) of this world and that twit from Sydney, who got caught making fun of Senator Joyce - regardless of Joyce's opinion, that compere summed up the ABC's respect of the conservative side of Australia. Senator Joyce is an elected government official, and yet even Media Watch tried to cover up the blatant bias of their staff member. What a farce that was, quickly forgotten by the PC brigade of course.

I heard some afternoon commentator the other day, when challenged, suddenly said she was not allowed to express an opinion, after blagging on with her own rabid opinion for 5 minutes - what a dill.

I don't mind if they want to have people like that, but let's have some PUBLICLY FUNDED balance, so we get our money's worth as well, would that be fair?

So let's get the ABC to employ as many conservative people as non conservative, probably be while before that happens as there are so few conservatives in media anyway, the same few are constantly named I notice, as they are the only ones.

An example of Junk Science is the ABC Science Show's story "Twin Towers toppled by weakened steel columns" of 20 Sep 2008 at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm which proposes a completely novel and new explanation for what we are told were the three unprecedented engineering disasters which all occurred on 11 September 2001.

My response, including correspondence with Robyn Williams, is "Science Show too quick to close discussion of World Trade Center collapses" of 24 Dec 08 at http://candobetter.org/node/966

Other stories concerning the ABC can be found at https://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/249

Gee, Daggett, you're a hard one to please. Robyn Williams might be the first to agree that the allegedly 'weakened steel columns' of the Trade Centre was a bit of disposable junk science. But isn't that what you and rpg want: publicly funded BALANCE?
Most of the ABC's viewers/ listeners are pretty well educated by now (largely via the ABC's keeping the balance on the believable side) and can tolerate a certain amount of von Danikenism for those less fortunate who have been brought up on loud advertisements prised apart by junk advertorial. Why do they gravitate to the ABC?
'Believe it or not' stories throw a sop to the folks who like conspiracy theories (see Zeitgeist). Junk science on the ABC is mainly reserved for the 'silly season'. There are a lot of silly people out there and it is a way of keeping the balance. Not as much fun as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which commercial radio station have you ever heard that on?) but then, conspiracy theorists don't seem to have a sense of humour.

Well rpg how about Richard Aidey, Rachel Kahn, Geoff Hutchinson, Tony Delroy, Ian MacNamara, these are all be arch conservatives.

I don't live in Sydney but seeing the electorate there has managed to elect the inept labor government for a whole decade a left wing presenter may be balanced for the electorate. At least corrupt WA politicians end up in jail.

I can tell you the rest of us are sick to death bailing out NSW with our taxes. The place might as well ask the Fiji commodore to balance the books.

Gusi I assure you it's the government the entire country's taxes are bailing out- and most likely on false pretenses as we (meaning the state government- not us) actually have plenty of money- if you ask me- I think they pulled one over all of us.

Anyway- I'm also sorry to say that the tired "ABC is a socialist conspiracy" myth has resurfaced AGAIN.
Tell me RPG, what exactly is "left-wing" about the ABC?
What "Right wing" coverage is it lacking?
What issues concerning "Right Wing" interests is the ABC refusing to show, and what blatantly socialist-advocating material does it so scandalously insist on showing?
What important "Left wing" figures and persons have major scandals around them that went unreported? It can't be Rudd (who isn't left-wing at all but is constantly referred to as such) because he's criticized all the time- and don't forget the various Rudd/Labor bashing GetUp ads and Chaser skits.
And most importantly, what's exactly stopping the other channels from showing it? And how are they "too left wing"?

I'm very much convinced that people who accuse the ABC of Left-Wing Bias NEVER watch the channel. The reason being is that I'm pretty sure I'm quite far from what a "left wing" person is, and I'm failing to see it.

King Hazza, I was referring to the way GST is collected federally and then divvied up unequally between the states.

king haz, or haz not - have a really good look in the mirror, that's a classic self inflated whining left wing liberal looking back at you - ok.

The reason you see nothing wrong with ABC coverage and in fact like it the way it is .. see above.

I do occasionally watch ABC TV, the programming outside of their commentary, Lateline, 730 report etc is great - but when you see their behaviour when dealing with the conservative as compared to the liberal side of politics (right/left), the bias is obvious, unless .. see above.

PM Rudd has socialist tendencies, get over it. PM Rudd is not criticized all the time, whenever questioned he points our MSM to the coalition, and off they go to ask them questions they should press the government for - he is a master of misdirection.

Where did I mention the ABC is a socialist conspiracy? Or is that your little imagination hard at work .. see above.

Gusi .. I'm not from Sydney .. have not heard of these Perth ABC people, well hidden clearly from us in Melbourne - Macca of course, but I can't stand his show, personal taste of course - Tony Delroy, yes .. give you that one. Come to Melbourne, listen to 774 radio, it is a nest of liberal thought and opinion, (Unless challenged, then they have no opinion). Jon Faine even called for an end to conservative journalism when PM Rudd won the 2007 election.

Polly - yes, I want publicly funded balance, what's your problem with that? Do you think the ABC should be completely conservative? I wouldn't go that far, I'm willing to share how about you? Or is your type of sharing where everything is your way? (were you an only child?)

Nice rpg- repeating (minus the top question because you almost vaguely answered it):

What "Right wing" coverage is it lacking?
What issues concerning "Right Wing" interests is the ABC refusing to show, and what blatantly "Left-Wing"-advocating material does it so scandalously insist on showing?
What important "Left wing" figures and persons have major scandals around them that went unreported? It can't be Rudd (who again, isn't left-wing at all but is constantly referred to as such by morons) because he's criticized all the time- and don't forget the various Rudd/Labor bashing GetUp ads and Chaser skits.
And most importantly, what's exactly stopping the other channels from showing it? And how are they "too left wing"?

And what exactly IS "left wing" then? Or for that matter "right wing"?
Anyone who thinks Labor is "left wing" is totally ignorant of politics.
The GREENS are Left Wing- One Nation has mostly left wing policies- the rest are liberalists and "right wing".
Anyway- other than like, two talk shows- the ABC never deviates from a neutral stance on wars in the middle east (beyond covering them), the party in power, illegal immigrants, and has a focus on the environment (which is the LEAST left/right issue of the above mentioned).

So, wrapping it up, who are these "left wing" persons that the ABC has failed to sufficiently criticise and on what grounds (ie subjects)?
And what "Right wing" candidates are failing to get their voices heard (and about what?)
As far as I can tell, the ABC lets lots of party candidates be interviewed, and probes their behaviour and policies constantly.

And so you know, I'm actually quite a conservative man- which might be hard for the Tex-type people of the nation who paint themselves into a massive sub-community of "Left/Right' and are obligated to staunchly advocate everything their 'side' entails- as I put both conservative parties and candidates as well as Green ones towards the top of my ballot based on actually seeing for myself what each party is about- instead of taking someone else's word for it- as some seemingly are.

With all it's failings as pointed out in this article the ABC is still the better choice of television offerings.

Yes, journalists should be more accurate but the ABC is essentially a government agency. The modern mantra of economic rationalisation no doubt ensures there are not the necessary personnel to provide the support required to do the job properly and to meet the rigours of the daily news deadlines.

This is happening in all government departments and no better under Rudd unfortunately. A growing and bloated management profile while real work at the delivery level continues to be degraded and undermined.

It is a picture captured in the latest State of the Service Report by the APSC.

Polly Flanders wrote "Robyn Williams might be the first to agree that the allegedly 'weakened steel columns' of the Trade Centre was a bit of disposable junk science."

Well, if anything Robyn Williams expressed agreement with this Junk Science, when he asked Sergei Dudarev rhetorically, "Does this scotch some of those many conspiracy theories (I'm sure you're familiar with them) and explain actually what happened?"

In any case, as Robyn Williams should have well known, the discussion should not have been about 'conspiracy theories'. It should have been about whether or not the three unprecedented engineering disasters -- at least what were claimed to be -- which all occurred on the one day, had been adequately explained by Dudarev's theory or any other theory.

Anyone with more than a year 10 level understanding of Physics would know that Dudarev's half-baked theory goes nowhere near explaining any of what occurred to the Twin Towers or what happened to World Trade Center Building 7, which 'collapsed' exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition even though it was not even struck by an aircraft.

I asked Robyn Williams if he would give air time to those who disagreed with Dudarev's views, but her refused.

When Physicist Professor Stephen Jones visited Australia in November to talk of his paper which described the discovery of nanothermite particles found n dust collected form around the WTC, proving conclusively that the three towers were demolished with explosives, Robyn Williams ignored my e-mails requesting that Jones be interviewed.

In fact, the ABC refused to give any air time whatsoever to either Jones or Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) who accompanied him. At least the Sydney Morning Herald momentarily broke the silence of the 9/11 controversy to report that Jan Utzon, son of the late Sydney Opera House architect Joern Utzon was a member of ae911truth.org (http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news/jan-utzon-demands-911-inquiry-911621.html http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html).

But not 'our' ABC.

They maintained a news blackout that would have done Oceania's Ministry of Truth proud.

Clearly, the problem with the ABC is that they ignore emails from obvious conspiracy theory frootloops.

I note Christopher, who is seemingly the most righteous of the denouncers of 'islamophobes' (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9765&page=39) evidently approves of the total blackout by the ABC of any news in conflift with the Big Lie of 9/11 and is happy to see the wars, for which that Big Lie was used as a pretext, that have caused the deaths of well over one million people in the Middle East and Central Asia, continue indefinitely.

Christopher,

Even if it were true Robyn Williams and Lynn Malcolm had deemed me an "obvious conspiracy theory frootloop," they should still have acknowledged the points made in my e-mails included in the abovementioned article at http://candobetter.org/node/966 and they still should have responed to an e-mail I sent to them on 7 July 2009 and resent on 2 October, instead of ignoring it completely. The letter of 7 July follows:

Dear Robyn Williams and Lynn Malcolm,

Firstly, I note that as far as I can tell, nothing further has been heard of Dr Sergei Dudarev's explanation of the 'collapses' of the World Trade Center Towers since your interview in September last year at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm in spite of its obviously serious implications for construction engineering.
That would indicate to me that either:

1. The world's building engineering professionals are seriously negligent in not following up Dr Sergei Dudarev's work, or

2. Dr Dudarev is wrong.

What do you think?

I think the latter, and if I am right, I think that the Science Show's audience are entitled to have the impression given to its audiences that Dr Dudarev had "explain[ed] actually what happened" on 11 September corrected.

In response to my request that time be given to the many scientists who disputed Dr Sergei Dudarev's controversial explanation of the account of 3 unprecedented engineering disasters which all occurred on the one day and never before 11 September 2001 and never since, namely the 'collapse' the World Trade Center Twin Towers as well as World Trade Center Tower 7, which was not even struck by an airplane, you wrote,

"When new evidence appears, vetted by the usual processes, ... (tobecontinued)

"And they’d give fact-loving conservatives more time on air."
What crap!
Conservatives are rarely concerned with facts more with ideology.
There are fact loving people on both sides so this statement is nonsense.

Does anyone understand the last three paragraphs of this devastating ;) expose of the ABC?

Why has anyone bothered to print it?
Then why reprint such a light-weight, nonsensical rant?
Is the Forum that desperate for good social/politcal comment?
Why not reprint some of David Marr's stuff? Most of his articles are at least thoughtful and interesting and would evoke much comment and debate.

<rpg said: Polly - yes, I want publicly funded balance, what's your problem with that? Do you think the ABC should be completely conservative? I wouldn't go that far, I'm willing to share how about you? Or is your type of sharing where everything is your way? (were you an only child?)>

Surely we want balance per se in journalism, publicly funded or not? I can't see a problem there, rpg.
However, there is an inherent problem in any funding that is doled out by a government to an institution whose duty is to point out that government's inconsistencies and broken election promises as well as those of the opposition. The ABC has done that so well through many changes of so-called leadership that it has become the government's bete noir. It has to be starved into submission because its nature is to bite the hand that feeds it. That's called independence.

What do you suggest as balanced sharing: sniff out so many hours of Labor corruption this week and hour for hour of Liberal corruption next week? Anything that looks like praise is condemned as spin and PR whitewash, so where do we go from here

(continuedfromabove) ... we shall report it. It is a recurring topic."

Well there is certainly a good deal of new evidence, including "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" at http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
This is conclusive proof that military grade nano-thermite explosives brought about the
'collapses' of World Trade Center Towers.

In November, one of the authors of the paper Physicist Dr Steven E. Jones will be visiting Australia. Also visiting will be Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (see http://ae911truth.org).

At meetings in Sydney Brisbane and Melbourne, they will present the evidence in this paper and a mountain of other evidence that the 'collapses' on 11 September, were, in fact, controlled demolitions as even the news commentators on the day noted that they appeared to be.

I urge you to take the opportunity to interview these people so that your audiences can learn on that day.

By all means please also interview others who dispute Richard Gage's and Steven Jones' views.

Perhaps even interview Dr Dudarev again, but I think your audiences will thank you if they are made aware of the views of Jones and Gage.

If you contact John Bursill by e-mailing (email address) or phoning (phone number) I am sure he can help you to arrange an interview.

Further information can be found at http://www.thehardevidence.com

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

(The date on which I first sent this letter was 7 Sep and NOT 7 July. May apologies.)
---

The letter was ignored as were all attempts by the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement to arouse interest in this critical issue.

---

This is by no means the only example of the ABC censoring and manipulating news.

As I will show, the Queensland ABC is culpable for having helped to manipulate the outcome of the 2009 State elections and for having cheated Queenslanders out of any say over the fate of $15 billion assets that the State Labor Government now intends to flog off against the clear wishes of at least 79% of Queenslanders.. (see also http://candobetter.org/node/1159 http://candobetter.org/QldElections http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/249)

Have you gone off your medication, James?

Not a good look for an aspiring candidate for election to the Federal Parliament. Do try and restrain yourself, or you might even do more miserably than last time you stood for public office.

Daggett, interesting as your suggestions are, are they not in breach of Forum Rule 6? 'Do not divert article discussions to the general discussion area.'

As you know, there is already a weighty discussion going on elsewhere about the credibility of the US Government's final NIST report on the destruction of the World Trade Centre towers in 2001.

This thread is about the ABC. You could be excused for thinking it was about junk science programs because of the posted extract from Ben-Peter Terpstra's original article in Quadrant, but the mention of the ABC's 'Science Show' is just a minor example of his general spray about what he sees as inaccuracy and imbalance by the ABC. He could be right, so let's discuss that, not whether NIST is a cover-up.

No matter how much some would like to call the tune, each ABC program has its own parameters according to the usual audience market research and the amount of time available to fulfil its brief. You'd have as much chance of winning your argument with Robyn Williams as you would demanding 'balance' in a program like 'Ockham's Razor'.

We are all free to produce our own programs on community radio or YouTube and indulge ourselves with as much balance as we like, as does David Chandler in 'JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ'. But not in this thread, if we're serious about fine tuning the ABC.

Polly Flinders,

How are contributions about how the ABC reports an issue or fails to report an issue not relevant to this forum?

Would you deem contributions about how the ABC reports, as examples, bushfires, floods, abortion, the housing crisis or immigration to be in breach of Forum Rule 6?

Obviously I have raised a question which is being discussed 'elsewhere', but why isn't clearly biased and unprofessional reporting of a scientific controversy by the ABC, a concern for this thread?

The article accuses the ABC of peddling junk science and so I gave an example of junk science peddled by, of all shows, the ABC Science Show, in a very short initial contribution.

Instead of considering my argument, and the supporting documentary evidence contained in that article I linked to, you attempted to dismiss me as a "conspiracy theorist".

Now that I have further substantiated my claim in response that attack, you are effectively demanding that my contributions be censored.

In fact, in the past, I had considered myself a "Friend of the ABC" and my normal response to articles like this would have been to weigh into the debate against the author, who has obviously attacked the ABC for silly minor transgressions instead of its real far more serious transgressions against truth and democracy.

It's long since become evident to me that, far from being to the left of politics, the ABC has been for years a promoter of the predominant political orthodoxies that have guided this country's destiny for the past 30 years.

This includes the adoption of the neo-liberal economic program including privatisation and union-bashing, which Journalist Pru Goward shamelessly touted as the chief political reporter on the 7.30 Report in the 1980's. In 2002, as the Estens Report was considering submissions overwhelmingly opposed to the privatisation of Telstra, Vivienne Schenke pronounced to the ABC's Breakfast Show audience that all that remained to be decided was how the proceeds of the sale would be divided up. Other examples of biased ABC reporting in favour of privatisation in NSW and Queensland can be found at http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/249

The ABC are a gutless.They do not have the courage of TVNZ .Richard Gage of http://www.ae911truth.org/ was able to get interviewed in Christchurch on TVNZ,yet out ABC will not even try to bebunk the new findings of 911.

They are running scared as witnessed by the fact when we were last outside their Ultimo building they instructed their staff not to take our literature or CD's.The truth is seems is too powerful and their staff are not allowed to make up their own minds.

C.J. Morgan says (31 December 2009 2:18:36 PM):"Clearly, the problem with the ABC is that they ignore emails from obvious conspiracy theory frootloops." But did he read this in Daggett's article?

"Perhaps if the 9/11 Truth science project were backed to the tune of 10 billion Euros, like the ITER Project, the BBC and Australia's ABC would take it more seriously. After reading particle physicist, Michael Dittmar's damning analysis of the ITER project, "Fusion Illusions," in Sheila Newman (ed) The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto UK, 2008, however, I think the Science show should be more cautious about Dr Dudarev's ITER-association, let alone his theory on 9/11 building-collapse." http://candobetter.org/node/966

The referenced publication is the only independent analysis of fusion projects I have ever found. It is so important, it should be widely known.

Yes, unfortunately the ABC lends authority to theories that are held together by thin air, dollars and government propaganda and participates in manufacturing consensus on them. This is why the public is relentlessly swamped with 'facts' like how high immigration benefits Australia economically and this is why a scientist benefiting from the inflated importance of the ITER fusion scheme commands authority and serves to further alienate procedural and scientific questions regarding official investigation of 9/11. It's not that the ABC only endorses 'reasonable' theories; it's that the ABC decides what it presents as 'reasonable', and you either swallow it or turn it off and write your own blog. Why is the US government such a sacred cow? Why can't we ask questions? Why are so many members of the public such keepers of the [manufactured] status-quo?

I think the whole media-system needs an overhaul; editors, like academics and teachers should have tenured independence from owners and government and so should journalists. We tax-payers deserve better.

Like many, I am concerned by the number of Murdoch journos on the ABC and the lack of biological and physical science representation, the marketing of property development and population growth as the irresistable natural order of things and the associated devaluing of both common, verifiable perception and verifiable science.

CJ Morgan "Have you gone off your medication James?" CJ Morgan has to be lowest form of life ever to frequent OLO.He constantly uses invective,inneundo personal insults on this forum and gets away with it.

You have no shame and your personal inadaquacies are reflected constantly by your attempts to bring others down to your low standards.

So have a good look in the mirror tonight CJ Morgan and see what we see.

I love you and the other conspiracy nuts too, Arjay - but not as much as I love the ABC.

My question to James was prompted by the sudden flurry of nutty posts from him after an extended period of sanity, at least at OLO.

Thanks, Nero and Arjay,

If it wasn't for the fact that in the past I was on the receiving end of long bouts of nasty unrelenting harassment from CJ Morgan, I would pity him rather than feel disgust and anger.

It's completely beyond me what would motivate someone, who purports to oppose injustice in the world, to spend months attacking others who are trying to tell the truth about the principle pretext for the "War on Terror" and the resultant deaths of well over a million in Central Asia and the Middle East and without even once articulating his own reasons for rejecting those views.

I challenge anyone to produce any evidence whatsoever of CJ Morgan's comprehension of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82 or anywhere else.

To on the one hand attempt to claim the high moral ground by demanding unlimited accommodation other cultures, including Islamic cultures, by Europeans whilst effectively promoting the murderous lie of 9/11 that has caused the deaths of so many Islamic people, as CJ Morgan has done, would seem to me to be the ultimate hypocrisy.

---

Also Christopher attacks me here for having stood as a candidate in the Queensland State elections.

I was the only candidate, of whom I am aware, who actually raised the issue of privatisation in those elections (even though I repeatedly tried to get the Greens, amongst others to raise this issue).

Presumably Christopher would have preferred that no-one had offered that choice to voters, and presumably he also approves of the ABC having censored those views during the elections.

---

I have documented how these views, that have been the view of the overwhelming majority of Queenslanders for years were censored by the ABC in my article "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09 at http://candobetter.org/node/1159 .

In her reply to that article on 10 June 2009, (published in full on our web-site at http://candobetter.org/node/1316 but not yet responded to by me), Kirstin McLeod of the ABC's Audience & Consumer Affairs ... (tobecontinued)

(tobecontinued) ... confirmed that the ABC had manipulated the outcome of the Queensland State elections in one sense at least, that is, in the sense of having precluded a large vote for Greens and Independent candidates.

She confirmed this when she wrote:

"The ABC's approach to election coverage focuses on the Government and official Opposition on the basis that one of the two major parties will ultimately form government and thus represent the principal points of view."

Given that a hung Parliament was a distinct possibility, these words confirm that the Queensland ABC violated its charter.

On at least two occasions leaders of the major political parties told ABC audiences that a hung Parliament would have been the "worst possible outcome." On one occasion it was Lawrence Springborg, leader of the Liberal National Party who said this. On another occasion it was a senior Labor Government Minister. I don't remember whether it was Paul Lucas, Anna Bligh or Andrew.

No ABC journalist asked why it would be preferable from the point of view of the Queensland public to have a Parliament in which the Party with the absolute majority can, at its whim, limit debate time and restrict the right of independents and Opposition MP's to put motions such as a motion calling for a referendum on privatisation that I asked an Independent MLA to put on my behalf.

Thus, the ABC is clearly directly culpable for having brought Queensland politics to the appalling dictatorial state in which it now lies at the start of 2010. Just when it seemed that matters could not possibly get worse, we now find a further attempt to restrict the public's access to information about planned privatisation. (See story "Anna gags asset sell-off talk" of 2 Jan 10 at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,26543344-3102,00.html)

One way that Queenslanders can begin to redress the injustice that the ABC helped to inflict upon them is to sign my e-petition calling for the resignation of the Queensland Government and for new state elections at http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1360&lIndex=-1

James Sinnamon

Brisbane Independent for Truth, Democracy,
the Environment and Economic Justice

Australian Federal Elections, 2010

So the bias in the ABC comes down to not giving enough air time to 911 nut jobs. Love it, that's what the right side of politics has to offer that 911 was a inside job.

I don't think the article we are purportedly discussing is very penetrating, but some subjects which have come up in the discussion are important. Daggett has again made a valid point about election candidate coverage. The ABC simply isn't pro-electoral choice. It only offers Tweedledum and Tweedledee, with maybe a slight bit of Green to the side, with the occasional whiff of independent.

It isn't giving me what I need. When I go to the polling booth I am confronted with a stack of parties and independents in Federal elections whom I have never heard of. The same thing happens to a lesser extent in State Elections.

It is really frustrating because I never want to vote for Labor or Liberal and most of the Greens are pretty timid with a narrow policy base. Part of the problem is that, to get coverage in the mainstream, you have to please the status quo, and they want bland and commercial.

What I want is a range of independents and small parties who are not bland and commercial. The ABC uses the excuse of 'newsworthiness' to screen new people out yet endlessly recycles the same old talking heads in the narrowest of campaigns. That is what we expect of the commercial channels.

The electorate is expected to rely primarily on newspapers and television to find out who is running for parliament. When newspapers and television only let you know about a small proportion of the candidates, that isn't good enough. It's actually a bloody tragedy and a national disgrace.

The ABC has a duty to inform us properly about elections and it doesn't. James has been able to obtain a damning document from the ABC, where they admit to deciding in advance that most people will only vote for Tweedledum and Tweedledee, so they use that as an excuse to only promote those parties, thus reinforcing the depressing pattern.

Yet, on the night of vote counts, every channel gets specialists in who can talk about every candidate. Why don't we get that BEFORE the election?

<Nero said: "...Yet, on the night of vote counts, every channel gets specialists in who can talk about every candidate. Why don't we get that BEFORE the election?:">

Okay, Nero, you're a tv producer. Which program should be dumped to make room for your pre-election gabfest? How will you justify it to umpteen other program producers wallowing happily in their ratings?

If you're a commercial station producer, how would you finance such a program? How could you make it interesting enough for the advertisers to sponsor it? Where's the demand? Who pays for the market research to find out?

How will you keep viewers' attention against top rating shows on rival channels? How many hours will you have to schedule and air the program after the candidates' registration has closed? No point interviewing someone who pulls out or never registers.

How many questions can you ask and have answered in five minutes? You'd be surprised how few. What's the minimum number of questions to give the public enough info to know whether to vote for them? There is no such number. What if all the candidates don't want to appear?

How do you cover yourself against claims of bias because a) you asked more questions of candidate A than B; b) you used a hostile interviewer; c)you asked irrelevant questions; d) you asked somethng of candidate A but not B; (e) you asked everyone the same questions and it's boring; (f) I fell asleep because my candidate's called X and it's in alphabetical order; etc.

If you charge the wannabe pollies to air their self-produced 30-second promotional video, what rate do you charge? Do they have a choice of time-slot? Next to the fun babes with the hosepipes? Any idea how much a 30-second prime time ad costs? Independent candidates without a party machine to fundraise couldn't afford it. Their best chance would be to do a Tiger Woods or go on Australia's Got Talent. No, scrub that last one. Max Gillies has done it already. Maybe the ABC would be interested. Get my drift, Nero?

Polly "What do you suggest as balanced sharing: sniff out so many hours of Labor corruption this week and hour for hour of Liberal corruption next week? Anything that looks like praise is condemned as spin and PR whitewash, so where do we go from here"

No of course, not, you trivialise it so to make it absurd.

When the planning is done for say, the 7.30 report, to lateline or even Q&A, they do not go in and have an ad-hoc production, it is planned and that is where it is clearly the place to determine "hang, on this is the nth time we've gone after the opposition like rabid attack dogs, and treated the government gently with a lovely fireside chat"

Make the daytime radio comperes more aware of their duty to be objective and perhaps even introduce penalties for poor performance, like the castigation of the right and the pumping up of the left.

Why when an opinion is needed on say, climate change do we always get the greens, Christine Milne or Bob Brown, or Clive Hamilton? Why not someone like Dr Bob Carter, and actual qualified scientist?

Why, because it is politically acceptable to the little darlings to pursue their own agenda, unfettered by any management directives on objectivity.

Some of us find that clear bias unacceptable.

Polly Flinders, your most recent contribution seems to be most revealing.

I can only hope that it is not indicative of the views of members of "Friends of the ABC," the goals of which I had broadly supported, in spite of what I saw as their serious limitations.

I just hope that you will read again what I have written and reflect upon what you wrote.

What the post largely appears to be is your clutching at any straw you can in order to defend clearly indefensible conduct by our National taxpayer-funded broadcaster. You appear to accept, without providing any evidence, that Australians in general and the ABC audience in particular are not interested in proper political discussion.

You also provide a rationalisation against giving air-time to independent candidates on what would be appear to be based on a very narrow commercial view of what the ABC should be about.

I heard with my own ears, during the election campaign, ABC listeners asking to hear from alternative candidates. The fact that 59% of voters opposed the LNP and 59% opposed the Labor Party means that at 18% wanted to vote for an alternative to both, and that is even without the question of privatisation having been raised in those elections.

The outcome that would have reflected that opinion would have been a hung parliament, yet the ABC chose to preclude that from happening by not providing information about alternatives to the major parties.

I also explained in my correspondences, and with documentary evidence why privatisation was an issue at stake in those elections, and why it was opposed overwhelmingly by the people of Queensland (see again http://candobetter.org/node/1159), but this was almost all ignored, I am told, because the ABC journalists judged it as not being 'newsworthy'.

Well, I wonder now how many ABC journalists are prepared to stand by that brilliant piece of professional judgement now that Queensland has been in uproar for over seven months against the fire sale.

The short time available was a direct consequence of Anna Bligh's own choice to announce an early early ... (tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) ... election with less than four weeks notice, so why was she and the the Government rewarded by giving them so much air-time, including time for her husband Greg Withers to tell everyone what a wonderful wife and mother she was?

In fact, at least one other ABC radio station does give air time to all candidates contesting state elections. The following was written on one online discussion site, straight after the elections:

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/03/22/my-election-night/comment-page-1/#comment-231829

"Here in SA, we enjoy the award winning ABC 891 Adelaide who make a feature of giving all the independents adequate time to present their policies and issues.

"Listeners obviously appreciate being fully informed, a fact which seems to have gone over the heads of ABC 612."

(and I might add, at least one member of "Friends of the ABC" it would seem.)

So, if it can be done in South Australia, then why not in Brisbane?

I also, strongly object to being implicitly labelled a "wannabe politician", as if people, not willing to be compromised and corrupted within the major, and not-so-major political parties, in order to gain preselection, are any less worthy of becoming politicians than those who are.

In any case, my principle reason for standing was to give voters a choice that no other candidate was prepared to give them as far as I am aware.

Polly Flinders, assuming that you do take any interest in politics, and are not as apathetic as you seem to what us to think most ABC listeners are, could I suggest that you take a look at my article "Why I am contesting the Queensland state elections as an independent" of 8 Mar 09 at http://candobetter.org/node/1121 and explain why you think I was wrong to stand?

Could you also look at my survey at http://candobetter.org/QldElections/survey which was my attempt to make up for the deficit in information from the ABC and other newsmedia.

Could you tell me if you endorse the ABC's decision to not mention that survey to its audiences in particular the first survey question:

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

"1. Oppose privatisation: Will you give electors a categorical assurance, if elected, that either you will oppose any further sell-off of public assets, such as Queensland Rail, water infrastructure, electricity generation and distribution infrastructure, ports, airports, schools, hospitals, etc., or you will not support any sales until such time as the Queensland public have shown support for privatisation through a referendum or public opinion polls?"

Could you tell me if you endorse the ABC's refusal to put that question to any candidate in the course of the elections?

Sorry, daggett, but I do detest push polling with questions that beg another one. I routinely decline marketers' surveys because my time is as valuable as theirs, yet I am not being paid. So don't ask me all these questions because I am busy bottling fruit and don't have time to do the research.
I'm not saying you are being paid to ask me all those questions (since you do tend to misinterpret simple sentences) but I am just one person who is not even in your potential constituency and my opinion can have no bearing on yours (you will see to that, I'm sure.)
Perhaps an internship with an established politician would focus your energies. You will find that most of them are beseiged by people in their area, voters or not, who want them to fix something that could better be directed to the local council welfare worker. They would regard your world-betterment platform as rather too far from their immediate needs in the back yard of your electorate.
Just a final point - you took exception to my defence of wannabe politicians who might not be able to afford tv air time to advertise themselves. Somehow you made that seem an attack on your right to stand for election. Not everyone is against you, daggett. Some things take time.

i found the author's view and article interesting and a valid observation of an organisation in rapid decline (isn't this the topic?)

However, i wish to add to that that increasingly i find i am being "dumbed down" by the ABC News, 7:30 report and Lateline - and don't get me started on The Insiders.

It used to be the case that ABC stood for TOTAL accuracy, balanced reporting, and definitely no sensationalism - we can all get that on the commercials which i think is why we watch and want to watch ABC News and similar prgrams. We are entitled to expect the best and their journalists lof the past expounded that aim admirably - think Andrew Olle, Paul Lynham, Richard Morecroft et al etc.

i find myself getting so frustrated with pap pieces by reporters who wishe they were Jana Vent or Richard Carlton (and he was trained there) but the more often they open their mouths only confirms how silly and ignorant they and so dramatically displaying those traits.

And as it is the silly season too with too many trainees cutting their teeth with such an obvious lack on-air and technical prowess and virtually nil training on what they will look lik,e if they do such and such.

The newly installed Director of News has a lot to answer for as this trend has been evident long before KRudd came to power and, no matter how many of you say the board is and was stacked with Howard loyalists (i agree), that is no excuse for next to no training.

One report (last month) on the recent NSW rains even had the reporter holding his own fluffy mike boom and in shot and so all of his incompetance went to air unedited!

Oh, that it has come to this! we deserve far better for our 8 cents a day.

Polly Flinders,

This is an online discussion forum.

If you present views, particularly views which are contrary to the views of others, then you should be expected to be asked to defend them, or as you choose to put it, be subjected to "push polling".

Of course no-one is under any obligation to respond to my questions, but I think people are entitled to draw what conclusions they will about views which are not defended when challenged.

Kenny wrote, "So the bias in the ABC comes down to not giving enough air time to 911 nut jobs."

In fact, "911 nut jobs", who peddle the paranoid theory of world wide conspiracy involving terrorist cells in almost every country in the world controlled from caves in Afghanistan with the ability and intention to commit more terrorist acts like 9/11, get plenty of air time on the ABC.

As just one example, claimed belief in this theory was used to justify the virtual imposition of martial law on the Sydney CBD during the APEC summit in September 2007, costing Australian taxpayers $160 million for security alone. (Yet, somehow, a team of comedians including one dressed as Osama bin Laden was able, against their own intentions and expectations, to breach this security and make it a laughing stock before world public opinion.)

It's only those who dispute this bizarre theory, who are denied "enough" (in fact, any) air time on the ABC.