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.