Have you ever heard the ABC or SBS defend a culturally conservative position?

e.g. On abortion, gay rights, immigration?

Aren't they supposed to present all points of view

TRUTHNOW78

They are far more like to defend child porn (redefined art) and be apologist for terrorist. That is what happens when socialist infiltrate high places. You will find that the BBC is very similar although not quite so blatant about their bias. The one good part about the internet is that all have a voice. Our national broadcasters pretend to be champions of free speech but only when it does not challenge their secular dogmas.

Actually the "so called" conservative stance on gay rights and immigration is anything BUT conservative. It's inhumane and radical. Conservative it's NOT.

On abortion they ONLY care about the unborn child and couldn't care less about the mother, due to the religious dogma. The most radical of this lot have a belief that the mother must die if it's a choice between abortion and no abortion where the mother and child can't both survive. Other radical Christians have been known to murder people at abortion clinics in acts of bomb and gun terrorism, while others routinely badger and harass.

Dear TRUTHNOW78,

Yes, I have seen both the ABC and SBS
present a wide spectrum of programs
that covered the conservative
point of view, on a variety of topics, including
the ones you mentioned, on abortion, gay rights,
and immigration.

Just to mention a few: -

1) On the ABC, for example,
Dateline, has covered these topics
over the years. As have Geraldine Doogue,
and Andrew Denton on their programs.
The 7.30 Report, Lateline, and Four Corners,
as well as, QandA (Question and Answer), have
also given a fair assessment of these topics in
the past.

2) Jenny Brockie who hosts the program, Insight, on
SBS (7.30pm - Tuesdays) loves a good discussion, and has
presented both sides of the argument on all the topics
you mentioned, and more.

If you really feel that the conservative point of view is
not being represented on these two channels, I suggest
that you do something about it and write to the
Program Directors.

I am convinced beyond doubt that all the 'media', including the ABC, is compromised to the extent that any topics about 'fact on the face of the record' are, to all intents and purposes, self censored.

Then send them a document that actually has names attached to proof of 'defective administration'or suchlike and - Bingo - before you know it every journo in the country is forever 'in meeting' whenever contact is attempted.

Some of it might be bias.
From my limited reading about cause and effect I'm more inclined to recognise these symptoms as fear.

I agree with Foxy.

Only last night on Lateline, Leigh Sales gave a very even-handed interview with David Marr on Bill Henson. I am a fan of David Marr even though I don't agree with everything he espouses. He responded to probing questions with honesty and with his own sincere analysis of the Henson debate. Sales certainly posed questions offering the alternative view.

Sometimes I think television is in the eye of the beholder. If your views are more conservative you will only see the "rabble left" while ignoring those segments that are more 'acceptable' and in sync with one's own views.

Tony Jones, Leigh Sales, Kerry O'Brien and Geraldine Doogue - just to name a few - always provide a two-sided or multi-faceted debate as the subject matters allow. I have seen very little bias in the ABC of late.

Did someone mention ABC bias? Lateline? OMG: where to start.

How about with their last limp 'apology':
http://www.schapelle.net/blog/2008/09/abc-admit-schapelle-corby-smears.html

Well, that really makes up for it doesn't it?

Trouble is, it isn't just ABC. 85% think the media is biased.

And if oz journos ever wondered why they have such a terrible rep internationally, here's the latest YouTube vid doing the rounds on them, on the same topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuzE16tQE

Someone needs ot clean up the media here with a massive big stick.

I totally agree with Foxy. ABC and SBS provide a balanced view as well as engaging in investigative journalism. It appears that some want only the ultra right view to be offered, rather than a balanced view.

Here in Gippsland, ABC Radio is the HQ of the Greens.

Among other blatant bias, they have been playing a filler where noted Greenie Jill Redwood is saying that the Timber Industry should be paying one third of the cost of the de-sal plant. A de-sal that will not produce water for rural atreas but Metro Melbourne only.

Despite sending them my research on global warming, they still follow the Green's line without question.

Gerard Callinan, Station Manager firmly believes that heads, he is right; tails you are wrong.

Pelican is right in the ABC showing 2 sides of a debate, the only trouble is that they are 2 sides of an octagon, & the other 6 sides, that are not the very far left, are never allowed any air time.

Kerry O'Brien & Tony Jones could not reach the middle of the road, with a full size extension ladder, in fact they probably could not even see it from the top of one.

One of these days, someone, on the ABC, will actually say something, that is even approaching the view of the majority of the Oz population, & all the switch boards will trip out in shock

The ABC is required to be unbiased and show an even hand to each side.
However, while doing that they use more subtle ways of achieving their
desired slant.
It is correct it not just the ABC that has its right leg longer than its left.

Now something you may not know. I have a relative that worked for the
ABC for many years and his comment is that there are no gays in the
ABC closet as the closet is full of Liberal voters.
He said that you do not tell anyone that you vote Liberal, newcomers
are warned of this when they start work there, on the quite of course.
Internally it is known as the ABC branch of the Labour Party in a
joking manner, not literally.
I presume this is why Q&A is stacked with labour supporters.

A typical ABC/SBS Easter/Christmas 'Christian' special will be some bloke in a frock or feminist in a suit who claims to represent the church and yet denies the Resurrection. I have no problem with skeptics and earth worshipers denying these events but when they have some liberal homosexual preacher claiming to represent the church then the media outlet is being dishonest. The soft pedaling on Mr Rudd for basically implementing and following Mr Howard's policies is another act of total hypocrisy. Sure Mr Rudd has said sorry and signed the benign Kyoto agreement (symbolic jesters at best) while still rolling out all of Mr Howards policies. If the ABS/SBS was unbiased it would have some balanced scientific debate on global warming. The one special they were forced into showing which at least challenged the well rehearsed dogmas upset many of the 'socialist elite'. They really are disgraceful!

Dear runner,

We see what we want to see and hear
what we want to hear.
I guess that's a human trait.

Wouldn't it be great if we practiced
what the Almighty taught us - tolerance,
compassion, understanding, kindness,
love ... I don't think He meant it only
for people who shared the same point of
view - conservative or liberal.

Foxy,

Tolerance is a good mantra however in practice everyone has boundaries on what they will tolerate. The ABC will not tolerate a Christian world view. They will only tolerate their own world view (dogmatic secularist) You and the vast majority of people are unlikely to tolerate Paedophiles in your home. Jesus Himself would not tolerate the money changes turning His Father's house into a den of thieves. Those intent on abortion laws are very intolerant of those with different views. Treating all people with dignity? Yes! Tolerating the intolerable? No.
It leads to predators scouting schools for kids to photograph them nude. It leads to priests molesting children, it leads to nations being overtaken by those more intolerable.

In a well evolved world tolerance of every behaviour might make us all fell like hugs. In a fallen sinful world their is plenty of intolerable things to resist.

As for practicing compassion and kindness I could not agree more. By God's grace I will grow in that area. Mercy does and will triumph over judgement. Don't mistake calling sin sin for lacking compassion. People on the left and right of politics have compassionate people and uncompassionate people.

Unfortunately on the SBS/ABC I rarely see what I want to see and hear what I want to hear. A little (or lot) more balanced reporting would be a breath of fresh air.

Dear runner,

Beautifully presented reasoning,
with which I can't argue.

I guess perhaps I tend to live in a
bit of a Fantasyland.
Where, I really can't see the bias,
I simply accept what's given, and mostly,
find it interesting.

Perhaps I don't analyize things enough.
I accept them at face value.

I guess that's a flaw on my part.

Thanks for sharing your views with me.

Foxy

Thank you for your humility. At the end of the day we all probably want the same thing (harmony, peace, love, acceptance). As you can tell I passionatly believe that these desires can only be realized in Christ. Man's (including my own)selfish desires prevent me from seeing it accomplished any other way.

If not from the ABC - the most constantly and criticially scrutinised media organisation in the country - then where does everybody else get their "balanced and unbiassed" view of the world?

I'd really like to know.

Hi All.
There has been several system stresses over time .The imperative for the public broadcastors, the ABC and the SBS, to supplement their government appropriations and sponcership or advertsing has been about most of the time.
The press has grown and higly profitable. The nineteenth century of the fourth estate is difficult to maintain in the relation to such a vast and poweful industry as it asserts tremendous political and ecomonic influence.

TBC

Bias is in the mind of the beholder.

Runner
Objectively it could be said that anyone’s which posts are uni-focused to whereby they are didactic rather than informational and if taken too seriously could be seen as judgemental, insulting, offensive, even unchristian to some people... and oh yes biased.
Before you leap to my defence, I view this as my cross to bear in that I have opinions. In my own defence I do attempt (with varying degrees of success) to be objective, in the knowledge that no one person has ALL the truth including me.

Some commenters tend to be more emotional in their reasoning and in even rely on a doctrinal approach, both self defeating exercises.

Objectivity is more than you say your piece then I have my say that is little more than gain saying. Objectivity is an informative process … the purpose of which is not to convert but to encourage tolerance/acceptance through knowledge.

Truthnow78
The ABC is less biased than fair, a compromise one that has more than one or two imperatives at play. One could note that Aunty and her more adventurous rellie (SBS) are less monocular in that they both service a wider range of demographics than commercial networks. In the latter the purpose is to run advertising and programs are there to keep the audience in front of the box. Likewise news papers/radio have the same criteria. This premise of business first is evident if one compares the focus, quality and content of programs covered.

The ABC is Christian oriented i.e. when was the last telecasting of a Muslim mosque ceremony of Friday prayers or a Buddhist temple meeting. SBS does a good job too. Are they biased? Of course, but overall much better than 7,9,10 and Foxtel.
Much to my chagrin 24 hr per day of my interests and opinions would result in a boon for book sales or drugs. I suspect the same would apply to any of us.
Viva la difference

Ah, yes. The ABC is a biased hotbed of socialists. That explains why I can't turn Radio National on these days without hearing someone from the Institute of Public Affairs telling me to privatise everything in sight, or Janet Albrechtsen giving her balanced and considered opinions on the Rudd government.

It was easy to judge the insight and accuracy of the ABC's critics when so many jumped up and down at Tony Jones for trying to paint Malcolm Turnbull as a pothead, when it was Turnbull himself who brought it up.

Dear readership,
It might be well to consider if any BIG issues you believe worthy of being made public ever actually become accurately broadcast, anywhere, ever.

Put that in the context of your contacting the National Broadcaster and bellowing about something counter to their immediate stance.

Oh, it is acknowledged that journos usually get the reportage a little slantwise from what was, in good faith, originally said to them.
Consider that lawyers are good at doing that too.

Consider the implications of how your original words taken only slightly out of context have bent your original intention to another direction. Hardly anyone ever gains the opportunity to have a correction published.

Consider that the resultant few seconds of fame usually makes you disregard their lack of attention to accurate reportage. Oh well; too late.

Of course they're only uni grads - they don't really have much life experience. Nuff said and let's move on!

There may be events touching your life that are important at the spur of the moment - and there might be larger concerns gnawing away at you like an abscessed tooth.

So why does talkback radio blether on for hours about the featherweight stuff with tiresome drones - when if you contact them yourself to share issues that are really hurting; you firstly have to get past the 'producer' with a bit of a crammer, then wait for hours - until, if the script isn't before you - you have, finally on air, literally forgotten everything you ever needed to say!

A non Farmer,
If I understand the question correctly the issue is/was about the ABC being biased.
To sustain this claim the ABC as an ORGANIZATION must be shown to be shown as having institutional (an agenda or policy of) and systematic bias not just the odd reporter/show.
Given the Board composition and stated policy bias if it exists must be either accidental or unintentional consequence of an individual or show.

One needs to be mindful of the personalities involved and apply the reasonable man test i.e. how unbiased would discussion show about abortion be if presented by Fred Nile? Who & how many would watch it? Then there are the complaints about bias. Contrast this with a similar show with Paul McDermott as host? The same issues would apply. When all is said and done it becomes a matter of judgement between a show that will attract a large target audience (public interest) and one that would attract an extremist minority.

Your comment is more about ACCURACY issues of ANY media and therefore a substantially different issue. However, the linking issue is the intention/focus of the programme. Its priority to present either the (lowest common denominator) entertainment or a meaningful infotainment i.e. a “Donahue Show” or “Catalyst” or something in between. The latter is expensive and not as certain to draw as big spending (target) audiences.

Commercial talkback radio is a clear example of these commercial needs by pandering to a guaranteed advertising susceptible audience.

For that reason unfettered “Fora” would never get a Guernsey in the commercial arena.

Years ago I was peripherally involved in a protracted event and I can say that the commercial media was to a tee more interested in the sensational/ newsworthy of a day to day events rather than the human angst their reports created.
Therefore the media should be approached with caution as it is a double edged sword.
More recently I traced my lost family via ‘Can we Help’ the cost was appearance on the show.

Actually, the ABC is well to the right of public opinion and has been for years.

Here's a letter which was published in the Canberra Times largely unchanged as I seem to recall possibly on 7 November 2003:

Dear Editor,

The debate over the ABC should not be over claimed bias, but
over how effectively it scrutinises our public figures.
Notwithstanding Senator Alston's complaints, it seems to me that,
with a few honourable exceptions, the ABC has largely failed in
this regard, particularly in relation to the Gulf War, where
Government Ministers were able to repeatedly get away with
presenting their obviously flawed and self-contradictory case to
the various ABC interviewers.

What should also be of concern is that so many of the ABC's leading
political journalists have done so much to promote the
neo-liberal political agenda in recent years.

A few of many examples which spring to mind are:

Pru Goward's promotion of John Howard's political career on 'The
7:30 Report' from the early 1980's.  The lavish praise by
Quentin Dempster and Stephen O'Doherty for the alleged
economic achievements of Nick Greiner, who 'balanced' the
budgets of NSW by conducting huge fire sales of public assets.
Shortly after O'Doherty left the 7:30 report he was elected as a
Liberal member to State Parliament.

Last year whilst the debate over the sale of Telstra was raging
ABC Radio National's Breakfast Show took a notably
pro-government stance. In October last year, even before the Estens
inquiry had delivered its report, Vivian Schenker told her audience
that the debate was no longer over if Telstra would be sold,
but over how the proceeds of the sale would be spent(1).

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

---

The support for Telstra privatisation by many ABC journalists followed years of sycophantic adulation of the pro-business Keating and Hawke Governments

1. See also "Radio National Breakfast Show Pronounces Telstra Debate Finished" if 26 Oct 2006 at http://www.citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com/content/1/RNBreakfastShow.html

For Further information see http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/249 http://candobetter.org/PropagandaWatch

(Sorry, I hit the 'Post Revision' button instead of the 'Preview' button when I was in the middle of typing a sentence. I will start that sentence again:)

The support for Telstra privatisation by many ABC journalists followed years of sycophantic adulation of the pro-business Keating and Hawke Governments. Whilst this has been depicted by many as 'left wing bias', I consider it right wing bias because of the pro-business policies which the Keating and Hawke Governments were able to implement throughout these years without proper scrutiny by the ABC or any other significant media outlet.

The other notable bias in the ABC is its support for high immigration and population growth and its persistent failure gpoing back to the 1970's to give a voice to those opposed to these policies. See for example:

"Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" of 23 april 2008 at http://candobetter.org/node/61

Hasbeen, I agree that many debates, like an octagon, have more than two sides and many shades of grey in-between. I think the ABC's panel type discussions and shows like SBS's Insight where the audience can participate, give a wider view than simple commentary.

It is interesting to note that the further Right we have moved in our government and in our mindsets that almost anything that refers to social justice or the environment is considered Left thinking or bias.

It was not that long ago it was considered quite 'normal' for the people (through the government) to own assets like utilities even under more Conservative (Liberal) Governments. In more modern times mere mention of government owned assets is to bring out the Reds Under the Bed hysteria.

Bias is a two edged sword and depending on which side you stand will determine what we recognise as 'bias' or not.

It is all about perception and perception management.

Dear Examinator,
A specific answer to your's.

Firstly the ABC in my opinion is biased because they refuse to run the uncensored, unexpurgated edition of "Father Know's Best".
I saw one episode once in LA.
Whoooo!

What Robert Young DIDN'T do with Joan Wyeth while the kids were in the next room watching TV is best left to imagination.
Believe it was 'Monopoly' - AND he scored. Got right on top of her.

But to continue - The Gay BEE Cee, as my dear bro-in law calls the show, (conservative voter he) should not come to any decisions about informing the public (more importantly, REFUSING to inform the public) about any affairs in Australia from any angle of institutional, systemic, political, policy, gender, Fred Nile wowser (Hey, I'm exempt) or even counter bias bias (if you can get y'r head around what I mean).
The turnout does have to abide by standards - yet a person arrives at a time in life when he has to accept, forgive me - bloody well knows that she's become, or always was, a propaganda machine.

My old mate P.Adams often hints that there's only a few listening anyway - so why the hell NOT speak some truth for a change?