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