The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Our ABC: Balance, Bias, Prejudice or Censorship?

Our ABC: Balance, Bias, Prejudice or Censorship?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Today’s The Australian reports that the ABC chairman, Maurice Newman, has raised the issue of “group think” on the topic of climate change within the ABC and other media.

This is not extraordinary in itself since there is both strong public support for this criticism and equally strong defense.

What are illuminating are the alleged comments from Jonathan Holmes, supported by Bernie Hobbs saying that “the ABC could not give undue weight to the skeptics and thereby push a sceptics’ agenda.”

Are they saying “we, the ABC” don’t have an agenda and we don’t weight issues except where “their” weighting and agenda’s are contrary to ours? What outrageous comments.

This position is of course, lifted directly from the BBC’s recent “policy statements” in their own defense on this topic, I guess the ABC chairman is concerned that ABC News/CA production will be pilloried on public credibility to the same extent the BBC is now suffering.

Given the shear volume of major international developments on this topic, parliamentary hearings, internal inquiry’s, resignations, US Senate Minority Report, litigations against the EPS and pending US Court actions, not to mention the documented criticisms of the process by which the science has been derived, one has to wonder if this is simply a “weighted agenda” or outright censorship. When are we going to get “News” of what is actually happening from our ABC?

Avoidance of such weighty international news robs the public of critical analysis, dissemination and opinion. Aren’t we entitled to expect these attributes of news and current affairs from our public broadcaster?

Are we seeing a progression from balance, to bias, to prejudice, to weighted agenda to censorship?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 11 March 2010 9:35:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course the ABC is biased along with every other movement, organisation and individual.

What I'll say in respect of the ABC, is that I enjoy the way they put a different slant on things and how they challenge other biases in society. How would it be if the Government's spin machine never got challenged? Or big business? At least, the spinners are keeping each other in check to some extent. Recently it's been Nick Xenophon with the Church of Scientology, for example.

On the topic of climate change, I agree with the proposition that the ABC is taking sides. And, it's one area of public discussion where I think they've got it wrong. There most definitely should be equal airtime given to people to say why they think the current interpretations of climate data might be wrong. There should be a decent debate without the silly leading questions and superciliousness.
Posted by RobP, Friday, 12 March 2010 11:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed RobP.

Most media organsisations show bias and no-one is exempt, although I find it funny at times when both the conservative and more liberal elements both accuse the ABC of bias.

It was the ABC that bought to attention both the actions of Patricks on the waterfront and the corruption within the BLF years previously.

Generally though the various players, Tony Jones (Lateline/Q&A) and Kerry O'Brien (7.30 Report) and many others do give both sides a hard time during interviews if question are avoided or spun as politicians are apt to do.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 12 March 2010 1:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that Spindoc doesn't exclude extremes. Imagine an ABC "debate" between A white supremacist 'Christian' extremist fundy and an extremist jihadist Muslim on the other.

That would be a 'balanced' program, equally matched sides of the argument. Would it be informative? entertainment? reflect the majority of Australians?

Arguably the show would be divisive, stir up the nutters on both sided to have a go. For those and other reasons the ABC wouldn't/shouldn't run such a program. Not doing so is bias/censorship by definition.

Why? The ABC is a public funded media player and such it needs to reflect the public's overall wishes/interests.
Despite the incomplete and therefore misleading loading of his post the majority Australia's people believe on a sliding scale with AGW/ACC.

NB it is not binary.

Aunty to maintain it's funding, must, maintain an overall Middle of the Road (MOR) stance, and yes, that involves both the 'C' and 'B' words. It simply doesn't have the luxury to compete head on head with commercial media.

NB given the aging of the Baby Boomers one can assume an audience increase.
More people watch commercial channels than the ABC. All of them tend to service the same bulk market. The ABC/SBS by default tends toservices a significant un-catered for portion of the population.

It is nonsense to suggest that simply because it's an alternative view it should get equal time regardless of the demographics of the viewers.

Contrary to his assertions The ABC gave lots of time to the Loony Lord. A lot more than the commercial media shock jocks and talk back would give the alternative opinion on their "shows".

Research shows that the afore mentioned LL got more time on the ABC that by most of the commercial stations proportionately.

I suggest this article is a stalking horse to bitch, about that the ABC doesn't reflect *his* views on this topic.

I argue given the percentage of viewers that watch the ABC and the proportion of those that don't believe in AGW, they too bad at their proportional allocation of time.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 12 March 2010 1:51:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Holmes and Hobbs are correct.

A bit of bandwidth, but going by this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0

it is the ABC chairman himself that is pandering to “group think”, going back decades.

RobP raises an interesting issue: would it be right to give equal time to opposing points of view when it can be shown that 99% of climate scientists agree with the orthodoxy and only 1% doesn’t?

I think he misses the point though - science is not determined by debate, or even by a court of law. If it was, those with the better debater (or lawyer, or those with the biggest bankroll) would win hands-down all the time.

No, science is determined by weight of evidence, and at this point in time, it weighs heavily (with 90 - 95% confidence levels) on the side of AGW. The 'ABC' know this, they are not stupid - maybe Newman just wants to give the appearance of taking the middle road.
Posted by qanda, Friday, 12 March 2010 3:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda,

>>I think he misses the point though - science is not determined by debate, or even by a court of law.<<

I think you're missing the point. I am well aware that science is decided by experiments etc. But, by the time the discussion gets to TV, there is so much else grafted to the science that it actually becomes a political event.

So, yes, absolutely, there should be an even-handed approach to the debate on what policies should be adopted. And whether or not too much weighting is being given to a particular point of view.
Posted by RobP, Friday, 12 March 2010 3:13:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy