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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RobP
Excellent observations.

Yes, that's true Rob. One could even argue that science doesn't matter anymore - politicians, economists and religious zealots will determine government policy in response to climate change. In that, yes there will be much debate - however it will be a 'debate' that scientists will be loathe to enter, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, you will get the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Brenchley (similarly global warming 'alarmists') distorting and misrepresenting the science to drive a political agenda.

The ABC is about dogma more than most religous people. They have shown this consistently with their fervour to support the earth worshiping movement which spread the false and now debunk dogma of man made climate change. The current affair shows are stacked with their favourite High Priests and they rarely have balance. Red Kerry finds it impossible to be balanced and Jones is nothing short of disgraceful.

The ABC is about dogma more than most religous people. They have shown this consistently with their fervour to support the earth worshiping movement which spread the false and now debunk dogma of man made climate change. To think that they even had the hide to declare 'the science is settled.' Any true scientist must be extremely frustrated by the spin needed to keep the funding coming. The current affair shows are stacked with their favourite High Priests and they rarely have balance. Red Kerry finds it impossible to be balanced and Jones is nothing short of disgraceful in his bias.

qanda,

The way I see it, if you have the Al Gores of this world you must have the Christopher Moncktons. And, conversely, if you have the Moncktons, you must have the Gores. Now that's the parity sorted out.

Despite the one-sidedness of these two, there's still a limit to how far they can go before they will come a-cropper, I suspect. Don't forget there's a third force - the apathetic centre - that's got the measure of these two.

My group Architect and Engineers for 911 truth have been protesting out side the ABC for 2 yrs.The ABC refuse to confront the new evidnece of 911.They even tell their staff not to take our literature.

All the ABC has to do is air the evidence and debunk it,if it is wrong.
WTC building 7 did it for me.2 yrs ago I never knew it existed.It took the Bush Admin 6 yrs to release a report that was a farce.There were 3 buildings that came down that day which few know about.

We have a 186m building coming down in 6.5 sec.It reached a max speed of 205kph and accelerated absolute freefall for 2.5 sec in a vacuum.Why was there not resistance to gravity in a building which no plane crashed into and had only a few minor fires of no real consequence?

see http://www.aetruth.org/

The ABC generally , favours a left-leaning line on many issues.

It’s particularly noticeable with Radio Nationals science & current affair programs--to mention but a few notables:
The Science Show – has a strong pro-IPCC bias/reverence.
Late Night Live – has a strong anti-West bias.
And, PM reporters seem to reserve their most aggressive persona for conservative figures.

Some have been wont to see Maurice Newman’s recent comments as a kin to editorial direction :a drawing of the toe line.But there is already a preferred line, for a long time the lesser programming lords of the ABC realm have seemed to be adhering pretty closely to their own line and favoured those guests who could lip-synch those lines.

On the subject that motivated Maurice Newman’s comments , AGW , Robyn Williams has protested his innocence declaring his interviewing of Pilmer etc as evidence of even-handedness. But Robyn’s coverage of the pro-AGW figures has been more detailed, more often, and more amiable.And there has been also instances when the examination of AGW issues, under Robyn’s programming, has had all the features of a sideshow alley spruik.

ABC 1 has its moments too, Playschool with its quotas of black dolls, its metrosexual bananas-in-pyjamas & ethnic presenters.
And sometimes Kerry O’Brien lets slip his fondness for left of centre positions.

But there are redeeming features, ABC 1, presents some excellent nature documentaries’. Its science show, Catalyst, presents science without the embellishments of Radio Nationals, The Science Show.And ABC News Radio presents a excellent BBC feed.
Then there’s ABC 2, with DR WHO – exoneration enough !

Talking of which , if Dr Who is passing this way I hope he’ll give me a lift –especially if his travelling companion is Rose Tyler, Martha Jones or even, Lala Ward (apologies to Richard Dawkins—it’s my selfish gene!).

I expect that if I was to hitch a ride on the Tardis, into the future, I see qanda and his alarmist cohorts, all seated at a table (next to B1 & B2), eating lots and lots of humble pie.

The question was about the exclusion of news items and not debates about their content. Where do the ABC’s “view” of content end and the censorship by exclusion begin?

Forget the “topic content”, this was just the example given by the ABC chairman. What I’m seeking to address is not the issue of bias but outright exclusion.

Let’s change the topic from AGW to say, International Banking. There has been a story of an alleged banking scandal breaking in Europe involving international trading irregularities.

The “blogosphere” has been on fire for three months, the head of the division has resigned, parliamentary hearings are taking place in the UK, there are multiple internal inquiry’s taking place, a US Senate Minority Report has documented a raft of alleged irregularities and 16 litigations against the US “banking regulator” are pending action in the US Courts. In addition, there are two comprehensive, publicly released submissions of allegations against this Bank, its processes, its records, and possible “conflicts of interest” and “profiteering” by some of its senior managers.

Since we in Australia have a financial interest in this Bank and we are proposing to legislate for national investment in this Bank, we clearly need to be well informed.

Now, how do we feel about the fact that our public broadcaster and some other media outlets have not published any of these relevant breaking international news items?

From past observations, dating back quite a few years,
the ABC always appeared to be slightly - left
of centre in reporting political issues.

Perhaps as a result of excessive public criticism
they now tend to be more cautious and report on
a more moderate basis to avoid critiques of prejudice
and maintain their government funding.

Climate change is a controversial issue - influenced
by political opinion and to maintain their support
the ABC has to be cautious not to upset present and
future governing parties. Unlike Rupert Murdoch's
media empire that can push their own agenda.

The ABC has so many radio stations and TV channels now that each one probably rates differently on this matter. The station that dismays me particularly is Radio National, which for much of each day sounds more like Radio America than anything to do with Australia. American accents, American music, American news, American commentators on just about everything, drive me to switch off what was once my favourite station because I am utterly sick of it.

>>Unlike Rupert Murdoch's media empire that can push their own agenda.<<

Foxy,

It can, but there are limits for it like there is for everyone else. I noticed some criticism of Glen Milne (writer for the Australian) about how he was taking a prominent and increasingly more strident pro-Murdoch, anti-Left stance. Watching him interviewing on Meet The Press recently, he looked like he was under some pressure. So, I think you'll find that everybody's got their limit. When they cross it they'll get mugged by reality, regardless of who they are.

>>Forget the “topic content”, this was just the example given by the ABC chairman. What I’m seeking to address is not the issue of bias but outright exclusion.<<

Spindoc,

How do you deal with outright exclusion? There's only one way - totally change the focus by throwing one group of people out and replacing them with another. It's like a song you've got in your head. The only way to get rid of it is to mentally play another one.

I don't want to forget the topic content because this is where problems are actually resolved and rectified. It's obvious to me that you're seeking a "regime change". But, how do we know that there won't be just as much bias, if not more, in your preferred regime?

Dear RobP,

Anyone on "Meet The Press" would be under
considerable pressure to maintain certain
guidelines set by the program to avoid controversy,
and perhaps there may have been a more subtle
undercurrent to avoid expressing -
Murdoch's biases.

For example, Andrew Bolt, who sometimes is quite
open and critical in the press but on the ABC's -
"Insiders," on Sunday mornings -
he seems to present a somewhat more moderate image.

So yes, there are reasons for the way people behave
in the media, and everyone has their biases - as well
as the reasons for them.

Interesting that no one seems game to comment on how we might feel if the international new items that have been suppressed by our media, were related to a big international banker or multinational corporation?

RobP, you say;

<< I don't want to forget the topic content because this is where problems are actually resolved and rectified. >>

I presume you mean “resolved and rectified” as in by public debate? This is of course true and is the way it should be however, how can we debate such news items if our media does not report them at all? We are being denied “critical analysis, dissemination and opinion”.

<< It's obvious to me that you're seeking a "regime change". But, how do we know that there won't be just as much bias, if not more, in your preferred regime? >>

I’m not suggesting regime change and I don’t have a preferred regime. I absolutely support freedom of the press and self regulation. The ABC is positively not alone in suppressing some of the news items, although given the announcements yesterday about the “restructuring of the ABC’s management”, your regime change comment is somewhat prophetic.

Our Forum members DO read international media and access many other forums; we absolutely and positively know what news is breaking internationally. Accordingly, we are also fully aware of what is NOT being covered by our media. The difference is therefore, that we do cover those suppressed news items, we do subject them to critical analysis and dissemination, and we do form and state our opinions.

Those relying upon our traditional News and Current Affairs are therefore excluded by editorial censorship. It is hypocritical of our media, to pounce on totalitarian regimes for censorship when our own media does precisely the same.

>> Interesting that no one seems game to comment on how we might feel if the international new items that have been suppressed by our media, were related to a big international banker or multinational corporation? <<

Interesting indeed spindoc, but why stop there?

Your original post singled out the ABC, it seems you are now mellowing somewhat to be more inclusive - good move.

I would agree that there are ‘forces’ out there with a much bigger agenda than I could ever understand. If you do have a handle on it, please enlighten us - it's your thread anyway.

Your comments as to why the mainstream media (whatever their bias) did not report on a truly newsworthy event is mind numbing.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/03/terror.fatwa.analysis/index.html?hpt=C2

It was/is being discussed here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3507&page=0

For one who appears concerned about news suppression, censorship, bias, etc ... your conspicuous absence is telling – but, you too may not have been aware.

>>Interesting that no one seems game to comment on how we might feel if the international new items that have been suppressed by our media, were related to a big international banker or multinational corporation?<<

Spindoc,

I watch a fair bit of news and current affairs and I agree that the media, particularly the commercial channels, only tokenly cover big, "unsexy" news items and issues. You just have to look at how skin-deep breakfast TV is becoming to see the trends on commercial TV.

I did, however, note a very competent analysis of the investigation into the Lehmann Brothers collapse by Stephen Long on Lateline. However, it was tucked away in a 3-4 minute slot at about 11 pm on the ABC. But, if people want to find out more they can always get FoxTel and tune into the US commercial news networks for more in-depth analysis.

As to people's feelings on these issues, it depends on how it affects them personally. At the end of the day, the media is providing content for an audience. The audience obviously isn't much interested in what big issues are going on overseas and so stories about them aren't being played. In the world of images and sound bites, they can't compete with the more salacious pieces on the latest celebrity escapade or whatever.

Another take, is that we should primarily focus on domestic issues and problems which we have had a hand in creating (and thereby are in a position to solve). Talking about issues that have originated elsewhere, is purely academic from our POV. Unless, that is, by talking about them we can force the originators to fix them.

I've just spent a week watching much more TV than usual, due to inclement weather on a fishing trip and a lack of reading material. The place where I stayed had Austar as well as all the free-to-air channels - and I have to say that the ABC remains head and shoulders above the rest for intelligent viewing, including its news and current affairs. I'd rank SBS second.

Given the utter dross for which media consumers are apparently willing to pay, the ABC remains a bastion of quality and reason in a sea of mostly lightweight rubbish.

Long may Aunty continue to annoy the Spindocs of the world :)

qanda/spindoc

One could *guess* that the media is so parochial and the story has a narrow APPEAL for the target demographic. Bumped by a juicy murder here tales of Abbott's daughters virginity who knows.
The government want's to stop a panic?
There are diplomatic issues.
I don't remember seeing to much of the 'dry' important issues in other countries that may have affect on us.

The emphasis of all media it is entertainment and self interest.
Their job is to sell advertising or their owners interests. Public information is down the list.

What mystifies me is why given our basis of society i.e. capitalism etc *why anyone would expect anything more?*

Another thing I've noticed over years of listening to Radio National is its fascination with everything Jewish. If you counted up the number of interviewed guests who identified themselves as Jewish and compared that number with all the others, you would get the feeling that Jewish was the second most populous group on earth... second only to Americans. No opportunity is missed on RN to remind us of the Jewish holocaust, even though the world has experienced worse, rarely mentioned. An obvious conclusion is that broadcasters at RN are predominantly Jewish, which is not exactly reassuring to anyone hoping to hear balanced coverage of the plight of Palestinians on RN news or current affairs programs.

I guess you have to be sensitive to these things, for whatever reason.

As someone who listens to RN almost daily and have done so for years, I must say that I've never noticed a preponderance of Jewish presenters or interviewees.

Bias at the ABC may be one thing, but what can be done about 'biased' media consumers? Some people just hear what they want to hear and others see only what their blinkers allow, I guess.

No other media in Australia is subjected to the intense scrutiny that is the lot of the ABC. No other media is held accountable for whatever opinions/facts/factoids are presented.

A shame really.

CJ

"Some people just hear what they want to hear and others see only what their blinkers allow, I guess."

That says it all.

Here is a biased piece of journalism by the ABC's Jonathan Holmes to ponder. Of course, his target is an unbiased journo from a free thinking non-government funded media outlet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826604.htm?site=thedrum

Looks like spindoc has backed off if not flown the coup, would anyone else care to comment?

When Jonathon Holmes tackles Piers Ackerman he's putting his skills to good use, IMO.

Hi qanda, no, I’m still hanging around like a bad smell. Thought this thread dropped off the list but its gone active again.

Read through the JH article you posted thanks. A bit disappointing though. It’s just a hissy fit between journo’s, not exactly a biting piece of analysis of anything, but it’s a start.

As discussed with you on another thread, (and I might add you still have not addressed that post), until and unless we see the ABC and other MSM cover the international news items in the list of news releases I provided, we can have little confidence in their News and Current Affairs, let alone have dissemination and informed opinion. If it’s not reported, we can’t discuss it.

Jonathon Holmes is such a classic isn’t he? When the ABC chairman shouts “duck” he sticks his head over the bunker and shouts “quack”! Boom, lock, stock and two smoking barrels! I love it.

CJM, it’s not a question of annoyance at the ABC, its disappointment at the ABC’s lost credibility, and once lost its hard to recover it. I lived and worked in 29 countries in a period of 35 years. Wherever I was, the only link with real and balanced news and current affairs was the ABC and the BBC. The rest was local political propaganda dross. Generations came to trust these public broadcasters, even in America we would drive 250 miles north to the Canadian border on a Saturday to listen to the BBC international news. (OK, I admit, we did pick up a carton or two of half decent Canadian beer). In the Middle East, Asia, South America and the Soviet Union, our preoccupation became finding access to these highly respected news broadcasts (even locals in foreign countries were as thirsty as us).

Colleagues tell me, and I recently solicited comment, that these broadcasters are now widely regarded as just as narrow, sectarian, minority and PC oriented as local media. What an absolute tragedy.

If current generations have no such reference points, then their defense of the ABC is probably understandable.

Watching the 7:30 report I was a little taken aback by the term “Government's failed insulation scheme” used by Kerry O'Brien.

While I think there were problems with the roll out most of it succeeded in doing what it set out to do, stimulated the economy, delivered savings on green house gas emissions and saved people money on energy bills well into the future. I have greater issues with Julia Gillard's roll out than I do with this one. Others obviously disagree.

However I'm not sure it is the place of my ABC, in a program such as the 7:30 report, to be engaged in this sort of labelling from the interviewer using the word 'failure' as a given. It could have and should have come directly from the opposition.

That being said I would have no problem with Mr O'Brien putting a question such as “Do you believe the public has the right to view the insulation roll out as a failure?”

Is this an example of ABC group think?