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?