Belly:<<..It however is also true many, from any party you can name, thinks the ABC is biased.>>

any[EVERY-].one has bias
and abc=no differenct

heck were all biiased..so what]..it means we care

<<And sometimes I think some questioners are>>

some..old mate..?
ALL..every single blooming one of them*..[us]
[why should they..[we]..be different?

spying is about finding..the points..of..difference
spin..is about twisting the point..to our own advantage

so be it..here and in/the next lives
the things we chose determine how we live
living in anger..isnt really living..

[but neither the other soul/killing..things
the so called..'deadly-sin's'..thing is every-one has an agenda

by gods will/alone..

god enjoys the extreme example
[you know..like the...flea..picking a fight..
with a lions eyelash..or like felix[the cat]..or tomcat/or charely brown.[hitler/stalin/gengus chan/thatcher or menzies..or kers curr]..

I'm with JayB.

The ABC has a distinct tilt --rather like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but more pronounced.

It isn't just, or even mainly, the questions its reporters pose. Actually, if anything I'd say it is a lot more balanced in that regard than it has been in the past

But bias is clearly discernible in the flavor of the programs and documentaries it airs--a few examples off the top of my head:

1) We get regular documentaries which in one way or another--spruik multiculturalism. And such documentaries will almost always include heavy sermonizing about how bad Oz was to have had the white Australia policy--there will never be any acknowledgement that many of our near neighbors, whom the doco will have implied we had offended by such a stance, had similar (perhaps the ABC reporters are no knowledgeable enough to know that!)

2)Its reporting and commentary is very much pro-"asylum seekers" It is now almost always the case that anytime there is a issue/question about "asylum seeker policy" you will get an uninterrupted, unedited spiel by a refugee advocate group--and often that is the only assessment that you will get.

3)The coverage of climate issues is heavily weighed in favor of the warmist case-- and (on the Science Show) extends even to the childish belittling of skeptical authorities.

I am amused and feel I am on solid ground asking this question of our very right.*Do you think Bolt is biased?
That thing Alan Jones?
Do you like color blind see only some truths/colors?
We of left of Liberals should not be upset by posts like those here.
Ring every bit of joy out of the fact we understand the truth.
And that the 12% not committed to one side or the other are not buying it.
May have some news here soon but here will be far from the only place.

Belly: Do you think Bolt is biased? That thing Alan Jones.

I'm quite sure they're biased. Whoever they are I never listen to the radio anyway as I live near Brisbane & all the shock Jocks are in Sydney & Melbourne anyway. I watch the TV News on 7, 10, ABC, SBS & sometimes C&N & Aljezerra. I get my News reading from Yahoo 7's various News outlets. A reasonable World cross section, I think.

Belly: Ring every bit of joy out of the fact we understand the truth.

Well if that's mot biased nothing is.

Belly: And that the 12% not committed to one side or the other are not buying it.

If you mean one side or the other. Yep, that's me, not buying any Political Party Fanatics crap. Now crack, a hissy fit. ;-)

Government is there to serve the electorate. It is not there to rule us. Government is supposed to be providing essential services that it was set up to provide. First get the fundamentals right.

Government has no money of its own Government money comes from taxpayers. It is not an inexhaustible bucket that never runs dry.

Daily we read about children who harm themselves, boys failing in school and ambulances ramped outside hospital emergency entries waiting for available beds. Sadly, the government's own auditor, the ANAO has reports that seniors in nursing homes are covered in bed sores because they are not moved, and starvation of patients occurs.

All I ask is for government to put first and foremost the priorities for which it was originally set up. That and obtain value for money.

It is many years since the publicly funded national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS were conceived and there is no doubt that things have changed enormously since. There has never been so much free access to information and entertainment as at present and the availability and access continues in leaps and bounds. Newspapers and magazines are restructuring with many closing their doors forever, such is the public choice available on the Net.

Insofar as the publicly-funded national broadcasters are concerned, it is unreasonable that they expect to always be funded as they have been. Comparing the ABC now with what it what it produced (say) thirty years ago I would sell the present mob in a trice.

Why should the Aussie taxpayer who has been bled white through direct and indirect taxes, user pays, withdrawal of services and so on have to stump up the $$dough for two publicly-funded national broadcasters though? What cost political correctness and the ethnic lobby?

Go back to one and then only part-funded by the taxpayer. It does not matter which gobbles which, but two national broadcasters paid for by taxes is an outrageous excess.

A new allegation, now its been revealed Australia has been spying on East Timor, under Howard. Not for political purposes but for economic gain over oil and gas. 15 spooks from ASIO raided the offices of Bernard Collaery in Canberra yesterday, seizing files. Collaery is a lawyer representing the East Timor Government in its spying case against Australia. How will Abbott explain this one?