SM, with the Mad Monk screaming it from the pulpit "stone that blasphemer of an ABC." I am surprised that only 31% think the ABC is politically biased and only 46% of Conservative voters, think likewise. You would imagine Abbott should have been able to influence far more people to his way of thinking, particularly conservative voters. I also have to question how many of those surveyed ever actually tune into the ABC.
Saltpetre, If I had a 'LIKE' button for your post I would press it a 100 times. Thumbs Up on that on mate!

Beach, Sorry no like button for you, but that's showbiz! I answered your question way back when.

SM an honest thought/observation it seems to me at least you are finding it hared to control your temper.
I was once at least that bad but while you once insulted with class you increasingly get down and dirty.
I forgive you.
It can not be easy watching Abbott make such a mess out of his Prime Minister ship.
Today, right or wrong Tony is being looked at all over the world, because of the off shore troubles.
I even think he is more right than wrong on this issue.
More interesting is evidence given against Tonys boss, Rupert Murdock s British news paper.
Saw the evidence of closer than usual contact between Blair/Murdock while Blair was PM and after.
See my point?
Kill the ABC beggar the truth Rupert wants it!

Paul,

Noting your need to compensate for weakness of your argument with hysterical exaggeration, the view of the ABC's bias has been around for about a decade.

Bias is not just the occasional unprofessional over reach by ABC journalists (as acknowledged by Mark Scott), it includes the abject failure to cover issues that are embarrassing to labor, such as the deafening silence over Craig Thomson.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/02/19/1226832/134038-75d96166-993d-11e3-986c-06d72cd520ac.jpg

As for the over reach of the ABC, there is a serious question as to why a public broad caster needs 4 TV channels (as many as all the other free to air channels together) and umpteen radio channels, that all compete with commercial stations for viewers, depriving them of revenue and the treasury from tax income.

Belly,

What you are seeing is my irritation when people post nonsensical replies to a post of mine.

As for Abbott, so far His performance as PM has far exceeded Krudd's or Juliar's stopping the boats and fixing up the financial mess that labor left.

IT must pain you to see how corrupt the unions are.

Shadow Minister we represent totally different sides of politics.
I am rather proud that I continue to insist on improvements from my side.
And convinced you can not even see those in your side who do you a disservice.
Pre election it was clear Labor had by its actions given a man most did not want power.
Increasing evidence tells me we ,may just do that again.
Another scenario is Shorten may read the public's mind and see his defense will not save the filth in unions.
We both should be pleased as are most in the ALP the thing Thomson is on his way[ hopefully full 5 years] to prison.
ABC go you good thing say what you wish its free speech and our freedom to know.

Belly,

There is the matter of your repeated hypocrisy of demanding that the Pope, bishops and the Catholic hierarchy be held accountable for the child molesting they may or may not have known about and not prevented, however you do not insist on similar responsibility and structural accountability where your favoured unions and Labor Party are concerned.

There is a parallel: what is sauce for the Catholic geese should be sauce for the Labor and union ganders.

Why should union and Labor leaders be a protected species? What about their accountability for the leadership, executive control and governance of their organisations? They have received handsome remuneration packages and benefits to take responsibility, so how come you are so understanding and making excuses for leaders like Shorten?

If Shorten and others could wave a magic wand and put the whole subject of union and Labor corruption to sleep today many believe they would do just that in a heartbeat. Would you support them if they did that? Union and Labor leaders have done that before, allegedly.

That is hypocrisy (and something worse, hard-bitten members and public alike might think).

SM this statement is simply untrue;

Bias is not just the occasional unprofessional over reach by ABC journalists (as acknowledged by Mark Scott), it includes the abject failure to cover issues that are embarrassing to labor, such as the deafening silence over Craig Thomson.

The Craig Thomson matter has received extensive coverage from the ABC.
Here is a link from ABC online news. please point to the bias?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/craig-thomson-verdict/5266468

I must say the coverage by the commercial channel news on Thomson is rather mediocre at best, Channel 9 on the same night that Thomson was convicted gave more coverage to Sam Burgess switching from league to rugby, whereas the ABC news was quite the opposite. Is Channel 9 biased in favor of the Labor Party? Oddly SM many times in the past when campaigning for both labor and The Greens, I have come across Labor people who have bemoaned about the ABC's bias against their party. The fact is at election time the government, particularly the PM gets more news coverage than the opposition, that is a fact of political life.
If anyone should claim media bias its us Greens, very negative coverage of our party by the mainstream media. When Piers Akerman attacks The Greens with a bias rant in his Murdoch approved newspaper column its of no consequence, as his "readers" are only the bottom dwelling, red necked, knuckle dragers, who would never vote Green anyway, same goes foe 'Shock Jock' Jones. Just as these fellas could never influence you to stop voting Green!....you would have to start first, before you could stop.

Please do not call me illiterate this time for pointing out another SM error! Rather, if you wish call me you stupid Little Green Pixie Paul1405, all water of a ducks back.