Foxy,

I’ll not make a big thing of it because I have indeed appreciated Four Corners over the years, but more in the past than currently. Sarah Ferguson is also good, and I’m happy enough to ignore the kerfuffle over that Joe Hockey interview too. There’s a fine line between subtle activism and outright bias. Everyone has a bias and I don’t think we can expect journalists to be free from it either. Most of us can pick that up.

Chris Uhlmann; I knew it.
And didn’t he get a shellacking for not toeing the party line

Crikey reckoned the ABC should dump him, but then Guy Rundle is pretty bizarre at the best of times.
Of course Uhlmann has now seen the light and moved to Channel Nine. He’ll do a lot better there.
How should we say this . . he’s not a good mach for the ABC.
Paul Keating even wrote to the ABC complaining about Uhlmann too.

But after those two, who else would you like to nominate in this little line up for ABC’s “balanced" journalisms prize?
Tony Jones?
Leigh Sales?
Emma Alberscreechie?

Because the reality is, there isn’t anyone.
It’s the institutionalised bias I have an issue with and even Paul Barry touched on it during his interview with Mark Scott; predictably no real joy there though.

Dear Dustin,

Who else would I recommend for the ABC's balanced
journalist prize?

Well let's see - How about Barrie Cassidy, and others
who appear with him on "The Insiders," journalists
like Paul Sheehan, Gerard Henderson (am I on the
right track now?) and of course there's - Dennis Atkins,
Phil Coorey, Malcolm Farr, Mark Kenny, Fran Kelly, to name
just a few. What about Annabelle Crabb? And many more.
But you get the idea.

All in all supposed biased is a very difficult business to
measure - Tony Abbott complained about the ABC, but then so
did Paul Keating in his time. We need to determine what is
factual, slanted and misleading and for this we need to look
at a range of indicators.

1) Does the ABC give significantly more time to one side of
politics than the other - especially during elections?
Coverage is pretty even between the two parties and even in
programs like "Q and A" the panelists are pretty much well
balanced.

2) What about the question of public trust? Newspoll conducts
a survey commissioned by the ABC every year to gauge various
aspects of audience satisfaction. And so far the percentage
of people who believe that the ABC is balanced and even-handed
when reporting news and current affairs is still an overwhelming
majority.

A KPMG Report quoted in Crikey found the ABC to be a broadly
efficient organisation. The KPMG Report considered the ABC
to be highly efficient and underfunded. It may interest you to
know that the BBC receives much more in funding than our
national broadcaster.

Anyway, I shall leave you to your opinion. I have no further
wish to argue with you.

Cheers.

Dear Dustin,

You asked;

“When was the last time their ABC held The Greens feet to the fire?”

How about 14 Aug 2017?

Inside the Greens - “The Greens have been a party in disarray. As the party faces its biggest challenges since its foundation, Four Corners investigates if the party's actions live up to their spin. Louise Milligan reports.”

And stop calling me Shirley.

Hey ttbn
"The only things worth seeing on the taxpayer-burdening monolith are UK drama programs..."

I'm kind of fond of Poldark.

Haven't watched 4 Corners much and never heard of Glitch so can't comment on them.

TtbT has one eye only , He does not give a hoot about polluted water that people are offered to drink, as long as it is not him.
Some english poofterized filth is more to his liking.
He and Abbott the perpetual liar go hand in hand down the aisle of religious encumbrance to recommend political statement.

Four Corners is a terrific programme especially in the way it manages to place a well-researched, well-presented bomb under the privileged and complacent. One which has devastating effect in practice.

However last Monday's was not up to Sarah Ferguson's usual masterly standard - it seemed she was not really steeped in the politics of the American Presidential race. Anyone who followed the Democrat campaign closely would have noticed the rigged election in which the party brushed Bernie Sanders aside thus delivering America to Donald Trump (rigging exposed by Assange no matter where he got his information).

Clinton based her campaign very largely on gender identity politics, and Sarah Ferguson could have pressed her much more insistently on her record in the Senate as voting to finance the US colonial regime change wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya while Senator Bernie Sanders had voted No to all four of them.

While Hillary Clinton offered war without end Trump focused on the rust belt states offering them relief from the unemployment brought about by imports from China's use of cheap labour. He didn't have to be dinkum, merely attention-grabbing.