Foxy,

I have watched Q&A probably a dozen times over the years, and I only once saw more than one conservative on the panel and once saw a conservative free panel. In addition the host definitely was biased towards the left. Secondly, whatever the declared bias of the audience, the selected questions were almost exclusively for the left.

As you are clearly well left of center, I have no doubt that you are well within your comfort zone here. However, for most people right of centre there is no doubt as to the rampant bias of the ABC and its selective reporting.

Finally, I see no reason why the taxpayers should fork out $1bn for this drivel. At least they should allow advertising to pay for 50%.

Shadow Minister,

I can see that our realities differ.
I don't like labeling people - because
people can and do change their minds
on issues. However, I watch Q&A regularly
and I have always considered the panelists
to be fairly balanced as are the questions.
I'm not buying into your interpretations or
your labels.

You see everything through your conservative
political prism. By doing that you run the
risk that policy, national interest
objectives get cast aside, over looked.

You need to look into how much an average tax
payer pays for our national broadcaster as
compared to commercial media.

Perhaps then we can continue this conversation.
Removing your political blinkers would also help.

To Foxy.

Sorry for the late reply, but It took some time to think about it.

If you are really looking over several news sources then you're doing a lot better then I am. So with that in mind you can take this comment with a grain of salt, (hopefully it's worth more then that), because with regards to looking into the news you might be doing a better job then I am.

Nonetheless, here's my thought. I use this more with gathering differing points of view then with comparing media sources, but in theory it should apply to both. The first step of seeking a diverse set of sources to consider opens you up to different takes on the same thing, and different ways of looking at it, different attitudes. With this approach you get a broader view that will likely be better at explaining and understanding other views, instead of being surprised or shocked by a different perspective. (You'll problem still get that just because there is so much out there, but diverse perspectives helps that). More sources sometimes can help justify or challenge other news sources too.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second step is to consider the reliability of what's said. This can help you from drowning in information. This second step is in itself a bias contributor, but it's also just from being observant and paying attention. For instance in media published that homosexual sex is safe, is dramatically countered by stats that deal with medicine stats and the gay populations. The truth in this aspect is a harsher reality of cancer and other issues. Another example is with the Covid virus and how at first there was news that a Chinese whistle blower first tried to blow the alarm about this virus, but no one listened and China may have even gone to some trouble to shut this guy up. Then later we get a story from the WHO, because that congratulate how well China has handled this virus. Something about the second story is amiss because we still remember the first.

I'm sure there are other examples, but in general getting a diverse set of news sources won't help set straighten out which ones are are correct and which ones are wrong, that needs a second step. And that second step (at least for me) is recognized as a task that can't be accomplished on every news story. Fact checking news is a thing because of this, but for the most part that's too much trouble for most people that have other obligations, responsibilities, or just lives in general.

(Continued)

(Continued)

And that leads to a third option. Just skip the first step of getting a diverse set of news, and instead focus on one or two outlets that are trusted. I think this is largely where we get anti-this source and anti-that source. (Sometimes they might be right, there are a lot of media sources out there that are unreliable).

I know none of this is new to consider, but I though this might help with the idea of drowning in the jungle of internet media. If you search out there in that jungle, keep in mind that what's out there are just things that are possible and might be true, until you can get a better stable ground to understand their reliability.

Know this though, one down fall of getting too much information, is to push your own values and morals into questionable ground. After all what you're doing is exposing yourself to a lot of other ideas that say why they are right, and your own values that you grew up with might be taken for granted and tossed because you don't have a defense against the Internet narrative you find in the jungle out there. This won't be as big an issue on values you've invested time and consideration into, but for other time tested values that you have from generations before you and the local community that know from trial and error, those ones are the ones that might be in danger even if they are right.

...Just a caution to be aware of and why I say to hold a stance of "it's possible," instead of anything stronger that might make a person throw out their values and convictions at a moment's notice from a trusted news story.

Dear NNS,

Thank You for giving me such an in depth reply.

You've made me realise how much I still have to
learn.

Thanks - much to think about.