Quintessential SR in these posts.

First he declares that the ABC is a" pretty well muzzled government lapdog". Then, since he assumes that we've forget that bit of idiocy (or because he has himself forgotten it) he thinks that cutting jobs will have a "chilling effect on how much the ABC is prepared to hold the government to account."

A muzzled lapdog that nonetheless hold the government to account. LOL. But logic was never SR's strong suit.

SR declares that the ABC is "demonstrably " not biased. And then proceeds to not demonstrate it. But when others offer a differing view they, according to SR, need to "back that up rather than just running with ideological bleating." Irony? Hypocrisy? You choose.

The fact is it is impossible to 'prove' that the ABC or any other organisation is biased. Its a value judgement and there are differing values.

If an article on climate change says, in the first paragraph, that we're all gunna die in 12 years, and treats that as a fact but then says in paragraph 100 that some people disagree, some will call that unbiased because both sides were mentioned whereas others will see blatant bias.

Places like the Herald-Sun or Fox USA are clearly biased toward the right. But they aren't biased because the management or ownership sits there each day determining minutely what is and isn't said. Their bias is maintained by hiring people who are biased to the right and then giving them free rein to tell their version of the truth.

Surveys show that the ABC staff are 5 times more likely to support the Greens than the general population and twice as likely to support left of centre parties than the population. Clearly the ABC hires people who are going to report the news the way the ABC culture wants it reported.

People like SR want to see the emperor's new clothes. The rest of us can see he's naked.

So there you have it folks, & from his won key board.

SR doesn't have any opinions of his own, he has to wait until an "inquiry" tells him what to think.

No wonder we get the straight lefty line on everything from him.

Lol.

Oh look it's the Bill and Ben tag team.

Dear Bill,

You really do stumble over this stuff don't you. The organisation can both be pretty well muzzled and coerced into further compliance.

Demonstrably my illiterate chap means able to be demonstrated as I did with reference to past inquiries. GY offered nothing of the such in rebuttal.

You claim “The fact is it is impossible to 'prove' that the ABC or any other organisation is biased. Its a value judgement and there are differing values.”

Rubbish. The ABC charter and its policies work very hard to negate bias in its coverage of issues and they largely succeed. There are no such controls over mainstream media.

Still there are obvious signs of compliance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWXDGGWB3Mw&t=35s&ab_channel=friendlyjordies

Then there was this from you: “Surveys show that the ABC staff are 5 times more likely to support the Greens than the general population and twice as likely to support left of centre parties than the population. Clearly the ABC hires people who are going to report the news the way the ABC culture wants it reported.”

You lot repeatedly trot this crap out without any reference to the demographic of university educated journalists as a whole.

Dear Ben,

So the reality of appropriately constituted inquires are all subservient to your opinion? Thank god our world isn't run by the likes of you.

SR,

"You really do stumble over this stuff don't you. The organisation can both be pretty well muzzled and coerced into further compliance."

Well its true that scenario is possible, but its not what you said. Let me explain what you said since it obviously went over your head - quite a feat. You were saying that "the ABC is prepared to hold the government to account". So it isn't compliant or muzzled. Effectively you were simultaneously saying it is muzzled yet able to hold the government to account. Doublethink lives.

Its a bit of a worry when you can't even follow your own logic. But we know that you often try to pretend that you said something different once your original assertions are shown to be bonkers. Its SOP for SR.

"Demonstrably my illiterate chap means able to be demonstrated as I did with reference to past inquiries."

Except when you said it was demonstrable you didn't mention anything to demonstrate it. QED.

"You lot repeatedly trot this crap out without any reference to the demographic of university educated journalists as a whole."

Well I don't reference the journalist demographic because its utterly irrelevant. But I notice you don't even try to deny that the ABC staff lean heavily hard left

SR,

The only "inquiries" into the ABC bias have been instigated and run by the ABC.

The ABC has no conservative presenters and no right of centre editors or journalists. Their investigative attacks are overwhelmingly against conservative politicians and their "investigations" into crimes or misdemeanours of the left are either weak to the point of whitewash or non-existent.

The issues it covers are those important to the overwhelming green/labor journalists and ideologically it is closer to the Guardian than any other publication.

shonkyminister,

The ABC is bias, unlike the Murdoch gutter press which you seem to exclusively adhere to, the ABC doesn't pump out a diatribe of far right propaganda, so evident in your daily new sauce where you have a lifetime subscription. Fortunately the ABC doesn't have a Beat Up Bolt, a Puse Ackerman, or the Lovely Miranda Devine to feed us a daily dose of lies and distortions. You being neither a watcher or a listener of the ABC, you are clueless as to what the ABC presents.