Always leaning to the Left
This blog has frequently exposed the barely-concealed left-wing bias of our publicly funded broadcaster, the ABC. As Gerard Henderson points out regularly on his must-read Media Watch Dog, there isn’t a single conservative presenter or editor on any mainstream current affairs programme, earning the corporation’s acronym the alternative interpretation of “Anything but Conservatives”.
In their stead we have had to suffer “Red” Kerry O’Brien (whose “old leather bag” visage will be gracing the ABC’s election coverage tomorrow, naturally), Tony Jones (adding another lefty voice to the already skewed Q&A panel every week), Fran Kelly (activist presenter of Radio National’s Breakfast show), News Radio’s political editor and resident Lefty, Marius Benson, Jonathan Green (editor of the Drum, which is banged repeatedly for Labor/Green causes) and Mark Scott himself – wilfully blind to the “groupthink” that is endemic in his organisation – to name but a few.
Then we have all the climate change alarmists, like Dr Karl, Robyn Williams, Adam Spencer, Bernie Hobbs, Tony Jones again, all the Catalyst team etc., 95% of the contributors on the online site, extremists like Clive Hamilton, Stephan Lewandowsky etc, and the list goes on.
It is galling that taxes paid by all Australians go towards funding that Lefty/Green echo-chamber, which caters for a small urban elite, staffed with inner-city Ultimo types who couldn’t run a chook raffle. Privately owned media organisations stand or fall on their output, witness the enduring success of News Corp, and the rapid decline of Fairfax, as it too panders to the latte-sipping, sandal-wearing intelligentsia, and in the process ignores the vast majority of Australians. The Age astonishingly endorses Labor for the election tomorrow – as one commentator pointed out, after asylum disasters, NBN, massive debt, waste, dysfunctional leadership, knifings, in-fighting, Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, what would it take for them not to endorse Labor?
But the ABC is paid for by all of us, and it should be representative of the views of all Australians, not just a mouthpiece for the Left. It is probable that a Coalition government will be elected tomorrow, sweeping away six years of Labor incompetence. Yet you wouldn’t believe it listening to the ABC this morning, with the majority of stories either puff pieces for Rudd and Labor, or criticism of the Coalition and Abbott. Maybe they realise that the clock is ticking, time is running out, so they have to make the most of it, like the last gasp of the Roman Empire.
It’s time for the ABC to be subjected to significant reform. Balance must be restored in current affairs broadcasting, and the ABC must fully reflect the diversity of Australian opinion. Whether this is by some form of privatisation or otherwise, the population have switched off in droves, with Sky taking over as the de facto national broadcaster.
When the ABC isn’t trusted to run the election debates, something is seriously wrong. Let’s hope Tony Abbott and the Coalition will start to fix it.
Australian Climate Madness 
The best way to fix the ABC is to use a fire hose, just start at the top floor and hose the whole building out, maybe then it can give the unbiased commentary that it is supposed to give N
Or privatise them and put the money towards something useful.
I hold progressive views so according to Gerard Henderson I must be a Dangerous Leftie
Depends what you mean by ‘progressive’. Do you mean doubling the price of electricity? Or ignoring evidence presented by eminent scientists that CO2 is not a mayor driver of climate?
Driving climate where? Hasn’t gotten warmer in 15 years. Their models predict nothing, they have no idea why, and you want to put them in charge of global energy policy. The big CO2 thermostat in the sky will go the way of phlogiston and and the piltdown man.
You mean the “evidence” which is outweighed by a factor of around 100 to 1 by evidence showing CO2 is a major driver of climate?
There is no evidence, ZERO that man causes global warming, aka climate change, just “consensus”. This BS term keeps the money spigot open as consensus means absolutely nothing. The whole charade has nothing to do with “science”. It is UN economic policy that the wealthy west must pay the undeveloped countries to not develop.
Do you have any idea how science works?
We know that human activity releases enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is fact.
We know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased significantly since the industrial revolution.
We know that global temperatures have increased significantly since the industrial revolution.
The mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is well understood, and can be demonstrated by experiment and by simulation.
The evidence for all of the above is extensive. There are other possible drivers of climate change, but the evidence that CO2 release by human activity is among the most significant is absolutely extensive. This is not just some invented conclusion for no reason.
Sorry Jonno, I dont think you understand the issue.
The major source of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources, like decaying plant life.
Man made CO2 does have an effect, but it is less than 5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Considering that the actual man made emissions have increased massively over the past 20 years yet there is no correlation between this figure and the actual rise in the temperature that computer “models” have predicted.
We can safely say that the connection between man made is overstated at best & being used for political gain by environmentalist groups.
To rely on computer models is flawed and real world evidence shows that the temperature has remained stable for 15 years.
Some of the warmist/alarmists are now backing away from the argument at a rate of knots as they know there reputations will be shot. Its only the eco religious zealots that are still carrying the torch as they know they have no where to go, so we will stick with the theory until the bitter end.
CO2-concentration in the air follows temperature. Warming oceans release CO2 and cooling oceans absorb CO2. That’s all the science you need to know to see that the CAGW theory is wrong.
CAGW is the same nonsense as claiming that crowing roosters make the sun go up in the morning. It’s the other way around.
Yawn..”progressive views “..meaningless term like “climate change”.I hold what could be classed as left wing views..but, unlike my fellow lefties..I don take ex cathedra statements from govts on science as being “uncheckable”.
Its flipping bizarre to think that the left supports totalitarian group think “slogans” without any critical examination…ever..
And it was “progressive views ” advocates who championed the idea that people who dont agree with consensus views should be marginalised/jailed/tried etc.
So, progressive views possibly means no free speech/unlimited govt propaganda/more slogans/more group think..oh dear.
It actually shouldn’t be too hard to fix, theoretically. Structurallly, one could add some alternative views and people and programs, but these need to be shielded from budgetary cuts.
Part of the problem is that very often government funded agencies specifically cut business and market associated programs from their budget, because they leave this sort of thing for the private sector-its actually written into their charter to begin with. So its no surprise that over time, they tend to be filled with programs and people who are not market-business-liberal minded. Its a natural progression from leaving out this angle from their charter and from their budgets to begin with.
One would need to divert some of the funding to programs and research and angles that are not specifically related to the core charter and principles of the organisation-in other words the entire charter for the ABC needs to be re-written. Without this there is no hope of a long term balance.
Easy-Peazy. Appoint a nice gentle man like Peter Reith to visit the ABC board in session, first thing after the election He carries a briefcase with 10 parcels each clearly labelled “$25 Million”. He is accompanied by an assistant …one of the many spare backbenchers would do nicely..carrying an empty case.
After the normal pleasantries, Mr Reith asks the first question. “What do you plan to do about the well documented ‘progressive’ leftist bias of the ABC?”
Chairman ” What rubbish. The ABC impartially represents all views in the community, without fear or favour”
Mr Reith opens case, pulls out $ 25 million, gives it to assistant, who packs away same.
Mr Reith; ” You just dropped 10 % of your budget for the next year. My next question is….. …..
Unfortunately, the ABC has already been sold … to the Australian Labor Party!