The bias marches on... and on.

Gerard Henderson's column in today's Weekend Australian highlights the fact ABC is firmly stuck in trolley tracks of left-wing bias and nothing looks like shifting it back to the centre. Worth a read as usual....

ABC’s leading journos out of touch with Australia’s key issues
GERARD HENDERSON

It is just four months since the ABC’s mission to Bankstown in southwest Sydney. Led by ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose and managing director David Anderson, dozens of the ABC family headed to the outer suburbs for a planning workshop aimed at making content that was more relevant to average Australians than what had previously been on offer. That’s how ABC management described the mission at the time.

Gaven Morris (ABC director news, analysis and investigations) told Nine Entertainment newspapers there were “some parts of the community that we don’t serve as well as we could”. This implied the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster was in search of the “quiet Australians” to whom Scott Morrison had referred to immediately after the May 18 election last year.

The Coalition’s victory had stunned many journalists, but none more so than the ABC’s key political commentators — virtually all of whom got the result wrong. So certain was 7.30 political correspondent Laura Tingle that she told 7.30 presenter Leigh Sales on the eve of the election the Labor Party “will” win and dismissed the possibility of a Coalition victory with a laugh.

It is not clear what, if anything, the ABC learned from the mission to Bankstown of recent memory. Maybe only that it is a long way from its head office in the inner-Sydney suburb of Ultimo. Certainly the ABC is just as much a conservative-free zone as it ever was — perhaps even more so.

Subscription required to read the rest

A bucket on Media Watch

We have been more than a little side tracked of late. This piece by Roger Franklin at Quadrant a must read for anyone still believing that ABC does not have a problem with bias.

A Media Watch Staffer’s Abbreviated CVBack in January, the show that professes to keep the press honest went to town on The Australian for reporting on an acoustic engineer's findings in regard to the possible health effects of wind turbines. Turns out the item's researcher has worked as a deep green propagandist


I do recall a study of voting intentions of reporters including ABC staff and the result was....

It's easy being Green at the ABC, survey finds 
MORE than 40 per cent of ABC journalists who answered a survey question about their political attitudes are Greens supporters, four times the support the minor party enjoys in the wider population.
The journalism survey, the largest in 20 years, has found the profession is overwhelmingly left-leaning, with respondents from the ABC declaring double levels of support for the Greens compared with those from Fairfax Media and News Limited.
The survey of 605 journalists from around Australia found that just more than half described themselves as having left political views, while only 13 per cent said they were right of centre.
This tendency was most pronounced among the 34 ABC journalists who agreed to declare their voting intention, with 41 per cent of them saying they would vote for the Greens, 32 per cent declaring support for Labor and 14 per cent backing the Coalition.
 

Eye worthy

This piece in today's Australian by Jim Allan makes for eye worthy reading....
Touched for the very first time by Q&A’s amazing balancing act

We don’t have a choice in the matter, the way we have a choice in whether to buy a Fairfax lefty newspaper or a News Corp righty one.

Apologies for slow posts .... our WEB continues.

/sarc on...thanks for another balanced climate change report.../sarc off

That much of the media accepted the NCA without questioning its findings and conclusions either indicates they are naive or they have chosen to promote a particular agenda and this report fits their goal. 
Prof. Roger Pielke Snr

Chris Uhlmann is now hosting AM. Instead of offering a fresh start on ABC's climate change coverage it seems we are getting more of the same pandering to alarmism and ignorance of the basic science that characterised Tony Eastley's time as AM host. Eastley recall was an MC for the Climate Commission but never declared this conflict of interest when interviewing commission representatives.

Take yesterday's morning's report: US climate assessment gets personal

ABC once again focus on highly uncertain, potential effects of possible change in the US without once exploring the science and seeking broader scientific input.

ABC broadcast the following claim:
But having a look briefly through the report, they're really trying to make this personal, make Americans realise that it's more than catastrophic headlines; it's sometimes a little more subtle, even looking at the growth in allergies that people might suffer from.

And immediately followed with this...(odd the canned laughter was missing as all this represents are more unsubstantiated catastrophic headlines and a total absence of subtlety).

Let's have a listen to some of the scientists.

KIM KNOWLTON: Now heat - it's not just an inconvenience; it can be lethal. It can send thousands of people to emergency rooms, as it has done in the past. There's been a two to three week increase in the length of rag weed pollen production season. Now that matters to people who have asthma.

TOM KARL: The bottom line, the current path we're on, will result in a climate that is far different than anything that this nation has experienced.

Perhap's Chris could have sought an interview with other scientists...the authors of the piece below for instance...and comments from other climate scientists (eg. Pielke Snr, Judy Curry) but seems that's against the ABC climate creedo Chris appears following.

ABC's sign off quite amusing...

LISA MILLAR: We've already heard from Republicans who say that no doubt he'll get loud cheers from the liberal elites, the kind of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and lecture everyone else about low-flush toilets. They're not convinced that there is an urgency and the economy is far more important.

Hmmm ...people who leave a giant carbon footprint ... the ABC perhaps??
Hmmm...lecture everyone else about low-flush toilets ... the ABC perhaps??

What the National Climate Assessment Doesn’t Tell You

The Obama Administration this week is set to release the latest version of the National Climate Assessment—a report which is supposed to detail the potential impacts that climate change will have on the United States.  The report overly focuses on the supposed negative impacts from climate change while largely dismissing or ignoring the positives from climate change.

The bias in the National Climate Assessment (NCA) towards pessimism (which we have previously detailed here) has implications throughout the federal regulatory process because the NCA is cited (either directly or indirectly) as a primary source for the science of climate change for justifying federal regulation aimed towards mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Since the NCA gets it wrong, so does everyone else.

A good example of this can be found in how climate change is effecting  the human response during heat waves.  The NCA foresees an increasing frequency and magnitude of heat waves leading to growing numbers of heat-related deaths. The leading science suggests just the opposite.

Case and point. Last week, we had an article published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Climate Change that showed how the impacts of extreme heat are often overplayed while the impacts of adaptation to the heat are underplayed.  And a new paper has just been published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that finds that the risk of dying from heat waves in the U.S. has been on the decline for the past several decades.

By now, this should be rather unsurprising as it has been demonstrated over and over again. Not only in the U.S. but in Europe (and yes, Stockholm) and other major global cities as well. 

The idea that human-caused global warming is going to increase heat-related mortality is simply outdated and wrong. In fact, the opposite is more likely the case—that is, a warming climate will decrease the population’s sensitivity to heat events as it induces adaptation.  We described it this way in our Nature Climate Change piece:

Some portion of this response [the decline in the risk of dying from heat waves] probably reflects the temporal increase in the frequency of extreme-heat events, an increase that elevates public consciousness and spurs adaptive response. In this manner, climate change itself leads to adaptation.

 …Our analysis highlights one of the many often overlooked intricacies of the human response to climate change.

But this information often falls on deaf ears—especially those ears responsible for developing the NCA.

Judy Curry:

My main conclusion from reading the report is this:  the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless.  The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change.  Any increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been observed.

Give ABC board control

ABC’s former chairmen Maurice Newman nailed the problem with the ABC: Groupthink. Groupthink on climate change, the environment, industrial relations, gender, marriage, the middle east. Name any issue and the ABC’s response can be predicted. In a multiple choice poll the ABC always promotes the response that characterises the loony left. This wouldn’t be a problem if the organisation was privately owned like the Green-Left Weekly, but it isn’t. It’s owned by the Australian people and its charter provides for the views of all Australians, not just the views of ABC’s city (ec)-centric staff.

With a new government in place it is time the ABC was placed back in the hands of the Australian people through its board. The ABC board, like the board of any organisation must be provided with the authority to run the ABC according to the ABC’s charter, not according to the whims of its groupthinking staff.

ABC ALP

Kerry O'Brien wheeled out to once again host the ALP's (sorry) ABC's election night coverage.
How long for the gaffe?

at about 0:30

Congrats to ABC's other O'Brien, Joe for keeping the ABC/ALP gaffe alive on the night.

Their ABC part 2

Simon at ACM has an interesting post....

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.

Their ABC

Comments from this week's Media Watch Dog....

The fact is that the ABC managing director does not run the ABC.  Nobody does.  Rather the ABC is controlled by a number of collectives which preside over the public broadcaster’s key television, radio and online products.  The members of these collectives are invariably on the left and they appoint one another to key positions.  This explains why the ABC remains a Conservative-Free-Zone without a conservative presenter or producer or editor for any of its main outlets.  The contemporary Liberal Party understands the problem – as is evident from the comments of the likes of Senator Eric Abetz during Senate estimates committee meetings on the ABC.  It remains to be seen what, if anything, the Coalition will do if it is elected to office on Saturday.

Election bias

ABC have an obligation to be impartial. Its staff whose voting patterns were revealed in a recent study are simply unable to fulfill this obligation. Articles in today's Australian emphasize this point:

The politics of Media Watch

IF the ABC was less consumed with hubris, it would crawl into a ball with shame after two of the three leaders' election debates were entrusted to Sky News and all were moderated by Sky's level-headed David Speers.

It is proof, if proof were needed, that the political establishment no longer trusts the ABC to act as an honest broker. Indignant complaints that the Opposition Leader has refused for the umpteenth time to appear on this or that program are broadcast as regularly as the weather these days. Its presenters seem to think this is Tony Abbott's problem, instead of a damning indictment on the public broadcaster's integrity. In federal politics, Sky News makes a more substantial contribution to public life than the ABC, an institution colonised by perpetually adolescent Triple J graduates who count doltish shows such as The Hamster Decides, Gruen Nation and The Roast as a serious civic debate.

rest rest at link

Funny how it's only a huge misstep for Mr Rabbit to launch a policy at Christian school

NO comment when Peter Garrett and David Bradbury launch policies at the same school?

ABC radio's PM, yesterday:

MARK Colvin: Tony Abbott today launched one of his last major policies to be released this campaign. The Opposition Leader chose a Christian school in western Sydney to release his full education policy ... But there was a distraction because the school's website describes homosexuality as an abomination.

Journalist: On your education policy, do you think it is appropriate to announce the Coalition's education policy at a school which on its website says that homosexuality is an abomination?

Tony Abbott: Obviously I don't agree with that statement. Obviously I don't agree.

Lexi Metherell: The Opposition Leader's strategists are normally assiduous in setting up highly controlled campaign events but it seems they missed the school's statement of faith on its website, which declares homosexuality an abomination to God.

Abbott: Look, this is a good school and it's a school which has been supported by people like David Bradbury and Peter Garrett, and look, I respectfully disagree with lots of things that are said on that particular subject and obviously I disagree with that statement.

Metherell: The school would have been chosen for its location. It's in the seat of Lindsay, held on a slim margin by the Labor minister David Bradbury.

Sarah Blake, News Limited Network, tweets yesterday:

HUGE misstep for Abbott? Penrith Christian School's website describes homosexuality as an abomination under God ... Interesting that the Coalition leader's only school visit is to a religious school

Latika Bourke, ABC journalist, tweets yesterday:

TONY Abbott launching education policy at a school that teaches homosexuality is "abomination unto God".

Government media release, April 16:

MINISTER for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett, and Federal Member for Lindsay David Bradbury officially opened the new Trade Training Centre at Penrith Christian School.

David Bradbury Facebook post, November 11 last year:

PARENTS at Penrith Christian School are campaigning for a bus service direct from the school to Claremont Meadows. Help support their campaign by signing our petition here: Penrith Christian School needs a new bus service!

The Australian Bias Corporation

Quadrant has an article by Sen. Abetz titled The Australian Bias Corporation.
Sen. Abetz raises some important issues. Worth a read. Includes mention of these startling statistics:

A recent university study in the Australian Journalism Review found that, albeit, in a small sample, 41% of ABC journalists said they would vote for the Greens, 32% for Labor and 15 % for the Coalition.

made to walk on broken glass

Op Ed in today's Australian compares the treatment of ABC's reportage of scientific papers that are for and against the ABC's Groupthink position on climate change. One group gets milk and honey, one group gets broken glass.

Original Text with links below:

The path to ABC coverage for climate heretics is paved with broken glass.

There’s no doubt that ABC has a problem when it comes to fair and balanced reporting on the issue of climate change. Around this time last year the ABC gave two prominent Australian climate researchers almost carte blanche access to its radio, TV and online networks to spruik a paper they had written that claimed recent temperatures in Australia were the warmist in a 1000 years. Researchers David Karoly and Joelle Gergis scored almost blanket coverage on ABC’s AM, Radio National’s Breakfast Program, Radio Australia,  ABC TV news, The Science Show. If was even tweeted by ABC Local Radio and was featured on ABC’s online website. None of these articles featured criticism from independent experts.

Gergis and Karoly’s paper was short lived. Online climate sceptics lead by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit found methodological problems with the work, and the paper was subsequently withdrawn from publication to the embarrassment of the authors. The paper’s withdrawal was covered by News Limited and Fairfax press but was not covered by the ABC. The only mention by ABC was a brief editorial comment posted at the end of online articles. To our knowledge no formal correction was broadcast on ABC radio or TV.

For those who agree with the ABC’s vision of a nightmarish global warming future it seems the path to publicity and fame is paved with honey. However when you publish a paper that doesn’t fit the ABC’s entrenched position on Climate Change a different path awaits.  

The Australian recently reported on a new peer reviewed paper (CFCs 'are the real culprit in global warming', 3/6) that goes against the current consensus that global warming is caused mainly by CO2 emissions. The paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B by Canadian Physics Professor Qing-Bin Lu suggests interactions between CFCs and cosmic rays are the source of the polar ozone hole and global warming.  This appears a significant result worthy of media attention. Oddly ABC’s coverage of the paper by reporter Martin Cuddihy featured not the author of the paper, but IPCC author Dr David Karoly. In their article ABC seems to have thrown out section 4 of its Editorial Policies that deals with impartiality and diversity of perspectives. The ABC:

• did not interview the author of the paper or provide an opportunity for him to reply to criticism levelled against his work.
• ·         downplayed the credentials of Professor Lu and failed to include an interesting Australian link. It seems Professor Lu gained his PhD at the University of Newcastle.
• ·         Over emphasised the qualifications of critic Dr David Karoly, whose base degree is in mathematics, not climate science.
• ·         made fun of the paper by claiming "The paper has a rather wordy title". The paper is titled COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.  19 words. Recent papers by ABC's critic, Dr David Karoly include this one: On the long-term context of the 1997-2009 'Big Dry' in South-Eastern Australia: insights from a 206-year multi-proxy rainfall reconstruction. 24 words! It is surely no surprise that some science articles have long titles but it seems ABC’s critic Dr Karoly wins the wordiness contest. How this relevant to the topic is beyond me.
• ·         did not question claims made by Dr Karoly that unfairly misrepresented of the content of an international science journal. Karoly states:  “It has been published in a journal which appears to not normally publish articles on climate change science”. A search of "climate change" in "International Journal of Modern Physics B" provides 25 results, "global warming" provides 27 results. Contrary to Dr Karoly’s claims it seems articles on climate change are quite normal in this journal.

ABC based its report on one heavily biased opinion. It didn’t even bother to speak with the author!

It’s been more than 3 years since former ABC Chairmen Maurice Newman pointed out ABC had a groupthink problem with its climate change coverage. It seems that ABC Managing Director has done absolutely nothing in those three years to address it. Sadly, based on Mr Scott’s recent performance in senate estimates defending the appointment of the partisan Russell Skelton as the ABC’s new fact checker I don’t have any hope his limp wristed management style will result in any change in ABC’s biased coverage. 

Professor Lu, climate change and a Breach of Section 4

Update: more on this coming. ABC did not even bother to interview the author Professor Lu before broadcasting its woeful report. Professor Lu has written to ABC management to raise issues with the reporting.

The one sided story.
ABC's AM program breaches section 4 of the ABC's Editorial polices in reporting on a recently released peer reviewed paper that challenges the consensus on climate change (no surprise there!). According to section 4 "The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism."Apparently:  the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

ABC's woeful reporting did the following:

• Misrepresented the qualifications and experience of the paper's author "The Waterloo research is by Professor Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at Waterloo's Faculty of Science. " Professor Lu is a Physicist, and ABC neglected to include an interesting Australian link. It seems Professor Lu gained his PhD at the University of Newcastle.
• Did not interview the author of the paper or provide an opportunity for him to reply to criticism leveled against his work.
• Made light of the paper "The paper has a rather wordy title". The paper is titled COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.  19 words. Recent papers by ABC's critique, professional climate nag Dr David Karoly include this one:
•  On the long-term context of the 1997-2009 'Big Dry' in South-Eastern Australia: insights from a 206-year multi-proxy rainfall reconstruction. 24 words! No surprise that some science articles have long titles but it seems Dr Karoly wins the wordiness contest. 
• Allows for the misrepresentation of the content of an international science journal. Karoly states: It has been published in a journal which appears to not normally publish articles on climate change science. A search of "climate change" in "International Journal of Modern Physics B" provides 25 results, "global warming" provides 27 results. Seems articles on climate change are quite normal in this journal.
• ABC provided only one heavily biased opinion.
• In the transcript Miss spells Karoly as "Kaoly"

So ABC did NOT allow for balance, fair treatment, open mindedness or any opportunity for reply. Case closed. 

STOP PRESS: Professor Lu quickly responds to some questions:

Dear Mr. Hendrickx,

Thank you for your drawing my attention to the ABC news report on my recent work on global warming. I just read the radio conversation and Dr. David Karoly's criticisms on my paper.

Here are my brief answers to your questions:

Q: "Do you have any comments regarding Dr Karoly's criticism of your paper?"

A: From reading Dr. Karoly's comments, unfortunately, it seems obvious that he did not read my recent paper published in IJMPB, not even the abstract of my paper.  For example, he argues "That prediction is wrong and is based purely on the global warming influence of chlorofluorocarbons. The replacement chemicals for chlorofluorocarbons are hydrofluorocarbons, which are used as refrigerants, have already got as large a greenhouse influence as the reductions in the chlorofluorocarbons. And, in fact, the global warming influence of these chemicals, the hydrofluorocarbons, is already growing more rapidly than the reductions in chlorofluorocarbons."  This criticism is quite wrong, as the greenhouse effect of hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs) is included in my results presented in my paper and can be easily seen even at the abstract "Then natural and anthropogenic contributions to these phenomena are examined in detail and separated well through in-depth statistical analyses of comprehensive measured datasets of quantities, including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl₄ and HCFCs), CO₂, total O₃, lower stratospheric temperatures and global surface temperatures."

He mentioned the IPCC models to criticize my work. But in my paper, I do point out the key assumption in the IPCC models, namely using a logarithm relationship to calculate the radiative force of CO2 with CO2 concentration, does not agree with the observations and is wrong.  Otherwise, there is no major difference in maths between IPCC models and my calculations.  Of course, there are significant differences in physics.  And that is why I published my paper in a Physics journal.  And one can find this in the last paragraph of my paper: "This study also shows that correct understandings of the basic physics of cosmic ray radiation and the Earth blackbody radiation as well as their interactions with human-made molecules are required for revealing the fundamental mechanisms underlying the ozone hole and global climate change.  When these understandings are presented with observations objectively, it is feasible to reach consensuses on these scientific issues of global concern."

Since he is a professor, I believe that Dr. Karoly is a scientist; I would wish that he would have given his criticisms in a scientific rather than political way. Perhaps he was too busy and did not get enough time to read my paper before he made the comments.

To save my time, I think I'll stop there for this question.  

Q: "Do you think ABC's story is a fair representation of your work."

A: Absolutely, I do not think the ABC's story gave a fair presentation of my work.

Q: "Do you regard your treatment by the ABC as fair?"

A: I would not be too concerned about what they said about my work.  I am quite confident of my findings.

One point I would like to add:  I received my PhD from the University of Newcastle. I have been very grateful, and very much appreciated the opportunities and scholarships provided to me from the Australian Government and the University of Newcastle during my study there (1993-1996).  I very hope that the best and wisest decisions are made by the Government and people in Australia.

I am also cc this email to my former PhD supervisor, Professor John O'Connor, in the University of Newcastle.

Thank you, and with my best wishes to Australian Government and people there,

Qing-Bin Lu

ABC: our gutter press

The Australian compares ABC's standards to the APC. Guess which organisation's standards remain in the gutter?

ABC sets lower standards bar
BY:NICK LEYS
From:The Australian
December 20, 2012 12:00AM

DRAWING comparisons to pedophiles to attack your opponents is acceptable under the ABC complaints process - held up as the ideal model by media inquiry head Ray Finkelstein - but has been ruled out of order by the newspapers' existing regulatory body.

Mr Finkelstein recommended in his government-commissioned review of the media industry earlier this year that the self-regulatory Australian Press Council should be overhauled in line with the ABC model.

But two decisions this week reveal the APC is tougher on commentators who compare opponents with pedophiles.

Rest HERE and while there also read the editorial: The ABC lets itself off the hook

Maurice our hero

Former ABC Chairmen Maurice Newman on irrational comparisons made by climate catastrophist Robyn Williams in today's Australian. Three cheers for Maurice!

ABC clique in control of climate

LAST month in this newspaper, I wrote an irreverent piece, "Losing Their Religion As Evidence Cools Off", illustrating how the global warming establishment was like a religion, replete with the structure, scripture and financial resources required to promote a faith-based movement and how it is losing disciples as the truth wears off.

I don't know about other readers, but at the ABC, for those with the religion it hit a nerve.

On November 24, Robyn Williams intoned to his audience on ABC's The Science Show, "if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma, or, that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, you'd rightly find it outrageous. Similar statements are coming out of inexpert mouths again and again, distorting the science". My article was given as an example of an anti-scientific position.

Really? Questioning climate science is like advocating pedophilia, abetting mesothelioma and pushing drugs to teenagers? Well yes, according to the ABC's science man. Stephan Lewandowsky, a guest on the program, asserted that those with a free market background were, according to his research, more likely to be sceptical of science. As well as climate science, "they are also rejecting the link between smoking and lung cancer; they are rejecting the link between HIV and AIDS", the professor said. Happily, it was extremely difficult to detect people on the "Left side of politics who are rejecting scientific evidence".

Read the rest at the Oz.

A flood of discontent

A swag of letters over two days in the Australian (links and extracts below) decrying ABC's biased current affairs coverage. One doubts that anyone at Ultimo is listening and that anything constructive will be done to resolve the issue.

December 8, 2012 ABC's bias is a sore that just keeps on running
Extracts below follow links for the complete letters

AS a spate of letters has shown this week, nobody does bias like the ABC. On many political issues -- from Israel, to warmist hype, to the US alliance, to gay marriage -- the broadcaster is utterly predictable in its leftist responses....

Notwithstanding the ABC's exclusive funding by the taxpayer, its pervasive bias is the sore that just keeps on running.

Brenton Minge
THERE has never been a time of greater need for the ABC -- which has profound influence with its ability to reach into every household -- to be held to account....
Stephen Turner

IN response to the gripes of letter writers complaining about public funding of the ABC, I do not much care for sport but my taxes help pay for sporting institutes, the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. I did not support the invasion of Iraq, yet my taxes helped pay for that invasion.
At its best, the ABC enriches my life, it makes me laugh and it makes me think. Enjoy your sport and your wars and let me enjoy my ABC.
Anthony Yeates

BRIAN Pymont misses the point in his defence of the ABC (Letters, 7/12). Being funded by the Australian taxpayer, it has a duty to report for us all. This is why the likes of Barrie Cassidy deserve our condemnation for his Left bias. I guess it reflects the general Left leaning of the public service, especially when accountability is low on the priority scale.
Stig Falster

EACH Friday, I engage with some close friends in a brain teaser. This week we debated the question, who has more credibility: Barrie Cassidy or Mark Latham? We couldn't come to answer because we were unable to envisage a situation in which either had credibility.
Jonathan Whybird

December 7, ABC doesn't answer to commercial imperatives

...However, the ABC is funded by taxpayers under the condition it gives a balanced view for all. Clearly, I am not getting my money's worth.
Ivan Cope

...Now the ABC's news and current affairs has at last realised the purpose for which it was established - to balance any anti-government stance of the newspapers, and to play a support role in effecting social and cultural change. In my experience, there was always inherent sympathy within the organisation for the Left and great suspicion of conservatism and business.
Geoffrey Luck

...You can turn off Insiders, too, but you'll still have to pay for it.
Paul Yates

A FEW letter writers miss the point when it comes to ABC's left-wing bias. The ABC's mission is not to balance other media outlets but to provide content for all Australians.
The continued absence of any conservative voices among the hosts of its current affairs and local radio programs is a slap in the face to half of the Australian population that helps to pay for its existence.
Marc Hendrickx

Recommended Reading: Our Biased broadcaster

ACM has some thoughts on our ABC under the banner ABC: institutionalised bias.
Recommended reading!

From ABC's Editorial Policy...

"The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism." page 6

Of course when you hire activists for reporters those standards of objective journalism don't seem to matter that much.

An ABC Poll

Dear Mr Scott,
I am conducting some independent research and could use your help. Could you please distribute the following poll among your staff. According to recent poll results current voting intentions are approximately 30% ALP, 50% Coalition, Greens 10% and the rest 10%. I am interested in seeing how closely ABC Staff reflect the community's wider voting pattern. If the results do not reflect the wider community, how does the ABC propose to meet its charter requirement that insists it "reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community"?
Update 17:15-List amended following comments
"Which of the following political parties do you intend to preference first in the next Federal Election:
1. NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party
2. Australian Labor Party

3. Liberal Party
4. National Party
5. Australian Democrats
6. Australian Greens
7. One Nation
8. Advance Australia Party
9. Australian Commonwealth Party
10. Australian Family Alliance
11, Australian Men's Party
12. Australian Millionaires Party - satire
13. Australian Reform Party
14. Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
15. Communist Party of Australia
16. Democratic Socialist Party
17. Hope Party
18. LeftLink
19. Liberal Democratic Party
20. Nuclear Disarmament Party
21. People Power
22. People Power - new political party formed
23. Science Technology And Research (STAR) Party
24.Shooters Party
25. Socialist Alliance
26. Socialist Equality Party
27. Socialist Party Australia
28. Sustainability Party of Australia
29. United People Power Inc.
30. Unity Victoria
31. Other/Don't vote
(List based on http://australianpolitics.com/parties/list.shtml )

Regards
ABC NEWS WATCH

Sending Franks down the memory hole

Update below: 2/3/2012
In December last year ABC news (surprisingly) reported on the opinions climate scientist, Professor Stewart Franks, had on comments contained in a new batch of climategate emails. While the story titled "Leaked email confirms climate questions" has been censored, ABC having sent it down the memory hole, much of the content of the original  is preserved  in a post titled "IPCC too sullied to be credible" at Australian Climate Madness:

Stewart Franks says there is no evidence that carbon dioxide drives global warming and he blames the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for scaring people about a future climate catastrophe.
For the past decade Professor Franks has focussed his research on natural variability in climate as being the driver of extreme droughts and rain events, rather that CO2 emissions.
He says the emails from Kevin Trenberth from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, show fundamental flaws in their methodology, but the public is being kept in the dark.
Professor Franks says he believes the emails support his own argument that natural variability is responsible for warming.
“Now I’ve been criticised for talking about these modes that we’ve barely beginning to understand as somehow being some kind of a denier of climate change or a pure contrarian,” he said.a
“But it is really heartening to see that these scientists actually acknowledge and in fact one scientist went as far as to say ‘What if all the warming we actually see is just natural multi-decadal variability?’
“He then said, ‘They’ll probably kill us’.
“I think we do need an independent and judicial review of the evidence both for and against the likelihood of climate change beyond naturally catastrophic climate variability.
“I must say the IPCC is far too sullied by the leaks and some of the shenanigans that the emails show have be going on.
“It is now too sullied to be credible.”

There is no doubt that this is newsworthy, and it is a credit to ABC Newcastle for reporting on it.

Here's the reason ABC (Sydney?) give for removing the story. Posted to ABC News Corrections page on January 20 (thanks to an anonymous reader for alerting us to it) it reads as follows:

Climate emails

Posted Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15pm AEDT

ABC Newcastle: This story published on December 5 was removed because it was in breach of the ABC requirements for balance and context. The story reported that a Newcastle University professor who rejects the science of climate change felt vindicated that leaked scientific emails “showed fundamental flaws in the methodology” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These were not balanced by comments in support of the science of climate change and the article did not associate the leaked emails with the ‘Climategate' emails of 2009.

To say that Franks "rejects the science of climate change" is a gross misrepresentation of his views and work in the field. One that apparently defames his reputation. Seems a correction and clarification, along with an apology is in order.

ABC have previously published numerous news reports and articles featuring the views of "alarmist" climate scientists that were not balanced by dissenting opinions (see this one for example - still waiting for it to be corrected).    Previously ABC News have also later updated stories to provide "balance" and :"context". Why was this not done in this case?

Over the past 2 years we have established a convincing case that ABC's coverage of climate change is biased, lacks balance and is tainted by a lack of judgement and lack of inquiry. Sadly to the detriment of its audience its coverage is characterised by environmental activism over natural journalistic scepticism. We are constantly told the "ABC takes no editorial stance", however it is clear that at its Sydney office at least, ABC have institutionalised and are actively supporting one side of the climate change debate, across all its platforms. Throwing journalistic integrity out the window it actively promotes the notion that an impending climate catastrophe is nigh. ABC's own chairman Maurice Newman identified Groupthink reporting on climate change as a major issue but was unable to do anything about it.

The above provides yet another clear example of how deeply institutionalised ABC's Groupthink culture is. It seems that not only are its activist reporters infected by Groupthink but it seems the culture extents to ABC's Audience and Consumer Affairs unit, according to the ABC: "The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas." (yeah right!)

Here's a copy of our complaint about the correction:


Your correction posted 20/2/2012 reads as follows:
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/)


Climate emails
Posted Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15pm AEDT
ABC Newcastle: This story published on December 5 was removed because it was in breach of the ABC requirements for balance and context. The story reported that a Newcastle University professor who rejects the science of climate change felt vindicated that leaked scientific emails “showed fundamental flaws in the methodology” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These were not balanced by comments in support of the science of climate change and the article did not associate the leaked emails with the ‘Climategate' emails of 2009.


The text  appears highly defamatory to Stewart Franks and totally misrepresents his views on climate science.


In regard to the reasons the story was pulled from ABC's archive. ABC have previously published news reports and articles featuring "alarmist" climate scientists that were not balanced by dissenting opinions (eg http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-22/scientists-find-evidence-antarctica-is-warming/2575846).    Previously ABC News have also later updated stories to provide "balance" and :"context". Why was this not done in this case - (for an example see http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/polar-bear-cannibalism-abc-provides.html). 
Publication of Stewart Franks opinion of the impact of the climategate emails was newsworthy and we congratulate ABC Newcastle for covering the story.


Please
1. Issue a public apology to Stewart Franks for misrepresenting his views on climate science and defaming his reputation as a scientist. He hardly "rejects the science of climate change"


2. Re-instate the story to ABC's online archive

Thanks again to an anonymous reader for noting the correction.


Update: 
ABC have thus far refused to restore the report to their archive. Our complaint to ACMA was turned down as it appears the story was not "broadcast".

Dear Mr Hendrickx

Thank you for your complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) about material posted on, and removed from, the ABC News Online website. You allege a breach of the impartiality provisions of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

While the ABC Code of Practice 2011 applies to ABC online content as well as to content broadcast on radio and television, the ACMA is able to investigate complaints about lack of impartiality in relation to ABC radio and television content only. Since your complaint is about online content, the ACMA is unable to assist you on this occasion.

The ACMA’s jurisdiction in relation to the internet is limited to the matters outlined athttp://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90103. Your complaint does not raise issues of this kind.

Yours sincerely

Broadcasting Investigations Section

Received 2/3/2012:

Whose ABC?

Whose ABC? Feature and editorial at The Australian.

"Under Mark Scott's leadership, the ABC no longer aspires to be "Your ABC", the slogan it adopted on Australia Day 1997 to launch its now familiar wave-form logo. A sly coup by a coterie of like-minded, inner-city staff has commandeered the ABC's transmitters and stipend to broadcast almost exclusively to the vocal minority who share their prejudices."

Let the sun shine in

Janet Albrechtsen's piece in today's Australian titled Bob, the sun is shining on you looks at recent claims of right wing bias at the ABC, and the need for increased scrutiny of The Greens. Worth a read.
"A RIGHT-WING ABC? No, just Chris Uhlmann doing his job properly, unlike his colleagues.