The ABC bias is more subtle than just measuring the political bias of guests and commentators. For example broadcasting uncut Michelle Obama's entire 20 minute speech in praise of HC, or when reporting on a controversial decision on a coal mine in Qld, the presenter saying "the federal government" before quickly correcting herself and saying "the Abbott government".
The ABC is a worn out anachronism, bloated, expensive and increasingly irrelevant. Public broadcasters are just a waste of taxpayer money.
The ABC provides a balanced viewpoint in a sea of right wing murdock propaganda. The rich own almost all the other media. Laws of fairness in the presentation of information should apply to all media,not just the ABC, otherwise our democracy is corrupted.
The ABC is so biased and so in violation of it's charter that it is a national joke and it's declining audience is an indication of just how irrelevant it is to the majority of Australians. It's dwindling audience is almost exclusively selfish, passive aggressive inner city leftists and all all of the ABC staff are from the same demographic. It has no relevance at all any more to folk living outside the cities and it is now merely a sheltered workshop for people who don't have te qualifications or abilities to work in the private sector.
People are fed up with the ABC and have moved to channels 7, 9 and 10 for a much more balanced news presentation.
Those stations news and current affairs are biased too of course. Difference being that they are not bound by law to be un-biased and they are not publicly funded. We aren't forced to pay for 7,9 and 10 but we are forced to pay for the Autonomous Bolshevik Collective. And at least they were more honest. The Bolt report announced it's conservative credentials. The ABC hides it's political agenda and abuses it's power to violently attack the character of anyone who questions it's far left agendas.
No, they haven't. The ABC is transferring their viewers to online platforms. Commercial media is just losing them.
So if they are not bound by law or publically funded, they can distort the flow of information to suit their own interests and criminal intentions? Purposely manlpulating elections to suit their rorts and for their financial benefit?
Unlike the ABC they are not bound by law to be impartial. It isn't a moral issue, every news outlet is shaped by the agendas of the owners and senior editors of the outlet, possibly driven in part by the agendas of the advertisers as well. The ABC is expected to hold to higher standards than the commercial stations and that includes giving air time to the conservative interests of the Australian taxpayer that funds the station and to this end that have abandoned any kind of impartiality and have no conservative programs, anchors or commentators on any of their stations. Just like Gillian Triggs that have broken the cardinal rule and allowed themselves to politicise institutions that are bound by their charters to be impartial. It doesn't matter if those running the institutions feel that it is fine to ignore their charters because they think that they have a moral imperative, they are breaking the law.
Of course, as long as they don't ask taxpayers to fund their activities they can use the same strategies as the AWU.
Any reasonable person reading all this will form their own opinion. You people are your causes own worse enemy
You should read the last sentence in this post, http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-966260.html#p966260, maybe then you'll have to redefine your idea of what constitutes "ugly".
Should we scrap the $100 note? "IS IT time to get rid of the $100 note? Investment bank UBS thinks so. Following the move by India to demonetise its two highest denomination bank notes this week, UBS says Australia should follow the lead." read more at http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...e/news-story/0e480aa7b1f24b5c2ef063f2a3b30fb7 More MSM propaganda ...
I like how one of the main arguments is "it would help the banks funding ratios and reliance on offshore deposits".
