How about an ABC that no longer crusades on boat people, homo-marriage and global warming, but on free speech, climate scepticism and free markets?

Once again: deep six the ABC!

Bias makes the Australian Bloated Corporation even more dangerous

Andrew Bolt

image

THE ABC’s bias wouldn’t be so serious if the ABC wasn’t this dangerously big – bigger than is legal for any other media organisation.

Attention Tony Jones, Fran Kelly, Paul Barry, Virginia Trioli, Phillip Adams, Robyn Williams and the ABC’s other Leftist hosts.

Imagine if every single one of the main ABC current affairs shows were hosted not by the likes of you, as they now are.

Imagine them all hosted instead by me and fellow conservatives Janet Albrechtsen, Gerard Henderson, Tim Blair, Miranda Devine, Piers Akerman, Tom Switzer and Rowan Dean.

Imagine Four Corners no longer hosted by a former staffer of Gough Whitlam but of John Howard. Insiders no more hosted by a former staffer of Bob Hawke but of Tony Abbott.

Imagine the result: an ABC that no longer crusaded on boat people, same-sex marriage and global warming, but on free speech, climate scepticism and free markets.

Get it now?

(Read full article here.)

Update:

This video appears to back up the claims. The ABC claims. Which appear to be backed up by this video.

Stu of NT with some video that appears to back up those claims.   (Michael Smith)

ABC’S STRANGE WORLD OF PRIDE AND SHAME

February 3. ABC head of editorial policy Alan Sunderland defends the billion-dollar broadcaster’s navy torturer smears:

If we relied only on information from official channels then little or nothing would have been reported and the Australian public would have been left in the dark about the dramatic events unfolding on the high seas.

The latest:

 We regret if our reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the asylum seekers’ claims.

So it’s the audience’s fault. Further on the ABC’s half-arsed regret here.

Dumb question from the ABC’s Leigh Sales:

Here, read the whole thing:

THE ABC’s bias wouldn’t be so serious if the ABC wasn’t this dangerously big – bigger than is legal for any other media organisation.

Attention Tony Jones, Fran Kelly, Paul Barry, Virginia Trioli, Phillip Adams, Robyn Williams and the ABC’s other Leftist hosts.

Imagine if every single one of the main ABC current affairs shows were hosted not by the likes of you, as they now are.

Imagine them all hosted instead by me and fellow conservatives Janet Albrechtsen, Gerard Henderson, Tim Blair, Miranda Devine, Piers Akerman, Tom Switzer and Rowan Dean.

Imagine Four Corners no longer hosted by a former staffer of Gough Whitlam but of John Howard. Insiders no more hosted by a former staffer of Bob Hawke but of Tony Abbott.

Imagine the result: an ABC that no longer crusaded on boat people, same-sex marriage and global warming, but on free speech, climate scepticism and free markets.

Get it now? Realise how unfair it would be to have the taxpayer-funded ABC completely in the hands of one political caste?

See how dangerous, too, for this one political caste to control such a state-run behemoth, running multiple radio and TV networks in every city, as well as an online newspaper, all bought with $1.2 billion a year of taxpayers’ money.

But all this week, the ABC’s staff have been in denial, even about their own bias. Most ludicrous was Q & A Leftist host Tony Jones getting his carefully stacked panel – four fellow Leftists, two conservatives – to debate whether the ABC really was unbalanced.

But most telling were the excuses ABC hosts made for the ABC hyping claims by asylum seekers that the Navy deliberately tortured them by forcing their hands on hot engines. Only on Wednesday – days after all but one of the boat people retracted their claims – did ABC boss Mark Scott grudgingly admit its reporting should have been “more precise” – but even then ABC hosts insisted such lack of precision was just a mistake, not evidence of bias.

Indeed, Insiders host Barrie Cassidy earlier defended the ABC’s reporting of the “torture” claims: “It’s not for the ABC to be sceptical or make a judgment in this sense.

Really? If it’s not the ABC’s job to be sceptical even of wild claims against the boat policies of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, why was the ABC super-sceptical of factual claims against prime minister Julia Gillard?

The ABC refused to report even that police investigating the AWU scandal had raided Gillard’s former law offices under a warrant naming her.

When listeners asked why, it sniffed: “Reporting that the prime minister of the nation is under police investigation is an enormously significant call to make. It cannot be made on supposition, on rumour, or on hearsay.”

Likewise, the ABC ran dead on Climategate – leaked emails showing climate scientists colluded to massage data and silence sceptics of the ABC’s global warming faith.

ABC host Jon Faine, a warmist, declared he “wouldn’t spend time on it” on air because it was not “actually of any significance” and the scandal “suits the conspiracy theorists beautifully”.

Being slow to report claims that don’t suit you and fast to report ones that do is actually called bias, guys.

In a private media outlet – whether Fairfax or Murdoch papers – such bias is no crime. Their money; their free speech. But the ABC is different and not just because it is financed by all taxpayers under a charter obliging it to reflect our diversity.

IT is also different because it has grown so huge.

We actually have laws to stop commercial media companies from being as big as the ABC is now because we think such power in one set of hands is too dangerous.

Trouble is, those laws do not apply to the ABC. No commercial media company is allowed to control television licences that let them reach 75 per cent of Australians, but the ABC reaches 98 per cent.

No commercial company may control more than two radio stations in the same place, but the ABC controls five in all our big cities.

No commercial company may have a radio and a television station in the same place. The ABC does.

No commercial television station may also own a newspaper in the same area. The ABC does, having an online news site and the online The Drum, modern newspapers in the digital age.

So why is the ABC allowed a reach and influence we’ve agreed is too dangerous to allow anyone else?

Why, when it is so partisan, do we tolerate such an abuse of that massive power?