1. Trials In Tainted Space Children

In a strict sense the Acts of the Martyrs are the official records of the trials of. He was ordained in 1631, was a Doctor of. Editor and author.

Who knows how many journalists have personal political sympathies to the left or right. What is certain is that it should not matter, writes Jonathan Green.

Here's a thing about journalism: it's a craft, a set of trade skills that can be applied pretty universally to a range of situations. And that's what makes the job such an endless fascination, the daily compilation of instant understanding, the constant search to arrange the varied aspects of an argument and present them, not according to your own judgment of right or wrong, but for the consideration of others. That is the service. The true calling at the heart of the craft: to simply inform without bias or favour. Which is why journalism has historically built trust among its consumers. If journalism were a polemic, if it became a cynical exercise in the promotion of any or various propositions, then it would cease to fill any laudable social function. At best it would be entertainment.

At worst, propaganda. In either case, it would hardly merit the range of privileges we accord the worthier work of the fourth estate. As has been extensively documented, this edifice, a cornerstone of smart democratic practice, is crumbling. The happy commercial accidents that funded journalism businesses for a century and a half and led to a political culture of well-scrutinised accountability are going, going, almost gone.

We are yet to stumble upon new ones. Two kinds of journalism look certain to endure. The subspecies that has perhaps the best chance of commercial survival is the debased populism of the tabloids, the papers that drip faux familiarity - they're 'For Your City' - then feed their readers on a patronising diet of calculated political fabrication, fear mongering and pap. The readership is huge, but it's an abusive relationship based on the daily betrayal of trust. The other 'journalism' that 'works' in this uncertain environment is the sort of polemic that may have limited commercial worth but enormous political purpose.

And this might be the most unfortunate mutation of the craft in our times, turning journalism to cynically political purpose while claiming all the protections, rights and respectability of the fourth estate. Fox News - that's the best example of how this works: an entirely parallel universe that determines its own agenda, facts and logic according to an often bellicose political mission. This is not journalism created with intellectual curiosity to inform; this is journalism dedicated to the insistent prosecution of a series of political propositions.

We see its muted fellow travellers in our own TV and press, most notably in our national broadsheet The Australian, a paper whose political purpose and occasional flights of 'truthiness' can routinely obscure its better journalistic angels. And then we have the opinion formers of the tabloid blogosphere. Little s-bends of ill-humour like the Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair, or great vaulted Taj Mahals of polished ego like the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt. They are not for profit.

They are for politics and influence, pivots of opinion, so loud, so insistent, so ubiquitous that they are capable of turning the national mind. And they deny the fundamental spirit of this vanishing craft of journalism, while arguing furiously for their own well-established right to speak, and against the apparently creeping menace of leftist collusion that dominates most other media - particularly the ABC - that labours under the great misfortune of not being them. Lately from this politicised fringe we have had a repeated argument: that journalism here at the ABC is some act of leftist collectivism, a case made conclusive by the absence of figures that might be clearly identified, by the likes of Bolt or Gerard Henderson, as being 'of the right'. Which misses the point entirely.

Journalism is neither of the right or left; it is, for want of something less pompous, of the truth. In any journalism worth its salt the convictions of the reporter are an irrelevance and the journalism that might be produced under the influence of personal prejudice is a betrayal of professional practice and the implied trust of all who consume it. But it would seem, on the evidence of their own work, that this is not how these figures of the right see the role of journalism. The likes of Bolt struggle with the notion that journalism might be practiced with calm objectivity and simple curiosity. Because in the paranoid, fact defying columns of the proselytising right, where climate change is a religious figment, Stephen Conroy is Stalin and any measured objective assessment of reality is dismissed as being 'of the left', the facts are mutable servants of argument.

Who knows how many journalists have personal political sympathies to the left or right. What is certain is that it should not matter. Journalism is a trade in which personal conviction is one of two things: an irrelevance or a death sentence.

Journalism tainted by conviction just isn't. That's the simple truth of it. Jonathan Green is presenter of Sunday Extra on Radio National and the former editor of The Drum. Read his full profile. Comments (691) Comments for this story are closed. leon: 09 May 2013 7:34:51am What a load of rubbish.

You should have made comments about the ABCs Tony Jones, The Drum and Q&A and Insiders. These are clearly aligned to the left and take any opportunity to portray the right side of politics in a poor light. You only have to look at how this has stepped up in recent weeks. Until the ABC balance the left and right journalist numbers employed you cannot be taken as serious. And as for yourself you portray your self as being so neutral. Have a listen to yourself and the types of comments you make.

A real hypocrite?. Blzbob: 09 May 2013 9:05:33am There is a big difference between political bias and political affiliation.

We are not all swinging voters, you can disagree without being malicious. mik: 10 May 2013 12:36:15am Political bias: What the other lot display. Political affiliation: What my lot display. grizzle: 09 May 2013 9:06:29am Take it easy Leon!! The thing with the right is that it has become so self-censoring they have nothing to say!

This is why thoughtful journalism is treating them so lightly. Let them loose I say - let Turnbull, Hockey and co speak their mind more freely - then perhaps they will be taken more seriously.

SEG: 09 May 2013 10:35:26am.and anyone whose view does not align with the rabidly foaming-dog views of the ultra-right and clearly dangerously left. Oh those wonderful wonderful, narrow, blinkered, cognitive-challenged folk. JD: 10 May 2013 7:00:22am Go for it 'grizzle'.

Tell that to the once front bench of the Labor Government who now sit on the back bench because they disagreed with the PM and Treasurer's direction. Talk about self-censoring.

Geo: 09 May 2013 9:07:28am You've touched on a problem there. The truth is often on the left side of the debate. How can journalists provide a balanced view when the truth is so obviously biased! The ABC needs to hire more journos who are skilled in bending the truth. Perhaps a Director of truth is even required.

By the way by your logic The Australian and other Murdoch papers can't be taken as serious because they have so many blatantly right wing journos, yes?. Trekka: 09 May 2013 9:35:45am Murdoch is not paid from the public purse with a charter to be unbiased, the ABC is. Mr Zeitgeist: 09 May 2013 2:40:16pm Beyond your own bias, can you actually PROVE that the ABC has a left bias? Go on, I dare you.

anti-postmodernist: 09 May 2013 7:10:53pm When every ABC article, show, and presenter has the same worldview on everything, and we know that many or most of the general public have different values, then that is bias or a lack of balance - proof enough. You are deliberately asking for impossible standards of proof because you know the truth and refuse to accept democracy. John not you: 09 May 2013 9:02:26pm No more or less than you can prove any other media organisation is biased to the right. Do try not to back yourself into a corner like that again!. Tony: 10 May 2013 7:07:31am Just check the number of staff that are married to, 'in a relationship with', or family of a Labor politician or ministerial staff. If they weren't biased they would be in rather difficult relationships to say the least!.

Universal Soldier Mk 2: 09 May 2013 4:09:33pm His Australian operations are a business and use the taxation system to minimise the tax they pay. His media should tell the story.bound by facts 'not self-interest'!. Shebs: 09 May 2013 4:31:45pm Since Keating's time, Labor have absolutely delighted in having a taxpayer funded lefty mouthpiece: the very idea that we conservatives must pay for their media enhances their smugness no end: it is also the reason why they scram and bitch whenever a conservative tries to balance the ABC, as Howard did. Hell I reckon it should be conservative for 20 years to provide historical balance. Mycal: 09 May 2013 6:57:20pm We put store on the value of a free press. It is supposed to be a source of facts and turth in the service of an informed electorate, a vital institution of our democracy! But I guess the reality is that, with Murdoch et all, we just have another market failure.

The ABC is not paid to be unbiased, it is paid to be a source of facts and truth. If you don't ken these things, but out of the argument!. mike: 09 May 2013 10:41:15pm The ABC is paid for by the Australian Government, to perform social functions that the independent media will not and indeed cannot, provide. Social governance is by definition leftist. So being socially minded of course they are a bit socialist (compared to mogul interests especially) and this is just what we need to stop our economy and culture spinning in ever an diminishing right hand turn into the greedy palms of a wealthy few. I dont want the ABC to be unbiased!

That doesnt mean anything on a playing field as warped as the world we live in anyway. I want the ABC to be for the common interest. If that is socialist then. richardw: 09 May 2013 11:08:37pm Yes and somehow that excuses the actions of Murdoch? No - it just shows why the ABC needs to keep up th egood work in the face of those who make their money by lying and don't suffer for it. Robert: 09 May 2013 9:42:02am No, the Murdoch papers can't be taken seriously because they have a culture that allowed them to hack a dead childs phone. What more do you need to know?.

morrgo: 09 May 2013 2:32:51pm @Robert: Hacking a dead child's voicemail is despicable and criminal. If that makes a whole organisation worthless, however, presumably BBC managers' aiding and abetting a number of paedophiles makes that organisation even more discredited.

richardw: 09 May 2013 11:07:39pm Yes possibly it does once you consider they killed an investigative program for the sake of ratings for the specials praising the perpetrator. Shebs: 09 May 2013 4:28:38pm Fairfax hacked the Victorian ALP: a sheer embarrassment to them, and never mentioned here because it is more in keeping with ABC bias that the events in another country are said to be happening here, yet it is the left medaia doing the crimes. Murdoch here in Oz employs people of many persuasions: Fairfax and the ABC are wall-to-wall lefties on all the editorial staff and main shows. Looks like you know only your own biases.but they do interfere with your grasp of truth. anti-postmodernist: 09 May 2013 7:19:27pm That happened in the UK - irrelevant. Fairfax has a culture of 'compassion' that has contributed to the deaths of 1000 or so mainly bogus asylum seekers.

Puts things in perspective doesn't it?. Heimdall: 09 May 2013 10:49:21am Geo suggested: '.The ABC needs to hire more journos who are skilled in bending the truth. Perhaps a Director of truth is even required.' That should read, Geo '.

Bending the truth to the Right.' And '.a Director of Right-approved Truth.' Gee, it's difficult to satisfy the rightwingers when so many facts are OBVIOUSLY lefty, isn't it?

Truth is even harder for rightwingers to nail down in an approved fashion when there's so much contrary lefty evidence against their opinions. John not you: 09 May 2013 9:09:14pm 'The truth is often on the left side of the debate' According to who? What makes you think that the truth lays anymore to the left than the right? The left and right are political ideologies, neither is inherently wrong or right. If you think someone from either side of politics is not telling the truth, that is not a reflection of which way they lean, it is a reflection on themselves personally. This is assuming they actually are lying and not just you disliking what they say.

Unless of course what you are trying to say is that people who believe in the right side of politics are more inclined to lie. This of course would be your own opinion which is itself laced with lashings of your own left wing bias. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people are people, they have differing opinions and their political predilection does not indicate whether they are more inclined to lie or not. Mark James: 09 May 2013 9:15:04am leon, if 'Tony Jones, The Drum and Q&A and Insiders.' Are so 'clearly aligned to the left', as you say, it should be fairly easy to offer some persuasive evidence to back up your accusation, no?. andy: 09 May 2013 9:49:28am could you in all honesty listen through an episode of Q&A without being overwhelmed by the sneering and superior smugness of the host and audience towards any conservative person?. Prose: 09 May 2013 2:27:52pm Funny that.

I think it's quite the opposite and that Q&A has a decidedly right wing bias with audiences to suit. In all honesty!. Robert Bruce: 09 May 2013 7:25:45pm I agree. I have almost given up on Q&A because of its bias against any left wing types who brave an appearance. That right wingers think it is left biased just shows what a warped parallel universe they live in.

spud: 09 May 2013 7:43:34pm In all honesty, and with respect, that says a lot about you that perhaps in retrospect you would have preferred was not said. andrewk: 09 May 2013 2:49:32pm So, no actual evidence then andy eh? Just a general, non-specific allegation of 'sneering' and 'smugness' without even a single quote to back it up.

rebelid: 10 May 2013 7:22:49am What's all this specious nonsense about evidence? It's not so very hard to understand where people stand on issues, and the evidence you demand is provided by your eyes and ears, and your mind - from which you make a judgment. We don't wait for 'evidence', ( you're vague about what standard of evidence would satisfy you, in any case) to make those kinds of everyday judgments, we simply rely on maturity and life experience.

Judging by your comments (there's the evidence) you may be lacking a little in both. davidb: 09 May 2013 3:20:02pm Dear andy I find it hard to tune into Q&A because it does not address the big picture issues of society now and for the future. This involves deeper thinking than the imaginary left/right divide in the same old dominant economic paradigm.

Mark James: 09 May 2013 3:57:48pm andy, I honestly have never been overwhelmed by a sneering Q&A audience. Maybe you're being overly sensitive and imagine any criticism of conservatism is a sneer? Maybe if you could provide examples I could have a look and see if you have a point, but I've never noticed it myself. I think once, I thought Sophie Mirabella was a bit sneery when she attacked 'the left', and another time one of the guests (I can't remember who) seemed a bit sneery when saying something about Gina Rinehart.

Mycal: 09 May 2013 6:59:17pm I agree andy, and frankly they bloody well derserve it. The thing is, I have never yet seen anyone from the conservative side lay down a coherent argument, challenge them on their 30 second sound bite and they flop about like fish out water!. GrumpyOldMan: 09 May 2013 8:58:17pm andy, well perhaps if any of the conservatives who go on Q&A would actually say something that made sense based on known facts then they wouldn't be treated with the disrespect they deserve. But they continually ignore 'inconvenient truths' and resort to simplistic slogans and insults directed at a government that has had to cope with the difficult and unpredictable consequences of the GFC. The complexity and interdependencies within the global economy over the last 5 years are way beyond what Howard/Costello had to cope with and they are not going to become any easier in the future. Conservatives are simply not equipped intellectually to deal with complexity and interdependencies - they much prefer simplicity and to stick their heads in the sand in the face of complexity. John: 10 May 2013 7:14:09am Simplistic slogans?

Have you ever heard Penny Wong answer a question without saying: 'Yes, but Tony Abbott.' . Rusty: 09 May 2013 9:50:36am Mark, Barrie Cassidy (Insiders) ex Press Secretary to Bob Hawke.thats just for a start. Mr Zeitgeist: 09 May 2013 2:43:49pm Insiders has Andrew Bolt as a regular guest but he went to Chanel Ten. He had his chance and he blew it. BTW, besides Cassidy's association with Hawke, can you point to his left bias? I can't, because Labor is not necessarily 'left' Can you actually articulate what 'left' is?

Or is it something you overheard? BTW, John Singleton ran the Hawke Labor's election campaign?

How we going here?. Alpo: 09 May 2013 9:21:21pm Mr Zeitgeist, for somebody sharing Rusty's exhibit in the big human zoo, people like Malcolm Turnbull are the left, whereas somebody like Christine Milne should not be viewed as somebody from 'the left', but as a criminal! I am confident that you get the idea. Rusty: 09 May 2013 9:42:17pm Mr, So funny your comments about Singo, he is a political gun for hire.I doubt he has any political leanings except to those with the biggest checkbook to hire his advertising agency. Labor under Gillard is left.why? Gillard was a senior member of the Socialist Forum. And 'Left' means to take from others who have taken financial risks and worked hard because you are too lazy and gutless to take risks and to work hard yourself.

tonyw: 09 May 2013 2:59:04pm Mr Cassidy should have declared his friendship with Ms Gillard partner Mr Mathieson before interviewing her on Insiders last Sunday. At least Chris Uhlmann set the example by making it clear he is married to an ALP MP. Facts please.: 09 May 2013 3:24:49pm Rusty Mark Scott Managing Director of the ABC worked for the New South Wales Greiner Liberal Party Government, as chief of staff to the Education Minister.

And was appointed by John Howard.Perhaps start at the top. Rusty: 09 May 2013 9:51:07pm Facts, Such individuals are political chameleons and I doubt they have any strong view on anything - except where their next job is.they are paid to do what they are told.one other profession springs to mind. harry: 09 May 2013 11:39:14pm Wasn't that education minister Metherell, who defected to the cross benches?. Ray: 09 May 2013 3:39:43pm But hang on- didn't Bolt also write for Hawke?. Mark James: 09 May 2013 3:53:00pm Rusty, in what way exactly is Cassidy betraying his profession by letting his previous political affiliations colour his objectivity?.

Paul01: 09 May 2013 4:09:33pm Rusty, Andrew Bolt (Insiders guest on many occasions prior to Gina sponsoring him at Ch 10) worked for Bob Hawke. How is that for a retort? Just because I worked for someone a decade or more ago does not automatically make me one of their disciples. Robert: 09 May 2013 4:29:10pm I think the telling moment for me was when Barrie said to the PM WE are looking at a loss in September That is a fact the word We slipped out.

Andie: 09 May 2013 11:51:46am Just watch them with an open eyes and and open mind and it will quickly become evident. spud: 09 May 2013 12:02:35pm If you need that, then you wouldn't understand it, even if it were presented to you in pictures. mike: 09 May 2013 12:59:40pm Well let's see, wasn't Barry Cassidy a Labor speechwriter? Didn't he recently say on Insiders 'We're in trouble' referring to the bad polls for Labor?

Don't know about Tony Jones, he seems pretty impartial most of the time despite the loud reflexive applause for all Left positions from the Q&A audience. As for The Drum I think it is pretty obvious where Jonathon Green is coming from. Mark James: 09 May 2013 6:05:25pm mike, you've stated only what you think, and provided no supporting evidence.

That's fair enough, of course. But, if the ABC is so clearly biased, as leon suggests, why is nobody able to give any concrete examply to quantify this bias, or measure it, or prove it?. Robert Bruce: 09 May 2013 7:28:18pm Suggest you take a look at the list of Drum contributors and note the liberal politicians and other right wingers. Rocky: 09 May 2013 12:59:52pm To be fair, evidence-based argument is not really what conservatives do.and why should they? They already know they are right.

spud: 09 May 2013 7:48:14pm Coming from the left, that is predictable. RobW: 09 May 2013 4:25:44pm 'it should be fairly easy to offer some persuasive evidence to back up your accusation, no' Interestingly nobody has offered solid objective evidence yet. NINDY: 09 May 2013 6:56:41pm Just three quick instances. Language and nuance matter and reveal. The sole 'conservative' oriented program on the ABC is named Counterpoint; 2. The panel programs are invariably weighted to the left. Arrie Cassidy has twice in 4 weeks referred to the ALP as 'we'; an 3.

The most appalling breach of balance requirements in recent years (in my opinion) was an interview by Sabra Lane of the PM with an introducion of 'why would you expect Tony Abbott to change the habits of a lifetime and say yrs?' Or the ongoing references to a riot incited by an ALP staffer misrepresenting comments of Mr Abbott as 'caused' by comments of Abbott? Or the correct adverse comments of describing the PM as a 'witch' yet failing to condemn once the similar description of Mrs Thatcher. MyKal: 09 May 2013 8:18:00pm 'BARRIE CASSIDY: Now just finally, there was more speculation over the weekend that we're headed for a, well, at least the Government is headed for a big loss in September, some 40 to 45 seats is one estimation. ' Unless he is using the words 'we are' to describe some other group that I missed- Wouldn't is to make Mr Cassidy, whom I admire even when I disagree, aligned to the Government?. Notsky: 09 May 2013 9:16:04am Well, they are to the left of Bolt and Piers Akerman.

However, since Bolt and Akerman are of the extreme right, it does not follow that the ABC is of the left at all. There are some left wing blogs out there, maybe you should read some of them, at least to get an idea of what really is 'left' in this country. Voltaire: 09 May 2013 9:46:28am The point is that all of the examples used in Mr Green's article, without exception, can be generally located on the right of the political spectrum. The article is transparently partisan.

barsnax: 09 May 2013 9:46:29am Everybody is to the left of Bolt and Akerman. taxedorff: 09 May 2013 5:08:55pm all sane reasonable balanced people are to the left of them except Henderson who is an apologist for anything right of reasoned. Mycal: 09 May 2013 7:00:38pm Not on every issue, at least not all the time!

For instance. Damn lost the argument again!. Adman: 09 May 2013 10:55:56am Correct. When the right is so extreme, anyone to the left of those mentioned above is considered of the left. It is all relative. The problem is, those of the extreme right have mistaken their political idealology for the noun. Lopez: 09 May 2013 3:33:00pm At the moment the majority of Australians lean towards the right.

Trials In Tainted Space Children

There is only ever one right leaning panelist on insiders (sometimes none) and usually two of the left. Gianna: 09 May 2013 4:58:26pm Notsky I do read some left type blogs. The sneering and smear directed at some Liberal and National politicians is bordering on obscene and abusive. anti-postmodernist: 09 May 2013 7:22:35pm Millions of Australians have similar views to Bolt and Akerman, so by definition they are not extreme right, just right of centre.

allaboutlies: 09 May 2013 9:23:35am What a load of rubbish. QandA always has plenty of right wing panelists like Pyne, Minchin and Mirabella, and lots of right wing journos like Albrechtsen.

The questions come from the audience which is almost always made up of more conservative voters than Labor voters and Tony Jones is just the presenter. Same with the Drum and Insiders with the likes of Piers Ackerman and Tim Wilson etc. Rusty: 09 May 2013 9:49:05am all, But these individuals are NOT EMPLOYEES of the ABC.paid for by us taxpayers. Rach: 09 May 2013 3:27:24pm Janet Albrechtson and Keith Winchuttle, both conservative pundits, who express consistent partisan political ideologies and in fact, have made careers out of it were part of the ABC board, under Howard.

Taxpayer funded. Getting into a debate about how taxpayer funded corporations need to be MORE accountable than private, is ridiculous. And media needs to be accountable. That's why we have defamation laws. Arthur 1: 09 May 2013 6:30:48pm Rusty, Mark Scott is paid by the taxpayer,he comes with right wing credentials. If we didn't have free public radio it would be a one sided,radio dial,as commercial station,have do what their sponsors want them to do,and that is not always to the benefit of the country at large. The ABC is largely left alone to get on with entertaining people,and informing them,I for one think my 8c a day is fairly well spent,.

allaboutlies: 09 May 2013 10:45:58pm Why should/would they put ABC employees on the panel. Clownfish: 09 May 2013 10:10:51am Yes, Q&A and Insiders have the odd token, but they're rarely allowed a word in edgeways. wibble: 09 May 2013 3:09:23pm I find that many of the plethora of conservative panelists on Q&A just won't shut up - they blab on about everything except the question at times. It's all about consuming time so that rational arguments can't get foot hold.

Great political/rhetorical trickery but not so great for the truth. Reinhard: 09 May 2013 5:25:07pm Oh that's rich considering the disruptive behaviour of Mirrabella etc, and the constant interruptions of Barnaby Joyce. Robert Bruce: 09 May 2013 7:30:44pm We must be watching different shows. The right wingers always have a good go on Q&A. The problem with you right wingers is you seem to think anything which isn't overtly and partisanly right wing is a left wing conspiracy. allaboutlies: 09 May 2013 10:48:29pm Piers Ackerman and other right wingers when they're on the show never shut up. Clearly you don't watch it, in which case you shouldn't be writing it off with the assumption that its a left wing program.

bondwana: 09 May 2013 11:28:30am ' QandA always has plenty of right wing panelists like Pyne, Minchin and Mirabella' rubbish, they never have more than one at a time. allaboutlies: 09 May 2013 10:50:29pm You obviously don't watch the program so you shouldn't criticize. BTW the audience almost always comprises a majority of liberal voters.

spud: 09 May 2013 12:10:01pm Crap. The closest Q&A ever gets to balance is 3 + Jones on the left to 2 on the right. A typical variation is 2 Lib/right, 2 Lab/left, one Green and Jones.

And as for the audience Qs, even if they weren't carefully vetted by the ABC first and all came spontaneously from the audience (as if!!) the typical ABC Q&A audience is still considerably more left than the population as a whole; as per the ABC's own survey figures. Reinhard: 09 May 2013 5:57:40pm Spud if you pay attention, at the start of each Q&A episode they show audience demographics, the ABC makes sure it is line with recent polling. For example the last episode (before Gillard vs schoolies) on 29th April, Class Warfare, Latte Sippers & Mental Illness, the audience demo was ALP 33% / Coalition 44% / Greens 10%. allaboutlies: 09 May 2013 10:52:54pm The audience is invariably made up of more than 40% liberal voters and far fewer ALP voters. Watch the program!. Duncan: 09 May 2013 12:21:20pm In fact Q&A has one token conservative up against 3 or 4 people with jobs like 'social commentator' who teach or hold degrees with the word 'Studies' in the name - plus the host. The audience wildly applauds any mushy sentimental view that we should all be nice and go easy on Labor, and sits stonyfaced and silent through any exposure of the consequences of their policies.

Charles: 09 May 2013 4:48:18pm allaboutlies, while the ABC producers put up the numbers in the Q&A audience being conservatives at about 40 something percent, these are not conservatives that I would ever recognise. In what parallel universe do you see conservatives applauding the stupidity of AGW, being overrun by Centrelink seekers at our borders, being plunged into unnecessary and painful national debt, or any of the hundreds of causes and ideologues which particularly belong to the Left/progressives. They are in effect CINO's (conservatives in name only) and have no relationship with LNP voters and true conservatives anywhere. The problem is the perspective of ABC personnel who think anyone to the Right of Christine Milne or Bob Brown is conservative. The general public do not share this view. Claudius PSeudonymus: 09 May 2013 9:39:09am Leon, I agree with you.

I've often said that the ABC is a taxpayer funded ALP propaganda dept. Bolt is at least unashamedly right wing. But so very many in the ABC like Terry Jones, Barrie Cassidy and Jonathan Green himself are clearly playing partisan politics.

Blowing the ALP trumpet whilst hiding behind a false veneer of 'journalism'. Christian: 09 May 2013 4:14:50pm Can you give an example of how they blow the ALP trumpet? From what I've seen they are critical of everybody. Not lenient on either side of politics. Policy Defunct: 09 May 2013 4:59:38pm Rather a grand title you have mused,maybe to much intellect was used on the naming and nothing was left for the comment. Mycal: 09 May 2013 7:06:02pm Another 30 second sound bite from the right Claudius. You do not point to a single example nor quote a single instance of bias to support your allegations.

I mean if those left wing harpies on media watch can do it why can't you? The reason, you cannot because it doesn't exist except in the befuddled imaginings of rabbid righties! Oh well, you get to crow in September so I guess God really does look out for the hapless. Mr shark: 09 May 2013 8:07:39pm Ah yes, propaganda is rife, the abc is a goebbals like monster, just waiting to bring on the revolution and pave the way for the aocialist hordes to.overthrow the ruling class?SO your accusation of propaganda means that they would only ever present one side of an argument to favour one political party. This is, as far as I can see ( and I listen and watch the abc a lot) not an objective assessment.It would be nice if you actially gave speicific examples to back up your statement, but since you have not, I can provide some to confound your opinion.

Drum, always presents a range of viewpoints and the IPA have a regular forum to present their free market libertarian viewpoints. THe govt are regularly criticised by all sides and the presenters seem pretty neutral to me. Q & A, once again, people from both sides of politics, remember how tony Jones revelled in Germaine Greer's comments about Julie Gillard's bum? Insiders, I have watched all and sundry gleefully discussing Labors leadership woes,plenty of right wing commentators on there, b Cassidy last week wrote a piece that said Gillard lost out to Abbott on the NDIS I really do think that many Tories perceive the world in a paranoid manner, seeing left wing bias whenever their views are not expounded ad nauseaum, the abc is generally very critical of the govt and if you cannot see this, then your perceptions are utterly skewed, but then given the mindset of the average hard right true believer, this is hardly surprising.

Joan: 09 May 2013 9:43:26am I agree totally as do many people I know I cannot recall a time when there has been such support for A sitting government than from the ABC at the moment Some friends no longer listen to or watch the ABC because the bias makes Them so angry. Prose: 09 May 2013 2:32:44pm That is so silly, it is ridiculous.

In fact there is a decided lack of support for the ABC: I have stopped watching Q&A and 7:30 precisely because they have become vehicles for the coalition to push their dishonest barrows with the help of Messrs Uhlman, Sales, Jones and the like. If Joan is right, soon no-one will be watching or listening to the ABC!. anti-postmodernist: 09 May 2013 7:26:36pm So political parties that represent the views of the majority should not have a voice on your (my) ABC and you are complaining that the ABC is not left enough? This neatly sums up the debate. Daisy May: 09 May 2013 2:39:31pm Fancy that Joan. I guess that I would be considered left leaning and I have the exact same problem with the ABC as you do. From my perspective though it is the polar opposite of yours.

You cannot seriously say that commentators on all ABC news and Current Affairs programs don't start every sentence with either. The opposition says.or. Mr Abbott is a shoe in. Is widely acccepted as being. There is little doubt that.

Or that the Gillard government has failed the politics. But won the policy debate. As though politics is more important to the country than policies like the NDIS,Gonski, NBN, Health Reform, Murray Darling, Triple AAA Credit Ratings, Low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates. Andrew C: 09 May 2013 3:57:48pm That's patently absurd. The ABC does not carry any meaningful bias in its reporting of the news.

I think the trouble you are having is that your own (conservative)political bias is not being regurgitated back to you like they are in the Australian and the News Ltd publications. You are unused to not having your biases confirmed and reconfirmed and self congratulated over and over again. The ABC is not biased. It is neither left nor right. It is a news source of professional journalists who still remember what journalism is meant to be!. Dylstra: 09 May 2013 4:02:58pm Or maybe, just maybe, all the other news outlets are tearing so ferociously at the current Government that anything more reasonable stands out as blatant bias.

Reinhard: 09 May 2013 5:26:16pm So you didn't watch the ABC at all from 1996 to 2007?.That's quite a stretch. here in SA: 09 May 2013 9:45:03am You missed the point all together Leon. Left and right are a matter of opinion. Truth is fact. A fact you might call leftism, someone on the far left my this is rightism (if that is a word). But it is a fact and a truth.

ABC don't need to balance left and right Journalists, because in their very nature people who only overtly report along an ideology are not reporting the truth. The ABC don't need left or right they need neither. RobW: 09 May 2013 4:27:34pm 'Left and right are a matter of opinion.

Truth is fact.' .

Robert: 09 May 2013 9:46:30am Well said Leon.I couldn't have said it better. Of course Green won't say anything.he's one of them!. Sydney Bob: 09 May 2013 9:54:07am THE INSIDERS, Andrew Bolt used to appear on the insiders.

Daisy May: 09 May 2013 2:40:23pm Then he got his own gig on Gina's Network 10. momo49: 09 May 2013 3:22:02pm Yes, but the operative words are 'used to'. Perhaps they could not handle him.

In any case he was well out-numbered by the other more Labor-friendly journos. taxedorff: 09 May 2013 5:10:23pm yes bolt did frequent the show in body but he tended to leave manners home and just wear arrogance and disdain. Stuffed Olive: 09 May 2013 9:56:37am Only someone who has never watched those shows could make that statement. All of them in fact have a tilt to the right with their commentators and audience. All those right wing commentators tend to be very opinionated and are often downright unpleasant while those to the left, i.e. Not of the right, are too polite and reasonable. All the rightwingers are prone to interrupting others.

FB: 09 May 2013 7:20:01pm Both sides of politics have opinionated, pushy and rude individuals. To claim that all rightwingers interrupt others is baseless. 10 percent: 09 May 2013 9:59:13am The thing is I see many posters accusing various left leaning abc journalists of a right wing bias all the time in these forums so the argument of the article is kind bs. Our view of the world is coloured by our belief and we react to what we feel threatens that belief.

There is also a difference between journalism and commentary bit a lot of writers want to blur that line Johnathan Green being an example, his piece last week on the politics of the NDIS was everything he basically is writing against. In general we are very lucky with the reporters on the abc they come across as intelligent, committed and well meaning with a social conscience. Those last two attributes tend to make one left wing when fighting the powers that be and helping the little man you tend to be on the side of the less fortunate and want to use government as a means for lolling the playing field. A lot of posters talk about the bias in the Murdoch press but lately the abc has been shaking its head at the Gillard government.