Feel free to add to this list
Liberal Party Communication Minister Richard Alston recently lodged a complaint against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for left wing bias. If you want to read his letter, you can find it at www.abc.net.au/mediawatch.
Dicky Alston, the same clown who supported David Flint as the head of the ABA until Flint recently retired in shame. That was after having written love letters to Alan Jones fawning over his broadcasting abilities, whilst he was supposed to be sitting in judgment on Jones’ part in Cash for Comment. Alston supported Flint being paid a hefty taxpayer-funded salary even though he he kept on having to excuse himself from most of the ABA’s inquiries because he couldn’t be impartial. Talk about bludging! Is that Alston’s idea of Work for the Dole or something?
But it’s no wonder Alston supported him. Alan Jones approached John Howard and told him that if he didn’t support David Lint as the head of the ABA, then Howard wouldn’t have Alan Jones’ program’s support in this election that we are now fighting. So who do you trust?
Yes Dicky Alston, it’s all a big conspiracy to drag you down. You can’t trust those left wingers can ya? They infiltrate everywhere. On the telly. On the radio. Under the beds. Getting into your home. But don’t panic. Be alert, not alarmed.
So inspired was I by Dicky Alston’s gobbledegook that I’ve written my own letter of complaint to the ABC about bias. You may notice Dick's influence on my writing style. See I think it’s all part of an even bigger conspiracy. The Government has a whinge about left wing bias in an attempt to divert our attention away from the real issue. No, not George Bush’s dealings with the Saudis. Not John Howard’s affair with Pru Goward. Something much more sinister on behalf of our Government... RIGHT WING BIAS!
And now to the letter:
Dear Mr Balding
During the past few years I have discussed a number of complaints of biased, and in particular, anti-left-wing, coverage by the ABC, particularly the Lateline programme.
Set out below are a number of examples, taken from transcripts available on the ABC’s own website, where the appropriate standards appear not to have been met. The level of concern is explained in each case.
16 June 2004
7:30 Report with Kerry O’Brien
Following an interview with Bob McMullan in which McMullan defended the ALP against criticisms that they weren’t releasing any major policies and criticised the Coalition Government foir steling its policies, O’Brien commented cynically
“I think I’ve heard some of that before”
O’Brien’s condescending editorialising reflects his anti-ALP views. The 7:30 Report is not the forum for O’Brien to pursue his grudge against the ALP.
16 June 2004
Lateline with Tony Jones
In response to Bob Brown’s outlining of the Greens stance on energy policy, Jones replied:
“Well that sounds like a good argument for putting money into renewable energy, but it doesn’t sound like a good argument against putting money into fossil fuel technology”.
Jones was yet again running an anti-Greens, pro-Liberal line in favour of sequestration. His evaluation of Brown’s arguments was not appropriate.
17 May 2004
Enough Rope with Andrew Denton
Denton asked Pax for his opinion on the highly contentious issue of whether the Coalition should withdraw from Iraq. Salam Pax commented:
“But still it doesn't mean that everybody should go, "OK, 'bye," because it will plunge us deeper into chaos. People are using this to drive away the coalition.”
Andrew Denton did not ask Pax for any justification of this view which was so clearly an attack on Mark Latham's comments. Pax was allowed free range to criticise the Opposition.
8 August 2004
7:30 Report with Kerry O’Brien
In an interview with PM John Howard, O’Brien continually allowed Howard to avoid questions and divert attention away from the issues being discussed. O’Brien simply allowed Howard to decide the direction of the interview.
7 August 2004
7:30 Report with Kerry O’Brien
The report on the FTA with the USA gave much more time to the Liberal Party. Although Latham had made several critical comments during the day, presenting a different side to the Gov ernment’s, the Liberal Party was allowed to dominate this report.
ABC News 3 June 2004
The story was about Liberal Party objections to a Playschool segment featuring a homosexual couple. As part of the news report, three Liberal Party politicians, including John Howard and Tony Abbott were given the opportunity to air their objections to the Playschool segment. The report noted the ALP’s agreement with the Government.
No comment was sought from Australia’s only homosexual politician, Bob Brown. No comment was sought from the Democrats or the compilers of the Playschool segment. The time given to John Howard was a waste of the time available for the report because Howard said he had not even heard about the controversy. This time could have been better allocated to Bob Brown or Playschool itself. The ABC was trying to silence the views of gay people in our political community.
7 August 2004
7:30 Report with Kerry O’Brien
In stark contrast to O’Brien’s interviews with Howard over the previous 18 months, O’Brien continually hammered Mark Latham, questioning his every utterance in an unfair manner. O’Brien showed his preference for Howard and undermined his credibility as one of Australia’s best journalists in doing so.
14 May 2004
Lateline, Kim Landers
“Latham defends Youth Guarantee Policy”
Landers said the following: “After vowing to help workers earning less than $52,000, Mark Latham this morning conceded he can't promise tax cuts for all”.
By placing these two pieces of information in the same sentence, the implication was that Latham was saying that he couldn’t help workers earning less than $52,000. All he had conceded was that he couldn’t help everyone. This could have equally been interpreted as meaning that Latham would help those earning less than $52,000 at the expense of those earning more. Landers’ right-wing bias obviously influenced her biased reporting of the ALP’s budget response.
In the same report, Tony Abbott’s comment:
“The $5 bulk-billing incentive has produced a significant rise in bulk-billing and on the basis of this, we ought to see another improvement next time.”
was left without any further comment from any side of politics. Landers clearly ignored the chance to get an ALP comment that might have pointed out the ALP’s opinions about the Government’s treatment of public health.
22 May 2002
Lateline, Tony Jones
Jones introduced a story by Jim Middleton by saying:
“On his first full day in China, Prime Minister John Howard has been ambushed over the Dalai Lama's visit to Australia. A Communist Party official condemned the exiled Tibetan leader, claiming his presence here is damaging relations between Australia and China. The Prime Minister is not meeting the Dalai Lama while he is in Australia, but he was still forced to defend the visit.”
The word “ambushed” clearly implies the Communist Party official was doing something much more sinister than simply asking the Prime Minister a question. The word “forced” implied that Howard was not free to not answer the question, that the Communist Party official would have done something to Howard if Howard had not replied. Clearly this was not the case. Jones’ anti-Communist bias led him to portray the official as acting unfairly.
25 July 2003
AM, Linda Mottram
Senator Alston’s complaints were given extensive coverage on the ABC. Most implied that the ABC had been accused of left-wing bias, which was not said by Alston.
“Earlier this week the ABC rejected the Minister's allegations of bias. It found fault with only two of the items of which Senator Alston complained, but concluded that there was no evidence of anti-Americanism or anti-Coalition and partisan reporting.”
The intention of the word partisan makes obvious implications about the left wing’s bias. This was a manipulative attempt by the ABC to divert attention from the reality of their right wing bias.
The Media Watch programme was the only programme to emphasise the results of Newspoll polling that the general public was happy with the level of balance at the ABC. This was a much broader survey than the opinions of one Minister. The ABC has ignored the opinions of hundreds of Australians in favour of one Minister.
13 August 2003
Lateline, Tony Jones
Jones introduced a story by Emma Griffiths by saying:
“Honan has blamed the Federal Opposition's attack on his meeting with the Prime Minister for job losses at the company's Melbourne plant. Fifty workers will be made redundant by the end of the month. The accusation led to rowdy scenes in Federal Parliament…”
This quote clearly implied that the Labor Party are “rowdy”. This clearly subjective judgment demonstrated an anti-Labor bias by Jones.
16 May 2004
ABC South Australia website http://www.abc.net.au/sa/news/200405/s1109132.htm
A photo carries the caption:
“David Hicks has not reported any mistreatment in detention.”
This statement is disputed by Hicks’ legal team. This is a case of the ABC’s continued campaign against Hicks. They paint Hicks as unreliable. This attempt to discredit Hicks is further part of the ABC’s right-wing biased reporting of the War.
29 July 2003
AM, Linda Mottram
As part of the ABC’s repeated attempts to discredit David Hicks, Terry Hicks was quoted claiming that David Hicks “has mental problems”.
22 July 2003
The World Today, Nance Haxton
In a report that attempted to discredit David Hicks, Alexander Downer was allowed to accuse Hicks of training with Al_Qaeda for a period of time that represented 3 long paragraphs in the transcripts. Hick’s lawyer was only quoted late in the piece, and for only 2 short paragraphs.
What has been provided above are a number of one-sided and tendentious commentary by programme hosts and reporters relating to consistent right-wing bias across the board at the ABC.
A number of my friends have expressed concern about the ABC’s overall level of journalism. My friends are ordinary citizens who want to be accurately informed about the world’s events, and they are not happy with the biased comments from reporters and the pro-war comments left unchallenged by the left-wing side of politics.
From the analysis provided in this letter it can only be assumed there was little or no editorial oversight by senior management of any ABC content to ensure that the commentary provided was both balanced and factually based. On the contrary, it would seem more reasonable to conclude the ABC’s news reportage is characterised by a number of ongoing themes, namely:
Claiming that David Hicks is not credible and the Government is right to detain him, despite any conviction having been recorded against him when these reports were aired
Claiming that the ABC is left-wing biased in an attempt to divert the attention of those, like myself who would seek to claim the opposite
Over-emphasising the position of the Liberal Government with little or no opportunity for response from left-wing politicians
Implying that left wing politicians treat the Liberal Government unfairly.
It is not difficult to understand the trying conditions under which journalistic material is produced.
However, the ABC’s own Editorial Policies require adherence to the ABC’s four fundamental editorial principles, namely, honesty, fairness, independence and respect.
Further, the ABC’s Charter of Editorial Practice for news and current affairs requires the following of ABC staff:
1. The ABC takes no editorial stand in its programming
4. Balance will be sought through the presentation, as far as possible of principal and relevant viewpoints on matters of importance
5. The commitment to impartiality and balance requires editorial staff to present a wide range of perspectives and not unduly favour one over the others
In my view, the evidence provided here in this letter provide evidence these standards were not adhered to. I would appreciate a detailed response in respect of each of the individual items referred to in this letter as well as a comprehensive explanation of the extent and nature of editorial oversight by senior management of ABC’s journalistic coverage.
Stay brave and true.
Yours sincerely,
Champas
________________
You can find the bias in the ABC if you want to. But the reality is that the ABC is about as unbiased as can be realistically expected of any journalists. Even if Alston had a point, I wholeheartedly agree with Rod Quantock:
“The entire armies of Lenin and Stalin could not balance out the right wing coverage provided by Packer and Murdoch’s commercial news organisations.”
I will be sending this letter off fairly soon, but I would like to welcome any extra contributions from my extensive readership first. I originally wanted to get 63 complaints for the letter, but I have less spare time on my hands than our Communication Minister.
The 7:30 Report’s website is full of complaints against Kerry O’Brien’s bias. Half of them say he’s a Laborite, the other half are saying that he goes easy on Howard and hard on Latham. Andrew Denton summed up the debate best when he said:
"Whenever you hear a politician or the Prime Minister complaining about the ABC (they all do, from both sides of politics) you can be sure of this: That's your taxpayer's dollar at work."