Guest Post: Natural Instinct – Bias on ABC Insiders; Do the numbers lie?

Who actually appears as a Panellist on the ABC Insiders program, and how often do they appear?  This started as a little project for over the Xmas / New Year period, and then ran into difficulties, as I will explain later (see Note 2).

The ABC Insiders program is Left-biased and it can be proven by the numbers.

If the Hosts and each Panellist is given a political score of: 1 (Far Left), 2 (Left), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Right), 5 (Far Right), and this is then multiplied by their appearance frequency, then an overall program score can be calculated.  For the last three years, the program is obviously “of the Left” – scoring around 2.

Total Score = 2.08 – for the period 6 Feb 2011 to 6 Apr 2014 (136 shows)

Who has appeared the most frequently in the 136 shows, and what are their politics?

Per cent

Politics

Name

100

2

Barrie Cassidy ABC (see Note 1)

24

2

Dennis Atkins News

23

1

Lenore Taylor Guardian

21

4

Gerard Henderson Sydney Institute

21

2

Malcolm Farr News

19

4

Niki Savva News

17

1

George Megalogenis Author

15

1

David Marr Guardian

15

2

Laura Tingle Fairfax

13

2

Karen Middleton SBS

13

2

Phil Coorey Fairfax

12

2

Mark Kenny Fairfax

11

1

Fran Kelly ABC

11

2

Michael Stutchbury Fairfax

11

5

Piers Akerman News

10

2

Andrew Probyn West Aust’n

10

1

Annabel Crabb ABC

10

1

Kerrie-Anne Walsh Author

10

1

Mike Seccombe Global Mail

9

2

Brian Toohey Fairfax

8

2

Jacqueline Maley Fairfax

7

2

Misha Schubert Fairfax

3

5

Chris Kenny News

3

2

Glenn Milne Seven

2

4

Andrew Bolt News

2

2

Tory Shepherd News

1

2

Chris Uhlmann ABC

1

2

Jonathan Swan Fairfax

The Left-leaning results are also consistent over each of the last three years.

2011 Score = 2.16 – for the period 6 Feb 2011 to 4 Dec 2011 (40 shows)

Per cent

Politics

Name

100

2

Barrie Cassidy ABC

25

1

Lenore Taylor Guardian

25

4

Niki Savva News

18

1

Annabel Crabb ABC

18

2

Dennis Atkins News

18

4

Gerard Henderson Sydney Institute

18

1

Kerrie-Anne Walsh Author

2012 Score = 2.03 – for the period 5 Feb 2012 to 2 Dec 2012 (43 shows)

Per cent

Politics

Name

100

2

Barrie Cassidy ABC

28

2

Dennis Atkins News

28

1

Lenore Taylor Guardian

21

1

George Megalogenis Author

21

2

Malcolm Farr News

19

4

Gerard Henderson Sydney Institute

19

4

Niki Savva News

2013 Score = 2.05 – for the period 3 Feb 2013 to 1 Dec 2013 (43 shows)

Per cent

Politics

Name

100

2

Barrie Cassidy ABC

30

2

Malcolm Farr News

26

2

Dennis Atkins News

26

4

Gerard Henderson Sydney Institute

21

2

Laura Tingle Fairfax

19

1

George Megalogenis Author

19

1

Mike Seccombe Global Mail

2014 Score = 2.08- for the period 2 Feb 2014 to 6 Apr 2014 (10 shows)

Per cent

Politics

Name

100

2

Barrie Cassidy ABC

30

2

Dennis Atkins News

30

4

Niki Savva News

30

2

Tory Shepherd News

20

1

David Marr Guardian

20

4

Gerard Henderson Sydney Institute

20

2

Jonathan Swan Fairfax

20

1

Lenore Taylor Guardian

20

2

Mark Kenny Fairfax

20

2

Phil Coorey Fairfax

Note (1): The host is assumed to be Barrie Cassidy for all programs, though it was noted that once, or twice, Fran Kelly and Chris Uhlmann have been the host, but this was not recorded.

Note (2): From the 26 May 2013 till 6 Apr 2014 (38 shows), the panel is named in the web page “This Week on Insiders”.  From 6 Feb 2011 to 26 May 2013 (98 shows), the web pages just say “On Insiders this week, Barrie Cassidy and the panel discuss”.  The panel members were found by looking manually at the beginning of the “Sunday Papers” segment, and occasionally at “Predictions & Observations” segment.  On the 21 Feb 2010 and 27 Nov 2011, the panel is listed by name on the “Sunday Papers” web page - but this ‘mistake’ was not repeated subsequently.  The program on the 17 Jul 2011 is excluded from the analysis as this program was a 10 year special and had four panel members: AC, LT, GH, MF

So what does all this mean?  Well the new host, Fran Kelly, could go to her Executive Producer (Kellie Mayo) and say that she wants to adhere to the ABC’s Charter and present a show that is balanced, and that she does not want to host a Left biased show.  For example she could suggest that for the rest of year (about 33 shows) that there must be at least two right of centre panellists.  Now, given that 10 shows have already gone, each new show must average a score of at least 3.3, so given her score of 2 and assuming another panellist (from the usual suspects) will also score a 2 – then the other 2 panellist must be one 4 (centre right) and the other a 5 (far right) – for the rest of the year.  This will then achieve an overall program score of 3 for the year, i.e. Centre.

This proposal, if Fran would care to take it up, would probably cause a couple of ‘brain explosions’ amongst ABC staff but only because the ABC’s culture has drifted so far to the Left from the Centre (as self appointed warriors against the right leaning shock jocks and the ‘evil’ Murdoch empire) that its staff do not comprehend its Charter specified requirement that the ABC be balanced, entire unto itself.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Guest Post: Natural Instinct – Bias on ABC Insiders; Do the numbers lie?

  1. Blogstrop

    The ABC’s culture is toxic, being part of the left-PC disease in our society. This disease robs us of the ability to remain cohesive and to be relatively immune to attacks.

    The pervasiveness of this culture in the media is obvious, and not just at the ABC. It has become chronic in so many institutions, including the judiciary (as a result of appointment of activist mates), that it is now difficult to see a remedy. You end up with PC being its own Catch-22.

    Correcting the imbalance on insiders and the rest of the ABC would be a start. Sadly, it would only be a start. Big job, much resolve needed.

  2. tomix

    It’s the freak show ambience that makes the program interesting.

    And you can wind Akerman, Savva, and Bolt back a couple of places on the chart.

  3. This analysis spin is fundamentally flawed, as it looks at commentators, not content.
    Here is a much more accurate analysis which examines content.

  4. Blogstrop

    The left media give approval to unaffordable feelgood spending schemes. Obamacare is being recognised as a complete funding disaster which will bankrupt America – see latest at Powerline - and you have to ask is this a deliberate act of sabotage on the US economy, or just amazing incompetence.

    Either way, the left media like the ABC give cover for schemes which should not proceed, and denigrate our culture while promoting their “alternative” ones such as gay marriage, free pass for Islamic ideas, never questioning them on touchy subjects.

    Numbers, nobody gives a shit for your point of view or your links.

  5. Numbers, Blogstrop nobody gives a shit for your point of view or your links.
    FIFY

  6. On what basis have you determined that Piers Akerman is “far right”?

  7. Andrew

    Deadman, I’m happy with the classification of Piers as highly conservative (5) on the basis that someone has to be a 5. He’s not “far right” in the perjurative sense that it’s often (mistakenly) used.

  8. It doesn’t matter. Who cares? You can’t go policing ABC politics anyway so that you get a balance. The Howard government tried that and they utterly failed. If you really seriously try to alter the politics of the ABC the left will just do the same when they’re in government.

    Just concentrate on getting your view out via other mediums and/or privatising the ABC.

  9. entropy

    I think I would put Ackerman to the right of Chris Kenny, who I didn’t regard as all that far right, only in the sense he has created some very uncomfortable moments for lefties.

  10. entropy

    Niki Savva is right wing? In what sense. I would have thought her a big government fan. Is it because she worked for the evvil Howard dictatorship?

  11. Badjack

    Savva is ‘of the right’ only when it suits her and never when she opines about Abbott.

  12. Tom

    Thank you, mystery guest author, though I would echo Deadman’s disapproval: Onsiders has never ever allowed anyone from the “far right” on its program; defending a conservative opinion against a swamp full of fucktard ferals (like our own doctrinaire communist trollscum, who has no friends so he spends half his sad and lonely life making an arsehole of himself insulting people here) does not make Piers an “extreme” right-winger. Why does Onsiders keep providing a place for extreme left wingers — two of whom (Mike Bowers and Mike Seccombe, as far as I know, are still unemployed rejects from the failed Greenfilth propaganda channel, the Global Mail)? Why does Lenore Taylor still have a place now that she has moved to the extreme left wing Guardian? It is important that this information has at last been recorded. The ludicrous barracking for the left of politics by Their ABC is now there for all to see.

  13. The categorisation of Piers Akerman and Chris Kenny as far-right and Nikki Savva as right is an example of how inadequate (even when applied properly) the dichotomous and linear left-right model of politics is.
    I prefer a trichotomous and three-dimensional representation:

    instead of a linear left/right divide—with the good guys in the centre (or, as the mainstream media would insist, slightly left of centre) and extremists on either the far-left or the far-right, casting the extremists on both sides as most different from each other—a better picture of the political spectrum is a coloured, solid model of a dipyramidal hexahedron of three main colours based mainly on the computer’s basic colours of red, blue and green, gradating towards white and black at the two apices.

  14. candy

    What’s the definition of “far right” then – it doesn’t sound appropriate for either Akerman or Kenny.
    And is “far left” communists, just to get an idea of the scale.

  15. entropy

    It doesn’t matter. Who cares? You can’t go policing ABC politics anyway so that you get a balance. The Howard government tried that and they utterly failed. If you really seriously try to alter the politics of the ABC the left will just do the same when they’re in government.

    Quite so.

    Just concentrate on getting your view out via other mediums and/or privatising the ABC.

    Abbott won’t do anything.

  16. CatAttack

    I think Deadman has a valid point.

    It’s funny how the debate has shifted in the last few years so that someone like Chris Kenny becomes far right. When I think of FAR right I think foaming at the mouth looney hiding in their bunker in the hills of Wyoming world government conspiracy theorist anti-Semite nut job.

    Chris Kenny does not even come close.

  17. Baldrick

    Well done and an interesting and comprehensive analysis.

    Something of note:
    - of the top 10 panellists, excluding the host, appearing on Insiders, between 2011 – 2014, only 2 are conservative.
    - 80% of the comments expressed are from Left leaning panellists, or
    - 1 in 5 opinions from Insiders panellists are from conservative commentators.

    As Barrie Cassidy once said in May 2013, “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 …”

  18. Ivan Denisovich

    Just concentrate on getting your view out via other mediums and/or privatising the ABC.

    Bite the bullet. I can’t see the Appeasement Party doing it, though, despite their noise about ending the age of entitlement. The other options are just tinkering and would be reversed anyway when the Liars Party regains government.

  19. steve

    Close it down anyway.

    The Labor Party can open it up again when they get back in if they like. Let’s see how these socialist journalists like only having a job when a party of their persuasion is in power.

  20. Tel

    Someone sat through all those time wasting episodes watching people pissing in each other’s pockets, just to come up with a score card for what was an obvious result in the first place?

    That’s dedication.

  21. The Pugilist

    Someone sat through all those time wasting episodes watching people pissing in each other’s pockets, just to come up with a score card for what was an obvious result in the first place?

    That’s dedication.

    My thoughts precisely Tel.

  22. Ivan Denisovich

    The numbers were crunched on Qanda a few years ago:

    http://asiancorrespondent.com/24213/its-bias-as-usual-for-the-abcs-q-and-a/

    This analysis spin is fundamentally flawed, as it looks at commentators, not content.

    Content examined, no surprises:

    http://asiancorrespondent.com/39396/abc-onlines-election-bias-the-final-results/

  23. Ant

    Excellent work.

    I would, though, give the host a weighting of 2 seeing that they set and steer the agenda.

  24. If the Hosts and each Panellist is given a political score of: 1 (Far Left), 2 (Left), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Right), 5 (Far Right), and this is then multiplied by their appearance frequency, then an overall program score can be calculated. For the last three years, the program is obviously “of the Left” – scoring around 2.

    No, you see you’re using the wrong scoring system, because to lefties there is no ‘left’, only ‘reasonably socially conscious’.

    The proper scoring system is as follows;

    Neutral, right wing, far right, extreme right, belief in free markets. Thus, the ABC fulfills its charter, even overcompensating by allowing those crazies who believe in crazy stuff like, gasp, free will. Oh, the horror!!

  25. Tom

    Mystery guest author, it would be useful if you simply listed the number of appearances by each member of the panel for the three-year period, rather than aggregating them as a percentage. I believe the bias to the left numerically is above 85%, as the inclusion of a token conservative (Henderson, Savva and the three who have been sacked or who have left — Akerman, Bolt and Kenny), at least lately, has become something that occurs every second week at best; if that were the pattern throughout the three years, the leftist bias would be 87.5%. If the token conservative were to appear every week, the bias would be “only” 75%, which the wailing Greenfilth banshees at Their ABC deem necessary to counter the 49.88% 2PP conservative vote in 2010 and the 53.49% 2PP conservative vote last September.

  26. Aussieute

    Even with federal funding, the ABC’s Australia Network has been struggling, so much so that the ABC hads asked rival networks for content to show on its international broadcasts. So in spite of the reruns etc they have run out of content and credibility.

    Sky sets up rival to ABC overseas

    SKY News Australia is planning to launch an international news platform, called Australia Channel, which could replace the ABC’s embattled Australia Network if that service is cut in the May budget.

    The Australia Channel, which could be launched without taxpayer funding within months, will have five channels of news, business, political and sports content available to 180 countries, including key markets of China and the Middle East.

    Sky has not yet informed the Abbott government about its planned service, which will be delivered via IPTV, or internet-based television.

    The ABC has a 10-year $223 million federal government contract to deliver the Australia Network.

    The new venture will make it obsolete because such funds will no longer be needed to provide a service. It is understood the new venture would be produced and distributed at no cost to taxpayers. Sky submitted a tender for the service that was favoured by two expert recommendations but the Gillard government chose to retain the ABC.

  27. 132andBush

    This analysis spin is fundamentally flawed, as it looks at commentators, not content.

    That’s right numbers, lets sit down and have a debate on the merits or otherwise of communism/socialism vs capitalism/democracy.
    To ensure a balanced analysis of the content the commentators are Lenin, Stalin, Hitler ( they share a cab to the show ), Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, and every ones fav Fidel Castro.
    Margaret Thatcher will also be allowed to comment but only when outnumbered three to one.
    Ronald Reagan ( see above for Thatcher ).

  28. sabrina

    Common people can see through the spin, and can kick out the crooks come election time……..well in most cases they get it right.

  29. Des Deskperson

    Is there any breakdown out there of ‘Insider audiences – age cohorts, occupational groups, that sort of thing?

    I can’t find anything on the web, and I ask because, just as I don’t believe that anyone in any real job has the mental energy to watch, let alone attend, Q&A on a Monday night, I don’t believe that anyone with any sort of like gives a stuff about ‘current affairs’ on Sunday mornings.

    Nor, for that matter, do I recall any opinion or statement made on ‘Insiders’ by anyone important subsequently making the headlines.

    BTW, the ABC blurb on ‘Insiders’ describes Cassidy as having ‘a great sense of humour’. When someone is described thus by their mates, it almost certainly means that they are not funny, in the same way that any one described by their mates as ‘the salt of the Earth’ almost always has a long criminal record.

  30. custard

    An interesting analysis and we can argue all day about who should be a four or five or two or whatever.

    It’s the presenter and the producer who make the difference. Didn’t Barrie wish farewell recently to his EP who is standing for the ALP in the forthcoming Vic election? Cassidy himself was an ex Hawke staffer. And along with Waleed Aly thinks the AWU affair is a non-scandal.

    Conclusion: Left.

  31. brad

    chris Kenny far right?

    just wow

  32. CatAttack

    Custard. Nailed it. No the correct measure is the number of times Cassidy dismissively sneered at a commentator after they had spoken. Or better still interjected with his own thoughts.

  33. Andrew

    When (if ever) has the GreenBC criticised the ALP from the right? I don’t mean the token conservative (eg Bolt666 there so that Marr could rudely read a newspaper in his face). And not playing Devil’s Advocate while interviewing an ALP minister. I mean the host soliloquising that the ALP policy was wrong and that the Libs offered a better policy. You know, they way within 6 hours of Morrison666 launching a pre-election policy, they had articles up ridiculing it and finding “experts” to explain why they can’t stop or turnaround the boats. The way they spent a decade saying offshore detention didn’t work until claiming that Rudd caused the boats to stop.

  34. Dan

    It’s funny how the debate has shifted in the last few years so that someone like Chris Kenny becomes far right. When I think of FAR right I think foaming at the mouth looney hiding in their bunker in the hills of Wyoming world government conspiracy theorist anti-Semite nut job.

    Why would an anti-Semite be to the right?

  35. Bill Shut

    My prediction is there’ll be an increase in same-sex-attracted guests and a massive lean to the left. It is going to be Frank Elly remember.

  36. Natural Instinct

    Tom #1271924, posted on April 20, 2014 at 8:41 am

    Mystery guest author, it would be useful if you simply listed the number of appearances by each member of the panel for the three-year period, rather than aggregating them as a percentage.

    The per cents are number of appearances. e.g. Dennis Atkins News appeared 33 times out of 136 shows = 24%.
    .
    Tel #1271898, posted on April 20, 2014 at 8:18 am

    Someone sat through all those time wasting episodes watching people pissing in each other’s pockets, just to come up with a score card for what was an obvious result in the first place? That’s dedication.

    Data transforms opinion, feelings, beliefs into facts. It is for the ABC to explain the appearance numbers. And as I said in Note 2 – why do they deliberately obfuscate who has appeared prior to 26 May 2013.

  37. Demosthenes

    By which process were the political scores given? How can you possibly claim this is somehow objective (“proven by numbers”)?

  38. stackja

    To me the political score ! Is correct!
    Do the numbers lie? Well someone here Numbers does have a credibility problem.

  39. warren raymond

    “Look at commentators, not content”- okay, lets look. They’re both stuffed.

    The commentators make the content, and since the commentators are all hard left-green, there’s not much substance to anything.

    Where does 1.homo-marriage, 2. global warming or 3. boat people take us?

    For years, I haven’t heard anything that matters. The ABC is a sandbox for deluded leftist kiddies who refuse to grow up.

  40. Tom

    By which process were the political scores given? How can you possibly claim this is somehow objective (“proven by numbers”)?

    OK, “Demosthenes”, rate the commentators according to your bias scale. Off you go. This will be most revealing.

    Let me guess: David Marr is of the “centre”, yes?

  41. Bob

    The writer of this piece has clearly led a very sheltered life politically-speaking if he really considers any of these people to be “far left” or “far right”, whatever those labels are supposed to mean. Basically they’re a bunch of squishy liberals (in the American sense of the word) of varying degrees of squishiness, with the occasional neo-con thrown in for the sake of extra flavour. All of these commentators operate within the bounds of acceptable political discourse and agree with the prevailing progressive orthodoxy, except for a few disagreements on the margins over what are essentially administrative details. So it’s all a bit meaningless, really….

    Having said that, the ABC is a disgrace and should be abolished forthwith :)

  42. brett t r

    @TimT. 07:05

    you are correct to a large extent in fact – but the key other point/fact is the organisation and EPs DO NOT adhere to their Charter – simple.

    ‘insiders’ is a giant looper echo chamber that has a small [relatively speaking] audience in terms of i would submit those who watch are political junkies – and would vote left green/ALP 9 times out of 10.

    it is all ‘white noise’ – a bunch of hack activists with the exception of Nikki Savva, Hendo and a few others, that sit around mocking, waffling on about issues the mainstream punter could not GAF about.

    a MASSIVE example yet again of taxpayers money on a program that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant when elections are decided.

  43. cohenite

    So, Demosthenes thinks Marr is of the centre?! Centre of fucking what?

  44. Sven

    Demosthenes: Which do you disagree with, and why?

  45. Demosthenes

    Let me guess: David Marr is of the “centre”, yes? … So, Demosthenes thinks Marr is of the centre?! Centre of fucking what?

    Both of you have jumped to the conclusion that I disagree with the scale. Not so. What I asked was how it was arrived at, and how a subjective opinion could be proving anything with numbers that someone made up!

  46. cohenite

    Well ok Demosthenes; where would you have Marr?

  47. Robin

    ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in the political sense are meaningless because they mean different things to different people. Better perhaps to use ‘totalitarian’ and ‘freedom’ and go from there, communists and fascists at the extreme totalitarian end of the spectrum, anarchists and libertarians at the other.
    Just a thought

  48. Sir Fred Lenin

    Who is this marr? Is he that Poofter thatsawAbbot punch a hole in a metre thick reinforced cocncrete wall? Pity Abbot hadnt punched a hole in the Poofter.

  49. BobS

    We have an ABC1 channel which coincidentally is ‘far left’ on the scale used in this article. Cut ABC1′s budget 50% and use that to create an ABC4 ( ‘right’ on the scale above) which will have a conservative board and its charter can read “to provide balance to the views provided on ABC 1″

  50. Fortunately for the purposes of this thread Leigh and Gans published How Partisan is the Press? Multiple Measures of Media Slant in THE ECONOMIC RECORD, VOL. 88, NO. 280, MARCH, 2012, 127–147.

    They employed several different approaches to find that the Australian media are centrist, with very few outlets being statistically distinguishable from the middle of Australian politics.

    The minor exceptions were the ABC channel 2 and perhaps the Melbourne Age in its news slant in the 2004 election. Their media slants were small.

  51. Fisky

    Well ok Demosthenes; where would you have Marr?

    C’mon Demo, tell us how right-wing David Marr is! We know you want to.

  52. C.L.

    Marr ended up going door to door trying to sell his Abbott door punch story.

  53. mick

    Don’t know what your talking about.havent watched the show for years after it was taken over by the dictators puppets. Must say im pretty pissed at watching my taxes spent on a scam like the ABC and I cant watch it anymore.yer yer,ra ra ra,but lets face it people,the ABC is a pathetic joke at every level.And yes I am a labor voter and union member.i just haven’t voted for labor for the past 16 years

  54. johanna

    I hope that citation is a joke, Jim Rose.

    The co-author “Leigh” is Andrew Leigh, Labor frontbencher.

  55. Notafan

    It’s not just the participants, it’s the content focused on left talking points. If it were commercial it would not last five minutes before being axed. Where it should be is on a community television station. The audience would be the same but taxpayers wouldn’t be paying the bloated salaries and expenses.

  56. Armadillo

    Excellent point Fan Man.

    It’s not just the participants, it’s the content focused on left talking points.

    The ABC website used to have a ‘Most Commented On’ leaderboard on the RHS of the site (it has since disappeared). The top three were always ‘Climate Change, Gay Marriage and Refugees’. Of course they bloody would be when that’s all they write and talk about. The ABC wants to constantly discuss crap that no-one else gives a shit about. That is why they appear to be of the left. They are. The left use the ABC as their own personal broadcaster. You are dead set right. It’s the content that is the problem.

  57. Notafan

    That is Fan Woman, if you don’t mind:)
    The best I am hoping for under the LNP is some reductions after the commission of audit, Mr Turnbull knows there is significant waste, and maybe an efficiency dividend and the axing of the Australian network.
    Perhaps they should also have a requirement that programmes have a certain percentage of market share or gain a certain percentage of commercial advertising otherwise the taxpayer tap is turned off.

  58. cohenite

    Where the fuck is Demosthenes and his choice of position for Marr.

  59. brett t r

    @notafan.
    you raise what i think, and this is an issue that is gaining traction in the UK with respect to the BBC – in that as Brendan O’Neill stated factually this morning on ‘the Bolt Report’, and without being ‘up myself’ i’ve also made this point endlessly for some time – and that is modern IT news information mechanisms in the last half to decade have seen the days where most punters [the manstream that decide elections] got their ‘dose’ of daily news on the 6 o’clock news TV – well although the major 6pm news channels still pull relatively healthy figures, punters are also far more smart with respect to their bulllshit factor in today’s political world.

    the Cameron CINO government is looking at options to make the BBC commercial in part, as an obvious means to reduce outlays from the budget. why this is not being ‘sold’ by on this issue i’d argue is and has been a sadly weak Abbott, it should be ‘on the table’, as should the winding up or merging of SBS. SBS is a joke and solely set up to promote, as all levels of gov do, and both sides, even if the policy itself is not fully supported by significant MPs from both sides of politics – it is sucking off the taxpayer tit to promote a policy that even former Keating Multicultural Affairs Minister has argued – the Australian mainstream has never accepted/wanted, not will this divisive ethnic salami slicing policy that has seen a ‘nation of tribes’ narrative develop, and actual outcomes such as Abbott’s pathetic commitment to run a referendum on ‘inserting’ Indigenous wording into our Constitution – which any number of future activist members of the judiciary and rent seeking leftist lawyers will be salivating over. Australia has gone completely stark raving mad in so many areas, and the examples are wide and varied – the state telling the individual ‘what’ he/she must do [plain package for smokes], Keating’s discriminatory minority assisting RDA, a Human Rights Commission that is about as in touch with the people that pay for their massive salaries their Head slags off regional Australian towns – as stated the list is endless as even the Marxist Brendan O’Neill argued so factually this morning on AB’s show. it is like Orwell’s 1984 – and it is maddening.
    take the ABC. as AB has repeatedly noted, as have others, including this website – it is a 1 billion per annum new and media behemoth. it has 4-5 radio stations in most states, and their TV reach, and online blog site [s] are massive.
    and the looper left, the PC wack job brigade a la the disgustingly pathetic flog Ludlam and his merry band of Green extremists – and let’s not forget the self confessed “factional dalek” the disgrace to elected office Conroy and Dillard’s attempts to ‘Stalinise’ the media landscape last year via regulatory oversight – these loopers attack the [in their loopy minds] the alleged “Murdoch hate media”.
    again, facts and evidence will always kill the looper left. Andrew Bolt yesterday posted factually current stats demonstrating the ‘actual’ reach and power/control of the media landscape in our country which in detail identified which/each major news organisation and it’s acttual news mechanisms at their disposal.
    and knock me over with a feather – but guess which ‘news organisation’ has by a MASSIVE lead the largest slice of the media control/reach pie? yep, the ABC. no, not the so called deceptive and consistent claim by the Greens and the MSM in general, and the Canberra Press Gallery hacks [especially the second rung younger members of the gallery] that Murdoch “controls 70% of all media in Australia”. this ’so called’ argument is as hollow as the day is long.
    that Abbott, when even Textor was assuring him he had the election won, made the absolutely unforgivable statement “no cuts to the ABC/SBS” he made a political rod for his own back, he shattered the hope of the mainstream majorrity of Australian voters that would have easily, i have no doubt, welcomed a massive funding cut to the ABC [not regional programs], and he placed poor Hockey in an insidious position both in a political and economic context when framing the budget. the ‘first’ budget, which to borrow a phrase from the joke and partisan former Sec of Treasury Ken Henry, your first budget should always be “go hard, go early”. as Costello and JWH did.
    the efficiency dividend at 2.25% will shave 22.5 million from ABC funds and this is ’sellable’ as it is not in my view relevant as a “cut” as the ABC has never been subjected to the ED. removing the Asia Network, which in recent days the ABC board seem to have all of a sudden ‘won’ the plaudits of the service from a totalitarian Chinese Government – which seems a little too convenient given Mark Scott’s recent opining and tactics to ‘try’ and save any cuts.
    so, for all those that want a more efficient and effective ABC – blame the PM for his stupid un required brain explosion. simply one of, in my view, one of the biggest political gaffes i have ever seen – and hardly in the national interest and Abbott, and by extension the taxpayer, will now pay for letting this disgracefully out of control taxpayer funded behemoth get away with murder.

  60. Rabz

    Shut. It. Down.

    Fire. Them. All.

    NOW.

  61. Fisky

    Where the fuck is Demosthenes and his choice of position for Marr.

    Not even an attempt to argue “I think David Marr is a pretty centrist kind of guy with reasonable positions on most issues”?

    Extraordinary!

  62. Notafan

    My mother was quite indignant that there is no equivalent to SBS overseas, ‘well we show their news’ I just said no-one else had a PM as stupid as Fraser. Nuff said, she replied.
    ABC and SBS should merge, I don’t think even most Aborigines watch Nitv but no chance that will go soon.
    Come on Tony you know you want to

  63. A C

    I still think the ABC is unbiased and fulfilling its charter – you just don’t know how to do the maths.

    12% of the population votes Greens i.e. is left of the ABC.
    12% of the population votes Left-Labor i.e. is right of the ABC.

    Therefore, the ABC is in the centre.

    You cant really expect the ABC to give a voice to all those lunatic opinions of the far right, do you?
    They may be a bit more numerous (a mere 76% of the population) but they are just WRONG.
    Haven’t you heard of the “tyranny of the majority”?

    (Just in case there is any doubts there is a certain amount of sarcasm here.)

  64. CatAttack

    Dan. Of course there are as many anti semites on the left as well. And conspiracy theorists. And nut jobs. At the extemes its just a different flavor of looney.

  65. blogstrop

    Demosthenes’ deep cover is looking shallower. Someone’s glove puppet?

  66. entropy

    I would think that once you scratch the surface the moonbat left are not that different to the lunar right. They just differ on who gets the lootpatronage.

  67. old44

    There are a couple of names there that have been dragged kicking and screaming from the loony left to far left.

  68. Jennifer

    This analysis does not include the constant bias on radio, mostly Radio National. Day and night there is seldom a balanced programme.
    How about: ‘have a good Friday, Saturday and Sunday’ as a greeting for Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. What a ‘clever’ play on words.

  69. Habib

    Notafan, I reckon it’d get a run on Ten, it’s no more idiotic and irritating than The Project. Which is why 10 is going broke; Seven’s fairly left-leaning, especially its breakfast babblefest, but only ‘tards watch daytime tv anyway. It’s news/”current affairs” sticks to the banal frets of bogandom, rather than the pitiful mewlings of inner-urban onanists, who watch the ABC anyway.

  70. Demosthenes

    Where the fuck is Demosthenes and his choice of position for Marr.

    Way to miss the point, cohenite. My political score for Marr would be as subjective as the Guest Poster’s! This is why it’s stupid to think this can be “proven with numbers”.

  71. Demosthenes

    Although I do approve of systematic attempts to study bias or anything else. Better than the usual tripe from tribalistic morons who think either the entire media are corrupt left-wingers pushing an anti-Western agenda, or the entire media are corporate whores spruiking their oligarchical fatcat bosses’ interests. Unfortunately this is just a piss-poor attempt at a systematic study. I still have no answer to my questions, either. Does Guest not have the gumption to explain their method?

  72. Alfonso

    It’s not the bias and agitprop that’s the problem….it’s the funding.
    I’m paying for it as if Their ABC is a straight down the line adherent to its govt Charter and Board mission statements.
    Privatise the comrades, preferably with a large shareholding held by its staff super fund for some taxpayer revenge, and they can do what they like. I want to see the staff collective dealing with, you know, like, Nigel, how to fund a media turd.

  73. Frank

    No-one gets a 3?

    Your ratings are a joke.

  74. paul of zambia

    What a silly little post, because it is purely based on the judgement of the poster as to what a person’s political leaning is. You display the bias you claim exists at the ABC in your own posting, thus proving that you yourself are biased and therefore have no objective opinion on this subject.

  75. Boambee John

    The ABC is proof that you have to bw rich to be a socialist.

    The staff rabbit on ceaselessly about their concern for “society’s most vunnable” and “equality of outcome”, but the remuneration of their “stars” (Mr Tony $355,000 anyone, plus his partner) is well above AWOTE or median income. They do not however, offer to pass some of their income (individual or collective) to the “vunnable” to help move towards that supposedly desirable equality of outcome.

    Essentially a bunch of overpaid middle class wanquers.

  76. cohenite

    My political score for Marr would be as subjective as the Guest Poster’s! This is why it’s stupid to think this can be “proven with numbers”.

    Well, that’s piss weak Demosthenes; you must be the only person in Australia who doesn’t have a position about Marr or apparently the bloody ABC.

  77. Notafan

    Habib, it might if the advertising dollars were there, would be interesting to see how long it lasted.
    There is no way of wresting the ABC from the clutches of the left and ultimately I would be removing government funding but it will have be a weaning process, sadly.
    Though the commercial current affairs programmes are bogan central they do show that Aussies don’t care for welfare and insurance scammers. They could do a lot better with some in depth explanations of why electricity bills have increased, for example and some decent explanations of how wind and solar really work.
    I like Bolt but not as interviewer. Is there room somewhere a libertarian current affairs programme? Someone who doesn’t have to express their own opinions? I think a lot of us ordinary Australians are libertarians at heart but don’t know how to articulate it. We’ve seen the alternative and we don’t care for it.

  78. Demosthenes

    you must be the only person in Australia who doesn’t have a position about Marr or apparently the bloody ABC.

    Where did I say I didn’t have a position? I said any position on bias is going to be subjective, indeed is going to reflect personal bias. Unavoidably so. Do you admit that is a truism, or not?

  79. custard

    brett t r,

    I agree with your long piece.

    Sadly the political discourse is such that only very small steps can be made. This term if Abbott can stop the boats (he has) stop the waste (yet to be proven/ argued) and successfully repeal the carbon and mining taxes I would see this as a pass and able to gain a second term.

    But the policies taken to the next election would also have to be carefully grafted in the same (if hardly changed political discourse).

    Can he convince (in the next 2 1/2 years) the states to surrender stupid state taxes as stamp duty and payroll tax? (to broaden not raise the GST?) To think you could go to an election on a single issue………..the GST is living breathing proof. If he could, he would then be able to prosecute the substantial task of meaningful tax reform. This will be extremely difficult. I hope he is able to shift to this debate and not have to consider a DD if Palmer proves to be obstructive.

    We can only hope that the ALP will be decimated at the RC into union corruption. My hope is that Shorten will go as will Gillard, Casey, Wilson, Blewitt (good on him) , and a whole host of ALP luminaries which may just help the government if it wants to prosecute what I said earlier.

    I am in small business. At the moment its rooted! And I’m in WA (supposedly the boom state) BS!

    We are in for a very hard 3-6 years at least and I hope Abbott is the man with his hand on the tiller in this period. We cannot allow the coalition to lose government on small issues like PPL or such like wedge campaigns from the left.

    cheers

  80. JohnA

    Frank #1272404, posted on April 20, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    No-one gets a 3?

    Your ratings are a joke.

    Political neutrality is logically impossible because, as someone pointed out above, the spectrum is really from Totalitarian to Libertarian, which is a philosophical span. And no-one can be philosophically neutral.

    So, if you don’t like the author’s figures, what about your own scale, then?

  81. JC

    Rose,

    You ought to be flogged mercilessly for suggesting that Leigh sludge had any value as research. Flogged mercilessly for that and other transgressions.

  82. Jagger

    Interesting to note, no 3′s. Unless they think Cassidy is a 3, in whichcase they fail the bias test anyway.

  83. Natural Instinct

    Demosthenes

    By which process were the political scores given? How can you possibly claim this is somehow objective (“proven by numbers”)?
    Unfortunately this is just a piss-poor attempt at a systematic study. I still have no answer to my questions, either. Does Guest not have the gumption to explain their method?.
    I said any position on bias is going to be subjective, indeed is going to reflect personal bias. Unavoidably so. Do you admit that is a truism, or not?

    .
    Those commentators who, through their words, demonstrated a belief in more government as the solution, where given political scores to the left. Typical codes words are:

    “the government has a revenue problem”
    “this [spending] program is well overdue”
    “the states have neglected this problem for a long time – a national approach is needed”
    “without government intervention [subsidies, quotas, bonuses, penalties, etc] this change will not happen”
    “Australia has to lift its game [in rights, immigration, foreign aid, etc] to match world leaders”
    … and so on

    And as for this gem “any position on bias is going to be subjective”, what a wonderful piece of post modernist claptrap; up is down, left is right….

  84. Blogstrop

    Dawn Casey, the former head of the rather controversial Australia Museum, was interviewed by Richard Adie on ABC RN. During that session, she observed that the consultative group for the museum, they who set the guidlines, included some extreme conservatives and some moderately left people.

    Yes, we know being conservative is viewed as extreme by a large cohort of those proclaiming themselves to be the centre.

  85. Token

    DoDoes the nNumbers lie?

    Yes, and he is an unrepentant homophobe & bigot

  86. Token

    The ABC is proof that you have to bw rich to be a socialist.

    You’d think that offensively rich & powerful white men like Tony Jone & Barry Cassidy would feel some degree of shame after all the telling statements made by them by Waleed Ali & the conga-line of bigots the ABC indulges.

  87. Pyrmonter

    Unfair to Toohey and Stutchbury. Neither is a card-carrying right winger, but nor is either hardened left – Stutch even has a first in Economics.

  88. Demosthenes

    Thank you, Natural, for partially explaining your method. It confirms the falsity of your claims of ‘proof’ or objectivity. All that work, just to tell us that, according to your personal political preferences, the ABC is to your left.

  89. Spencer of Baskerville Hall

    The same hard-left bias is apparent on any number of ABC shows. Whether it be a book-review show, a comedy show, an arty-type interview show or a doco on an aspect of Australian history or culture – there is inevitably references – often inserted completely off-topic – that push the open-borders agenda, that demonise Climate Change sceptics and which characterise Australians as racist and ignorant – particularly in the context of electing Conservative governments.

  90. Spencer of Baskerville Hall

    So many ABC regulars have spouses with their snouts in the public trough

  91. cohenite

    Where did I say I didn’t have a position? I said any position on bias is going to be subjective, indeed is going to reflect personal bias. Unavoidably so. Do you admit that is a truism, or not?

    Not at all Demosthenes; the author of this article has tried to remove subjectivity from his analysis. You can analyse bias in another non-subjective way which is how the ABC or Marr opines on particular issues. Take AGW for instance; can anyone with any shred of reasonableness say the ABC is not a spit filled, mad dog supporter of AGW and all its attendant obscenities such as renewable energy? Here’s an example, the Bondi Beach report, which demonstrates the one-eyed bias of the ABC about AGW; every time one of those junket organisations such as the Climate Council of the Climate Commission or The Climate Institute opens its mindless mouth does not the ABC salivate in a jejune manner?

    So there’s an example of bias presented in objective fashion.

    Anyway all great left moral issues have a subjective underpinning about what is right or wrong, factual or not; consequently and we see this with ‘issue’ after ‘issue’, there is an invented quality about the left’s moral issues: AGW doesn’t exist but let’s proceed with false evidence and invented facts; many of the boat people are not refugees but opportunists and Islamic bludgers and invaders but let’s ignore that; the aboriginal problem is a product of the left insistence on a seperateness for aboriginals and a phony context of aboriginal purity and oneness with nature which makes their displacement by white culture a great sin but let’s ignore how absurd that is and the failure of left policies for aboriginals and press ahead with aggravating polices like changing the constitution.

    So, Demosthenes, your pusillanimous disclaimer about subjectivity is just a cop out since this is what the left does all the time. All you have to do is agree or not; is the ABC and Marr biased in respect of any one of their pet great moral issues or do they treat these issues fairly and even-handedly allowing egress for contrary opinions?

  92. Max

    A Study On Demi
    .
    Demosthenes is the perfect example of the pseudo intellectual left at play. It is interesting to examine the techniques and lines of thought he uses to attempt to discredit the study’s credibility.
    .
    Looking at his first post “by which process were the political scores given? How can you possibly claim this is somehow objective (“proven by numbers”)?”
    .
    He has found a intellectual high ground to assert the beginning of his attempt to discredit the study as he is correct in his statement. For the author of the study to have a base to begin the study, a level of subjectivity must exist in determining the philosophical positions of the guests i.e left or right. He is basically bringing into question the credibility of the Author to ascertain whether a guest is left leaning or right leaning. Interestingly enough this probably more serves to reinforce his own opinions which he may find are being challenged by the study’s results than to change the minds of others examining the study. He may fundamentally agree with the results of the study but to admit that fact to himself or herself may cause undue stress on his own internal belief system. So pointing out, at least to herself or himself that the study is based on the subjectivity of another person allows Demi the luxury of disregarding the study and keeping his/her paradigms unchallenged.
    .
    However there is a fundamental problem existing within the context of the ‘intellectual high ground’ that Demi stands his argument upon. His statement “How can you possibly claim this is somehow objective” is a diversion from the fact. Nowhere on this webpage has anyone claimed that the study is purely Objective. In fact up until now the only use of the word ‘Objective’ was in Demi’s first post. So it is Demi himself introducing the premise of ‘Objectivity’ into the spectrum of thought so as to argue his case against it. You could say this is a display of the emotive thinking individual beginning an argument with them self and canvassing their thoughts for comment. It is also often the case of the emotive thinker to create a diversion from the fact. A technique which is used so as they can test their own intellectual capacity which has previously lead to the formation of their own mental paradigms. i.e If they can adequately outwit their opponents on an argument of premise, in most cases a premise that they that introduced to the topic themselves, then they can be confident that their intellectual capacity which led them to their conclusions is sufficient to be relied upon for all other paradigms or beliefs in which they hold. Basically they are outwitting themselves.
    .
    His next comment after being brought to Question by readers is – “Both of you have jumped to the conclusion that I disagree with the scale. Not so. What I asked was how it was arrived at, and how a subjective opinion could be proving anything with numbers that someone made up!”
    .
    Here Demi defends himself by making the accusation that those who have brought him to question are jumping to conclusions on whether he agrees with the results of the study. Then going on to state that he doesn’t disagree with the study…If treated quickly, this is a point where the pseudo intellectualism of the left can be stopped before it is allowed to spread out of control. One could quickly point out to Demi that he has just said by way of inference that he agrees with the study (I may be thinking logically here so forgive me but if a person does not disagree with something then in most cases this indicates that they do in fact agree with it. With the exception that they are not sure either way.)
    .
    To be safe though we will not jump to conclusions and work on the premise that Demi does not disagree’ with the results of the study. Demi wording his sentence so as to leave the reader agasp as to whether he agrees with or is unsure of the result of the study is a common technique of the emotive thinker. A technique which allows him/her the freedom to argue from a non committal position. Again this is common among the emotive thinkers of the world and arms them with the future response of ‘I didn’t say that’ when people rightly and instinctively ‘jump to conclusions’ towards the emotive thinkers position.
    .
    Demi is asking by which process were the scores given. Although he indicates, now twice, that he is already aware that a subjective process took place to assign those scores. So there is no point in telling him something that he is already aware of. So moving onto the second part of his question of “how a subjective opinion could be proving anything with numbers that someone made up!” One could attempt to explain to him that median number of 3 represents neutrality pertaining to the subject matter or particular to this study, the center. The number either side of that median being 2 and 4 represent a move from the center. The number 2 being left of the center and the number 4 being right of the center. The semiotics of positions of 1,2 and 4,5 in relation to the position of 3 as the center correlating nicely with the Left, Right and Center positions of political ideologies. However the Author of the study has explained this adequately on this webpage so again I conclude that Demi would already know this. One point I should make however, just to clarify, is that the Author did not as so much make the numbers up, as Demi suggests, but assigned those already existing numbers in the fashion mentioned above.
    .
    Looking at Demi’s next post – “Way to miss the point, cohenite. My political score for Marr would be as subjective as the Guest Poster’s! This is why it’s stupid to think this can be “proven with numbers”.”
    .
    Here Demi is responding to interrogation from readers asking him to highlight where he thinks the author has failed in correctly categorizing the shows guests into the correct political ideological positions. Demi again forms an argument from an intellectual high ground in which he is correct in saying his own opinions are subjective. In his own mind he is winning the argument upon the premise he has introduced and this is reaffirming within his consciousness that “it’s stupid to think this can be “proven with numbers”.” Demi’s beliefs are safe and his intellect is ‘telling’ him that all previous conclusions it has come to are sound. At this point however most of the readers are shaking their heads in disbelief.
    .
    In Demi’s next post he/she responds to a comment by a reader as follows – “Where did I say I didn’t have a position? I said any position on bias is going to be subjective, indeed is going to reflect personal bias. Unavoidably so. Do you admit that is a truism, or not?”.
    .
    Demi has capitalized on his intellect’s technique of not committing to a position. The phrase ‘I did not say that’ has been fired. He has outwitted his opponents as he falls back on the trap that his intellect has set which was discussed earlier. Demi now attempts to draw the conversation further away from the subject matter by stating what he did actually say then posing the question “do you admit that is a truism, or not?”. Whether his statement is a truism or not is apart from the fact. Lets for the sake of argument agree with Demi here that his statement is a truism. We are now agreeing with his intellect and as such reinforcing the idea within Demi’s mind that the capacity of that intellect to come to sound conclusions is strong. However there is a fatal flaw here. Demi did not actual say “any position on bias is going to be subjective, indeed is going to reflect personal bias.” In a face to face debate his intellect could probably get away with this little misfit. However on social forums such as this one we can use the ‘find’ function to recall what has actually been said.
    .
    Again what we are seeing is Demi at war with his own intellect. He has already stated that he doesn’t disagree with the study’s results and furthermore Demi states that she/he does “‘approve of systematic attempts to study bias or anything else”. Demi has also implied that he is aware that a certain level of subjectivity is required to categorize persons into left/right political ideological positions. That is all very logical. However if Demi does approve of such studies and understands such studies need a certain level of subjectivity to begin with then this is at odds with Demi’s assertion that the numbers do not prove anything. For the very measure of the study rely on the numbers to garner a result. Poor Demi, he cannot at the same time of approving of such studies then dismiss such studies by the nature of those studies. This would lead him to the logical conclusion that he doesn’t approve of such studies. His intellect here is at odds with itself.
    .
    This debate in Demi’s mind which is reflected upon this comment thread will probably continue along the same lines and will eventually devolve into insults or assertions of mental superiority. As long as Demi’s intellect leaves him to ponder the subjectivity vs objectivity of the study it will remain ‘correct’ and the paradigms it has previously set will stay in place. The fact that he cannot view the authors actual reasoning behind who is a 2 and who is a 4 gives Demi’s intellect the argument of ‘unknowns’, despite the fact that Demi himself may agree with the authors allocation (a fact that either way his intellect is not willing to let Demi share as this may be a cause of direct challenge). The intellect has found an area of doubt and in the court of Demi’s mind, before a change in paradigm can occur, there must not exist a shadow of a doubt because this would mean his intellect has previously created a false paradigm. If his intellect has created a false Paradigm then everything he believes, everything his intellect has concluded or accepted into his belief system may have to be re-evaluated.
    .
    There is a little bit of Demi in all of us. More of Demi in some of us than others. Demi’s argument is with himself. The more we probe and prod him, the more his intellect will seek to defend itself and the more self assured Demi will become. His intellect will fire up Demi’s emotions and then Demi will be lost to us all. It is best to leave him. He is the only one who can truly accept for himself what is blatantly obvious to others.
    .
    Some of the symptoms of Demi’s condition include –
    .
    Expanding upon the premise of a topic to argue their point. i.e We were debating the fact that woman in Australia enjoy equal rights then she brought the rights of woman in Afghanistan into the argument to strengthen her position that women don’t have equal rights. Even though the premise of the topic was about about the rights of Australian woman.
    .
    Diverting the topic – i.e The premise of the Topic was whether the person was bias, then he diverted the topic to whether the bias was warranted against whoever (usually while still not accepting the premise that bias existed in the first place)
    .
    Vilification – i.e Your logic is challenging my opinions, therefore you are Hitler incarnate. Therefore I do not have to listen to your logic and no one else should consider it. (usually followed by ‘we need to view this with compassion [meaning throw all reason out the window])
    .
    Lack of Position – i.e I will not tell you what I think therefore you can not argue against my position without ‘jumping to conclusions’. (usually followed somewhere down the track of ‘I did not say my position is ‘x’ ‘ even though everything I did say implied or indicated that my position was ‘x,’ you have shown yourself to be wrong.)
    .
    Agreeing with an argument only to disagree with the premise of that argument – i.e You are correct in saying that no credible scientist would make alarmist statements regarding Global Warming (or Climate Change…I can’t keep up) then saying – but the science is credible and our planet is in danger of burning and killing us all. (or entering an ice age…again I can’t keep up).

    Generally the longer a debate is left to go on with someone who is at war with their own intellect the more convoluted it becomes. Anyway whoever mentioned above that the Government should just create a conservative ABC 4 News service with its charter reading “to provide balance to the views provided on ABC 1″. That’s gold, I Lol’d hard.

  93. Lawrie Ayres

    While I agree with the thrust of your argument I find you method to determine a leaning is seriously flawed.
    If you let an extreme leftist a value of minus 2 and an extreme right a value of plus 2 with intermediate values of minus one, zero and plus one you get a more accurate measurement. Using your first calculation for 136 shows the scores are: minus (left) 442 to plus (right) 70. In my system Barrie Cassidy earns 100 points for the left or scores minus 100.( 100 appearances with a score of minus one per show). Nikki Savva scores plus 19 or 19 appearances @ plus one per show and Piers Ackerman scores 22 or 11 appearances @ plus two per show.

    I believe this system gives a far more accurate valuation of ABC bias at Insiders. In summary you are six times more likely to gain a leftist view than one from the right if you watch Insiders with Barrie Cassidy. I suspect it will be even more slanted (is that possible?) with Fran Kelly in the chair.

  94. Natural Instinct

    A typical past show graphically (whether 1 to 5 or -2 to +2)
    .
    1=************************
    2=**************************************************************
    3=
    4=**********
    5=****
    .
    But all this is water under the bridge – the future is the important thing…

    So what does all this mean? Well the new host, Fran Kelly, could go to her Executive Producer (Kellie Mayo) and say that she wants to adhere to the ABC’s Charter and present a show that is balanced, and that she does not want to host a Left biased show. For example she could suggest that for the rest of year (about 33 shows) that there must be at least two right of centre panellists. Now, given that 10 shows have already gone, each new show must average a score of at least 3.3, so given her score of 2 and assuming another panellist (from the usual suspects) will also score a 2 – then the other 2 panellist must be one 4 (centre right) and the other a 5 (far right) – for the rest of the year.

  95. nerblnob

    None of this is going to have the slightest influence on ABC viewers who think it’s neutral or slightly right wing (yes, a lot of people do think that).

    As many have pointed out above, it’s in the choice of topic as much as the choice of presenter or how interviewees are treated.

    Climate change, refugees, gay marriage, racism, sexism – anyone who thinks they are the main issues facing Australians today will be thinking the ABC doesn’t go far enough. Anyone who doesn’t think they are the main issues could be forgiven for changing their mind after a few days watching the ABC, since these issues either dominate or work their way into every discussion , documentary, comedy and drama.

    The value of these issues isn’t that we face them every day but that they act as polarisers and social signifiers so people can quickly know whether you’re socially acceptable or not and not have to engage in actual debate. The days when you might have a mate in the pub or neighbour or workmate with radically different – but not always predictable – opinions to yours which you would discuss amicably at length are gone.

  96. tasch2

    Wow a right wing commentator attributing values to a particular persons alleged political leaning and coming up with data that matches their own conclusion. How Scientific.

    Did you write to all the people who had appeared on Insiders with one of those 1-5 colour the circle tests and ask them shade in whether they though they were 1 (Far Left), 2 (Left), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Right), 5 (Far Right)? Or did you just make it up?

    I don’t really agree with much of what is written on this site however I read it because people like Sinclair, Judith et al actually use facts and create an argument. This assists in giving a balanced insight into what both sides of the fence are thinking and why they are thinking it.

    The prattle you have written really lets the team down.

  97. .

    Provide a recognised scale then, smart arse.

  98. Natural Instinct

    a right wing commentator

    How so? That sounds like an unsubstantiated opinion.
    .

    Did you write to all the people … and ask them shade in whether they though they were 1,2,3,4,5?

    Self marking would be pointless – or is that how you do things ‘scientifically’ in your world?
    .

    Or did you just make it up

    Some indication of process was given up thread – read it.
    .
    Any substantive comments tasch2? Do I did not think so, given the prattle you have written.

Comments are closed.