ABC proves its biased stances yet again
As we have come to expect of the ABC it has once again proven, despite its protests, that it is not in any way interested in providing Australia with a public-funded unbiased news source. Instead it is content with picking sides, like it usually does when it comes to Israel, and is now doing — surprise, surprise given the current global opinion — to man-made climate change.
It turns out that, when it was looking at purchasing the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle a few months ago, the ABC received pressure not to air the program from journalists and board members alike. In March it aired in Britain to more than 2.5 million viewers, clearly indicating people’s interest in hearing another side of the global warming side.
Having seen the documentary I can say that I find it a refreshing change from the Al Gore alarmism being spouted all too regularly nowadays. Admittedly, until I saw the documentary I was doing my fair of spouting, but such is the power of this documentary that I am now squarely in the undecided column. It presents a case that, in my opinion, is as plausible as the one put forward by the IPCC, Al Gore and the like.
Why is it that the ABC always resorts to this kind of thing? It’s frustrating when people complain about lack of equity in reporting in The Age — they have a vested interest in selling newspapers and will do whatever it takes to do it; we have no right to complain that The Age has a ‘duty’ to be fair. It doesn’t. The ABC, on the other hand, does. It’s a public broadcaster and needs to, at the vest least, appear to be presenting both sides of the story in a neutral fashion. Somehow it never seems to do that.
(Here is some coverage of the issue and how it is playing in the media: original article in The Age, Andrew Bolt article, reply from ABC Director of TV Kim Dalton, Letters to the Editor in today’s Age.)
May 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Liam, although I agree that The Age’s aim IS to sell Newspapers, it also has a responsibility to present news as news, not as an opinion.
I am sick and tired of you and your union mates ganging up on the family first party.
…I’m as confused as you
May 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
It has no such responsibility. Its only responsibility is to its shareholders to sell newspapers. The effect of which may, in time after countless episodes of fiction being passed as fact, The Age may be seen instead as a daily humorous fiction piece, rather than quality journalism.
I guess only time will tell which path it will take. :)
May 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
tu shae