ABC bias

Journalism is not a crime. Or is it? Look at the ABC.

Al Jazeera is posting this slogan on its English speaking broadcasting channel in Qatar. The argument that Al Jazeera represents freedom of the press in the Middle East is a good one. Al Jazeera demands that diversity of thought and opinion be cherished and demands press freedom. This is of course true. There is a difference between these ideals and what the ABC has done with the two of the most important issues in Australian history. Climate change and population growth. My demands for diversity of thought and opinion from the ABC between 2007 and 2011 failed because the ABC is a corrupt organisation. I want to remind everyone of the unlawful conduct of a broken ABC which has supported both the Carbon Tax legislation and suppression of open debate on population growth. This is what happens when Australian journalists abuse their power and government is not prepared to make them accountable.

Big Ideas? Let's start 2015 with some narrow-minded thinking from the ABC

Once again the ABC is promoting so-called 'sustainable growth' (with a like-minded cohort of intelligentsia), as a concept where you can have your carbon cake and eat it. Even children are taught that this is impossible. Here are some observations.

What is the world coming to? 140 people per tee shirt...............

Albert Einstein: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"Richard Denniss, Dr Jagit Plahe & Keith Badger give heavy hits from varied viewpoints on what's wrong with our manufacturing, agriculture, taxation & growth in this Sustainable Living Festival panel moderated by Anthony James." Source:

Richard bordered on unreasonable. He compared campaigns and taxation to provide a multi-faceted way of stopping smoking to a Carbon Tax to stop emissions.

This is a bit like a psychometric test question for assessment of cognitive ability. Is the first scenario similar to the second? The answer is "No". The explanation is as follows:

The objective of stopping smoking is an end in itself. Nothing is required to replace it.
When a fossil fuel burner stops he needs something to replace the fossil fuel. If something is cheaper and effective it will be adopted. If it is not feasible to raise the Carbon Tax high enough to make the change occur the Carbon Tax will fail; which is exactly what has occurred. This is because it will distort the economy too severely before a commercially feasible alternative exists. If oil halves in value it will remain attractive. If solar energy becomes ten times cheaper it will become ten times more commercially attractive.

Attempting to use a Carbon Tax to drive such changes in an energy market subject to such volatile pricing is like trying to use a sailing boat in a tropical cyclone.

The irony is that funding renewable energy requires money, and we have a Government whose policies are aligned with those of both Labor and Greens. All these parties believe in extreme population growth despite it being economically unviable. The Liberals have adopted their historical role of cleaning up the spending mess left behind by Labor; yet these two factions are actually a double-act with exactly the same big picture policy.

Richard pointed out that $50 billion spent on defence spending is nothing and could easily be spent on renewable energy. Why didn't he mention that the extra two million people who arrived in Australia over the last decade (in addition to natural population growth) are costing the Federal Budget $17,000 per person per annum? That is an additional $34 billion every year. Is each one of those people paying $17,000 in total direct and indirect taxes? $68,000 per average family of four? The numbers don't look sustainable; but hasn't Richard noticed? Foreign aid reduced by $7.5 billion this year. Does Richard think that is nothing? For how many years can debt grow by 10% of the total Federal Budget spending? What creates the most humanitarian outcome; spending $7.5 billion in Australia or spending it in the developing world?

What does Richard see as the future for a planet with endless exponential population growth? Does he propose to introduce a Population Tax?

Jagit Plahe was quite reasonable as she spoke of multinational agribusiness and its environmentally damaging practices, and the value of subsistence agriculture. But how does that work if you double the population on a plot of land every 40 years? Is migration to Australia the solution?

She spoke of the plight of 9 million of her fellow Indians displaced by floods in NE India in 2011, but didn't mention that India's population grows by roughly 25 million per annum and that this is a key consideration for Indian food self sufficiency and avoidance of deforestation and other environmental impacts in India.

Keith Badger actually mentioned population growth (Hooray) but instead of following through to the logical need for managing it, he took a sweeping 90 degree turn and identified marketing as a root cause of the 6th great extinction !! He highlighted consumption per capita as a primary issue. Remarkable perspective. He doesn't seem to be applying the basic principles of exponential growth. For Keith's benefit, based on current rates of population growth Melbourne's population in 200 years will be 593 million people versus 4.25 million today. Keith referred to keeping a favourite old tee shirt that he now treasures because instead of throwing it away he had it darned by an old lady from a different, less wasteful, era.

I wonder if Keith has done this sum: 593/4.25 = 139.5. This means to avoid consuming any more tee shirts Keith's tee shirt will need to be shared by 139.5 people 200 years from now. Does he think this kind of reduction in consumption is feasible?

2014-15: Migration program set at 190,000 places; humanitarian intake 13,750 places.
SOURCES: Department of Immigration; Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The destructive impact of the ABC on Australian Politics

The ABC is a driving force behind the corrupt agenda setting bias of Australian politics. A clear explanation of this is provided by the ABC News and Current Affairs, who seem confused about their role. They seem to think they can use agenda setting bias as a tool in their manipulative armoury, as if they are elected politicians rather than journalists with a Statutory Duty to act as objective critics of the political agenda. Instead the ABC News team seems dedicated to creating agenda setting bias to ironically reinforce the objectives of the major political parties.

This is best illustrated by the contrast between the Statutory Duty of politicians as described in the oaths or affirmations that are required of them, and the Statutory Duty of the ABC which is focussed on impartiality and the avoidance of deliberate misrepresentation:

Oath
I, [Minister’s full name], do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia in the office of [position]. So help me God!
or
Affirmation
I, [Minister’s full name], do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve the commonwealth of Australia in the office of [position]

Refer to the ABC Editorial Policy document and the ABC Code of Practice to understand what is required of the ABC.

A key driver of the sinking of Australian politics to such low levels in recent years has surely been the ABC's role in chaperoning public policy debate to where it pleases, which is often where politicians wish to take it.

The most important example of this in recent years has been the Carbon Tax debate incorporating the bias of ABC News. That pro Carbon Tax and pro population growth bias has taught us all an important lesson that only an open class action lawsuit can ultimately prove; because the ABC complaints process appears to be as biased and dysfunctional as the ABC's conduct of Editorial Policy.

By using unlawful tactics to support the passage of the Carbon Tax in November 2011 there have been real costs incurred by both industry and government.

This has resulted in many forms of injury to the Australian people. This injury has been inflicted on us all, and the ABC has acted unlawfully in supporting the perpetration of that injury on us all.

Pages