I saw Abbott this morning speaking about the death of Phil Hughes, he is totally unable to look or sound sincere.

Dave is the same

and Ed

Really difficult to find a decent news program now. I tend to stick with the ABC/BBC, and any left or right bias in the reporting (and I've seen both) doesn't bother me a jot as I have the intellectual capacity to process what I see/hear/read according to my own views.

I think that most people are exactly the same.

I think the perception that there is a left bias in either the ABC or the BBC comes down to a far right bias of the viewer.

Yep. I often see/hear stuff on the ABC that leads me to conclude that there's a left wing bias but occasionally there's a couple of right side of politics nuggets there too. For me I think I would find it more worrying (and perhaps a bit boring too) if the ABCs content exactly matched matched my opinions.

Of course that's true and that is why people notice it. Does it change the way that people think? I'd say mostly not though maybe it might with the young who haven't yet completely formed and hardened their opinions and the gullible.

I agree. It's a mix and match. Though that morning presenter I refer to is instantly on the left offensive at any available opportunity.

You can understand why government media is going to lean left though. Case in point. Libs are about to shed jobs there. That would not happen under labour.

It does make a big difference with the presenter. Take Capital Hill for example. I find when Lyndal Curtis presents it the content is quite balanced, some a bit on the left and some on the right whereas when Greg Jennett is on it's very much only left wing stuff to the point that I get fed up and switch to another channel.

It would change the way people think if all they see is one side of the argument. Let's be honest, Murdoch and Packer media is very much on the right wing as demonstrated by their full page free advertising for the LNP election campaign. If that's all you read, you are not getting balanced reporting. People are influenced by the news they read/watch/hear. ABChas the best news reporting in the country and should not have its funding cut. Any private media has a different agenda.

I agree that there is some bias in either side when it comes to the ABCbut at least you have that. It also keeps us more informed than any other media outlet in Australia. This government want to slow that down as its devastating to their agenda. Every politicians gaffe/bad move is rightly reported. Craig Thompson is proof that they don't discriminate. As is Peter Slipper.

Speaking of someone who is conservatively right-wing but an old-fashioned Liberal, I'm not sure I can even put this articulately.

I don't exactly agree- but see where you are coming from. I like any quality journalism that holds people accountable - I don't believe in left and right in journalism. The other issue is that people seem to equate good journalism with the left - and with old 'left' favourites, when what we really need is critique of any government regardless of their views. Example : stopping boats and migration is seen as right-wing when an aspect of that might just make economic and humanitarian sense. Champagne socialism is a curious one - on the one hand it is vaguely leftist but it is also reflective of the fact that the person in question has used their position to get into a comfortable position first. (I get the point that having cemented your position in society there is then a philanthropic motive).

All to often, leftist views are seen as the, excuse me, 'right' views. It is a consequence of the experience of the 20th century perhaps that right-wingers are seen as nazis when there is also a 'nazi' left.

As I have alluded to, many people are not just left or right - there are shades.

All journalism at some point attacks the current govt - even the Murdoch
print. Journalists in the Murdoch print make it quite clear when they going after Abbott and Co.

Hmm, nah, I don't agree. I don't see myself as left or right. Policies or opinions can be on either side but I consider both, or at least I prefer to as it makes me balanced. That's for me, not for popularity or trying to be on a winning side. That's how people should be though. Even if you are a Barcelona fan, you can appreciate that Real Madrid have some excellent and honest players.

The problem for me is when a person who has so much influence over so many people, regularly proves he's not representing the people who voted for him, I can't take his side. The extreme right policies, the lies and the patronising excuses is disgusting. The media are correct in focussing on every word they say as, when in opposition this government did exactly that.

Now, your point about leftist views being seen as the correct ones is unfair. People who consider themselves right wing may think leftist views are too soft and non progressive. Plenty of those views will be and will probably be unsuccessful because of that. This site has a few examples of people who consider themselves to be right wing that will not see past the first world entitlement they are born into. It's those kind of people who we have in government now and I think it's understandable that the public owned media has plenty to report on them.

Depends what your definition of self entitlement is. For mine the backlash governments receive from welfare recipients when welfare is removed stinks of self entitlment.

But you can't seem to define welfare. I've asked you this before and you dismiss any suggestion that large organisations should not receive welfare they don't need such as mining companies. Let's not go down that road again.

Entitlement to welfare needs to be means tested. Rorters need to be identified and punished. But, some people need welfare. These people are being targeted by this government in an effort to reduce debt but avoid penalties to big business. The smack on the mouth is when it's so blatant that they want to keep poor in poverty, middle income earners as middle income earners and rich as winners in all of this. Maternity leave, in my opinion should be a workplace entitlement. Instead, labour introduced a tax funded maternity leave which was heavily opposed by Tony Abbott. I agreed with him. Yet, now he wants to inflate this payment to be strongly in favour of the rich. That's not just a change of heart, it's using an opportunity to feed his preferred end of town.

Sorry, but when was the last time you heard anyone on TV say that, say, the mining resources of Australia should be nationalised and used to benefit ALL Australians?

You can't really call a position left wing unless at a minimum it requires government control of the means of production - yet such views are NEVER taken seriously (despite the evidence of Norway, Saudi Arabia etc.)

You confuse centralist and lite right-viewpoints for left wing - if anything the bias is towards normalising extreme far right viewpoints and excluding left wing as 'mad', 'bad', and dangerous to know'. Hell, after the banker induced GFC and their bailing out by everyone else, and the tacit OKing of that in the media, you have to conclude that their default position is 'right wing' - just maybe not as loony as 'gold standard' teabaggers.

I sometimes think we need a regular, truly left wing news show - if only to recalibrate people's expectations.

I have no issue with the rich getting richer. Choking success Is not good for anyone. But how would you propose to get the poor out of poverty? Training schemes, education? Got to give the poor means and ways to help themselves right?

I don't believe in choking success but I remember you making the point that success needs to be rewarded. That doesn't help your credibility. People can get rich on their own. There are property investors who use the negative gearing to enable them to purchase several properties that they wouldn't be able to afford if there was no negative gearing. That's welfare to people who don't need it. The benefit to it is supposed to be cheaper rent. Australia doesn't have that. Should these over ambitious people who don't have the means to get rich on their own have such a tax break? That's welfare that's not being targeted by the government.

The poor need assistance to help themselves. If you believe that we're paying welfare to the poor because they have no interest or incentive to improve their situation then you are misguided. There are people like that but there is also a divide that the government is actively growing to push the poor further from the top end.

I don't expect you to agree with me as we've been down this road too often. But I can't help but get the feeling that you are on a wind up every time you post on here.