Is the ACMA a hamstrung tool of the ABC/Government propaganda machine?

I have made complaints to the ABC over the 5+ year period of carbon tax debate, claiming they never mentioned, in political policy interviews on emissions management, the simple fact that Australia’s fossil fuel based emissions have risen directly in line with population growth. (Ref. ABS statistics from 1991 to 2011 show a 32% rise). Even if this was a coincidence it would be worthy of public scrutiny. I complained that with the highest per capita emissions on earth this key aspect of emissions growth is directly relevant to any rational discussion of an emissions management policy. The complaint was based on my monitoring of the ABC over that 5+ year period; and in particular RN Breakfast and QANDA.

Here are some quotes from the ABC’s Code of Practice (2013):

Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives:

The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation
of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective
journalism.

Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service
character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. A broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests.

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can
vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter
of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to
apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided
by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Actions Taken by me:

After making repeated complaints to the ABC they always responded with a standard format which characterised my factually based complaints as “points of view” and also referred to their “editorial opinion” as justifying their actions as if their "editorial opinions" were fact – despite the wording of their Code of Practice.

When the complaints were taken further to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the ACMA adopted a variety of tactics to deny that the letter of the Code of Practice had been breached. It is as if the sole objective of the ACMA is to shut down factually based complaints about the ABC - regardless of the facts. To me this is undemocratic to the core.

Claim that each broadcast addressed in isolation only

One tactic was for the ACMA to claim that they could only address each broadcast in isolation. This effectively enabled denial of responsibility for investigation of propaganda over time – despite the wording of the Code of Practice. If a single broadcast did not, in their opinion, constitute bias based on “editorial opinion” of what was or was not newsworthy within the context of that single broadcast, that sufficed for denial of bias or propaganda. One can infer from this that submitting 50 or more single examples that together demonstrate propaganda would result in 50 discrete responses denying bias on each occasion and failing to even use the word propaganda in the wording of the ACMA response. So my next strategy was to submit a single complaint citing 64 consecutive broadcasts of RN Breakfast in the run up to the 2013 Federal Election and the Vote Compass complaint (65 complaints combined into one). This didn't work. I will post the ACMA's response as an attachment as soon as I receive it.

In a telephone conversation today with the ACMA operative responsible for reviewing my latest group of complaints, I was told that omission of an issue from a broadcast did not constitute bias because the issue did not form part of the broadcast ! (I kid you not.)

So what the ACMA appears to be saying is that in the context of over 5 years of failure to address population growth management in public policy discussion with politicians and others, or the fact that emissions growth is shown by government data to rise in line with population growth, the ABC's actions were not biased in favour of suppression of information relevant to either the Carbon Tax debate or the population growth management debate (which effectively doesn’t even exist in the ABC’s public policy debate with politicians, or others).

Another example of ACMA tactics was to claim that any Vote Compass bias I claim to have identified “was not broadcast through conventional radio or TV” and therefore was not covered by the Code, despite my argument that listeners found their way to the Vote Compass by advertising transmitted through conventional radio or TV.

Statistics indicate that over 10% of voters reviewed the Vote Compass without finding any mention of the Population Growth Management issue or the political party standing for election on that basis - despite repeated polling showing that 50+% of people are concerned about this issue.

Hence I have concluded that the ACMA is collaborating with both the ABC and Government in suppression of public policy debate with politicians, and others, on population growth management; and biased avoidance of the issue when it is a key consideration in relation to numerous other policy issues.

If you agree with my logic and wish to take a first step towards ending this arguably undemocratic behaviour by Government and the ABC/ACMA, please consider signing this petition:
Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth