Chris Uhlmann 10 July 2011 Interview with Julia Gillard followed by dishonest 11 July 2011 QANDA?

Extract from interview which was far less widely viewed than QANDA the next day?: "CHRIS UHLMANN: Certainly, but I think most Australians might be a bit surprised to learn that in fact our emissions will rise till 2020, in fact they'll double by 2050, even under an 80 per cent reduction target. JULIA GILLARD: Well I think Australians probably have the sense, the intuitive sense that the way in which our economy has developed is as our economy's grown, our carbon pollution's grown. So, every year our economy grows, more carbon pollution, and that would happen literally till the end of time if we didn't take a step to decouple economic growth from growing carbon pollution. That's why you price carbon to send a price signal to big polluters that the investment decisions they make in the future, the growth they make in the future should be growth that is looking to clean energy sources and doing the job with less carbon pollution generated." Note that Chris Uhlmann correctly noted that emissions will rise until 2020, but he failed to clarify, when Julia Gillard referred to economic growth driving growing carbon pollution, that there was almost perfect correlation between population growth and carbon pollution – not economic growth and carbon pollution. He also did not clarify that on this basis population growth was implicated as a primary driver of emissions growth in the country with the highest emissions per capita on earth. The next day came another basis for accusing the ABC of law breaking bias. The following 5 minute video, which is the “tip of the iceberg” of ABC pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth bias, has been edited to provide some missing facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97cmFCkb1KE Crikey awarded Tony Jones "Outstanding Media Practitioner of the Year" in 2005 for "ferocious intelligence, polite calmness, [being a] dogged interrogator, deep political instincts, juggling the running agenda, [and having] a great sense of context." So Tony is no fool. Yet despite the ABC's full knowledge and awareness of the facts, on the next day he hosted Julia Gillard on the 11 July 2011 edition of QANDA without mentioning the net emissions rise in 2020 and its most likely cause. Why did he do this contrary to the facts? Deliberate:

• carefully weighed or considered; studied; intentional: a deliberate lie.
• characterized by deliberation; careful or slow in deciding: a deliberate decision.

If this wasn't in direct breach of the ABC's Statutory Duty and against the public interest what was it? Wouldn't it be totally out of character for Tony Jones NOT to have done this deliberately? Why is it OK to deliberately, or incompetently (but it couldn't have been incompetent could it?), mislead the Australian people thereby providing misleading support for the passage of a Carbon Tax that was of questionable merit at the time and remains of questionable merit today? Wasn’t a Carbon Tax without population growth management an unscientific solution? Wasn’t science the basis for the need for action against climate change? Is the ABC guilty of unlawful conduct?