The Trolley Problem illustrates ABC Editorial Failure

The Trolley Problem (Ref: Wikipedia) The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley travelling down a railway track. On the track there are five people tied up and unable to move. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different track. There is one person on this side track. You have two choices: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice? According to the ABC, "killing everyone" is logical. A 2009 survey published in a 2013 paper by David Bourget and David Chalmers shows that 68% of professional philosophers would switch (sacrifice the one individual to save five lives), 8% would not switch, and the remaining 24% had another view or could not answer. The trolley problem has been the subject of many surveys in which approximately 90% of respondents have chosen to kill the one and save the five. If the situation is modified where the one sacrificed for the five was a relative or romantic partner, respondents are much less likely to be willing to sacrifice his life. Of course this is no simple choice. For example, a variation requires that you actually have to push someone off a bridge to stop the trolley. But the ABC is inconsistent. One minute it is "killing one to save five" and the next minute it is doing the complete opposite as part of the same argument. There can be no clearer example of unacceptable ABC Editorial failure than this. On the one hand the ABC pumped its Carbon Tax Debate. It was "doing something" to reduce emissions for the greater good. This is like killing one to save five. We will lead the world. We will make the great sacrifice for the greater good. We will also achieve our ambitions to punish evil big business while we hand the money to the needy; who can then buy larger TVs and more easily afford to consume more power? We will drive the demand for tax revenue from coal seam gas, coal and anything else that can be extracted in the name of extreme population growth and the rapid rise of the annual Federal budget? Avatar here we come? At the same time, the ABC is "doing nothing" to publicise that both Australia's emissions per capita and rate of population growth are the highest in the so-called developed world, with emissions growth far outstripping the medium term targets of the Carbon Tax (or any other proposed reduction scheme) to reduce them. This is analogous to creating five carbon dioxide molecules to save one: killing five to save one. It makes a mockery of over 5 years of public policy debate in which the Emissions Management Debate was dumbed down into the ABC's version of a Carbon Tax Debate that, in isolation, could be for the greater good while relevant facts that could alter that opinion were concealed. Was this concealment deliberate, and in full knowledge of the facts? The ABC is also "doing nothing" to investigate adverse trends in Australia's economy that may be due to mass migration of relatively wealthy people while over 20,000 children per day are dying in the developing world directly or indirectly due to lack of philanthropic foreign aid. Australia becomes increasingly unable to provide such aid if its economy continues to deteriorate. This is again analogous to killing five to save one. So why does the ABC continue this Editorial misconduct? The answer is simple. The ABC remains unaccountable for acting against the public interest. They define what they want the public interest to be; thereby destroying the meaning of the term. The ABC is unfettered and free to run amok on a tight-rope of feigned impartiality. The ABC is free to do as it pleases; but Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives (Ref: ABC Code of Practice) are being ignored. The result is undemocratic propaganda.