So how does the ABC handle itself Editorially?

Here's an April Fools Day headline from the Guardian:

"Mark Scott: News Corp papers never more aggressive than now.
ABC managing director warns of dangers for Australian public debate in 'winner takes all' media battle.

The strident editorial stance of some of the mastheads in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire had serious implications for "public debate and the contest of ideas" as they headed towards an almost total print monopoly in a "winner takes all" media battle, the public broadcasting chief said on Tuesday evening."

A disturbing aspect of this comment is the ABC's influence on "public debate and the contest of ideas". This is clearly demonstrated in the agenda-setting bias practiced by the ABC over the last 5+ years of the Carbon Tax debate.

There appears to have been a deliberate ABC policy to omit discussion of the lack of a Population Growth Management Policy from all interviews with politicians, and others. One irony of this omission, or suppression as I prefer to describe it, is that between 1991 and 2011 both population and fossil fuel based emissions rose by around 32% in our chaotically expanding carbon based economy. Why not mention the primary driver of emissions growth when you're arguing about how to reduce emissions? Well you might ask.

One possibility seems obvious. If you strongly support introduction of a Carbon Tax; the last thing you would want to do is weaken that argument by identifying a driver of emissions growth far greater than the capacity of a Carbon Tax to reduce it !!

But is there more to this omission? Isn't it all about towing the Government line on Population Growth? And isn't News Corporation towing exactly the same line?

So aren't the ABC and News Corporation in bed together on this one? So what about the majority of Australians who disagree with this? What about democratic freedom of speech? The Brandis "right to be a bigot" issue is about freedom of speech; but this is not?

• Individuals have the right to be bigots to ensure that freedom of speech in a democracy prevails?
• The ABC prides itself on its safeguards against bigotry, as exhaustively described in its Code of Practice. The ABC has absolutely no right to practice bigotry.
• News Corporation threatens "public debate and the contest of ideas", but the ABC does not?
• The ABC addresses factually based complaints about bias by denying bias and characterising the complaints as "points of view"?
• The ACMA supports the ABC in avoiding accountability, regardless of the facts?

So which bit have I misunderstood? Isn't bigotry stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed (other than extreme GDP growth driven by mass migration, for example), belief, or opinion that differs from one's own? Narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination? Isn't the bigotry of the media a powerful force? Hasn't omission of population growth management from the carbon tax debate been an act of bigotry?

"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state" Noam Chomsky.

Does Mark Scott support the ABC's right to be a bigot, regardless of statutory obligations to the contrary? Are the ABC and its operatives unaccountable to the people - despite being a publically funded institution?

Refer to http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3613 for evidence of the ABC's undemocratic agenda-setting bias in this area.

Refer to http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3751 for ABS statistics providing evidence that extreme population growth may not be economically viable.

Open discussion of what may prove to be a driving force behind the rapid growth of many of Australia's social, environmental, economic and humanitarian problems appears to be off the ABC agenda in interviews with politicians, and others, relating to public policy requirements in this key area.

So is "Scott the Pot" calling the kettle black?

"Beam us up Scotty", so we can tell the real story through your mass media vehicle.

Please "get off the pot" Scott; and start doing your job the way you want others to do theirs.

Isn't "the strident editorial stance of the masthead of the Government's media empire" undemocratic and dishonest when it comes to evasion of investigative reporting on the negative impacts of extreme population growth that are being imposed on an entire nation of people "by stealth and without consensus"?

Here's a brief explanation of what happened when I complained about ABC bias to the ABC:
http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3668

Please review and consider signing this petition and forwarding it to as many people as possible: Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth