The ABC denies its own dishonesty

Have you watched any ABC documentaries on the rise and fall of Lance "the Doper" Armstrong? Armstrong believed he was too important to fall. His cancer work and his reputation were all built, from very early on, on dishonest conduct. In the early days, perhaps a bit of performance enhancement seemed "OK". But then it became the norm for the whole American team! He became so embroiled in the strategy that he could not confront his own dishonesty. It went on, and on, and on through seven Tour de France title wins. His objectivity was compromised and he somehow saw this as justified. He adamantly denied the truth until the very end. He held out until his house of cards finally collapsed, and treated those who would expose his drug use with hostility and contempt. His well funded legal team went into assault mode. He used his power and influence to intimidate his accusers. He called in favours from Government, Government Agencies and their Operatives who had a vested interest in avoiding upset of the status quo. A story of American heroism and integrity. Then the "game" was finally over as the overwhelming evidence was set free to expose the truth. He then appeared with "Oprah Winfrey" and admitted what he had always denied. What do we have to do to get the ABC to "appear with Oprah Winfrey" and admit that they:

• Created a biased, ABC-branded Carbon Tax Debate over more than 6 years, despite facts in their possession showing the primary cause of emissions growth (ie extreme population growth driven by a covert mass migration program) would far exceed the capacity of the proposed Carbon Tax to reduce Australian-based emissions in the medium term. Think of population growth as the "drug" that lines the pockets of Government, Government Agencies and Big Business while they show contempt for the right of the people to be informed of the truth. The ABC's annual budget grows at around 6% while GDP per capita grows at less than 1%?
• Using that bias broke the law, as defined by the ABC's Statutory Duty (Ref: ABC Code of Practice)
• Using unlawful bias, prior to the 2010 Federal Election, supported the creation of a hung parliament by refusing to challenge the Greens for their extreme population growth policy which is at odds with their alleged goal of humanitarian and sustainable development + Carbon Tax
• Using unlawful bias supported the passing of Carbon Tax legislation in 2011 by misleading politicians about the benefits of such a Tax. Here is one example of that bias and misrepresentation from QANDA, 11 July 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97cmFCkb1KE

An example of the analogy between the ABC and Lance Armstrong is this written response from the ABC Head of Editorial Policy to evidence of bias submitted prior to the 2013 Federal Election:

• "I won’t be responding further as you’ve raised nothing new, and in my view your characterisation of this as an example of bias is not supported by any facts (16 August 2013)."
To date, there is not a single Government Agency that has been prepared to call the ABC to account; despite the facts. Andrew Bolt wrote on 4 February 2014: The ABC’s appalling reporting of the navy’s alleged torture of boat people is too much even for the ABC’s Media Watch: "We believe the ABC should have been far more cautious, given the evidence it had, and given it was making such a big call against the Navy… It now seems the burns occurred in a scuffle with the Navy. And were not deliberately inflicted by Navy personnel. We believe ABC News got it wrong. And if so ... it needs to admit it, to find out how the mistake was made, and to make sure it will not happen again." I identified how the ABC's Head of Editorial Policy had blogged about this and appeared to be creating a storm in a teacup while discussion of the consequences of Australia's extreme population growth was omitted from his news agenda. Refer to http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3672 for evidence of the ABC's questionable news priorities. Refer to http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3751 for ABS statistics providing evidence that extreme population growth may not be economically viable. Isn't the dispossession of modern Australians simply a repeat of what has been imposed on the Aborigines since 1788? Doesn't this receive full, illegal support from the ABC? When will the ABC finally be called to justice for acting unlawfully and in contempt of the public interest?