How a preferred TV station is slipping - The Australian (blog)

FOR a very long time I have devotedly watched the ABC as my preferred TV station.

It has provided me with in-depth analysis and information, entertainment, comfort and connection with the rest of Australia. It has also provided me with a sense of national pride and belonging. However, in recent years it has changed, and not for the better. I am relieved to see the current debate about the ABC as this situation has frustrated me for some time. I was starting to think I was going crazy. Now I know I am not alone in thinking there is something seriously wrong with the ABC.

I see the greatest change in its news reporting and analysis, which have become unbalanced, aggressive and at times superficial and limited. Like others who have commented recently I am also a regular watcher of Insiders, 7.30, Lateline and Q&A. On programs such as Insiders, it concerns me to see the consistent left-leaning commentary by the host and most of his journalist guests. We rarely see a conservative politician interviewed. If this is because they have declined to appear, why is that so? The discussion by the host and panel often focuses negatively on the federal opposition and goes soft on the government.

The left-leaning bias also appears in Lateline and Q&A, in which those with more conservative views are seen as an amusement.

Bring on a review of the ABC so it will once again provide us with a high standard and make it reflect all Australians.

Louise Boyle and Bill Jelacic, Toowoomba, Qld

YOUR letter-writer ("ABC bias is hard to see from within the organisation", 17/12) is wrong to suggest that it is only internal investigations which have failed to find bias at the ABC. For example, Joshua S. Gans and Andrew Leigh (2007) analysed multiple news services over several years, finding only very slight bias on ABC TV -- toward the Coalition.

More tellingly, even the Howard government's Mansfield review could find no such bias. Of course, this did not affect their preconception that it existed, nor prevent them from breaking an election promise with vengeful cuts and disastrous interference. Like those letter-writers and columnists in this newspaper that are "generally agreed" on this matter, they did not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

John O'Hagan, Preston, Vic