".....Why don’t you put up arguments in favour of the ABC instead of attacking the man....."
My post was to highlight the deception of the article, using RMIT Professor, and not saying he is an IPA Senior Research Fellow which has had a long term anti ABC agenda.
So they have tried to hide his agenda and his paying sponsors, in an attempt to deceive and try to give the cause some credibility. Totally dishonest.
The Holocaust picture using a kids character in an oven says a lot about the guys judgement.
So in answer to your question, if someone is putting themselves up as an expert, then they should be honest about their credentials, their motivation, and political agenda if affects the message they are giving as an expert.
The same as if someone was pretending to be an energy expert spruiking the virtues of coal, while hiding facts and hiding the fact they had a vested interest in the coal industry.
Non deceptive disclosure helps the audience avoid being deceived by charlatans.
__________________________________
I have no problem with a genuine review being done on the ABC and adjustments being made.
I don't support the likes of the IPA who are more wacko than the Greens, nor do I support those that prefer to destroy as opposed to build and/or improve Australia.
___________________________________
The bias argument is based more on cherry picking perceived negative press or isolated events and using flimsy arguments to play the victim or push an agenda.
Political flavours of all sorts have claimed bias, it is just some whinge louder and longer.
