We had a panel composed of two ABC journalists (Annabel Crabb and someone from ABC radio) and Bruce Baird, former Liberal MP. (At least people have heard of Baird, and he has some sort of public credentials, unlike some of the “formers” who appear on The Drum, formerly faceless staffers who appear to be doing a fair bit of self-promotion).

This was one of the least overtly political panels. It’s not unusual to have an ABC journo. Two is. Maybe it’s hard to round up ex-pollies and staffers this week. Perhaps Paul Howes is keeping a low profile for once.

Another edition this week featured the IPA’s Tim Wilson, some NSW state political writer from somewhere or other, and the ABC Religion and Ethics Editor, Scott Stephens, who like the Editor of the online Drum itself, Jonathan Green, is actually good value. Unlike pretty much everyone else who appears on the show, they’re intelligent people capable of articulating a reasoned position outside the possible range of media/partisan talking points.

Anyway, it was interesting to hear all three panelists today echo the Qantas management line on offshoring and job cuts. Hook, line and sinker. No critical examination. No, whatever business says must be true. Intone “globalisation” a few times, and nod sagely.

That gets us closer to the actual bias in the journosphere – the liberal bourgeoisie reflecting itself back. The mantra “Productivity Commission” can always be recited instead of thought. Sure, they’re socially liberal, but it’s insane to call these folks left wing. They *are* the inner city dwelling latte sippers of legend, well paid, socially ‘tolerant’, and probably fitting best politically into the more milquetoast faction of the now departed Democrats. “Left neo-liberals” perhaps, but that would be a stretch.

And that was without the almost compulsory representative of the IPA to recite neo-liberal nostrums.

It might be a bit much to ask for reflection, thought and searching reflexivity when you have to switch your attention to the next talking point after about 3 or 4 minutes, but there you have it. And let’s not forget that most journos, with some exceptions among specialist writers, are experts in nothing; except perhaps in being journos. So it’s unclear to me why they have anything to say on business strategy, the changing shape of the airlines industry, industrial relations, or the way managements selectively use numbers to show a ‘cost’.

This is why so much self-serving business propaganda, advocacy research and modelling slips straight through to the keeper, I suspect. Oh, look, Access Economics says, ‘x’. Of course, they’re always right, no matter who’s paying the bills, whereas actual public institutions like Treasury must be politically biased. Or something. Didn’t Ken Henry like wombats?

I was prompted to ponder all this by some interesting attempts on a thread at John Quiggin’s to resolve the apparent conundrum between the right-wing-isation of the ABC and the constant attacks by people like Janet Albrechtsen on its purported left wing bias.

There’s actually no real conundrum.

Balance functions as a pincer movement. Albrechtsen and the other enforcers rely on the way the ABC has been trained, Pavlov’s Dog style, to be hyper-sensitive about the *numbers* of alleged lefties. Her latest column really is just a way to bounce more Brendan O’Neill onto a radio show or an online portal or a panel discussion. As so much of what passes for right wing opinion in Australia is demented, or rather cranky, or incapable of making an argument without a non sequitur or a Godwin, the IPA provides a never ending supply of presentable and well media trained spokespeople. It helps to be in Sydney too.

Then, because of the numerical understanding of ‘balance’, we can exclude anyone who might be a tad original, and not take one side of the so-called left/right equation. And if you live in the eternal present, by definition what you say is actually conservative. We also get the look of shock on presenter Steve Cannane’s face when Peter Reith condemned ABC News 24 for broadcasting the deluded and offensive ravings at some fringe anti-gay protest in Canberra. ZOMG! Where is the balance!

And so it goes…

Update: Possum has posted a stack of polling data about public views of the media.

Quadrant Online previously reported that the ABC had invited Bob Carter to contribute to an online debate on The Drum following their publication of a series of five articles by Clive Hamilton.

Left internet newsletters and blog sites were outraged that sceptics were to be allowed to comment on their ABC.

Professor Carter submitted his article, on James Hansen and the Hansenism cult, and the ABC has rejected his article – which Quadrant Online is privileged to publish.

James Hansen is visiting Australia. We can only guess at the pressures which have been exerted on the ABC to close down criticism of Hansen – and the cowardice which saw them conform. So much for Australia’s brave freedom fighters of the press.

You can read the entire text of the voiceless Carters spiked piece at Quadrant.

Added commentary on the ABC’s ‘balancing act’ supplied by Media Watch’s Jonathan Holmes.

*All links added to the Quadrant pull quote are mine.

What the longevity of almost all state and territory governments suggests is that it is difficult for an opposition to come to power except through the electorate’s view that it is time for a change… It is unlikely, however, that this will stop the Canberra press gallery working itself into a state of excitement over this year’s national and state votes.

From The Australian today.

In related news, I was somewhat heartened by Greg Hunt’s declining to start ranting and raving over the ‘solar panels will burn your house down’ thing last night on Lateline, when effectively invited to do so by Tony Jones. The question followed a story which was clearly framed to build momentum for the ‘Peter Garrett Must Go’ campaign.

I thought, and still think, that Garrett’s position is worth debating, and as Roger Jones noted, the comments thread on the post here has been quite illuminating compared to the media coverage. But I’m not so sure that the press has the responsibility to collude in a campaign to take a ministerial scalp. My memory may well be faulty on this score, but I really don’t recall the same level of intensity and pursuit of Howard government ministers. Given recent admissions by AWB, it might be instructive to go back and look whether Alexander Downer faced constant front page stories on the Wheat for Arms scandal.

Sure, all the ingredients for a press frenzy are there in the insulation debacle, including human interest stories from relatives of those who tragically lost their lives, or workers who were injured themselves. But perspective seems sadly lacking, or even basic research, as Bernard Keane observes in Crikey today.

Update [by Mark]: Jason Wilson at Gatewatching espies a tipping point in the Australian political blogosphere.

Anyway, he was baiting for a link. He’s got one. I hope he’s happy now.

Update: [by Kim] More from tigtog at Hoyden.