regime change its objective. It makes no claim to impartiality. The ABC does but this is seen to be patently false by each and ABC News and current affairs programme. Hare: Greg: 14 Jun 2012 8:57:13am Hear hear, Hare. Anyone who wants conclusive evidence of the ABC's balance need only read those two posts. To ask those two, or those like them, to see the same ABC and celebrate its balance is to ask the impossible, but as a complementary pair they are as good as it's going to get. Duncan: 14 Jun 2012 7:50:10am Does Mark Scott seriously claim that among the allegedly diverse, independent and free-thinking ABC mastheads, even one of them would devote an episode to a sexist, vicious attack on any lady of the left, in the way that Q & A went after Gina Rinehart the other night? Would Tony Jones, David Marr et al ever snigger like school boys at a sly reference to Julia's hole in the way they did at Barry Humphries talking about Gina's hole? Out here in audience land, we know this could never happen anywhere in the ABC. The groupthink is obvious. Greg: 14 Jun 2012 9:03:58am Barry Humphries' admittedly schoolboyish (or Les Pattersonish) reference to Gina's "hole" was not entirely random, it was a clumsy double entendre about her massive open cut mine; were the PM to go into open cut mining I imagine she'd be prey to the same sorts of jokes. Asking for them anyway is