vigourously take on the ALP, climate change advocates ( nothing about Tim Flannery's endless drought twaddle and not a peep about the pulling of the recent Gergis paper yet same got basically a free advertorial when first announced) and so on. The Drum on TV is about the only one that comes close to giving other voices a hearing. Q&A is occasionally interesting, Insiders has disappeared up its own backside and the only N&CA presenter worth listening to is Chris Uhlmann. Mark James: 1. There is no evidence of systemic ABC bias. Just saying something does not make it so. Rehame in 2004 and the ANU in 2009 showed, if anything, an ABC bias slightly to the right. 2. The Australian did not regularly breach its own codes of conduct to "get" the Howard government, whereas it has in its campaign against Labor. 3. Yes, The Australian does have token contrarian voices to give the impression of balance. However, its news stories, its editorials and the majority of its opinion pieces are consistent with its editorial agenda - regime change, anti-renewables, anti-union, anti-Green, anti-Labor, pro-mining, pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-nuclear, pro-Coalition. 4. If you want a good example of "groupthink", ursus, look at how all 175 Murdoch newspapers editorialised and propagandized in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. ursus augustus: 14 Jun 2012 9:56:35am 1 about as reliable as the hockey stick graph with or without hiding the decline. 2 campaign against labor? you mean from all the old ALP stalwarts