Beverley O’Connor fills in for Jon Faine on Melbourne ABC’s morning show, and it’s politics as usual.
One of her very first interviews is with a NSW gay and lesbian campaigner on how terrible it is that Abbott is against gay-marriage, and is Christian as well. Only in her last question, perhaps prompted by listeners’ texts, does O’Connor remind the campaigner that Kevin Rudd is also a Christian and also against gay marriage. This seems to startle the activist, who up to that point made Abbott seem in a troglodyte class of his own..
Tony Abbott then comes on the line and is greeted with O’Connor playing an entire Labor hit-ad at him before asking him to comment. When did the ABC start an interview with Rudd by playing a Liberal ad? O’Connor asks him if he’s been promoted above his competence.
O’Connor laughs along with a caller who rings up for an extended spray against the “sneak” Abbott that embraces everything from being a “failed priest” and having shifty eyes.
Later she has on veteran Howard-hater Mungo McCallum (who, for instance, has sneered that Howard was an “unflushable turd"). They agree that Abbott was a “thug” and a “hitman”. O’Connor notes that Paul Keating at least had “dignity” - a quality that will have escaped many. By this stage conservative listeners have had enough: the first on air tells the pair to give Abbott a fair go. He is cut off. The second informs McCallum his facts are wrong. No more calls are taken.
McCallum then goes on to praise Rudd for doing great things. His only criticism is that Rudd could have done more, and we must wait for his second term. O’Connor agrees Rudd is believing criticised by some of not giving us all he’d promised. More please!
O’Connor then has on two “spin doctors” who are meant to represent both sides of the political divide. Yet all agree on the need to “do something” on “climate change”. O’Connor suggests those against the emissions trading scheme tend to be those who simply don’t “want to engage”. All agree as well that Turnbull is “divisive”. Turnbull wasn’t?
Again, the first caller to this segment complains about lack of balance, pointing out the program had, with the McCallum interview, sounded like a broadcast from “Trades Hall”. The third caller agrees with the first that Rudd seems insincere. The fifth doubts the global warming science and is cut off.
Does the ABC truly think this kind of political coverage - just one example of thousands we could produce over a year - is fair and balanced? Even its listeners now are complain.
There's more at that link.