Boo hoo hoo. Everybody keeps ganging up on me! ..... I think I'll go and eat some worms.

It seems that any time I choose to say anything remotely negative about Derrick Mason, somebody new pops up out of the woodwork to defend him, regardless of what it is I might have said. Given that this current exchange between the two of us began as a result of my letter a couple of weeks ago about a loyalty issue, and has since morphed into one about bias (particularly in the media), it is more than appropriate that the latest defender of Derrick, one David Weeden of the ACT, is a champion of both.  

In his letter some weeks back, he devoted a couple of paragraphs to a penetrating observation of the respective qualities of both Derrick and myself. Derrick, according to David, is "the long time, highly respected and amazing contributor to his community", whereas I am a person who is intolerant of the views of others, so basically a bigot. 

How the hell he could extrapolate that from my original letter is beyond me. What is of greater interest though is the other descriptor he employs to highlight the time both Derrick and I have spent in Boorowa. Derrick has been here a "long time", whereas I am a "recent arrival".  

How he knows that about me is something that I should not be concerned about, because as Derrick points out, I can't help but see conspiracies everywhere! I suspect that Derrick has either told Mr Weeden about my residential status, or David has actually read my very first letter to the editor, which contained those details. I suspect it is the latter, which probably indicates that Mr Weeden has read all my other letters, one of which previously dealt with this ridiculous proposition that suggests that your right to comment, and how much you can say, is determined by how much time you have spent living in the area.

David Weeden rails against the unashamed promotion of right wing causes by independently owned radio stations and the likes of Alan Jones and Ray Hadley, yet finds the ABC to be a highly respected source of news and analysis. Yea, no bias there! We all know that Jones, Hadley, Bolt, Murray et al, do not vote for Labor or the Greens. That is an absolute, and the reason they can do what they do, is because not one red cent of public money is used to promulgate their views, unlike the billion dollars of taxpayers money thrown at Aunty each year.  

Once upon a time journalists simply reported the news. You know, the where, the why and the how. Today they commentate, embellish and offer opinions without being asked. Bias in ABC reporting on matters political is manifested in many ways, from the stories they choose to focus on, to the characterisation of those stories, to the language used, to the frequency with which a story is run.  Witness the current kerfuffle about bullying during the change of PM. Yes, the ABC did give coverage to the recent nonsense surrounding Emma Husar, and rightly so given the surfeit of documented grievances (dealt with independently by a Labor appointee, how does that work?). Yet the extent of coverage by the ABC of Husar pales in comparison to that they are currently engaging in about the Libs, with the only "evidence" of bullying being the absolute lack of it. These bullied people are so aggrieved by it all that they are not prepared to name names and have it dealt with. Bit convenient isn't it.

The problem with all you ABC acolytes is that it is not that you can't see the bias, it is that you just don't want to.

Take a moment to read section 8(1)(c) of the ABC Act, which says inter alia, that it is the duty of the ABC Board "... to ensure that the ... presentation  .. of news and information is accurate and impartial ..." Somebody in that organisation is not doing their job, and more than likely breaking the law!  

The ABC does documentaries and investigative journalism very well, and I watch a great deal of both.  And when it comes to matters political, I may have been a little unfair in describing the ABC as the most biased in the country, but only because I have never read anything produced by either the Guardian or Saturday Paper, and never will! 

David Weeden laments lefties don't get much of a run on conservative news. Seriously? Now that Sky News is free to air on the WIN Network, and many thanks to whatever deity it is you pray to for that (hallelujah), you get to see just how much access they do get. On Sky, lefties actually get their own weekly one hour show, interviewing whoever they like, and saying whatever they like. Ask Graham Richardson, Kristina Keneally, Richard Marles, Janine Perret, Peter Van Onselen and Nicholas Reece whether or not Skys' money is any good.

Let me conclude by pointing out something that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald as I write this.   The haughty and arrogant Virginia Trioli, finally admitting that something she did almost nine years ago might not have been her best career move. And what was that thing. Doing something on air with her finger that suggested that a prominent conservative politician whom she had just interviewed, was in her words, loopy.  And her explanation after all this time. Well she was jubilant and high as a kite at the time because she thought she might be pregnant. No Virginia, methinks you just don't like Barnaby and his politics and your bias was bubbling to the surface. 

The Libs probably deserve to be tossed out, not because of the manner in which they handle the economy or other issues but because of the other peripheral nonsense they have been engaged in. If that does happen, good luck with the alternative. Derrick says that he doesn't find Shorten particularly inspiring, but that he has some good people in his team.  Can't wait to see the Honourable Shayne Neumann MP as Minister for Immigration. Mein Gott  .... the stuff of nightmares.

Over to you Derrick and or David or whoever. By the way, those worms were surprisingly tasty!

Peter Bruce