OMG STOP THE PRESSES! 

So does ABC, Guardian , Fairfax (Indepedent Always lol), Crikey , Conversation, FFS even fuckin Betoota Advocate. In fact I don't a single media organisation the purports to lean left or right. Even Hitler argued that he was a centrist. lol.

Sure and when you catch them on a 'hot mic' swearing and imploring people in the audiences to vote Labour it will be news just like this is.

Until then Paul Murray is a flog with, not a perceived bias, an actual bias.

see three murdoch papers had the same opinion piece by 4 different writers hammering the same diatribe about voting for independents....what a weird coincidence, Not at all an attempt by a foreign organisation to influence our election for their own profit.

Oh no an “actual” bias 😭😭😭 Do you even the news mate? There are journalists bashing the LNP every single day. One not need be caught saying “vote Labor” to be exposed as biased, they do that daily while hiding behind the veneer of “professional journalist”.

Or "satire"

The state of this lot having a cry about betoota advocate lol fmd 

Can't wait to see how they react in a few weeks when BLM and Antifa run the country and they make Marx compulsory reading in every class

Not lefties fault that conservatives generally aren't capable of satire.

I feel like you live in an alternate universe sometimes rusty. One where every media source hasn't shut up about Albo not knowing the jobless rate.

And they make such good punchlines with their moronic acts 

Hilarious - report on something bad the LNP did means they’re biased? It’s called reporting ffs 

More telling people who to vote for...also how's the desperation. FMD, after years of bombarding maybe they should just give up if nobody is listening 

Wow - what are the chances? All these pieces by different 'journos' pushing exactly the same story and narrative throwing their toys out the pram. Geez, you could see why some would say that a foreign owned media company is making a coordinated effort to try and influence our democracy...but hey, we know that would never happen.

I'm not disagreeing with your point but have you seen the clip (sorry  can't seem to find it now) of Albo sitting around a young group drinking tea/coffee. He mentions he has an interesting fact that he shares a birthday with 3 other backbenchers... and "what do you think of that" or words to that affect.... the table goes silent and they all, simultaneously, reach for their coffee cups to take a sip. jHAHAHAHAHAHAHH I passed my pants laughing.....

By and large the mainstream media (not ABC) has been reasonably fair in their treatment of both candidates. My point was that one need not explicitly tell voters how to vote to prove bias, that bias possibly affects every single journalist in the country, and that the understated nuanced bias dressed in the veneer of ‘economics correspondent’ or ‘climate change commentator’ isnt necessarily less pernicious than Paul Murray screaming “vote LNP”. The ABC is for example, a left wing biased organisation, that gives disproportionate favourable coverage to the progressive parties on issues like environment, climate change, NBN, refugees, LGBTQ rights, etc etc, but it is difficult to prove because it is often mystified in selective editing, cherrypicking facts, taking data out of context, interviewing “experts” who are ideologically  motivated, etc. To most on the right the left wing bias at the ABC is obvious but to left there is no bias because they left regards its views as factual and objective rather than opinion.

You know the LNP conducted their own dodgy review and still couldn't even manage to find bias at ABC. So what are you on about? 
And reporting on climate change is not bias or opinion - it is a genuine threat to various aspects of humanity in the decades to come. I'd say that's probably worth covering.

Lol what LNP review? The only dodgy review I can think of is the dodgy leftist ABC commissioning a dodgy leftist in Ray Martin to conduct a dodgy "independent" review to find in favour of the ABC and absolve it of its dodgy left wing bias.

As for climate change, Australia's carbon emissions account for 1% of the world's output and is decreasing, and any action we take to achieve net zero will only have a tokenistic affect on global temperatures. Meanwhile China continues to build and plan hundreds of coal fire power stations, while in Austalia can't even get one off the ground. So you could argue that climate change is more so a foreign policy issue than domestic, but the ABC routinely advocates the Labor/Greens approach which is prioritise tokenistic policies and actions that will achieve nothing for the environment at the expense of tens of thousands of jobs and billions in coal and gas exports for decades to come. I'd say that's probably worth covering.

I agree with Rusty. Other people litter so no one should be bothered by me littering. 

Listening to this podcast on how the climate debate got to where it has is fascinating. Was actually not a partisan issue until the 2000s. Prior to that there was broad agreement from both sides that something needed to be done. The argument was what exactly.

Here's the link. 'Biased' of course because the ABC produced it but still a good listen. Commo podcast

In the opening episode they talk about how an article published in 1912 in the Maitland newspaper predicting the greenhouse affect. 1912 !

Wait, what...climate change is not a domestic issue? Have you thought that through?

Also by your 'look over there' logic, if there was a shooting today on bourke that killed five people, it shouldn't be covered because, you know a country with ten times as many people had one today where ten were killed

I reckon Scotty from Marketing is done.  Labor are going to form a majority government & the Libs are going to lose seats.  

But not littering costs nothing. If not littering costs another person their livelihood and perhaps an x ray machine at the local childrens hospital you might reconsider it.

The real domestic issue here is the tens of thousands of jobs, industry and billions in fossil fuel exports that will be lost HERE in Australia trying to achieve a rubbery target that will have no impact on reducing global temperatures. Everyone's in a massive rush to get to net zero but China is building over a hundred coal fire stations, and no one cares. Aren't we in a climate emergency? Isn't the world about to end? Why aren't you at China's embassy begging them to stop?

I wonder if CFC's were just discovered in 2022 whether they would have become a partisan issue.

Probably.

It might if the governments response was to destroy thousands of jobs, miss out in billions of exports and kill off our competitive advantage to salvage 0.0006% of the ozone layer. 

Well that's idiotic isn't it because without an earth to live on the economy becomes a redundant issue.

As for our % contribution we're well above the rest of the world in per capita emissions so we definitely should be doing something about it. Better to be inside the tent pissing out etc.

As for destroying jobs mining employs hardly anyone in relative terms these days. The problem with Luddites like you is you only see costs not opportunities. Even dopey old Scomo has come to the party recently and talked abut 'value adding' some of the shit we dig up. Well welcome to the 21st century Scotty.

Yeah, that massive employment powerhouse that is the coal industry. 

Never mind the fact that all calculations has the renewables industry at more than double the employment rates than coal. And we could've prepared for this 20 years ago.

But hey, at least when the world is no longer habitable, you can proudly say 'at least Matt Canavan's brother's investments weren't destroyed by the marxists'

We're above the world in "per capita" emissions because we create our own energy and we don't have a nuclear industry. If you balance for countries that import their energy (eg Norway import gas from Russia) and those countries which have developed nuclear industries like USA, Korea etc we fall back into the back, nothing to do with lack of investment in renewables. In fact we lead the world in solar generation per capita. So it's dishonest to rake us over the coals for our carbon per capita relative to other countries while refusing to discuss nuclear and waging war on fracking. Regardless the climate doesn't care about "per capita" emissions, it only sees emissions in absolute terms, and USA, China, India , Russia etc are the major culprits.

The problem with people like you is the opportunities you salivate over lack any detail. To date I haven't heard anyone rationally and affordably explain how we are going to phase our fossil fuels and transition to renewables without destroying our energy security and economy, instead the entire case for ending coal and gas production is based on wishy washy bullshit like "green energy revolution" and "climate emergency". What is your actual plan?

Yes with renewables there is a short term boon in employment during the  construction phase (at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars) but once the infrastructure is built those industries are virtually jobless.

Well it depends on who they get to manufacture, build and service all of these renewables doesn't it?

Circa 40k employed in the coal industry. https://www.statista.com/statistics/692159/australia-employment-in-coal-mining-industry/

1000% they'll need coal going into the future, particularly for steel, so they wouldn't be wiping out 40 thousand workers. Probably 30 thousand that need to be made redundant or retrained in other industries. Fairly manageable I would have thought, not being an expert and all, but the LNP might know. Well they would if they had a plan for a transition. (Even a long term one would do.)

I mean should we still mine asbestos because it employed people?

Commo website link here. https://theconversation.com/45-000-renewables-jobs-are-australias-for-the-taking-but-how-many-will-go-to-coal-workers-141531