The Government wants 'balance' in ABC reporting, but suppresses information it does not want aired.

The former Federal Communications Minister, Richard Alston, went to considerable lengths when in office to attack the ABC over what he alleged was biased coverage of the war in Iraq. Although he has now left the political scene, the allegations of bias continue to come from the government and its supporters.

This is not new. The Hawke Labor government savagely attacked the ABC for bias over its coverage of the first gulf war. Now, however, the assault on the ABC's 'bias' has become more wide-ranging. Maurice Newman, chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, took these concerns to the ABC Board, arguing that the ABC should be monitored for bias. The media monitoring agency, Rehame, was hired to audit the ABC's 'output' in the lead-up to a federal election.

Rehame's appointment was revealed on Media Watch, and Newman promptly resigned from the ABC board, blaming ABC staff board representative Ramona Koval for leaking news of the appointment. The appointment of Rehame to monitor bias (to say nothing of the attempt to keep this expenditure secret) is new, and raises fundamental questions about free speech.

The idea of 'bias' presupposes some 'centre' or 'norm', departure from which gives rise to the allegation of 'bias'. The underlying assumption is that the ABC should be equally weighted towards the 'left' and the 'right' or, in today's terms, 'Labor' and the 'Coalition'.

In other words, the ABC should position its commentators and coverage so that they 'balance' midway between these two positions.

A moment's reflection suggests that this is absurd. On any given issue, there will potentially be multiple points of view and many philosophical responses. Indeed, on many issues - even contentious ones - the major parties are as one. On other issues the fault lines pass right through both major parties.

There is a further dimension of absurdity in the illusion that bias can be 'measured'. Once you impose a template, perhaps it may be measurable but the reality is that human thought is full of shades and variations and is incapable of mathematical calculation. To show how people might vote is one thing. To show whether someone has picked the mid point in various debates another.

The government's involvement in the war in Iraq was highly questionable. Where appropriate, it is for the media, including the ABC, to question such matters. The government has access to the media and can voice its opinion. It should not try to stifle the opinions of others by requiring them to walk the non-existent tightrope of 'balance'.

The position of the government is further illuminated by its record in relation to supply of information to the public. Peter Reith lied in relation to the 'children overboard' affair, and did so during an election campaign. Moreover, the government silenced the military officers involved, and has gone to great lengths to keep the media from seeing its actions in relation to the Tampa, in relation to Nauru and in detention centres. How can there be a complaint of bias when 'one side' of the argument (assuming two sides) is not available to be criticised because information has been suppressed?

There are complaints which can legitimately be made about political coverage by journalists - getting facts wrong, poor research, failing to interview those most adversely affected by the powerful, lazily accepting government PR as 'news', confusing fact and comment - even, for that matter, seeking to present complex matters in terms of polarised positions. The list could go on. But the complaints about bias, and the continuing attempts to give substance to those complaints, are fallacious. They are based on subjective perspectives on reality, which are then used to attack other subjective perspectives. Complaints about bias radically simplify the positions people take.

More importantly, these complaints are calculated to influence coverage by journalists and commentators in favour of the powerful interests who do the complaining.

The complaints about bias on the ABC should be seen for what they are: an attempt to restrict public debate on issues of importance, and so compromise our democracy.

Brian Walters V Pres Free Speech Victoria The Age 22jun04