Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Bias in the ABC


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Consensus seems to be that this article is a coatrack for non-NPOV comments about a broadcasting company. One possible alternative to this article would be to start an article on Australian Broadcasting Corporation controversies to document controversial events related to the company, rather than a random list of cherry-picked negative comments about the company. That would, of course, depend on whether there actually have been documented controversies, and if the description of those controversies are too long to fit in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article itself. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of Bias in the ABC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is based only on an editorial. It is clearly an unremarkable WP:EVENT. I am One of Many (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Allegation of bias within the ABC is always a topic of remarkable attention regardless of which side a person belongs to. Let wiki contributors add SUBSTANTIATED evidence as they see fit. What is remarkable is that user "I am One of Many" wants to delete a page that was created less than 20 minutes ago and pre-determines a deletion before the page can be completed. Sub judice comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear WP:COATRACK designed solely to drive readers to an anti-ABC blog to find out more. All three sources are to op-ed pieces, one behind a paywall. Certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOV by any yardstick.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC

The page was created only 20 minutes ago and there are still citations to be added. It is amazing that in that time there are already calls for the page to be deleted before it is even completed. Is this the usual behaviour from people not wanting the truth to be seen? Or should we have all the information collected before creating the page? I thought it usual for Wiki to have a "page under progress" at the top of a new wiki entry?
 * An account created just 5 minutes ago making the same point as ABCWatch...hmm--I am One of Many (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The person making this accusation is steadfastly lying. This wiki page is most certainly not built on an editorial. In fact it is in the process of being built and added to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.73.19 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — 124.191.73.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The other page that was created earlier had a wrong title; please feel free to delete as this was created in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.232.65 (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — 60.224.232.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is not an editorial as the ABC have investigated these claims as well. Their former Chairman has also complained about bias and the issue has been the note of many academic papers; it is relevant, current and contentious which makes it perfectly fit for a wiki article.ABCWatch (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"*An account created just 5 minutes ago making the same point as ABCWatch...hmm--" Well yes that's true given I have to create a Wiki account to add information into the Wiki page. And given I have never created a Wiki page before I wonder why the paranoia about a new account?
 * Snow delete - Clear Coatrack - just get it out of here. Mdann52 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is a WP:COATRACK apparently set up to attack a media organization by assembling opinions of politically motivated sources. It consists mostly of original research by an editor who seems to have a close connection with a blog. I have attempted to clean up the article by removing potential BLP violations and content that is not supported by the sources. - MrX 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This seems completely analogous to the Fox/BBC etc controversies pages and should be transferred to an analogous page in my opinion. The title as it currently exists seems rather tendentious.Markbenjamin (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. We do have Fox News Channel controversies, an article which might suffer from the same problem this one does, although there certainly are quite a few critics.  We have an even more extensive list of BBC controversies.  But then this is my US-centric viewpoint: my actual point is that a major, national news organization is almost certain to have critics whose views get reported in reliable sources, and the ABC probably qualifies.  And yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF: but there does seem to be precedent for an article of this kind.  My inclination is to move this to something like Australia Broadcasting Corporation controversies and keep it.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Al Jazeera controversies and criticism - CBS News controversies and criticism - CNN controversies - MSNBC controversies - Press TV controversies - Viacom criticisms and controversies - Category:RTÉ controversies - NPR controversies - Criticism of ESPN - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Moving it to Australia Broadcasting Corporation controversies seems reasonable in principle, but it only has one reliable source as of now and that is an editorial. The articles cited in the comment indented above this cites articles with an average of at least 50 sources.  So, I don't think the article would be notable yet.  Another option would be to move it  Australia Broadcasting Corporation controversies and then userfy, which would give the editor time to accumulate sufficient examples of controversies to make such an article notable.  I still strongly lean towards deleting it since if sufficient controversy is eventually generated about Australia Broadcasting Corporation, then such an article could be created, but as of now, we have no such evidence.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, and definite keep. The article's been expanded at least a little since it was nominated.  As it stands now, it no longer relies on a single editorial.  I did do a rather perfunctory search for opinion pieces about the broadcaster in the Australian papers.  What I discovered, mostly, was the depth of my ignorance about Australia's lively politics.  I am not the right person to interpret these texts for Wikipedia.  What I will report is that useful material exists.  The right person to present this material will follow Australian controversies more attentively than I do: fortunately we have a volunteer.  They may not be disinterested; but they may be able to learn to move towards neutrality, and we should help.  What I am convinced of is that there is for better or worse an established precedent that major news outlets have separate articles about controversies and criticisms.  All of these articles could be called coatracks for attacks, for the same reason.  Reporting the news attracts controversy and accusations of bias.  There will be so much material on notable ones in relatively free countries that smooshing all of the verifiable facts back into the articles in chief would give rise to undue weight problems.  I'm not a fan, but these articles are probably inevitable.  And I am also convinced that the ABC is a media outlet and news source of enough consequence that lack of the article modestly begun here would look like bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:I think it is a definite keep given the fact that, as I intended, the page is to show both sides of the argument and only substantiated evidence (not editorials) should be used. It is not a page for trashing the ABC but informing people of this lively debate through authoritative sources User:ABCWatch —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:I think MrX has done a good job of cleaning up the BLP's. I think that fact that user User:I am One of Many says "we have no such evidence" is a rather subjective viewpoint and that creation of such a page will only help inform readers of the ongoing debate. It is multi-sided after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.130.37.17 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have tidied up some sections with quotes and MADE SURE to include the ABC Director's comments that he thought claims such as these were "insulting." The page has to be substantiated!!! I keep saying this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC) --202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC) — 202.0.15.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: Allegations of ABC bias is a long running political issue, with both sides of politics accusing the other of undue influence at "Aunty": for instance, in the Howard conservative government, allegations were made of "Board Stacking", as a reference refer to the Labor Party's 2010 legislation to reinstate the position of a Staff-selected director. "Under the new process, recommendations for the appointment of ABC and SBS directors will be made by an independent panel who will provide a short list to the communications minister, currently Stephen Conroy, who will hand down the final decision." (ibid). Clearly, if allegations of bias and conflicting interests were not an issue at the ABC (ie, just "a matter of opinion") such legislative actions would have been unnecessary and unwarranted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC) — 202.0.15.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete This seems like an unnecessary fork - the Australian Broadcasting Corporation currently covers this material, and could potentially be expanded to include anything worthwhile from this new one. To some extent, the History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation also covers some of this issue, although the main ABC article seems a better place. If there was more to build on I'd agree with Smerdis of Tlön that a more general controversies article may prove to be the way to go, but for the moment I'd merge any relevant material back into the main article and stick with that. - Bilby (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to my !vote above, in watching this article develop over the last few days, it seems to have become clear as to where the problems lie. The article was created specifically to push an agenda, which was to demonstrate the perceived bias in the ABC's coverage of certain issues, and this has become a bit more pronounced now that we're had a request from Andrew Bolt's blog to save the article. The problem is not that we shouldn't cover the topic, but that the article is relying on a lot of original research, unsourced general claims, and claims not supported by the sources. If we pull out the essence of the article, and bring it down to reliably sourced and relevant considerations of the topic, the result is probably only three or so paragraphs, at best, which could be easily kept in the main article. The concern here is, to use a cliche, that of putting the cart before the horse - if we improve coverage in the main article, in relation both to bias and controversies in general, we can spin out an article when we have the content to warrant it. By spinning it out now, when there is insufficient valid content make it viable, will, at best, do little more than remove or duplicate material best covered in the main article. And at worst, we're creating a magnet for original research, biased claims, and fluff, which is pretty much where it has been heading over the last few days. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Contrary to the claim of User:Bilby, there is plenty of evidence to go on. This issue has been the scrutiny of the ABC itself, Parliament, Committee hearings and many academic works. You cannot simply write off a wikipedia page because it does not have enough information on it yet. Merging it onto another page would detract from the importance of that other page. For example, the "History of the ABC" has nothing to do with this page. Please check other precedents with Al Jazeera controversies and criticism - CBS News controversies and criticism - CNN controversies - MSNBC controversies - Press TV controversies - Viacom criticisms and controversies - Category:RTÉ controversies - NPR controversies - Criticism of ESPN and numerous other media outlets. These pages are not contained on the History of Fox pages! User:ABCWatch
 * I guess it depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, questions as to the bias of a major media outlet are important, and if well sourced should be a significant part of making the article on the media outlet neutral. As such, I'm not comfortable with shunting them off to a separate article, effectively moving them out of direct sight, unless there are other reasons why it is necessary. A spin out article puts a lot of emphasis on the question, but at the same time removes it from the main flow. I don't think that the amount of content we have here justifies that. - Bilby (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not an unnecessary fork: the article is about allegations of bias and other controversies - not about substantiating actual bias or otherwise. Further, the article could serve as a summary of said allegations. Again, it is not about providing evidence of bias, since the allegation of ABC bias is a noteworthy political and historical issue in itself. The page should be kept and the notice of possible deletion removed.--202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Keith Windshuttle appointment in 2006 created quite a lot of controversy on its own and was another shot in the long runnig "culture wars". I think the depth of discussion possible on this topic will be lost in the ABC main entry or history entry.--202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Allegations of bias of Foo would require thousands of articles. Wikipedia does, often, tend towards FACTS with sometimes a controversy section down towards the bottom where the content of this article belongs Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bias (in the title) pretending to be a proper noun could be a dead giveaway? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Pointless collections of vague criticisms do not belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. So far this article doesnt have any substance. If the creator wishes to develop the content into something credible, they should do it in WP:userspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User:John Vandenberg I would like to ask: Since when is Australia's Parliament, its committees and reports not credible? Or what about the ABC's own internal reports and reviews on bias? I think it is a little premature of you to be calling for a delete when the page has just started and will require more additions. Every other news organisation has a similar page so why not the ABC? Or, as is being advocated here, are they above such scrutiny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs)
 * ABCWatch, I did not say that "Australia's Parliament, its committees and reports [are] not credible". It is this article which I believe isn't credible.  "are they above such scrutiny?" is frankly ridiculous - Wikipedia obviously has no problem with articles containing criticism of the media (and articles containing criticism of Wikipedia).  The fact is that criticisms of the ABC are far and few between (in comparison to some other media providers), and those criticisms are already documented in several Wikipedia articles where the criticism is most relevant (such as ABC Board). Little effort has been put into pulling the criticisms together into a unified topic, so all we have is a quite short and not comprehensive section at "Australian Broadcasting Corporation".  It is probably possible to tie the criticisms together into a separate page, but will require significant effort to be properly contextualised and neutral.  The point that people are making here is that Wikipedia has a high-bar to accepting articles devoted to criticism, and the people voting delete here think that this article that you started doesn't yet meet that high-bar, and "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" needs to be expanded first.  Please read "WP:POVFORK".  Also, a "Allegations of bias in the ABC" topic is (I believe) not a useful scope for a new page.  Compare with CNN controversies, where "Allegations of bias" is just a section of the broader topic.  I think you would be better able to justify a separate topic under the title "Criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation", but you'll need to do quite a bit of work to demonstrate that there are enough criticisms to warrant a separate page.  While I dont believe this article is currently good enough to be part of the main area of Wikipedia, I do think you should be able to continue developing this topic in "wp:userspace" (please read that page).   IMO you would be better off writing articles about a few specific controversies which are well documented, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's coverage of the Iraq war which is what the 2011 research paper from the Parliamentary Library focused on (see History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation).  Once a few controversies have been written about, it will be easier to demonstrate that there is a need to have an overarching topic to pull them all together. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Include mention of critics that the ABC is too right wing, such as Andrew Leigh and that Labor Senator I can't recall.GuyIncognito (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the various points raised by John Vandenberg - and noting very carefully that the article content as it stands is better framed in the ABC article section Politics and Criticism. sats 10:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not that "Little effort" has been pulled together to complete the page - but as with many pages, remains a work in progress. There have been 3-5 internal ABC reports on themselves and allegation of bias over the last 15 years which could all be included in here (some of which find left bias, other right bias). It can remain under the umbrella ABC page but I think it will expand in which case you'll be arguing that it is not relevant to that umbrella page! I note again that every other media outlet has a "controversy" section - why not the ABC?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per John Vandenberg's argument above. An article on 'allegations of bias' has a much too narrow focus, and is basically set up to promote one view (it's a bit like having an 'Allegations of John Smith mistreating his dog' article; no matter what the different views are and the truth of the matter, the 'allegations' are going to be the focus of the article). If people want to write about this kind of topic, it would be best to start off with an article on 'Perceptions of the ABC' or similar which presents all sides of the story rather than to start off with an article focused on one side (eg, if you want to write something on this topic, you need to trace the history of how the ABC has been seen, and note its fairly solid standing as a news outlet - as demonstrated by polls which typically find it to be the most trustworthy news source in Australia). Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want to quote the authoritative source of the poll which shows that you can post it! It helps the relevance of the page!!!
 * Delete, a classic WP:COATRACK article, clearly intended to promote the author's view that the ABC is a hotbed of lefty bolshie brainwashing. The "source" of this is a whole bunch of inane bleating by right-wing commentators on the payroll of the ABC's commercial rivals.  It is potentially a valid topic for an article, but if so the article would have to be junked and rewritten anyway to remove the bias.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
 * --202.0.15.181 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Perhaps a page on allegations of bias in the ABC Allegations of Bias page?

--202.0.15.181 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I'd settle for an "ABC Controversies" page with "Allegations of Bias" as a significant section (if there is enough to go on). Keep this page until the "ABC Controversies" page is ready to go, with a notice that this page is to be shifted sometime into the future once a volunteer fills out the broader topic. In the meantime, you have a volunteer for at least the "Allegations of Bias" section. Also, the Allegations of ABC Bias page should include reference to the fact that the creation of the page itself was jumped on for deletion within 5 minutes by ABC sympathisers on Wikipedia. Comment: I think that the page should be given time to develop. There appears to be the basis of an argument that is supported by material from both sides. As it grows there is enough information around to be cited covering both sides of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl Richards (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this page is very relevant and definitely needs to stay. I think the only people here with a suspicious motive are those wanting to close it down. This page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.13.238 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that it has generated so much conversation is proof of it being needed as a page!!!!!!!!
 * Delete As there is no empirical evidence at all to back up the claim. The allegation of political bias is based solely on the confirmation bias of those making the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Door 2nd (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * --202.0.15.181 (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Keep: Read all of the comments on this page, Bill. The Labor government itself passed legislation to address what it saw as bias in the appointment of board directors. Further, are you saying that all and any accusations of political bias are based in confirmation bias? Do you have research to support that claim. It seems your own comment is unsubstantiated by empirical evidence.

Keep: This page seems a wholly reasonable article for Wikipedia. There are accusation of bias, as there are retorts of balance. This appears to be a prominent debate in Australia, one that various institutions including academia, parliament and the press have tackled, as such it should be kept and developed. Ddragovic (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The board was stacked by a conservative government with conservatives. This stacking had no effect on ABC content. Unless of course you want to argue that the ABC has a Left wing bias. Recent polls showed that more than 70% of Australians believe that ABC funding is either right or in need of an increase. This would indicate the most Australians do not consider the ABC to be bias.

Keep: The article is on 'allegations of bias' not bias so many of the above arguments wanting proof of bias fall. Similar pages exist for other broadcasters, the material would swamp the main ABC article if included there, issues with the text can be dealt with by editing, and the topic passes all Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Rsloch (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

keep I am writing an assignment on media bias in Australia and more pages like this would be very helpful. ≠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.232.65 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

KEEP - The ABC is a taxpayer-funded entity and must be open to public scrutiny. Removal of articles related to this scrutiny can only be regarded as malicious censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.31.147 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.