In today's 'Biased media and AGW' post,

we have this:
THE chairman of the ABC, Maurice Newman, has told about 250 leading journalists, program-makers and managers at the ABC that the media had displayed "group-think" on the issue of climate change in a speech that led to a feisty exchange with senior journalists and forced managing director Mark Scott to try to smooth the waters.
What horrible things did he say to cause such upset?
He warned ABC staffers that he would not tolerate anyone suppressing information, citing the fact that a BBC science correspondent knew for a month before the scandal broke of damaging emails at the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighting the politicised nature of climate science but did not report them.

Mr Newman said the Guardian newspaper had noted that the moment climatology is sheltered from dispute, its force begins to wane.

"Which raises an important question for a media organisation," Mr Newman said in the speech obtained by The Australian. "Who, if anyone, decides what to shelter from dispute? And when?

"Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public's trust in us being undermined."
Bingo. Exactly. And a big reason why so many people no longer believe what comes out of most of the major media on this. But such words can't be allowed to go unchallenged, of course.
Sources said the speech drew an immediate rebuke from the ABC's Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes, who rose to his feet and said he was angered by Mr Newman's remarks.

Sources said Holmes had told Mr Newman he was wrong to assert that sceptics were silenced on the ABC. Holmes declined to comment when contacted by The Australian.
I'll bypass the facts brought out in the recent past about media doing exactly that, and focus on what comes next:
ABC science journalist Bernie Hobbs also spoke, supporting Holmes's view and saying the ABC could not give undue weight to the sceptics and thereby push a sceptics' agenda.
'Undue weight'? These clowns spent years either not reporting on 'skeptics' at all or calling them names('bought by Big Oil', 'not a Real Scientist', etc.), so it's become 'giving undue weight' to actually honestly report on what someone has to say if they're a skeptic of AGW?

You'll notice that kissing the ass of and promoting every AGW nutcase and dishonest scientist out there isn't considered 'giving undue weight', oh no.