Channel 7 have replaced Channel 9, not only in the ratings, but in pro-Liberal bias in their news reporting.

Consider this morning’s 10:30 news.

Channel 7 devoted about a minute to Kevin Rudd’s budget reply, promptly followed by a surprise interview with John Howard, in which he spent 3-4 minutes continually blasting Rudd and the ALP with a succession of empty comments. The newsreader (not bothering to contain her smirk) helped by asking our beloved PM hard-hitting questions along the lines of “Your campaign appears to have the momentum of a runaway freight train, why are you so popular?”.

This kind of journalism makes my stomach churn.

In other budget news, Kevin Rudd’s reply actually had more viewers than Costello’s budget announcement. No mention of this on the usual suspects.

Why am I not surprised?

(Cross-posted at BoltWatch)

Andrew Bolt, after exhaustively examining one transcript, thinks he has proved beyond all doubt that Maxine McKew was biased towards the Labor party while working as a journalist on ABC TV. You see, McKew — wait for it — asked hard questions of politicians appearing on her shows.

How dare she.

Bolta brings us a condensed version of some of the questions she asked John Howard in one interview on 13 August 2005. They were hard. Made Howard squirm. You know, like all leading politicians — regardless of political affiliation — should do when being interrogated by the press on behalf of citizens in a democracy. So in the interest of balance, here is a condensed version of some of the questions she asked now Labor leader Kevin Rudd on 11 August 2003.

Kevin Rudd, first of all to the news out of Brisbane this afternoon, the planning for joint military training for interdiction of — potentially, of course — North Korean vessels. Does the Labor Party support this?

OK, but if both those matters can be dealt with, do you agree with this? Would you agree that we can’t afford to do nothing when it comes to North Korea, particularly in the wake of the news that’s come out of South Korea in the last 24 hours?

But hang on, where is the truth in doubt here? The PM said correctly today that the Government’s case for being part of the coalition did not rest on the uranium question exclusively?

Hang on, Kevin Rudd. At the time when the PM made the statement to Parliament in early February, he was acting on the known information at the time. It wasn’t a month later, it wasn’t until March, rather, this year, that the IAEA went to the UN and said, “These documents are forged,” and equally, the PM today cited the fact that there was separate British intelligence about this.

Again, John Howard said not a key piece of information, he says, that in fact, what ONA had in January was one sentence in an 86-page document.

By the way, you didn’t disagree with that. Alexander Downer said on this program last night there was an international consensus about Saddam’s arsenal and you were part of that?

But can I say that’s a very loose allegation. What is it you are really claiming?

Bloody hell! Kruddy got it real easy there.

1) I want you to comment on the cricket I am watching, not constantly refer to your own playing days
2) I hate cliches and metaphors but hate them even more when they’re mixed and mangled
3) I enjoy listening to calm and modulated voices, not incomprehensible screeching at the slightest hint of action
4) Your jokes are really, really, really, unfunny
5) I know the rest of the Channel Nine commentary team is horribly biased but at least they make a cursory effort to hide it

Any others, readers?