Does Neil Mitchell want his program (Radio 3AW) known for its unsustainable assertions and biased specialist commentators?

There has a been big improvement over the last year in Neil Mitchell's program. Less sneering and an apparent effort to give a fairer hearing to those he disagrees with has made the program more listenable. I think his ratings reflect that. Nevertheless, there is still a residue of the old problems.

Firstly, important or critical assertions about the policies and actions of politicians should have clear evidence to back them. Claiming "wink wink nod nod" that John Howard knew all manner of things without providing the substantial evidence for the claim demeans the program. David Galbally and David Wright Neville are particularly guilty of this. And this is the second problem.

Specialist commentators should stick to the their specialty. What's the point, otherwise? Galbally (law commentator) and Wright Neville (international relations) are partial to put it mildly in their political views and, worse, their argument is often deplorably deficient. Let's have specialist political commentators for political matters. It would give more credibility to the program when such matters are broached. I for one don't need lessons from such outstanding members of the PC class.