I couldn't agrre with you more Ari, but just watch how many irate readers are going to shoot you down in flames for having the "temerity" to suggest changing their ABC.

At least Auntie tries to sift out an appraisal of what our increasingly unaccountable politicians are up to.Influenced by their masters, the commercial media has dropped the ball on political analysis.

Like the vicar's egg, Our ABC is half good, half bad. We need more Australian made content.
Programmes like 'Australian Story', 'Kimberly Cops' and some documentaries are excellent. 'Foreign Correspondent' and 'Four Corners' are winners.
Some of the trendy shows are awful but they must appeal to someone. We must have ABC with NO advertisements.
One excellent programme was 'Operatunity' where budding singers in England were given a chance to do their thing, why not have a programme where the amateur theatre groups could ,with a bit of help from wardrobe and props, stage plays and compete for a trophy.It would be interesting and challenging for such groups.
ABC must be more than current affairs and news, that would be as tedious as watching constant ads. There must be variety but let it be of value.

Spot on Ari - an excellent explanation of
a) the reasons why there is a good economic case for the public to fund the ABC, and
b) the yardstick that should be to judge what it should and should not be airing.

Alas, political and social pressure tends to mean that the ABC chases ratings almost as avidly as the commercial media. It seems plausible that accepting advertising would exacerbate this trend. I look forward to the day when the ABC can brag that its audiences are so small!

The free-to-air commercial stations make a buck selling audiences to advertisers, not selling programs to audiences, hence their financial incentive to program to the lowest common denominator. The "market failure" justification for public funding would diminish if Australia ever got a decent, competitive, unbundled commercial cable/satellite service (rather than the woeful Fox options at present). That looks a long way off, though.

Excellent Ari. Tell the Guv to keep their hands off auntie, or "we'll rip their bloody arms off, and we will too".

The ABC is a service to the people of Australia especially in keeping the Government accountable. This government inverts this like everything else with free speech, so now the ABC is a service to the Government agenda to keeping the people accountable to Government.

In other words, they refuse to keep our traditional "gentleman's arm's distance" from this service to the people, just like they refuse to keep an arms distance from the Australia Council, the Australian Film Commission, Universities, and schools. We have an anti-Australian Government in conflict with its own people.

If they kill auntie, we end up with Pravda. Pravda was the Soviet Government's voice, in translation meaning "truth". The problem is, many Australians still see the ABC being independent from the Government and believe it is the truth, and don't realise that they are being bullied by the Howard Government. The ABC staff do a great job, as well as can be expected under these conditions. In the Societ Union, however, no one believed it was truth, as they saw it for what it was.

The broader market idea is an absurd arguement. In its speciality, the ABC was giving a service private broadcasters couldn't offer. This gave the media overall diversity. Now they want a bonzai, the voice of Johnny Howard, laced with trashy real life TV. Maybe they will have something like Big Brother uplate now on the ABC, which would be like Howard chucking a real "brown-eye" to the audience, Abott having sex with even more Art Students, and Amanda Vanstone showing her...oh don't think about it, and Downer with his famous fish-net stockings doing the Time Warp, and making all drag queens puke. We know they want to. This Government perverted media, then perverts they are.

Auntie! Where's that black motor bike? Do your worst and showem the guardian over the people's voice. Is there any pride left in being Australian?

“It’s scandalous for the ABC to put its hand out for more money while simultaneously spending its existing funds so poorly.”

That is pure subjective opinion.

The next bit about broaden audience versus public outrage. Bit of a "bet each way".

“The reality is that at present the ABC can barely be distinguished from these commercial rivals.”

Motherhood statement – based on subjective opinion.

Finally “This is an important debate, but perhaps more fundamental is the debate over what role the ABC should perform: whether it should be an important component of a vibrant democracy, or a pale imitation of its commercial rivals. With a taxpayer-funded ABC blog devoted to the antics of Britney and Delta, it seems to be a debate that needs to be had.”

So why did you not address that “important debate” instead of whining on with so much pretentious drivel about scandals and subjective views on poor budgetary allocations?

You have spent an entire article criticizing those of the ABC who are employed to decide programme matters and (dare I say it) blog content. You have then suggested a “debate” on what should be discussed, doubtless that could be padded out with points of procedural order.

What you could have done and what might have been a more crative deployment of your time, would have been to use this article to make some creative suggestions or some statement of "directional agenda" which could then be the subject of genuine debate.

Brittany or Delta, who cares what is on an obscure blog somewhere, likewise balancing Kath and Kim to Nightline to Compass or Songs of Praise.
Be ready to suggest alternatives before you start tearing down what is, otherwise the ABC will have no need at all for any budget to create scandals from.