"Australia needs a radio station catering for intelligence if it wants to be the Clever Country and stand respected internationally."

It's exactly that kind of patronizing elitism that turns people off.

I do detect the tone from the author that it is the customer's fault .. not the programming or the policies or politics of the ABC.

This is such a common theme these days, and instead f listening to what people want, the ABC tells people they are wrong .. Aunty knows best.

I'd be surprised if even 2% of the population listened, i reckon that's a huge exaggeration.

Bravo Valerie. I agree with all of that, especially the music though mercifully there's not too much of the rhythmnic, repetitive stuff that has driven me away from other stations. Radio National is full of gems and is well worth listening to most of the time, but it does need to address the issues which Valerie has raised, such as excessive promos. If the listening audience is indeed over 50 or 60, then RN should adapt their programming to that and not try and attract the Triple J audience.

I agree with most of this article , as a 66 year old who has been a daily listener to ABC Radio since childhood and a watcher of ABC TV since it commenced .
There has no doubt been a dumbing down of the ABC , particularly in comments by presenters promoting sporting contests , cars [ " we all love them "] and the alleged lifestyle choices of " all " Australians [ we all have bogan tastes , apparently ] .

Geraldine Doogue , who , 20 years ago , always presented intelligently , now increasingly seems to think that she has to appeal to a lower level of tastes .

In defence of the ABC , to which I continue to listen daily [ because I would prefer to switch off rather than listen to commercial radio ] I assume that presenters have been pressured to dumb down , because the ABC is constantly attacked for supposed elitism and for being listened to or watched by only a small percentage of the population .

Many people would happily see all ABC funding discontinued as the shock jocks tell those people what they want to hear and reality TV makes them feel good .

Unfortunately , although there are still many excellent TV and radio programs on ABC , the trend towards dumbing down continues and it may eventually lead to such a standard of program that nobody intelligent will watch or listen .

Those who now watch or listen to commercial media will not transfer to the ABC and the politicians will be able to close it down . The money thus saved will be available to be spent on bringing international sporting contests [ particularly car races ] to Australia .

In defence of commercial TV , it presents some classic old movies which I prefer to watch rather than most ABC TV reality programs , like cooking and lifestyle shows .

Doesn't Radio National have Phillip Adams?

If so, only an idiot could listen to it.

Hasbeen
Philip Adams has two faults. One is he supports Kevin Rudd. The other is that he tends to interrupt. But despite those two things, he's a national treasure.

Naa… ”Aunty” will live forever, she’s too available for “Government of the day” propaganda.

News Limited also has Phillip Adams and the predictable apoplectic responses to his 'being' is a national treasure.

Thanks Valerie for a very pertinent blog. The ABC, such as in Radio National, faces an uphill battle against a lot of forceful lobbying as it tries to maintain its charter with independence and integrity. It is the only avenue available to us for providing the spectrum it is obliged to cover. While it does not do this perfectly, and I wish it would do better, it is the best we have.
That it does not do better should be no surprise, given the extent of white-anting it undergoes from politicians left and right such as Hawke and Howard, and from the run-of-the-mill “think(?) tanks” with their rusted-on believers.
However it has always been a battle against efforts to nobble its independence. The degree to which this is so in previous times has been set out in stark factuality by David McKnight in his article Broadcasting and the enemy within (readily available on the web)

Quote: "People of all degrees of intelligence could listen to particular programs that appealed to them – the Science Shows are one example".

Apart from music "to relax to" while driving, I never listen to radio, ABC, shock-jocks or anything in-between. Why would a Science Show appeal when I can learn what I want to know far faster, in greater depth and more specifically by reading?

Quote: "we should all contribute our taxes to keeping it going".

We do, we have to. But should? Why? So a tiny minority can listen to something the vast majority have rejected? Unfair.

I realise we all contribute our taxes to other causes of no interest, but why should we lesser intelligent mortals pay for something for the "ten per cent of the population (that) has high intelligence".

As someone who works in the media, Valarie's article is too much about academics controlling a media outlet to give content which they think intelligent people, who ever they may be, want to consume.

However, to her credit Valerie does point out that there are no accessible listener surveys, so there is no objective measure of whether the radio station is actually meeting the needs of these 'intelligent' people.

It may very well be that the listener surveys are not readily available because they give results which those controling the content of this outlet do not want to accept. The usual response of free thinking academics to inconvenient real-world results, is to dismiss them unreliable.

Quote: "Australia needs a radio station catering for intelligence if it wants to be the Clever Country and stand respected internationally"

Not radio, but when I worked in Asia for several years I gained an insight into the international respect earned by the ABC's Asia TVcast.

The jerks at the ABC chose to use our taxes to broadcast Australia's nation disgrace, Question Time. More than once I was asked along the line of "are they drunk?". That was back in Keating's day - QT has improved marginally, but has the ABC?

1. ""Australia needs a radio station catering for intelligence if it wants to be the Clever Country and stand respected internationally." It's exactly that kind of patronizing elitism that turns people off."
We do not condemn elitism in anything else - sports for example. It is not patronizing, it is common sense to keep the best of everything for the benefit of all.

2, " I do detect the tone from the author that it is the customer's fault .. not the programming or the policies or politics of the ABC."
As the author, I am blaming the policies of the ABC, and not the customers. That is the point of the article. Your detection is incorrect. You have not read the article all through adequately.

The reason for declining interest in Radio National and the rest of the ABC is simple: everything they can do, the Internet can do better. And cheaper. But -- harking back to the title of the article for a moment -- let's not forget their manifest bias in favour of AGW hysteria and other politically correct causes, which is rapidly destroying any credibility that have left.

See, for instance:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=robyn+williams

the music on Radio National is just awful.
If we wanted to hear only foreign music (90 percent of radio national music) we would tune into ethnic stations.

The ABC needs a good shake up.
It is a known fact that only Gay males and gay women are employed at the ABC TV and radio.

Heterosexual people need not bother seeking employment at the ABC
as they are immediatly rejected.
And they never learn the real reason that they are rejected.

Also corruption is rife at the ABC.

They could survive on just ten million dollars a year (which is much more than channel 31 TV in melbourne and various non profit radio stations all combined have for their budgets)

But the ABC has an unbelievable budget of ONE BILLION DOLLARS !

There is no real accountability and there is open slather embezzlement.
Outrageous, but many departments are like that.
The defence department has massive corruption with tens of billions wasted or embezzled.

Dear Valerie, the 98% of Australian’s that do not listen to ABC Radio National are very smart. I’m not sure what is meant by “intelligent programming” or how this contributes to “reducing the intelligence of the nation”. What I could suggest is that it is the ABC that is dragging the anchor chain in news and current affairs. Primarily because it sees only what “it” wants to see. Which leaves the ABC in isolation from majority public sentiment, the numbers confirm this.

Privatize the ABC or the 2% should fund it. They are a bunch of dysfunctional, ideological, festering sleazebags that do not deserve to be supported by the democracy they abuse.

Popnperish, I see that you are taking Phillip Adams at his own valuation of himself.

I wonder if he has any idea of what goes on in the world. He obviously can't see anything, blinded as he is by his own brilliance.

>>If 10 percent of Australians are smart, how is it that only 2 percent of them listen to Radio National?>>

Maybe your premises are wrong.

Maybe the reality is that 98% of Australians are smart and the 2% that are stupid listen to Radion National.

Hey spindoc. I am one of the "dysfunctional, ideological, festering sleazebags that do not deserve to be supported by the democracy they abuse" and I am proud to be so. I work in education so I may be educating your children or grandchildren. Be very scared as I will try to teach them tolerance and respect for all.

I love Radio National and find most other radio stations difficult to bear. I do pay a lot of taxes and subsidies to other forms of media through increased prices due to advertising. Don't think other media comes for free, we all pay for it, just more honestly for the ABC

Look folks, its pretty simple really. As per the well researched statistics in this article, 10% of Austrlians are smart and the smartest 20% of those listen to RN.

Since I listen to RN that proves that I'm smart and all those commentors above who don't listen to RN are, by definition, not smart and ought to just shut-the-hell-up.

Just sit back and do as your betters tell you. Strewth, is that so hard?

Then we, the 10%, can get on with doing things to save the country like spending your money on programming that WE approve. That's the path to a clever country..you 90%ers will just have to take my word for that because its to hard for us smart-ones to explain it to you unsmart ones (I don't want to use the word 'dumb' because it might upset you 90%ers...we 10% are sooo considerate).

So enjoy Masterchief in the knowledge that the elite are getting on with it.

fancynancy,

You are not the subject of the comments I directed at the ABC because you are a teacher not an ABC employee. One has to wonder what you are doing teaching any children when you can’t master reading and comprehension.

There are two possible reasons for your reaction one, that you have not mastered the basics of English or two, you did not “read” the content of the post just the “emotion”.

You also add that I should “Be very scared as I will try to teach them tolerance and respect for all”. Now that would be a novelty and you should indeed “try” to do that. In the meantime I suspect you are one of the “progressives” that are frightening the pants of my grandchildren with the impending doom and gloom predictions of climate change.

And yes I am very scared about that, scared by the fact that my daughter and her husband are having a monumental conflict with their school principle at the distress inflicted upon their children. The principle was asked to provide answers to some questions related to climate change, otherwise to stop distressing their kids with this nonsense.

Interestingly, a number of other parents are now joining this challenge. So if you are indeed one of those responsible for teaching ideological dogma to grandkids like mine, then you are eligible to be inducted into the “dysfunctional, ideological, festering sleazebags” club.

God forbid that you are teaching English.

Charming, spindoc...."dysfunctional, ideological, festering, sleazebags' club".

Just goes to show that being proficient in language doesn't automatically bestow on one a sense of constructive civility.

You've obviously been listening to too much commercial radio where amongst the vacuous platitudes, words like dysfunctional, ideological, festering and sleazebag abound with odious regularity.....you should try listening to Radio National - it might lift your game.

The lady writes "only ten per cent of the population has high intelligence." She didn't say anything about being 'smart' but there seems to be a lot of discussion about this topic.

She bases her claim on the results of studies using IQ tests that show that there is a range of abilities that we categorise as 'intelligence' - in all human populations or groups. The majority of people fall into the average category, 10 percent are well below average and 10 percent are well above average.

It doesn't make them better people - or 'smart'; this isn't a term that has been defined so we all understand what it means, anymore than being able to run fast means you are a better person than others. It doesn't mean one is a better person but it does mean that some people have the capacity to understand some things better than others. But like naturally fast runners, they need to work at using their intelligence for it to be of benefit. Perhaps, the lady is saying that the ABC provides somewhere for these people to go where they can run fast.

It is unfortunate that the highly intelligent people who don't like the politics of the ABC refuse to acknowledge that it is a progressive part of Australian public life.

It's really useful to understand what people are actually saying before one attacks them. It seems to me that if you want others to understand your own point of view, you need to understand theirs so you can effectively change what they believe. But perhaps it's too difficult to do this and it's easier to 'abuse' people with a different understanding of the world and the way things work?

If you do want to persuade other people that your view is the right one - or even a better one - it's useful to define the terms. Studies have shown that we don't all understand 'critical' words like 'intelligence' and 'smart' in the same way. We are all individuals and construct our own idiosyncratic understandings based on unconscious emotional responses.

I hardly ever actually listen to the radio, but it seems I subscribe to about a quarter of Radio National's shows by Podcast. Future Tense, Late Night Live, Big Ideas, etc are all great podcasts. The advantage is you can listen to them when you want to, pause them, play them back again if you missed a bit or just want to listen to a great podcast again a year on.

And you don't have to download the titles you're not interested in.

So I'm wondering if they are also counting how many people listen to their podcasts? A lot of my blogging is provoked by these great shows and spreading awareness of them around the net in very interesting discussions.

If you are going to cast aspersions at my general literacy and comprehension spindoc, you had better get someone to proof read your own work first. I understood perfectly what you were trying to say and was just expressing some comradely solidarity with the ABC workers.

fancynancy, yep! just like Poirot, last paragraph grab and ignore the rest of the post. We know what you were saying and your confirmation said it all, you were just “expressing some solidarity with the ABC workers”. Now where have I heard that expression before? Link school teacher and the ABC and we know exactly where you are heading.

To quote some students - sucked in spindoc!

Hey Fancy Nancy,

'I am one of the "dysfunctional, ideological, festering sleazebags that do not deserve to be supported by the democracy they abuse" and I am proud to be so. I work in education so I may be educating your children or grandchildren. Be very scared as I will try to teach them tolerance and respect for all.'

If you are working in public schooling ... I'm paying both your wages and your taxes.

If you are making a judgement on what constitutes tolerance and of what needs respecting, I am greatly perturbed by the fact you cannot see the truth of your own admissions.

Some people are completely blind to their own idiocies.

"Some people are completely blind to their own idiocies."

....like going by the tag "imajulianutter", for instance : )

I'm a devotee of Radio National, and it is a little elitist rather than populist in its content. Are the conservatives suggesting it should be dumbed down for them?
Ah, so the tall poppies are the left wingers? Of course they are!
Hasbeen,
Phillip Adams is a little banal and conformist these days, but what can you expect from a "small l Liberal"?
I'm sure you much prefer the large L loonies like Alan Jones.

Phillip Adams is appalling these days. He interrupts and wheezes, patronises everyone, and he thinks he is more interesting than the guest. I used to love him but 'things have changed' - lyrics from a Dylan song. But the blokes on Counterpoint are even more irritating with their patronising attitude toward 'the left' - when they don't understand 'the left' at all - but they do play some great music.

I read faster than I can listen and also it seems to be easier for me to dampen my knee-jerk emotional reactions if I read the transcripts.

It is clear from research that some people process visual information better than auditory information. That's another way - apart from differences in 'intelligence' - that human brains differ significantly.

We are all different and have different abilities. We need to encourage diversity in our society as it is essential for progress and RN does provide a diverse range of programs.

When anyone comes out with the expression that a broadcaster can “raise the intelligence of the nation”, I begin to marvel at the “intelligence” behind such a farcical assertion. There is a buried assumption that somehow intelligence is acquired.

Education is acquired, so is training, knowledge and skills. IQ is a measurable quotient that has a scale. What school or University, anywhere on the planet teaches intelligence?

Intelligent programming? What an absolute crock of rubbish.

A better description might be a niche market product. Which is a product specifically created and targeted at a minority of a like minded consumer base.

What we are actually talking about here is the fabrication of an illusion that somehow, by listening to a narrow set of “intellectualized” social values, we establish superior intelligence.

No, we create ideological elitism which in turn serves to hide their missing elements, reason, common sense and intelligence.

I think some have been a little too quick to dismiss Radio National.

Where else on public radio (apart from 2SER) might you find programs like:
The Science Show (other stations coverage of science is practical non-existent )
The Philosophers Zone
The Book Show
Poetica
Lingua Franca
Ockham’s Razor

What we need to do is distinguish the wheat from the chaff: winnow out the bias.

At times the Science Show takes on shades of a comedy caper as Robyn Williams tries to coax, cajole, lead, beg his interviewees into
saying something (anything!) that lends credence to the official IPCC line on AGW.
And most times Australia Talks sounds more like the ABC Sermonises --but overall it makes a positive contribution.

What we need to do is take back Radio National, & the ABC generally. So that it talks for and to the majority of Australians, and NOT just for the Eclipse Now’s , Fancy Nancy's Poirot's & Squeer’s.Make it trully representative, trully objective. Then it will win more listeners, and then we’ll be well on our way to becoming a cleverer country.

<< Are the conservatives suggesting it should be dumbed down for them? >>

Ha ha ha ha ha, a good belly laugh on a Sunday morning is the best medicine.

Am writing this while listening to Background Briefing.

However, I did find Valerie Yule's article somewhat pretentious and not at all endearing to those who may be potential listeners to RN. There is a wide range from the religious to the scientific, I listen regularly to the Science Show and don't understand SPQR's issues with it at all. But that's the point - each to their own.

RN covers a diversity of topics; no one can please all the people all the time, but RN manages something for everyone and would hate to see it dumbed down to the banality of commercial radio.

I gravitated to RN after listening to state capital ABC radio and then News Radio.
Admittedly over the past year, I haven't listened or watched much electronic media at all (save for news online). Prior to that it was exclusively Radio National - mainly because it suited me. If I was doing something, I just tuned in. Most programs get you thinking, you learn things, form opinions and generally ruminate on the content...it's the same reason I come to OLO.
My mother listens exclusively to commercial radio (as I did when I was young). So when I visit her, that's what's on. Endless commercials and excitable blather - the only highlight is when I hear a favoured song from long ago which I haven't heard for years....which is some consolation, I suppose.

SPQR it takes trust to listen to the ABC today. Unfortunately that trust is mostly misplaced.

No one can know all that much about everything. Unfortunately that appears to be even more the fact with the ABC, & something the programmers depend on. They often put the most utter rubbish to air as fact.

At a recent gathering of half a dozen quite well educated, & very experienced old blokes ABC's Quantum came up. This was always one of their better efforts.

However what we found, almost with out exception recently, was that when a topic where we had real expertise was examined we all found the same thing. Most of what was stated as fact was mostly poppycock. It appeared that the problems were equally divided between presenters who did not have a clue, & where propaganda was being presented as fact.

This was particularly interesting, as the group had widely different experience gained post graduation, in the real world.

Many of us had assumed that the ABC just did not handle our areas well, but the rest was interesting & informative. This group showed how wrong we had been.

I still watch Quantum occasionally, just for fun, but find that when ever Robin Williams is involved in anything it is beat avoided. That is if you don't like propaganda dressed up as fact. Only a greenie, or a masochist would listen to the science show these days.

For those who complain that RN is elitist and biased, there are always alternatives - community radio stations which receive no government or big business funding and are supported by people and local small business. The variety of shows range as diversely as RN's. For example, Triple R is today running its annual funding drive. No excuse if you are not from Victoria as it podcasts all its shows. Currently Einstein au Go-go is on air, it is a science show which presents a broad range of peer reviewed established science. Of course if music is your thing, then you will hear local and independent music - none of that commercial, mainstream, but music that you may not have heard when released years ago to music that is contemporary.

While I am a subscriber to Triple R, I am not touting that station exclusively, check the following link to learn what is available in Australia for those who want truly independent thought, opinion and entertainment:

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/community-radio

@Eclipse Now: So I'm wondering if they are also counting how many people listen to their podcasts?

I was wondering about that too. Its a pity Valerie didn't provide a reference for that 2% figure so we could make our own judgements. I looked up how the survey's are done http://www.commercialradio.com.au/files/uploaded/file/2011%20Survey%20Guidelines/07_%20How%20Surveys%20are%20Conducted%20Nielsen%202011.pdf None mention podcasts or downloads. Maybe that is because it's for advertising. People don't always listen to ads on podcasts.

They may not be very relevant to advertisers, but they evidently are important to Radio National. When they were looking a reduce the number of programs a while back, they said they were going to can those with the fewest podcast downloads.

You can get a feel for why this might be so from this senate report http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/ABC.pdf (page 21). There were 42 million ABC podcasts downloaded from the ABC in 2009, growing by 19% per year. The local stations don't do podcasts, so I guess that would be RN podcasts.

Me - I don't listen to RN. When it comes to choosing mindless prattle to fill a void in the background noise, I'm with the 98% of Ozzies who think live radio does it so much better. But I do play an RN's podcasts most days, so I am little suspicious of how Valerie measures RN popularity.

rstuart,
yeah, good point — there's a *lot* of RN I wouldn't bother with live. But when I scan my various podcasts feeds in iTunes and notice some amazing new "Big Ideas" talk or something from LNL or the Science Show or the ABC Environment podcast (which scans across all the other shows to bring anything in environmental in from science, politics, rural news etc) then I'm covered.

The author responds just once .. to tell a "customer" reader/poster, they are wrong, when they say the ABC is blaming the customer.

What is at about mindsets and "tone"? That's just gorgeous!

"2, " I do detect the tone from the author that it is the customer's fault .. not the programming or the policies or politics of the ABC."

As the author, I am blaming the policies of the ABC, and not the customers. That is the point of the article.

Your detection is incorrect.

You have not read the article all through adequately."

Yes I did, and you have a very set position, and like the ABC, brook no dissent.

Also by the author, who must have been particularly sensitive that day

"We do not condemn elitism in anything else - sports for example. It is not patronizing, it is common sense to keep the best of everything for the benefit of all. "

Yes we do condemn elitism in sport, constantly .. where do you get your news from? Oh, of course RN .. explains your lack of knowledge of the sporting world, and not just in Australia.

Finally, it is patronizing, regardless of you being offended by that accusation, get over it .. the common perception in Australian society is the the ABC is elitist. The key word being, perception.

With 2%, evidently, of the available audience, they claim they are the intelligent corner of the radio world in Australia .. is that elitist or what?