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.