Good morning all,

@Rhian: Yes, the wording of the questions was not the issue. Concerns were (1) timing of the pro-Coalition promotion, (2) failure to indicate it was a party political announcement by the Liberal Party, and (3) no equal time offered to Labor.

@Spindoc, thanks for that incisive analysis. Most constructive.

To answer the specific questions:

(1) Is your case for the ABC based on a moral/value proposition that the rest of us don’t share?

I no longer believe there is a case for ABC News and Current Affairs to be retained. Quite happy for them to be split off and sold. They now not only run the same pro-Coalition line as Murdoch and Fairfax, but often use Murdoch and Fairfax personnel, including some who have been proven by the Press Council and in courts to be liars.

Yes, I probably do have a moral/value stance others don’t share. It places a premium on accuracy and completeness of information. But that is not unique.

(2) So what is the case for retaining the ABC in its current form?

The ABC is not a monolith. Sections which provide an important service – Parliamentary broadcasts, specialist programs and in-depth documentaries such as Encounter – are justifiably publicly funded. As are TV shows which nurture talent. Happy to flog off the others.

(3) The ABC looks like being Australia’s last bastion of left wing propaganda ...

No. Today, there are some left-leaning broadcasts, just as there are some right-leaning broadcasts. On balance it is now a bastion of right wing propaganda. Witness frequency of commentary by Peter Reith and Amanda Vanstone.

@Cohenite, again your passion is clouding your logical faculties.

Candide is correct. You cannot quote Andrew Bolt without destroying your credibility. He was found by the judge in the Eatock matter to have violated the racial discrimination laws by concocting more than 19 false allegations against Aboriginal people. He and his publisher are convicted racists as well as liars.

He has other convictions as well.

Do you have an actual item, Anthony, in answer to the earlier question?

Thanks,

AA

One of the ABC's values is that it is not perfect!
Its reporting of news and current affairs sometimes makes mistakes, just as the commercial media such as newspapers, radio and TV.
A difference is that many of the population are fed conformity by these outlets, and conditioned to social behaviour, responses, and the acceptance of what is seen as 'usual' content.
When the ABC challenges these populist assumptions, it is berated as 'left wing'.
If that's the case, then the left is right!

So, the validity of my point is negated because the examples of left bias I provide are at Bolt's blog?

Are you denying Faine and Cassidy said what they said? Are you denying what Trioli did? Are you denying that once again Sarah Hansen Young's stupidity and infantile destructiveness didn't happen? Are you saying the ABC has not practised subreption about AGW? Are you saying the ABC has not undermined Australia through its lies and misreporting about the Navy and before that the phone-tapping done by Rudd and Gillard so that Abbott would get the blame? Of course you are because if the ABC did not show them they must not have happened and if the ABC did do it, it must be right!

The leftist Candide offers 20c for the poisonous ABC; typical leftie! It will cost a bit more than that dear; the left are notorious bludgers and I can't see them providing $1.2 bill for the agitprops at the ABC.

If it were simply a matter of the money I'd be happy to pay a large regular sum for the ABC, just as I do for some journals, but unlike the neoliberal minions here I don't subscribe to the pseudo-logic that everything should be privatised. The ABC should remain 100% publicaly funded, indeed funding should be increased so that it could sell more content overseas like the BBC.
The ABC is a sanctuary from the commercialism that inundates our lives and its editorial line is anything but left-wing. It amazes me that people can exaggerate and fabricate some perceived bias at the ABC while the commercial outlets, across the media, with their outrageous bias, crassness and corporate lapdog utterances are aloud to peddle the puerile, bigoted, denialist and otherwise backward agenda their audience (whom I've no doubt they despise) demands.

So squeers, you hate my journalists and I despise yours, right?

The problem is, which you lefties can't get your thick heads around, is that I pay for your propaganda and you don't pay for mine.

So, that makes you a bludger, as I say.

It's a waste of time talking with anyone who can be so delusional as to say the editorial line of the ABC is not left-wing as you do but that aside your elitism seeps through when you say the ABC is a:

"sanctuary from the commercialism that inundates our lives"

And the other anti-corporate shibboleths that now doubt you learnt during your arts/humanities doddle through uni.

This is the point, the ABC supporters are terrible snobs, they supported Finkelstein because like Finkelstein they thought the hoi polio were too stupid and too susceptible to the pernicious private media which needed to be muzzled. They think people are stupid.

But how does that sit with wanting to have a PURE media outlet like the ABC preserved? For one I suppose it sits well with the notion that the left deserve to have their indulgences paid for by other people who are too dumb to understand what the left do.

However, contradictorily, in wanting the ABC to stay open doesn't it speak of the insecurity and the inherent dumbness of the ABC lefties; the reason being unlike the average punter who recognises BS when it is sprayed at him, such as AGW [which MURDOCH SUPPORTS!]irrespective of what media outlet does the spraying, the left NEED the ABC because they are incapable of getting the truth [sic] elsewhere.

Actually I think the left are just irrevocably vain and like their media to be a mirror of what they think and the ABC fulfils that role.

In either case, vanity, stupidity, the left should not be paid for by the rest of us. Bludgers!

There he goes again, sickening ad hom and vitriol from an ideologue 'lawyer' - way to win a case, not.