Notice how the author provides no reason whatsoever for government running a broadcasting service, nor any explanation how it could be anything other than privilege conferred on a few to run whatever biased propaganda they want, at the forced expense of everyone else?

The author doesn't even make any pretence of a claim to fairness or balance. All we get is the offensive attitude that she just stands for God's own truth. She regards with open disbelief the idea that anyone might be entitled to publish opinions different from her own!

Notice how she simply assumes every single premise and conclusion of her argument without even an attempt to justify them.

"Public broadcasting remains an essential asset in a democratic society..."

Bullsh!t. It is a relic of the age of fascist national socialism, and is a propaganda arm for big government, and how can it be anything else?

"surveys have shown repeatedly that the public trust the ABC."

Then they'll have no problem paying for it voluntarily will they? Total demolition of flaky self-interested argument by parasite.

"A news service in the public interest should be based on seeking and telling the truth."

Notice how Patricia does nothing whatsoever to establish that the ABC is in the public interest or any better at telling the truth than any other media service?

"This is a very different objective from balance..."

Glad we've got that out of the way.

" and one fundamental to democratic principles. Truth will emerge only when trained professional journalists are permitted to do their job without intimidation. The ABC must be adequately resourced to do this work."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Talk about the nauseating special pleading of parasitic vested interests. They're not professionals, they're parasites. *Real* professionals are paid for voluntarily because people actually value what they do.

But there you have it, folks. The totally self-absorbed, self-referential, self-opinionated intellectual methodology of the ABC. What they're telling you is "We are just right, because we are just right! That's it! Shut up and pay, peasants!"

The ABC is a disgrace, a boom-box of totalitarian prejudice, and a liability to a free society.

It should be abolished immediately, and you couldn't want a better display of reasons why, than this article.

The problem with the ABC is that it has little if any interest In getting to the truth when it comes to key issues. I understand that the truth is a difficult concept. History would suggest that one of the best ways to get there is through Socratic debate and discussion. Listening to alternative and diverse option. Finding facts. Getting the evidence on display. But the ABC and this opinion writer are mostly interested in repeating respectable argument.

The ABC needs to be reformed.

Patricia. You have just produced an article justifying, in almost every sentence, exactly why I would seek a major overhaul of the ABC. The Drum, every day, 3 progressives, 1 conservative. Every 'news' topic selected by progressives and reported with excruciating predictability. The ABC line, directed by groupthink, follows the same path.

"Jesuit trained with an inclination to Jesuitical argument". Well well, having a go at the PM's. catholic background... What a surprise! You forgot to mention Bob Santamaria!

"Abbott's approach to this reality in opposition was to campaign with negative slogans providing little information; the technique worked, he was elected". This excruciatingly simplistic conclusion for the electorates decision to change government perfectly illustrates the mentality of the groupthink within the ABC.

The call for a review stems from this perception within the ABC that the electorate are uniformed simpletons and need the elite to tell us all what to think. Well guess what, it doesn't work. The real simpletons are those that produce articles with arguments like this.

A witless and ironic article; the author recommends we be afraid. Was she afraid when the previous government was promoting the Finkelstein enquiry's proposals to close down the free press including the internet?

No of course not because to the inmates of the left the Finkelstein abomination was a justified attack on Murdoch who was allegedly picking on Gillard.

This is wrong. Gillard was a bad, incompetent PM who deserved all the criticism she got and more.

The ABC is supposed to be an objective media outlet, it is NOT a counterbalance to an alleged conservative bias in the free media.

However the ABC is clearly anti-Abbott and more specifically an advocate for issues like AGW, the boat-people, illegal immigrants, Islam, gay marriage and a host of other left/green ideological positions.

Take AGW which the author groups with creationism and uses the thoroughly discredited 'consensus' to justify her ridiculous comparison. AGW is a disproven hypothesis; the evidence against it is overwhelming, it's advocates are fools no matter how many PhDs they have; the South Pole expedition with Turney and the recent wind paper by England show that.

There are many papers against AGW:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/ten-of-the-best-climate-research-papers-nine-peer-reviewed-a-note-from-cohenite/

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

Alternatively the evidence used to support AGW is dreadful:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/ten-of-the-worst-climate-research-papers-a-note-from-cohenite/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/05/ten-of-the-worst-climate-research-papers-5-years-on/

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/another-10-of-the-worst-agw-papers-part-3/

For its biased coverage of AGW alone the ABC should be shut down. As it stands now the ABC caters for a small section of the community, the left/greens, who cannot accept the democratic result of the Abbott government.

It is the left who are undemocratic, censorious and oppressive. It is the rest of us who should be afraid if the mouthpiece of these petty tyrants is permitted at taxpayers' expense to continue to peddle its propaganda.

We need the ABC because it is now the only ad free site on TV.

The quality of its programmes is very good, one of my favorites is "Thomas and Friends" aka 'Thomas the Tank Engine'.
The stories are often unrealistic but the engineering is excellent.

Interesting that of the seven articles referenced by cohenite, six were written by choenite.
Back to the topic, and I agree that the ABC is in need of a major overhaul. Too much of one voice singing from the same song-sheet there.
But to trash it altogether might be foolish. The Murdoch press also needs a contrary voice. Otherwise we might end up with a cohenite quoting him(her?)self and passing that off as gospel.
Not so dissimilar to the self enforcing cabal doing their thing on the ABC.
To their credit, at least those spruiking their opinions on the ABC use their real names, thereby opening themselves up to review and criticism.

lol the only post that has the touch of reality is "Is Mise" .

Yes why don't we just sell it off to Murdoch?

Then Murdoch can get the ABC to produce some real shows like fat people losing weight, cooking competitions, singing competitions, dancing competitions. The australian public is entitled to the real fair balanced news from Fox. What but a diet of trash does our privately owned media serve.

The duplicity and mendacity of our looming culture as exampled here by posters calling for the destruction of the ABC puts into question far more than their economic ideology of this vandalism.

Exactly what kind of trashy mono-culture is the end goal here? Here is one entity that on occassion has the audacity to question, criticise the overwhelmingly dominant economic rationalist doctrine sung in concert from every private radio station, every newspaper, every private TV station. Just this one voice and so many would choose to destroy it.

A malignant sickness has attached itself to australian culture - its trajectory can be tracked and traced, every foundation of civility and fairness is being discarded as a petty nuisance, one step at a time, to be replaced by an adolescent naive hubris, supported by an ideology of pure myth and rapacity.

"touch of reality"

That's true cobber old mutt because you're obviously not real. And I agree with Mise, Thomas is the only thing worthwhile on the ABC; but at $1.2 billion PA I'm sure you could build Thomas and all of his mates and have them running around the nation non-stop; money much better spent then on the pack of grizzling, vain wannabes at the ABC.

Halduell, I wasn't referencing myself; I was referencing papers for and against AGW. Fair dinkum. And I have to reference other sites because the ABC will now no longer publish any article by anyone sceptical of AGW.

No, it's all boat people, gay marriage, how wonderful Islam is and how AGW is going to blow up the world at the ABC. I've said it before and I'll say it again if lefties like this author want the wretched ABC then let her and the rest of the pretentious twits pay for it.

Jardine if you believe anything these days whether it is left, right, in the middle, or anywhere else then I suggest that you create your own news bulletin for us plebs, then at least we will have someone who we can trust. Jardine please take your blinkers off and get in the real world of lies, lies, and more lies, just to keep the masses quiet, perhaps we should have more street demonstrations to show that we care about the lies that are being shoved down our throats by our so called democratic Governments.

Yebiga

You are only spouting ideology.

Seems like a well argued essay to me.

Four brief paragaphs from my favorite Philosopher describing the condition of the dreadfully sane every-person being "entertained" by the commercial media. The message of commercial media is of course that the purpose of life is to be a satisfied consumer, and to become self-righteously angry at any and every one who in any way obstructs, and even questions that imperative.

The modern everyman of consumer society is a propagandized individual, participating in illusions, and, effectively, self-destructing.

The modern "everyman" is being created by the power system of the world, because it is in the interests of that power system for there to be consumer egos who are self-invloved, self-seeking, and stupefied.

At present, a culture of total war, a culture of death, is ruling, while the people are engrossed in consumerism.

THE POWER OF INDUSTRY AND MONEY HAS ACTUALLY BECOME SENIOR TO THE POWER OF GOVERNMENTS, AND IS NOW CONTROLLING THE ENTIRE WORLD.

As things currently stand, and presuming that both TV and radio still have an essential role to play in informing the citizen of the health and well-being of the collective body-politic, the ABC is the only such media outlet in the land of Oz that still provides resources which question the corporate created status quo.

It seems to me that although they oft times pretend otherwise our new government is the "faithfull servant" of the money and industry that now controls the world.
The new highly secret Trans Pacific "Partnership" Agreement being a vector to facilitate the anti-democratic consolidation of such corporate power.

I can see the day, after decades of liberal governments at state and federal, an ABC dominated by rightwing group think talking heads. Our education institutions will have been transformed into teaching arithmatic spelling reading writing mathematics grammer comprehension and an ability to think.
Degrees in journalism and other cadet type offerings will disappear as will the muddleheaded academia funding that promotes unthinking allegience to anything not Australian or western.

Where will ABC find it's progressives then. The unions? Yeah sure.

Cohenite every item you purchase, includes the cost of advertising that product.
Then you knew that! didn't you !!

Sure Kipp, advertising; remember those shows about the best adverts? They were great. Anyway, I don't have to watch ads and I don't have to pay for them if I don't watch them or use the products being advertised. And ads can assist our choice and competition for the choices of consumers lowers prices.

I think YEBIGA's rant is really to the point; he is a snob; like all the arguments for the ABC he thinks the hoi polio are idiots and losers while those who watch the ABC are superior folk who wish to remain undistracted from the crass commercials so they can go about their superior business of saving the world/ immigrants/ aboriginals/ gay rights or whatever confected cause is occupying their superior sensibilities at the moment.

It really annoys me that ABC supporters demand the rest of us should fund their indulgence. If you want it pay for it yourself.

Actually I think YEBIGA's rant is taking the mickey; consider this:

"A malignant sickness has attached itself to australian culture - its trajectory can be tracked and traced, every foundation of civility and fairness is being discarded as a petty nuisance, one step at a time, to be replaced by an adolescent naive hubris, supported by an ideology of pure myth and rapacity."

That is as good a definition of the left/greens as you could find.

Patricia,
Not sure I understand you here. You give three examples where government media organisations are allegedly being threatened by the their governments (the BBC, Japanese NHK, and the ABC),
and yet you offer no full proof methods as to how such govt. media can operate independently of government (in fact, hard to see how you could, considering that politicians both decide what funding the organisations will get as well as appoint their boards).

You quote an erstwhile BBC director declaring “independence [of the media] rests on being influenced by the public, not politicians”. Ergo, one assumes this means commercial media, where the public, in the form of the viewers, very much influence the ratings, and thus the revenue, of the channels with their remote controls.

But after all that you finish off by saying that public broadcasting is the only way to go?

The title of the article reveals the answer.
Which is a resounding yes!
The ABC grew out the early times of a brand new medium - radio.
Prior to this, the main source of information(news), learning, and entertainment was newspapers.
People were able to read only what the publishers permitted much of which depended on the knowledge, capability, and political integrity of a handful of people.
The few, therefore, told the many what to think. (Not unlike today's radio shock jocks.)
Think about what life would be like without the ABC.
We would be dependent totally upon media which was dependent upon a relatively small number of corporations for its funding.
In its origin, we adopted the fiercely independent style of the BBC and to it added the consumerist motivation of American radio.
What we have today is a valuable choice of discretionary information and entertainment.
The ABC is a valuable counter to the bogan broadcasters.

Notice how at no stage have any of the supporters of the ABC given any reason why they shouldn't fund it themselves?

And notice the fast and loose attitude towards truth? On the one hand we get this claim that they're the only ones who know what it is - the author's argument. But when their flaky theories meet with a total categorical logical refutation - as Yebiga's just did in the thread where he has just failed to defend protectionism - in his own terms! http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16018&page=0
- then we get this squarking of "ideology!". In other words, there's no such thing as truth or logic or reality - there's only class struggle (Wonder which failed economic theorist they got that from?)

So either there's no such thing as truth, and the supporters of the ABC have no reason for sucking the blood of the productive class to pay for their entertainment gazing at their own reflection.

Or they maintain they perceive absolute truth directly without the intermediation of theory, which is such offensive bullsh!t as warrants their immediate abolition.

Of course the truth is, that they couldn't give a sh!t about the truth. If they did, haluell would have actually read the information he derides, and given some kind of rational argument. Instead we get shallow puerile turdy ad hom snivelling.

The idea that the world's not going to be inhabitable "for our grandchildren" because of capitalism's sin in using carbon dioxide - dishonestly called 'climate change' since ALL of their models proved FLATLY INCORRECT, and the claim that the solution is government control over every transaction that involves carbon - i.e. everything - is just another classic example of their repulsive totalitarian tendencies.

These people aren't interested in the truth, or science, or logic simple as that. All they're interested in is having a public platform for spewing out their nauseating propaganda non-stop.

Every time they open their mouths they only prove more urgently that reform would be futile, and that the ABC should be abolished immediately.

Let me assure you my cohenite
The ABC is hardly intellectual, it just on accassion strays into something genuinely real and engaging. If the ABC truly reflected my taste, you would switch off the commercial stations with total disgust, except for the sports coverage.

You don't need to be an intellectual snob to find the nightly orchestration of tears just a little hard to take. Commercial TV is not so much low brow as it is arrested development. Its target audience is teenage girls.

Now to the economic question, had successive governments not permitted the concentration of media ownership and rather promoted media diversity, the ABC would be unnecessary. But as it is economic rationalism together with no restriction on illegal oligopolies has led us to this impasse.

The example here in the media is replicated in our fascist supermarkets, banks, the wealth sector and miners. There similar budding oligopolies across all of our service sectors too.

And then there is the real question, which must not be discussed for fear of some nuclear catastrophe: what was the good of privatising the CBA, Telstra, utilities? What did it achieve but to enrich a few friends

A lot of you people should stick to reading NEWS LTD the Völkischer Beobachter of OZ,maybe Der Sturmer would suit some of you better.
Commerical TV is an insult to anyone with a brain and Commercial radio is suitable for people with an intelligence level of about 8.
If you don't like the ABC just think you can get Fox News and Sky every day if you want to pay the phone hacking,police corrupter and all round liar in UK the American Murdoch.
Hope The English Jail him and his son,I would rather keep the ABC at least they are honest unlike Murdoch press and its reporters to whom knowing what to write is more important than the Truth as it is, not how Murdoch/Mitchell see it.

Shut it down. Fire them all.

Raze the buildings.

Sell the real estate.

Over the last 20 years the ABC have showed their only response to complaints of lack of balance is to get worse, and insult the intelligence of their critics. A few token balance people on the board have been able to do nothing.

The nitwit that wote this article demonstrates only the smug entitlement of the parasite. Dont bother to privatise them; the many good people and services such as BBC bonnet dramas, RN and rural radio are betrayed by the stars and managers, and locked into their course by the staff.

It is too late for reform.

I do not want to hear anything about Alexander Downer's suck hole posting on the AB C, it will be too much right wing for me, after all, it is not left news, so lets not damage the reputation of the ABC by having right wing muck broadcast, keep the ABC left, left, and left.

Broadcasting should have credibility in itself!
If it cant offer fair news then that should be abolished!

This is a great thread! YEBIGA is a joy but his application for the crown of condescension is being hotly contested by others such as Poner who declares:

"The ABC is a valuable counter to the bogan broadcasters."

Let them eat cake!

And Ojnab who's cri de cœur reveals the left is all about the left. That's why the ABC is so important to these bludgers; it's like a mirror held up to them; they gaze wonderingly at themselves.

It was Elle McPherson, with a body like a goddess and a mind like a dead cat, who said she didn't read anything she hadn't written. Putting aside the fanciful notion she could write anything the comment is a concise summary of why the ABC is so important to the poseurs. It is an outlet for their pretensions and vanity. Let's face it they're all z-raters and could not get published if they had to depend on people willingly paying for their schreck.

It's like subsidising 'art'; if art needs subsidising it isn't art; and if news needs public funding it ain't news but just some DH's reflection.

John Ryan you don't have to pay to not listen to Murdoch and others.
Whereas I have to pay fir not listening to the ABC.

You pay for it you listen to it.
And then you have the hide to tell me if 'you don't want to listen to it that is fine but you must still pay for it.

Is that reasonable.

How about if I said to you, "you din't have to listen to murdoch but you still have to pay for it" you would have a raving fit.

'Do you give a creationist equal time in a discussion on evolution? ' the author has no problems with the idiotic lies of the evolutionist, so why not present something sensible. The same goes for the gw religion.

It might surprise the self lobotomised minds addicted to free to air that many ABC viewers don't necessarily agree with the often left wing slant. Humans have the capacity to make distinctions like that. On the other hand, the free to air networks offer an inane diet of sensationalisation, emotional nonsense they have entirely given up informing or even surprising the public.

The ABC for all its many faults also provides a valuable community service role, informing communities of disasters, transmitting parliament, relaying academic lectures, public interest debates, locally produced children shows.

This is one of the more disingenuous debates on this forum. For those genuinely pissed with the left wing bias, you may assuage your fears, the left have no coherent compelling vision of an alternative to the prevailing cultural hijacking by naive testosterone infused prepubescent economic rationalist nonsense. None. The post modern angst is not a coherent Marxist ideology just one big bitch after another -

entirely harmless, you can relax now and catch up on the biggest losing dancer or the farmers wife or the premier of Shapelle Corby on ice! .

YEBIGA,

Tres Progressive!

In fact you come across as so 'Progressive' with your contempt for the common herd and belief that you always know what is best for them that you should find it easy to do what I have asked others on similar threads to do but all have been totally stumped.

Could you at long last provide a simple but comprehensive business case for the national broadcaster, bearing in mind all of the assets it owns, the duplication within and that cool $billion or so form the taxpayers per annum to run it?

Next you could tell me why the national broadcaster pays those secret large 'private-competitive' stipends to its staff, when it is freed from competition and able to take risks without fear of accountability to stockholders (not forgetting advertisers!) by the aforementioned cool billion or so taken from the exasperated Aussie taxpayers? You'd think that the national broadcaster would be looking for the mobility of its staff to the private sector to 'learn'(sic) them how to behave, and that it would be encouraging as much fresh talent as possible to pass through its ranks. But not so apparently. The national broadcaster is similar to what used to be said about the Australian cricket team - that it is damned hard, almost impossible to break into, but once you are in you are set for life. That explains the continuance of Virginia Trioli, for example.

Just two questions and QED for someone as clever as you seem to be from watching the national broadcaster in its myriad, 'diversified' forms. There is a heck of a lot of expensive 'diversity' from its various listings on the TV program.

Another outstanding effort by YEBIGA. Graham should seriously consider giving this guy a rant of the week spot. This is coherent gibberish of the highest quality:

“For those genuinely pissed with the left wing bias, you may assuage your fears, the left have no coherent compelling vision of an alternative to the prevailing cultural hijacking by naive testosterone infused prepubescent economic rationalist nonsense.”

And intermingled with this lalochezic prattle are startling oxymoronic insights:

“It might surprise the self lobotomised minds addicted to free to air that many ABC viewers don't necessarily agree with the often left wing slant.”

That is irony at an existential level.

Speaking of tosh and the ABC, here is as fine an example of ABC bias as you could get:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/craig-thomson-verdict/5266468

A prize to anyone who can find the word ALP in the whole drippy mess.

Hi YEBIGA,

Those “self lobotomized bogans” you so eloquently vilify have something you will never have and don’t subscribe to. The right to free choice and the right to make those choices without being verbally abused by a patronizing progressive.

Why should you care what choices of viewing and entertainment Australians make? Why is it any of your business? What gives you the right to pontificate on what is right for them and abuse them for making “their” free choices?

You don’t have that right of course but you have taken it anyway. You did this because you want to defend your own rights to enjoy what you like on ABC and make a case that others should pay for that privilege. The problem with that is there are many who object being taxed to fund a business to which they might not be customers.

Interestingly the right to the free choices you criticize and vilify, are synonymous with critical thinking and decision making.

Those who present as intellectuals and elites have no such freedom, not because it is not available, but because they are bound by dogma. This naturally manifests as antagonism against those who make free choices.

They end up, as in the case of the ABC, by vilifying the free choices of others at the same time as demanding that others pay for what the progressives want.

It’s all part of the hypocrisy of progressives who can offer no logical reason for retaining the ABC in its current form. It is really all about the potential to lose a national voice that reinforces progressive dogma, the ABC. This how we can identify the ABC for what it really represents.

Capital funding has been withdrawn from the Global Mail, the Guardian is going deeper into debt, Fairfax circulation is heading South along with their stock value and public funding via universities for such as the Conversation seems likely to evaporate.

That leaves what? Ah yes, the ABC.

That YEBIGA, is where you are coming from.

"Should climate skeptics have equal time to counter the case put by the large majority of the world's climate scientists?"

The author shows her ignorance of the scientific method. Sceptics are essential to the process of critically appraising and substantiating scientific hypotheses. The plain fact of the matter is that climate science is not settled, as many unquestionably assert. No one has tabled empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

Thanks to the environmental campaign waged in the media -- particularly the biased ABC -- it came to be believed by many of the public, and indeed by many of the scientists themselves, that climate researchers were the equivalent of knights on white steeds fighting a great battle against the forces of evil. Slowly, the average man (and woman) in the street is beginning to realise that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.

" A news service in the public interest should be based on seeking and telling the truth."

Sadly, the ABC no longer chooses to behave in this way. For example, the ABC is blatantly biased , unbalanced and downright unprofessional in its handling of the global warming debate. It has taken a political position on anthropogenic global warming(AGW), and goes out of its way to censor out any view of so-called climate sceptics. Far from equal time, the climate sceptics are not given any time. The ABC's supposedly impartial science presenter Robyn Williams went as far as to link AGW denial to advocacy of paedophilia. ABC management refused to apologise for such appalling premeditated comment. This typifies the Green left groupthink entrenched in the ABC.

Does anyone need the ABC? Of course not.

Sensible people can see through the dreadful job the fools they mostly employ do of the propaganda they try to push, & become annoyed that we pay these twits with our taxes.

The left may like them, but would be better off without them. Again the dreadful job they do, being so over the top & so far left, simply shows people the left don't have a legitimate case to put, so must resort to the garbage they do.

ABC will be around for a long time yet, but may be under a different funding model where it has to raise own revenue.

Personally, I have been watching sky news lately, far superior to the ABC in terms of news and debates. Sort of got me thinking more about it.

Still like the ABC (including radio) for many of its shows, including Landline and some documentaries.

I agree that some of those on ABC, supposed balanced commentators, are not that good

Now now Spindoc,
sneaky, "lobotomised minds" not bogans. I fear you have slandered me
It is interesting that all sides wish to don the cloak of the common man. Oh well, I and they will survive.

As for the exercise of choice - you can't be serious. What choice do the networks offer? If we are for choice we would demand the break up of Murdochs media empire across 10 different owners. Then we are in agreement and the ABC as it stands becomes redundant. But whilst we have this Berlusconi dominance not a chance.

In my last post I also detailed the ABCs unique role as a community service provider. Do you imagine one of the network radio stations Interrupting programs to warn of fire threat in some remote town, relaying academic lectures, producing children shows, transmitting parliament. None of this will pay for itself.

So tell me we don't need any of this - at least have the decency to think thru the consequences of your proposals.

lets be frank, the vast majority of those who would eviscerate the ABC are no longer self governing individuals. Their critical faculties either never developed or were simply abandoned in frustration at a world of increasing complexity. Rather then trying to penetrate the intricate web of interests and develop their own understanding, they decided life was far easier if they just believed what they were told. So as long as the person telling the story is a regular kind of person, who looks like them, shares like values, they can spout any crap and the majority will believe it. And lets be honest life is easier this way.

But slowly and inexorably unpleasant seeds are planted by these oligarchical forces which in time have changed the very character of Australia. A once honest, irreverent, happy go lucky, confident nation turns into a fearful cowering, greedy, unprincipled and weak herd. A herd easily led into wars it never cares to understand, to relinquish its foreign policy, its economy, its entire culture to this oligopoly, to in effect surrender our sovereignty.

This is a complex matter but Ms Edgar makes the same mistake that she accuses others of doing - namely skating over the issues in a cavalier manner. The ABC has no political journalists that I know of who own to being anything but seriously left wing - there should be at least a few Andrew Bolt types. The evidence from the time of the Rudd/Gillard governments is simply one of steady insistent anti-coalition sentiment culminating in the recent outright assaults on the present Government. Australia may need an ABC, but certainly not the present ABC, and certainly not funded by taxpayers. A radical rethink is needed.

Hi YEBIGA,

We have enjoyed the company of many progressives on OLO. When challenged by seriously intelligent OLO’ers the result is always the same. When the “platitude dispenser” and the “rhetoric engine” splutter to a halt, we end up with just another Troll.

Your responses have no context or relevance to the post to which you are supposedly replying. Just and endless stream of disjointed squawks and thought stopping clichés that “seem” to make sense to you.

As the thread continues your responses become more irrational, more emotive and less structured. Which is great because this tells us you have nothing else left in the locker.

You are confused and frustrated, you can’t understand why your pontifications no longer hold gravitas. They used to work in the past when you were flying high on Aristotle’s Ethos, “listen to me ‘cos I’m important”.

The self organizing and self referential network of like minded progressives upon which you depend is failing through public exposure, additionally such networks are shrinking.

You need such networks because that is where you not only adopt the opinion of others, you take and embellish their rhetoric to obsessive levels. That is why progressives have lost the capacity for original thought and critical thinking. You don’t need it in the domain within which you exist so you missed out on developing that skill.

Now you only represent the remnants of the great social democratic experiment that has lasted, all credit to you, for about 25 years. The bullshifters and liars may hold centre stage for a while, but in the end they are found out and their contributions forgotten.

You remind me of the eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin.

Long may we see contributions from you and other progressives on OLO, for without them we might not know of your demise.

Eunuch-Orgy-Margins.

The ABC is consistently seen as the most trustworthy broadcaster in the country but they get complaints from both sides of politics and are heavily scrutinised for bias - unlike the rest of the media which acts out of self-interest.

The gripe that most people have is that the ABC is publicly funded while the rest of the media is "free".

It costs about $150 per year per household to fund the ABC, which comes from taxpayers.

"Free" media is wholly funded by advertising.
However, there is a levy (tax?) on the cost of everything that they advertise and the cost of the "free" media from advertising - which is paid by the public,is about $1,200 per year per household.

The annual operating budget of the ABC is similar to that of Channel 10.

While Channel 10 only has to operate a single aggregated network of a couple of TV channels, the ABC operates several TV channels plus national and regional radio networks. So much for the superior efficiency of the private sector.

It's obvious that there is a political/media campaign underway to get rid of the ABC.

We shouldn't scrap the ABC - just hand it over to Rupert Murdoch and he can appoint somebody like Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones to run it for him.

Then we can get to learn the absolute truth without those distracting negative pinko tree-loving, latte-sipping notions that are destroying our perfect vision of society.

We should also be forced to watch it for a minimum number of hours per day.

The charter for the ABC is a dreadful Eighties mish-mash of motherhood platitudes and political correctness.

Sell the damn thing off and instead implement national projects of worth like building hospitals or replacing those dangerous narrow bridges on Highway 1.

It is a question of priorities and government cannot fund everything. The ABC pulls $1billion a year and rising from the federal budget and there is all of that money tied up in assets, including technology that ages rapidly.

Who wouldn't question the wastage of taxpayers' money on redundant broadcasting services and big salaries for the smug Tony Jones et al, while people die because they encountered a road train on a narrow bridge on Australia's national highway?

Spindoc,
That last post directed to me wow!
And I thought I had issues.

Politicisation of ABC broadcasting is not restricted to AGW. The ABC has taken a position on the legalisation of so-called same-sex marriage by persistently supporting and promoting it.

The ABC is obsessive in its opposition of Coalition policy for stopping illegal boat entrants. The ABC deliberately reported that some passengers were "forced by the navy to hold on to hot metal" on board an asylum seeker boat, causing severe burns and blisters. Despite the navy confirming that the report was false , the ABC has failed to apologise, even though the ABC's own Media Watch concluded that the initial reporting was unjustified.

The need for the ABC has changed vastly since it was founded in 1932. Unlike then, when the ABC was a broadcasting pioneer, access is now available to many competing networks and the internet, which itself is accessible via fixed, mobile and satellite networks. Despite the ABC growing like Topsy, all subject matter disseminated by the ABC is now covered also by alternative sources.

Consequently, there is no justification for maintaining the vast taxpayer funded network that is the ABC. The Government should conduct a full-scale public review inquiry of the ABC as soon as possible, with terms of reference that call for its abolition except for functions that lack adequate provision by other broadcasting networks. Similarly, the SBS should be reviewed to determine what justification, if any, there is for a future.

it is now the only ad free site on TV.
is Mise,
The ABC is the most repeditive with promos, even worse than ads. By the time they actually play the show we've seen most of it in the promos.

Raycom, I would willingly pay to have an add free TV station, at present the ABC and SBS meet the criteria halfway which is far better than 7, 9,10, and others which I rarely watch, if you feel you like advertising every five minutes that is your choice, so when you get rid of the offending channels as mentioned, it will be welcome to all the adds they can muster, then one supposes you will be complaining there are no channels that are reasonably add free, I can read Andrew Bolt's right wing propoganda in the papers which I pay for and respect his view point,( he I believe worked at one stage of his life for the ABC) likewise if the ABC has left wing propaganda, I respect that view point-whether true or not , nothing is truth in reporting any more, so what is the problem?

Ojnab, "so what is the problem?"

Poor planning and priority setting by the feds, combined with a tendency to go along with the political populism that is easy rather than what is right.

The '-ism' victim industries including big-assed multiculturalism of course, are the tail that swings the government policy dog because they claim to deliver or withhold a small percentages of the vote at election time and in between they are adroit manipulators of the media, and obviously the public broadcaster. Political and emotional blackmail.

What has always prevented government from improving Australia's dangerous national highway, Highway 1, or attempting other essential public works? Governments say lack of money. In fact government can't afford to meet the costs of the fundamental purposes that are its raison d'etre.

Notwithstanding that environment, the public broadcaster has grown like topsy, it wore out its over-used 'diversity' excuse years ago (hundreds of $$millions ago too). Now it is redundant even within itself and paying mammoth salaries and benefits to its public servants.

The ABC is unaccountable and redundant. It is shameless.