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.