The ABC is in violation of its charter.

Firstly it is a propaganda machine for Political Correctness, which is not its chartered purpose. In following this aim it acts for the ALP and Greens; the funniest moment of that dreadful time from 2007-2013 was when a political conflict arose between ALP and Greens and the Collective couldnt get in lockstep.

There is no reason they should be funded at all.

There is no market failure requiring the State to operate a Leftist sabotage operation, as demonstrated by its attempts to restore the terrible situation, including many, many deaths at sea that the open-borders boats policy created.

There is no shortage of global warming propaganda that forces the state to pay a billion dollars to lobotomise Australians.

The ABC has proven itself unable to be fair.

It has proven itself unable to reform.

Shut it down.
Fire them all.
Sell the real estate.

Great article.. but I was too late here come the trolls.

Bolt and the shock jokes on 2GB are the greatest statesman and scientist the world has even known. Their foresight and insight are so sound that there is nothing on this earth that they can't disect in a second of two of googling....and the rubes on the right lap it up and ask for more.

I see Cobber-the-Troll has already posted.

I am amazed that people can't see how biased the ABC is towards the Left. It's been strongly Left biased for decades but is getting much worse. All the main political commentary is completely controlled by left leaning journalists and Labor-Green-Left sympathisers. No objective person could fail to recognise that. Those who deny it are the true denialists (borrowing the Left's term for anyone who doesn't believe in their ideological beliefs)

And don't they even read the history of how it's culture became infiltrated by the communist sympathizers? Don' bother bleeting here until you've read about it.

I agree with the first comment:

"The ABC is in violation of its charter.

Firstly it is a propaganda machine for Political Correctness, which is not its chartered purpose."

Note the difference between left and right; I think he (and the rest of the left) are wrong; he thinks I am evil, and dehumanises me as a 'troll' and a 'rube'.
The ABC has become unwatchable to anyone not inured to PC dogma. Its not 'our ABC' its only 'Their ABC'. Fortunately they have created a closed mental environment. There is no risk any of them will change their minds! The Chaser agrees with Tony Jones agrees with Emma Alberici agrees with whover is on the mic at JJJ agrees with the many commenters at The Drum agree with the Twitter crowd that people like me are dockf**ers, should be executed, should have lies told about us, are paedos in speedos, should be misrepresented and denied a voice in testing climate change science, gay marriage, migration, race and every other marker issue that there is only one side for real people.

Well pc ideas are wrong. The wrongness is especially that they let people think 'right' opinions make them 'good' people. We see implementing those ideas leads to deaths and injustice.

You are moral poseurs, not moral people.

I only watch the ABC and most of the programes are excellent.
On politics they are mainly green with the ALP coming a close second. Take Q & I they poll the audience as to who they are and I guarantee half the greens and ALP people say they are Liberal so it does not appear as skewed as it is. Not much can be done about that but why do it?
I want the ABC but make it plain that the current affairs and political reporters need to be not decimated (That 10%) but halved.

Cobber, mate, remember you are in Australia now. "Rubes" is a derogatory US expression.
Here is one for you, "Drongo", google that and realise the other posters think that your so superior attitude is funny without being vulgar, Google that too!

I also only watch and listen to the ABC.
Many of those commenting on this article do not realize how much they have succumbed to the corporate propaganda that aims at, Taking the Risk out of Democracy, the title of the book compilation of articles by Alex Carey.
Most of the words spoken on commercial radio and in discussion programs on commercial TV is aimed at doing your head in.
Look at the study of social justice, or happiness, in the OECD countries and you will note that rampant neo-conservative policies do not produce successful societies.

<<Newspoll conducts an annual survey... found 78% of respondents thought the ABC did a good job at being >>

There is something VERY, VERY FISHY about that survey. Given that the level of ABC usuage/viewing/watching is usually given at just 10% of the population. ONLY 10% of the population would have been *qualified* to comment--how is that then extrapolated to "78% of (everyone) thinks it's doing a good job"?

Then there's this bit of fluff:
< The ABC is not only a balanced and informed news provider
In many ways it IS the balance in Australian society>>

LOL --This article has to be a wind-up

The ABC has a Left-leaning agenda at odds with many of the opinions and values of the community:
-The electorate (whether ALP or NLP voters) recently voted overwhelming in favour of tight border controls --yet "OUR" ABC is forever pandering to the open borders cause!
--Here's another, the ABC regularly --religiously -- runs documentaries on multiculturalism --when have you seen EVEN ONE of these "studies" allow that MC is anything other than the best thing since sliced bread?

The fact that everyone left of POL POT on this forum seems to think the ABC is just dandy should only underline its bias.

I support political correctness on the ABC, tho' this has become a perjorative term.

Every effort not to derogate race, religion, creed, sexuality, gender etc. is made, tho' this annoys the types here who like it all hanging out,i.e the more "honesty" the better.

I observe the ABC playing devil's advocate towards both sides of politics in interviews and playing its fifth estate role well. If that means it's let too many cats out of the government bag (like Manus, tow-backs, NBN, budgetary shenanigans etc.) then so be it, that is and should be its job, IMO, not just a government mouthpiece. God help us if that were left to a MSM dominated by puppet-masters.

I don't like people or governments telling me what is Australian and un-Australian, but I'm starting to see that that's where we are since the last election.

Country, my country, we do not need a flag wrapped around us to love you

I want the ABC sold, it has succumbed to the "march through the institutions" by the Left and as such has nothing to offer the Working class. The Parasite class, identifiable by Arts Degrees, "Progressive" tags, being a Journo (Left Axis member with a by-line), Professional Protesters and etc. should not receive this subsidy from the sweat of others, and then only to use it to denigrate their Host. If Truckies, Business owners, Garbos and other were to drop off the planet we would be in trouble immediately; the Parasite class disappearance would only hasten the demise of the Herald.

Dear Klaas,

I’m honored that an Associate Professor has offered a rebuttal to my article and thank you for your strident defense of the ABC. Whilst my article has certainly not gone “unchallenged”, your challenge is particularly appreciated and I trust this will encourage even more robust debate.

The thrust of my contribution is specifically focused upon the ABC’s questionable business model. The issues you raise outside the business model have been extensively and comprehensively dealt with previously at the OLO link provided in the article, accordingly, there seems little value in covering them again so I intend leaving those recorded responses as rebuttal to your OT comments.

I’m happy to address the business model issues with you and would like to respond to your observation that;

<< First of all the ABC is not a business in the sense that it needs to make money and make a profit. It is a not-for-profit public organization with a Charter >> .

I make the case the government enterprises of all descriptions are in the business of selling and delivering “collective goods and services”. Paid for by tax collections and allocated by the government. Health, education, essential services and public transport are exactly the same model as that of the ABC.

The only difference between government and commercial goods and services is the source of income. In fact if you look at the ABC’s annual reports, their content, structure, reporting responsibilities, governance and presentation, they are identical to that of every other business.

Further, the ABC is already both a commercial and public enterprise. The ABC earned $158.2m in the last financial year from “Retail/Commercial” operations. Defined in their Annual Report, Section 1.7 as “Sales of Goods”.

Exactly how well the ABC runs this part of their business is defined by their own management statement.

“The continuing decline in the contribution from ABC commercial has placed pressure on the corporations’ financial resources”.

Cont’d

Cont’d

I am not comfortable with your definition that the ABC does not need to make money in the commercial sense. Make? Earn? Funding? Create Revenue? With the greatest respect this is semantics. These all represent the “cash flow” needed by any business to cover the costs of running whatever that business is.

There is no distinction other than who actually pays, the public or the consumer. Which in effect boils down to choices, one can choose not to buy from a commercial operation but you cannot choose to opt out of public goods and services.

The case I have made that the financial management and governance of the ABC is deeply flawed has not yet been challenged.

The consequences for the ABC are that it is not only vulnerable to even small income variations, but that on it’s current trajectory, it seems set for greater costs than can be covered by revenue as early as 2015/16.

I believe we will see that probable causes will include the questionable business practices already identified. When I say ABC business practices I am specifically referring to those in common with every business on the planet.

My article does not seek to attack the ABC, it specifically and only questions their business ethics and governance. This is not “for no good reason” as you assert, I have given comprehensive and detailed “reasons” for those concerns.

As to the perceived value of the ABC to the Nation, this is a value proposition that it’s audiences are at liberty to make. I have no argument in relation to that value perception, just the risks associated with the ABC’s current business model and the use or misuse of public funding.

Many thanks.

Klaas Woldring is the Central Coast Convenor of the Friends of the ABC.
So we know whose side he is on!
Klaas argues along the lines of his comrades and makes sounds just like John Faine, then buggers his argument in the last paragraph when he says, “The ABC is not only a balanced and informed news provider……… In many ways it IS the balance in Australian society. “
Since when was it the job of the ABC to make right the perceived balance in Australian society?
Klaas, we all contribute to the funding of the ABC through our taxes. Both your and my side of politics should be equally represented. The left has hi-jacked the ABC to redress what they perceive to be bias in the commercial news sector, but where is their authority to act in this way?
Rupert Murdoch puts his money where his mouth is and states his beliefs in HIS newspaper, and people like me pay him a subscription to read his paper. If Rupert calls it wrong he will suffer the financial penalty. If the left do not like what Rupert says then don’t read his papers. That is democracy and the free market in action.
I love the ABC and watch it 90% of the time but I hate the left-wing political stance taken by the news, current affairs and comedy produced locally.

Geoffrey Kelley

Of course the ABC has a business plan.

It is to throw indecently large amounts of taxpayer money at the chardonnay socialists, & radically left green/communist commentators, after all good chardonnay is expensive, then hold their hand out for more, when there is nothing left to do what they are paid to do.

It is so far past it's us by date, that it is stinking like last months forgotten prawns. What Oz needs is for the ABC to be gone, but not forgotten. We need to remember to never again allow the inmates to get control of the asylum, or anything else for that matter.

Now how do we sell off the equally corrupted government education systems.

The ABC is the our final line of defense between being an informed and aware society, and the cultural barbarism ably represented by the right-wing shock jocks in tandem with the corrupted Murdoch press.

I don't see a left or right leaning ABC, but rather, that they get endless complaints from both sides, indicates a genuine apolitical stance.
Nor are they to be held accountable, for and extreme emerging right wing, from blaming them for not being in that club.
One only needs stand still or remain in the neutral middle, to offend the latter, who are limited to a mindless chant, like sack them and sell off the real estate!?
What then?
Force those with still independent minds and an ability to think for themselves, to listen to the mindless drivel, that comes out of patently disingenuous shock jock mouths. As they or fellow travelers rubbish freedom of thought and science, rather reminiscent of the pre war book burning of the third Reich! And if the cap fits?
Extremism, thankfully, is like white supremacy, very much an oddball minority.
And there are plenty of other choices/channels, for those who just don't like Aunty, or fierce continuing independence, which by the way serves democracy and independence.
If we accept the thin edge of the wedge and wind up the ABC, what follows?
Locking away freedom of speech or completely impartial journalists, without just cause?
And because they dared to report the actual news/the actual events/the bare unedited facts, rather than the whitewashed version of the thought control police/ or dictator serving outright propaganda?
And given that is so, an absolute outrage, for the latter!
Some of the tone of some posts, make it more and more imperative, that we do have a bill of rights, first and foremost, it must include freedom of speech, even where that may even offend extremism or the thought control police!
That said, there could be a case for better management and some belt tightening/better fiscal management/eliminating genuine waste. We clearly don't need three children's channels; and or, demographic specific programming on multiple channels simultaneously.
But rather, some better sports?
Rhrosty.

Any call for the ABC to be accountable is met by accusations of 'bias' against the public-funded national broadcaster.

Maybe there should have been howls of favoritism from other government agencies when the previous Gillard/Greens government handed the ABC a freebee $90 million when other government agencies were being called upon for savings. That was when Ms Gillard stripped single mothers of their benefits.

If the Abbott government is asking for 2.25 per cent. Big deal, that is only $22.5 million.
However the ABC got a cool $90 million from Labor previously. How is that hard?

I'll tell you what is hard: it is waiting in an ambulance ramped outside a hospital emergency department because beds aren't available. Or being caught on one of those long narrow bridges on Australia's National Highway with a roadtrain coming from the opposite direction and unable to stop. What about the lack of mental health facilities Australia-wide?

Why must the ABC always be treated as a sacred cow anyhow? Much of the programs is expensive taxpayer supported redundancy with what is already available free of charge from other sources including the internet.

From Abbott's perspective is all rather simple really:

- the ABC doesn't make campaign contributions to the Liberal Party

- the ABC takes audience share (ultimately $$$) away from commercial media

- the ABC responds to intelligent, sensitive people who are probably more likely to vote Labor and/or Greens

- the ABC also didn't make deals with Abbott in early-mid 2013 to provide one-sided coverage in support of the Liberal campaign against Labor-Greens. In return Abbott must now take actions in return that promote commercial media especially Murdoch's.

- As Abbott sees little political value in supporting ABC he is putting its future at risk.

- an ABC that fears for its future is likely to shift its line subtly to supporting the Abbott Government over the next few months.

I should be relieved to hear that the simple obliteration of Abbott would cure all budget ills.

However the Treasury and others seem to believe it is more complicated than that. Doubtless the head of Treasury and other departmental heads don't believe that the ABC should be the sacred cow that always escapes savings either.

Lets see now, hospital beds or expensive talking heads on the ABC, I wonder what the electorate might choose? Your ABC or our kids killed on a narrow bridge on Australia's National Highway? A business case for the ABC please?

The ABC does not attempt to serve all Australians, yet believes it exists to buttress the myopic and narrow minded agendas of those who have seized its control.

Klaus, phone polls can easily be slanted. The trick is in how you write the question, and whom you target in your survey. As someone pointed out above, the majority of Australians would be unqualified to answer a poll on ABC bias in news and current affairs as they've long since opted to tune out.

While the ABC continues to give free broadcasts of the cricket, they can build enough goodwill to satisfy a phone poll. But find yourself outside of one of their lefty ideologies and you'll see there's no comeback. It's no longer cricket. They own the bat and the ball, and they'll bat for as long as they like.

Others above have pointed out the unnatural bias within the ABC regarding certain current topics. Yet I would like to point out another area from my experience. As an ordained minister working for many years within the Christian church, I find the atheistic slant within the confines of the ABC insidious and intolerable.

A large section of Australian society attend Bible believing churches every week, and more so this weekend; far more bums on seats than the AFL or NRL. Yet how is this reflected on the ABC? They'll again trot out more docos, and their resident 'experts' predictably spouting how it's all a con, a hoax, or some other negative insinuation.

The ABC has no concept of the meaning of the word 'balance'. Whenever I discuss this with ABC supporters, I offer them this challenge. If large sections of Australian society believe the Bible to be true and worthy of adherence, name one instance (even one, and it must be specific: name, date, etc.) when an evangelical, Bible believer was given the right to openly present the merits of that viewpoint? (They 'might' find something somewhere deep in the archives, but their atheistic bent far outweighs reality.)

The ABC is beyond reform. Ditch it or sell it.

Freedom of unregulated free speech, is arguably only left with the ABC, and some social media/blogphere, even though, political appointment, may have caused Aunty to swing further to the right, than is healthy for true representative democracy?
One of the first casualties of war is the truth, and there is little doubt that some media moguls are at war with the nation state and or the right to free expression, or just plain transparency/democracy?
People in power, regardless of the political persuasion or lack thereof, need to be held accountable, or made transparent by a truly free press.
And there will always be some who arguably want to remove or manipulate its last bastions or the crime commissions, who protect whistle blowers/investigative reporters?
There was a time, and before party political media moguls, when we could say a truly free press was true or apparent.
The patently political shock jocks and their, I believe, clearly confected outrage, or manufactured opinions and massaged public opinion, have changed all that.
As for bible believers, as opposed to thought control bible bashers?
Well fortunately, the latter are in a minority, with many Christians, yearning for a real return to the esoteric teachings of the original church, rather than the political establishments, and the pedophile priests/control freaks/thought police etc, I believe, that have replaced it?
Rhrosty

ABC-CHARTER

(1) The functions of the Corporation are:
(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
(ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature;
(b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:
(i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
(ii) enable Australian citizens living or travelling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
(c) to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia.
(2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia:
(a) the Corporation shall take account of:
(i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system;
(ii) the standards from time to time determined by the ACMA in respect of broadcasting services;
(iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs;
(iv) the multicultural character of the Australian community; and
(v) in connection with the provision of broadcasting programs of an educational nature—the responsibilities of the States in relation to education; and
(b) the Corporation shall take all such measures, being measures consistent with the obligations of the Corporation under paragraph (a), as, in the opinion of the Board, will be conducive to the full development by the Corporation of suitable broadcasting programs.
(3) The functions of the Corporation under subsection (1) and the duties imposed on the Corporation under subsection (2) constitute the Charter of the Corporation.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken to impose on the Corporation a duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.

Hi all,

I just posted the Section 6 of the ABC Act 1983, exactly 350 words. If some of you believe that the ABC "violates" the Act you should demonstrate that. Just making ideological claims is not evidence of course. There has been a lot of research into such claims over the years, also under Howard, but the outcome has generally been that the ABC's performance was in line with the functions the Act, as section 6 prescribes. Of course I am a Friend of the ABC and of the excellent channel SBS as well. Suggesting a merger of these two channels while the number of ethnic groups in Australia is growing all the time is nonsensical. If Tony Abbott wants to get the voters even more offside than he already has he would be wise to fund the ABC properly, make sure is does not become dependent on advertising and forget about the mooted merger. Privatising the ABC would make no sense at all. We have several commercial channels already and most of them lean heavily to the right of the ideological spectre. If you must see broadcasting in that light thank heavens the ABC IS the balance.

Klaas Woldring

The truth lies in the middle. The ABC has always been the mouth piece of the Labor Party because they give them lots of money. The ABC do produce many excellent programmes but politically favour a left wing Govt control system.

The solution is an independent public election of the ABC Board instead of Govt control by either of our major political parties.

Klaas, what part of the ABC Charter gives you the right to state, “The ABC is not only a balanced and informed news provider……… In many ways it IS the balance in Australian society. “

Are you relying on,
“(2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia:
(a) the Corporation shall take account of:
(i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system;”?

Is your interpretation of this clause that the ABC has the right to exercise some kind of moral judgement over the commercial press and resist any transgressions?

If so, then I believe many Australians would disagree with you.

Geoffrey Kelley

klaas, "Of course I am a Friend of the ABC and of the excellent channel SBS as well. Suggesting a merger of these two channels while the number of ethnic groups in Australia is growing all the time is nonsensical"

As nonsensical as those long narrow bridges that claim lives on Australia's Highway One, or ambulances ramped outside hospital emergency departments would you say? There is never enough money to provide for the 'must-haves'. In the following order of 'should-haves' and 'could-haves', the optimal services the ABC wants to provide are definitely in the last mentioned category, the 'could haves'.

Australia has endured a rapidly growing population through migration for donkey's years and it cannot keep up with the demands for new and improved infrastructure. All but very few of the migrants responsible for the large population growth nest in a few capital cities. It is reprehensible that the mandarins of the ABC and SBS haven't got together to achieve savings through reducing redundancy between themselves let alone the duplication of services already provided gratis by others.

Another thing, it is an enduring theme of 'Progressive' ABC political comment shows like Q&A that change should be promoted and all that is traditional must be changed. So why wave the very out of date ABC charter about? It pre-dates and never took into consideration the proliferation of free information and culture that is The New Media Age, or Computer Age.

Anyhow, why should the ABC and SBS continue to be shielded as sacred cows from the efficiency dividends that affect all other government agencies?

Get it through your head, Klaas, that we the taxpayers demand that the ABC try to abide by it's charter to be unbiased. We know that being completely unbiased is unachievable and there will always be a bit of bias either way. But we will not tolerate the ABC making no effort at all and being a taxpayer funded propaganda machine for the loony left advocating their fringe group ideologies.

Either reform, or lose all support and be either shut down for not even attempting to live up to your founding charter, or at least have many of your services curtailed and restricted.

The reason why you lefties want the government to fund your left wing propaganda media is because of the failure of left wing media to attract a viable customer base for their own left wing publications. Your views are so far outside of the mainstream opinions that most people will not purchase your newspapers.

It is alright having a publically funded media wagging their fingers at Australians and lecturing us on what morally bankrupt reprobates we are. But nobody is going to buy any media which does that. And we are wondering why we should tolerate your kind using our taxes to do the same thing.

I know that this is a bit hard for a socialist to understand when it comes to marketability. But upsetting your customers or audiences is a great way to have them turn on you.

Shape up or ship out, Klaas

Not much to add here, but one of the few entertaining things left to watch on the ABC is the way that their presenters have to take a breath when they say "Prime Minister [gasp] Tony Abbott". They still can't quite believe it, the poor dears.

<<1) The functions of the Corporation are [to represent]...iv) the multicultural character of the Australian community >>

This is akin to Pravda having as part of its charter the function of representing the Socialist nature of the USSR

There is a very good reason for the government attacks on the ABC.

It is to silence dissent and minimise criticism and also to soften the public up for a dismantling of the public broadcaster.

If it can't be controlled it must be neutralised.

As for bias, the day the ABC broadcasts a comedy called "At Home With Tony" showing Abbott and his wife having sex in his office under an Australian flag it would only show that they are politically neutral.

For those who believe in their hearts that ABC journalists are a wabble of wowdie sundry subversive socialist webels - here's today's breaking headline that ABC has struck a business deal with Red China!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-17/an-abc27s-australia-network-signs-china-content-deal/5396664 :

"ABC's Australia Network signs China content deal"

The ABC's Australia Network has struck a deal for what it says will provide unprecedented opportunities for Australian content in China.

The agreement with the Shanghai Media Group is expected to be signed in Shanghai on May 4.

Under the deal, ABC International will establish an online portal in China through which a range of ABC and other Australian media content and services will be available to partner Chinese media organisations.

The ABC will have official approval to sell media content, enter international co-productions and generate sponsorship through a base in Shanghai."
-

Coming next To Russia With Love From Uncle Vladi Pootin.

plantagenet,

Great promo but is any of that old news? See this report from Apr 2011. Go down to para headed, More Attractive Programs Across All Networks,

http://www.inaglobal.fr/en/television/article/shanghai-media-group-most-capitalistic-chinese-media-group

Maybe DFAT and others had a hand in it too.

However it is worth observing that if the ABC and SBS were private companies the CEO and board would be looking for economies at home to make the expansion.

Dear Klaas,

As “Central Coast Convener of the Friends of the ABC”, I trust that you have taken both the original article, your response and the subsequent comments back to the “Friends of the ABC” for review. How about a formal rebuttal from “friends of the ABC”? now that would be good.

Any feed back from them would be would be very much appreciated? Especially since based on your performance, they may now be looking for a new convener?

It is to be hoped that you shared with them the fact that you challenged the article on the ABC’s broken business model and then failed go anywhere near it. Why, It was your case that you failed to make and yet it was the primary thrust of your challenge?

The issues you need to discuss with your “friends” are that;

There are some on OLO that support retention of the ABC as it is.

There are many who have told you straight that if you wish to retain it, you can pay for it as there are many more important priorities for public funding.

That the ABC’s business model is not only broken, it is another example of bureaucratic ripping off of the public purse. (unless you can tell us different)

That the perspective of left leaning bias is confirmed by the fact that the progressive left minority wish to keep it as “their voice” which confirms its bias. QED?

The ABC has become just another element of the progressive left’s “self referential network”. Which now seems to include China? Those networks that do not “affirm” your bias are naturally discounted.

The 2.5% ED will destroy what is left of the ABC because they were arrogant enough to not see this coming, they were too busy ripping off the public purse.

Please don’t bother publishing the ABC charter again, we know what it is and all that has ever been asked is that the ABC complies with it.

Your deliberate missing the point, ducking and weaving or avoiding the issues will not sustain you on OLO.

Thanking U for picking up onthebeach

U win second highest Mao Tse Tung freedom speech gong in all of Yunnan.

ABC's involvement, as first alerted to OLO by moi, is in fact new angle.

http://www.inaglobal.fr/en/television/article/shanghai-media-group-most-capitalistic-chinese-media-group say:

"Shanghai Media Group: The Most Capitalistic Chinese Media Group.

In less than a decade, Shanghai Media Group has become a giant in all sectors of the audiovisual and media at national level, with a dynamic sprawling of global development of the Chinese group.

Shanghai Media Group is the second audio-visual media operator in China. A dependent of the Shanghai government, it was awarded in 2002 a monopoly over radio and television broadcasting in China’s largest megalopolis."

Thanking u again

Peking Pete

Hi Plantagenet,

Sometimes I have wonder at the intellect of progressives. Whilst spruiking the achievements of “our” ABC in penetrating China with our Australia network, one has to wonder at the receptiveness of a communist, totalitarian regime to accept the prognostications of our National broadcaster?

Is this something to be proud of, or is it confirmation that the ABC is so much closer aligned to totalitarian ideology that to our own?

I’m not a great fan of the Tudors but they did eradicate the Plantagenet’s. Are you some sort of leftover or throwback from that ancient century?

What is it about “ the pursuit of that which is contrary to self interest” that you missed?

Over to you Peking Pete!

G'day spindoc

Well the ladies don't call me Edward "really Longshank" Plantagenet I for nothin mate.*

But seriously I resent your imputation that it were the Tudors who done me Royal lineage in. I'll sick Sir Peter and Dame St Quentin on your dynasty cob.

As a fellow servant of the Almighty Dollar the benefits of feeding n selling tripe to our Confucian Comrades doesn't botha me a bit. Murdoch, Google and many other revered commercial entities have made many $$$ doing the same - so why not Aunty ABC? Granted Aunty is an intelligent, sensitive centrist (like moi) but it just shows she has a head for business, like Tony wants, rather than being an ideological floozy of China.

As the article's author says providing China with well balanced News and Shaun Micallef's Mad As Hell can only help Chinese democracy grow - like the thousand flowers bloomin before the crackdown. The Chinese public, bless-em, are already being permitted to question the Party's spindoctoring a little bit.

So there you have it spin. Our land is safe for mere noble Knights and Dames to rule over youse, but not me.

And I, for my part, will hang onto it as always.

Your obedient master.

Planta Pete

(* for me overt CV see http://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=edward1 )

Klaas, the party's over. The ABC must abide by it's charter or go. Reform or be extinguished. Which do you prefer?

And could you please take up Spindoc's (onya Spindoc!) suggestion and either reply personally or have one of your fringe group ABC luvvies respond to our posts. We are itching to put the boot into you.

The only friend you have got on OLO is poor old Plantagenet who is doing his best to lead us away from the topic under discussion with a very smelly red herring. If you lot are frightened of fair debate then you have already lost. Perhaps you can get the Human Rights mob to have "attacking the ABC" included in section 18C of the Anti Discrimination Act.

Well said, LEGO. I especially liked the last line.

Klass is claiming that a strong majority of Australians think the ABC is balanced in its presentation. It's clear his poll sample was not amongst us here at OLO.

In my experience, the problem is that deep down the ABC don't really believe it's their job to provide balance in the presentation of news and current affairs, even if that is written in their codes of practice. What Geoff Kelly seems to have pointed out, even by Klaas' admission, is that the ABC see themselves not as providing a balance of information and opinion, but of redressing an imbalance that they perceive exists elsewhere. The result is that they see it as their role to push their own barrows.

Now anyone that knows me knows that I have some barrows I like pushing. But I don't think I'm alone. And that's okay, for the Charter says the ABC is supposed to provide "programs that contribute to a sense of national identity  ... and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community." So those that are like minded with myself should find something for us somewhere. Right?

Not so. We who find ourselves outside of the ABC's ideologies (to borrow ChrisPer's quote above), "should have lies told about us, are paedos in speedos, should be misrepresented and denied a voice in testing climate change science, gay marriage, migration, race and every other marker issue that there is only one side for real people."

After I read his quote, I realised I wasn't alone. It's not just me that is wondering why we have to put up with this, and contribute to it with our tax dollars.

Hi plantagenet,

I’m sure you are a ladies man but fear you may have misunderstood the meaning of Edward “longshanks”.

He was 6’2” tall, much taller than his contemporaries, hence “longshanks”.

He also had a ferocious temper, one droopy eyelid, a lisp and died of dysentery.

I can imagine just how appealing this might be to the ladies?

I guess we can judge your reading of the ABC with the same level of dreamlike dilligence?

<< Granted Aunty is an intelligent, sensitive centrist (like moi) but it just shows she has a head for business >>

“Perhaps you can get the Human Rights mob to have "attacking the ABC" included in section 18C of the Anti Discrimination Act.”

Nice line Lego.

Klass, your argument, that the majority of Australians regard the ABC as the most trusted information provider, is self defeating.
If that is actually the case then let the ABC be solely funded by subscription viewers and /or donations and remove its tentacles from the public purse.

You can’t have to both ways. You can’t say Australian Pravda is more respected by the public than the voluntary funded commercials, and yet it shouldn’t have to be funded voluntarily by the public because too few people would pay up.
After all, the ABC does run well in “efficiency tests” and from what you say they don’t pay wages as high as the private sector broadcasters. If it only costs 25 cents a day (whatever) for every Australian then that is still only $1.00 per day for the quarter of us who are the enlightened few who can appreciate quality "unbiased" broadcasting.

Hi spindoc

I really appreciate your interest in my Royal dynasty.

Was it not Senator Brandis who said "a man, or woman, or forsooth trannie is entitled to his bigotry, delusions of grandeur and, of course, bestiality, goatwise"?

Yes old Longshanks was a somewhat complex, misunderstood individual, Known to Police of his day. He launched a murderous counter-insurgency against the Scots, had William Wallace hung-drawn-and quartered; and had one of his son's homosexual lovers thrown out of a tower onto very sharp rocks. A bit of a Vlad "Putin" the Impaler of his day. Admittedly more a killer than lady "killer".

Apart from that the ABC is a doting Aunty that we all undeniably love.

Cheers

Pete

‘morning Klaas,

Well, things certainly move along quite quickly here on OLO. It seems such a short time ago that we speculated on the future of the ABC and “Hey Presto”, confirmation of the worst case scenario for the ABC emerges.

The assessment of the ABC’s business model, which I might add remains unchallenged, was that if the ED and loss of the Australia Network eventuated the ABC would face financial collapse shortly thereafter.

The basis for this claim was that the ABC were inflating production costs by directing work to media “personalities” that operated their own production companies, that the ABC had shifted funding for new production activities into inflated remuneration packages, that redundancy provisions would be quickly exhausted if any lines of business were cut and employees were either voluntarily or forced into redundancy.

That perfect storm is brewing I think?

What’s new? The announcement today that Sky intends setting up a rival international news platform to serve 180 countries including China. And they will do this without public funding.

Also new is that as suspected, the ABC have more media personalities “contracted” through their own production companies, as revealed in the Julian Morrow affair (of Chris Kenny fame), whose company also “sells” programs to the ABC?

Mark Scott who took seven months to publicly apologize to Chris Kenny, now faces defamation action against the ABC at public expense of course. Scott now looks even more likely to have to fall on his sword after “Chaser Boy” Morrow threw him under a bus this week.

Back to the business model and the way the ABC is increasingly being seen to have been ripping off the public purse. All the ingredients for the financial implosion of the ABC are now in the mixing bowl.

Well done Mark Scott, what you seek to avoid, you have created.

Bye the way Klaas, how is that business model rebuttal going?

Do you remember your lead comment for your article ? << that the ABC needs a new business model cannot go unchallenged >>

The ABC deserves attack because it is dumbing down people who should be informed of dangerous new situations in order to urgently find and implement solutions.

ABC supporters from the Central Coast of NSW would do well to consider devastation of their now algae ridden waterways that once provided fresh seafood and fishing for locals and tourists.
Amateur fishing once kept kids off the street.
Local seafood and professional fishing kept money in the local economy instead of draining it out to buy imported fish.

Amateur fishing tourism nationally used to keep motels and holiday flats and shops and boating and tackle people in business.

Fish and chips used to be a source of healthy low cost food for poorer people but now fish is one of the highest cost meals in restaurants. Some restaurants have taken some fish off their menu because even wealthy people choose not to pay the now extraordinary high cost.

The ABC has not investigated and reported mass starvation of mutton birds along coast extending from Mackay to South Australia and around Tasmania. That mortality is not natural as some media reports, because it involves low population primary starvation due to food deprivation.
When pressed on the marine animal starvation, one top level National Parks officer said the ocean environment can no longer support present wildlife numbers. How did that happen? When?
Has anyone heard about this state of the ocean situation from the ABC?

(Please note: This comment is posted in 3 parts due to word limit per post, and the seriousness of matters involved)
(continued)

(continued)
The ABS gagged effort to hand feed the abandoned humpback calf “colin the whale” that was nuzzling yacht hulls while looking to feed in Central Coast waters of Pittwater.
Check Google, most media reports of the nuzzling have been deleted from the www but the euthanasia news may remain.
The ABC did an interview early during the nuzzling but it was not broadcast in Sydney at least.
An undeleted blog may remain to tell the early part of the true story.

The ABC is not investigating and reporting the unmanaged sewage nutrient loading dumped daily in coastal ecosystem waters at Sydney that flow north with wind and with tide into Central Coast waters where algae is choking seagrass nurseries and food web supply to ocean fish and other animals.
The ABC is not reporting impact of devastated coastal marine ecosystems but does report greenie coast care projects looking after boring virtually useless sand hills. The ABC is ignoring the underwater environment. The ABC is shunning lifetimes of experience of divers.

There have been seven dead whales on Fraser island alone during a two year period but has this and the reason for it been investigated and reported by the ABC? Why are Australian people being kept dumb about these vitally important “canary in the coal mine” ocean indicators?

National Geographic related a critically serious situation about 90 percent of big fish gone, but has anyone heard of that situation from the ABC? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

It’s not just big fish that are devastated.
Independent evidence indicates overfishing is not the problem and that the actual problem is sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution, nutrient pollution is feeding algae, algae destroying bay and lagoon seagrass nurseries. Fish are not immune to starvation. Hungry and starving animals do not breed successfully, animal populations do not regenerate, but does the ABC report this?
(continued)

(continued)
The ABC did not report or participate in the United Nations World Environment Day 2004 with the focus “Empty Seas and Oceans – wanted dead or alive”. It’s not just the ABC, check Google; government and media libraries. Just a few schools in SA participated in that UN 2004 focus.

On Radio Australia in the Pacific the ABC goes on and on about global warming and climate change and CO2 issues, without truthfully or at all investigating and reporting the 69 percent increase in maternal mortality, mortality that independent evidence indicates is linked to protein deficiency malnutrition and anaemia.

Cost of petrol for islanders to catch fish is more than cost in Australia. Islanders have lost their free and low cost local fish availability and affordability.

Increase in islander non communicable disease (NCD) coincides with decrease in available essential protein seafood, increase in hardship living, and increase in civil unrest.
The Pacific is no longer an idyllic attraction to the Australian tourism region. Respect for Australia is also being lost with more and more produce being imported to islands from Asia.
Australian farmers and manufacturers are losing because lack of knowledge of the situation is preventing Australian understanding of need for various relevant solutions.

The Australian ABC is I think committing crime against the environment and humanity, against humanity because the ABC is not reporting the worsening malnutrition and NCD amongst seafood dependent Pacific Islands people, good people, impacted by worsening devastation of local and SW Pacific Ocean fish supply and collapse of supply sustainability.

Why should the ABC not be attacked for failure in news reporting aspects of it’s Charter.

Hi JF Aus

Your comments are too brief mate. Much more please.

Each time I've switched on ABC for the past 40+ odd years I to smell the bouquet - as you so poetically put it:

"The ABC is not investigating and reporting the unmanaged sewage nutrient loading dumped daily"

Je suis constipé!

Pete

I guess each to his/her own.
I'm not really into reality TV and
the commercial channels. There's rarely
anything worth watching on them.
And I'm not into the dribbles of Andrew Bolt.
However the ABC has some great programs -
RAKE - is just one that I enjoy. Of course
there's Media Watch and "Q and A," both
excellent programs. News 24 and The Drum -
are also great providers from what we get
through the colon of the Mainstream Media.

But as I said - to each his/her own.

Foxy,
It's nice you're happy about tuning in to ABC programming. The question I have for you is are you willing to pay for it? Would you vote for it with your wallet, and how many Australians would?

Because there seem to be many others who are tired of the lies and abuses of the ABC, perpetrated upon us with no avenues for redress. I don't tune in very often. My stomach can't take it anymore. But it annoys that whether I tune in to it or not, I still have to support it through my taxes.

You say it's 'each to their own'. But thats not right, because at the moment we all have to pay for it.

Hi Foxy,
don't take this the wrong way. I am happy for you to have found programmes you enjoy on your ABC. Good for you. Sadly the only two progammmes I found grand on my ABC are Death in Paradise and that Australian serial about the Public Prosecutor.
Current Affairs, News and the likes of Q&A leave me frustrated and yelling at my tv.

I would absoluty love to watch a CA program that at least did not disparage the things I value or only continually challenge my beliefs and what I see as truth.

That would be fair.

I don't expect Our ABC to disparage your values and challenge your beliefs. Do you think it right that it does this to me and not to you? Do you think if it provides positive reenforcement of your values and beliefs, as it obviously does, that it should do the same for me. Conversely if you think it should challenge my views don't you think it would be reasonable to challenge yours as well?

We both equally fund the thing so why shouldn't it treat us the same?

Mind regards
Keith Kennelly

Hi Dan S de Merengue

I'm happy to pay my share for ABC, just like I pay for roads, policing, and Defence.

This payment happens already - through paying taxes and rates, etc.

ABC TV, Radio and ABC Online provide important community services especially in rural and remote areas - particularly in community relations, emergency announcements and weather reports.

If you've been to New Zealand you'll see how pathetic the commercial media is in a country without a government provided TV service.

Pete

I do not hesitate to acknowledge there are some really good people at the ABC but those in control seem to have their own news agenda or policy of some weird political view.

Instead of closing the ABC down like some people suggest, I think a Royal Commission would help all Australia.
There appears to be many social and economic opportunities from solutions to collapse of the Australian and world ocean marine environment.
Those solutions do not involve selfish aquaculture or profit from the 70 percent of fish product now imported annually into Australia, or other business associated with lost fishing industry livelihoods.

I would like to be a fly on the wall watching when economists wake up to what is being lost by gagging the real state of the marine environment, and what could be gained from genuine solutions.

No doubt the ABC will continue with it's propaganda about CO2 with 'news' depicting fossil fuel emissions with images of tapered steam cooling towers.

ABC relevant motives should be ascertained because damage to ocean food web ecosystems is compounding unchecked, while CO2 non-sense continues.

Sorry plantagenet, you are not paying enough old chap.

We have bitumen roads, just south of me, being ripped up & returned to gravel, as gravel roads are cheaper to maintain.

We have many in north Qld who get flooded in every wet season, because the roads are inadequate. We even have people just out of Brisbane, who have no road access when ever high water is released from Wivenhoe, because bridges are inadequate.

This while the utter garbage the arrogant ABC produce for the inner city chattering class still goes to air.

There can be no justification for the tripe they produce, if they use public funds to produce it. The ABC is so far past it's use by date, I'm surprised it is audible anywhere but a cemetery.

Dear Keith (ImaJulianutter),

I don't think that a public broadcaster could
possibly pander to all of the political views of its
viewing public.
All it can do is try to maintain
accuracy and balance. Which I believe that it does.
Even programs like "Q and A" have a good mix in its
audience as well as in its panel. I don't think that
the program takes sides. When they for example present
a particular political guest - such as the previous PM
Julia Gillard. Mr Abbott was also invited to appear on
the program (many times). I value its news reporting -
especially programs such as Lateline and many others.
The commercial news outlets are so very narrow (and strident)
and as Media Watch constantly demonstrates - inaccurate.
But as I stated earlier - whatever floats your boat.

Before I forget - have a lovely Easter.
It's good to be talking to you again.

Pete, 
So you're happy to pay for 'Your' ABC. And now we've heard Foxy's reply. That might make two people happy to pay for it. If we can get enough people willing to pay for it, then that would be great. We could put it on pay TV and those that are happy with ABC programming can enjoy it through their Foxtel subscription.

The question is why are we all forced to pay for it through our taxes like other essential services? The government is duty bound to provide for essential infrastructure like roads, water, policing, and defence. The government is not duty bound to peddle someone's philosophical prejudices.

I'm happy that you're willing to pay for it. I am not. It is not required of the Australian people to have pander to some untouchable class with a 'born to rule' mentality, looking down their ideological noses and deciding what we should be thinking.

I'm glad that the ABC reaches into the country areas where they might struggle to support a commercial news service. I like that I can get broadcasts of the cricket when I'm driving in the rural areas. This is useful. 

If facts, at those times, there's even some semblance of balance or fairness. When cricket teams come to play Australia from the Asian subcontinent or the West Indies, there's no slander or bigotry served against those of other ethnicities. They even invite guest commentators from the visiting nations to give the commentary a more well rounded perspective. Perhaps one solution would be to let the cricket commentary team do the news and current affairs programming, or maybe let them teach the others at the ABC the meaning of the words 'balanced presentation'.

Dear Dan,

Here are a few facts that may be of interest:

1)The ABC costs taxpayers about 10cents per Australian
per day (ABC Annual Report).

2) It costs less to run all of the ABC services (one TV
network, 5 radio networks, Radio Australia, ABC online,
ABC shops) then it does to run the Channel 9 network
(Report by Prof Glen Withers).

3) Since 1996 ABC staffing has been cut by 20 percent.

4) Nearly 9 out of 10 Australians (86 per cent) over
the age of 15 use ABC Radio and or TV each week (Aust.
Nation-wide Opinion polls).

5) Over 80 percent of all Australians believe the ABC
provided a valuable service to the community (Newspoll).

6) For almost 3 times the population of Australia - the
BBC receives almost ten times the funding of the ABC
(ABC and BBC Annual Reports).

You need to ask yourself - is that the truth -
Or is your News Limited?

Go Foxy!

The truth at last.

Let the quaint ones wallow in whatever their rich Murdoch and Packer social betters dish out to them.

Twas Sir Frank Packer and Sir Keith Murdoch wasn't it?

Its amazing how raw media power and $$$ will be winning Knighthoods in our new, modern, egalitarian Australia.

Sir James, Sir Clive, Dame Gina, Sir Lachlan Murdoch anyone? Does it sound good all you anti-Aunties ABC elderberries you?

O yea of little faith - http://youtu.be/c4SJ0xR2_bQ

Thats it chaps - run away.

;)

Dear Plantagenet,
Never did I say the commercial news was truth or virtue. Only that it's opt in or opt out. If you don't want it, you don't have to pay. Running down your opposition doesn't make yourself virtuous. All most of here are asking is that the ABC stick to its Charter.

Dear Foxy,
You believe in the ABC so dearly. Would you be willing to pay for my $36.50 annual fee? Until now, no one has ever given me the chance to opt out. Though I'm an Australian, I do not feel included within its ideological framework. The ABC is as elitist as it undemocratic.

Hi Foxy, happy Easter,

Allowing for current exchange rates the BBC’s budget is $6.3bn (AUD) (3.5bn GBP).

With roughly three times the population that is a direct equivalent to $2.1bn (AUD) Less than twice the ABC budget and not ten times?

Not sure how you arrived at you figures but I’m glad you’re not managing my business?

It is the ABC will bring down the ABC because like the BBC, they are ripping off the public purse and are about to be exposed. Nothing to do with content, perceived bias or opinion polls.

If you really want to know where the ABC is going, just follow the BBC saga.

“Total 2011 BBC budget 4.8bn pounds. Cuts announced 2011 of 1.3bn pounds, a reduction of 20%. Resulting in the 2,000 redundancies and the sale of the Television Centre.”

“BBC 1 program budget reduced by £35million and BBC2’s by £27million Relocate 1,000 jobs to Salford”.

“The BBC is to cut about 200 websites as it reduces the amount of money it spends on its online output. The changes, which will see BBC On line’s budget cut by £34m, will also result in the loss of up to 360 jobs over the next two years”.

“Facing a 16 percent reduction in its budget, the BBC World Service announced closure 5 of its 32 language services and reduce its work force by about a quarter, cutting around 650 jobs over the next three years”.

According to Chairman Lord Patten, “ A 700million GBP per year reduction over five years to 2016 will leave a budget of 3.5bn GBP. The BBC will be significantly smaller than it is today; employing fewer people; occupying far less space; and spending less money both absolutely and as a proportion of the UK broadcasting industry.’

More than 7,000 jobs have been lost at the BBC since 2004.

The 2.5% ED the ABC faces is tiny by comparison but the ABC’s current business model cannot withstand it because it is flawed.

Enjoy the ABC whilst you can but don’t blame anyone except the ABC.

Foxy

I agree it cannot pander to all views but it is supposed to try.

It's news and current affairs currently only panders to the views of it's mostly green's left wing audience.

It's news and current affairs certainly does not pander to liberal or conservative views at all.

It is because of this criticism that is has lost support from among liberal and conservative viewers who at present make up over 50% of the population.

I agree with spindoc. The ABC has become an overfunded unresponsive monolith, that is irrelevant to more than half the population.

When the cuts come they will be devastating. The first things to go will be spending on outsourced production, 24 hour news and overseas television.

As we are seeing currently the private tv media is about to launch into Asia. It will be cheaper for the government to fund it's soft diplomacy through those than through the much to expensive ABC.

The economics will dictate the end of much of the ABC's news and outsourced current affairs.

It is sad it has come to this but had the ABC been wiser with it's money and tried to satisfy more of us then maybe it my have survived.

Dear Imajulianutter,

I don't see any evidence of the ABC having a
Leftist bias. That's simply something that's
being spruiked by the current government.
I don't buy it.

The Managing Director of the ABC, Mark Scott AO,
was appointed to a five year term - 5 July 2006.
He was re-appointed - 5 July 2011 for another five
year term. Which goes to show that he was acceptable
to everybody.

One of the functions of the Board of the ABC is to
ensure that the gathering and presentation of news
and information is accurate and impartial,
according to recognised standards of journalism and
that the ABC complies with legislative and legal
requirements. Up to seven directors are appointed by
the Governor-General on the recommendation of
the government and it is the duty of the Board
to maintain the independence and integrity of the
Corporation and to ensure that the functions of the
Corporation are performed efficiently with
maximun benefit to the people of Australia.

The ABC if undoubtedly the most accurate and impartial
Australian broadcaster - and it for that reason that
some people would like to see it controlled.
Cuts to the ABC would therefore have a major impact.
And it would make it so much easier for Mr Murdoch to
come in and "save" the broadcaster.

The Australian ABC used to be accurate and impartial but not now.

Accuracy and impartiality in terms of democratic news requires the whole story being told, the whole truth and nothing but the truth investigated and broadcast so viewers can make up THEIR mind.

Some people don't want to see the bias promoting CO2 emissions. Foxy comes to mind.

Evidence of bias is there to be seen, for example the ABC news shows film of steam pouring out of big tapered steam cooling towers, you know Foxy, while the news text is about fossil fuel with CO2 being emitted. And there is no mention of steam whatsoever.

ABC spin about CO2 has cost all Australian people due to increased energy cost. Some people are even having to close their business. Oil refineries are moving overseas.

The ABC is not investigating and reporting that AGW science is incomplete and that there is no scientific proof CO2 is the cause of 'AGW'.

Then there is the real state of the marine environment, devastated, not duly reported, damage continuing and compounding, no mitigation.

And they are just some matters I am aware of. There are surely many others.

Get your blinkers off, Foxy.

Since you have the statistics, Foxy, could you please tell us how many Australians believe the ABC is hopelessly biased towards the loony left?

‘morning Foxy,

You seem to have gone into hiding?

You were asked to substantiate your claim that the BBC gets 10 times the funding that the ABC gets? I’ve evidenced that claim to be wrong, unless you can point us to your sources?

Whilst we are at it, you offered us a list of your “facts” and finished your post with the question, << You need to ask yourself - is that the truth?>>

Well actually Foxy, no!

<< 1)The ABC costs taxpayers about 10cents per Australian
per day (ABC Annual Report).>>

You forget to mention that the rest costs us nothing.

<< 2) It costs less to run all of the ABC services (one TV network, 5 radio networks, Radio Australia, ABC online,ABC shops) then it does to run the Channel 9 network (Report by Prof Glen Withers).>>

Can’t find this report, even checked the ANU site? Link please?

In any event, such a report can only conclude that the ABC runs its entire operations for only $1.3bn, which is obviously cheaper the “nothing” we pay for Commercial? Doh!

<< 3) Since 1996 ABC staffing has been cut by 20 percent>>.

Yes Foxy, but funding was NOT cut by 20%, so it was an ABC decision.

<< 4) Nearly 9 out of 10 Australians (86 per cent) over the age of 15 use ABC Radio and or TV each week (Aust. Nation-wide Opinion polls).>>

Link please? Can’t find such a report? OzTam’s is the official nationwide audience site and the only current ABC program listed in the Top 20 is Midsummer Murders at 19. You keep telling us just how popular the ABC is but no evidence.

http://www.oztam.com.au//documents/2014/OzTAM-20140330-EMetFTARankSumCons.pdf

<< 5) Over 80 percent of all Australians believe the ABC provided a valuable service to the community (Newspoll).>>

Actually that figure is 78% but more importantly you missed the fact that all ABC figures are trending DOWN whilst all commercial trends are UP.

http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ABC-Annual-Report-2011-12-Part-2.pdf

Point 6) was your assertion on relative ABC/BBC costs which is rubbish.

Dear JF Aus,

You want me to remove my blinkers?
Hmmmmmm.
I still wouldn't be able to see through
keyholes with both my eyes - like you seem
to be able to do. ;-)

Dear LEGO,

The Looney Left.
The Goose-Stepping Right.
The Watermelon Greens.
And your list goes on.
You don't need my help though - go to
Fact-Check.

Dear Spindoc,

Thank You for your opinion.

Onya Foxy

Looks like the OLO commentariat is now over-represented by Rightwing Conservatives. It used to be anti-Muslim obscurantists.

Insiders tell me that many of these Rightwingers are refugees from the comments section of The Australian. Once The Australian demanded subscription fees to be eligible to comment they were forced onto OLO.

Hence this new bunch are not as critical of Abbott Government's conservative policies (like hobbling the ABC) as a reasonable person would expect. Instead they see a Red under every bed.

Cheers

Pete

Dear Pete,

I long for the days when we respected each others
political views and differences. Nowdays there
seems to be so much anger and angst - things have
gone a bit viral. And this should not be the case.
Perhaps its the tactic of fear and reaction at
play. I think it would be a tremendous honour
and privilege to be elected to Parliament. And one
would think that politicians would behave accordingly.
And not like what we see on "Question Time."

I watched the news today and saw the new State
Premier of NSW speak about Neville Wran and the
State funeral that's been offered to the Wran
family. I was impressed by the nobility of that action.
Politics was put aside - as it should have been.
Why can't we see more of this sort of behaviour?

Hi Foxy

I admit I have more cynicism than idealism. Politicians, particularly of the two main parties, go out of their way to stoke the fears and greed of some constituent supporters.

Hence kicking ABC moderates or refugees to boost nasty instincts increases the chances of conformity and re-election.

I used to work in the normal public sector where the media were reliant on Governments to create the daily news via well-aimed, well-timed, Media Releases that we public servants wrote. This symbiotic relationship (politicians-pubes-Media) continues. We public servants were more political advisers and servants for politicians than servants-helpers for the public.

So for me political parties need to appeal to baser instincts to get into office and stay there. The Greens are an exception, not to actually rule as a Government - mainly to keep the bastards in the two main parties honest.

Cheers

Pete

Dear Pete,

Thanks for that.

I remember when we first went to the new Palriament
House. How proud I felt being able to show our
guests from overseas around. I thought the place was
impressive. I also enjoyed the old Parliament House
as well. Today - things seem to have changed.
Perhaps with the younger generations - the nastiness
will disappear.

Foxy

of course you cannot see the bias. No-one could expect you to. Your omission in not addressing my earlier objection, indicate clearly the ABC never criticises you views or denigrates your values. Like freedom of speech aka Chris Kenny.

If the ABC had no bias why has Scott apologised? Has nobody else has faced similar denigration for holding views disliked by ABC staff and contracted production companies?

The ABC board is not in control of the ABc.

and as I said the ABC does not cater to me or people like me. You have not address that point either. Don't I or my views count on this matter. Am I wrong in felling the ABC ignores me and my interests? You can answer for me nor say I am wrong. It is my truth. I have considered your view and found it not backed up by the Kenny case. OI could probably list other examples.
eg the reason I object to Q&A is that panellists sharing my views are always in the minority and are usually talked over and challenged by the moderator whereas lefties and greens are rarely subjected to that. The audience reaction is always overwhelmingly supportive of views I disagree with and always less supportive of comments supporting my views.

eg Try listening to 24 news from a liberal or conservative point of view. I dare you!

And foxy it is only the National Socialists of Germany, the communist of Russia and China who employed the goosestepping march you wrongly attribute to the right ... which in your mind includes liberals and conservatives like me.

Did you really intend to be offensive?

@plantagenet,

<< kicking ABC moderates or refugees to boost nasty instincts increases the chances of conformity and re-election>>

Only someone who gets most of their news from the ABC and/or SBS could believe that codswallop.

____________________________________

@imajulianutter

Spot-on.

I challenge anyone who doubts the bias of the ABC to have listen to the last episode of Ockham's Razor [ABC Radio National]. Typical ABC party-line guff!

SPQR

The Liberal Party tacticians I know admitted:

"kicking ABC moderates and refugees boosts the chances of conformity and re-election"

Its extreme Rightwingers, extreme Leftwingers and naive Pollyannas who accept being kept in the dark.

Kept in the dark about what pete. Be specific now no generalisations.

Klaas says:

"I just posted the Section 6 of the ABC Act 1983, exactly 350 words. If some of you believe that the ABC "violates" the Act you should demonstrate that. Just making ideological claims is not evidence of course."

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/04/20/guest-post-natural-instinct-bias-on-abc-insiders-do-the-numbers-lie/

You can analyse bias in another non-subjective way which is how the ABC treats particular issues. Take AGW for instance; can anyone with any shred of reasonableness say the ABC is not a completely biased supporter of AGW and all its attendant absurdities such as renewable energy? Here’s an example, the Bondi Beach report, which demonstrates the one-eyed bias of the ABC about AGW:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/can-australia-afford-abc.html

Every time one of those AGW junket organisations such as the Climate Council or the Climate Commission or The Climate Institute opens its mouth does not the ABC salivate in a jejune manner?

Same with the illegals, the problems confronting aboriginality and growing problems to do with Islam. The ABC always takes a hard left or Green editorial coverage of these issues, censoring alternative viewpoints. In this respect the ABC is in clear breach of:

(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community.

Pete,

It is a bit hard to sustain the line: <<the two main parties, go out of their way to stoke the fears and greed of some constituent supporters... kicking ... refugees...>>

Since the ALP for the majority of the last ten years has been singing poor, poor, poor asylum seekers --it was only very late in the piece they woke up and changed their tune --ditto Fraser, who never woke up.

BESIDES --I had a drink with those Liberal Party tacticians you talk about and they were laughing about how they, quote: "sold some guy called plantagenet a whole lot of baloney about their election strategy...and he believed it"

@imajulia

How political parties manipulate targeted groups of captive voters.

For example divorced, bitter, middle aged men, who believe they are free and libertarian, but who are in fact Conservative, deferential and almost a cert to vote Liberal, Liberal Democrats, Katter's Personal Party or Palmer's Personal Party PUP.

Foxy, please note that on this thread I have commented on specific matters. Real life experience of being out there in the SW Pacific Ocean has allowed me to see the situation first hand. Eyes open, no blinkers, no hypothesis.

I am not whinging about the ABC. In fact I have views about the ABC perhaps like some of yours.

If I just stated my relevant opinion without relating the issues I would say this.

I think those at the ABC who are gagging news about ocean fish devastation and protein deficiency malnutrition impacting seafood dependent islanders, are cruel.

Most people seem to think if something is not in the news it is not happening.

Consequently solutions to SW Pacific islander malnutrition are not happening. And the situation is worsening, there is increasing hardship and poverty and NCD including malnutrition related diabetes.

It's cruel to say and do nothing and let it continue.
Similar happened when Jews were being killed by Hitler's cronies. I think the media knew but kept it quiet.

I assure you Foxy, the situation will become known to you one day. It is inevitable.

It seems that many here really have no clue about the culture of the ABC.
My son started work there and the first day he was there a friend told
him if he was a liberal voter, and wanted a career there, he must not
tell anyone that he is a liberal voter. He told me that the only ones
in the closet at the ABC are liberal voters.

It is the ABC branch of the Labour Party with a Greens sub branch.

Anyone who thinks differently simply cannot see past the end of their nose.
I have heard separately that anyone who is strongly a liberal
supporter can find that they subject to not too subtle harassment.

The most significant aspect of this entire topic is the response of the trendy lefties to what is a clear moral question.

Trendies have a compulsive psychological need to think that they are morally and intellectually superior to the suburban unwashed. With every subject imaginable, they strut around moralising and lecturing their inferiors with finger wagging moral outrage.

Yet here is a clear moral issue, and it is the trendies themselves who are using every excuse to ignore the moral issue. This is exactly the same charge they hysterically level at everyone else who ever violates their own moral principles for any reason.

The principle involved here, is that the ABC was set up by a Federal government under the charter that it must give unbiased news reportage. The trendies know that. Foxy knows that. Plantagenet knows that. The author of this article knows that.

Yet here they are, ducking and weaving, and tossing around every smelly red herring possible in order to avoid focussing on a clear moral issue which they know they are on the wrong side of. Here we normal people can get an insight into the hypocrisy of the trendy/lefty mindset. All their lecturing and moral self preening is an act. When their self interest is threatened, they abandon all pretence of moral virtue and engage in total selfishness.

The trendies problem, is that those newspapers like the Sydney SMH and the Melbourne Age are in serious financial trouble. They are in trouble because the majority of people do not like being lectured and told what moral reprobates they are all the time. So, they are not buying these newspapers. The ABC is the only voice that the trendies have left. Therefore, they compromise their principles to prevent the total collapse of every media outlet that supports their extraordinary socialist worldview.

To lose the ABC would be a catastrophe. Plantagenet and Foxy would be left walking the streets trying to sell copies of the Green Left Weekly to an uninterested public. That is the nightmare they wake up screaming to every morning.

"To lose the ABC would be a catastrophe"

Maybe if 'catastrophe' is used in the dramatic sense.

However no ruin would descend upon the land and no plane would fall from the sky if the ABC was lost for a day, a week or forever.

To bring it all back to reality (and I know the poster who used the quoted phrase was trying to do that), government does not serve the people where it is reluctant to review the need for existing services and agencies. Government must grasp the nettle and prioritise for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. There should be no sacred cows.

There are many other priorities that are not being met, ever, and yes the lack of funds has resulted in significant suffering and deaths and will continue to do so. Easy examples could be the narrow bridges on the nation's Highway 1 and inadequate flood control, such as the lack of one-way gates on the huge stormwater pipes on the Brisbane River. There are dozens more.

What the national broadcaster 'should' be funded to do according to the supporters of the ABC is more akin to an extension of the middle class welfare the same 'progressive' critics say ought to be reined in. To be 'progressive' one needs a compartmentalised brain, apparently.

Taxes should not be used to duplicate what is already being provided without government intervention. There are many alternative sources of news, information and culture that were simply not there when the national broadcaster was set up.

Dear Imajulianutter,

I stopped reading your post after your statement
"Of course you cannot see the bias...No one could
expect you to."

Dear JF Aus,

Thank You for caring what I think.

Dear Bazz,

I'm sorry that your son had such a bad experience with
the ABC. My neighbour's son, a Liberal voter, had the
opposite experience - and he's still there.

Dear LEGO,

What can I say - you're onto me!

Foxy, my son did not have a bad experience, he just did not let on.
He left years later when he got pushed out to get his bosses' husband into my son's job.
A little later he (the bosses' husband),had to leave following a credit card fraud inquirey.

Anyway, my son ended up with a good job elsewhere.

Hi LEGO,

I think you summed up the progressive attitude beautifully. As OLO’ers increase there awareness of their rhetoric and see it for what it is, there is growing frustration with progressive tactics.

Challenging their unsubstantiated claims is tiresome, especially when they refuse to back them up

Hi Foxy,

You made false statements and you made assertions you refuse to back up with links or evidence.

You should either provide the links or acknowledge your untruths and offer your apologies.

You are all sweetness and light whilst ever you remain unchallenged, but when caught out you just ignore the fact, you go all prissy and carry on as if you did nothing wrong.

You’re just another progressive fraudster dressed up with a smile. Anything to avoid being accountable.

I had come to expect more from you, like integrity. As least we’ve had a glimpse of the real Foxy but I can’t help being disappointed to discover the dishonest fraud you really are.

Foxy
I don't understand why you did not read the rest of my post. Given that you have state you are from the left it is an entirely reasonable statement.

You should have read on and addressed the question I posed. That would have been the civil tbing to do.

To cut off midway through a civil dialogue is insensitive, at the least and rude at worst.

Dear Imajulianutter,

Kinldy show me where I have stated that I am from the
Left.

Dear Spindoc,

I have no control over what your opinion is of
me. Think whatever you wish. If you think that
I am a "fraudster" simply because I choose
with whom to engage and how to engage - then
perhaps there are very good reasons for the
choices I make. And please explain - how your
having a problem with me - is my problem?
In any case - I'm sorry that I've somehow
disappointed you. You on the other hand have
risen to my expectations.

No Foxy,

Read it again.

I did not accuse you of being a fraud because you << choose with whom to engage and how to engage >>.

I called you a fraud because you told big fat “porkies” and because when confronted with your lies you abdicated.

Apologize and withdraw or forever stand as a cheat on OLO.

I’m so disappointed that you turned out to be just another fraudster.

I’m done with you. Until next time of course.

Dear spindoc,

You really are a "spin" merchant.
"Big fat porkies?"
Really?
I cited facts that were gleaned
from various sources - Newspoll,
Prof. Glen Withers, et cetera.
I also did not "abdicate."
As General Douglas McArthur once stated -
"I am not retreating, I am advancing in a
different direction."
As for your being "done" with me.
That infers that you were actually inter-acting.
Whereas - all you're doing is expressing
your opinion - and
I am merely being polite to you.
"Noblesse oblige" - and all that.
And don't count on "until the next time,"
I may be in a different mood then.

No Foxy,

More Porkies and they are getting bigger!

You say << I cited facts that were gleaned from various sources - Newspoll, Prof. Glen Withers, et cetera.>> I’ve already asked you twice for these “gleaned” links and you keep refusing. Where are these Foxy “facts”. I cannot find any of them and neither can you?

OK, Foxy’s Porkie No 1;

Foxy says << For almost 3 times the population of Australia – the BBC receives almost ten times the funding of the ABC (ABC and BBC Annual Reports).

Unsubstantiated rubbish that is not in either the ABC or BBC reports as you allege, or if you prefer the direct approach, big fat lies.

Put up or shut up Foxy, you are a fabricator. Duck and weave as much as you want but in the end you are caught out by your own porkies unless you provide your sources of “gleaned facts”.

On the other hand you can always try your normal tactics, “Who me? I don’t tell lies, I’m a sweet innocent and compassionate con artist and if I get caught out I point to more Unicorns and smile”.

When I accused you of lack of integrity I meant specifically your inability to admit to your porkies.

What happened to you Foxy? You used to represent honor, integrity, compassion and honesty on OLO. Now you are just another cheat.

Foxy,
While I don't agree with your position, and I have been generally arguing against the privilege assumed by the ABC, I also think that our discussion here should be somewhat tempered, less personal, and more to the point. I think Spindoc has become a little unhinged. It doesn't help when we descend to name calling. 

Name calling is a sign of desperation. Spindoc, everyone here has opinions, and we enjoy airing our views. But a difference of opinion is not sufficient grounds to call someone a liar, or any other loose insult.

foxy

No you are right, you didn't state your were a leftie.
What I should have said is that the statements you have made indicate you are a leftie.

Now to clarify, tell us you are not leftie.

And when you do that please also answer my previous questions. Those answers will indicate the obvious ABC bias.

Dear spindoc,

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Have a nice evening.

Dear Dan,

Thanks for that.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a
skill not easily acquired. And quite a few people
often argue on an emotional level - not a
mature, intelligent one.

Of course, on forums such as this one there will
always be a never ending supply of nutters and
jerks that will come and go. Whether we decide
to inter-act with any one of them is up to us.

Foxy
You forgot the pests who flee at the first hint of well argued opposition.

Dear Imajulianutter,

My experience has been that people who choose not
to engage with others is mainly due to their
finding a lack of cohesive and unbiased thoughts.
Some people simply prefer not to engage.

Did you say something about pots and kettles?

Dear Imajulianutter,

I know, - "people in glass houses and all that ..."

I can see that you want tedious arguments to
ensue.

I'm simply not interested!

Accept it, and move on.

Yeah sure foxy.
Just remember it is you who have avoided engaging because you closed your mind to others realities and became offensive. When challenged on that you then wanted to close down discussion and move on. Did it get too challenging.

Sadly that is typical of people who hold belief with out substance.

Back on topic, maybe parliamentarian retirement/pensions will be cut to save money, instead of closing down the ABC.

What about cutting $81,000 unauthorised taxpayer funded first class European holidays by $320, 000 a year salaried ABC presenters with Labor Cabinet ministers.

Now there is a story you won't see on the ABC.

imajulianutter,
I have slow littlepond at present and can't get the URL but you might Google the following.

ABC news presenter Juanita Phillips and climate change ...
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/abc-news-presenter-juanita-phillips-and-climate-change-minister-greg-combet-are-australias-newest-power-couple/story-e6freuy9-1226483752052
ABC news presenter Juanita Phillips and climate change minister Greg Combet are Australia's newest power couple

Here's a few more ways that Joe Hockey could
trim the fat:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-greens-senator-larissa-waters-spent-414000-on-fitout-for-paddington-office/story-fnihsrf2-1226889449998

It seems that quite a few politicians on all sides of
the political divide have a lot to answer for.