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.