This is an important article. It explains by way of example just how destructive the ABC is to competition and diversity in Australian media. If the current government really cares about small business and innovation it would take note of the few recommendations made by Graham Young in this article. It would begin to curb the excesses of this behemoth.

Thank you Graham Young for this important article. The role of the taxpayer funded ABC in Australian politics needs to be reviewed urgently. You have been too gentle with your comments. From my perspective the left-wing/Green bias of the ABC is reprehensible. If it is to continue to exist it must redress this problem and pay due respect to it's charter, which it simply ignores. The ABC political journalists are all of long standing and seem happy to pursue their own left-wing green agendas to the exclusion of all others. Consequently, there is no diversity of views. The extension of the ABC from it's traditional role is another major problem for the nation. It is difficult for non taxpayer funded businesses and organizations to compete with this behemoth - it is not a free market and once again diversity of views is stultified in a big way. If it were up to me (admittedly very unlikely to ever happen), I would be closing half of it down asap. It is not 'my ABC' and I begrudge paying tax dollars to support the Labor Party and the Greens - a pox on them all.

I think I see a glimmer of light here Graham and in relation to your concerns; and that is the re emergence of online opinion pieces by the general public on Aunty? As opposed to the drum, which was rigorously selective?

As for compass it was and remains flawed, inasmuch as it decided I was a labor supporter!? Never happens! I voted for Bob Katter, who does say and do some silly things sometimes, but remains authentic and true to his own core beliefs; and importantly, was the one holdout when Julia Gillard needed crossbench support to form Government! The drum is dead! Long live informed debate!
Alan B.

This is an important and highly relevant explanation of what's wrong with the ABC ethos. ONO is a valuable contributor to political debate in this country because it accepts articles from people holding a wide range of political and economic views. In contrast, the rare times that I've viewed Q&A and most other political programs, I've been appalled at the left-wing bias inherent within the compare/MC, the presenters but also (and this is most important) the way in which alternative views are stifled or criticised. In contrast, I'm a keen viewer of The Insiders because Barrie Cassidy, although he's from the left, always allows the one right-wing journalist to speak freely without interruption.

The death of The Drum should be followed by changes to Q&A to make it fairer for the right-wing presenters to have their say (replace Tony Jones possibly). Of course, it would also require big changes in the way the ABC presents the news to make it an unbiased national broadcaster but that's probably hoping for too much.

It is ridiculous that "our" ABC is permitted to use our money to abuse us. The ABC is best for entertainment on Friday nights and most of the weekend. Opinion - no thankyou.

The Drum. Never really watched it until recently. My last and final look included a nicely dressed, pleasant looking woman of aboriginal heritage, a singer and composer, who screeched at quitely spoken Greg Sheridan every time he opened his mouth. She seemed to have done very well for herself career-wise, but she stilled bemoaned the lot of aborigines, similarly to that other successful person, Stan Grant, who maintains being aboriginal is a handicap, when it is perfectly clear that he, the the screeching woman, and most aborigines, manage perfectly well; the only ones who don't are those who voluntarily isolate themselves from the mainstream. The ABC perpetuates myths and lies, and programmes like The Drum are tediously predictable in their content and message.

No Graham, they were no threat to onlineopinion.
I stopped reading or interacting with this site, beyond the occasional cursory look, simply because of the bias and neo-con rants and bullying of fellow posters.
I stopped because I ended up feeling a little dirty after having visited.
I liked The Drum because it was moderated, although there were some areas they could have improved in layout etc. I still got frustrated at the number of neo-con extreme right views that seemed to dominate, and my views often were opposed by them, but at least it was civil.
OLO gets a clique of posters who dominate and attempt to intimidate.

The Drum was not a threat to OLO success, sanity, civility and bias within OLO are the treat to attracting a wider and growing audience.

I don't even bother with any surveys anymore..

Bernie, haven't you noticed that the ABC is now under control of the LNP govt, too scared to mention anything other than rightist agenda. The few presenters who deviate from ultra right wing rhetoric are getting fewer.
What exactly are you after - total media control by the ultra right wing. That is fascism.

Hi Aka,

Welcome back ! Some of us have really missed you, and your thought-provoking comments. Please stay :))))

But: [you were waiting for that 'but', eh ?] OLO is, I think, entirely privately-funded, while the ABC, which I grew up on and love, is well-funded. A bit of even-handedness wouldn't go amiss.

I partly agree with you that, " ... OLO gets a clique of posters who dominate and attempt to intimidate."

Two or more 'cliques', probably: one on the Regressive 'Left' and one sort of on the Right. I'm not sure where I fall, since, being a grumpy old bastard, I don't agree fully with any other poster. And I wouldn't be surprised if every other poster felt the same way, about every OTHER poster.

That's the wonderful thing about freedom of expression. I've found that I've had to think far more about topics because somebody has pointed out the obvious faults in my arguments, and therefore to improve them. Not that there have been many, of course.

Freedom of expression presupposes the freedom for everybody else to criticise every opinion. Bloody annoying sometimes, but on reflection, I think it's a wonderful and precious thing.

Please, please stay !

Cheers,

Joe

Apparently, after undertaking the Vote Compass test, my political views are to the left. But The Drum was one of the most leftist and biased sites I have seen.

I would never suggest that the ABC be privatised, as far too many public assets have been privatised, but I would not say that the ABC is Australian in the slightest, and the ABC is doing very little to support Australia.

The ABC is highly Americanised, and I would think about 80% of the content of the ABC is now American content.

The regional radio stations play American music almost exclusively, and maybe once a day they might play a song from an Australian group.

Discussion of movies on ABC radio is exclusively on American movies, and I have never once heard an ABC radio announcer mention an Australian movie.

Hours are spent on the ABC talking about American politics, and RN now connects to some American news system during the middle of the day where the announcers are all American, and the news is American news only.

Then programs such as Rage play almost exclusively American videos right through the night.

If all the hours of content of the ABC radio stations and TV stations were added up, about 80% would have to be American content.

The Australian taxpayer is now paying for free advertising of American music, American movies and American politicians.

I would also think The Drum TV program is the most boring show on the ABC, unless someone likes endless discussion about the Labor party and the Liberal party, or endless discussion about a two party political system.

For the most part I agree with what you say Graham. I could never understand why ABC journalists who were meant to be impartial were allowed to write articles. The best that could be said for allowing it was that their bias or point of view became public.
The ABC needs to get back to gathering and interpreting information. They need a more even spread of correspondents overseas. We need better coverage of Asia.
I do not like the cult of the personality. The story should not be about Leigh Sales, Tony Jones, et al. A little more humility and professionalism would not go astray. ABC 'stars' should not be allowed to accept paid gigs. They are where they are because they are on tax payer money and pay.
In my opinion Scott was a weak disaster, he did not understand or get to grips with his role.
I don't agree the ABC is 'left', if anything it is moving further to the right! But the point is it needs to be seen to be impartial. the truth must out and if the truth hurts so be it. Bruce Haigh

mmm while the drum had it's problems, I don't think it can be blamed for the fall of newspapers. I think newpapers have got themselves to blame for that one.
As for journalism well that is now a dead profession, yes there are still people that call themselves journalist but they are lying.
The ABC was one of the last bastions for journalist but they have all gone too now. they are all opinion writers these days.

I hope Graham you don't actually believe that one line opinion is much better when it comes to bias either.

If you read the opinion piece here just on climate change you would be left with the impression that there was serious main stream doubt that the problem even existed?

I can't imagine it would be an easy exercise to manage any media outlet theses days. but I do believe that if you provide a good product that people will buy it, either directly or by putting up with Ads.

As for the ABC well, I think there is around 20 million different views on ABC, my view is we need her even with her faults. I have not been able to sit through even 30 mins of commercial channel news for many years, and the click bait news websites are even worst.

never before in Australia have I seen a bunch of people who have benefited so greatly from our British forefathers and yet loathe everything that has given them high paid tax payer funded positions. The drum largely made up of marxist and an occasional conservative to belt is nothing but a disgrace. Islam apologist, Green propagandist and conservative haters. The sooner this and Q&A are gone the better. The dumbed down getup crowd might have to find somewhere else to spread their hate.

After over 25 years when my radio, & TV when with in range, were rusted on to the ABC, I found the rot started about 20 years ago.

Everything on the ABC first went further & further left/green, & of little real value. It's treatment Pauline Hanson back when, & today is nothing but a disgrace.

It underwent a change where it tried to present an unbiased face, while pushing left/green ideology every bit as hard, but trying to be more subtle about it. That is when it lost me. If they couldn't be honest left, they are just a waste of time & money.

The last 2 programs I ever watched were catalyst, until it was taken over by the far green ratbag fringe, & a great BBC thing Junkyard Challenge, or something similar, now disappeared.

It is so bad today that you can't even watch their election coverage. Once by far the best resourced, & best coverage, the bias makes it impossible to watch today.

It is no longer worth saving, & is probably too far gone to be able to be saved anyway.

While agreeing that the ABC is losing it's direction, I agree with Aka that it is probably not the reason this site is losing viewers. I seldom read the comments on OLO, or the Forum...because the right-wing bigotry, racism and at times vile intolerance of so many regular commentators is sickening. It is good that these people have an outlet for their views, and no one is forced to read them, so they don't matter, but many thinking people prefer a more balanced and respectful arena.

Aka,

You were not frightened off by any extreme rightists. You left because you found that your own views were not universally accepted. You were stunned to find that everbody did not agree with you. This is a common condition of the left; they mix only with their own kind, continually agreeing with each other, and patting each other on the back for being such 'good' people, unlike those dreadful right-wingers.

As a right-winger, and proud of it, I would say that at least 80% of OLO posters disagree with me. Some of them throw mud at me, and I sling some at them.

If you cannot express your opinions on OLO and not feel threatened, then you have to ask yourself if your opinions are valid and worth having - if they worth defending. You don't even have to defend them. Just state them and leave it at that. This is Online OPINION, not Online Argument.

I agree with Joe: give OLO another go. No harm can come to you.

ttbn,
I am not afraid or offended, but simply have better things to do with my time. I prefer an intellectual discussion, not a snarling pub brawl interaction.
The reiteration of the same old stuff gets tedious and even the calibre of writers has diminished over the years. On the same token, I wouldn't submit an article just to become fodder for the neo-con ultra right snipes, that rely on venom and not intellect.

Perhaps something of interest will catch my eye, like this article, but often these days I simply delete the notifying email

Hi Yburp,

You'll find "bigotry, racism and at times vile intolerance of so many regular commentators is sickening" on pretty much every blog site. There's plenty on both, or all, sides of every discussion. However, there's nothing really to worry about, nobody can reach through cyberspace and grab you by the throat. You're perfectly safe to contribute your own "bigotry, racism and at times vile intolerance." We all are. Give as good as you get, Yburp.

I was born and raised on the ABC, 2BL and 2FC, and SMH, in Sydney mainly. Nowadays all three radios in the house are glued onto Classic FM. I like most of the presenters, even when they verge too far towards the faux-Left and, like Tony on Q&A, either stack the panel, or set audience members up to ask the 'right' questions, or like last week, set up a panellist to show what a dill they are. Cheap and easy tricks, but they get a bit tiresome. Then there are the Dorothy Dixers to his favoured guests. Watch tonight and see if I'm wrong.

Hey, that's life.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Aka,

The thing about freedom of expression, and a robust democracy, is that as many people as possible have to get involved, they have to put their oar in, if only to be rebutted and then have to re-think and re-phrase their opinions. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and everybody else is entitled to criticise those opinions.

For example, I've learnt a lot from you over the past seven or eight years and re-thought many issues because of that. I'm interested in your thoughts on the Referendum, for instance - it seems that the eventual question is going to come down to either tinkering with the Constitution, OR a Treaty. I'm still up in the air about every suggestion, in terms of what it might achieve that really counts. I don't really know what 'sovereignty' means unless it means complete independence (and financial independence as well). Ironically, forty-odd years ago, I even supported the notion of a separate State, vaguely somewhere up north, but got that knocked out of me by Buffy Sainte-Marie. Maybe one does get more conservative as one gets older, in the sense of a 'why change unless you can go to something better' conservative.

Cheers, Aka,

Joe

I'm with Aka and ybgirp on this. Especially re their point on most of the obviously right-wing loudmouths who now dominate the comments section on this site - very few of which have anything positive to say or recommend.
Meanwhile this essay describes the function of the mainstream commercial "news"-media, especially of the tabloid and right-wing variety (which includes ALL of the Murdoch press including the Australian "news"-paper and Fox(faux)"news" which seldom, if ever invite their readers/listeners/viewers to exercise positive discriminative intelligence on any topic;
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/popdisgu.html
Also
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/coopdoub.html

And everyone scratches their heads and wonders why so many people in the USA enthusiastically vote for Trump. Even though most, if not all of their fears, grievances and frustrations are justified.

Hi Daffy,

As a loudmouth, I'm honestly hurt when you call me (and maybe others) right-wing. As far as I'm concerned, I'm my own sort of left-wing, and have been for many decades. It's a very broad church, although it has its strict, narrow-minded sects like any other church.

As for Trumpf, he's a populist, verging on a proto-fascist, appealing to the lowest levels of opinion. He would never get my vote in a million years. But go for him, if that's your thing.

Cheers,

Joe

Ybgirp,

You have just displayed the bigotry and intolerance of the left. Your unsubstantiated claim that the right is bigoted, intolerant, and racist clearly demonstrates your own bigotory and intolerance of people you don't agree with. Can't you see that? Are you really claiming that only those you disagree with are bigoted and intolerant? Or have you just put your foot in your mouth in the rush to condemn us conservatives?

As for the charge of "racism", I would like to hear you definition of that word, and how it applies, to say, me. I have been called a racist, and I never respond to such purile nonsense from people who don't know me. But this racist business has been on the go for too long, and slung at many people by others who are too lazy or unable to come up with anything sensible

Hi Graham and
All those mistakenly implying The Drum has gone:

I'd say you are talking about a small portion of the CONTINUING The Drum's actual coverage. Perhaps only a minority read the online essays of The Drum

The announcement of the death of The Drum seems premature in the sense that the TV show - The Drum - still screens:

- Monday to Friday ABC1 at 5.30 pm.

- Repeated Monday to Friday ABC24 at 6.30 pm and

- Repeated again Monday to Friday ABC24 at 12.30 am

and The Drum audio-visual is available online all day at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/drum/

I'd say most of The Drum's impact comes through the TV version.

ABN News Online's articles are also likely to report key confrontations on The Drum that are newsworthy.

Graham talking about OLO in the past tense is a worry...

Pete

I'm surprised at some of the comments about the Drum online which I found to be an interesting and quite diverse presentation of opinion and comment. Sure,there certainly were contributors from the Left but the presenters tried to balance those with Right Wing contributors.

The opinion polling was quite unique and, on average, seemed to get around 6000 responses, much larger than traditional polls.

I too am always sorry to see a publication close down : I'm still suffering withdrawal symptoms from the closure of the Bulletin !

Great piece, Graham, and I learned a lot about the origins of On Line Opinion as well.

Cheers,

Don

PS for those who think OLO is dominated by miscreants, try The Conversation.

Graham, the nature of news has completely changed through .television bringing completely uptodate matters to the publics attention. So, newspapers are being completely placed on the back foot through continually being hours behind what has been happening.

The other matter is that newspapers present an ideological view; the Murdoch press provides a neo con slant, while FairFax press takes a leftist role. The ABC has been loaded up with senior right wing people since Abbott was the Coalition leader.

There are now a number of enewspapers available apart from Crikey, which provide competition to the major newspapers and OLO. It is also possible to access overseas newspapers such as the Washington Post, New York Times, ThinkProgress, Seattle Times, The Siberian Times and many others.
The Siberian Times provides good information about what is happening in Siberia in relation to climate.

I occassionly talk with friends about OLO and describe it as a right wing mouth piece on the basis of the comments; not in relation to the articles presented. I write mainly about climate change and cop much abuse as a result.

My attitude to the abuse is that when it is resorted too, it's a flag to indicate that the critic cannot find any strong counter points

So, there is a huge increase in media available, the ABC has little impact. The ABC does not display the obvious ideological bias of some of the private media.

Aka:

"OLO gets a clique of posters who dominate and attempt to intimidate."

As far as I can see everyone has an equal right to speak and to expressed their views so exactly how is it possible for any person to dominate? Everyone has exactly the same restrictions on the amount of posts to which they are entitled so it is not like you can shout others down.

Why would anyone attempt to intimidate another? What would be the point ? Intimidation means trying to frighten another. What is there to be afraid of? We are all anonymous so we can hardly be hurt by anyone else. All we have is words and words cannot hurt anyone.

Why do you feel the need to return to the forum just to criticise it? Surely if it is not worth contributing to then there is no need to even contribute your criticism? Perhaps it is just a matter of people not agreeing with you enough and that shouldn't matter if you are sure you are right.

I think both 'The Drum' and On Line Opinion' are good for democracy both in the articles published and the blog function. I am sorry to see 'The Drum' go, as it had a lot of expert analysis. Partly countered the biased opinion and lies that 'the Australian' tries to pass off as analysis.

The real threat to OLO is, as Aka says "OLO gets a clique of posters who dominate and attempt to intimidate' i.e. the 'right wing loud mouths'. I would classify them as 'troll- like individuals' characterized by their relentless unsubstantiated negativity sometimes directed at the personal integrity of others. It's obvious who they are - there are probably less than ten who really lower the tone of the site.

Graham this is a real problem for OLO because it turns off a lot of readers whom I think would otherwise be regular bloggers. Surely there is something you can do - some more moderation? More rigorous moderation criteria? I know this costs money and time. Perhaps just limit the number of posts per week/ month / article from any individual (with the exception of writers answering bloggers)?

I am concerned as I have been a contributor to OLO and found you/ your editorial committee to be fair and even handed, admitting right wing affiliations (in contrast to my left leaning) but still publishing articles that are anathema to the right. This is laudable. But letting a pack of right wing loudmouth savage others on the site whenever they please really is detrimental to OLO and holding back the potential of the site.

"It's obvious who they are - there are probably less than ten who really lower the tone of the site."

Well if it is obvious then no one will be offended if you name them. Making unsubstantiated comments like that is one of the things that lowers the tone of the site. Cowardly hiding behind those kind of statements does not maintain the integrity of the forums.

"pack of right wing loudmouth savage others on the site whenever they please really is detrimental to OLO"

Even more detrimental to the quality of discussion is using emotive terms to exaggerate and dramatise the situation. You cannot 'savage' anyone with words.

I gave up beating the track to the homestead to watch the ABC long ago; and for all the reasons stated here!
Apart from Father Brown, would there be any other reason to waste precious time?

PS: I might be considered one of the dastardly ten if discussing homosexuals, but other than that subject I may be acceptably civilised!

Dear Graham,

I met an Augusta Power Station worker on holidays when I was over in South Australia recently. He and my wife got talking about cameras on a walk around Granite Island off Victor Harbour.

I asked him what he felt about the closure of the power plant after working there for over 30 years. He told me while the company was bleating in the press about competition from renewables and a price on carbon they had been on a breakdown regime for over a decade. This is what some companies do. Rather than preventative maintenance they wait until something fails and then fix it. It is cheaper and more profitable in the short term but always comes to bite them in the medium term. No investment in new machinery and no willingness to innovate.

There is a general acceptance in the maintenance trade that when a company goes to breakdown only the writing is on the wall. Wyalla Steel works is another. This is also how much of the media landscape looks right now, particularly the big print and television players.

You write; “But newspapers everywhere are struggling, with a major reason being the haemorrhaging of revenues because of free content online.”

I have a good friend who works for a Murdoch owned major regional paper as their digital editor. The cuts they have endured have been savage, often incomprehensible, and in many ways self fulfilling. All the while the smaller more nimble publications are flourishing and filling the vacuum. I do some work for a local free paper with a circulation of 5,000 and online readership of around 2,000. It is a viable business attracting numerous advertisers, some national. Some of our coastal publications are just brilliant. I stopped reading the main Murdoch paper and get most of my news from the ABC, the smaller local papers (with which we spend our advertising dollars) and Reddit.

cont..

cont..

What the ABC did very well was innovate, partly because of the funding cuts but also they were prepared to take risks and experiment. They truly led the industry in this regard. Their apps were outstanding, the iView functionality came out well before the commercial stations which still haven't caught up and as a bonus their coverage is relatively unbiased plus they aren't a right-wing cesspit.

Media players bitching about losing market share because of the ABC just don't seem to get it, or they go and purchase Myspace.

Take OLO for instance. Where is the mobile friendly format or the app with alerts? It isn't too hard nor too expensive because this is something I do for clients all the time and it is just par for the course now. To claim the ABC has stifled innovation seems a little hollow.

I have owned and operated a number of small businesses and managed, possibly with some luck, never to have one fail on me. That would not have happened if I had not been constantly striving to stay ahead of the curve, seeking niche markets to exploit, and coming up with new ways of engaging the public.

Perhaps you are a little jaded and if so I know the feeling of having to find ways of re-energising myself, but I for one would love to see OLO return to the product that drew me here in the first place, though in a modern format.

Dear phanto,

Of course you can 'savage someone with words'. It is a perfectly legitimate use of the word.

The online Cambridge dictionary includes in its definitions;

very serious or cruel: savage criticism

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/savage

As to your wanting names I'm certainly happy to furnish one; onthebeach. It was his 'savaging' that saw an OLO stalwart Belly off. I personally don't engage with him at all and find his treatment of female posters to be particularly obnoxious. He and his 'Tonto' ttbn would certainly fit the mold of rabid rightwingers.

I really do feel it was the Abbott era that gave licence to these types and they undoubtedly have made OLO a different place, less conducive to constructive dialogue. I have not been above dishing it back either, not something I'm proud of, so my default is now just to ignore.

Phanto, it seems you are protesting too much about the so-called loudmouths of this forum. Feeling guilty maybe?

Having been on the end of the poisoned pens of posters such as OTB, ttbn and runner many times before, I can vouch for the underlying nastiness of this site.
Certainly, labelling yourself as a 'right-winger' is not a good sign.

The ABC is a great station, hated by all those who hate anyone different from themselves...

I used to be an avid poster to the Drum, but I haven't commented there for several years. The reason I stopped was because of technical frustration. I'd post a comment, but it wouldn't appear sometimes for 2 hours or more. By the time the comment appeared, about a hundred other posts went up at the same time, so my comment got lost in the throng and its immediacy was lost.

One reason I keep coming back to OLO is because it is a smaller forum and very comment-friendly. I also like the diversity of opinion - mainly in the articles. Regardless of this diversity, the commentariat is decidely dominated by right wing perspectives. I'm very lefty in my orientation, but I don't see this as a problem - indeed I welcome the chance to read articulate and mostly intelligent right-wing views.

Roses1

I agree that the level of intimidation, particularly towards left-wing, and especially feminist, commenters is unacceptable - and I've made my share of complaints to Graham. But I try to accept the OLO commentariat for what it is. It's still a very engaging forum.

Perhaps, now that the Drum is gone, we might see an influx of lefties to the forum. One can only hope.

I don't think it's exaggerating to say that OLO is a fairly right-wing site these days....even more so than when I first came here quite some time ago.

Left leaning people have dwindled since I've been here - and they were in the minority to start with. Women, particularly in the general section are few and far between - only three of us comment regularly in the general section among many male contributors.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why I keep coming back, except that I obviously enjoy throwing a few words on a page to counter the tsunami of right-wing commentary that floods most of OLO's threads.

This comments thread on Muslim immigration pretty much sums up most of the interaction I encounter on OLO:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18396&page=0

Here's a few pearlers from among the comments directed at the author of the article, Dilan Thampapillai:

"Graham we really do need a few less articles by special, & vested interest people, with funny names."

"This academic, of dusky hue, clearly does not know his place."

"I'm totally insulted by this article...
This guy will be lucky if I don't unleash in a way I've never spoken on this forum before and earn my first 'removed comment' on this site.
It would be worth it. I'm livid."

I admire your resilience, Poirot, and have often wondered why you continue. Also several other thoughtful contributors. I look at articles on his site that interest me, in the hope of discovering new information and perhaps refining my opinions, as has been the case with this article. But the 'opposition' doesn't appear to entertain the possibility of altering an opinion...they ignore rational argument, seemingly content with repeating their apparently fixed ideas as if that will convince people who think. It's not opposing opinions I find depressing, its the total lack of empathy for anyone not of their ilk.

ybgirp,

"I admire your resilience, Poirot, and have often wondered why you continue. Also several other thoughtful contributors. I look at articles on his site that interest me, in the hope of discovering new information and perhaps refining my opinions, as has been the case with this article. But the 'opposition' doesn't appear to entertain the possibility of altering an opinion...they ignore rational argument, seemingly content with repeating their apparently fixed ideas as if that will convince people who think. It's not opposing opinions I find depressing, its the total lack of empathy for anyone not of their ilk."

Yep...

Folks like you aren't here anymore....and it diminishes the Forum.

SteeleRedux:

"Of course you can 'savage someone with words'. It is a perfectly legitimate use of the word."

Can you explain how this happens? How is it that the one set of words produce such a reaction of wanting to leave in one person and yet the exact same set of words produce no reaction in another person? Words are just words and cannot harm anyone. It is what is already going on inside the person that causes a reaction. An insecure person will have a different reaction to a more secure person because of attitudes they have toward themselves and not to what others say to them.

Suseonline:

"Phanto, it seems you are protesting too much about the so-called loudmouths of this forum. Feeling guilty maybe?"

If I was feeling guilty I would want to go away and hide and try and convince myself that I'd done nothing wrong - I would certainly not be inviting the poster to name names and confirm that they thought I had done wrong.

I wasn't protesting about the so-called loudmouths - I am free to not engage with anyone if I do not want to and they are free to say what they like so there is nothing to protest about.

What I am trying to bring to attention is the unfair criticism of the forums by people who have no good reason to be critical and resort to emotional manipulation instead of reasonable criticism.

No one has to read what is written and no one has to respond. If you make a decision to read or to respond then you have to take responsibility for your own interaction. If it turns out that what you read or what you hear in response is not to your liking then do not blame the other person - blame yourself.

Too many people seem to want only affirmation of their views and feel offended when this does not happen.

Excellent article, Graham. Your points are well made about the ABC dropping the ball on rural and foreign affairs. Cheers Tim

There are probably no two OLO contributors who agree 100 %. That's how it is (and should be) in a robust democracy, and on sites like OLO which freely allow all points of view.

Sure, there are loudmouths, Left and Right, idiots, winkers, sanctimonious prats, probably even some racists. But as in society, so on OLO. So if you think you have something serious to write, do it, defend your notions against the above, since if you are right, your ideas might very well prevail, or at least do some damage to the counter-arguments.

For what it's worth, I think I've learnt more from OLO contributions than watching years of Q&A. And lo ! - nobody's bitten my head off :)

Joe

It's a common problem, an organisation that is almost entirely funded by the taxpayer competing against privately owned organisations that need to generate revenue to keep afloat. It is not surprising when the privately run companies without a river of taxpayer funds to support them fail, and the community is left poorer for it.

A classic case recently is the Alinta power station in SA that closed because it couldn't compete against the hugely subsidized renewable power. The result is that it closed and power prices shot up between 40% and 80% strangling businesses and putting the Whyalla steel plant that had survived Craig Emerson's chicken dance and the carbon tax at huge risk of closing.

The government's job is not to run companies or businesses that the private sector can provide cheaper and better.

I have reach that stage where I believe that the ABC has to go.

Save the Rural Radio and rural TV as well as the Classic FM.As for the rest sell it or close it.

Vote Compass.. I still regard myself as a relic Agrarian Socialist.. similar to Bob Katter.

The ABC "vote compass" made me an ALP supporter which I most definitely am not !

I barely watch ABC TV nowadays.. I am waiting for the return of Father Brown.

I notice that 72 are running the repeats of it ( along with a stack of other ex ABC shows) so maybe I will just await the "encore" on 72

Incidentally can someone tell me .. exactly why does ABC2 exist . What does it do ?

Also why is the High Definition ABC ... ABC24.. The Drum and political repeats in Hi-Def ?

Aspley, after watching the Four Corners show last night it is very clear that the ABC must stay

The ABC is rathole into which the government throws $1bn of taxpayers money every year. I could think of 100 better uses.