Oh dear what can the matter be... their scary ABC needs to be less biased. First Yesterdays exposure of the ABC's bias and inability to meet its Charter (unlike SBS which still seems to try to do so)… and now this authors repeat of a critic he made 4 years ago which confirms this bias.

Given this author is a keen believer and follower of the ABC ( and BBC if I recall)… how will yesterdays' mud throwers of Essery's piece respond.. 30 love but will they loose the game. I doubt it, leftie feral shouters never listen to objective critics. They will generate abuse, deny bias, slag of all other media, promote the Guardian, Farifax and CNN as True News warriors.

And what is Ita Butrose or our pollies doing.....silence. About time we had an independent inquiry of the ABC's bias,, and not one like the China/WHO "internal independent review" re Covid-19!

And Allison, I love NPR and PBS.

beats listening to a lot of the other crap around

Allison, you rave on about the ABC bias, but some of the other channels/commentators are merely obsessed with what the ABC does and says.

It seems like undermining the ABC is a holy grail of life ambition.

That is a prime reason why I don't watch Sky after 6PM because they mostly come across a bunch of sooks obsessed about what other people are saying.

I loved it when one of its clowns started beating his chest and demanding that Morrison did what he says. I just .... myself laughing.

I don't see this attack on the right from the ABC anywhere to the same extent besides the occasional Media Watch show .

But thanks for your comment, and keep on ranting.

So are you now contradicting your own current and 4 year old initial comments that the ABC has Bias.. Tell straight is the ABC biased or not, Is it funded to be biased or to fulfil its charter. Odd that an author is so touchy that he acuses comments and being rants... maybe he fears that the other 'Aunty' ABC lovers will turn on him... only a rant from a old 'tart' ( I think that was the latest slur from the leftie luvies who frequent the bowels of the comments on OLO.).

As you write "For example, just as a 2013 Sunshine Coast University survey found that 41% of ABC journalists voted for the Greens, 32% for Labor and only 14% the Coalition".

So the excuse is that the ABC is offering what its journalists want ie left green labour views... No wonder the audience is mainly hip/elitist lefties and 1960's babyboomers….. Those very words reflect that the needs to be a serious debate, and not one led by ABC ex reporters and luvies.. If such a independent review was ever done, they would probably have Mark Scott do it, supporting by Emperor Malcolm Turnball and his legal adviser.

Advice to author, why not let people comment on your 4 year fermented words, wait until you get more than one comment and consider your response, rather than shooting from the hip in defence of your precious words... hey have you every considered applying for Fran Kellys 7.30-9.00 am rant … a but you needed sex change to be eligible for that prime 1.5 hour stress pot program.

By the way, this ranter listens to PBS via the ABC, DW via the ABC but has given up to watching Q&A and Insiders for now what's that word? ah yes BIAS!

no, bias is inherent in all arguments. It is a human trait that comes from personal judgement of any issue.

if you actually read and understood what I am saying, you would recognise my point that a public broadcaster can and should also survive on its own resources, especially in today's era of so much choice.

IMO, ABC haters, if they cannot accept the right to policy choice and individual bias, which is both inherent in all of us given none of us are geniuses, are also anti-democratic because they are really complaining about what the left-wing have to say and don't like it.

So enough crap, and let's look for ways to improve our public policy debate about key issues, and worry less about who gets funding.

The ABC can add to this aim by relying much less on the public purse.

One more thing, I am not saying that the ABC cannot improve. It, like any other broadcaster, can and should, especially as Australia now faces some complex issues (China and global warming alone).

I also believe that US public broadcasting is superior to the ABC, but then my argument would be thwarted by the reality that Australia has much fairer policy outcomes, at least from my perspective which tends to focus on ordinary people outcomes.

Bias is human yes, but reporting the news cannot contain bias... its known as propaganda!

1. independent review
2. new funding model based on strict adherence to legally binding charter contract
3. Lets have some positive discrimination (the favourite of lefties if I recall) to make ABC journalists politics reflect that of the voting public.. that way if bias did raise its ugly, nasty little head, at least the bias would balance out.
4. part of the review should include fair Work to review the salaries of ABC 'stars'... their hourly rates would make QC's wince!

Enough said, now lets await the other comments on your article, rather than defending it.

I disagree and most vehemently!

Might suit an empire build Murdoch but never ever freedom of the press or political accountability!

Everywhere there is a tyrant trying to grab power, there is always an attack on the press and the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.

If we have to have a self-funded ABC and a return to radio licences that used to be the funding model that we all of us with TV in the lounge or a radio in the bedroom, paid as an annual subscription.

Then we need Our ABC able to provide commercial-free vision and audio of the footy and the cricket! Should make all the other free to air channels as happy as pigs in mud!? Make their rivers of gold disappear! And remind Credilin/Jones and co to be careful what you wish for.

And allow the board complete unfettered freedom to choose their CEO! without the usual political imposition/interference/demands/ etc.

What do you think, Chris? Back to the future or what?
Alan B.

I am a firm supporter and believer in an Independent broadcaster of news and commentary on that news- which is the ABC. To provide that freedom of expression, and to provide programs for all ages- from the children to the seniors, requires money. It's as simple as that. From its inception, the ABC has been able to do that with Federal Government funding. If it depended upon the whim of private funding, that independence would be compromised, and cut whenever for whatever reason the private source decided.

The argument that we should only hear the views of 'the majority who won the elections' is so biased, that it reinforces the argument for an independent ABC, free from political interference and sponsorship from a private source of funds.

Obviously a lot of effort went into writing this article, but nothing will change my mind.

I've long ago finalised the struggle over this topic, and equally long ago walked away in disgust from all media formats, with the exception of news flashes and updates etc on internet.

I've my own personal biases, which have been cultivated through the years. That makes me the A-typical public. We know what we believe to be true, and when told otherwise, will react accordingly.

Obviously the ABC is unable to please everybody in a population of free thinkers, but I don't need a rainbow media to guide my cultural choices.

After reading this article, nothing at all has changed in my attitude towards the ABC.
I'd be happy to see the whole enterprise shut down, and as soon as possible.

Dan

Well put Driver Dan. Equally so we all have out human bias, that's what makes us individuals. BUT we don't need the elitest, hubristic bias of the Lefty/ Greenie luvies of "their scary ABC" shoving it down our throats at our own cost.

SHUT THEM DOWN... there we go a slogan for bumpers on all our gas guzzling 6.2 litre v8 muscle cars... while "their scary ABC" staffers can hug their lovely $130k Tesla electric cars and drink organic wine on their well funded public sector superannuation packages. And then we could turn ultimo in sydney into a homeless shelter for the needy, rather than a sheltered workshop for the greedy!

the victimhood mentality of totally overpaid feminist is really sickening seen it comes from my money. The supporters of the marxist gargage spewed out by the abc should pay for it themselves.

Those that hate evidence-based science, truth in broadcasting and validated fact-checking and unbiased reporting/holding our politicians to account for the decisions they make on or behalf, as our alleged representatives?

Will always hate the ABC and almost every other publically funded, pubic broadcaster! And without question the very reason resident troll, the runner hates it so much?
Alan B.

Alan B

The ABC is without a shadow of doubt, the media headquarters of gay rights. It is shameless and It is highly political. That fits the description of political bias.

Shut it down.

Dan

//While Roy Morgan research shows that only 34% of Australians watched current affairs shows (public and private broadcasters) in 2018, with a September 2019 Guardian Essential poll finding that only 15% followed events in Canberra closely, I am one of the minority of Australians who regularly watches ABC shows including the 7.30 Report, Foreign Correspondent, Four Corners and Insiders.//

I don't watch any of those shows. I don't watch much in the way of current affairs shows in general, because I prefer newspapers. It seems to me that most of the objections I see from people complaining about ABC bias always narrowly focus on their TV current affairs programming.

There's more to the ABC than just TV current affairs. When I'm pottering about at home, like I have been a lot given the whole pandemic situation, I'll often have ABC local radio (Newcastle, in my case) on in the background. I really like their local radio service; sometimes it's dull and sometimes it's really interesting, but it always does a good job of keeping me informed what's happening my backyard and it's tremendously useful - and I would go so far as to venture vital - in times of natural disaster. During the recent bushfire emergencies, many people depended on their ABC local radio as a vital source of information.

If those services were lost it would be a crying shame, and I'm not convinced that private radio networks would be able to adequately fill the void left by the ABC. If you think the ABC should't be in the business of TV current affairs, that's a worthwhile debate. But even if we agree for the sake of argument they do a shite job of TV current affairs and they should knock it off, cutting their funding wholesale is not the right solution to that problem as it will have the undesirable side effect of hindering the things they do extremely well.

You may find this perspective of interest in saving taxpayer funds on the ABC.

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20768

After 20 years of having all my radio & TV tuners rusted onto the ABC, I finally got sick of many not very bright commentators trying to con me with half truths mixed with totally left propaganda. Today it is only my alarm clock radio that is EVER tuned to the ABC. Gets me out of bed quickly to shut it down. Hell even the documentaries that made the ABC occasionally worth watching have gone to SBS.

Don't watch much news on the commercials either. Since news rooms have been taken over by the ladies, the "news" is full of human interest stories about "brave" little Johnny/Mary who stubbed a toe, & only cried for an hour. No thanks.

Bought my last news paper about 20 years ago too. Nothing much worth bothering with in any of them.

Sights like this & some scientific blogs do a much better job of publishing real information, some propaganda but easily sorted.

I would cut all money supply to the ABC & SBS, & let those who want them pay for them. I would also stop all government advertising on commercial stations. Part of their licensing requirement of any station should be a requirement to publish any & all government decisions & announcements of public interest. The possible threat of cutting off government advertising gives government too much power to subvert commercial stations.

Thanks TFX, a very good article which I should have included in my piece.

I agree with your emphasis on local/community radio.

An aspect I like about US public broadcasting is that any federal money is distributed to local stations. I would assume this guarantees a much better local focus than here, although I do note that national shows from NPR are also utilised and paid for.

With the ABC here, dominated by national leadership, this may diminish the opportunity for local stations to report what is happening in their area. For example, fire coverage by the national broadcaster here goes around the grounds, whereas a local station could focus constantly on its own and nearby area.

Having said that, local ABC radio does a pretty good job.

A local station, with advertising, is also more likely to promote and support local businesses and reflect community concerns.
In terms of television, it is only two commercial networks that provide local news.

I believe that a greater emphasis on local is good for democracy, albeit it may cause further complications for national policy leaders given a much greater range of policy needs.

Hasbeen, I agree best sources comes from internet sites. Even the ABC often produces stories that I read 1-2 days earlier on less well known media sources.

I mostly only observe newspapers online when I research an issue.

Toni, yes, some govt funding may be needed to boost cultural programs, especially as new players like Netflix have little local content yet. This could be achieved by direct funding to such designated areas of need

Cyclone, I invite you to listen to US public radio which is very similar to the ABC tone and depth of analysis, yet relies greatly on its own funding. But, I am just one opinion, and it is up to all Australians how much funding the ABC gets.

But I would be prepared to donate to the ABC, as I do to Wikipedia and other media causes I think are worth helping.

Alan, your case was evident yesterday when listening to New York Radio, as it is currently begging for money from the public due to declining revenue in these tough coronavirus times.

One private donor matched any donation 100% up to the $100,000 figure within a 24 hour period.

//Cyclone, I invite you to listen to US public radio which is very similar to the ABC tone and depth of analysis, yet relies greatly on its own funding.//

The US has a different culture of philanthropy to Australia. Just look at their tipping behaviour in restaraunts - tipping in the US is basically compulsory because without it waiters don't earn a living wage. In Australia, we just ensure a decent minimum wage and then we don't have to worry about the bother of calculating tips, although of course we can leave one voluntarily. Much more efficient if you ask me.

They're different to us in quite a lot of ways. I feel that a better basis for comparison are the Commonwealth nations Canada, NZ and the UK. We have more similar systems of government and closer cultural ties. I don't know a lot about public broadcasting in Canada or NZ, but the UK have their BBC. Like our ABC the BBC relies more on government funding than private donations, but still seems to do a bloody good job (about 90% of my favourite shows are BBC productions).

Sorry, the UK does not fund the BBC, People pay an annual licence fee per household and its compulsory for you if you have a TV or radio in the house. So its a compulsory subscription service, Not a government handout. Irrespective of that the BBC is the original 'Aunty' as the lovies of the ABC call it ( bet you some even think is a ' acknowledgement to Aboriginals!).

Its effectively got a budget based on household numbers and the fee is negotiated to meet their demands for funds and adjusted by law thru Parliament, so in effect they have a budget and guess what, the "Their scary ABC" has learnt all the leftie tricks it uses from Aunty BBC staffers.. Having been exposed to both, I couldn't choose which was worse.. Would get rid of Both.

They both rely on the onetime myth that they were national broadcasters that gave us hope through wartime... That reputation is now gone, and is an insult to those who actually built those early reputations that used to be the envy of the world. Now, they rank among the most biased and partisan and in one direction towards 'Red' comradeship, with healthy salaries to support the luvie lifestyles they deserve of course!

I know of colleagues from Europe and Middle East who grimace with humour that when the BBC arrived in a terrorist zone, everyone expected trouble... just I suppose the way the ABC like creating the news, as opposed to reporting it!

Toni, yes BBC is very good.

IN UK, "standard TV licence now costs £154.50 a year and pays for the BBC’s TV, radio and online operatations".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/16/qa-how-the-bbc-is-funded-by-tv-licences

Would we be prepared to pay such a high compulsory fee?

Should a govt enforce such a fee?

//Would we be prepared to pay such a high compulsory fee?//

Doubt it. A lot of people in this country seem to feel that they should be entitled to a high quality national broadcaster, but that they should also be entitled to not have to pay a cent for it. I consider this an unreasonable view.

//Should a govt enforce such a fee?//

Our 'licence fee' come in the form of tax, which the government does enforce. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, it means there are people funding the ABC who never use their services. But it seems to me that the alternative would lead to a lot of bludgers happy to use their services and never pay for them. Some would, but the issues around piracy (not the nautical kind) indicate that most would try to weasel out of it.

As it is, I already pay for commercial channels that I don't watch. The only show I've watched on commercial TV this year has been LEGO Masters, everything else they offer is either complete crap, or of insufficient quality to outweigh the annoyance of ads.

But I still have to pay indirectly for these channels that I don't watch: they get their revenue from ads, ads cost businesses money, and they pass those costs on to the consumer.

So either way you're getting hit in the hip pocket, whether it's via tax or via consumption. Both are unavoidable. Indeed I put it to you that it's easier to avoid tax than essential consumption: if you give up paying tax you get audited; if you give up eating you die.

We're all collectively paying for all the free-to-air channels. Even the bits we don't watch. Even the bits we despise. Even the endless re-runs of shows that were bad the first time around. The distinct advantage of the paying through tax model is that by cutting out the middle man, you get to enjoy shows uninterrupted by ad breaks - something that the ABC and BBC, to their great credit, continue to adhere to.

I fear Chris's comment ( remember he is the author of this piece which is a rebirthed article he gave to the Inst Public Affairs in 2016) is evasive. Yes the annual licence fee is circa au$300 BUT its COMPULSORY, not voluntary and if you don't pay you get fines and eventually can be sentenced for refusal to pay. As I kid I can remember some families kids running down the streets warning families that the BBC detector vans were coming, so if they didn't have a licence they had to switch the TV/radios off! Can't see they happening in so of the ' dodgy suburbs in Sydney/Melbourne,,, or indeed country towns!

SO its is a TAX not a subscription and hence its just the same as here only worse because now the government subsidies for pensioners have been withdrawn, even 90 year old grannies have to pay to listen/watch the BBC, while commercial channels are advertising funded.

As the ABC lovies also like Fairfax ( SMH $264 per annum, The Guardian $258 per annum) so if the 34% of Australia (according to Chris) watch ABC a $300 per annum fee similar to the BBC should seem fare. Let the 34% fund it, simple... but the catch probably is that their subscriptions to Fairfax and The Guardian online is probably something they access via they government funded permanent jobs! If not then there is no problem and that 30% ( say 7.5 million) can easily get what they want, while the rest of us can used our reduced taxes to select subscription to more balanced, less elitist sources for news, entertainment, drama and sport.

Alison, get it right.

I said 34% watch current affairs, all channels. and I used a source.

You are funny though.

So …. if 34 % watch it for free what % do you reckon would pay the equivalent of an online newspaper.. Bet essential Media ( run by an ex Gillard staffer) wouldn't ask that question... might not get the right answer without a bit of demographic and locational and employment security adjustments!! Polls run by partisan pollsters is just propaganda.

Keep wit your day job, defending the ABC and Aunty BBC as quality balanced reporting isn't your forte... actually to be fair no one could do that, mate!

Cyclone and Toni,

I really enjoy ABC and SBS shows like Foreign Correspondent, Dateline, and Four Corners, plus all of the documentaries.

Where i would agree with the right wingers is that the ABC discussion shows are very biased. Not sure how you get around this.

TBH, i am not fussed what happens to the ABC, or any other broadcaster or newspaper. If they are good enough, they will survive.

AS for the ABC haters, the ABC will be around for a long time yet in some form, but they can watch SkyNews to be informed.

Sky is doing well with attracting the haters, but good luck with that tactic in the long run.

Chris, you had better check the heritage of most of the things you like from the ABC, "Foreign Correspondent, Dateline, and Four Corners and documentaries". While I despair at the news and opinion bias, I enjoy watching them too, along with Sky, CNN, Fox, Deutse Welle, China TV News, Russia Today and even auntie BBC...

But most of the stuff on the programs you love are actually done by others in other countries with feeble ABC edits and inserts... Come on don't have such an elitist attitude as if we al don't appreciate your intellect..

Next time you write something do something fresh and not just 'recycled' form 4 year ago... its bad enough that Politicians use that excuse for selling assets for short-term budget issues, we don't need articles like yours on OLO mimicking their example with your dated IPA article. Move on mate and write something of value that is new thought!

Alison, get a life. you talk bs.

Some of you right wingers are truly fascists; you only want to hear what you want to hear.

So .... of

Sign of a true leftie, even when a much self believing author, he can't take criticism and when stumped resorts to abuse and fowl language... go find a protest march to join, rather than pretending to be a thinker mate!

Alison, i don't mind criticism, if in fact i like it as long as it does not attack the man.

But you are a pest, like a little terrier dog snapping at one's feet continuously. LIke a broken record. Whine, whine, whine.

I suspect you will mouth off again.

A bigmouth, who likes to have last word.

FYI, I will write whatever I want to write, and it is up to Graham, not a drop kick like you, what gets published.

And now get to church, and ask for forgiveness for being a pain in the ...

Alison, I don't claim to be anything.

I am just another Australian who has a family, works and has hobbies with writing one of them.

I just write the stuff, and OLO publishes it, as have other journals and newspapers. Quadrant too published me four times 2006-2008. Not bad for a leftie given others call me a right winger.

But, if am have been rude to you, go cry to Graham.

Boo Whooo,..... You will need to try harder to be rude, Your not rude, just a typical leftist luvie of the ABC me old mate. If you want to be rude, you'll have to study professional lefties like Steelrednuts and Ateby or even pick up tips from Alan B. On the rudeness rankings your not even on the my dance card!

I knew you would have the last word.

Great job. Check mate. You win.

Thanks for informing me that i am a "typical leftist luvie".

Hey Alison, some really good ABC shows coming up. I think you will enjoy them.

You just could help it, could ya!.. Any way Chris, is you had boether to read, rather than to react to my comments, I do watch the ABC, maily for overseas drama, documentaries and of course the News... As they sy, know thine enemy! but as for Q&A, The Drum, Insiders and the like, not even a "senile old tart" like me can stand that stuff.