I enjoy watching the ABC. They have excellent programs for all ages that you will never see on commercial television and what a massive loss it would be to see us lose it.

SBS is not a station I watch much but I do watch it. Their current affairs programs, as well as that made by the ABC, gives us a good alternative. Not unbias, there is NO such thing as an unbias thought.

Who cares if the ABC isn't raking in ratings. They produce many shows of excellence which, when bought by commercial stations, ruin it instantly leaving it to waste for the benefit of money only.

Spider: My point about the ratings is that whilst most of the populace doesn't watch ABC or SBS, and probably even disagrees with a lot of the programming (for example, foreign language shows with no subtitles), they're still forced to fund it. Likewise, even though I prefer the ABC or SBS to the commercial stations, I don't think someone should have to fund that for me. The ABC and SBS should not be exempted from the constraints of the market simply because they're somehow considered excellent ("by whom?" we may well ask). That's elitist nonsense. If they're really that good, people would fund them anyway (see the radio stations RRR and PBS in Melbourne as good examples of this -- they're both funded entirely privately, yet retain control over programming things you'd never hear on other radio stations), although they'd probably have to drop a lot of the rubbish (eg. dreary British dramas) they show too.

Ratings are not what it is all about.

Shorbe

Are you seriously suggesting that because not all of Australia watches the ABC, then it should become reliant on public donation? Have you thought through the ramifications at all? For example, there are many government services which are not accessed by ALL Australians. As a taxpayer (no children) my taxes fund public education, using your logic, should public education become reliant on public donation? Surely ALL children are entitled to education and I don’t begrudge any of my tax dollars being spent on this essential service. One begins to wonder if the ‘total-privatisation-brigade’ understand where their ideology is leading them. Perhaps our next election will be our last when we vote for a CEO instead of a P.M.

;0)

BTW I am a regular viewer of the ABC and SBS and also a long time subscriber to RRR (which certainly has a place). However we need a sophisticated alternative to the commercial pap on the private networks and, in spite of reduced funding, the ABC still provides this vital service. While I adore RRR, our nation would be the poorer if the ABC should have to reduce its services and programs if solely reliant on the behest and philanthropy of the general public.

I don't buy that Australians who don't watch the ABC aren't getting value for their money. It's the Australians who find the ABC's content objectionable, elitist, or plain boring as bats**t who have the most to gain from its influence, which regularly extends the commercial stations. Take for instance its current affairs programs which routinely set the agenda for their commercial counterparts (this year's examples include Four Corners' report on child abuse in Aborignial communities and Lateline's revelations the AWB).

It also functions as an outlet for essential but not commercially viable progams (such as Parliamentary question time) and for independant scrutiny of politics and the media at large. It's hard to imagine progams like the 7:30 Report and Media Watch going to air on commercial stations, who as it is can rarely be bothered getting out of bed with the political parties long enough to broadcast retractions even when their errors are pointed out to them.

Scout: Firstly, I'm actually in favour of full privatisation, though I think you and I will get nowhere arguing about that.

Secondly, however, to suggest the ABC is essential is ridiculous. I wasn't aware that I've been leading such a deprived life by not catching up on recent episodes of The Bill or Playschool. While I'm on that topic, just how exactly is The Bill any more vital than Blue Heelers? Ditto for all the other "entertainment" programmes on ABC or SBS when compared to their equivalents on the commercial networks.

Thirdly, to suggest that the social, political or economic life of this country is a dichotomy between the Big Brother corporatism or the Nanny State of socialism is absurd. I happen to prefer neither, in case you hadn't noticed, and I think such a scenario is entirely possible.

Yes, there's some quality viewing on ABC and SBS. However, there's also some on the commerical networks. Yes there's crap on them too, but there's plenty of crap on ABC and SBS. Q: The difference between a soap set in rural England and a soap set in rural Australia is? A: I can turn Home and Away off and I don't have to pay for it.

Frankly, this whole "it's a vital service" argument smacks of the grossest form of paternalism, as if we great unwashed masses don't really know that a bit of left wing journalism or a British period costume drama is really what's good for us. It sounds like precisely the nonsense the left (rightfully) gets up in arms about whenever the right brings religion into the public sphere.

rorted: It's not a matter of whether the ABC is good for us or not. For all I know, the Christian God may be very annoyed with me on his Day of Judgement. It doesn't stop me from getting annoyed when the Christian right claim they know what's best for me and I'm equally annoyed when they get their snouts in the trough of public funding.

shorbe: It's neither a matter of the ABC being good for us nor of whether a minority cause should have access to public funds. I'll happily surrender control of Aunty to Christian fundamentalists if it ensures her survival as an independant, alternative broadcaster (any alternative will do!), free from the sleazy influence of government, business, or private backers.