Just off the top of my head:

7.30 Report, Andrew Denton, Foreign Correspondent, Lateline, Four Corners - on a lighter note; Time Team, Absolute Power, Dr Who, Spicks & Specks, Glasshouse, Extras, David Attenborough programs, New Inventors, Catalyst, Gardening Australia, Rage, At the Movies, Media Watch, Kath & Kim, the West Wing (saved from CH:7) and the list goes on.

Loss of the ABC would mean loss of innovation, information and alternatives to the pap served up by for-profit TV. All of this info and entertainment which would be lost if the ABC became another ratings obsessed, lowest common denominator, boringly mainstream, commercial channel.

How many times have interesting shows like 6 feet under or the Sopranos been allocated to ridiculous time-slots or axed completely because of commercial channels jumping to the tune of advertisers?

Do we need another channel 9, 7, or 10 ? - emphatically, no! However, if the Shorbe's of this world have their wicked way that is what we'll get.

Yep, lots of great programs...and you even left out MY two FAVES:

The Einstein Factor &
Chaser's War on Everything :)

Thanks, Hadz

Love 'em also - just thought I'd better stop. Although, I did learn just how much ABC I do watch - I surprised myself.

And I didn't even get started on ABC radio - I alternate between RRR and ABC.

Given the range of programming on ABC, there is definitely something for everybody, if they'd just check it out.

Therefore, I maintain: PUBLIC PURPOSE; PUBLIC INTEREST; PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

May my taxes continue to support diversity in media.

rorted: If they're independent of public scrutiny via ratings, yet they're getting public funds, then where's the accountability? Also, I seriously doubt the left in this country would be happy to see the ABC get taken over by Christian fundamentalists (Islamic fundamentalists, yes perhaps) just to voice an alternative to whatever is considered the mainstream.

Scout: Again, what you consider quality viewing and what someone else considers quality viewing may be quite different. Has it occurred to you that maybe the overwhelming majority of Australians consider most of what is on the ABC to be complete pap, and maybe what's on the ABC is actually pap? You're sounding more paternalistic by the post.

Finally, nice attempt to paint me as one of the "lowest common denominator" viewers. At no point have I actually said I want another Channel 7, 9 or 10. On the occasions I do watch television, I've said I prefer ABC or SBS. Likewise, although I didn't explicitly state it, when I'm in Melbourne (I currently live in the country), I listen to RRR or PBS. They manage to survive quite fine without access to the public purse. So, given that I don't support the mainstream and I'm actually prepared to pay for the non-mainstream, yet don't expect anyone to pay for my interests, explain to me exactly how it is that I want my "wicked ways" to promote the mainstream?

In this instance, you're showing yourself to be an elitist bigot who thinks the savages need to be civilised and that there's an either/or situation between the gravy train of public funding and the evil corporate world. Given the example of RRR, your cognitive dissonance is quite interesting.

shorbe: An independent ABC means, by definition, that it wouldn't be self-governing and therfore not directly accountable to the government or any other foreign body. Shock, horror? This is the way many such government bodies are treated including the Commonwealth Ombudsman and NSW's ICAC - I can't see why the ABC should be treated differently. Funding decisions could be based on the findings of a parliamentry committee or similar to ensure transparency. I'm not terribly interested in the details suffice to say that there are many ways to skin the cat.

Shorbe

I did hold hopes of engaging in debate – not point scoring or personal invective.

If you believe that the ABC could (at the very least) maintain the same standards on public donations – then fine, believe what you want, but please provide evidence. The shoe string RRR runs on is hardly sufficient to maintain the ABC at its current level. Therefore, I disagree with you. But then, I believe that we pay our governments taxes for a variety of purposes, such as public broadcasting.

You clearly don’t.

I guess you also believe in privatisation, regardless of outcomes, independence or value to the population. Makes me ponder just what you believe your taxes are for.

Anyway, I have learnt that trying to communicate a POV to someone who isn’t interested in amicable discussion, is just a waste of time – I have no patience for vitriol.

As for RRR – I guess you prove the breadth and depth of that radio station’s supporter base. Ain’t variety grand?