I find that the ABC's focus on aboriginal affairs way, way over the top. Nevertheless, the drama features that the ABC has produced must make this institution one of the greatest assets we have and it must rank amongst the world's best. I don't want to see anybody muck around with it.

Whether or not the ABC has a left-wing bias (the left says it hasn’t; the right says it has) is irrelevant to whether or not the broadcaster should be removed from the public teat. I think that the ABC is definitely biased towards the left but, as I am capable of making up my own mind on what I see or hear, I don’t really care.

As an older person, I have to say that my biggest beef with the ABC is its emulation of commercial channels – chasing the lowest common denominator audience with silly shows for most of the week, its advertising of itself and these silly programmes, taking up just as much time as the advertisements on the commercial networks, and its insistence on having that silly bloody bowtie logo stuck on the screen.

I hate channel logos! I now watch only about 2 hours TV per week, on all channels because I find these things distracting and offensive. If the commercials want to do it, operating on market forces system where viewers can dump them if they don’t like what they sell, fair enough. But, taxpayers should not be paying an organisation with no real competition to do the same thing!

The way the ABC is heading, it will wither on the vine. It now portrays itself as a “business”, rather than a service, and it is not doing a very good job of it. I will tolerate channel-advertising logos only for the very best programmes, and the ABC is no longer presenting anything much better than the commercials.

The ABC has already chosen to ape the commercials in the ‘market forces’ field, and is failing.

Public money should be withdrawn.

What an odd argument. It seems that Liberal sympathizers on the board can be trusted to act impartially. But Labour sympathizers cannot.

Bias is like the wind. When it's blowing your way you often don't notice it.

Great another privileged right winger who's removed the silver spoon from her mouth just long enough to complain about the evil left wing ABC. The author hasn't even bother to come up with any new arguments. Let me assure you that when Labour get in a few years down the track Labours supporters will be complaining about the ABC not being nice to them just as they did during the Hawk-Keating era.

I to am so sick of the inherant bias of Mother and Son. When the ABC did round the clock coverage of the recent floods in Newcastle and the Central Coast it always seemed that the flood waters were coming from the left.

It's so sad to see someone as young as you still fighting the cold war.

By this argument it is also time for the Sydney Morning Herald to be sold, as its blatant left-wing bias (Henderson&Devine excepted) shows that there is no need for a public newspaper.

But soft! Fairfax is a privately-owned corporation! Australia has no government-owned general-circulation newspapers.

*If* you had made a genuine case that the ABC is severely biased to the left, you would still not have demonstrated that public-service broadcasting should cease.

But you have not even successfully argued that the ABC is severely biased. You have shown instead that some of its personalities and a few of its programs have expressed opposition to the policies of the incumbent Government -- hardly a secret nor a problem, given the range of ABC services and the controversiality of the policies in question. Former officers and leaders of the governing party also oppose them.

You will find that the same is the case in most privately-owned media institutions, though I must concede that the editorial reins are held more tightly in the most conservative parts of the press and that people from corporate media are less politically active.

I surmise that the kind of person who would aim at and succeed in a career in public-service broadcasting is more likely to consider other kinds of public service, such as serving in Parliament, than people in the corporate media, some of whom appropriately seem to have a revolving-door relationship with other parts of corporate Australia.

You are incorrect to claim that the ABC as a whole is failing in its duty as a public broadcaster and internet media service, with its comprehensive coverage of regional communities, its wide and accurate news reporting, and its excellent services for Australian children.

Leigh is correct that the ABC would be mistaken to wholeheartedly embrace the style and aims of corporate media. I don't think it has quite done that yet.

Only if it were completely failing in its mission to serve the Australian public would the closure or sale of the ABC be warranted. It is in fact serving the public exactly as intended.

What you really mean to say is that you want to make the ABC a mouthpiece of the RIGHT.

We already have a right-wing media in Australia. Have you read The Australian lately? Or watched Fox News? Or listened to the shock jocks on commercial radio?

The ABC is a moderate voice by comparison. Like all public broadcasters, it is designed to serve those needs that commercially driven media will not.

It is never very clear exactly what you reactionaries want from the ABC. Presumably rolling headlines about the genius of John Howard (produced by David Barnett, of course), plus whitebread history documentaries about the Anzacs, Bradman and Menzies.

You will simply not be happy until the ABC is a mouthpiece of the state. Like the paranoid control freaks of Asian city states like Singapore, you people simply cannot stand dissent.

I agree. The ABC's principal vice, because of its bias, is that it is predictable and thus boring. I check in occasionally to check. Ho hum.

ABC News radio would do a Goebbels type proud as an instrument of party propoganda.

"Landline" I would offer as the exception - sometimes I actually feel informed at the end of that programme.

Iudex

Risible, predictable, dull. Boilerplate Young Liberal ranting.

ALL media IS propaganda,and is inherently and inevitably full of presumptions (often uninspected) about what is true, real and possible.

The commercial media, especially radio & TV, is a cultural wasteland.

Whatever its faults, biases, and limitations the ABC offers all kinds of windows in to all kind of world-views and understandings that never ever, and never ever will be, offered or found on commercial media.

Commercial media (rather propaganda) is governed by the bottom line---the lowest common denominator. When the bottom line becomes the arbiter of what is possible then ALL "higher" cultural values and possibilities inevitably get flushed down the toilet.

Even the ideologues of the "right" argue for "higher" cultural values and frequently lament the erosion and loss of these values.

There is such a thing as high culture.
Without it we are really just barbarians like the lost souls on "reality" TV.

The conservatives won't be happy until only the views of their committee of cardinals is aired. No matter that the right control the views expressed by the commercial TV channels and the radio shock jocks there should not be anyone pointing out the more than occasional stupidity of those in power. John Howard for example is mouthing off about the states borrowing to finance infrastructure and essential services when he should know that the purpose of government loans is twofold. The second reason is to remove surplus funds from competing for such assets as housing. Does anyone doubt that it is surplus savings in the hands of the wealthy that is forcing the price of housing out of the reach of the not so well off? Our Federal Government has ignored the known and unchanged rules of macroeconomics in its pandering to the well off and to financial institutions. Sooner or later we will face reality.
The ABC occasionally points out such stupidity no matter who is in power and thereby provides a real public service. More strength to its arm.

Felicity
Getting stuck into the ABC will not win you the next election.Its all about John Howard and his very superficial respect for democracy.I repeat Felicity democracy.Now as someone who has lived in many different countries Felicity and carried arms for his country let me assure you Felicity that it is very easy to abuse,reduce and trash democracy but very hard to nurture it.
You will have seen from your travels that the BBC is further to the 'left' and so is the media in most of northern Europe,parts of southern Europe including Italy and Spain,also the sub continent including India where they even have a communist press in some states and a left bias in some national dailies and of course north America where the Canadian Broadcasting Commission looks and sounds a lot like our ABC ie cautious and conservative.
Your line in this article might help you impress your party or even help gain preselection but your attack on the ABC does nothing to inspire confidence in you or your tolence or indeed your ability for dispassionate analysis.
Putting the boot in on the basis of the 'facts' you cite smacks of whatever it takes.
Bruce Haigh

Ugh.

There's a little left wing bias in the ABC... sure.

Perhaps I'd listen to author a little more if she could point to some quality examples of investigative journalism on the commerical networks, or provide some assurance that privatising the ABC won't let to the pursuit of the lowest common denominator, as the commercial networks are wont to do. Instead, all I hear is politically oriented complaining, with no thought to the ramifications.

Answer me this - does the ABC produce better news segments than the commercial networks?

Ultimately - I want an ABC that criticise the government, regardless of which side of politics the government is. I'd be far more sympathetic to the author if she for instance, could prove that the ABC would go easy on a labor-led government.

It's not about criticising either party - it's about examining who is in power at the time. That is absolutely crucial, so I have no sympathy for the whingers attacking the ABC on this one.

If they focused more on examples of the ABC going soft on left wingers, then I'd listen. But I've no time for this garbage as it stands. I want journalists who aren't afraid to bite.

I find it interesting that the new inventors is attacked for being left wing, because it asks for environmentally sound inventions.
I didn't think supporting the environment was explicitly Left wing, but thanks felicity for clearing that up - now I know the right-wingers are keen on environmental destruction.

We have commercial broadcasters that are mouthpieces of the right which all consumers are forced to fund through the advertising component of the retail price of goods. Every time I buy a can of soup I'm probably contributing to the salaries of some right wing war-monger in the commercial media or the crew on Big Brother. Without the ABC the public would be at the mercy of private corporations who have no interest in providing information, their priority is ratings. The ABC is not a Howard poodle, this fact is often incorrectly interpreted as bias.

Hmm Liberal Party person attacks the ABC as being biased. When Labor is in power they did the same thing.

The ABC does not have a responsibility to run the government line. It does have a responsibility to inform the public, whether that offends certain people is not the point.

This is a symptom of a larger problem. Under this government, things like objective thinking and reporting are considered anathema. As we have seen with the Public Service where senior Public Servants have been moved onto short term contracts, severely damaging their ability to report "without fear or favour".

And just to make sure that no one thinks I'm biased towards Labor, I don't believe that the Labor party will do anything to reverse this trend. It's too valuable a tool in keeping government to have a compliant public service at your beck and call rather than one that keeps letting facts get in the way of good publicity.

This piece is poorly argued, and relies on the old trope that the truth must lie between any two given opposing views.

The author makes a good point that democracy must be shored up through robust dialogue, but then just indulges blatant triumphalism by substituting her own orthodoxy as the missing panacea to achieve that dialogue. We have no reason to accept this. The truth isn’t located by differentiating between two demagogues. This is a clear fallacy because, if it were true, it would be a simple matter of constructing the debate so your side is always more extreme. That way, you control the goal posts, and moderation is abandoned so as to shift the truth in your direction.

Felicity praising Insiders for its supposed balance is a good example. I’ve watched some good Insider panels, and I’ve watched some shocking ones. The point is, you aren’t guaranteed dialogue, and you aren’t providing “balance,” simply by stacking a panel with a flag careers for an ideology. This simply assumes, again, that the truth must be found between a reactionary like Andrew Bolt, and another of the ABC regulars.

This fallacy is replicated unthinkingly when Felicity expresses apparent outrage that Gore’s film may have received better treatment than Durkin’s. Yet again we are meant to accept uncritically that both political pieces are on equal footing. The very idea that notwithstanding the flaws in Gore’s, it is still inherently less polemical and dishonest than Durkin’s simply isn’t conceivable. The truth must be in the middle, and if one is treated with more credulity, it must be BIAS!!

Seriously, have a think about what you’re writing. There are genuine intellectuals on the conservative side, who could add to the political dialogue at the ABC, but they aren’t anything like what Ms McMahon would recognise.

Privatise the ABC? Surely not. ABC TV is where I get all my news, current affairs and general nightly entertainment. ABC radio ditto. Privatise the ABC and it becomes one of those loser FTA/radio things. The amount of programmes I watch and listen to on FTA teev/radio (no pay tv) prime time can be counted on one finger NRL, except The Dead Zone at the ridiculous hour of 0200 hours Monday mornings, what a blessing a VCR is. You see, I'm a scifi/fantasy/horror/australian humour genre fan. The dross the FTA/radio folks are dishing up at this time doesn't interst me at all!

Privatise ABC, nah, leave it alone I say

I'm a liberal supporter but the ranting about bias in the ABC is an old and tired argument that never goes anywhere. Have a look a the constitution of the Board. Have a look at the wide range of programming offered. You can't have everything and arguments about balance are pointless.

I am grateful for the ABC and hope we always have a state owned and run broadcaster.

Young Liberal academic hopefuls could open their eyes a bit wider and offer something new to the debate instead of dribbling the weary yet vacuous party-line.

Personally, I love the ABC, especially their prime time viewing. Quality dramas such as Silent Witness and Taggart are well beyond any of the rubbish commercial stations are so fond of airing, although mostly because they wouldn't be able to play the full length version as well as fit in all their mind numbing adverts. ABC documentaries are second to none. Same with their childrens programs, plus you don't get all the McDonalds adverts every five minutes.

Anyway Felicity, you can't call ABC biased since the Insiders consistently invite Piers Ackerman into it's discussion format. I've never known a person so biased toward John Howard and the Liberal/Coalition Party. Fortunately, I've learned to switch off when he opens his ample mouth to drown out all competition.
Jack Robertson of the SMH, in an article following the Tampa incident, described Ackerman as being like "most of the Blimps on the New Right," and one who has "an obsession with the Chattering Classes."
I suggest Felicity, that you're not a whole lot different.

Christ if it was not for the ABC you would go mad,and this writer wants to give another commerical channel,we have 3 now that don,t show anything but crap and she wants to inflict another one.
As for left wing bias what a load of twaddle,easy way out dear if you don,t like it don.t watch it,just stick to listening to Mr Jones and Mr Hadley and watching A Currant Bun and TT,they sound like your type of programme

Oh please, do we not have enough biased media in Australia! We are very lucky to have a network that is not touting the mantra of the current government. No it is not perfect, but if you have a real problem with the ABC, simple solution, do not switch it on, and continue to watch the commercial channels. Please stop the right-wing bleating, it is very dull.

Felicity McMahon gives most space to alleged left-wing bias, an argument long shown to be vacuous. And Felicty knows it won’t hold up against the evidence especially when our right-wing government has stacked the ABC Board with an entire cast of right-wingers.

Felicity knows the case is thin – but digging deep into the barrel she finds that on The New Inventors all inventions have be “environmentally-sound”. Only wind-powered generators that accept wind from the left of screen are allowed. Felicity hasn’t heard yet that John Howard is now a keen environmentalist.

How dare the ABC ask Bill Shorten, the Victorian [not Federal Felicity] President of the ALP to comment on Steve Bracks’ retirement when they already had the Leader of the State Opposition and a Federal Liberal Minister? And how dare they mention that Howard’s retirement was also on some people’s mind?

Felicity is angry about having to pay to hear “opinions of the left”. Yet… “We all support a clash of ideas and opinions. Robust democracies survive best in an atmosphere where rigorous debate takes place...”

Felicity’s Great Debate: the right versus the far-right.

But left-wing bias is all fluff. Her real argument is that the ABC is too popular and has the lion’s share of a corner of the market - and the moneymen want it.

In Felicity’s world, taxpayer funding “…unfairly accords the ABC a monopoly over certain types of shows, locking commercial stations out of the competition…it is virtually impossible for competitors to edge into the market that the ABC has dug out for itself.” Bias notwithstanding, apparently

“ABC programming is geared towards an educated, older, usually wealthier, audience”, laments Felicity. They can afford to pay to be entertained and informed. And “advertisers would be dying to promote their products on the ABC…as a premier marketing vehicle”.

And a nice twist in Felicity’s argument: a privatised ABC would still “…create new programs and invest in Australian drama or documentaries, if that is what the viewing public continued to demand”.

Maybe "educated" and discerning ABC viewers continue to demand balanced ABC news and current affairs too.

Odd behaviour for such a ‘biased’ ABC to put the Great Global Warming Swindle on in a prime timeslot, with plenty of advance publicity, a panel discussion and an audience question time. Why give it so much attention?

If the ABC had behaved in a truly biased way against the documentary’s claims, it would either not have screened it at all or put it on at an unwatchable timeslot with no publicity whatever – ensuring that it would just slip quietly under the radar. After all, invisible censorship is by far the most effective.

Also, why exactly does a pro-climate change stance equate with left-wing bias? Climate change acceptance has been mostly mainstream for some time now - and even that most conservative of lobbies, the business world, is starting to realise there are immense profits to be made by joining the green rush.

The 'left-wing ABC climate-change swindle' has been a carefully orchestrated smear campaign - almost entirely driven by the Murdoch press. And the op ed attacks started long before the documentary even screened - in fact, as far back as May.

If or when the ABC is privatised, it's a cash cow for whoever buys it. If I were to predict the ABC's future, I wouldn't bother about the claims of left-wing bias, I'd follow the money.

If the ABC is left wing I am not sure where that places Malcolm Fraser, who has often criticised the direction of the Howard government and in far more harsh terms than the ABC ever would.

I have a lot of respect for Malcolm Fraser but little for the front bench of the Howard government, which left liberalism behind a long time ago.

Maybe the author could outline how commercial television is delivering the quality programs that were promised by Mr Howard when he last gave the ABC a flogging and cut its funding. Mr Howard said (and there would be footage) that the 'market' and 'competition' would ensure quality programs for the viewer. However since then all we have been getting from commercial TV are reality shows, endless advertorials and dumbed down news and current affairs.

The ABC was making excellent Australian shows and there was good investigative journalism before Howard and his knucklemen (and knucklewomen) got into their sledging, interference in the Board and cutting of funds.

Shame Mr Howard, shame.

I watch the ABC almost exclusively.
Why?
NO ADVERTISING!

Firstly I do not understand how privatizing the ABC is in any way a solution to the perceived problem highlighted by Felicity.

According to this logic should we all be concerned with selling Australian Government departments when we perceive them to have a problem? I assume not hence I must have missed something in the argument.

Oh, the logic must be that since a perceived left wing institution is being paid for by tax dollars, voters of all persuasions are footing the bill.

According to this logic I would like to stop paying for private schools, stop all political ads that are fear based emotional taunts unrelated to reality (an insult to anyone who is remotely educated), stop paying for the slaughter of afghans, stop paying for the slaughter of Iraqi’s, give all scientists and business people in Australia the goal of developing the technology and solutions which will make Australia the most sustainable country on the planet just for the fun of it (Australians can achieve anything they want if they set their minds to it).

If we can make ad hoc solutions to our perceived problems may I suggest an equivalent of the Reserve Bank for “Democratic Integrity”. This department would be independent of all political influences and its sole purpose would be to maintain high alert to any actions by any government of the day that erode any aspect of a healthy and strong democracy. (and if the ABC was being biased they would pick it up, and probably scold them for not allowing and airing rigorous debate on controversial issues)

This department would also be on alert for deceptive marketing by political parties. Example when The Liberal Party promises to keep interest rates low the department officials from the office of Democratic Integrity would get very excited. Since the interest rate is set by the Reserve Bank and independently of the government of the day, a claim to “keep interest rates low” would have to mean the government has invented a new mechanism for influencing interest rates, and the appropriate officials would investigate this bold claim

Another example of shooting the messenger.
This piece is so full of half-truths and biases of its own it's hard to know where to begin.

While the ABC is funded by taxpayers, the so-called free media is funded indirectly by consumers but without the benefit of monitoring for bias. I'm certain that we are paying more than "eight cents per day" for all the other radio and TV networks in the country, whether we use them or not.

Valid criticism or commentary is not bias.

I recall that Neville Wran was no fan of the ABC and Keating/Hawke were also under constant siege during their time in power.

I see no mention of the ABC commentators who went onto careers in commercial media or conservative politics.
Despite stacking the ABC Board with government cronies, criticism still gets through because it may just be valid.

Why not address the substance of the criticism or perceived bias itself instead of speaking in generalities?

Perhaps it's the audience who are biased. Wasn't there a "conservative" radio programme put to air on Radio National a while back but failed due to poor ratings?

Selling the ABC is unlikely anyway because the rest of the media would resist it.
The limited advertising dollar would have to be spread over yet another network and diminish their own revenue so I can't see them pushing for a sale. Besides, they provide a handy public distraction from their own self-interested efforts.

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch could buy it outright and then all hints of bias would miraculously disappear. Maybe a phone-poll will provide an intelligent resolution to this dilemma.

G'day there

Yes, I too thought I'd heard all this somewhere before and it jogged my memory of listening to the radio out in the tractor whilst doing some real work.

Ms McMahon kindly flagged it in her first line "Recently, the ABC made a good case for its own privatisation." The ABC very much did. It was during the very first edition of Michael Duffy's presentation of the occasionally enjoyable "Counterpoint" program on Radio National back in May 2004. In the transcript you'll find a better assembly of ideas than Ms McMahon's pieced together in her own time, together with comments by Peter Morgan, Jane Caro, Alan Moran, Tony Moore and some callers.

The advert-free web address is at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2004/1111283.htm

While I don't agree with many of Mr Duffy's ideas at 4pm Monday arvos, I do admire and thank him for having the nous to publish "He Died with a Felafel in His Hand" which I once adapted for the stage and performed in at Ms McMahon's University many years ago. It's a shame that not a single new idea was put forward by her article, which incidentally, is a bit like our adaptation of "Felafel".

But then again unlike Ms McMahon's piece, we did have the good taste to attribute our source.

It's obvious this author's intention isn't to promote new ideas.
Instead, one suspects this poorly argued piece is merely a flag to those who in future might research the credentials of her ideologies.

Or, if you prefer, merely another unwanted advertisement for a product that appears to be as weak as piss, and twice as salty.

Back to the paddocks

Simon Bedak
"Lorraine"
Wagga Wagga NSW 2650

Not much to say really.

An excellent thread, with the clear majority being able to see right through the silly woman.

I too thought the ABC's handling of 'A global warming swindle' ridiculous. Tony Jones could not contain his obvious contempt for those prepared to challenge 'the consensus'.

I have many other examples of bias from the ABC on environmental issues at my website. Here are a few links:

This one is about forestry and ABC 4-Corners

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001633.html

Here's comment from Ian Castles again on bias at 4-Corners but this time climate change

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001183.html

And any file footage will sometimes do when the ABC want to make a point

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001670.html

Felicity:
I am not sure what motivates you Felicity other than to provoke the rest of us. If you don’t approve of the ABC why don’t you soak up a bit more “Big Brother” and the thoughtless repetitive advertisements that promote unnecessary and often harmful product? You can’t have watched much of it as yet and obviously spend your time watching the ABC.
I SUGGEST YOU TRY WATCHING COMMERCIAL FREE TO AIR AND YOU WILL REALISE HOW FORTUNATE WE ARE TO HAVE THE ABC.

Jennifer Mahohasy,

Is that the best you can do in support of Felicity's inane attack on the ABC? Vacuousness in puppy-like support of inanity. Is it any wonder the right in Australia is regarded as intellectually lightweight?

This is a tired old argument. Only a Young idealogue would try this ivory tower tripe that no one in the real world really supports.

Those ugly Soviet towers at UTS seem to breed a whole lot of rightist and leftist elitism... You go Australia and talk to the people for who ABC radio is an essential part of their lifestyles. You'll find that a majority do not fit on your rigid left-right spectrum.

Argue subjects that the NSW Young Liberals really care about... like stacking safe liberal seats against the wets.

The human condition is really strange, Felicity sees the ABC as on the left side of politics, and i see the ABC as the Prime Minister's own propaganda machine.
Felicity must be unaware about the staff of the ABC being gagged years ago, when it was coming under fire from all directions left and right.
Obviously Felicity is too young to remember when the staff at the ABC [1960s&70s] were fearless in their criticism of the government, of the day, she would have branded them as communists.
The Prime Minister denied the staff of the ABC their freedom of speech, by removing it, because of his pushing his brand of "balance", though you cannot balance truth, as any one with common sense would know.
The ABC was set up as an independent public broadcaster, since coming to power, The Prime Minister has stacked the ABC board with his own loyal people, taking away the independence of the ABC, resulting in his political control of it, and it seems to myself that he has full intention of privatising the ABC, if he gets the chance.
The rest of the Australian media is corporate owned, without much diversity of opinion, political or otherwise.
Felicity, you are a virtual latecomer age wise, and i feel that you have not had many life experiences, resulting in you, like many others of your generation, having no understanding of the human condition.

Here we go again, the right-wing minority whinging that the ABC is left-biased. The fact is that the ABC's points of view reflect the values and views of a majority of normal, hard-working Aussies.

You call it left-bias because it doesn't fit in with your narrow, minority views.

Too bad! As an average Aussie I love the ABC as it is and would hate to see the 7:30 Report turn into a piece of crap current affairs show like Today Tonight or ACA which would undoubtedly happen under your vision of the ABC!

Thanks for the link to Duffy's Counterpoint panel Simon.

It wasn't a half bad discussion, considering the tilt of the segment and the panellists. Certainly a lot more compelling than the tripe Ms McMahon imagines will restore robust dialogue.

Alan Moran's comment was pretty revealing I thought. He equated the political preference of people who work in the US media to vote Democratic to being Leftist. That's stupid for two reasons:

1. DLC-centrism, and the establishment interests which go with it, has long since controlled the Democratic Party. They may practice a less repugnant form of corportate patronage than the Republicans, but calling them Leftist is a stretch. In fact, in foreign policy, right-wing lobbies like AIPAC may be even more influential on certain Democratic politicians.

2. It is apparently assumed that they are completely unable to separate their personal views from their professional responsibility, which is just insulting. Washington State is almost unanimously Democratic too, yet that doesn't mean Moran can allege their entire public service is incapable of doing their job.

The same logic pervades alleged proof of ABC bias. It's Leftist because they don't toe the government line. Or it's Leftist because certain ABC personalities are associated with progressive politics. Apparently, here too, ABC staff are incapable of exercising professionalism, and any counter-examples, like Pru Goward, don't exist.

It does not take long in this election year if one listens to or sees ABC current affair programs to detect left wing bias in spades. The ABC has been constantly warned but it just goes on. I agree, privatise it let people who want to hear this stuff pay for it. If it cannot survive on its own..too bad.

I give thanks every day that we have a public funded ABC despite the fact that successive Governments have sought to tailor it to their own particular bias
I am disgusted at the antic of commercial TV & Radio that their bias employs the parrot and Laws while they insult us with cheap american soapie crap.My radio is tuned to the ABC channels such as the News Channel; Radio National and the local FM channel. I was disappointed when Radio Australia closed down in the N.T and switched their transmissions to Melbourne.
The services the ABC provide are second to none.
If Australian TV & Radio services emulate privatised Fox and CNN you would really have something to complain about.
VIVA Aunty

Felicity says “It is wrong that taxpayer money is pumped into an organisation which is motivated to provide a platform for particular political opinions.”

Like the Liberal Party, you mean, which receives a tidy sum from the taxpayers?

Felicity also claims that ABC programming is geared to an older, wealthier audience; that's not entirely true. A quarter or more of ABC weekday viewing is programs for children; and families with small children are not all fabulously wealthy.

Of course, I am concerned about bias in some children's show. Take Thomas the Tank Engine, for example, extolling the virtues of hard work, following the rules and obeying the boss without question. Blatant right wing propaganda if ever I saw it!

Still, if the Liberals are so set on privatising the ABC, they know what to do. Run it as an election issue at the next federal election. I’d love to see the reaction from the voters!

Cheers!

What exactly is Felicity soliciting? Does she want our ABC to become yet another Channel 9, 7, 10, where programs are indecently interrupted every 5 minutes to make exhorbitant profits for the owners? I rarely miss a '7.30 Report' or 'Lateline' and I must confess that finding bias in either program's convenor must be a fertile mind's imagination. If Felicity McMahon worries about 'taxpayers' funds', she should seriously consider publically reprimanding John Howard for the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money spent on blatant political advertising.
Why didn't Felicity explain what would be achieved by privatising the ABC? Why doesn't she explain what privatisation caused to the railways, to the electricity supply, etc. Just keep off the ABC........

As Felicity rightly points out, the ABC maintains a strong position in the ratings.

My view will always be, if a QANGO is worth the effort, it will be able to maintain its existence in the same jungle as the rest of us, the private equity jungle.

Many of the ex-government homes for the incontinent have made the transition from the public teat to the real world QANTAS, CBA, GAF to name but three. The ABC should be a prime object for private investment and not treated as some sacred cow (of the left).

One thing is sure, they will be driven by the competitive spirit, which is the only motivator for excellence. No longer able to slink back into promoting the negative values of socialism, which are in direct conflict to what really works in a real world.

To all those who think we are morally uplifted by demeaning dross and censored coverage of politically incorrect views of the fallacy of global warming, let them pay for it as private subscribers and leave my tax dollars in my pocket for me to spend on the news/entertainment media of my choice.

The less government involvement in everything, the better

I guess when you are so very far to the right, everything else must seem to be on the left.

But isn't the ABC owned by the BBC? Given the British warehouse-sale trash our ABC serves up I'm sure it is.

Come on love, just who the heck do you think would buy the place.

With every dead head journo in the country on their payroll, its a catastrophe. Its also unlikely to get a chance to improve, if Labor gets in. They will reintroduce the "you can't sack anyone, no matter how hopeles they are" law, & nobody could ever make it pay.

Just write off the best part of a billion dollars as unemployment benefits for the trendy twits.

Col Rouge. You are obviously a "Big Brother" fan, and into shock jock radio.

Bet you hated the BBC when you lived there!

Hasbeen,

"Deadhead Journos"? You mean they've employed the people behind A Current Affair and Today Tonight? Or maybe they've bought the rights to 60 Minutes?

How many serious stories have been broken on 4 corners? How many serious stories have been broken on Today Tonight? And please, this weeks "Fat Kids/Dodgy Builders/Scary [INSERT IMMIGRANT GROUP]/Dole Bludger" story does not count as a "serious story"

Well, that went over like a lead balloon, eh Felicity? Care to try again with a little more substance and a little less biased rhetoric?

James has a point there hasbeen. Name a better example on the commercial networks, because quite frankly, from where I'm sitting the ABC does a far better job than its counterparts.

If you can't, I can only assume you've got nothing but a dislike of either the ABC or journalists in general.
I'm inclined to dismiss empty arguments such as that.

To those who support the ABC being privatised, I ask - show me the examples of superior journalism in the private sector.

Otherwise, I can't see any reasons to take their view any more seriously than the ravings of Today Tonight.

We should definitely sell the ABC, I need more relativity TV, I love commercials, I love TT and ACA, there so meaningful, and the "new inventors" who do they think they are promoting Australian inventions "especially environmental ones" I mean "common" the whole deforestation, global warming, animal extinction thing is all a load of crap.
Now i did love that children over board story, and I especially love the "Interest rates will not rise" then there was that fantastic report on Uranium by the un-bias guy Ziggy/Nuclear Physicist I've never voted labor in 21 years but I'm swinging now. must be the ABC!

We should definitely sell the ABC, I need more relativity TV, I love commercials, I love TT and ACA, there so meaningful, and the "new inventors" who do they think they are promoting Australian inventions "especially environmental ones" I mean "common" the whole deforestation, global warming, animal extinction thing is all a load of crap.
Now i did love that children over board story, and I especially love the "Interest rates will not rise" then there was that fantastic report on Uranium/Nuclear by the un-bias guy Ziggy the Nuclear Physicist. I've never voted labor in 21 years but I'm swinging now. must be the ABC!

This topic has become tiresome.

The Howard Government has had eleven years (three with a majority in both Houses) to get rid of the ABC and have lacked either the wit or the guts to do it.

IMHO they should stop complaining and cop what they get.

I watch 2-3 hours of tellie on most evenings. I scan the range of offerings, and about 90% of the time I end up with the ABC. Thank goodness there is a channel that is not aiming for the most profitable demographics. But, then, I am in my 70's, graduated, and a self funded retiree, and so I should be spending my money on pay-TV.
Bias is mostly in the eye of the viewer.
I watched Bastard Boys and was sure that it was polemic against the dockworkers unions. I thought Corrigan came out pretty well. If anything can save the Howard government at the coming election it will be the fears that Bastard Boys can engender. The ABC have sown a seed there that can squelch the Left.
There is a curious anomaly here somewhere. In my dotage I am tending to the Right, but I value the Leftish TV channel?

So Ms MacMahon is young, well heeled, a professional debater, and a member of the Liberal party. What a surprise - one would never have guessed. I am elderly, educated, not rich although retired - in fact an ageing 'lefty' and typical (it seems) ABC viewer whose entertainment is paid for out of the public purse via ABC funding - an entertainment smorgasbord built around the exposition of left- biased political opinion. What a load of rubbish! I have rarely come across a more callow, childishly naive, and poorly researched load of tripe. Apart from anything else, the ABC output via TV, radio, and hands on social activity covers a wide and far ranging social spectrum, of which political commentary (regardless of left/right persuasion) forms a very small proportion. A national broadcaster free of commercial pressures (apart from the entertainment value alone) is almost unique in the world, and a valuable - indeed critical - adjunct to a free society. Ms MacMahon, have you ever watched commercial TV?
One's heart goes out to those unfortunates who will in time have this gormless ninny as their political representative and champion.

Privatise the ABC? - over my dead body!

Aime wrote:

"Anyway Felicity, you can't call ABC biased since the Insiders consistently invite Piers Ackerman into it's discussion format."

Yes, Aime. Maybe why that's why Felicity specifically singled out "Insiders" as an exception in her fifth paragraph? Maybe you should read what you are criticising?

As for the article itself... well, I think it is fairly clear to anyone who pays attention that the type of people who end up working for a public broadcaster, like in any other part of the public service, are more inclined to vote Lab than Lib. The exodus of ABC staffers into Labor preselection is hardly an advertisement for a wholly impartial staff, is it? I think those of you who say it is merely standard anti-govt. robust journalism, and that the reverse will be the case if (when??) Rudd takes power, are being more than a little disingenuous.

Having said that, I would never like to see the ABC privatised. I watch it knowing the likely leanings of the journos and take what I see with an appropriately sized grain of salt.

As Jon Faine said on Sunday the ABC runs ABC radio, Radio National, JJJ, News Radio, Radio Australia, ABC TV, ABV TV 2 on a smaller budget than Channel 7.

Clearly, privatisation delivers less bang for the buck!

I wake up to the alarm in the morning, scuff to the kitchen and fill the kettle. Then I switch on the radio, and on comes music to meet the day; ABC classic FM.

So Felicity if you want me to be unhappy and aggro when I walk into work, privatise the ABC.

Felicity darleeng, you have had a privileged life, enjoy it and dont interfere in others. Thats how wars begin, and your mate JWH as caused enough misery, so! If its not broken and it brings happieness, dont touch it!

Rather than privatising it we should look at the whole PS culture and have a freer interchange of employment between the Private sector and the PS.No more jobs for life and have more accountability.For some reason the PS seems to be a protected species.

How can you but have a left view of life when you have gone from home, to school and to Dear Old Aunty?Nearly all children when they leave school think that the worlds owes them a living.It is all a part of the growing up process but sheltered workshops inhibit our growth and maturation.There was never any need for them to know about survival or who really brings home the bacon.

All our Govts both Federal and State just pay lip service to reform, reducing regulation,waste, and red tape.

What Polly would dare disturb their universe since Pollies insulate themselves with bureaucrats?

Sorry but I see Felicity as a deluded radical right propaganda mouthpiece who is parroting what she was told to say and who sadly, appears to be against free speech and democracy, demanding that the ABC sprouts only radical right wing propaganda. As others have said she doesn't even successfully argue her point, just blathers on with her radical right, anti-democracy propaganda, which is actually a plagarised from one of The Oz's blogs.

When I was obtaining my degree in Psychology I did a thesis on how the Germans were brainwashed into giving up democracy in favour of Nazism and how it could happen in western democracies. Therefore to see Felicity actually say 'it enrages me that opinions of the left are aired and then legitimised' made me aghast as that was essentially suggesting between the lines, that not only the ABC should only attack the Opposition but also should only support what the government is pushing, which IMO is too close to what happened in Germany to make me comfortable.

Because the ABC tries to give both sides of the story rather and questions both sides of politics, Felicity sees it as bias. Evidently what she wants is to have the ABC, and indeed every TV channel and newspaper be a government mouthpiece similar to The Australian.
But you have not even successfully argued that the ABC is severely biased. Another writer said it succinctly 'What you really mean to say is that you want to make the ABC a mouthpiece of the RIGHT.' Again, very frightening. In addition, being a radical right mouthpiece and having this article in both The Australian and OLO I fear that if reelected Howard plans to privatize the ABC because, despite Howard having filled the ABC board with his conservative appointees, the ABC still give moderate and balanced coverage rather than state sponsored propaganda extolling how great Howard is as he pushes for a federal dictatorship gradually and insidiously dispensing with democracy

What a lot of garbage, we need a diversity of media with as much varying opinion as possible. At a time when media sources are becoming fewer, the ABC is an important Institution.
Apparently, we ordinary people should not be allowed to see or read various opinions on issues.

Stickman says "The exodus of ABC staffers into Labor preselection is hardly an advertisement for a wholly impartial staff, is it?"

A quick Google search turned up the following list of Liberals recruited from the ABC: "Cameron Thompson, a former ABC Radio journalist in Darwin who now represents a Queensland seat for the Liberals; Rod Henshaw, of ABC Radio in Queensland, who stood for the Liberals in 1998; Stephen O’Doherty, who was a Liberal shadow minister in NSW until 2002; Ian Cover, a former Liberal MP in Victoria who now broadcasts on the ABC as a member of the Coodabeen Champions; Cathy Job, who worked in ABC Current Affairs and went to work for former Howard Government minister David Kemp." Not to mention Pru Goward.

No question that the ALP scored a coup recruiting Maxine McKew, but it's hardly been one-way traffic, despite what some posters would like to believe.

"I guess when you are so very far to the right, everything else must seem to be on the left." (Quote:Rache).

SPOT ON!!

I think her arguments are quite hot and her appearance quite logical.

Or something like that.

p.s. I'm ashamed of being so male...

Why perennialy bash the ABC? Of course they lean left with their news, current affairs and occasional dodumentary. This is plain to see and really does not engender argument. Accept it.
Name a MSM or blog site that does not push their own barrow whether it be influenced by gender, politics, race or editorial influence. Their views are their reason for existence, and they are there to promote them.
It's up to us to make our own choices and either pander to your own prejudices to watch or read what you like/agree with, or seek a balance.

It will never be time to privatise the ABC. Ads drive people crazy, and the ABC is the only safe place to save your sanity. Admittedly the ABC can be self-indulgent, but it's all we've got. The only penetrating questions asked of anyone are asked by ABC journalists.

Johnj - yeah fair call, although I think you will find Stephen O'Doherty found himself far more at home at 2GB (along with people like Brian Wilshire and John Tingle - Shooter's Party) doing talkback than at the ABC, prior to parliament, but anyway, I think enkew is on the money - the ABC is left like the sun rises in the east. Deal with it.

Hey teajay - good call too ;)

The day the ABC is privatised I'll throw my TV set out the window. It won't be of any use to me anymore.

oh, and by the way, I will also seriously consider leaving this country - where all intellectual discourse will have been reduced to sellable commodity.

I am happy for the ABC to continue to promote their left wing bias as long as they don't have the audacity to call themselves neutral.

CitizenK, I'm sure what you consider intellectual discourse is the same thing that is considered stuff & nonsense by all REAL people.

If you do decide to leave, after throwing your innocent TV out the window, please let me know. I'm sure I could raise a considerable fund to help pay your way, from others like myself, who would love to get rid of another stuffed shirt.

As I've said to the others HasBeen, if you're going to knock the ABC for their intellectual discourse or the quality of their journalism, provide me better examples on the commercial networks.

If you can't, then your arguments come to nothing but grumbling and hot air.

If you've got something to back up your opinion, then post it. I'm pretty confident however, that you don't.

Good GRief!! WIth a name like McMahon she has to be a member of the Liberal Party - jockeying for preselection it seems as well.

Lets cut to the chase thrill seekers: our lady tells us the ABC is charged with the .... principal function of the ABC is, inter alia, to provide services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians.

She then goes on to bore the reader witless with her score card telling us the Insiders is balanced as is Insiders Business - the Bastard Boys was a crock and Lateline too is a bit unbalanced -

That aint the ABC and the jury remians out as to whether even the current affairs rpeortage ( I love that word ) is bias - what too many consumers forget is you get critised when you do stuff - like a government - oppositions do nothing - if Rudd et al - or any one else other than al thinks they will get a dream run in Government - they are fooling themselves -

Current Affairs is a scintilla of ABC output - lets look at the Philosphers Zone, the State of things, P Adams who interviews every one, the CoodaBeen champions, Roy and H G, Australian Story, Compass, The Arc, all the religious shows - the list is endless, the Media Report, The Book show,Australia Talks, the collectors, Silent Witness,Gardening Austrlia, Netball and Bowls - privatise them and see what happens -FOOLS

Name something on Commercial TV or Radio for that matter that informs and educates to the extent the ABC does - Neil Miitchell, Alan Jones I hear you say - idiots!

If readers want wall to wall Big Brother and Australian Idol - sure privatise the ABC - and you may as well elect Rove McManus as PM - while you're at it

Good GRief!! WIth a name like McMahon she has to be a member of the Liberal Party - jockeying for preselection it seems as well.

Lets cut to the chase thrill seekers: our lady tells us the ABC is charged with the .... principal function of the ABC is, inter alia, to provide services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians.

She then goes on to bore the reader witless with her score card telling us the Insiders is balanced as is Insiders Business - the Bastard Boys was a crock and Lateline too is a bit unbalanced -

That aint the ABC by any stretch - and the jury remians out as to whether even the current affairs rpeortage ( I love that word ) is biased - what too many consumers forget is you get critised when you do stuff - like a government - oppositions do nothing - if Rudd et al - or any one else other than al thinks they will get a dream run in Government - they are fooling themselves -

Current Affairs is a scintilla of ABC output - lets look at the Philosphers Zone, the State of things, P Adams who interviews every one, the CoodaBeen champions, Roy and H G, Australian Story, Compass, The Arc, all the religious shows - the list is endless, the Media Report, The Book show,Australia Talks, the collectors, Silent Witness,Gardening Austrlia, Netball and Bowls - privatise them and see what happens -FOOLS

Name something on Commercial TV or Radio for that matter that informs and educates to the extent the ABC does - Neil Miitchell, Alan Jones I hear you say - idiots!

If readers want wall to wall Big Brother and Australian Idol - sure privatise the ABC - and you may as well elect Rove McManus as PM - while you're at it

Who else but good old Aunty even attempts to "keep the bastards honest" ?

If the ABC ran a ticket in the Federal elections, they would have my vote.

Yes, let's privatise the national broadcaster, because god forbid, it may challenge the government.

Yes, and private enterprise wouldn't dare challenge the government as they are too busy making donations and quietly (not) lobbying for their interests.

Shame on you.

When people like Stickman trot out as 'fact' that “…The exodus of ABC staffers into Labor preselection is hardly an advertisement for a wholly impartial staff, is it?”, you have to ask: Why has the myth – or more accurately, the lie - of a natural ALP/ABC nexus developed? Why is that lie so often trotted out by critics of the ALP? Why don't people who accuse the ABC of political bias never mention the Coalition-ABC connection? Bias or ignorance?

While everyone points to the well-known faces of Kerry O’Brien and Barry Cassidy as former ALP staffers and Maxine McKew and a few others as ALP-endorsed candidates, Johnj provides some names - which I can add to - of ABC staff or former staff with known Coalition political affiliations. And it’s just as long as that for Labor.

In alphabetical order, here’s some Coalition-ABC staffers:

Jim Bonner, Eoin Cameron, Peter Collins, Ken Cooke, Ian Cover, Pru Goward, Gary Hardgrave, Rod Henshaw, Cathy Job, Peter McArthur, Rob Messenger, Chris Nicholls, Stephen O’Doherty, Cameron Thompson, Vicki Thompson, Grant Woodhams, Bruce Webster, and Chris Wordsworth.

Jockeying for preselection, yes, and if that fails, for a position as an ABC Board member. If Janet Albrechtsen, Ron Brunton and Keith Windshuttle can be appointed to the Board, Felicity would have to be up there with a chance, especially after flaunting her credentials so superbly with this petulant and long winded rant.

We all see our taxes being spent on things we don't agree with but on this issue, Felicity, you are totally out of touch with public opinion. By your own acknowledgement, the ABC rates consistently highly and the responses here to your article again demonstrate a very high level of support for the ABC.

I have a good suggestion. Give up this nonsense about HD TV and make room for an additional right wing station.(Government sponsored of course).

Felicity can watch it to her hearts content and the rest of us can watch the left wing version. As well as being fair to both sides we will then find out which is the most popular.

Good on you, Felicity, for having the courage to publish your politically incorrect views without fear or favour. As for the huff and puff of your gainsayers, well that's all it is - mirrors and smokescreens. Not a single one, repeat, nary a one, has picked up your principal arguments and addressed them in a cogent manner. How intelligent is that?

Burkey said: It's so sad to see someone as young as you still fighting the cold war. No, it's *great* to see someone as young as you still fighting for what you believe in. You're the wave of the future. Let the huffers and puffers fade away in their armchair politics and recycled, shop-soiled ideas. Time is on your side. Go for it.

FranGol said:
"When people like Stickman trot out as 'fact' that “…The exodus of ABC staffers into Labor preselection is hardly an advertisement for a wholly impartial staff, is it?”, you have to ask: Why has the myth – or more accurately, the lie - of a natural ALP/ABC nexus developed? Why is that lie so often trotted out by critics of the ALP? Why don't people who accuse the ABC of political bias never mention the Coalition-ABC connection? Bias or ignorance?"

A point which I have already conceded to Johnj...what do you want? Blood?!?

Anyway, I suspect someone who has more time than me could compile an equally long list (if not longer) that went the other way, you know.. Clare Martin, Bob Carr, etc, in addition to those already mentioned.

The only way to settle it once and for all would be to take a poll of voting intentions of current ABC staff.

As I have said before, and do not resile from...

ABC = public service = ALP-inclined (on average) = I don't care because I still love watching it because they produce great content.

Coalition ideology is to sell the farm regardless of its efficiency or the value of its production.

As regards the ABC, I have no doubt that the Coalition would prefer the ABC of the Fifties - that along with the remainder of the media toadied to royalty, the Empire and all things blue-rinse, exhorting all to know their place in the order of things (and stay there). Cringe, cringe and more cringe to your betters.

But times have changed and it is OK to question and propose solutions other than the traditional, approved ones.

John Howard with his 'never you mind' is a clone of John Bjelke Peterson. He is also into 'feeding the chooks', just like Joh. Of course the ABC can be irksome, don't they know who is writing the cheque?

"Good on you, Felicity, for having the courage to publish your politically incorrect views without fear or favour. As for the huff and puff of your gainsayers, well that's all it is - mirrors and smokescreens. Not a single one, repeat, nary a one, has picked up your principal arguments and addressed them in a cogent manner. How intelligent is that?

Burkey said: It's so sad to see someone as young as you still fighting the cold war. No, it's *great* to see someone as young as you still fighting for what you believe in. You're the wave of the future. Let the huffers and puffers fade away in their armchair politics and recycled, shop-soiled ideas. Time is on your side. Go for it.
Posted by apis, Saturday, 11 August 2007 2:21:16 AM"

Good for you, Aphid; I like to know my place. I am enlightened. I shall look at Fliss in a whole new light.

Well someone has to fill Santo Santoro's shoes.

What happened to him again?

Congratulations Felicity.

strayan

Surely the sweet young thing doesn't presume to one day be the hairy chested wielder of Old Faithful, the super-sized muck rake passed down to Santo by the Master, Tony Staley.

Apis, one cannot address Felicity's arguments in a 'cogent' manner when the majority of her article was a radical right wing dummy spit, or should I say, silver spoon spit. It's clear she only wants to pay taxes on Coalition-approved agendas, such as propping up Mersey hospital. Unfortunately she strikes me as having the very young and immature attitude of selfishness greed and appears to have been brainwashed into radical right-wing thinking, and against the ABC because it offers a variety of opinions.

Fancy thinking that the ABC audience are mostly wealthy, definitely erroneous thinking. We are older and wiser but because most of us are compassionate and humanitarian, we stay out of the shark pool where we could have made more money by cheating and lying, thus we're not wealthy.

ABC television and radio offer a wide-ranging and educational variety of programming, which it would lose is it was privatised, becoming only another channel offering rubbish for the inane.

Australia already has limited media diversity. We're way down the list of world nations in terms of media freedom. I suggest all of you read 'Silencing Dissent, How the Australian government is controlling public opinion and stifling debate by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison. IMO Felicity’s article is another example of controlling and numbing and dumbing gullible and naive voters.

re:
"According to the ABC website, the ABC Charter outlines that the principal function of the ABC is, inter alia, to provide services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians."

I am inclined to give the ABC the benefit of the doubt here. And I missed Felicity's definition of "left", unless it's meant to be inferred from context, from the nine times she used the terms left and leftist.

If folks want entertainment, why not watch the commercials on the free-to-air channels? Some are very entertaining, at least the first couple of times. Of course, they do get irritating when they slice the programs to buggery with mindless repetition.

If folks really want entertainment, why not watch Good Morning, America? Pure entertainment, with hardly a trace of pertinent news, just mostly smarmy, folksy trivia from our most powerful ally. You never seen so many Colgate Smiles.

I remember what the ABC was like back in the 70's, when it had more cojones than it's got now. Maybe Felicity should ring up Malcolm Fraser and ask him about "leftist" (inferred from Felicity's context) ABC journos. So far as I can tell, they've all passed on or moved on.

As for outraged taxpayers, hey, Fee, I say I pay for those dopey ads on the commercial channels, and so do you. How is that?

Ads are tax deductible, non? I call that an opportunity cost which is very frequently charged by free entrepreneurs. And it is, if you think about it, a kind of socialism for the corporate world - those with the ability supporting those with the need - we taxpayers can pay, they need to advertise (I guess).

And one of the great things the corporate world gains from the economic flows associated with advertising is the power to control information. I wonder if that is why "Good Morning America" is reduced to such sappy drivel? Is it OK because it isn't "leftist"?

I certainly hope the ABC isn't reduced to paying its way from corporate handouts, or fussing over whether they will offend their sponsors.

If the ABC is privatised to stop having 'left' ideas given any airing (for 'left' read concerns for liberty and social justice?)
then for balance sake, the commercial channels should be nationalised, to stop having blanket coverage by non-think and illiberal ideas, pushing consumerism.

If you count all 90 or so programs on Radio National, the vast majority have nothing to do with politics, and for almost all the political ones, 'left' or 'right' are irrelevant.
Count also all the programs on TV and local radio. The same would apply.

I would be very sad to see the ABC go private.

However a very close relative worked for the ABC and he put it this way;

There are no gays in the closet in the ABC.
Why ?

Because it is full of Liberal voters !

He said if you wanted to get on in the ABC you kept quiet about
being a liberal voter.

Oh, please! It's the last bastion left to the Left! Most of the country's other publications are so far right as to be just short of fascist. If Aunty is trying to balance this, good. It will take a few more Left media outlets to get a real balance. Peddle your wares elsewhere.

felicity ,

fair go , we have far to many right leaning media [tv and Print ] . They bring Howard's message to the "masses" in bucket loads . That's what the Liberals want .

We don't want another one of your right wing outlets .

The ABC may not be perfect ,but be ready for the hoots and howls of protest from the Left should Rudd get in !

Many thanks to Simon Bedak for his link to

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2004/1111283.htm

which he suggests may be the source for some of Felicity's arguments, in her entertaining diatribe.

I am not so sure.

While Fee used the words "left" and "leftist" a total of nine times (whilst not defining the words even once, like a good debater oughta), she didn't mention the word "radio" even once, at all.

Surely, if she'd read the piece, she would have mentioned ABC radio?

If we wanted to rid our tv screens of publicly-funded material could we please start with those Work Choices (I mean Work "Reform") ads.

ABC annual funding: around $800 million
Government Work Choices advertising: around $100 million
Watching Work Choices crash and burn anyway: priceless

Sorry, couldn't resist. I don't like people bashing my Triple J.

Kipp “Col Rouge. You are obviously a "Big Brother" fan, and into shock jock radio.

Bet you hated the BBC when you lived there!”

I love the “instant character analysis on a postage stamp” comments. Kipp, your debating capacity is more than adequately represented by the geographic proportions of the aforementioned postage stamp

btw I have never watched an entire Big Brother Programme event and usually flip past it in moments of couch-potatoing.

I tend to tune more into ABC FM, preferring to catch a bit of the big Mozza (rather than big brother) and am content to let Darren Hinch supply my shock-jock needs.

As for BBC – they are the toad from which ABC was spawned.

Of course, I thought the pond should have been DDT'd and the lefties eradicated from public life, I am, after all, a mere moderate in these things but one with a preference for hygiene and disease control.

Bobbicee “Sorry but I see Felicity as a deluded radical right propaganda mouthpiece who is parroting what she was told to say and who sadly, appears to be against free speech and democracy, demanding that the ABC sprouts only radical right wing propaganda.”

Ah Bobbicee, we can see which side of the debate you are support. I would like you to write more about the “deluded racial propaganda” and Felicity’s “anti-free speech and anti-democracy position” and I will be happy to shred your ramblings (and what passes for character) in an instance.

You referred to parroting, from where I sit you sound like just another turkey, going around in circles, achieving nothing as you furiously flap that single left wing.

No question the ABC is impartial why can't the other channels have a cultural programme like the Insiders that is being hosted by Barry Cassidy. We have independant journalist on the left and Liberal Conservative supporters on the right. There is debate and that is healthy. On the Channels that are being controlled by their sponsors we have blatant attack upon Political Parties that are not part of the Coalition. We live in a Capitalist Society and it is expected that in a Society that thrives on supply and demand you are going to get an impartial point of view that is why the ABC must stay independant. and impartial. We cannot afford to have it corrupted it is Government controlled and we have a Conservative Government and most Quangos have Chief Executive Officers that have been Politically Appointed for example Barbara Bennett with Work Choice.

Dear Felicity
Who do you suggest should buy the ABC ?
Yes John Howard should sell it to Glenn Milne, Andrew Boulton, Piers Ackerman, Allan Jones and Gerrrard Henderson then we would have true impartiality.