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.