Hear, hear!

Dear Ken,

I hope you have not been watching the ABC since October. For me, I watch nothing else. At least ABC TV treats me like I have half a brain. The commercial channels are just complete crap! Long live the PUBLIC ABC!

Regards,

Michael

OLO is getting stale. Scraping the bottom of the barrel with this punch-drunk wannabe cultural warrior who hasn't heard the war is over.

This tabloid rehash got a right pasting when it was first published. Comments ran 25 to 1 against. http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/10/25/sell-abc-tv/

C'mon OLO. Lift your game!

At least on the ABC there is occasionally something great.
Apart from the 6pm news on local NBN I seldom watch anything other than the ABC.
I prefer my brain imput to be filtered by Kerrie O'Brien, Tony Jones and Monica Attard etc., than by the financial and political disciples of Rupert, James and the other Kerrie etc. I would probably watch SBS occasionally but the ads on there now give me a touch.

Nah....

From a self-professed Greens voter this is a bit hard to understand. Like probably most other thinking Australians, I marvel at the quality and quantity of content that the ABC produces on a fraction of the budget of the commercial stations. My biggest complaint is the amount of BBC material they use to fill out their programming, but given the generally high quality of that material, it's a fairly small complaint in the scheme of things. Were they given a decent budget, the ABC could easily become the BBC of the Southern Hemisphere (the latter receives about 10 times more funding, from a taxpayer base only 3 times greater).

I was pleased to see the majority of the posts are in favour of keeping the ABC. Compare the current affairs programmes which you would get on any of the commercial networks and there is no comparison. Consequently I rarely watch them. If by chance there is something worthwhile then it automatically gets recorded so that I can zap the advertisements at a later date. If you want to watch crap like "dancing with the stars" and "Neighbours" good luck to you, just don't foist it on the rest of us. It was a sad day when SBS started to include commercials, but again, at least I can record some of the very good productions presented there. If the ABC ever sold out and went "commercial" I think I would sell my TV.

Please! Sell the ABC - are you crazy or an american. If you are the latter, I can understand your irritability, but if an australian - come, come, enough. The ABC is needed by us aussies. Who would we kick and scream at? Leave my ABC alone and go back to your 'foxhole'.

It is time the ABC was sold. People with interests in the Arts,history etc that (the hopeless) commercial TV ignores can now get plenty of what they want from Pay TV. As far as the news programs go there have been a lot of criticisms of them. If the ABC news programs were on Pay TV and people supported them good luck to them. If on the other hand they were not supported then goodbye. The point is why should the public have to pay?

Sell the ABC -you,ve got to be joking. I use the fact as to whether some one watches the ABC or commercial TV as a quick intelligence test. Usually the same people read broadsheets or tabloids. The incredibly dumb level of news, current affairs presented on the commercials is just incredibly sad(newest bra/granny bashed/celb. crap) If you have been to the States you would have to believe the tabloid media has been responsible for the massive dumbing down of the population. Guess what no ABC/BBC equivalent apart from PBS which is viewed by a tiny percenatge of the population. I honestly believe a solid ABC is at the core of keeping Australia an outward looking educated nation.

Sell it? I'll buy it! For the same reasons I read good books, not trashy newspapers.
I get my all news and analysis from the ABC.
Its initials reflect its demographic - A's,B's and C's....the thinkers. If you don't like it, join the bogans watching Channel Ten.

FrankGol, this blog post is part of our feature of the 40 Best Blog posts for 2007. OLO is running this feature in conjunction with Club Troppo and this post was chosen by a panel (as were all the others). You can find more details about the feature and who are on the panel here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6817. Susan Prior (ed).

Susan, going by the two examples I've seen so far, I assume by "best" you mean "most blatantly controversial".

I'm sure if I were forced to I could put together a half-convincing argument for selling the ABC, but this was pure personal opinion followed by logical non-sequitur ("I haven't liked very many of the shows the ABC has put on in the last 6 months, therefore the only solution is to sell it to somebody else").

Just like so much TV, OLO is just full of crappy re-runs!

What a stupid article. What a STUPID article.The one complaint I have with the ABC is that it does not do enough investigative reporting, but I guess these days finding out the truth is a "leftie" exercise carried out by limp-wristed pinko-liberal whale-huggers, to use the sort of language Piers Ackerman and the Australian New Right is wont to use. The ABC is leftie? Only a fascist could think like that.

Whenever I hear calls from somebody to sell the ABC or SBS, I have one simple question that none of them are able to answer:

Point me to better news providers on the commerical free to air networks. If you can't, then why would you want to make the ABC just like them?

I've yet to hear any kind of adequate response, so I assume it's just sour grapes from people who only want to hear news they can agree with.

Ken Lovell switch it off then, for the rest of us we will keep watching.

It is presumptous to believe, as some of you seem to, that people who want the ABC sold watch commercial TV instead.

I watch the "7.30 Report", even though it is blatantly biased (I can make up my own mind). I even watch "The Bill", although I say that each time is the last time. And, I am a sucker for British drama. That leaves me with Friday nights, Saturday nights and some Sundays. At the moment the Sunday 8.30 spot is probably a great delight for poofters. There is nothing worth watching Monday to Thursday.

My beef with the ABC is that it has aped the commercials: if it's not advertising the Book Shop for 15 minutes, it's advertising its own programs a week plus down the track. It also has a bloody 'watermark', the most intrusive after SBS and Channel 10.

So, if it wants to ape the commercials, and is paranoid enough to think it has competition from the commercials, it should damn well be ripped off the public tit.

Wizofaus

I agree with the points you made in your first post – altogether too much British material on the ABC and a reprehensibly low budget that precludes reaching its full potential in producing decent Australian content or investigative journalism (as another commenter mentioned).

Much and all as I admire the quality of British drama, I am heartily sick and tired of its obsession with kings, queens, Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare, the Blitz and murders in the village. Why does the ABC so snobbishly ignore quality drama from other parts of the (non-US/UK) Anglophonic world – New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Canada, South Africa – that don’t tend to fit the SBS format?

On another point, my conspiracy antennae are getting twitchy at this ‘sell the ABC’ groundswell. Methinks someone powerful, wealthy and connected has their sights set on its cash-cow potential. When in doubt, follow the money

Good old (very) Leigh, always dependable in using foul language towards others.

Hate must be an awful ailment to live with!

SusanP

This was one of the 40 best blogs for 2007, you say? I'm absolutely gobsmacked!

If this is an indication of the standard - bare pass undergraduate stuff - I think OLO should steer well clear.

I noticed you got the grand total of one response to your posting of the best bogs 2007. Doesn't that tell you something?

Surely OLO can do better than that? Or are you desperate for articles in the summer break?

It is the only way of ensuring a diverse range of views. Rather than the narrow-self interest of a media mogul.

WE all pay for it - our parents and grandparents paid to build it, together. And in my mind with good reason.

To me it has always represented our most honest window onto the world.

The ABC is a plus for all young people and old. It is the one true station.
I( hope how ever buys it) has the right values.

FrankGol, you might want to look at the full-list of Best Blogs 07 before you sound off http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/feature.asp?year=2008&month=1. We do this feature each year with Club Troppo and a number of prominent bloggers who judge from a pool of nominations.

There's a variety of standards and a variety of points of view, and they are more typical of blog posts than OLO articles. We think it's worth celebrating what is being published on the Australian Internet, and giving a bit more publicity to some of the good posts that have been made. There's always questions of selection with anything like this. I'm happy to go with the judges.

Kipp,

I'm not the way you think I am; but whatever I am, it is very easy for me to live with - much easier, I imagine, than being a reactionary like you who confuses constant critcism of other people's opinions with intelligent comment.

I don't now why you waste your time. Perhaps you hate everyone who doesn't agree with you.

I confess that I am with Frank Gol’s assessment. The choice of this article as a “best blog” is a curious match with the stated criteria:
“To be eligible for nomination, a post had to be from an Australian independent blog (that is, not an MSM offshoot), and had to make a substantial argument in its own right (ruling out the type of post that merely links to, and perhaps quotes from, some other source). From the list of nominations, the judges chose their “Top Forty” on the basis of style, originality, and argument; but we also tried to represent a wide variety of topics, styles and authors. A handful of posts were absolute stand-outs, but for the rest deciding was difficult: there were many, many excellent posts that we excluded with great reluctance.
The objective of Best Blog Posts is to showcase that talent and diversity, by gathering some of the year's finest blog writing in one forum.”
And it hardly enhances the status of the judging panel: “The panel of judges consisted of Ken Parish, Nicholas Gruen, Helen Dale and James Farrell, all Club Troppo contributors, and On Line Opinion chief editor Graham Young.”

GrahamY

Thanks for the information about how you chose this item.

So that's the method - but what about the quality, which was the point I raised?

Having had a look at the site, I agree with you that there's "a variety of standards" and my substantive point remains: this item is poor and lowers the standard of OLO. There are many much better items.

"One of the best blogs for 2007"? I mean, look at the item again. The man is arguing that the ABC should be sold off because he didn't like an item on the 7.30 Report. It would be just as inane for me to say sell off OLO because of this one silly piece of fluff.

Can we have something with a bit more substance please?

This is the weakest contribution I have seen on OLO.

The way to improve the ABC is not to sell it, but to fund it properly so they can produce quality shows and not be reduced to buying in cheap rubbish.

The commercial stations are appalling. Let's sell them. That will fix it. I presume that I fund the commercial stations indirectly, just like I fund the ABC, and I never watch them. Can I get my money back?

Mulligan

Is there anybody that thinks this was a genuinely well-written opinion piece? Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion should be really beside the point - just recently I read a debate between two economists about privatising all education. I certainly disagreed with the one arguing the "for" case, but I had to admit he put the better argument forward, and the other debater did a fairly poor job of analysing the various problems with privatising education.
Quality isn't an entirely subjective judgement (hey, there's a whole new debate right there!).

I think it's a cute blog piece. The writing is witty, but it was thrashed out quickly. As it should have been - a good blog post should ignite briefly then fade away, leaving you with an impression you can file away and use again should the need arise.

Of course, you could drive a truck through the holes in the argument.

A lot of people love bagging out the authors on OLO. I don't dig that.

“I use the fact as to whether some one watches the ABC or commercial TV as a quick intelligence test.”
“Its initials reflect its demographic - A's,B's and C's....the thinkers. If you don't like it, join the bogans watching Channel Ten.”
“Like probably most other -thinking- Australians, I marvel at the quality and quantity of content that the ABC produces”

Gee, after reading many of the comments above, who would have thought that ABCophiles are a bunch of elitists?

What I find most interesting about the Save the ABC argument is the impression given that all one has to do is say they want it retained because they like what it broadcasts and then that should be sufficient justification. Does it ever occur to these people that in having the ABC financed (especially without vulgar advertisements that the plebs can put up with, but not us) they are actually bludging off the taxpaying very same ‘plebians’ who prefer to watch as an alternative, commercial free to air or subscription TV?
No one –specifically- wants to close down the ABC. Just let its financing be totally voluntary rather than by compulsion. Then its obvious great value will either accrue sufficient subscriptions to keep it operating, or it will go the way of all other highly acclaimed and well reviewed ‘excellent’ broadcasting which unfortunately never attract viewers.

TurnRightThenLeft,

“Point me to better news providers on the commerical free to air networks. If you can't, then why would you want to make the ABC just like them?”

Actually, your question that no one wishes to answer is not a simple question. Because it involves a subjective value judgement (which news service is more impartial?) it becomes a very complex question.

Here, for example, is a simple question: Why should taxpayers who choose not to watch, be forced to finance a broadcasting service favoured only by a minority?

Edward Carson,

I always found that 90s fashion of using “elite” as an insult rather confusing. If being an elite means having a thirst for knowledge, means demanding that your public broadcaster scrutinises the government of the day rather than harasses the starlet of the hour, if it means believing in a canon of literature and loving Ricky Gervais and thinking Dancing with the Stars is kinda dumb and Daryl Summers is really unfunny, then I am a proud elite. If you think I should be embarrassed, sorry, I'm not. And it’s not a class issue — everyone should have access to the best of Western culture, and in Australia, everyone does. Thanks, largely, to the ABC.

“Why should taxpayers who choose not to watch, be forced to finance a broadcasting service favoured only by a minority?”
* Because public broadcasting takes risks and promotes talent, and and all Australians benefit. Public broadcasters worldwide serve as training grounds. Think of all the comedians and actors and lesser known directors and producers that you enjoy on commercial TV who got their break on ABC TV or radio.
* Public broadcasting raises the bar on current affairs and demands the commercial networks do better.
* The ABC services bush areas that commercial stations have no commercial imperative to service.
* The ABC promotes Australian culture throughout the Asian region — including to Australian servicemen and women and ex-pats.

You can never watch the ABC and still hugely benefit.

BTW, I don’t believe the comparison of news services needs to be subjective. You don’t need to apply value judgments to it, just think of it as a continuum. On one end, investigative journalists analyse current political events. On the other, presenters deliver the celebrity of human interest news. Take a look at the stories on the ABC news and on channel seven news tonight. Classify and time them. Impartiality is one small element of journalism.

I have more arguments for the ABC, but they won’t fit on this post, so I may have to carry on later.

Edward Carson, unfortunately your implication that most taxpayers would prefer not to fund the ABC is incorrect:

http://friendsoftheabc.org/14cents

'On average, Australian taxpayers are prepared to pay 30% more for the ABC. Professor Glenn Withers analysed data from the National Social Science Survey in 2000 and found that in contrast to expenditure on "areas such as family assistance, defence, unemployment benefits, general government, general industry assistance and the like, where decreases were indicated, taxpayers were willing to pay more for the ABC."'

Don't forget how many parents rely on the ABC for decent kids' programming.

Edward Carson asks: "Why should taxpayers who choose not to watch, be forced to finance a broadcasting service favoured only by a minority?"

Would he also ask: Why should taxpayers who choose not to use them be forced to finance a private schools system favoured only by a minority?

It's a nonsense argument anyway - the reality of living in a social democracy is that we pay taxes for all sorts of things that we don't necessarily make use of directly, including many things we hope never to have to make use of. The ABC is one of the most easily, universally and readily available forms of publicly provided service there is, and comes at a very low cost. Just like the argument over publicly funding for orchestras, there are plenty of other cases of wasteful government spending to tackle before we should start worrying about funding for the ABC.

If you want to take up an ideological position that "taxation is theft", then go and form your own country that operates on anarchy.

Actually, what I found interesting, is that Mr Carson does make the valid point that the ABC being 'better' is a subjective opinion and therefore hard to quantify.

Fair enough.

But I've still never heard anyone who is able to point me to a better news program on the free to air networks. Which would indicate there is a genuine consensus that it is better.

Therefore, we give up the ABC, we give up the best free television news service we have.

I guess it comes back to what kind of a priority you place on that, and I suspect many people value it quite highly.

I, too, am confused that of all Ken L's posts this one was chosen. He delivered many of the best-written, wittiest, insightful, inspiring blog posts I read during 2007. This shallow, cynical, tantie was not one of them by a long shot. On the other hand, it was controversial; it stirred the possum. Maybe that was the selection criterion.

Dear Ken,
Agreed. The ABC would be better privatised, at least it would be accountable to its audience . Public money is trust money, given to ensure that the public is well informed, an essential prerequisite to a healthy democracy,
Instead the ABC staff have hijacked the organisation to promote their own (poisonous) agenda. Don't agree? OK. take Philip Adams, whose hegemony over ABC commentary is well known. REPACE HIM with say Cardinal Pell. You would be deafened by the Friends of the ABC crying 'unfair', yet that is just what they are doing to Australia.
I want to hear the case for nuclear power,not just the antinuke zealots. Ditto re homosexuality, abortion, the constitution, marriage/ family, childrens rights to a mother and father, refugees,Aboriginals and alcohol etc etc. I can access both sides of a debate in Murdoch's AUSTRaLIAN but not on 'my' ABC . RobinL

Robin,

So Cardinal Pell was the right-wing Philip Adams all that time? Someone should tell Michael Duffy - he might have to start looking for another job.

Actually, for all the ho-ha about ABC bias, ACMA (the Australian Communication and Media Authority - the new ABA) has unheld few complaints against ABC TV and radio - even when David Flint was chief of the ABA. I'm going to annoy by quoting from Friends of the ABC, but, for example, "the ABA’s web site lists all of the breaches of the relevant codes that it has found between 1998 and June 2005. With regard to code requirements relating to accuracy and fairness in news and current affairs the Authority found that ABC television breached the code on four occasions over nearly eight years. Channel 9, by contrast, breached the code on 19 occasions." Despite the fact that its boss was one of the broadcaster's noisiest critics.

And also despite the fact that the ABC's charter is more stringent re impartiality than those of the commercial stations. You just couldn't broadcast A Current Affair on the ABC.

However, if you find any examples of bias at the ABC (or any media outlet) you should definitely complain to ACMA - http://www.acma.gov.au That's the way to keep all broadcasters honest.

The ABC scrutinises the government of the day on our behalf. That's (inter alia) its job. During the Howard years, conservative pollies called that left-wing bias. During the Hawke/Keating years, progressive pollies accussed the ABC of right wing bias.

The best solution for the ABC is to stop the govt of the day from appointing board members. An independent body should make selections based on merit, not ideology. Like the UK's Nolan Rules.

By the way, you know your list? You do realise it was the ABC that *broke* the story of child sexual abuse among Indigenous communities up north, don't you?

robinL,

I think you're on to something there.

Archbishop Pell for Late Night Live. Think of the budget savings: no studio guests necessary for topics like climate change, nuclear power, homosexuality, abortion, the constitution, marriage/ family, childrens' rights to a mother and father, refugees, Aboriginals and alcohol. No need for a studio set even. Just bring in the old feller's pulpit! More savings.

Now that could inspire a whole reform package:

Pauline Hanson for Lateline with Alex Hawke relieving on a Friday night.

Alan Jones to host Insiders with a panel of Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt and Gerard Henderson with Tony Abbot moonlighting with political-ethical clips.

Michael Duffy for the 7.30 Report with John Howard and Peter Costello to take over from Clarke and Dawe on a Thursday.

David Flint teamed with Keith Windschuttle for Media Watch with Janet Albrechtsen filing stories from the Government Gazette.

Brilliant idea, Robin. Let's have no more of this nonsense about selling off the ABC. Keep it in Government hands - it's much easier to ensure we get the Right people in place.

What! There's been a change of government?

SELL! QUICK!

I can’t believe it! The most rational response to my comments is actually by TurnRightThenLeft.
Yes you are right that if no one defends the independent broadcast news services then that is evidence they can’t be that good. But… I suspect the only people you ask are your friends and acquaintances, and as they are your friends and acquaintances, they naturally probably have beliefs values like yourself. A poll of how all the people value the news services is done every week. It’s called ratings. The commercial stations come in first, even though the viewers have to put up with the ads.

FrankGol
Check your facts. Public school parents pay for private schools (to a lesser degree, by the way, than the fully sponsored ABC) and yet still get schooling sponsored by the govt. The commercial viewers pay for the ABC and yet watch broadcasters NOT sponsored by the government. There is no analogy.

Vanilla
Don’t confuse elite with elitist. There is nothing derogatory about an elite. It refers to those who have risen to the top of their field of endeavour (b.t.w. it has nothing to do with merely striving). An elitist, on the other hand, is one who exhibits a sense of belonging to such a group. I would guess that a true member of an elite would be modest about it and not be in the habit of rubbing it in the noses of others and especially NOT demanding special funding for his or her own particular interests so as to experience without the vulgar commerciality of advertisements.
Your response to “why should taxpayers pay…”
Do a quick course in economics. As long as we have an unregulated media, then if we have a demand for something there will always be an entrepreneur offering a supply (even if the price in the bush is higher because delivery is difficult).
Yes there is more to journalism than impartiality, but I am in even more agreement with your Freudian slip:
“You can never watch the ABC and still hugely benefit.”

Wizofaus,

“contrast to expenditure on "areas such as, unemployment benefits…, general industry assistance and the like, taxpayers were willing to pay more for the ABC."'
Gee, if my taxes were to go to either Al Qaeda or the ABC I suppose even I would prefer the ABC (but only just).

C’mon Wiz., you can’t say people want to finance the ABC because it may well be the least worst of the options available. Use the criterion of popularity that we use on Foxtel. We judge people want the Comedy Channel, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, MTV et al because sufficient numbers of people send in their cheques every month.
Put the ABC to that standard before you tell me that “Aunty” is popular.

Edward, if you believe mass popularity is the best measure of quality of journalism, then there's little point trying to convince you that the ABC should be publicly funded. But we do live in a democracy. If a government went to the public on a platform of privatising the ABC and was voted in on that basis, then, while I would be disappointed, even the most ardent supporters of the ABC would have to accept that this was the people's decision.

As it is, there's not the slightest evidence that were a referendum to be held on the matter, the majority of voters would prefer to see the ABC privatised. And if the best of the arguments for doing so are the sort we've seen here in OLO, then it strikes me as highly unlikely that the majority of voters are ever going to be convinced.

Yes Mr Carson - no, I don't think it's because I've just been asking my friends and acquaintances.

I think that even a majority people that prefer to watch the commercial networks, acknowledge the quality of ABC is better.

I guess my response to your arguments, is that all of them embrace the lowest common denominator.
It's somewhat ironic, in that in many threads here on OLO, 'the media' (as if it were some kind of united entity) is criticised for being a negative influence on society.

I tend to think that it's just a mirror and that the influence is just the lowest common denominator reflected back at us.
We're already racing toward that denominator - scrapping the ABC hastens its arrival.

The libertarian argument, is that 'who are you to judge this.' And tha inevitably, it is the market that decides.
I suppose this concern over lowest common denominators is somewhat elitist - but funnily enough, I bet if you asked people who probably consume media that is at that denominator, they probably have the same concerns about society that I do.

No one seems to have brought up the argument that we all get to pay for commercial television, whether we watch it or not, due to the advertising costs that are incorporated into the prices of the goods and services that we buy. Sometimes these costs are avoidable, but sometimes there is no alternative that is of comparable quality or available at all.

EC
I'm not confused. I just think your definition of elitist is very Daily Telegraph circa the Keating era - surprised you didn't throw "Chardonnay socialist" into the mix. I think you actually object to people who actively prefer the highbrow and the analytical to the popular and dumbass. You find it unbearably pretentious, and, because you can't relate to it, you think those people are wannabes.

"Do a quick course in economics."
Listen to you, all patronising. Then you forgot to say something clever.

There are lots of arts and sporting events that are subsidised by the government but that half the population doesn't care about.

"I am in even more agreement with your Freudian slip:
“You can never watch the ABC and still hugely benefit.”
It wasn't a Freudian slip. I mean you can *never* watch the ABC still benefit from the services - national and international, direct and indirect - that it provides. In fact, a Newspoll poll in 2002 showed that "Nine in 10 Australians believe the ABC provides a valuable service to the community, while 91% believe the Corporation does a good job in broadcasting programs that are different from those provided by commercial media." I'm glad you agree with that. Perhaps you're coming round to the other side. Fancy popping over to perve at Tony Jones over a sherry with me?

Vanilla,
“There are lots of arts and sporting events that are subsidised by the government but that half the population doesn't care about.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. You can’t justify one segment of the population rorting the system by getting exclusive funding for their leisurely pursuits with the example of another segment doing the same.

Thanks for the offer of the sherry but I’m very much a beer man. I like to drink it while watching The Man Show on Foxtel. The best part of the show is the final credits with the ‘Girls on Trampoline’ segment. Filmed in slo-mo to appropriate music, the hosts get their ‘Juggies’, well endowed, joyful and attractive women, to use the trampoline for theirs and possibly the viewers enjoyment.
I’ll pass on Tony Jones, and if anything important in the world has happened while the Juggies are in mid air, I’ll eventually find out from Bill O’Reilly or Neil Cavuto.
And don’t worry, I’m not the type to ever expect you or any other tax-payer to help fund MY viewing habits.

Mr Carson, the taxpayer does fund your viewing habits, albeit indirectly. It costs taxpayer funds for the government to manage and regulate all TV broadcasting. Taxpayers also subsidise a portion of the content produced on many commercial stations, and as another poster pointed out, we all pay for the ads whether we want to see them or not. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the cost to the average taxpayer that allows you to watch your bouncing breasts was barely any less than the average cost to the taxpayer that allows us to watch the 7:30 Report.

And no, I "can’t say people want to finance the ABC because it may well be the least worst of the options available", nor would I have any reason to. I'm not sure how you gathered that from my previous post. The polls mentioned didn't ask why people wanted to finance the ABC, just whether they were happy to. Overwhelming, they were, and in most cases were happy to increase funding.

This is part of the problem of private versus public. It seems no co-incidence that the quality of lots of things (including human behaviour) seems to have gone down with the increase in anti-public propaganda and "the only the private sector does things properly propaganda" whether in the media, health or education and transport. The anti-public propaganda has been followed by public endorsement of this regardless of the reality, which has to make you question what an intelligent human being is. We are all susceptible to propaganda so need to acknowledge that Australia was a better place when we respected the public sector and the space it gave for human decency.

Wizofaus,

The “in contrast to other services” led me to believe that the poll respondents had to decide where the money was going. But true, as is reported, the majority of the sample group apparently want more ABC funding.
However:
Democracy is the only answer to an issue when we have to decide whether or not we go to war, become a republic, increase or decrease immigration or other issues where there can only be one answer.
However there are some instances where democracy is not a justification for partisan government action where the people themselves can sort out an issue in multiple ways according to their own disparate values.
EG. supposes the government decided to get into religion business and decided to establish a large number of churches and cathedrals around the country. To be ‘democratic’, they would find out which is the more popular religion, and then bequest to it all these newly built resources. The fact that the majority of the people supported the chosen religion doesn’t dispel the reality that people of other religions still have to support through their taxes churches that they will never be attending. The simple response is obviously for the government to step out of the religion business and then let all religions flourish according to the respective degrees of popularity.

Wizofaus,

“[taxpayer funding to private media is almost the same as for the ABC]”
Gees, and I thought Vanilla needed an economics lesson!

“It costs taxpayer funds for the government to manage and regulate all TV broadcasting” That’s like a dictator complaining about the cost of the upkeep of all the prisons he uses to lock up his opponents.
…err, have you ever heard of the concept of freedom of the press?

“we all pay for the ads whether we want to see them or not”
Whenever you buy a Mazda or a Big Mac you are paying the least on offer for a car or sustenance of required value. The supplier doesn’t arbitrarily set the price. It charges whatever it thinks it can get, immaterial of whatever its overheads are. You are not specifically paying for its advertising. If sales were so good that it decided to dispense with advertising the price would remain the same. If ads were kept but sales were bad the price might drop just to move stock.
If a minister pays a plumber $1,000 to do work on the church gutters and drains and after the job is done the plumber proceeds down to the brothel, would you say the local Baptist congregation is financing boozing and whoring?

Let me give another example.
For five years every payday you have been paying a visit to a Miss Gilda Goodthighs in a certain establishment downtown. For the err… personal services you get from her you think it is the best $100 you spend every month. By accident you happen to find out something Gilda tries to keep secret, that she actually is the proverbial street lady with the heart of gold. For the past ten years she has been donating 25% of her wages to the local orphanage. Wizofaus, are you going to dare tell me what a great humanitarian you are because for the last five years you have been giving $25 a month to orphans?

Persuasive arguments Mr Carson, but there's a rebuttal for each and every one of them.

Your first assertion is essentially, where there are a multitude of acceptable outcomes, choice trumps a government decision.

Firstly, I'd point out there is a marked difference between the nature of the public broadcasters and those in the private sector.

Earlier, I made the point that seeing as I can't locate any examples of people identifying a 'better' news provider than the ABC, even amongst those who preference the commercial network, that this indicates consensus that the ABC news provision is of a higher standard. Yes, 'better' is subjective, but I think it's reasonable to assert that without fair examples of dissent this point is nullified.

Theoretically, I suppose you can make the point that if there is indeed demand for this programming, market forces will ensure it exists. Practically speaking, it's more likely that given the fact that more resources have to be devoted to the provision of this news, and it's unlikely to have a market share as large as providers of dumbed down news outlets, this is unlikely to occur.

Yes, the first response is that it's because the market share is low therefore it doesn't warrant being subsidised by government.

But, given that this standard of news is unlikely to exist outside of being a public broadcaster, we then have two distinct forms of news provision - the point I make in this paragraph, is that it isn't necessarily a matter of multiple outcomes as you suggest.
It is a matter of two - more akin to your 'go to war' or 'have a republic' scenario. We have two outcomes - one, we have these higher quality news providers, subsidised by the government, or two, we don't.
Thus it comes back to a democratic decision - and it would appear that most believe the ABC is worth keeping, given the comparatively low cost compared to other national services. Of course, all this applies to the provision of niche viewing as much as news broadcasts.
Ultimately, this is something the majority accepts.

Further to that:

A model exists for the privatisation of almost every single government service. Aside from the fact that in practice, almost every privatisation has been poorly carried out and resulted in a reduction in services, there is the point that many services are believed to be a necessity for all Australian residents.
Take the wrangling between Telstra and the government for communications provision, or the ongoing complexities between private water industry stakeholders and government, to ensure that water is reasonably priced and accessible to all.

Where a service is deemed necessary for all citizens, privatisation often results in a requirement for government conditioning to ensure profit doesn't result in the loss of service to unprofitable citizens. This often results in more red tape and conflict with shareholder demands.
Especially in monopoly situations, which are bound to be frequent in a country with a low population base like Australia.

So it comes back to what is deemed necessary, and I suspect the only 'democratic' way to define this, is what's defined by the public.
I grant you, the ABC doesn't seem like a necessity in the same manner as say, water, electricity etc, however I'd assert that this is a decision to be made by the public majority - given that I've made the point that almost all service provision is something that can be privatised.

This point is particularly underlined in the case of the ABC, due to the points I raised above - the ABC can be what it can be, due largely to the fact that it is a government organisation. A private entity would be something else entirely, something more like the major networks.
The public has stated they wish to keep the ABC, which is why it's privatisation not used as an electoral promise. Selling it is indeed a single-outcome proposition.

Mr Carson, instead of glib insults suggesting I need an economics lesson, if you think I am wrong, then you are completely at liberty to point out that I should produce the figures to back up my tentative hypothesis that taxpayer funding towards private media was not much less than that which goes towards the ABC. Seeing as you made no such request, I can only assume you don't really want to know the answer.

Your claim that democracy is not needed to deterime whether or not we should fund a public broadcaster because "people themselves can sort out an issue in multiple ways according to their own disparate values" assumes that feasible for people themselves to decide they want a not-for-profit broadcaster capable of providing high-quality content without commercials, and to bring about such a result. I would like you to point out a single example of this occurring anywhere in the world.

I do agree that paying indrectly for ads on commercial stations is not truly equivalent to paying taxes that go towards funding a public broadcaster, just pointing out that we are never *truly* free to spent our money however we like, without a certain percentage of it going towards things we would not otherwise choose to pay for.

The ABC is undoubtedly a shadow of its former self, due no doubt to insufficient funding, but its still streets ahead of the free to airs, which seem to have found a way to screen non-stop minute commercials in the afternoon and late at night. Even so, the ABC is incredibly good value for money - assuming it is still around 8 cents a day (funding hasn't increased, population has) we are getting 24 hours a day of TV and multiple radio stations for the price of a cup of coffee or a hamburger PER MONTH. At that price, just watching an occasional program or tuning in to the radio news makes it worth while, and I bet most OLO posters do much more than that.

A far more useful discussion would be how to raise the standard of ABC programs.

to Vanilla/FrankGol:
Your responses Jan 28 to my post re ABC bias were interesting. The current leftwing bias is an insult to the public's right to two points of view , I tried to illustrate this by saying that if Philip Adams was replaced by Cardinal Pell such rightwing bias would be equally reprehensible. Give Pell( or another conservative intellectual) EQUAL TIME with their own Late Night Live., in tandem with Adams. That of course is the issue namely why you disagree with that FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. I perceived that ridicule was your stern reply. Murdoch,s 'Australian' allows a cross section of comment, including Philip Adams, ABC staff defending 'their' ABC, and a host of leftwing and rightwing commentary. In Murdochs press I can read both points of view on most issues of the day and make up my own mind..... . Alas, not on the ABC. If the ABC is so convinced that it gives quality unbiased service THEN WHY DOES IT NOT ALLOW A DEBATE ON ITS OWN NETWORK. Why not invite its critics to a radio/TV debate with its supporters. Answer: Intellectual cowardice. It would have to defend itself on a level playing field,and would lose control of facts and ideas being presented.
No Vanilla, the ABC did not 'break' the story on Aboriginal child abuse. That was done by Colin Tatz in 1972 and 1991, The Robertson Report 1999, John Reeves QC 1998, the Collins Report 1999. Rosemary Neill in Murdochs Australian 1994 and again 1999, also the Bennelong Society. However from 'our ABC' there was dead silence because it was committed to its own ideology of political correctness supplied by Fred Chaney et al. ( Note funding has got nothing to do with bias, it is the self replicating culture of the ABC that is the cause.) That is why I agree with Ken, we might as well sell it.
A pity ,because without bias the quality of public debate would improve greatly.

TurnRightThenLeft,
Wrong as you ultimately are, you certainly put a lot of thought into your arguments. If only you used your considerable talents for good.
“[the ABC is better]” judged by “even amongst those who preference the commercial network”
I can’t understand the concept of how someone would watch channel A while thinking channel B was better. Perhaps those people don’t want to look like philistines and use the criteria that if the channel uses big words and the shows are always boring then, like back at school, they must be of a higher academic standard and thus “better”. Something like the situation where a medicine that tastes terrible must be good for you.

NOT that I agree with you that the ABC offers a better service, but if that were in fact true (and this is purely hypothetical) then why does that matter?
It can’t matter from a democratic point of view because at election time, due to ratings figures, the majority won’t be watching it anyway (and thus not enlightened with ‘pravda’) and will just be voting according to whatever their shock jocks suggest.
So what are we left with? Because it’s highbrow? Is that justification?
If so, do we make all high art also free? Opera, classical music, theatre, cinema, period art, modern art, street art, etc.
Then where do we limit highbrow, and how do we define the criteria?

BTW, sorry to repeat myself but it really is difficult to make subjective comparisons of news services. Andrew Bolt, the most popular writer in Australia (largest copy columnist in biggest selling paper) is very often bagging the ABC.
Also Janet Albrechtson in the S.M.H. If nothing more, it shows that the ABC is not universally respected.

TurnRightThenLeft

And another thing. I hate to be cynical but there is a difference between someone saying that would finance some charitable or allegedly worthwhile cause and someone actually doing it. If a pollster phones you up and asks if you would donate to Save the Whales if asked, how would you answer? “No, I’m a miserly bastard who gives to nothing.”
If you believe people want to finance the ABC though their taxes then it obviously follows that they would instead finance directly through subscription. Even those who don’t watch but just want to know it’s there. The majority of adults in Australia are a LOT of subscribers.

Also:
#1 Many ABCophiles complain about it becoming a political football by governments. Eg appointing their mates to the ABC board. If privatised, its shares would only be owned by friends of the ABC (what investment bank wants to buy into a non profit organisation?) and thus the direction of programming would always ultimately be controlled by those who care.
#2 Privatising might be easier than first thought. Foxtel is always adding new channels so as to induce new subscribers. It subcontracts to publishers to present to it a whole channel in tact and then it, Foxtel, arranges broadcasting and subscription payments. All the ABC would have to do is prepare programming, which they would be doing without editorial interference. Any shortfall still occurring might be covered by ABCophiles buying shares to ensure the existence of their broadcaster of respectability and impartiality.

Edward Carson

Your commentary would have more credibility if your logic were clear and consistent and your knowledge of the basic facts were better.

You knock the ABC noting that it doesn't matter about the quality of its programs because the majority don't use it preferring to be told how to vote by the shock jocks. Then you assert that "it really is difficult to make subjective comparisons of news services" and cite in support the fact that Andrew Bolt, the populist shock jock of the Herald-Sun, very often bags the ABC (while you forget to mention he regularly appears on it).

And you cite another critic of the ABC - Janet Albrechtson [sic] which, according to your worldview, "shows that the ABC is not universally respected". So two columnists in rival media organisations are critical of the ABC. What's your argument?

Now on the question of fact, Albrechtsen does not write for the S.M.H. Until just after the election, she wrote for The Australian (the newspaper which enlightened commentators used to refer to as the Government Gazette because of its unfailing support for the Howard Government).

What's more, in 2005 John Howard appointed Ms Albrechtsen to the Board of the ABC (along with other Liberal Party apparatchiks). Before her appointment, Ms Albrechtsen had been trenchantly criticised by the ABC's Media Watch for apparently deliberately misquoting her sources, and other slap-dash journalism. So she has a particular axe to grind in coming to the ABC Board.

Just before the 2007 election, Ms Albrechsen turned sour, bit the hand that fed her, and wrote a strong column calling for Howard to resign (curiously joining the chorus which had been led by your other hero, Andrew Bolt).

After the election, Ms Albrechtsen was suddenly transferred in her employment and her future with The Australian is unknown. So let's not cherry-pick the facts that suit you, Edward. Attacks on the ABC are often more complex than they seem.

EC: "I can’t understand the concept of how someone would watch channel A while thinking channel B was better."

Same way people may think restaurant food tastes better, but find themselves eating McDonalds more frequently.
Even though they may watch news on the commercial networks, they still like to know that they have the better quality providers available, especially given the incredibly low cost.

It's not a matter of the big words, and being afraid of being tarred a philistine.

There's also the benefits that accrue to society in general by having superior news network providers who maintain a standard of journalism. Four corners has broken a number of signficant stories during their time, and the interviews on lateline have often caused a ripple effect in terms of revelations imparted.

EC: "It can’t matter from a democratic point of view because at election time, due to ratings figures, the majority won’t be watching it anyway (and thus not enlightened with ‘pravda’) and will just be voting according to whatever their shock jocks suggest."

ABC outdid most of the networks on election night in terms of ratings. I clearly recall one commentator pointing out in the aftermath, that evidently elections are one of the rare occasions when it would appear people do still want the 'boring' figures and analysis instead of the gimmicks that were trawled out by the commercial providers.

EC: "If you believe people want to finance the ABC though their taxes then it obviously follows that they would instead finance directly through subscription. Even those who don’t watch but just want to know it’s there. The majority of adults in Australia are a LOT of subscribers."

In theory, yes, in practice, no. Whether it's inertia or laziness, I don't know. However, a majority of taxpayers wish for it to be kept.

What I do know, is the clear majority of people support the ABC, and it costs next to nothing.

At the end of the day, these two arguments are pretty damn compelling.

As long as we're picking on EC, I was going to point this out earlier:

"It costs taxpayer funds for the government to manage and regulate all TV broadcasting" That's like a dictator complaining about the cost of the upkeep of all the prisons he uses to lock up his opponents.
…err, have you ever heard of the concept of freedom of the press?

ACMA does not restrict freedom of the press, it regulates it and hears complaints and keeps it honest. I don't really get your point here.

By the way, ABC ratings have always skyrocketed during on election night, but they also increase during emergencies in general.

EC to TRTL: "Wrong as you ultimately are, you certainly put a lot of thought into your arguments. If only you used your considerable talents for good."

to Wisofaus: "Gees, and I thought Vanilla needed an economics lesson!"

You're really very patronising. It's none of my business, but do your really think it's working for you? I read TRTL and find his arguments compelling because he presents them rationally and with integrity, rather than having to put others down to bolster his own position.

Sorry, I know it's rude of me, but it's kind of getting to me.

No, Wizofaus.

I can’t give an example of “people themselves [organising] a not-for-profit broadcaster capable of providing high-quality content without commercials”. And I also can’t give an example of a community of opera lovers organising a season of performances where none of the members have to pay for admission. I also can’t give an example of beer lovers organising a pub where the beer is free.
Everything comes at a cost. I not only pay for my Foxtel, but I also have to put up with the ads. Is it too much to ask the same from you?

TurnRightThenLeft
# why would anyone go to restaurant A if they thought the same priced food in restaurant B tasted better?
# election night is a bit late for the ABC to propagate its ‘pravda’ to influence elections.
# you can’t say “in theory something is true, but I still disagree”. Many people will always say they support some allegedly noble cause until the crunch time comes to actually support it. Talk is cheap. The fact of non action is PROOF there is no meaningful support. You are like someone who ardently defends some alleged shonky financial adviser. When asked if you would invest with him, you answer in the negative but still insist he is totally scrupulous.
# “…the ABC, and it costs next to nothing.” If it costs next to nothing and the majority of Australians want it, isn’t this even more of a reason that it could be viably financed and controlled by those who care about it without bothering the rest of us.

Vanilla
“ACMA does not restrict freedom of the press, it regulates it and hears complaints and keeps it honest”
Yeah, right. Below are quotes from the ACMA website. Hyphens added.
“Details of the codes and ACMA program standards can be found under -Content regulation-”
“ACMA administers the –Ownership- and –control- rules for broadcasting services.”
How can you be regulated without loosing freedom? Freedom also means the right to tell porkies (subject to perjury or where you know the fibs might cause series tangible harm). How would you like to be threatened with legal action every time, down at the pub, you embellished an anecdote so as to get a few extra chuckles from the people at your table?
We already have general laws to protect against slander, incitement to commit crimes, pornography, gaining an advantage by false pretences, etc. We don’t need a Minister for Truth and Propaganda.

Here’s the new EC: err, Vanilla, perhaps you could look at the concept of press freedom from a different angle.
The ABC should be controlled because it is a publicly owned body (there is no direct connection between management and ownership)but private corporations are just that: private. They are owned by private citizens. A thousand people standing on soapboxes around the country expressing their freedom of speech do not lose that right when they join together and establish a media conglomerate. They should be allowed to: own as much as they like, or, instead of 1000, be an association of a million people (legislation prevents so called monopolies); broadcast whatever (legislation insists on hosting local news as well as national, plus a % of local drama etc); and wherever they like (legislation limits private channels to 75% reach).
Please don’t respond to the legitimacy of said laws. That is for another column.
My point is that all this regulation does not recognise for the media the same rights that an individual possesses, is obviously not what the media wants, and thus it is a bit rich to claim the govt is doing the media a service by financing said regulation.

Edward Carson is silent on the fate of his hero, Janet Albrechsen, whose hopelessly biased columns in The Australian (aka under Howard the Government Gazette) are read no more because she no longer serves a purpose in this new political climate.

The Australian today (page 10) now reveals that their opinion editor Tom Switzer has been appointed Opposition leader Brendan Nelson's foreign policy adviser. Looks like someone has ordered a clean-out at the Oz. Nothing to do with damaging circulation problems?

Astute readers of Andrew Bolt will have noticed a mellowness of late too.

Thank goodness for the ABC! Just as critical of the government now as it was before the change.