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.