“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.