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.”