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.