Dear me, what a target rich environment, as they say. The ABC regularly advertises its own shows with promos all day long - and then you get the hypocrisy of interviews and commentry on radio on for example, the evils of gambling while during these they promote footy-tipping, and the Melbourne Cup events, wonderful stuff and none of the commentators/hosts see anything wrong with this as they gleefully party on. So what you don't like is anyone else advertising on ABC is that correct? Or anyone using ABC content, paid for by taxpayers, for anything else?

Quoting Crikey.com(.au?) is quoting a gossip site isn't it, hardly a good reference.

"Quality programming", oh please, the ABC is full of opinionated presenters who ascribe to the celebrity stream, there are some good shows which deserve a good showing though. Why should we, the taxpayer, be so captive to the vagaries of the presenters?

I have no problem, obviously, in the ABC taking in advertising as it may have some influence on the staff being somewhat more balanced and less socialist and left in their leanings - the board has no effect on the staff, maybe it's time for another approach. Not everyone feels that the ABC works for them.

Sign a petition .. Dumbing down the ABC, what .. further than it is now? I know lots of folks who would gladly sign a petition to have the ABC given a good flush to get rid of some of the rubbish. Don't get me started!

I would love to see the ABC fully funded from advertising, as that would reduce its dependence on my taxes. I am not at all worried about the effect on programs, as I have given up watching it already, as I am sick of having my news and entertainment filtered through one of their editors, who adds indigenous, lesbian and other issues that I don't want. It is wonderful to have the internet as your main information source, and to able to get a variety of views, not just the standard PC socialist left journalistic ones peddled on the ABC.

Well I am one of those strongly opposed to advertising on the ABC and the increase in advertising time on SBS (ie. during rather than in-between programmes).

I mainly watch the ABC,a couple of good shows on SBS and the odd commercial channel show thrown in here and there. The ABC provides a broad range of shows for a broad range of people including indigenous people. Would a commercial channel be predisposed to airing shows for minority groups if the motive was purely profit?

The range of shows on the ABC is very broad and there is something for everyone (all taxpayers). I find ABC and SBS presenters in the main to be equally scrutinising of those on the left and right of politics.

The ABC has been pushing it's luck lately with it's own Ads but in moderation this is preferable to being presented with a barrage of inane and annoying Ads on a regular basis on the commercial channels.

Pelican

You stole my thunder, I watch a lot of ABC & SBS as well.

I loathe the commercials that now interrupt the flow of narrative on SBS programs.

And while I appreciated the cleverness of the advertising for the Gruen Transfer as well as enjoying the show, I feel the ABC audience are gradually being softened up for further commercial intrusion.

Plerdsus

If your preference is for 'vanilla' programs, then the commercial channels supply such fare in abundance and there is no need to watch ABC or SBS. For the rest of us who enjoy variety, being informed and sometimes challenged both the ABC and SBS offer plenty for wide range of different people. Long may the ABC continue to provide an alternative to the bland fairy floss offered by the commercial networks.

Should "Today tonight", "60 minutes" and endless C grade American shows be your pleasure, then enjoy.

As to the ABC being controlled by socialists, then maybe those who think so, should get out more or turn off your Foxtel!

Fractelle,

I can assure you that I cannot remember the last occasion I watched any of the c**p on commercial TV stations.

The day of the free to air TV station is over. You may have noticed that Packer and all the other smart boys got out a year or two ago. The stations won't go away, but the programming on all will just steadily get worse.

Young people don't watch TV, as TEN admitted recently. Neither do I. If there is a program I am interested in, I download the podcast and watch the bit that interests me.

I get most of my news from overseas sources (they actually have different views, unlike here, where you could watch 2,7,9, and 10 news and watch the same stories, and see the same people on all of them). I continue to be amazed at the important news stories that are never mentioned here, but at least I can now follow them using the internet.

In the near future, when the internet will carry live TV, the demise of the local rubbish will be complete.

P.S How long before the Sydney Morning Herald stops publishing a paper edition? It can't happen to soon, as far as I am concerned. I haven't purchased a copy for years. Read it all online.

I watch quite a lot of the ABC and their excessive in-house advertising irritates me to bits. The only good thing about it is that the volume is not ramped up as it is on the commercial channels. I'd happily pay more than my 8 cents a day (or whatever it is now - does anyone know?) to have less promotional stuff on the ABC.

I agree about overseas news being more diverse and with better coverage. I like the English version of Aljazeera for a quick round-up of what's happening in the world. Asia turns out to be a very newsworthy place once you leave the confines of our Australia-centric media.

The ABC/SBS has been dumbed down for years. Advertising will make little difference to that. The ALP/Greens will continue to see the ABC/SBS journalist as a recruiting ground as they usually sprout socialism. The ABC/SBS are apologist for Islam, promoters of porn and homosexuality and very unkind to Christians. I personally think they are a waste of taxpayers money. Even play school sees fit to promote 'two mummies' rather than a father and a mother. To think that the tax payers dollars go to this propaganda is a disgrace.

Plerdsus

You need to chill out a bit and slow down. Sitting and relaxing with a paper (regardless of content or editorial slant)and a cup of coffee is far more enjoyable than being transfixed by a flickering screen. It's one reason why papers are still selling in reasonable quantities. It allows someone to go to place away from other forms of communication and really concentrate on what they are doing, rather than succummbing to the 20 second attention span of the internet.

Phil Matimein,

I understand your delight in relaxing with a printed copy of the Herald, instead of having to read a computer screen. That is not the problem. The problem is that Fairfax is not a government funded charity, and needs revenue to cover the ever increasing cost of printing the Herald. The copy you read every day costs far more than the cover price to print, and the difference is subsidised by advertising revenue (the so-called rivers of gold). Unfortunately, the rivers are drying up, and no new source of finance is in sight.

Specifically, the problems are:

1. In the coming downturn, advertising revenue as a whole will be in severe decline.

2. To help them survive, businesses are re-directing their advertising away from print onto the net, which is much cheaper and more effective.

3. Most ominous of all, the demographic of Herald readers is ageing rapidly, with most now over 50, and advertisers are not interested in that demographic.

If you don't believe these figures, have a look around next time you take a train trip in morning rush hour, and see how many people are reading the Herald. You will find that those not just sitting are working their ipods, or mobile phones.

Various commentators in the media have commented recently that the Herald's advertising revenue has been in free fall since July, and that this sparked the latest round of redundancies.

I am afraid the writing is on the wall for the printed Herald.

Unfortunately the average 1hr TV program only runs for 46 mins - the remaining 14 mins is for advertising. This allows the channels to change programs on the hour/1/2 hour. The ABC/SBS therefore have to fill this 14mins else their programing isn't locked into the commercial channels. SBS fills the time with commercials, the ABC with it's station promos.

The alternative is to show 14 min programs such as Media Watch, or the recent "making of DR Who" that followed the recent series.

I suspect that the station promos are the cheapest solution.

I have yet to be convinced that the placement of ads in the middle of SBS programs has improved the quality of the programing. In fact SBS is a disaster since it was taken over by the Kiwi.

The ABC is still the most innovative channel available - their pioneering shows such as Spicks and Specks, Hollowmen, Q&A etc make it my No1 viewing experience and I'm happy to tolerate the promos as necessary.

Janama

I'm right there with you. Especially Hollowmen, Dr Who, Spics and Specs, but also for Clarke & Dawe. Also innovative TV that would never be shown anywhere else like that from Chris Lilley (Summer Heights High).

Also recently thoroughly enjoyed an architectural history doco, the name of which I can't recall, but never would see on the commercial channels.

Open slather commercial advertising on the ABC would be the death of it.

I'm happy with my taxes going to the ABC to fund it. I would be happy with it getting more fuNDing. I also watch some commercial TV...it's not all bad - there are some gems. But commercial TV is also in trouble as you can now record programs without the adverts, and advertisers know this. This is why they try to place more reality TV programs (aren;t we all over them?)within which they have product placement.

The ABC allows for programs that the commercial stations won't touch until they are proven. Some of the most popular TV shows owe their genesis to the ABC. I could mention Sea Change, Kath and Kim, Frontline.

We also get good (and bad) comedy, but at least an alternative from the American drivel (with an odd exception) and repeats run endlessly on the commerical channels. How many more police procedural series can we fit in? No imagination there at all...just formulaic crap that loses its appeal after one or two episodes.

Also, you just have to see how many of the successful journos started at the ABC and still hold it in great respect even though they now work for commercial stations. They all understand the need for the national broadcaster to have more editorial freedom than commerially controlled channels.

The last thing we need is what has happened to the music industry, ie that if you don't the mould, you don't get played. It's made our music industry full of clones and lacking in innovation.