Some of the biggest media runs in the UK this week have centered on both sides of the BBC debate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10406971/BBC-could-lose-right-to-licence-fee-over-culture-of-waste-and-secrecy-minister-warns.html

Like wise in Australia there are similar debates about the ABC. Is it now time to examine the issues of public funded broadcasters?

Public broadcasters exist because there was a time when the media market was immature and lacked the capacity or funds to more broadly serve the public. This has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. Competition from government in any business sector has the potential to skew and damage that market, do we still need government competition in the media market?

Does the market “uniqueness” that the ABC was originally chartered to supplement remain the same? Does the ABC retain the high ground on trust, credibility and honesty? If so on what basis?

If the market has not changed then is there still a case for the existence for the ABC in its current form? Should the ABC Charter reflect the reality of the current media landscape rather than trying to fill gaps that no longer exist?

I rarely watch commercial TV, in part because of the barrage of advertising and the obvious bias, in the case of some, of the owners of the channel.Plus there is a lot of puerile rubbish on many channels.
The ABC informs me of many things just not available on the commercials and that includes sport.
To me the ABC has an important role to play and from my viewpoint always will as the commercials show no indication of lifting their standards or broadening their outlook.
SD

If the ABC played as many good documentaries & movies etc. as it plays promos all would be well, alas!

ABC is only in the spotlight because conservatives feel it is biased against them.
Strange ALP voters often think it is them in the ABC target zone.
All party,s have got candidates from Aunty ABC.
We tend to over look that in comparison to ABC other Medea is both privately owned and quite often a carrier for its owners thoughts.
ABC for non urban Australia is as Aussie as Walseing Matilda and as much loved.
I have little doubt Abbott small minded crew will further cut the ABC, in fact like to destroy it.
But like the BBC and increasingly true. quality Australian/British programs must come from these two pillars of balance
We must defend Medea not owned by the very rich only, so keep my ABC.

would say Shaggy, that the ABC misinforms you on more things than it informs you.

If you are left leaning, there is a probability you will believe their spin, if not, it is imposable to watch.

SBS still has some good programs, but we must be giving them too much taxpayer money these days. They are commissioning more documentaries themselves, with the result most of these are almost as far left as the ABC.

I agree there is little on the commercials worth watching, except for sport, & much of sport today has become a bit too commercial. Being made for TV is destroying sport.

I reckon cutting the ABCs funding by 50% & allowing advertising would force them to move back towards the middle of the road in search of audience. This would reform it to a reasonable extent, without heavy government intervention, or kill them, it really doesn't matter which. As it stands, the ABC is merely a subbranch of the ALP, & valueless to the country

i..used to/be a rusted on..abc suporter
but with the sport/tort..the cooking..the endless dimes-tore quiz's..murder ccc-rap..im..sort..of over it..

its not..my abc..it belongs the artsy fartsy..nancy plants
[imagine turning/off the kids channel..at 9.30..[when..there is so ,much archived quality..learning stuff rotting..in/the archives

noabc..has.been dumbed down/deliberately
turn..it into..a full time media/teaching SCHOOL
just do education..news..[not sports nor murder..nor coooking]
and for gods sake..no..more quize shows

abc..will.never.reach to..the letter z
but its loyalists..are being bored to.sleep
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..abc..you are..dissapointing me.

Hasbeen,

I guess I have been around long enough to know when I am being fed a load of rubbish.
I know my way around the political scene and no I am not a left leaning individual, rather I read and listen to what is being presented and some times test its validity for others.
I find from my rather neutral viewpoint as a collector of data that the ABC has less bias than most and is far more professional in its presentation. This has little to do with like or dislike, rather more to do with reliable information.
Being raised in the country has been of some assistance as I did grow up knowing wheat from chaff. Important and valuable knowledge as it turns out.
Take it easy.

SD

I agree Shaggy Dog, as I too don't find the ABC programming leaning any way at all.
I'm thinking anyone who does think that way probably sees Reds Under The Beds as well!

The ABC is great for comprehensive news, as well as British made TV crime and comedy series, which are my favourite shows, so I watch it more than any other channel.
And we have Foxtel as well, so it is handy to record and link these great ABC series, so I never miss an episode, despite what time it is on.

I would like to see less promo adverts though, especially for those programs that may be a month or so away and we can practically do the advert ourselves by the time the show actually starts.

Sorry Shaggy, but if Suse finds it middle of the road, it is obviously so far left, it is way off the road, & out into the paddock.

I could introduce you to a dozen previously rusted on ABC listeners, who all got turned off by the fool presenters & commentators, who thought they were being so subtle in their left spin, but merely alienated any thinking person who was not far left.

You can only have your intelligence insulted by fools for so long.

Even the evening news, since we got the new lady presenter is gone now. They must have started with an even more left news director, who no longer presents news, but spin.

The ABC usually makes it easy to detect lies and deceit. Whatever their bandwagon whether 'gay marriage'or the gw religion or Abbott not being electable or not able to stop the boats or reverse Gillards lie you can be pretty sure they will be wrong. They are a disgrace but do play a role in feeding the lefties what they want to hear.

Well then Hasbeen and Individual, if the ABC aren't leaning far enough to the loony right for you, then I assume you haven't watched it for ages?

If you have been watching it, in order to note this supposed left lean, then wouldn't that be hypocritical?

What channels do you watch then?
Or maybe you are too busy on OLO to watch any TV?

Hasbeen,

I make my own assessment and judgement on what I see or hear on the ABC or any other media source for that matter.
Nothing is gospel. We are all biased to some degree, it is not just the prerogative of media sources.
Diminishing ones own bias is the message.

SD

as I too don't find the ABC programming leaning any way at all.
Suseonline,
from my Mac dictionary. leaning
noun
his early leanings were towards cooking and he went off to become a chef: inclination, tendency, bent, proclivity, propensity, penchant, predisposition, predilection, proneness, partiality, preference, disposition, orientation, bias, attraction, liking, fancy, fondness, taste; weakness, hankering, appetite, thirst.
That perfectly sums up the ABC's biased culture.

Suse, you ask What channels do (they) watch? From the posts of the right wingers, I think they get their intellectual stimulation by watching Big Brother on channel 9, and their political opinion is formulated by reading (assuming they can read) Murdoch's gutter press and Micky Mouse comics.

Every time a conservative government cuts the ABC folk who are fixed to one of the two teams that are the coalition say no.
It is two teams from within the right targeting Aunty.
The true if it sounds nasty I again say *true*
extreme right, who have a home in the coalition.
And those who draw the line at opinions other than their own.
I have every confidence in todays youth, they at some future time will have made the inter nett so good no one will be able to harness news reporting.

>>Sorry Shaggy, but if Suse finds it middle of the road, it is obviously so far left, it is way off the road, & out into the paddock.<<

Well I'm stumped. Can one of you wise sages who can see the bias that lesser men cannot tell me how the left-wing bias is exhibited in the following shows?

Black Books
The IT Crowd
Derek
Would I Lie To You
QI
Tractor Monkeys
Dr. Brian Cox's latest science doco.
Michael Mosley's latest medical doco.
Sir David Attenborough's latest nature doco.
Mock The Week
Woodley

It just seems to me that a lot of the ABC's programming is distinctly non-political and of much better quality than the crap on the commercial channels. Plus you get the added bonus of not having %#$#@ ads in the middle of your show. I don't mind ads before and after shows but they annoy me when they interrupt things.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony, our resident right wing nuts don't know any of those shows because they don't watch the ABC...apparently!

>>Tony, our resident right wing nuts don't know any of those shows because they don't watch the ABC...apparently!<<

Then how do they know it has a left-wing bias? Are they psychic?

Cheers,

Tony

I watched Q & A on the ABC last night. Chris Payne Liberal education minister was on. Not that I agree with much of what he said, but he did come up a couple rungs in my eyes, he was given a very fair go and put his points across well. So much for ABC bias.

Tony,
To asses bias one really needs to demonstrate a reasonable lack of bias in ones own thinking.
Many find this difficult for reasons best known to themselves.
SD

Hands off the ABC, this is a no-go area for politicians, essential for open government and avoidance of the tyranny of the media moguls

Graham.

GR Welcome! stay please! your words true and solid hearten me.
Bit older than some here I have warned for years not to trust what you see and hear from our media.
Labor if lead by God would be miss reported and lied about in our millionaires media toy.
Just folks ask your self if you owned our media would you slant your story's toward the side you follow?
ABC has some true lard heads who fail to understand the impacts of their words but it is as near to free press as we will ever get, thats why Liberals do not want it.
Roll on the inter nett and its increaseing freedom to tell the truth.

Shaggy Dog,

Thank you for your definition of elitism.

What you like, how the ABC appeals to you, your distain of advertising, the ABC’s important role in your life, that commercial channel standards are “too low” for you, they are too puerile for you, too “biased” for you and that commercial channels have too narrow a perspective for you. We the illiterate proletariat masses bow to your self centric eminence.

Now all you have to do is read the link provided, read the questions posed in the post, look in the top drawer of your bedside table and see if you can find your brain, switch it on, join the debate and see if you can say something besides, me, me, me, me.

When you get your head out of your posterior, you will realize that not a single question was asked about Shaggy Dogs’ or anyone else’s preferences. Sorry about that but please do continue to share you innermost pontifications with the masses your Imperial Eminence.

Perhaps we could start a thread on the life and times of Shaggy Dog. The ABC 4 Kids could do “Shaggy Dog with Giggle and Hoot”, “Shaggy Dog the Builder”, “Thomas the Tank and Shaggy Dog”, or how about a David Attenborough documentary, “The Great Expedition to Discover Something Other than Shaggy Dog” or “Four Corners Investigates Shaggy Dogs Missing Embarrassment Gene”?

This thread has nothing to do with personal preferences, it is about the basis for keeping, scrapping or changing the ABC.

Options and justification.

Thank you Spindoc for your marvelous and educational post.
Very well expressed I must say.
I shall ensure I follow the the essence of your questions/posts in future rather than incur any ill feelings from your good self due to straying off topic in any way.
You have a good day, what's left of it anyway.
SD

So much for ABC bias.
Paul1405,
Well, we now have conservative edge to edge so even the ABC crowd know which side their bread is buttered on. They really should call it FSBC as in Fence Sitters Broadcast Corporation..
We could also call it the hypocrite channel.

Paul1405, I too watched Q&A last night and found Pyne quite well spoken and reasonable about the topics brought up.
Certainly he speaks much more clearly and explains himself more effectively than the PM!

Spindoc, I don't see how we can express our opinions about whether to keep, scrap or change the ABC without mentioning our personal preferences?

No taunting or verbal tennis needed here.
It is true out back and some rural areas of this country would never support slashing or getting rid of the ABC.
Fairfax is our only true balenced media out let show me honesty in any other,major.
ABC is like the SMH the choice for those more interested in truth than junk.
Wait long enough and this thread will become great Aussie humor.
Murdock switches sides in his insane wish for control.
A day will come that see,s our author and his side kicks damning those they today try to kill the ABC for, commercial self interest/Liberal wishes to hide the truth.

No taunting or verbal tennis needed here.
It is true out back and some rural areas of this country would never support slashing or getting rid of the ABC.
Fairfax is our only true balenced media outlet show me honesty in any other,major.
ABC is like the SMH the choice for those more interested in truth than junk.
Wait long enough and this thread will become great Aussie humor.
Murdock switches sides in his insane wish for control.
A day will come that see,s our author and his side kicks damning those they today try to kill the ABC for, commercial self interest/Liberal wishes to hide the truth.

The ABC-Keep, Scrap or Change?

Given the amount of commercial media out there playing the same roles as the ABC ..... yes we need to redefine what the ABC is to do.

The biggest problem is their inherent political bias ..... its not needed we have Fairfax to play that role.

Do we need a poor rating bland news outlet on the tax payers dime ?

They really should only show locally made entertainment, I think that's fine.
Shows like Landline are ok as well as their science shows ..... but the news should be just cut back to reporting not opinion or Q&A type shows which bring out their obvious bias.

It seems the ABC is a hot topic, yet I avoided entirely any reference to political bias in my post as I didn’t want the debate to degenerate in to political bias.

As we can see unfortunately, there is little else on offer.

What we can definitely conclude without any further debate is that opinion is in fact polarized along political lines, which endorses the accusations of the ABC’s political bias. Not because of any protestations by the ABC, but because they have created a politically biased audience.

If some “see” a difference in ABC N&CA it can only be from a political perspective because the sources are now the same. QED.

It is only by examination of what the ABC was first established to accomplish, with its relevance to the current globalized News and Current Affairs markets, that will establish what is needed from the ABC now.

Radio National seems to be as relevant to Australia today as it always has been, particularly for remote/rural communities, there is little national commercial radio coverage for this market.

There would have to be questionable rationale for the ABC owning and operating retail outlets.

Modern, Global news syndication provides little if any product differentiation and as such, N&CA has no intrinsic market value to the ABC. Much of this is also available increasingly through electronic media in many forms.
Such elaborate, repetitive, multi-format, costly and grandiose productions are an anathema in today’s media environment.

Why would any government invest so heavily in a market that has already reached saturation coverage?

ABC’s general programming appears to be its remaining “unique” and differentiated market however, by its own admission it has to buy in much of its content and produces less of its own due to costs.
Surely if the ABC were to concentrate on what it could excel at, and not be involved in the investment needed to compete in a crowded marketplace, it could liberate funds from its costly competitive activities and effectively invest in market gaps and its own competitive advantage?

Cont’d

Cont’d

As a public broadcaster the ABC calls heavily on its image of trust. Indeed recent “public surveys” (?) continue to support this claim, although it is in decline it is off a solid base.

There appear to be a number of factors that potentially cause further erosion of this support.

The first is investigative journalism and Panel programming, which seem to have aligned themselves more with alarmism and activism rather than reporting. Secondly, the ABC already uses syndicated news as do other outlets.

This potentially contradicts both the trustworthy/uniqueness claims of the ABC’s core business as it now drawing on similar sources to its competitors.

The investigative/activism oriented presenters (many self declared), are increasingly aligned with social/humanitarian causes so loved by the ABC. This is increasingly moving ABC perspectives away from mainstream issues and the wider public interest.

This is reflected in audience ratings for ABC. The most generous of these is OzTam’s 5 city metro average for ABC1 at 11.9%, ABC 2 at 2.5% with no other ABC channel getting over 1%.

More significantly this drops to national share figures of 6.1% and 1.1% against subscription households.

Of the Top 20 program content ratings- “free to air-all households”, Seven and Nine have six N&CA programs in the Top 20, the ABC Zero!

Their general presence is through “New Tricks” (No 10), “Gruen Planet” (No 14), “Miss Fisher” (No 17) and “Australian Story” (No 19).

The ABC has chosen to invest and focus its energies upon the most vulnerable of its endeavors, N&CA. From a purely marketing perspective this is the least sustainable part of the ABC’s marketing model, it will increasingly consume larger proportions of unsustainable funding, face greater competition, lose its differentiation and market share will continue to decline.

As evidenced, the ABC has already lost its trust, credibility and differentiation attributes as it uses the same sources as the rest of the market.

With minority ratings for minority audiences and a downward trend line, is this model sustainable at public expense?

Keep-Scrap-or Change?

Mr Menzies House Spindoc may I question when you last posted in any thread a not politics comment.
And may I hazard a guess the answer is never.
ABC clearly covers more in the Radio spectrum of our country than any other.
It like the BBC at least for now, is our international broadcast voice.
TV has seen many of the programs it once imported from the BBC now showing on commercial TV in between the morning show type news show poseing as Australian content.
Fire flood or other emergency nothing beats the ABC.
No case to remove it change it comes other than from the conservatives

Belly, I find trying to discuss issues with you and other left-wing socialists a complete waste of time. At least you are a grass-roots 'true believer' but other chardonnay socialists such as Poirot (who for her own reasons uses a man's nom-de-plume),Lexi, csteele and others are so far to the left that you are congenitally incapable of seeing the other side of view. How many times did you three warn me that the Libs could only win under Turnbull? When are you going to face the fact that you were wrong?

The only thing the ABC shows that is non-political is the Test Pattern! Years ago, circa 1993, I was listening to Doug Aiton on 3LO hand over the Drivetime program to the next anchorman who's name I forget but he was an ex-priest. Doug and his mate were joking about the number of Liberal voters that worked for the ABC and concluded that the only Lib supporter was an old fellow that ran the car park, a member of the Corp of Commissionaires! An ex-serviceman was the only Lib supporter that worked for the ABC!

The ABC is SO FAR to the left that they cannot conceive of a value that is right-wing. You only have to look at the current constant support for Climate Change. Clearly they are at variance with conservatives such as me.

If I was the boss of the ABC I would fire the lot, including the tea lady! They have hijacked my 8 cents a day for a quarter of a century. I despise them all, but Belly, I know they are your social heroes.

Cheers, Geoffrey Kelley.

Maybe the ABC support climate change because the bulk of scientists support it Geoffreykelly, and not for any paranoid political reason?

Surely if all the so-called right wing and conservative supporters are so unhappy with the ABC, they should just turn it over?

I don't vote for Libs or Labs, but I enjoy the ABC for the most part, and have no paranoid feelings about any 'leanings' that some people seem to imagine is there.

Is the problem that all the news reporters or journalists don't always report what you want them to?
Maybe the truth hurts?

Suseonline,

<< Is the problem that all the news reporters or journalists don't always report what you want them to? >>

If the sources of the news is syndicated globally, then not reporting or selective coverage is indeed a problem for the ABC. We can get any news we want from multiple sources and multiple technologies, so if the ABC fails to cover something they get caught out every time and it does become a censorship issue.

So when you say << Maybe the truth hurts? >> what you mean is that from a public funding perspective the “lack of truth hurts” and yes this does reflect badly on the ABC.

Spindoc,
To get back to your original question.
Yes I do think we should keep the ABC.
Yes it does need change as do all media sources right now. None are free from bias, that said and hopefully I can say without being abused, I think the ABC standard of presentation is better than most other sources when it comes to news and similar programs.
Am I elitist, no, never could be with my background. Am I a lefty, no, never cast my vote on that side of the political spectrum.
The TV in our house often gets turned off, no matter what the channel, when we think a program is not to our liking and the ABC is definitely not excluded when it comes to this. For info we are not avid TV watchers.
This is On Line Opinion and in my opinion the ABC provides a level of reporting as good and possibly better than their commercial competition.
I obviously bow to your superior knowledge and obvious education and hopefully will not offend you further with this post.
SD

Suseonline,

Just on the topic of ABC Censorship or Selective coverage, this article from the BBC along with much media coverage in wider Europe. I have to wonder if this will get a run from the ABC?

If it does not I guess you will get back to us with some sort of “explanation”?

“A leading British climate scientist claims the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there is now a real risk of a ‘Little Ice Age’. The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum. Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%. --Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 28 October 2013”

I get a twice weekly roundup of European media coverage, particularly in relation to climate change, most of it goes unreported in OZ. If it did you would be one of the first to complain.

I might try you out of a few gems under the heading of “Did you know”?

Ah Shaggy, the old second bite.

If you were a Tailor I would wind in immediately, hard and fast. If you were a Mulloway, I would let that “hard mouth” have a second or third run before sinking the hook. The Australian Salmon, like the Tailor, fights hard and long, sometimes “tail walking” and snapping even the best gang hooks, a much respected fish.

Then we have the Bream, it goes for bait that is far too be for it, keeps coming back for more ‘cos it’s stupid, and in the end it hooks itself and earns little respect from serious fishermen.

You Sir, are a Bream.

Many have little problem with you or anyone else enjoying your preference for the ABC, not the point though was it?

The issue remains that serving a minority audience with minority perspectives should not be done as such public expense.

Whilst I never intended or mentioned ABC bias as the topic matter, this has primarily been the issue for many.

Shaggy, it is not the ABC that defines its bias or otherwise, it is its audience. You and you ABC luvvies enjoy the ABC because it is biased and the ABC puts out exactly what you wish to here, your minority perspective.

You can repeat endlessly why you like the ABC however, you forget that we already know why. The issue remains, should the public continue to fund a minority sectarian audience in an already saturated media market?
If you and your friends want it you can fund it, it should be going very cheap, very soon, like every other consumer product that is passed its use by date.

You say you are not elitist, of course you’re not, but you would love to be thought of as one.

Don’t believe me? Just read this if you want to know what a “wannabe” elitist sounds like.

Posted by Shaggy Dog, Monday, 28 October 2013 11:44:29 AM

When you are ready to stop repeating your “preferences” and discuss the real topic, get back to us. Try morphing into something respectable.

Tight Lines Aye?

Too good for me Spindoc.
I shall have to leave the field to you.
It is a pity that many of these posts on forums cannot be repeated or had face to face as I feel an entirely different understanding of the person and their views would be gained.
There is possibly far more common ground than the opposite I feel, you express your thoughts well when you write, me less so.
Animosity and antagonism are not part of my brief. I read your posts with interest as I do some others, and others of opposing viewpoints. Makes for interesting reading and is cause for reflection as how difficult it can be to find common ground on these forums.
Speaking of fishing, I am about to go and do just that. Too nice a day to be inside.
Catch you later.
Take it easy.

SD

For a democracy to work, the citizens must be well informed about all the issues.
Do we really believe that our news should be even more tightly controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch or be informed by somebody like Andrew Bolt?

It's typically the conservatives who see any criticism from the ABC as left-wing bias but anybody who read The Drum in the weeks leading up to the last Federal Election must have seen the same bias complaints from ALP supporters.

The ABC has always been seen as an easy target for the disaffected and is more closely scrutinised than any other media source in the country.

Somehow the fact that it's publicly funded seems to make it open to criticism.

While we pay about ten cents per day for the ABC, Free-To-Air or printed media is funded entirely by advertisers and that is effectively paid for as a levy on everything we buy and I'm sure it's more than ten cents but they are free to say almost anything they please.

There is nothing free about Free-To-Air media.

Well noted, wobbles - there are no free lunches.

Shaggy Dog, you really shouldn't kow-tow (even if tongue-in-cheek) to spindoc's supposedly superior intellect, for he is truly vulgar in much of his postings, opinionated almost beyond belief, and loves nothing better than pulling people's chains. Not worth your time or consideration. (In case you haven't noticed, he already has such an over-bloated ego there is no need for anyone to feed it further.)

Spindoc;

>.. but because they have created a politically biased audience.<

Yeh?? And, by what means pray tell - as you appear to have confirmed that the ABC steers a relatively impartial line when it comes to political (or any other) reporting.

As for competition with the MSM when it comes to news (from common Global sources) what else would you suggest? Sending out your own reporters, at great expense, only to come up with the same as all the others?
Simple, report the news like all the rest, and get on with more important, and unbiased, investigative reporting like Four Corners and Media Watch (and with extended coverage like ABC News 24), and quality entertainment geared to an Oz audience (which there should be more of).
The ABC is for a 'thinking' audience, and free-to-air is for the 'plebs' - and they're welcome to it.
Can the ABC do it better? Of course; but seeking to shaft it would be a criminal act, leaving us at the mercies of the moguls, and with only the SBS for 'quality' programming.
(SBS has 'selective' ads, sparsely sprinkled, which could be a model the ABC could follow - if the 'buck' is really as important as you seem to suggest.)

More Oz-produced and Oz-oriented content, supported directly by the ABC, would also be most welcome - and would concurrently provide much needed stimulus to our own struggling arts, drama and film/video production sectors.

Let the so-called 'frees' waste their money on Schapelle's story; we dyed-in-the-wool ABC supporters couldn't give a flying fig - IMHO.

And, get off your high-horse old mate, you're not really impressing anybody by riding roughshod.

‘morning Suseonline/wobbles/Shaggy/Saltpetre/Belly/GR/Paul1405/Tony Lavis and the rest of the ABC’s St. Judes Club,

So, for <<we dyed-in-the-wool ABC supporters >>, << free-to-air is for the 'plebs'>> and the << ABC is for a 'thinking' audience>>

You rarely watch commercial TV, you hate the media moguls, the ABC appeals to you, the ABC’s has an important role in your life, you dislike advertising, commercial channel standards are “too low”, too “puerile”, too “biased” for you, commercial channels have too narrow a perspective for you and content is crap.

An interesting profile? You are all to be commended for what many might describe as a brilliant self description. Actually, you didn’t need to tell us, we already knew because the ABC told us.

It is not about what you say, it’s about what you don’t/can’t say.

None of you has gone even close to debating issues, no comment on ratings, market share, credibility, trust, technological evolution, competition, ABC structure, customer (public) needs, market saturation, industry funding models, syndicated news differentiation, retail operations, general programming funding share, uniqueness, the case for public funding or any alternatives. Nothing!

It is one thing to claim you are a “thinking audience” but apparently it is quite a different issue when it comes to actually demonstrating that you can think? Is it the case that your rhetoric engine is simply a cover for the absence of depth and is very soon exhausted? Is it the case that nothing is actually read or comprehended and you just “feel” the issues emotionally and can only respond with emotion?

You have done a great job in describing yourselves as a typical ABC audience and have provided many reasons for closing the ABC down and none for keeping it. The only thing you have evidenced is “issues based groupthink” or “adopted opinions”. You wish to be thought of as elites and intelligentsia, you have poured scorn on “lesser” Australians, pulled up the drawbridge and resorted to pontificating from the high moral ramparts.

You are the ABC and the ABC is you.

Spindoc,
Love the way you write.
Caught a couple of fish yesterday, herring, no they were not red but were a reasonable size.
Take it easy.
SD

Hi Spindoc,

Thanks for this thread.

The ABC - Keep, Scrap or Change?

My vote would go towards - Keep!

Julian Burnside, QC. wrote an interesting article
some time ago on the topic of "Better Media is Good
For Democracy." And in it he pointed out the fact
that although we live in a torrent of information yet there
is such a limited range of available views.

Media ownership in Australia, as we know is notoriously
narrow. The Mainstream Media certainly offers little
diversity and as Burnside says such diversity as there is
runs along predictable lines. He points out the fact that
the economics of print and electronic media tend to drive
opinion in the direction of populism which has unhappy results
now that both major political parties have "abandoned their
founding principals and form policies by reference to
media coverage generally, and to news polls and focus groups
in particular."

Burnside states that "Just as Mainstream Traditional Media
is full of voices (mostly strident) telling government what to
do so the blogosphere and social media are full of voices -
more numerous and often more strident - doing the same."

I agree with Burnside that "those of us who are torn between
the desert of Mainstream Media and the jungle of the Internet
need a place where rational but diverse views can be found
on matter of enduring importance."

I find that the ABC is such a place. I watch programs like
"Insiders", "Q and A", "Media Watch", "Midsomer Murders",
"Lateline", just to name a few.
As Burnside states, It would be difficult to agree with
every view expressed on their programs at times, but you do
get a diversity and it would be equally difficulty to disagree
with them all. And it would be impossible to criticise any of
them as irrational or foolish.
We need the ABC to give us the diversity that is so sorely
lacking in our Mainstream Media.

Hi Foxy,

Your vote for the ABC is based on what you like to watch. Given that not one of the ABC programs you enjoy has made it into the top 20 and that not a single ABC news or current affair program gets a top 20 mention, we would have to conclude that ABC programs and content service minority interests (less than 14%), and thus the issue of all Australian taxpayers funding minority interests remains in play.

The media in Australia has polarized politically. It would be a fair but over simplistic perception to say that Fairfax services the left and News Ltd the right. Seven, Nine and Ten and all their variants variously fill the middle ground. SBS is covering social/ethnic and cultural formats.

Apart from general programming, the ABC is duplicating and competing with the service space that is currently covered by Fairfax and SBS.

So is the case for keeping the ABC in its current form, that we need more of the left, the right or the centre? I don’t understand the need for duplication, or for publicly funding that duplication, or the need for government funded competition with media outlets that already both saturate and cover the full spectrum?

As said earlier, general programming funding has declined at the ABC because they are increasingly investing their budget in news and current affairs. I used to enjoy ABC general programming but it is losing out to the disproportionate funding being transferred to N&CA.

I love your passion and your willingness to show your hand and open up to debate however, this debate is not about personal preferences, it never started as a debate about bias, it was always about the public funding for minority and already duplicated interests.

I am less interested in bias than I am about the ABC’s censorship, I might put some examples together to shift the debate back to its origins.

Thanks for your comments.

Suseonline/wobbles/Shaggy/Saltpetre/Belly/GR/Paul1405/Tony Lavis and the rest of the ABC’s St. Judes Club,

A small sample from just 4 weeks in UK media. Energy Crisis, Industry going offshore, Green Taxes being cut, political conflict, Low Hurricane count, Little Ice Age and political blame game? A ripping CAGW media debate and coverage. Not to mention the EU and the USA.

Multiply this by 12 to get a “years worth” idea of the ABC censorship of the stuff we don’t need to know?

Under-Fire Cameron Calls For Roll-Back Of Green Energy Taxes - The Times, 23 October 2013

David Cameron Pledges To Cut Green Taxes Next Year Despite Lib Dem Objections - The Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2013

High Energy Prices: Grangemouth Petrochemical Plant To Close - BBC News, 23 October 2013

Ineos Blames High Energy Cost For Plant Closure - Financial Times, 6 September 2013

Jim Ratcliffe: ‘Heavy Energy Users Will Relocate Or Disappear’ - Financial Times 14 October 2013

BBC: Real Risk Of A Maunder Minimum 'Little Ice Age' Says Leading Scientist - BBC Weather, 28 October 2013

New Paper: Solar Quiet Spells Can Trigger Little Ice Age - The Register, 1 October 2013

Solar Activity Drops To 100-Year Low, Puzzling Scientists - MINA News, 19 September 2013

Atlantic Hurricane Season Quietest In 45 Years, Experts Say - Reuters, 25 October 2013

David Cameron Plans To Halve Green Energy Taxes To Cut Fuel Bills - The Times, 25 October 2013

Cameron’s Green Dilemma: New Energy Bill Means Green Energy Costs Will Rise Significantly - Mail on Sunday, 27 October

James Forsyth: Clegg Starts To Melt As Dave Turns Up The Energy Price Heat - Mail on Sunday, 27 October 2013

Reality Check: Lib Dems Resist Tory Plans To Cut Green Taxes - The Guardian, 27 October 2013

Labour Party Ready To Overhaul Green Tax On Energy Bills - The Times, 28 October 2013

FT Editorial: Britain’s Energy Market Needs Perestroika - Financial Times, 28 October 2013

Christopher Booker: 'Green Dave’ Cameron As Much To Blame As 'Red Ed’ Miliband For Energy Crisis - The Sunday Telegraph, 27 October 2013

Hi Shaggy,

I thought it a little unfair that you were criticized by your friends for knowing when to “hold ‘em” and knowing when to “fold ‘em”.

So many on OLO don’t have the backbone for any form of reassessment. There is something genuine and gentle about you that I cannot ignore, so much so that I feel genuinely obliged to say to you, I am truly sorry for going overboard with my smart arsed commentary directed at you.

No excuses, it got personal but you turned the other cheek like the genuine Christian I believe you are, you smashed me with your humility. You are spot on when you say that face to face we might find much common ground. Sorry Shaggy.

I have since written another post that included you as an addressee. Please click on your name and delete yourself from that post. You can, I can’t.

Just on the subject of Herring, Albert Park near me has a small tidal city lake. Whilst walking past the tidal outlet I saw about half a dozen Giant Herring at about 2m long. A fly fisherman’s delight in the middle of the city?

Enjoy your feed of fish (Red Herrings or otherwise).

Billions of taxpayers' dollars go into public broadcasting. It is difficult to justify the apparent redundancy of the ABC and the SBS, one saying it is there to 'inform, educate and entertain' Australians and the other to 'deliver services which celebrate Australia’s multicultural environment'.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/Broadcasting

Why can't the one do both? Put the savings towards improving rail or whatever in country areas.

Dear Spindoc,

My vote for the ABC is based on more than
"what I like to watch". The ABC is not the only
channel that I watch.

However my vote for the
ABC is based mainly on the fact that I happen to support
mainstream, non-commercial, taxpayer funded,
public broadcasting in Australia, and I would hate for it
to lose its funding (or be privatised), or have cuts made,
- which the Commission of Audit
may yet well do under this current government.
Although Malcolm Turnbull promised prior to the election
that this would not happen.

The ABC is unique - and should remain so. As for questioning
the funding for "minority interests?"
I guess we could regress back to being a cultural backwater
and cut funding to The Arts, Australian Films, Theatre, Opera,
Ballet, and so on. Cut out all the various Children's Programs
on the ABC - and invest the money elsewhere. But will our
society be any the richer for it?
Whatever rocks your boat - I guess

With a growing population there are other necessary services that must be provided.

The thinking that set up the ABC and later the SBS, pre-dated changes in travel and communication, including the widespread public access to the internet.

I to am a supporter of public broadcasting. You all can tune into 'Radio Skid Row' 88.9 on the FM dial. Based in Marrickville in Sydney it offers quality alternative radio for your ears. Our good friend Tahi presents the Maori program between 6 and 9 on a Saturday morning. So to the 'usual suspects' turn off Al (I'm a hater) Jones and listen to some good olde' quality radio.

I wonder how many people who were against the Sydney
Opera House (we didn't need it after all), would regret
it today?

In the 1950s and 1960s Australians were becoming more and more
aware of the fact that Australia was considered a cultural
"backwater". For the best in the arts one had to go
overseas. However, during the following years many plans
were made to put an end to this state of affairs.

The Australian Opera House (the first in Australia) was built in
Sydney. The architectural design made world headlines, and despite
its cost and complications in building, it has now become one of
the foremost cultural attractions of Australia.

In Melbourne, the Victorian Art Gallery was planned as the
"art gallery wonder" of Australia. The centre was to become
a spectacular architectural attraction with its watershielded
glass front, its stained glass ceiling, its fountains and
concert rooms. The art purchses of the gallery have become
matters of public debate. and with the increased interest,
more and more people have been getting experience of art than perhaps ever before.

Then of course we have the Victorian Arts Centre, where
overseas fame of Australian masterpieces like, "The Summer
of the Seventeenth Doll," and the fame of individual
performers ranging from Joan Sutherland, Sir Robert Helpmann
the Seekers, June Bronhill, Barry Humphries, and many, many
more... writers, musicians and performers in all the arts,
earned this country a place amongst the world's best.

Supporting "minority interests" be it in the arts, public
broadcasting, sport, or elsewhere is a necessity. It has
its own rewards bringing with the investment many
tourists and much pride and success.

No longer will the world think of Australia as a place
where kangaroos hop around the streets and where the
"down under" label is a label for backwardness.

Foxy, "I wonder how many people who were against the Sydney
Opera House (we didn't need it after all), would regret
it today?"
The conservative grandpas of the usual suspects on here were against the building of the Sydney Harbor Bridge, Bunnerong Power Station and the awarding of 5 shillings a week widows pension by Jack Lang back in the 1930's. They also opposed The Snowy Mountain Scheme, but were all for both the Korean and Vietnam wars. Did you think they wanted to build the Sydney Opera House, if they had, had their way a "lovely" tram shed would still be sitting on Bennelong Point.Do you honestly think their grandsons would support public broadcasting, if its not a war they don't support it.
Famous words of the founder of the Liberal Party 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies when Ben Chifly announced Australia would build an Australian motor car. "No Australian working man should own a motor car." Don't know what 'Pig Iron' thought of radios and TV's. Here's a historical joke, when Australia introduced decimal currency in 1966 Menzies wanted to call the dollar "Royals"... "Royals", what a wombat, and Menzies is Howard's great hero, and Howard is Abbott's great hero, it runs in the "family" wombatism, that is.

Dear Paul,

I found this little excerpt in one of my son's
old history text books. I wonder how true it is today?

"The heritage of every Australian: the right to be
exactly the same as everybody else...It's not easy to
win this position in a community like Hurstfield.
From time to time, you feel like speaking out about
things, saying something that's different for a change,
until you realize - sensibly - that it's a lot
easier to make yourself like something you really
hate rather than say you hate it and have everybody go
crooked on you."

Some things have changed. For example, while Australian
television shows like "Skippy"
were once popular, the character of the
Aussie housewife was mocked by the clever comedy skits of
over-the-fence-natter by the Australian actress Dawn Lake,
"You tell 'em love!" became the symbol of the
tea-sipping-hair-in-curlers-gossip-over-the-fence-brigade.

Later, this humour was turned to the "Ocker" male, in the
style of Graham Kennedy and the writing of Nino Culotta, and
the city suburbs became the backdrop of the new Aussie image.
Now the language of the pub-crawling hard-working, dry-witted
Aussie gained popularity. "You drongo", or "He's a galah",
became the accompaniment to the traditional "bloody bastard".

The suburban life and well-being of Australian society became
the butt of many jokes, and the intolerance towards
"new Australians" and "coloureds" was sent up as an
unjustifiable prejudice.

It wasn't until the 1970s that the Ocker Aussie was packaged for
world consumption in films and comics, but once done the
exaggerated image of "Bazza (Barry) MacKenzie" became one which
many Australians were no longer so proud of.

This critical self-consciousness had become more and more
apparent in the late 1960s, and forced both politicians and the
public to revise not only policies but also many of their
long-held and cherished notions about themselves and the
rest of the world.

We can only hope that in the years that lie
ahead of us plans will continue to be made that will give
Australia a reputation that will make our nation (of such a
relatively small population) proud.

Foxy is off again on her usual theme:

- migrants good, white Aussies bad and,

- migrants are 'discriminated' against and treated 'abominably'.

BTT

A predictable reaction from our resident
female attacker - who continues to totally miss
the point of what's being stated (from a historical
point of view).

The best that I can do is highly recommend any high school
text on the social history of Australia.
And move on.

Foxy,

Your rants directed against Australians and in particular 'white' Australians have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It doesn't take much to set you off and no matter what evidence is provided to challenge your prejudices you bounce back again in another thread with the same old, same old.

BTT - and I have suggested the combination of the ABC and SBS and indicated why that should occur. Attack that idea and not 'white' Australians for imagined wrongs (post-WW2 especially, where you seem to root your bias against your fellow countrymen).

cont'd ...

Perhaps someone should tell the man that most
migrants become Aussies eventually. And every
Aussie has a migrant ancestry. But maybe he
doesn't watch "Australian Story" on the ABC.
I imagine he's not a fan of the ABC.

Foxy,

Yet again, what does that stuff have to do with the OP?

BTT - and I have suggested the combination of the ABC and SBS and indicated why that should occur. Attack that idea and not 'white' Australians for imagined wrongs (post-WW2 especially, where you seem to root your bias against your fellow countrymen).

While you continue to persist in openly attacking another poster
who happens to have opinions that differ from yours
your views will not be taken seriously.
And should expect to be ignored as
it does nothing to contribute to a good old-fashioned
informed discussion. I am not interested in arguments
or mud-slinging.

Are you thick?

Kindly show me where I am attacking white Australians?

Goodness me. What's wrong with you.

I was merely responding to Paul's post historically
illustrating how times have changed and the ways in
which they have with various historical illustrations.
Now I can't be responsible for your comprehension
skills - but the historical facts are there in any
text of this country's social history

Current trials underway in England are as good a reason as ever existed to keep Liberal hands off the ABC.
No doubt the Liberals biggest fund giver and election manager, Murdock the son of a Blow fly will not be prosecuted.
But should he get his wish, ABC s head this country will fade to black on the news front.

Foxy,

Whereas you allege racism and other epithets if your favoured ethnics are criticised, even mildly and with good evidence, you are always on the front foot to lay into Aussies, especially of the 'white' variety. Doubtless others have given you similar feedback before so your feigned shock is a bit rich.

Here is you getting into your stride on your favourite theme:
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 2 November 2013 12:49:55 PM

As I said, BTT.

otb,

I do not accept for one minute your slanderous
accusations. You seem to have a serious problem
with Australian social history. The information that
I cited on page nine to which you refer, was gleaned
from an Australian social history text. Those were
the facts of that period and they should be viewed
in that context. This is not an attack on white
Australians in any shape or form. It's simply history.
And it was given simply to illustrate that times have
changed as you yourself acknowledged on the same page
referring to changes in travel and communication,
including public access to the internet.

Your continued attempts to attack my fundamental traits and
character says more about you than it does about me.
You should really try to maintain a higher standard of
intellectual discussion.
If you can. Or expect to be ignored if you can't.

Foxy, I don't know why you continue to engage with OTB, when he is at his most obnoxious!
He is obviously not an ABC viewer, as this would involve intelligent thinking : )

Foxy,

It is interesting that you cherry-pick some 'social history' as a diversion that is irrelevant to the thread.

Returning to the thread, the ABC and the SBS are anachronisms in a society where access to the Net is widespread and brings a plethora of sources, including major newspapers and culture from around the world. As well, there has been a huge expansion in community television - where it it can be argued that the existence of the publicly funded national broadcasters has an inhibiting effect.

The world has changed enormously in the last decade. If either the ABC or SBS were proposed now it is now every difficult to imagine that they could make a case for their large dips into the federal budget. They duplicate each other and are anachronisms in modern Australia.

Australia needs improvement in rail, water supply and a host of other priorities that should be put before the sentiment and elitism that supports the ABC and SBS.

otb,

I actually don't "cherry-pick," Australia's social history.
I merely refer to what historians have written.
My references have all been gleaned from the history
books which tell us how historians have interpreted the
past - and in order to understand the present and the
changes we are making (or are about to make) we have to
understand the past. You obviously don't see the relevance
of any of this - however I don't happen to agree with you.

We do need to know and understand our heritage in order to
understand why some of us behave the way we do. People
study family history for that reason - which is
very popular all over the world. People are tracing their roots.

As far as the ABC is concerned - I've already explained the
reasons as to why I think that a public broadcasting
corporation like the ABC deserves our support. Why supporting
"minority interests" is important to this country (hence
my references to the Sydney Opera House, et cetera).
Anyway, I can see that asking you not to attack a person's
character and provoke flaming for you is an impossible task.
You're actually sounding unhinged and that's not a problem I
want to continue to handle so I shall take Suse's advice and
simply move on.

Dear Suse,

You've been absolutely spot on about otb.
And I won't be responding to him any further.
His agenda seems to be that of a cyber bully
who posts deliberately personal, abusive messages, with
the intention of provoking a response.
I've made the mistake of responding. I should
have known better.

Hi Foxy,

I’m sorry to see you getting emotive about the ABC, diverting the thread and chasing Unicorns.

The Opera House has nothing to do with this thread. Your want the ABC is because you like it and it’s the only channel you watch. I love Petaluma wine but don’t ask you to pay for it.

This thread is about the fact that the ABC services a minority audience, it is no longer unique in the media market place, it has lost its differentiation and is going backwards.

You seek to compare Arts and Sports subsidies with the ABC subsidies. Lets look at that.

The Federal Government subsidizes professional team sport to the tune of $2.1 Bn. This is an industry that earns $4.1Bn and enjoys a participation rate of 64%.

The Arts sector enjoys a range of subsidies totaling $88m, earns $21Bn in revenue and has a 57% participation.

The ABC gets $1.15Bn and yet of the Top 20 program content ratings- “free to air-all households”, Seven and Nine have six News and Current Affairs programs in the Top 20, the ABC does not have one, Zero!

The most generous ABC participation is OzTam’s 5 city metro average for ABC1 at 11.9%, ABC 2 at 2.5% with no other ABC channel getting over 1%. More significantly this drops to national share figures of 6.1% and 1.1% against subscription households.

The ABC generates no income for Australia other than wages and expenses. In fact because it can no longer afford to pay for local production, much of the Australian taxpayer funding is going overseas.

The ABC competes with commercial businesses unfairly, it is no longer unique in Australia. It syndicates news from global sources but only differentiates itself by selective coverage or omission (censorship).

If the ABC model was changed to reflect the real world, cut their overspend on N/CA, political panel shows, investigative/activist sensationalism and 24 hour and overseas news (we get news from overseas, why send it back there?). The there would be more left in the pot for the general programming you like and Radio National

Dear spindoc,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Chasing unicorns? Always bear in mind that
there is more than one side to every story.
It isn't wise to accept only one interpretation of
events as your only source of information. That's
why in the narrow world of Mainstream Media - a
public broadcasting system, in my opinion, is vital
and should be supported. You did ask for opinions
afterall and at the very least - you as the founder of
this thread should respect what someone has in good
faith given, whether you agree with the opinion or
not. Otherwise you could come across as being dogmatic,
and pig-headed.

Foxy, (to spindoc), "Otherwise you could come across as being dogmatic,
and pig-headed."

Any mirrors in your house?

otb,

Any mirrors at my house?

No. I don't have your narcisstic tendencies.
And, unlike you -
I also take great pains to make sure that I'm
never spotted lingering around pools of water.

Foxy,

Since I have been unable to get any response on content whatsoever to any issues, I was prompted to ask this question.

“Is it the case that nothing is actually read or comprehended and you just “feel” the issues emotionally and can only respond with emotion?”

You predictably picked the first line of my post, you ignored entirely the rest of the content then slid nicely into emotive jousting with reference to << you could come across as being dogmatic, and pig-headed.>>. Really Foxy?

For what, responding directly to your assertions and providing FACTS?

You gave me your example of Sports and Arts, I gave you the stats. No comment.

I raised and substantiated the issue of ABC censorship. No comment

Foxy, neither yourself or the rest of the ABC St Judes Club have responded to a single item of the topic material, on ratings, market share, credibility, trust, technological evolution, competition, ABC structure, customer (public) needs, market saturation, industry funding models, syndicated news differentiation, retail operations, general programming funding share, uniqueness, the case for public funding or any alternatives.

No comment, nothing.

Why has not one ABC supporter come up with a single reason for keeping the ABC? You just say, well, I like it.

Is that an intelligent, thinking, analytical, rational, mature, articulate, educated or informed response? Of course not, it’s an emotive non-response.

One might reasonably ask the question, does this sound like a “thinking ABC audience”? Not really because there is absolutely no evidence presented that you have thought about anything, you just “feel”.

You seek to admonish me for not accepting your “opinion”, yet you never offered one Foxy, you just “insisted” that you ‘liked it” but gave no justification, no explanations, no merits and no issue responses.

It has already been suggested by members of St Judes that <<we dyed-in-the-wool ABC supporters >>, << free-to-air is for the 'plebs'>> and the << ABC is for a 'thinking' audience>>

Nonsense, all the evidence suggests that your dependence on being spoon fed on a diet of ABC opinion has lobotomized your intellectual capacity.

Dear spindoc,

Insults are like strong drink or poison.
They can only affect you if you accept them.
I certainly don't - and you really should
re-think your strategy here. What happened
to your tolerance of different points of view?

You really do appear to be riding roughshot on
this issue as Saltpetre pointed out to you in his
earlier post. Your accusations are completely
without merit that no one has given you their
reasons for keeping the ABC. Nonsense. You simply
have chosen to ignore the reasons given by many
posters here - because
they don't support your views.

All I can suggest is for you to go back
and read what people have written, including my
very first post in response to your asking.

Unless you're prepared to hear alternative points
of view to yours you'll end up talking to yourself
or to people who have the wisdom to see things
your way.

Julian Burnside QC (whom I cited in my very first
post) stated:

"Those of us who are torn between the
desert of the Mainstream Media and the jungle of the
internet need a place where rational but diverse views
can be found on matters of enduring importance."

The ABC is such a place.

"It would be difficult to agree
with every view expressed,
but it would be equally difficult
to disagree with them all.
And it would be impossible to
criticise any of them as irrational or foolish."

We need a diversity of views on a wide variety of important
issues - and we need a broadcaster whose editorial content
is not influenced by any political agenda or vested interest.
It's for that reason that I support mainstream non-commercial
taxpayer funded public broadcasting/cybercasting in Australia.

I want a public broadcaster whose responsibility it is to deliver content with
integrity, diligence and transparency and to act in the
interests of citizens. The ABC is such a broadcaster.

Dear Spindoc,

The following link may be of some interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-22/dempster-the-future-of-public-broadcasting/4902904

Hi Foxy,

If you have given your considered case on this thread I have yet to see it, I’ve just gone through the entire thread and cannot find it. Please direct me to it?

I noted that you adopted the opinion of Julian Burnside and you also provided a link assessing the ABC’s future, from the ABC? You are kidding right?

In spite of being shown a list of all the issues you have not considered, you still ignore them?

I had expected more from you however, your quiet, softer and apparent conflict averse mantra is just that. Perhaps your veneer is a little thicker than the rest of the St Judes Club but in the end, that’s all it is, just a veneer.

You seem to think that by quoting Burnside and the ABC that your case “for” the ABC is made. Nothing could be further from the truth because you cannot or will not go anywhere near the issues, you don’t appear to understand them?

The St Judes Club love to hear the ABC telling you what you already know, how’s that for closed minds?

If you really want to stand apart form the lobotomized ABC club, tackle some of issues listed or stop bleating about you, you ,you and you or rejoin your Club. The public is still funding your minority interest so make the best of it whilst you can.

So much for the “ABC is for a thinking audience”. If intellect were gunpowder you wouldn’t have enough to raise your hats.

When pushed on issues you redirect away from reality. You stubbornly resist the call of anything that does not reflect self interest, just like a bunch of school kids seeking satisfaction of the immediacy.

You summed it all up when you came out with this “gobbledygook” comment.

<< "It would be difficult to agree
with every view expressed,
but it would be equally difficult
to disagree with them all.
And it would be impossible to
criticize any of them as irrational or foolish." >>

What Foxy ?

The ABC is a sheltered workshop. The SBS is the same except it is more exclusively ethnic than the ABC.

I would like both to put up their business case for continuing.

Australia is diverse and multicultural. That being so, surely the ABC is reflecting that in its programs. If it isn't, where can some adjustments be made? Why there should continue to be a whole separate broadcaster and bureaucracy to maintain a multicultural difference is beyond me. The SBS seems to waste a lot of money promoting the round ball football game that is responsible for social and racial divisions, hooliganism and violence abroad, and now, sometimes in Australia too.

Both national broadcasters are elitist.

This afternoon I caught one of ABC radios reports on the WA senate fiasco.The station, during prime time, played the whole darn speech of the losing WA labor senator, it must have rambled on for about ten minutes, it felt like it. Has the ABC already anticipated a rerun and started campaigning to reelect labor?

Karl X sorry it was not as you wish ten minutes of lies from your side.
Tell me Karl how long have you been in Australia.
ABC here to stay.

Hi Spindoc,

Firstly you accuse me of chasing unicorns
and now you add all sorts of other qualities to me.
And all because I did not reply to you in the way
that you wanted me to. Perhaps you should have written
what you wanted me to say - and I could have just agreed
with it.

Instead,
I provided you with my opinion in answer to the title
of your thread, "The ABC - Keep, Scrap or Change?"
And I made it quite clear as to why I felt the ABC
was worthy of support. To me it was a simple question
and answer. I didn't want to go into any sort of
deep analysis simply because I felt
that the reasons for supporting a public broadcaster
such as the ABC were fairly obvious.

Anyhow - I don't have anything further to add to
the opinion I've already expressed on this issue - and if
that's going to make you think any the less of me. Well,
so be it. Although I must admit that I shall be disappointed
because I find you to be quite an interesting poster.
And I do enjoy reading a great deal of what you write.

Before I go, I've just read in The Saturday Age, November 2,
2013, that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, who's
delivering this year's four-part Boyer Lecture on the
ABC, told Fairfax Media she wanted to draw together the
strands of what she had learned through her life.
She will be speaking in one of
the lectures on the central role storytelling
can play in driving change.

It seems that I'm not the only one who sees the value
of chasing unicorns.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/murdoch-wants-his-pound-of-flesh-20131105-2wzhs.html
The link speaks for its self.
And as I step out to put my honestly held view some will say I am biased.
Yet I think the evidence in my post history tells another story.
Few if any, and in truth not one, tell of the troubles in the other side of politics as a follower of that side.

Here, not just in my imagination is a truth that time will confirm, this man will get his reward and we as Australians will pay for it.
In fact past gifts from conservatives to them selves/past parliamentary members /and those who support them are every bit as dirty as the NSW FILTH.

Belly,

The article is supposition. No evidence offered at all, just accusations and smear from Fairfax. The only reference offered by the SMH are JUNGLE DRUMS!

It does however remind me of some real truths; Keating offered to increase Conrad Black's holding in Fairfax from 15% to 30% in exchange fopr FAVOURABLE EDITORIAL CONTENT. That is fact, not rumour or hate. Sadly the negotiator for the Black camp was none other than Malcolm Turnbull.

Geoff Kelley

Do away with the ABC and you put vast areas of australia in silence and no information.

If all you've got is the ABC, you might as well be in silence & blackout. There is not a damn thing on there worth watching, or which doesn't insult your intelligence.

579, "Do away with the ABC and you put vast areas of australia in silence and no information"

That may have been the case decades ago. Technology has proceeded in leaps and bounds since then. It is solely time the ABC and SBS were required to put up a business case for the funding and preferential treatment they receive. If as you believe there are services that need to be provided, great, fund the public broadcaster to do that.

It is difficult to believe that there should be two major broadcasting corporations swinging from the public teat when one ought be sufficient.

No-one has put forward any reasons at all why the ABC can't perform the role of the SBS as well or vice versa. Why shouldn't the public broadcasters justify their existence when age pensioners for example are being required to sell their family home of a lifetime to fund their old age? There are elderly people with disabilities living out of Hiace delivery vans four paces long and one a a bit paces wide that they cannot even stand in, and chasing free camp spots while country councils move them on.

Apologies, my para 2 above should read,

"It is sorely time the ABC and SBS were required to put up a business case for the funding and preferential treatment they receive".