http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-urged-to-review-abcs-standards/story-fn59niix-1226821303435#
Are the headlines of the Murdock press slanted?
Did Australia Ban making and distribution of the Communist news paper.
What is freedom of speech, have we the the right ever to stop it?
Well aware many would gladly stamp out the ABC but is that what we should do.
Should Labor then in power stop the presses at the Australian?
Deeper issues than Rupert Murdock,s wants and wishes, Tony Abbott,s hurt feeling are under consideration here.
Have we the right to murder thoughts other than out own .

Was it last year? I think it was a court had ruled Bolts questioning the race of some claiming Aboriginal back grounds, that he had no rights to question them.
GY asked the question in a thread here was ,well no longer sure of the title but asking as I saw it was the ruling wrong, and what the implications might be.

Let me be clear, I am far from a fan of Bolt, but took the view he had every right to ask the very same question many Australians wanted answers to.

Do we save his right to his views but stifle our ABC because it is not a slavish supporter of an Abbott policy.
Is it justice to require only views we like are published?

The media need to report the facts and need
to do their homework. The ABC should have checked
with the Navy for their side of the story before
slandering them on accusations made by people
who have a nasty resentment of the Australian Navy
and wish to tear down their ability to protect
Australian borders.

It was just prostitution on the part of the ABC media.
Selling their integrity for a sensationalist story.
Who cares if the good men and women of the Australian Navy
got trashed in the fallout.

I love the ABC and I would never want to see them shut down
but they need to present the facts untarnished by biased leftist
opinions. AS does most media in this country who regularly print
stories based more on their opinion than actual research & factual
reporting. They are after a quick sensationalist headline.

Belly,

If your snout is gobbling up the taxpayers money, it is required that you don't run it along Labor party political lines.

We needed a public broadcaster 5 decades ago when there was little to no private broadcasting. Today the ABC is a dinosaur and should be flogged off.

The $billion that goes to the ABC this year could be directed instead into a worthwhile infrastructure project. Imagine, something truly worthwhile every year instead of overpaid celebrity hacks asking the same old questions of politicians.

The narrow bridges on the national highway that have been there forever could be gone and forgotten.

Leave the ABC as a single national radio station for the nostalgic and sell the rest.

'Our' ABC, or 'Their' ABC:
<Despite the departure of 120 senior staff in the past two years, the number and cost of highly paid managers, staff and on-air "talent" continues to grow.

In 2012-13, 231 staff and managers (including 55 who left) were paid in excess of $180,000, up from 201 (including 65 who left) the year before.

A year earlier the ABC had just 150 staff paid $150,000 or more. That figure was 138 in 2009-10.

High flyers cost the corporation a combined $58 million in the past year, compared with $50 million the year before.

The corporation's total wages bill fell by $8 million to $478 million in 2012-13; however, it also spent $27 million, up $1.2 million, on consultants and contractors.

Total ABC expenditure fell $12 million to $1.17 billion, but earned revenue was down by $14 million.

In May, the Gillard government propped up the ABC with a $90 million loan to assist with its cash flow requirements for specific initiatives over three years. It also provided $10 million to create an ABC fact checking unit.>
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/abc-broadcaster-costs-taxpayers-1-billion-for-first-time/story-fni0fiyv-1226746260719

Belly, what we need according to some is a public broadcaster hog tied to The Liberal Party, if it can't say something good about Abbott and his government, then it should say nothing, after all he is paying the bills! Sell the ABC off and leave it all to Uncle Rupts media rags to exult the raptures virtues of living under the blissful Abbott regime. Like the Russians learned that they owed their very existence to Comrade Starlin you to will learn that you owe everything to our Fearless Leader The Abbott. Possibly you may require some "re-education", having once been exposed to that evil left wing propaganda from the independent ABC. I think 5 years spent in the Manus Island Gulag listening to inspirational recitals of old Johnny Howard speech's should be enough of a education for you.

Paul,

What we have is an ABC that is hog tied to Labor and the greens, and for whom facts play second fiddle to ideology. The ABC openly pushed Rudd's and Juliar's agendas and now openly attacking the coalition's. The coalition is not calling for the ABC to follow the coalition's party line, just to be unbiased.

Possibly you may require some "re-education", having once been exposed to that evil right wing propaganda from the independent Australian. I think 5 years spent in Tasmanian detention listening to inspirational speeches from Brown eye Bob should be enough for you never to want to think for yourself again.

Come on Shadow, think up you own funnies don't plagiariser mine.
Your just upset that Tony Baloney and his team of misfit Boo Boo Bears suffered a crushing defeat in yesterdays Griffith by election.

Paul,

You are really sad and illiterate.

Firstly what is funny about your nonsensical rant?
Second what is "plagiariser"
Thirdly pulling the piss out of your nonsensical rant is not definition plagiarism. I know you are not good with big words, so look them up before trying to use them.

I would suggest that you look up the definition of crushing defeat, as here your illiteracy surfaces again.

For a seat that for the past few decades has been almost exclusively a labor safe seat, and that no government has won a by election seat off the opposition for nearly a century, the normal expectation would be that there would be a big swing back to Labor.

The actual result that Glasson reduced labor's margin and soundly beat Ms Butler in the primary vote, making a labor safe seat into a marginal one. If anything this is an endorsement of the coalition's policies so far.

First was the ABC reporting the news?
Allegations that we for the most part found wrong but are we to not report them.
Was the ABC created to take the Governments path or report the news.
Has the Sydney Telegraph and the Australian done far worse far more times? I think yes.
In fact with little doubt Murdock, a man watching his top staff in the British press face criminal charges,in my view is behind the anti ABC freedom of the press actions.

I warn conservative voters Tony Abbott has miss read the public,s mind.
And granted himself a mandate for many things they, in time will reject him for.
ABC is far from the only targeted Australian issue Abbott/Murdock have greatly miss judged voters on.

Paul you crossed the line.
You must reconsider when addressing Shadow Minister you should not in any circumstances use the truth.
If you have the time and the courage read his posts just in this thread.
NOTE THE ABUSE he has not intention of ever considering views other than his own worth while.
Regards
PS abuse is first sign a person has conceded he has lost the debate

Sorry SM doing breakfast no time to check spelling so its plagiarism!
ILLITERATE, generally applies to those who can't read or write or vote Liberal, excludes me I can most certainly read and write as demonstrated by the pasting I give your comments on here, and I certainly don't vote Liberal. As for you, you can read and write by qualify on the last score.
Yep your right, considering Labor didn't have the advantage this time around of have a candidate of longstanding and the PM to boot. Considering Tony Baloney's government should still be in a honeymoon period, considering TB has been ramming through his much loved policies, which according to you, everyone supports and wants. Considering all of the above the Liberals got DONE! p/s Pleased with The Green vote.

Belly you may be right there. As I understand it Rupert has already called for quotes for the new stationary and signage at the RBC, he'll be running shortly. You know the Rupts Bulldust Company. has a bunch of out of work ex Pom employees from the 'News of the World' rag ready, willing and able to start "work" immediately. I can hear Rupts inspirational speech to the troops on opening day. "Men do your duty! Get Labor!"...."Yes Sir!" will come the reply.

Hi Belly,

I think many of the left are both underestimating and misreading the LNP.

I very much doubt that the government will tackle the ABC on bias, ideological, freedom of the press or political grounds. They don’t need to go there.

As onthebeach points out, the ABC is in real financial difficulties and that is where the “review” will be directed because that is where the ABC’s management has failed.

All the financial trend lines are going in the wrong direction. Executive wages up, total wages bill at $478m on revenues of $1.0b? 47%, what? Totally unsustainable.

Redundancies up from $3.1m to $7.3m? Earnings from commercial products down by $14m?

Over the past 4 years executive/high profile packages have almost doubled and general programming revenue has bombed along with audience reach and ratings.

So where has all this money for unsustainable wages come from?

Australia Network? $225m over ten years, $22.5m a year. ABC costs for this? Annual Report says 2% or $2.0m. Take out “transmission” costs and there is a surplus of $20m a year.

Fact Check? $10.0m. Production Costs? Nil. Not even mentioned in the AR.

Gillard “loan” $90m in May 2013. Where did that go? Well certainly not into production earnings. Unless you want to count the $14m decline.

So 2013, earnings down $14m, wages and redundancy costs through the roof and yet they had additional income of $122.5m? Wonder where that money went? The only area of growth at the ABC was salaries, that’s where they siphoned the money.

That is where the government is heading and that is where the ABC is most vulnerable. And guess what, they are so full of their own arrogance they can’t even see it coming. Like you they are still fighting the good fight on bias, freedom of the press, persecution, ideology and politics.

What a bunch of numb nuts

I wasn't aware that the ABC was supposed to earn revenue; I thought it was intended to provide a quality, unbiased, comprehensive and reliable 'service' to the public - and I think it has generally done a great job in that regard for many years. (I suppose the 'revenue' mentioned comes from international broadcasting of News Australia, and maybe from advertising on SBS, or such.)

Sure, cost is an important consideration, but without the ABC and SBS we would all be limited to (and at the mercies of) the 'commercial media' - a fate worse than death.

If ABC/SBS went entirely pay-to-view (TV and/or internet) I would happily subscribe - as long as they maintained the expected level of integrity and quality.

Ok, I have Foxtel - but for the movies and some quality 'serials', and for business news (and with ABC/SBS included).
Lord, keep my ABC/SBS so I can escape from the football, from sound 'bites', and from endless infuriating 'ads'.

Do we want an informed public; or a captive audience to spin, spoof, propaganda, and endless sports?
Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

If the ABC needs to cut costs, dare I suggest they could try going to 'serial programming' - whereby they repeat a more limited 'standard' broadcast composition several times throughout the day, interspersed with breaking or emergency news updates.
Foxtel employs this - just try watching Sky News for a few hours, or just about any channel, to see programming repetition in action.

And the ABC should stop trying to emulate the 'commercials', by dispensing with clap-trap like 'Spicks & Specs' or 'Would I lie to you'. (Surely we can find better things to do with our undoubted acting talent?)
The ABC has better things to do with its budget, and there's no time like the present to give it a go.

Saltpetre,

What do you think of the expensive proliferation/diversification of the ABC? Have you counted the number of ABC outlets?

If it was a company and you were the CEO, what would you say to shareholders demanding to know the whats and whys of excessive management overheads where redundancy in same is so damned obvious?

It does the ABC no credit at all that its own activist supporters did not believe it could do what the SBS and national indigenous broadcasting do.

Morning spindoc what is to be done about me?
I honestly hold the view Abbott/Murdock team is aiming at more income and less position for the Fox like Murdock media.
And no stirring, totally think Australia does not share some of Abbott,s thoughts and policy,s.
While tongue in cheek I honestly think if he could Tony would make war on all pollsters not showing him in front.
And I insist my view no government in the western world should have the right to force opinions it does not like to be hidden, has more that share it than do not.

Paul,

Considering your plethora of blunders in other posts from poor comprehension of posts and links, your shoddy spelling and grammar, and complete lack of understanding of any subject I would be reluctant to even classify you as functionally literate. The word salad that you consider a "pasting" is like the spittle spray of a drunk uncle with a hare lip.

In a battle of wits you are hopelessly unequipped.

SM, the trouble with some people is they are consumed by their "own self importance", "legends in their own lunchtime". Your posts exude a certain air of superiority about them. You are defiantly a member of the elite, one of that young conservative brigade who see themselves as the next generation of the born to rule class. I imagine you to be one of those youngish yuppie types who sees themselves as a "cut above" most of their contemporary's.
The quality and content of your posts, or mine for that matter, are judged by others, if they wish to do so, and certainly not by you alone. Your attempt to heap scorn upon me, by the pretense of playing the highbrow English School teacher with the comment;
"your plethora of blunders in other posts from poor comprehension of posts and links, your shoddy spelling and grammar, and complete lack of understanding of any subject I would be reluctant to even classify you as functionally literate." You think that this will prod a similar retaliatory response from me, it wont. What is self evident in your posts, despite the very good spelling and grammar, is your general lack of what could be termed "life's experiences" something, hopefully you will gain with time. There is another poster on here who's spelling and grammar to you would be inexcusable, their morphology would be totally lacking. But because of the value of their life's experience their posts are of infinitely more value than those of a pup such as yourself. What you gain with context, you sadly lose with content.
Many of your responses fail to grasp the basic fact, which is blatantly obvious, that I've been taking the piss out of you, I put that down to your inexpedience. My advice is, don't take yourself so serious, and chill out my boy, sometimes as my partner will say "just go with the flow". Good luck SM and remember, when it comes to the insults I have been insulted by the best of em', these days I'm an armadillo.

Paul,

If your method of "taking the piss" involved pretending to be an idiot, then you nailed it. I was totally convinced.

Your deductions of me are more than a little off. I am in my 50s and an engineer that works for a living that often involves getting my hands dirty. I get paid well more than average because I am smart and work hard.

I have no desire to "rule" or even climb the corporate ladder, however, I object to be governed by idiots, no matter how well intentioned they are, and my assessment of the greens are exactly that. Labor is so corrupt that they are not even well intentioned.

Hi SM, these days we may be on opposite side of the political divide but it does seem we have some things in common. I too am a qualified engineer, having worked now, some 40 odd years, more than 30 at engineering. I started my working life as an apprentice fitter and turner, after 2 years I moved on to mechanical draughting finishing my time after a 4 year apprenticeship. At night I studied mechanical engineering and then structural and production engineering after 8 years and a couple of other courses I obtained certificates in all three, with lots of onsite practical experience, working much of that time on site and only short stints in the office.
I must admit I didn't excel at English at school but did well enough passing at level 2 in the HSC. However given other subjects partially, Math’s and Science, along with History and Geography I often topped the class, taking both subject and year prizes at the annual prize giving nights on several occasions.
Heavy industry not being what it once was, after retrenchment I set up my own registered business, eventually employing a couple of people. As a side line I also did "house plans" for council submission, something that proved very consistent and profitable, offering a full range of services. In the 1990's I was offered an engineering job I just couldn't refuse with a large mob and top pay. Kept the business as it was for a while, but could not give it the time it needed, and scaled it down, knocking back work, although I kept the council plans for about 20 years. As I had both a practical and academic side I never had a problem with work. I pride myself in the fact I could talk to tradesman in a boiler suit at his work level, having done it myself, just as easily as I could mix it with the MD at his level.
cont.

cont.
Yes, I tend to play the forum more for amusement than as a serious vehicle for political change in society, a bit of fun. I do however post something of a serious nature now and then, but I will admit I do "pepper" posts at times to enact a reaction, and true to form some people react as hoped.

Shadow Minister while some, not much, of your views on Paul,s attitude to some posts may be right, look at your own.;
A deep bitter bile is seen in not all, but some of your posts.
You do display signs you feel you are not wining the debate, so launch into an unpleasantness that says much, about you not Paul.

ABC should never be silenced on behalf of ANY party.
And for sure as a commercial reward for A billionaire, known for his world wide questionable actions in politics.
History will look on these days in Australia as a march away from middle Australia, a blip in the cultural fair go mate we value so much.
Polling supports my view Abbott has miss read his mandate.

Paul

"In Internet slang, a troll (/&#712;tro&#650;l/, /&#712;tr&#594;l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]"

Sound familiar?

P.S. you are far easier to wind up than you realise.

As for your background, I am surprised. Engineers are trained to think logically and deductively and tend to be more conservative favouring sound policy over ideology. As a result I have met only a few that would consider voting labor, and never met one that would vote green.

'Abbott this' and 'Abbott that'.

Yet there are issues of fundamental importance that have been raised such as why have public broadcasting anyhow when there are so many others sources of free and reliable information, 'kulture'(sic), music and what have you?

I am already paying additional taxes for services that were previously provided for out of my taxes. Matter of fact I reckon I am paying many times over for services that don't even have worthwhile goals, let alone any realistic measures of their accomplishment, and obviously from the cases being made for the continuation of funding, have wasted the millions given in previous years.

Why should the over-stretched Aussie taxpayer continue to pay for the ABC and its bastard children to inefficiently deliver redundant, non-essential services? If the national broadcaster was off the air today what would be the practical result? Less noise pollution but what else?

I note any attempt to justifie Abbott/Murdock,s actions, has left this thread.
Some uncivilized words are an attempt at changing the subject.
Fox channel Murdock,s inner thoughts on display, will make a strange Radio National.
I think 2 years hence our Government will need to remove Abbott and by then if he is still alive and not in prison Murdock will agree.

Why should the over-stretched Aussie taxpayer continue to pay for the ABC and its bastard children to inefficiently deliver redundant, non-essential services? If the national broadcaster was off the air today what would be the practical result? Less noise pollution but what else?

"As a result I have met only a few (Engineers) that would consider voting labor, and never met one that would vote green."
SM, obviously you have never met another friend of mine Dr John Kaye MLC. After gaining a Bachelor of Engineering at the University of Melbourne, John worked as an engineer for the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. Later John studied for a Masters in Engineering Science at the University of Melbourne.
Another very good friend Mehreen Faruqi MLC studied at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore Pakistan and then Mehreen received a Masters and a PhD in Environmental Engineering from the University of New South Wales. Another member of The Greens who I'm acquainted with is an ex army engineer and ex Liberal Party member, he sought endorsement as a Greens candidate at the last election.
SM maybe you hang out with the wrong people, a failed priest and a bunch of evangelical bible bashers make for a very poor political party! What kind of 'Engineer' are you?
You are now suffering from a very bad case of FOOT IN MOUTH DISEASE! LOL.

Obviously I have never met them, as I am not a member of any political party. I never claimed engineers never vote green, just that they are very rare.

As for the alien whisperers, Stalinists, school marms, and home grown communists that infest the greens, the ranks of the liberal party is far better populated with honest people with a grip on reality.

"I never claimed engineers never vote green, just that they are very rare." Is that from another one of your "surveys" SM, I wouldn't know as I don't make a habit of meeting people and then putting the acid on em' "...and by the way... who do you vote for...and are you a Jehovah Witness...are you black...and how do you like your sex?" I generally don't ask those sorts of questions meeting people for the first time, I save it all for the second encounter. I note you didn't answer the question What kind of 'Engineer' are you? Are you a "Sanitation" engineer?
Yep, that's it SM, Greens = commies, pinko's, bolshy's and what did you call em school marms. What is a "marm" Don't forget the engineers! Where as The Liberal Party is populated by what we can term "wholsome people" Yep, Abbott's got a grip on it, alright!, but I suggest he takes his hand off it, some time soon.
SM not a Liberal Party member, why not joint, judging by the talent in the party these days, a bloke like you would go places. If Tony Boloney can make PM, I see you making it as The Grand Poobar no less, or rising to some other such exalted position within the party ranks.

Shadow Minister self praise is no recommendation .
I got a laugh out of your post however so thanks.
This mornings polls caught Bill Shorten pants down.
Howes honesty has marched all over bills bland attempts to please every one but ignore the truth, most need fierce words to assure them Bill and his gang/party owners will do more than pay lip service to the growing union troubles.
ABC will, as always seem both Liberal/Labor Green, better than your party,s print media arm anything Murdock owns.

I am an electrical engineer working in heavy industry with an additional degree in economics and an MBA.

Christine Milne is an ex school teacher apparently with the IQ of a squirrel, and Bandt and Rhiannon are "ex" communists and SHY has only one track, and that is to bewail the fortunes of the poor economic refugees while being happy to accept the nearly 2000 that drowned under Labor.

Abbott is a Rhodes scholar with 3 degrees and more qualifications in economics than any Labor PM in living memory.

The liberals are highly qualified and experienced, Labor is largely ex union heavies, and the greens are noisy empy vessels.

G'day Belly, like you I am greatly concerned with the way Abbott and Co, are trying to stifle free speech in this country. Remember this is the most conservative government we have ever seen, their makeup is even more extreme that the Howard regime was, no room for true liberals. No doubt from their point of view the ABC is seen as extremely biased and left wing. A subversive (government) organisation that must be silenced. Philosophically they oppose public media, they see no place for "incorrect" reporting, at taxpayers expense, just as there is no place, in their view, for dissenting public opinion. Having a receptive media is the best way of formulating "correct" public opinion. We all know the value of the right kind of propaganda! I'm sure the likes of Murdoch is none too willing, given complete control, to deliver that "correct" message to the masses.
The future danger the Liberal Party poses for society is with their unceasing march to the right it will attract even more extremists who see the party as both accommodating and a vehicle through which power can be obtained.
As the middle ground shifts to the right, the Labor Party has been caught with its pants down, so to speak, trying to gain lost ground, by also, but to a lesser extent, shifting to the political right. Unfortunately this sees Labor putting themselves in a political limbo, not sure where they stand and in what direction they are heading on many of the vital issues confronting the country. Australia needs a strong opposition, as well as a strong and independent public media!

Paul I did not find much to disagree with in your post.
You know my opinion, truly held of the greens.
But never thought I would say this, they frighten me less than Abbott,s team who control Liberalism and keep it under lock and key.
Noted Shadow Minister self promotion, think it needless to engage in histrionics over that.
But fair minded posters who may dislike both sides of politics may consider this.

As an extremism known as the Tea party holds American Republican,s in its vice like grip.
And Abbott here.
What would be the position of both extremes if Murdock,s press did not exist to fuel them both.
Take heart Labor lost the election Abbott has no mandate so he drifts away from his voters, and time will prove that.

Hi Belly, its my belief that the Liberal Party has changed markedly in my lifetime and more so in the past 10 years. No longer is it a true party of liberalism with a conservative appendage as it was in years past. The party is very much a conservative party which no longer embraces liberalism. Interestingly a Liberal Party member who I know well, said to me a few months back the party should take a leaf out of their New Zealand counterparts the Nationals and get back to center right liberalism, particularly on social justice issues.
The big problem with this cosmic shift to the right from the party is it's not only attracting more of the extreme right but where in the past many of these people would not have got a "look in" they are now, more and more, moving into positions of power within the party, controlling policy formulation and candidate endorsement, gaining total control.
To prove my point, take a look at the relationship between the coalition partners. Once upon a time The Nationals (Country Party) were perceived as the conservative element within and the Liberals as the more radical section, now the rolls are some what reversed on a lot of issues.
What is your opinion?

I know you see The Greens in a certain light, but one thing we do for our side, and politics in general, is with the degree of radicalism we display, we very much ignite the debate.
Truthfully Green members are not as the mainstream media portray. The ex-army bloke I referred to earlier, on cross-examination showed himself to be very much a small "l" liberal, he freely admitted to being an ex Liberal Party member. I had no problem with his politics at all, and was a little disappointed he just missed out, in fact I advised him to have another go asap, as I think he would be a real asset.
In our party to gain endorsement you have to be prepared for a grilling from the membership, before the vote and that exposes your personal beliefs.

Paul until you got to your greens I found us on common ground.
I, and I think you know it,can not swallow the greens very real damage inflicted on my party and the whole left of center movement.
I fear those who wish both party,s becoming one, and place the coming loss in Tasmania down to them.
An element within the Tory,s, Labor has the same problem, ignores true public wants and wishes and too voters intentions after some acts.
While some will not like our words here it is a truth every voter should know Australians will not except radicalism in our governments.
For every vote gained by such two are lost.
My party is in a storm bought about by the current union problems and it has to face the NSW Party,s by products and their court appearances this year.
Such a storm is in Abbott,s future he has badly miss judged the electorate.

I have in this thread and others spoken of my view Tony Abbott has misread his mandate, in fact he can claim in my view only this.
Australia wanted to dump the ALP.

Labor must confront it too, for some,are using thinking like that, to avoid considering the views of all voters.
Only a very few even think covering up our faults is a plan.
Bill Shorten is brilliant.
But Howes lead by far in the last month .
If Labor is to win the next election it must present views and policy,s voters want, not white washed wrongs about to be relieved if we help or not.
Only the best should serve.
12 months ago a threat to free speech/the ABC was unheard of, we by our own mistakes empowered An Abbott victory.
It is far past time we looked at our selves

Dear Belly,

Good Morning, and Happy Valentine's Day - to you and yours!

I'm back, and have been reading some of the illogical
and irrational comments on this thread.

My husband, who's spent many years working as an architect
and project manager finds a great deal of fault in much
of what he hears in the political environment. He doesn't
believe in any political party but like me prefers to
analyse what each party has to offer.

He finds fault with them all but is at present very disappointed
with the current government. In his opinion the current government
is doing considerable damage to the nation under the leadership
of Mr Abbott.

As far as the ABC is concerned - Martin Flanagan had an interesting
article in The Saturday Age, February 8th, 2014. Flanagan pointed
out that - "for the past month The Australian has had article
after article attacking the ABC."

It claimed that "the ABC pushes a left/green agenda. And that's
the politics at play here as News Corp would have us see them,
the ABC, the greens and the left on one side - and the mass
of ordinary decent Australians on the other."

Sound familiar?

You betcha!

Flanagan tells us - "that argument is fake. Phoney. BS.
Polls show that the mass of ordinary decent Australians have
consistently shown regard for the ABC. Australians have believed
that it was indeed "our ABC."

Barnaby Joyce confirmed this on "Q and A" recently - just how much
rural Australians relied on the ABC. However as Flanagan points
out, "it may not be for much longer." Flanagan expects the
ABC "to be destroyed in all but name within a few years."
Who's going to stand up for it? Malcolm Turnbull?
Hardly.

cont'

cont'd ...

Dear Belly,

Flanagan tells us that "Rupert Murdoch is the most
successful right-wing radical of his era. His media
outlets - and that means most newspapers in Australia
give direct expression to his will. And Mr Murdoch
as with the BBC, is ideologically opposed to the very
existence of the ABC... The ABC and the BBC Also
occupy areas in the media market that Murdoch feels
they have no right to and into which he wants to expand."

Flanagan tells us that "the current basis for the attack on
the ABC, is its coverage of the asylum seeker issue.
That matter was well dealt with by Paul Barry on "Media Watch"
this week."

And as Flanagan argues, "Media Watch is just one example
of something the ABC does well." Flanagan asks the question,
"What is News Corp's equivalent in terms of public scrutiny
of its organisation? The Levenson Inquiry?"

Foxy welcome back. Well said yet again. Its indeed our ABC, and its Murdoch's News Corp, end of story. Concentrate all the media into the hand of a Rupert Murdoch and it would be 'A Brave New World' for us all, I dread the day it comes to pass.
p/s Totally unrelated. My partner and I have been invited to our first legal 'Gay Marriage' by 2 friends of our. The wedding is to take place in Aotearoa in June. My partner is very excited and fells honored that she has been asked as a Maori elder to perform the Powhiri (Maori welcome, which is always always done by a woman).

Foxy,

The authorities on which you rely are your claimed spouse and a footy journalist.

Disregarding your sorry choice of 'experts', what other people or private companies do is irrelevant to discussion of the raison d'etre for the ABC and holding it accountable, and publicly accountable it must be because it is funded by the taxpayer.

While it is a usual ploy for those who are in need of a defence to point the finger elsewhere, that is only a diversion and is never a counter to the criticisms before them. More 'pub' and 'Bingo' emotional rhetoric, never a logical argument.

The question "What business case can be made for the ABC?" has been put on many threads, yet no-one can answer it. It is about governance and expenditure priorities for government too. Maybe you can try, with or without the assistance of your spouse's lips moving in keeping with your fingers.

otb,

You are irrational and illogical.

If you were
rational and logical you would see the reality of the
situation.

Unfortunately you, like our current Prime Minister, have the
off-putting habit of blurting out highly inappropriate
egregiously offensive, inadvertently revealing, utterly
idiotic comments. In all, always showing us
a negative short-sightedness, from a petty, small-minded
man. Your opinion here is neither wanted,
nor respected - and usually is, and should be, ignored.
You are decidedly unequal to the task of intelligent debate.
Go pollute elsewhere.

Foxy,

You could have just admitted that you cannot make a business case for the ABC either.

Welcome back Foxy!
Great to hear from you and to read those words as opposed to some thrown at you here.
ABC by its very nature in doing what is asked of it will always upset some, from any side.
However nothing is more dangerous to freedom and democracy, nothing! than Murdock,s extremist right wing views he inflicts on all he owns.
I will fight him and his tin soldiers such as Abbott till I die.
I ,truly, am concerned that his acts in the British press, his sabotage of competitors in America are forgotten by those in his debt.
A day will come that see the whole world wide effort to get power and control has tainted many in right wing politics uncovered and bring much shame to some.

otb,

That has already been done except that for
someone like yourself it's hard to comprehend.

Someone who overall wants to stop the so called
"socialists" (aka Fabians, aka, Progressives,
aka Emily Listers, aka the greens, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera), from ruining the country (and the world) for
good, simple, honest, conservative people, like yourself.

As stated earlier, in all, these are negative, short-sighted
aspirations from a petty, small-minded man - totally incapable
of understanding the ABC and the job it does with programs
like "Media Watch," "The 7.30 Report," "Q and A,"
"Lateline," "News 24," "The Drum," and so on.
Including what the ABC means to rural Australians and
internationally.
No more needs to be said.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for your welcome back.
And you're right as SteeleRedux pointed
out on another thread these "bigoted throwbacks
need to be taken to task every time they put their
grubby little pens to paper..." However, I usually
don't have the interest to do it. They might enjoy
"vomiting up their nastiness all over the place," but
I don't want to give them a platform from which to do
it. I just want them to take their "sick little gabfest
and go pollute somewhere else." Best not to respond or
read their neanderthal bile.

Belly, "ABC by its very nature in doing what is asked of it"

What is "asked of it" and by whom?

Precisely what needs is it serving that are not already being met through other means, such as the internet, commercial sources and so on?

Why the apparent redundancy and duplication among the national broadcasters, SBS, ABC and indigenous television? How many publicly funded national broadcasters do we need and can afford?

Foxy,

So you still have no idea of a business case for continuance of the ABC?

Let alone for its 'children' that appear to have displaced it from a lion's share of its former role, or more correctly from things it fell into doing and has expanded into without public consultation and due consideration by parliament?

As for all of those political comment shows, since when was that a role of the national broadcaster anyhow and isn't there already heaps of that about?

The following link explains why voters feel that we need an
independent ABC :

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-letters/why-we-need-an-independent-abc-20140130-31pqs.html

Dear Belly,

See you on another thread.

Foxy,

That letter to The Age from a Mr Alan Rich that you think provides a business case for the ABC (it doesn't!), is this the same fellow?

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/a-fine-birthday-for-alan/177224/

It is just that I cannot see any reason why anyone should prefer his view to any other person off the street (or fleeing trucks).

otb,

The earlier link was merely to show
why voters felt we need an independent ABC.
If you don't understand that - that's something
over which I have no control.

As for Mr Alan Rich?
Are you serious?

There are 25 professionals named Alan Rich
listed just on Linkedlyn. If you want to know who Mr
Rich really is - why don't you write to The Age and ask.
The rest of us are only interested in his opinion.
Which was afterall what the link was all about.

However, perhaps you could also look up all the other people
- and see
if you can find any dirt attached to each and everyone
who wrote in to The Age expressing a positive outlook
regarding the ABC. I'm sure it would give you a great
deal of enjoyment putting your little pen to paper.
I shall leave you to continue your polluting.
The rest of us have moved on.

Foxy,

With respect, your link was worthless.

Within reason I don't mind what the government spends my taxes on as long as the public is consulted (it is a democracy which is usually lost on 'Progressives' who always know what is best for others) and value for money is obtained.

Of course the national broadcaster should be required to produce a business case for continued funding. The bucket of taxpayers' money is not limitless, as was quickly discovered by the previous big-spending Labor+Greens government. Where should national broadcasting come on the list of must-haves, should-have and could-haves of the Aussie public? Would the public put (say) shows like Q&A ahead of much-needed beds in hospitals? What about funding disability, should Q&A come first?

This could be a free-flowing, open discussion and it should be.

OTB, I find it interesting, your statement;
"I don't mind what the government spends my taxes on as long as the public is consulted"

I though we are being consulted now, through the ballot box, or is it your view that's insufficient? Would you prefer a 'Peoples Forum' hosted by Ray Martin on Channel 9 each evening where 50 specially selected "undecided" voters are fitted with buzzers, and "vote" according to Rays questions. A typical question could be one alone the lines of, "Do you want money spent on poor sick children or on depraved child molesting monsters? etc, etc.
When you put it in those kind of terms like you have with your. "What about funding disability, should Q&A come first?" Australia as a relatively rich nation can afford a broad range of government funding. The case is we can afford both.
The conservatives seem to peddle the line Australia is an economic basket case, when in fact we are still one of the best performing developed countries in the world. Just to get our position into perspective our National Debt, as a percentage of GDP is 21%. compare that to some others USA 102%, UK 89%, Japan 212%, even China 26%. take some of the countries we always perceive as doing well, Sweden 38%, Denmark 45%. The basket case Greece 159%, the 3rd world Indonesia 23% our friends New Zealand 36%, the rich Saudi Arabia 4%, the hard working, South Korea 35%, the troubled, South Africa. 40%. I do think our AAA credit rating is well deserved.

Foxy against such folk we have a perfect defense it works without fail, it has one weak spot us, if we ignore such folk they can not beat us, if we do not?
I am aware my ABC forever stance annoys some.
And too that from time to time my ABC annoys me.
But never as much as the right wing nuts like Bolt and his like, the radio shock jocks can be compared to him.
Some times the life span, time I have been around to see and understand things others never saw helps.
At my birth we did not have TV radio was our companion , out in the bush some times the old valve radio was lead acid battery powered.
And no one would dare harm our ABC.
Well remember the family gathered around to hear the cricket or radio serials no one dare talk.
Country market reporting still a part today.
Tractors still listen while working to such as the country hour.
What is Abbott,s madness all about.
Is he looking for Pravda like control over what we hear and see?
Is Australia ready for that.
Even worse can any one disprove my charge his anti ABC silliness is to reward an awful man Rupert Murdock.
What will history 50 years on, think of these sleezy acts?

Dear Paul and Belly,

Thank You for your continued rational, logical
comments. As always they certainly are wanted,
respected, and appreciated.

I enjoy sharing cyberspace with you both.

Paul1405,

I have said many, many times that I would like to see government directly consult with the electorate. Populism, particularly populism driven by talking heads and lobbyists is the bane of modern government.

There are ways tried and proved by Aussie universities to direct consult with people affected by decisions. The change management methodology is robust and results achieved relatively fast and as changes are being introduced and implemented.

Ray Martin, ABC chat shows and surveys are unreliable and are in fact often the very opposite of what is required.

Dear Paul,

There's an interesting executive summary in a government
report dealing with citizenship involvement in government
decisions and policies and it states:

"Genuine engagement in the 'co-production' of policy and
services requires major shifts in the cultures and
operations of government agencies. It demands of public
srvants new skills as enablers, negotiators and
collaborators. It demands of citizens an orientation to the
public good, a willingness to actively engage, and the
capabilities needed to participate and deliberate well."

"These are tall orders, especially if citizens are
disengaged and certain groups within the population are
marginalised."

"More especially, effective engagement by a citizen-centric...
requires political support for the genuine devolution of
power and decision-making ..."

Would Ministers and agency heads be really willing to undertake
this task?
Realistically?

cont'd ...

My apologies I forgot to add the link:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1112/12rp01

I have given much thought to our differences in OLO .
And trying to reinvent myself , yet again.
I want to point out a simple truth, like most but not all, I post as I truly think.
I could put a long list of Libs/Nats/Conservatives I think do the same.
And will not bother to do the same for the few with other reasons to post.
So, all truth, I just am unable to believe the current ABC targeting comes from folk who believe what they write.

That leaves me wondering, what if?
What if in a WASP country, our country a party wants to harness free speech?
Different speech? thoughts and ideas next?

Belly and his speculative gossip. Old men proving they are no different from old women. Bring on the daytime chat shows to entertain them and give them the 'villains' to get angry at and make them feel alive for an hour.

Your Labor/Greens government was fond of new and higher taxes, it spent big but constantly forgot the essentials it was supposed to be providing. Just to put an obvious example, single mums were sent back to work. Yet Gillard gave more millions to the ABC. That was a government's priorities at work. Not judging either way but it should be clear to all that government only has a certain amount of money it can take compulsorily from taxpayers and it doesn't stretch to everything.

I have asked repeatedly but no-one can answer, what business case can be put for continued funding for the ABC. That is what it all comes down to, putting the 'must-dos' first and ahead of the 'should-dos' and 'could-dos'.

Are the supporters of an open cheque book and no accountability for the ABC as juvenile and irresponsible as they appear to be that they cannot understand that government funded agencies have to be accountable and they must demonstrate value for money is always being obtained for taxpayers' $$?

Are the standards the ABC would demand of others not applicable to itself?

Dear Belly,

The question that we should be asking is -
Does Australian TV need the ABC?

The following link answers that question:

http://theconversation.com/does-australian-tv-need-the-abc-21230

And as one person pointed out - those people that insist
on "value for money" would probably also resent their
"taxpayer dollars" going towards education, museums, libraries,
Australian theatres, films, and the Arts in general.
Very sad really! However tax cuts for the rich are ok.

What is it with this conservative notion that everything should be reduced to the level of "the business case". The boy scout who thinks to help the old lady across the street, should he first put "the business case" before deciding to do so? We'll continue to fund the ABC because we want to, because we think its a good thing to do, there's the "business case".

OTB, with our modern society I'm sure our political system is open to negativity.
"populism driven by talking heads and lobbyists is the bane of modern government." You speak as if there are 22 of us, and not 22,000,000. How on earth are all affected by an issue going to have a say little own an equal say. Mining affects me, I want an equal say with Gina Rhinoceros, how do I get it? The notion that our representatives, represent us, is the best we can achieve. Love em' or hate em' we need politicians, and the ideal is, we need them to do the job we elect them to do. If all our politicians were "independent" it might not be very practical, but it would be wonderful. However the first thing that would happen is two of them would get together and form a political party, there goes your independence!

Thanks Foxy well put, absolutely correct. Very true with
"These are tall orders, especially if citizens are
disengaged and certain groups within the population are
marginalised."

Dear Paul,

Polls show that the mass of ordinary decent Australians have
consistently shown a high regard for the ABC. However, News Corp
and article after article in The Australian would have us
believe the contrary. And as stated earlier that's the politics
at play here. And Rupert Murdoch is going to milk that for all
it's worth. Who knows what arrangement was made with the
current government - for his support. Perhaps the destruction
of the ABC was a part and parcel of the deal.
One can only speculate.

Foxy/Paul good morning lets get this clear an event is taking place out in the open.
Facts contained in our posts and links prove that, do not fall for the baits being used here.
I fear yes honestly that Murdock's extremism is in part ruling our country.
*No news out let in our history to my knowledge has been so extreme right*.
Abbott madly feeding his new found masters fire is miss reading voters.
But too he while unpopular is *not yet confronted by an ALP that is the best it can be*
We the ALP must not let Abbott,s madness stall reform.
If we look, just at the frenzied frothing at the mouth Murdock media we should see if we care, a threat to free speech a threat to Democracy and a Hitler like attempt at a form of book burning behavior.

Dear Belly,

Well said - and as I stated earlier that's the
politics at play here as News Corp would have us
see them, the ABC, the greens and the left on one
side - and the mass of ordinary decent Australians
on the other. That argument is fake, phoney, BS.
Polls show that the mass of ordinary decent Australians
have consistently shown a high regard for
the ABC. Without ever bothering to say it, many
Australians have believed that it was (and is) indeed
"Our ABC." And it is worth fighting for. Just as education,
museums, libraries, etcetra are. Public broadcasters don't
need need to appeal to the widest possible audience.
But without them we would only get a very limited,
pointed of view being expressed.

I wounder if those who call for fences around the ABC and rewards for that *thing* Murdock understand?
While I give them their rights to their opinions and views do they understand?
The views of the Foxy,s and Bellys are honestly held? that I truly think every word written here about Murdock is true?
Life ends history carry's on in time my views will be proved right, after the death of Murdock leaks about the true controlling grub he is will come.
Democracy is strong enough for all views Murdock has no need for democracy he can not direct and control.!

Dear Belly,

We need to have independent and diverse views
in our media. Not the current extremely narrow
ones that currently are under the control of Mr
Murdoch. That's why maintaining a national
broadcaster like the ABC is so very important.

Many will not understand the links.
But this mornings polling puts the ABC under even more threat.
Yes I got it wrong having said Abbott,s polling would be bad all year.
I never though Bill Shorten was going to be his best mate.
In fact ALP voters have Bill to thank,foro ur poll drop and the freedom for Abbott to do as he wishes.
See Bill thought protecting filth in union officials shirts 20 Percent of our country,s workers, some victims of the filth, was more worth while than standing up for the rest of us!
So be prepared to see the ABC IN CHAINS THANKS BILL FOR NOTHING BLOKE!
YOU ONCE COULD HAVE DONE FAR BETTER CAN YOU STILL?

Yes true I recently asked another to limit the shouting.
Caps abuse so? in my defense while pleading guilty my heart was boiling with rage sorry however for it.
And make no mistake unlike some who sit in the highest seats in the ALP my rage is filled with love and concern for my party , and some of those who are unconcerned at the factional struggle that is choking my party to death.
In that love I beg for the Royal Commission we lack the guts and commitment to clean up our own mess and in the strangest way Abbott is going to help.
Reform will be a must after others put our dirty washing on the line
ABC will have much to report if it is let do so.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/investigate-claims-of-burns-say-voters-20140217-32wfv.html
I do not believe ANY Australian was involved in these burns.
Full stop.
But the link, probably includes many like me who see little chance we have anything to be concerned about, asks for answers.
Is it even a possibility? well if we are afraid to openly investigate it is.
We know of crimes committed by the few in every walk of life.
Last night and the night before some thing big took place in our detention center.
My views is unchanged, *the boats must be stopped and these people are not welcome here*
But too in this days headlines is the story of a closed and secretive North Korea.
ABC is under insulting attack for informing us , can we stop information finding its way to us and should we?

Belly, our society is on treacherous ground when politicians start to choose what will be investigated, and what will not. I'm not apportioning guilt in this matter to anyone, that is exactly what an investigation is to establish. Abbott chooses to be dismissive on this and then went a step future by attacking the ABC as being 'Un-Australian' for reporting it. Johnston's attack was even worse, a virtual kill the messenger attack. I reiterate from previous posts, we have a "dangerous" bunch governing in Canberra at present, people who are more extreme that any of their predecessors and are likely to take even more diabolical measures, given the opportunity.

Paul of course you are quite right.
We differ on party,s and policy,s but yes we both confron a horrible truth.
We may beat the very start of a long running campaign to only let us hear and see what the government wants us too.
I stood against a high court ruling about Bolt, even backed up his claims because freedom of the media matters.
This morning after much confusion ABC news 24 took a call from an apparent idiot!
He, one of the lost human rights refugee folk, said *he had information, assured by his mates, that it was in fact Citizens from out side the detention center who broke in!* bashing detainees.
WRONG! but that too is news, it confirmed my view an element in the extreme left along side a lost middle class are both lie telling and sabotaging our efforts to stop the boats.
Bet Abbott is heading for confrontation he could have avoided as the world asks why a block on news in our country is in place.
Will they understand? Abbott,s puppet master Murdock is pulling the strings

Belly, "Will they understand? Abbott,s puppet master Murdock is pulling the strings"

Please explain how 'Murdock' intervened personally to make the ABC give oxygen to foul allegations that trash Australia at home and abroad? This report contains another example. It was apparently denied by the responsible minister, but it was still reported and at length,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/one-dead-77-injured-in-manus-island-unrest/5265960

Facts not sensationalism please, ABC! Would Auntie of decades ago have done that?

Dear Belly,

Some people don't want to have facts presented to them
and even take reporting as some sort of degradation
of our nation. However that is the role of a public
broadcaster - to report, and hold even governments to
account. And as the current government told us prior
to the last election - "accountability and transparency"
was going to be their promise when in government.
Sadly - this now appears to have changed - even to the
point of wanting to curtail the reporting of our national
broadcaster. I'm sure the current government and its
supporters would want to print only what they're told to.
In a democracy, fortunately, that's not how things work.

Here's a link that you might find interesting:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/02/18/how-much-longer-will-madness-continue

Foxy thanks I skip over contributions in some cases maybe our impending update will, as some sites do, let me not even see them.
Fear and uncertainty drives some far from reality and an inability to understand.
This mornings Murdock headlines in the Sydney Daily Telegraph at least, are worth comparing with the perceived wrongs of the ABC.
Yesterdays truth about Chins pet, North Korea reminds me again of the value of a free press, and the dangers of a controlled one.
ABC go you good thing!~

Dear Belly,

Talking about the degration of our nation.
Take a look at the wonderful example of our
current PM and his "bull in a china shop" tactics
on the international stage:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-uses-global-stage-to-take-a-swipe-at-labor-over-financial-crisis-20140123-31bsi.html

Nice role model.

Paul,

The recent attacks on the ABC by the coalition were for what even the ABC admitted was a lapse of professional judgement. TAs point was that these "lapses" in judgement appear to be exclusively in one direction.
While the left whingers on this forum sing the praises of "their" ABC, and comment on how well regarded it is, there is no denying that a significant number consider it to be biased towards a labor / greens agenda.

When Paul, Foxy and Belly rage against the conservative bias of Newscorp (conveniently sweeping the Left leaning Fairfax under the carpet) They ignore the elephant in the room in that the ABC is funded by the tax payer, and like all public services is required to be strictly apolitical.

The next issue is why the ABC needs such a multitude of TV and radio channels, and why bananas in pyjamas is a public good?

SM,

Yes, all those children's programs, are "questionable."
Especially "Peppa Pig," pushing that weird "feminist"
line as pointed out to all of us by the "educational
expert on childhood development" - Piers Akerman.
It's the government who should decide what's for the
"public good," right, we get it.

Rants, rudeness and door slams, but still no answer to the simple question I have posed on this and other threads. Here again and hoping for a supporter of what the ABC has become, ie the present day ABC, to have the decency to reply,

@onthebeach, Saturday, 15 February 2014 2:50:52 PM
<I have asked repeatedly but no-one can answer, what business case can be put for continued funding for the ABC. That is what it all comes down to, putting the 'must-dos' first and ahead of the 'should-dos' and 'could-dos'.

Are the supporters of an open cheque book and no accountability for the ABC as juvenile and irresponsible as they appear to be that they cannot understand that government funded agencies have to be accountable and they must demonstrate value for money is always being obtained for taxpayers' $$?

Are the standards the ABC would demand of others not applicable to itself?>

Foxy, what a shocker from Abbott, not only were the words out of sync with his lips on the video, BUT they were also out of sync with his brain!

SM in a recent SMH survey on the question of ABC political bias it went 31/59 No! So the statement from you;
"no denying that a significant number consider it (ABC) to be biased towards a labor / greens agenda."
31%, minus any who may think the ABC is bias in favor of the Coalition, or the Tooth Fairy or someone else. Significant? Then what do you make of the 59%, overwhelming?
On the question of who has the more balanced news ABC 67%, Commercial TV 15%, would you class that as astronomical verses pathetic?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/investigate-claims-of-burns-say-voters-20140217-32wfv.html

Maybe you can dig up a survey of your own, done by News Corp of the opinions of Murdoch's editors. I am sure that would give a vastly different result.

A bit rich there Beach! What about my questions on another thread;

"I did ask this question of you previously, which you never answered. Was that Andrew Middleton asking the Fabian question, the same Andrew Middleton who ran for a lunatic fringe party in the federal election of 2010? Got about 500 votes."

p/s I did give you an answer to your question previously.

Dear Paul,

Talking about being accountable to the voters.
The current government no doubt holds not only
the ABC but the Fairfax Media as subversive and
a "security risk." Why doesn't Mr Abbott make
substantial savings by simply abolishing the
judicial system. After all he's declared he knowns
who behaved appropriately. Either that or Mr Abbott
could be honest and tells us he doesn't want any
investigative journalism by anyone unless its into
unions or Labor.

Paul1405,

Since you claim to have already provided a business case for continued funding for the ABC you might humour me by copying it and pasting it here.

Otherwise that is just more of your frivolous, time-wasting game playing in lieu of engaging with the subject.

Foxy a truth not to be ignored.
Yes Abbott is doing very badly.
But too we must confront the other truth Shorten is doing worse.
His hide the truth policy damages us and him.
We have ZERO right to highlight others faults if we hide our own.

In truth, full of hope after he took over /if you insist won the leadership I looked for the Brilliant man he once was.
And found reason to be concerned from his first week in the job.
He has the ability but has he the will? to reform Labor.
Reform and thrive do not and we die.

Foxy,

I apologise for using terms that you can't comprehend.

A "public good" is defined as:

An item whose consumption is not decided by the individual consumer but by the society as a whole, and which is financed by taxation.
A public good (or service) may be consumed without reducing the amount available for others, and cannot be withheld from those who do not pay for it. Public goods (and services) include economic statistics and other information, law enforcement, national defense, parks, and other things for the use and benefit of all. No market exists for such goods, and they are provided to everyone by governments.

In simplistic terms a public good is something that improves the general well being of the public as a whole, and is provided by the government as there is no financial incentive for private enterprise to provide.

As 90% or so of the ABC programming competes directly with private programming, not only is it costing taxpayers to run, but it is reducing taxes and jobs in the private sector.

Paul,

To further your poor understanding of English, significant does not mean a majority rather "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention"

The SMH survey to which you refer points out that 31% of those surveyed feel that the ABC is biased, and of those nearly all feel that they are biased against the coalition. If the 31% was close to evenly split, the claims of ABC bias could be dismissed. This is far from the case.

Dear SM,

Let me see if I understand you correctly -
You appear to feel that
providing a variety of children's programs by
out national broadcaster for the education
and entertainment of children is not by you
considered a "public good." And the
importance of early childhood development is not in the
interests of the "public good." That's interesting.

I would have thought that this was something on which
all political parties would agree. Children must be considered
as a "public good." Afterall as years go by they will
become tax-paying citizens and will contribute to the
community - especially as our country has an aging
population.

Furthermore, we already have different and various child-care
policies carried on by governments.
Ask yourself Sir, why
do governments spend money on such policies? The answer would
have to be precisely that for governments, especially
nowadays, that a child is a "public good." And therefore
surely even you would have to agree that Mr Abbott's Parental
Leave Scheme is in keeping with this "public good."

Emphasis is
being placed on the importance of implemenenting
such policies
in order to compensate the cost of raising children.
Australia needs more children - as the current population is
aging. And therefore to not consider children as a "public
good," is frankly absurd.

Belly, "..we must confront the other truth Shorten is doing worse.
His hide the truth policy damages us and him. We have ZERO right to highlight others faults if we hide our own"

Shorten and other union and labor leaders have a much deeper problem and they know it. They cannot escape their responsibilities and nor can they swerve around questions concerning their knowledge of corruption and what investigative and remedial action they took if any.

As was mentioned in another thread, there is a parallel with the responsibility and accountability of the hierarchy of the Catholic church, the bishops, cardinals and finally the Pope for the sexual abuses committed by some priests. Many here have argued just that and rightly so. Why then wouldn't they demand the same responsibility and accountability of Union and Labor leaders for apparently allowing corruption to flourish and become endemic in their organisations?

Since this thread is about the ABC, it would be heartening if programs like Q&A could give similar coverage and depth to union corruption as it did and does (rightly so) to the Catholic church and child sexual abuse. The leadship of unions and Labor have a lot of questions to answer and like the Catholic bishops, they shouldn't be allowed to constantly duck questions about their own responsibilities.

Foxy,

Before going on you usual tirade, perhaps you would care to refer to the definition of a "public good", in particular to requirement that it not being provided by private business.

All the free to air channels have children's programs, educational or otherwise even though attaching the adjective "educational" to most programs is dubious.

Whenever there is an analogue of any ABC program on another free to air channel then no one can claim it to be a public good, and there is no good reason for it to be tax payer funded.

The ABC is heavily advantaged by its public funding. Why should the ABC be allowed to compete unfairly with commercial channels?

At the same time the ABC is the over-fed Cuckoo chick jealously occupying space where community TV like Bris31 could take root, introduce new ideas and grow locally.

Why is the national broadcaster into everything? Its subsidised redundant services swamp others out.

It is unfair - an open cheque book, ask a Labor PM for more $$ - and no need to work to get an income from advertisers. No risk either, just keep putting the paw out annually for more from that big bucket of taxpayers $$.

I don't believe the ABC is biased in any respect - at least not intentionally - and it does have a responsibility to report breaking news of significance, based on the best information available at the time, and let the chips fall where they may.
It certainly has demonstrated a far higher degree of integrity in reporting than any of the other media - TV, print, or online.
Is Media Watch biased? Or, Q & A? ABC 24?

On Children's programming: I accept that the ABC should include quality programs in this area - not only to attract mums and dads to the ABC in the first instance (so they may better appreciate the quality of the full range of programming the ABC has to offer) but primarily to provide quality alternatives to much of the mind-numbing formula-driven offerings of the commercials.
Maybe the ABC doesn't always get it right, but at least they try.

As for cost to the taxpayer: If there is a genuine concern that the ABC has evolved too far beyond its primary mandate (to make quality unbiased programming of significant public interest available freely to all) then perhaps a review and some re-formatting should be undertaken, in the common interest.
However, given the free reign of the commercials (TV, print and online), and of the 'internet public media', by virtue of 'freedom of speech', to promulgate all manner of questionable (if not outright fallacious and mischievous) material and 'headlining', there is an increasing demand for unpolluted and unbiased reporting of the 'facts' - and such reporting will generally only be found on the ABC.

Want reliable, factual reporting day-in, day-out, and quality in-depth investigative journalism (Four Corners, Lateline, The Business, 7.30 Report, etc), and some good quality general 'entertainment', try the ABC.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for your rational and logical post.
You've summed up the issue very well.
Here is a satirical link that you may enjoy:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/01/30/abc-now-extra-treason

See you on another thread.

SM, with the Mad Monk screaming it from the pulpit "stone that blasphemer of an ABC." I am surprised that only 31% think the ABC is politically biased and only 46% of Conservative voters, think likewise. You would imagine Abbott should have been able to influence far more people to his way of thinking, particularly conservative voters. I also have to question how many of those surveyed ever actually tune into the ABC.
Saltpetre, If I had a 'LIKE' button for your post I would press it a 100 times. Thumbs Up on that on mate!

Beach, Sorry no like button for you, but that's showbiz! I answered your question way back when.

SM an honest thought/observation it seems to me at least you are finding it hared to control your temper.
I was once at least that bad but while you once insulted with class you increasingly get down and dirty.
I forgive you.
It can not be easy watching Abbott make such a mess out of his Prime Minister ship.
Today, right or wrong Tony is being looked at all over the world, because of the off shore troubles.
I even think he is more right than wrong on this issue.
More interesting is evidence given against Tonys boss, Rupert Murdock s British news paper.
Saw the evidence of closer than usual contact between Blair/Murdock while Blair was PM and after.
See my point?
Kill the ABC beggar the truth Rupert wants it!

Paul,

Noting your need to compensate for weakness of your argument with hysterical exaggeration, the view of the ABC's bias has been around for about a decade.

Bias is not just the occasional unprofessional over reach by ABC journalists (as acknowledged by Mark Scott), it includes the abject failure to cover issues that are embarrassing to labor, such as the deafening silence over Craig Thomson.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/02/19/1226832/134038-75d96166-993d-11e3-986c-06d72cd520ac.jpg

As for the over reach of the ABC, there is a serious question as to why a public broad caster needs 4 TV channels (as many as all the other free to air channels together) and umpteen radio channels, that all compete with commercial stations for viewers, depriving them of revenue and the treasury from tax income.

Belly,

What you are seeing is my irritation when people post nonsensical replies to a post of mine.

As for Abbott, so far His performance as PM has far exceeded Krudd's or Juliar's stopping the boats and fixing up the financial mess that labor left.

IT must pain you to see how corrupt the unions are.

Shadow Minister we represent totally different sides of politics.
I am rather proud that I continue to insist on improvements from my side.
And convinced you can not even see those in your side who do you a disservice.
Pre election it was clear Labor had by its actions given a man most did not want power.
Increasing evidence tells me we ,may just do that again.
Another scenario is Shorten may read the public's mind and see his defense will not save the filth in unions.
We both should be pleased as are most in the ALP the thing Thomson is on his way[ hopefully full 5 years] to prison.
ABC go you good thing say what you wish its free speech and our freedom to know.

Belly,

There is the matter of your repeated hypocrisy of demanding that the Pope, bishops and the Catholic hierarchy be held accountable for the child molesting they may or may not have known about and not prevented, however you do not insist on similar responsibility and structural accountability where your favoured unions and Labor Party are concerned.

There is a parallel: what is sauce for the Catholic geese should be sauce for the Labor and union ganders.

Why should union and Labor leaders be a protected species? What about their accountability for the leadership, executive control and governance of their organisations? They have received handsome remuneration packages and benefits to take responsibility, so how come you are so understanding and making excuses for leaders like Shorten?

If Shorten and others could wave a magic wand and put the whole subject of union and Labor corruption to sleep today many believe they would do just that in a heartbeat. Would you support them if they did that? Union and Labor leaders have done that before, allegedly.

That is hypocrisy (and something worse, hard-bitten members and public alike might think).

SM this statement is simply untrue;

Bias is not just the occasional unprofessional over reach by ABC journalists (as acknowledged by Mark Scott), it includes the abject failure to cover issues that are embarrassing to labor, such as the deafening silence over Craig Thomson.

The Craig Thomson matter has received extensive coverage from the ABC.
Here is a link from ABC online news. please point to the bias?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/craig-thomson-verdict/5266468

I must say the coverage by the commercial channel news on Thomson is rather mediocre at best, Channel 9 on the same night that Thomson was convicted gave more coverage to Sam Burgess switching from league to rugby, whereas the ABC news was quite the opposite. Is Channel 9 biased in favor of the Labor Party? Oddly SM many times in the past when campaigning for both labor and The Greens, I have come across Labor people who have bemoaned about the ABC's bias against their party. The fact is at election time the government, particularly the PM gets more news coverage than the opposition, that is a fact of political life.
If anyone should claim media bias its us Greens, very negative coverage of our party by the mainstream media. When Piers Akerman attacks The Greens with a bias rant in his Murdoch approved newspaper column its of no consequence, as his "readers" are only the bottom dwelling, red necked, knuckle dragers, who would never vote Green anyway, same goes foe 'Shock Jock' Jones. Just as these fellas could never influence you to stop voting Green!....you would have to start first, before you could stop.

Please do not call me illiterate this time for pointing out another SM error! Rather, if you wish call me you stupid Little Green Pixie Paul1405, all water of a ducks back.

I consider no balanced and sane person could ignore my thread CFMEU and charge me as done here.
Is your name Garry OTB?
Do you wish to show clearly you do not understand simple things?
You have my sympathy having made such a fool out of your self with that insane claim.
Swim in the shallow end it is safer.
At least double figures off my threads damning the union movements wrongs.
And at least that many damning my ALP have seen the light of day here.
Leaving your child like charge as silly and uncalled for.
IF you have ANY regard for this site you will man up and leave me alone.
Please! face it! you are no giant intellect, your inability to see my condemnation of some on my sides is in plan sight.
We can show respect for the forum, put an end to our bickering but you too must make an effort, leave me alone.
I have no wish to talk to you on any subject, childminding was not one of my work time jobs.

My coming absence in the next few days has nothing to do with the troll.
I ask yet again who of us is more demanding of accountability and reform off both the trade union movement and the ALP?
And yet again question how such a charge can be laid at my door?
Even more why has no Liberal ever under taken the job of looking at his/her sides faults?

Paul,

As the saga of Craig Thomson's fraud has been going on for about 4 years, it is interesting that you have just redefined the meaning of "extensive coverage" to describe the handful of articles that the ABC has produced on this issue, less than any other news organisation in the country.

Even then, the issues of Labor's involvement in paying his court costs, Gillard's fierce protection of him in and out of parliament, and the incompetence of Gillards FWA in taking 3 years to produce a piss poor report.

By 2011 with the evidence in the papers it was clear that Thomson was crooked, and the question was not whether he would face court but when, and the blocking game that Juliar played to stop this happening in her term of government.

SM

I'm not going to try and defend the Labor Party in relation to the grub Thomson, their action has been disgraceful. None more than me posted material on this very forum attacking Thomson, pointing out that my involvement was personal through my partners membership of the HSU.
To see the Labor Party crash and burn over Thomson would give me no end of pleasure.
Having said that, I have taken a keen interest in the reporting and are completely satisfied the ABC's coverage has been both extensive and accurate, as has been the reporting in the SMH. I still spend $2.30 on the Herald everyday, could get it all for free over the net, but for some reason I feel obliged to support Sydney's only remaining quality newspaper in the face of rubbish competition from Murdoch.

Paul,

You are completely satisfied, yet cannot produce even one article from the ABC where the Labor party's support for the crook is discussed?

That changes everything!

SM, another porky, if you cared to tune into the ABC the ALP/Thomson legal bill payment was extensively covered. You must get your head out of out of that Daily Telegraph fish wrapper and get with the real dinky die ABC news.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/cassidy-craig-thomson-an-untenable-distraction/4003932

I quote from the above ABC online article

"Two days after the budget came down, the hottest debate in the capital surrounded news that the ALP had been paying Thomson's legal bills, and that Thomson had breached his obligation to declare the interest on time."

Please note the words "THE ALP HAS BEEN PAYING THOMSON'S LEGAL BILLS"

SM, and you say yet (Paul1405) cannot produce even one article from the ABC where the Labor party's support for the crook is discussed?
It would be man of you if you were to apologise for that 'PORKY'!

Paul:

I said discuss not mention in passing.

For the illiterate Discuss: =

talk over, talk about, talk through, converse about, debate, confer about, put your heads together about, deliberate about, chew over, consider, exchange views on/about, weigh up, consider the pros and cons of, thrash out.

What you have produced is one line where the ABC mentions the "news that the ALP had been paying Thomson's legal bills"

Sorry, no cigar.

The article comes firmly down on the side of labor:

"Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, interviewed on ABC's AM on Thursday, articulated the dilemma for the fair-minded caught in the middle of this hostile and partisan political stoush:" .... " There are no charges, there is no conviction, and there is therefore no disqualification of a member in what our forefathers of the constitution set up as very prescriptive black and white rules on when a member can go. And this doesn't meet the test."

Not a mention that Thomson had been caught red handed and that the only reason he was not facing court is because the jurisdiction for this had been handed to Juliar's FWA that was quietly twiddling it thumbs for years. According to the ABC it was all the coalition's fault for being so mean and not according Thomson the presumption of innocence.

The ABC is as biased to the left as Newscorp is to the right or more so.

Come on SM, you have become a Porkaphile:
According to the renowned Irish Psychologist Prof. Richard Cranium everyone is born a porkaphile, with the natural ability to lie and every organism knows how to lie, even toads and sloths. Findings of Prof, Richard Cranium's research showed that 100% of three-year old's who have just learnt to speak lie, mostly lying about their ability speak when they can't, and 100% of those that can't speak also lie, mostly about their inability to speak when they can. Therefore, lying is a very interesting topic to lie about, so said the good professor. Prof. Richard Cranium also established that 100% of professors who do research into porkaphila lie, because they are all porkaphiles. The good professor future established that 100% of Liberal Party supporters are Porkaphiles! but only 100% of Laborites, are in the same category, and no Greenies, definitely no Greenies, absolutely no Greenies, particularly Paul1405, are in that category, so said Prof Richard Cranium.

Paul,

Firstly, you are the king of porkies as most of your posts are only loosely related with reality, however, I will give you the benefit of the doubt as I believe your claims of dishonesty on the part of others is due to the inability to read and understand simple conversation. Possibly in your past you had a drunken English teacher, skipped school, or suffered a head injury.

As I said no cigar.

Thank you SM, "you had a drunken English teacher, skipped school, and suffered a head injury" Yes, so true, that was my first and only day at the establishment in question.

You said; "no cigar". any chance for some 'Chew'en Tobaccie'... pretty please! As it keeps my mind on the job of exposing your PORKY'S.

Paul,

You have lied continuously and are lying again.

Now I can see why you stick to the greens, as they are the biggest liars of all.

SM,

I can see your problem, with your diet of "News" coming in form of current affairs programs on the commercial TV networks. Such riveting presentations as 'Big Brother' and 'The Biggest Looser'. Along with a daily read of 'The Piers Akerman Diatribe' in Murdoch's 'The Sydney Daily Telecrap', I can see how you have arrived at the conclusion that the ABC is biased! Unlike myself who's news and current affairs come directly from the ABC, and that quality journal 'The Sydney Morning Herald'. I am, unlike you, getting a factual and unbiased view of news, particularly things like the Labor/Thomson affair.

Paul, back from the repair shop PC not me and not happy at the you lie sling at you.
See in truth I can not agree with every thing you say, nor you me.
And yes I have lashed out, even after promises I would not.
Been a victim to SM s huge ego, a badly miss placed one, had those words thrown at me.
Not sure I ever used them against him.
Sorry bloke but we both know on greens my views are not far from SMs.

But consider this, all the huge potholes in Abbott,s post victory seem to be ones that would have seen Labor slagged right off, if done under them.
Too Murdock is murdering the good name some press once had post his death will his son keep the loss making scandal sheets going or will he have control of our electronic media by then.

Dear Belly,

Welcome back.

The Australian newspaper has had article after article
claiming that the ABC pushes a Left/Green agenda.
That's the politics at play here as News Corp would
have us see them, the ABC, the Greens and the Left on
one side and the mass of ordinary "decent" Australians
on the other.

However, as political commentators have pointed out
that argument is fake, phoney, BS. Polls show that the
mass of ordinary decent Australians have consistently
shown a very high regard for the ABC. Many Australians
have believed that it was (and is) indeed "Our ABC."

But we've covered this ground on this forum previously
and no matter what any of us say - people like SM
will continue to follow the arguments of
The Australian, and the News Corp press. And as we know -
Rupert Murdoch's media outlets (and that means most
newspapers in Australia) give direct expression to his will.
And Mr Murdoch as with the BBC is ideologically opposed to
the very existence of the ABC. And that's just one reason
that we should support the ABC. We need a diversity of
opinions not just compliance to the strident, narrow-minded
views of one man.

Foxy,

Yes, many Australians do believe that it is "your" ABC.

Your daily tirade against Newscorp, shows that the truth hurts.

SM,

Ah yes, as does your daily tirades against
anything that doesn't come down the colon
of Mr Murdoch's newspapers. Even Stephen!

As for the truth hurting?

Nah. The truth only hurts those who
rely on divisive tactics and secrecy.
Ask Mr Scott Morrison.
The truth - is the new political divide.
Truth versus lies. It's replacing
the old dichotomies of Conservative versus Reformist,
Left versus Right, Capitalist versus Socialist,
and for most of us it's a positive move in
public life.

Foxy,

Have you seen me criticise the Fairfax media even though they are left of center? Neither do I criticise everything in the ABC, So your hysterical accusation is wrong.

I also believe that ABC journalists generally display integrity, as do most Fairfax and Newscorp journalists, and the ABC does produce services that are needed.

However:

-The article on asylum seekers burning their hands was unprofessional and lacking journalistic integrity. If Mark Scott had any sense he would have immediately issued an apology and correction, and the issue would have disappeared. Instead his defiance blew the issue out of proportion.

-While the ABC is generally unbiased, there are a significant number of articles that push the labor / greens point of view, and a dearth of articles critical of labor or the unions.

-Finally, there is no justification other than nostalgia for the government to provide services at taxpayer expense that can be provided better by private business often for free. Where the ABC provides services in areas not services by private business then I applaud their efforts, but where there are several channels providing similar content, then the government stations should be shut or sold.

Between the ABC and SBS there are more taxpayer funded stations in the free to air segment than independent stations. This is lunacy.

SM,

I'm glad that you find the ABC is worthy of our support.
And the following link is just one of the reasons why:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/media-watch-finds-abc-pverreached-with-hot-pipe-claims-against-navy-20140204-31yax.html

Media Watch found that the ABC had 'over-reached'.

The ABC flogging itself with its own lamb-skin merkin. 'Ohhhh that really is accountability, more please'.

The knobbly old shillelagh is reserved for others, well at least those non-'Progressive' others (shudder, shudder).

It's virtually impossible for some to argue on a
mature intelligent level. It's like trying to
pick up a turd by its clean end - it just ain't
happening.

Lexi,

My support for the ABC is limited, and would like to see the ABC trimmed by about 75% to essential functions not attractive to private business, and flog off the rest to allow for infrastructure investment (or paying off Labor's debt) and to generate greater tax revenue in the future.

Loved that post Foxy and best leave it at that.
ABC may add to the avalanche of lost jobs post Abbott,s win.
Not sure Murdock,s loss making arm of the Liberals, the papers he owns will survive his death.

Abbott is like Hercules trying to clean out Augean stables after six years of Labor MPs crap. It is time to let the river of free markets flow through and clean out the pointless legislation, the debt, the union corruption and subsidised union jobs.

It will be interesting to see whether Labor will put its money where its mouth is and help remove the Quantas act and save jobs here.

In one breath its "time to let the river of free markets flow". and in the next breath, its government intervention to help support a private business. Is it a case of, "I'm a Capitalist in the mornings, and a Communist in the afternoons". All depending on which way the winds blowing!
Kill the ABC but save Joe's Fruit Shop! LOL.
SM What's the chances of your man Abbott, guaranteeing my son's mortgage to the bank. If he was working for QANTAS and lost his job, would Abbott pay out his debt? I think not.

Paul,

Don't get ahead of yourself. The debt guarantee is not a done deal, and is contingent upon Qantas clearing the decks, cost cutting, and returning the company to profitability.

If I were Abbott, I would tie the debt guarantee to the repeal of the Qantas sales act and wedge Labor.

Government debt guarantee for Qantas? Forget it!
What next, a debt guarantee for SPCA, Ford, Holden or Toyota? (Or, even for any genuinely-fully-Aussie-owned enterprise?)

Or, paying full wages/salary for 12 months (or more) for anyone retrenched from company x, y, or z?

Let's slap the other cheek. My benevolence has limits, and I would expect no less from MY (or your) government(s).

The horse has bolted, and it's up to Qantas to reign in its deficits - or else go the way of the Dodo.
(Talk about vision? Privatised a solid going concern (Telstra); but hangs on to a controlling interest in the Flying Kangaroo; sentiment before good common business sense?)

Paul you know Iam closer to you than SM in politics.
But he has us here.
You, half the country, seem surprised at the radical actions of the Abbott Government.
It has always been so, not this far right but always right.
Do not defend Labor, and not when they are wrong.
My party is better than that.
In time, even if driven by Abbott,s Royal Commission, we will see our own faults,will reform.
And in doing so move even further away from the old stagnant ALP you fondly remind me of.
Yesterday a left wing ex ALP Minister, brother to a former CFMEU state Secretary, spoke of a reality we all must confront.
A job is better than having the best enterprise agreement an out of work person ever had.
No not starvation wages but time and again bush workers have taken a wage cut to keep the doors open and them or their mates in a job

Honestly Belly, the Labor structure must be full of gunners.

Gunna do this and gunna do that. They have had years, decades, to reform but chose not to. Most would be complicit in the scandal, or they were deliberately doubling up their blindfolds not to see. They thought the party would go on forever. -The play on words was deliberate.

I don't know why Labor supporters would try to shield the ABC from the review, accountability and the belt-tightening that apply to everyone else.

I don't know that the ABC is always that kind to Labor either. Not traditional Labor anyhow. To me it consistently runs the political 'Progressive' agenda. That is the inevitable outcome, a self-fulfilling prophesy, and group think if you like, from the re-jigged 'positive' affirmative action and multicultural recruitment and promotion policies that have applied to public sector agencies for yonks.

It is hard to imagine that the workers that Labor claims to represent would prefer to have over-paid ABC presenters and redundant management structures instead of better roads, hospitals and so on. That lazy billion dollars that goes into running the ABC could do a loot of good out there for common folk.

Last sentence should be 'lot' not 'loot'.

ABC is a whipping boy, that term came in to common use because the Kings of England as Children had one!
That is a Child who was wiped for the young Kings sins!
Because we must never hit the King.
Well if we,all of us, took our sun glasses off and looked at our rather grubby King Rupert the first,we would see he is foul.
And if we had the courage to look at his machine of war,his news papers world wide, but reaching a new low in Australia.
We would see a true bias, true wish to dictate to us all, King Rupert needed a whipping buy his choice? Australia's only believable mews out let.

Belly,

You are off on another irrelevancy. The ABC take is a cool $billion from the taxes government levies compulsorily from taxpayers a year. As well there is a huge sum tied up in rapidly aging technology.

Of course the ABC has to be accountable.

However government is also required to demonstrate that it is applying the money taken from taxpayers to good use, to priorities and that value for money is always being obtained.

At the end of the day, the question that must be put is whether the workers that Labor claims to represent would prefer to have over-paid ABC presenters and redundant management structures instead of better roads, hospitals and so on.

That lazy billion dollars that goes into running the ABC could do a lot of good out there for common folk. It could get rid of narrow bridges on Australia's national highway for a start. That has got to be an improvement on endless political comment and re-runs of BBC programs available on the Net.

Good post Belly, if we ever get to the position where Yankee Rupert, controls everything you hear, read and see, it will indeed be a sorry day for Australia. One saving grace is, he's 82 and no one lives forever.
"Of course the ABC has to be accountable." that depends on how you interpret the word "accountable". For some it could simply mean, being a sycophantic government mouthpiece, simply reporting "good" news stories about Abbott and his cronies, whilst attacking those evil ones who would oppose such "good" government. Such an organisation would be most accommodating to anyone Rupert sent their way.
I will say I still find the SMH a good independent news outlet. The less said about News Corp the better.

Paul1405,

It is probably a Leftie/Greens thing, but it is a bit 'off' to disrespect an elderly person, and wishing him dead is abuse. The Greens are calling for euthanasia too. Maybe demonstrate some respect for the old first.

You are unnecessarily wild and woolly about accountability, again a Greens thing, most likely. You are probably unaware of the Australian Accounting Standards (AASB) and The Australian National Audit Office's best practice guides including its 'Administering Regulation' booklet.

Sure makes one wonder how the NSW Greens manage their governance responsibilities, especially where political donations are concerned.

Dear Paul,

If it wasn't for voices such as yours - this forum
would definitely be an intellectual desert.
And I feel the same
about "Our," ABC. I don't even want to imagine
us receiving our information only from strident
narrow-minded sources - owned by Mr Murdoch.
The ABC is worthy of our support - and Thank
Goodness most Australians agree.

I on this occasion must be unpleasant.
No other course can get this done.
At least 5 times I have asked a troll to ignore me/not refer to me in his/her posts.
And got replies that are meaningless ;lies.
See he/she informed me I did not own the forum, by inference saying I wanted to stop him/her from posting here.
Not true, and known not to be true, by that poster, but convenient.
So here it is, not a sign of weakness but strength.
I will never again refer to that poster, please consider being half decent and doing the same for me.

Dear Belly,

I know how you feel and it's a tactic that is used
by cyber bullies to either solicit a response from
you or to upset you that greatly so that you would
leave the forum. It is harrassment - plain and simple
and it must be stopped. Telling you to ignore it and
not respond to it has not worked and the only thing
that I can suggest is for you to seek legal advice.
If asking someone to leave you alone and not address
you any further - is ignored - there must be
legal action that can be taken. This is serious stuff,
especially if it is affecting your mental health and
well being and causing you distress. Look what
happened to Charlotte Dawson. I wonder if this poster
would even stop for a minute and consider the
consequences of his actions and the distress he's causing
to other people.

Beach,
"One saving grace is, he's 82 and no one lives forever." A realistic statement of fact. If I was wishing him dead, I would say "One saving grace is, he's 82 and lets hope he cark's it tomorrow." When he does, and if I'm still around, which I might not be, I wont shed any tears, you might, but I wont.

"You are probably unaware of the Australian Accounting Standards (AASB) and The Australian National Audit Office's best practice guides including its 'Administering Regulation' booklet."
As an Abbott fan, do you think he read those guides and booklets of yours before handing over $1.22 billion of tax payers money without any kind of tender process to Transfield Services, the other day.

Paul 1405,

Yes I do place an equal value on all lives and feel that any life lost diminishes us all in some way. Have you ever sat with an elderly person and really listened or cared?

Tenders
Anyone who is at all familiar with my posting history is aware of my concern for government accountability and for ensuring value for (taxpayers') money is always obtained. I mention the need for comprehensive independent audits often enough. But maybe that is something you would pass over as a minor concern.

In fact I don't really care what policies a government firms on and implements, as long as there is timely, full disclosure and direct consultation with all affected, and the general public of course. Taken that decisions are transparent and there is regular rigorous measurement of results obtained against goals and public reporting.

Again, those are measures a Green would gloss over, always putting ideology first and stuff the accountability (the ABC is a topical example).

Regarding the example you gave, of course the tender process is subject to rules and scrutiny. Where there is a problem with any of it of course there has to be accountability. No problemo, let the bouquets or brick bats be wielded accordingly.

Foxy I found as is usual, great merit and truth in your post.
And yes I blame only my self.
I do not think I have the right to call for legal help, in any way.
And have no intention of asking any one to intervene.
I think I will stay here, after all its still the best.
Lets see how my re-commitment goes, a chance exists it will be enough this time.
I fear the next 3 years.
Looking back from that point I fear the tattered and torn ABC we will have.

But gloat in the sure and certain knowledge King Rupert will be seen for what he is by then.
And the closer than normal association with him and right wing politics will have been un masked and great problems arrise for those he led by the nose.

Dear Belly,

You words of wisdom are good to hear.
I value your opinion and your friendship.
And I'm pleased that things haven't gotten
you down afterall.

I should have known better.
You're an oak.

And you're right, we are fortunate on this
forum in that we get to have a say, even
though some of us don't deserve to be heard.
Still it's a nice indulgence, and here we are
taking advantage of it.

Foxy I am most assuredly OK.
Like about a tenth of Aussie males the black dog lives with me.
But plays no role in my posts or thoughts.
History is full of great deeds done by fellow sufferers.
My inability to construct sentences, even some times appearing to say other than I wish should not be seen as anger, that is not as present in my posts as some think

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/antigovernment-billboards-in-the-sights-of-bleijie-20140301-33soe.html?google_editors_picks=true
This link belongs here, it shows further efforts to stop messages the Lib/Nats do not agree with.
Another fresh this morning, warns from within, QLD Government seat warmers they must re-apply for their seats, as it is thought they embarrass their side.
Strange Conservatives can not talk of that!

Dear Belly,

Thanks for the link.

For as long as I've known you - you've
always behaved with civility on this forum,
you've never posted with malice or anger.
If only more posters could take a page out of
your book - and behave accordingly.

Belly,

You obviously support those unions because their political bias concurs with your own.

However, in our Australian democracy citizens have a right enshrined in law to know who is behind the advertising. What you see as chummy union activism to overthrow of a government, even though you do not live in the subject State, others will see as grubby political interests with something to hide who are breaking the law of the land.

The unions or whoever is behind the political activism are thumbing their noses at the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, who are representing the people of Queensland. They have contempt for the law and for democracy.

Is that what you want? Do you want secrecy in political lobbying, in political donations, in electoral advertising, and in advertising generally? Do you favour union leaders who have such contempt for their members that thy refuse to consult with them, even where the law demands that they do?

It is interesting but entirely predictable that the Greens are keeping a low profile on this. But then there have been allegations for years concerning the links between the Greens and a secret squirrel anti-gun site which does not allow membership and hides its backers and a US billionaire currency dealer who nearly sent the Bank of England broke, which would have lost the life savings of thousands of small investors.

The public abhor secret interference in Australian domestic politics. It is the very antithesis of democracy. Citizens have a right to know who is behind it.

As well, these unions are hiding information from their own members and refusing to consult with them. That is something the federal Royal Commission into the union corruption would likely be coming up with as a finding on the prevailing corruption: that the unions concerned hid information from members and did not see themselves as answerable to their members - nor to the law for that matter.

These are the same old problems evidencing all of the time: unaccountable union heavies doing what they like with members' money and union policy.

Thanks Foxy I have a wish for this great site too.
I hope we can get many new posters who bring many great subjects we can dig in to.
Too that we all can contain our own words and thoughts towards others, but understand for some it seems other needs exist.
We can all do better and if that is all we ever do, trying to be better is a worth while thing to do.

I remain honestly and with no room for doubt,in fear the real damage to our country a harnessed and controlled ABC would do.
Some may find it a steep hill to climb but it remains true 32 percent at the extreme least vote ALP and think much as we do.
Some seem to think only their thoughts and views are valid, this is a sign they not us, must confront the real world.
Current polling highlights many are more than unhappy at the recent elections results and even NSW after gut wrenching problems, currently prefers and ALP government.

Dear Belly,

I find it very interesting that the same people who
rant and rave about the "accountability" of the ABC
are also the same ones who rant and rave against the
accountability of the current government being held
to account. These are individuals who get upset daily
over many small things and they have a one response
perspectuive on life. In an age where information ic
crucial we need good, vigilant and ethical journalism
and a national broadcaster that does give us access to
information so that the electorate can make informed
decisions. That is part and parcel of the democratic
process - unlike those who believe that secrecy, and
misinformation is the way to gain and retain office.

cont'd ...

The current government obviously believes that
everyone else should be held to account, except for
them. That to me smacks of a dictatorship and makes
our democratic system a total sham. Access to information
is one of the pre-requisites of a democracy.

Foxy while I am restless at the speed of change within the ALP.
And dirty on some of our actions,
I feel quietly joy filled at the direction of the Liberals.
Nation wide in every parliament they have miss read their support numbers and too support for some truly weird policy's they own.
Labor has assisted them to gain governments by its own stale acts.
But just think, after our impending caning in Tasmania, then South Australia, our worst will be behind us, for decades.
Here you will see why I scream for a reality check, from all sections of my party.
Most share my views but think it betrayal to say so.
I see that, blocking true accountability and party reform, as betrayal.
Even now we stand to win Victoria, go very close if not win NSW and shake the west Australian government.
The future looks great, and just as our own goals bough Abbott and his state governments in to power.
We stand to get the same benefits out of complacency from them.
Imagine! if we can reform too what sweet victory's await us.
ABC on election night,as good as test cricket!

Dear Belly,

It will be interesting to see what voters decide
in a few years time that's for sure. As I've
said previously - voter support is ever fragile
and re-election is never a foregone conclusion.
However having responsible reporting would also
be a big bonus to the electorate and keeping the
ABC would be a step in the right direction.

Foxy while confedent voters willby then have tipped the scales.
To the extent of us haveing by then seen one term Conservative governmentsgone.
We can never be sure of a balanced press/media.

I rather think Murdocks finger prints on American right wing Conservatives, his interventions in to Australian and British politics will be seen in plain sight by all.
And aging old right wing shock jock, he may be dead then,for sure public understanding of his true role and nature will have weaken his hold.
Along with the continuing English court case, but remember money buys justice often.
I think his sons think rather as he does but will they keep the loss making world wide papers/political tools.
Will, by then news papers fail to make the huge changes they need to stay alive?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/demented-plutocrat-remark-was-not-about-rupert-murdoch-turnbull-says
A shame the man had the guts to say the right thing.
But in the current toxic climate within Abbott,s team was forced to deny it!

I see in Turnbulls actions and increasing ability to tell it like it is, a threat to the future ALP and a bright and shining prospect in the dull night sky that is today,s Liberal Party.

Dear Belly,

The next two years should show us the difference
between the sheep and the goats - and who's more
qualified to lead. Interesting times ahead.
Also who knows - Mr Murdoch does not like to lose,
so it will be interesting to see how much longer
Mr Abbott has Mr Murdoch's support.

Abbott is no more or less than Murdock,s glove puppet now Foxy.
I am much more interested in reports of his failing health.
And of the loss his newspaper arm is making.

Dear Belly,

I'm sure that Murdoch would love to add
the ABC to his stable before he goes.
We'll have to watch and wait and see
what happens. Why do you suppose all this
talk about "accountability" (not theirs -
the ABC'S) and "value for money" - is really all about?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/jim-byrnes-vows-to-tell-all-at-royal-commission-20140302-33u2n.html
I just know, every Australian should have the opotunity to read this link.
Too to know every words is true.
To know it is the tip of an ice berg.

Then? think with me, try seeing why I just hate such acts from ANY UNION.
I believe in unions, think they are the insurance we take out for our homes and cars, but in the workplace, for our health safety and wages/living conditions.
I have been victim of these crimes, seen single mums living FOREVER in caravans, working to feed a child or more, being under paid because labour hire firms did under award deals with CFMEU filth, that both under paid and forced membership on workers!
I am an ex union official.

Too some, from within the very bowels, some further down than that, in my party condemn me, for saying ENOUGH!
We drift from those brave men and women who forged both union and party, we seem, SOME OF US, unconcerned at filth joining us to make money from our weary and warn out members.
Except the kick backs and you too are filth.

Belly,

You raised this thread about the ABC and your most recent post with its Sydney Morning Herald link concerns another very serious business.

What immediately stuck me when reading your most recent post is that here again is another private sector media outlet scooping the well-funded public broadcaster, the ABC.

It is impossible not to remember that the ABC has been spending so much time on soft subjects like gay marriage and regurgitating reports on illegal immigrants that it is continually being scooped on hard news, news where guts and research is required by the private sector.

My view is that the ABC is the staff it recruits and the restrictions to achieve 'positive' affirmative action have likely taken a heavy toll on its capacity to do at all what it once did well, which was investigative journalism that really mattered and its subjects were taken from the broad areas of life and business.

By way of example, can anyone ever imagine Virginia Trioli, who did her crazy face after interviewing a senior politician could ever go the hard yards to investigate union corruption?

The ABC seems to have so many lightweights. Nice I suppose but not really tough, skilled, experienced and with contacts. The ABC Board and management are probably doing their best with what they are required to recruit and put on programs.

Honestly, the ABC isn't a shadow of what it was years ago. The main difference may be attributable to changed priorities in recruitment, political correctness at work.

Foxy remember.
My pledge to my self?
Your good advice?
Give it some thought it helps to read the first line only.
By then you understand we ,miss nothing of worth by skipping the rest.
This last few days much has been said that every Australian should be concerned about.
Some times good some times bad for both sides.
But for sure and certain if Rupert the puppet master gets his way we will see and hear only one sides view and trash talk about the other.

Dear Belly,

Good advice. Thank You.

The following link you might find interesting:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/what-is-the-real-reason-for-cutting-the-abc-20140130-31plr.html

It's an Editorial from The Age newspaper.

Of course it could be that the ABC costs over a $billion a year of taxpayers' money to run and it shouldn't be excused from accountability. No-one else escapes accountability and demands for efficiency, so why should the ABC be the sacred cow?

Apparently no government including Labor (especially Labor?) can afford to replace some dangerous narrow bridges on the national highway, Highway 1. There are other priorities that wait forever. Mental health services delivery is in a parlous state - no money. But there are those here who would excuse the ABC from even putting up a business case for what it is receiving.

Just a snippet to show some of the ABC's more ridiculous far left outrages.

"On the eve of the first Gulf War in December 1990, the ABC’s international service, Radio Australia, stopped its two-hour daily service of messages to Australian sailors in the Gulf. Radio Australia’s acting general manager, Geoff Heriot, said to do so would be tantamount to offering “overt support for a government military/political endeavour”.

When military action began a month later, The 7.30 Report chose as its regular expert commentator Macquarie University’s Robert Springborg, who was an outspoken opponent of military action. Prime minister Bob Hawke attacked the corporation as “loaded, biased and disgraceful”.

Throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, it became clear that the ABC could not be trusted to provide a balanced picture of a modern military campaign. Setbacks and suffering were played up; successes were played down. When the murderous Saddam Hussein was captured and later sentenced to death, the ABC’s presenters and reporters agonised about the lack of judicial process.

The extra-judicial killing of Osama bin Laden was greeted with hand-wringing about the denial of civil rights. David Hicks was a hero; George W. Bush a dangerous fool. The illegitimacy of the wars was assumed from the start and the script was utterly predictable.

Many at the ABC see nothing wrong in reporting unfounded allegations of brutality by naval personnel towards asylum-seekers. If it wasn’t true, it is the kind of thing that ought to be true.

Is it reasonably likely that trained military personnel would act in such a brutal fashion? In the mindset of the anti-military camp at the ABC, the answer is plainly yes. Naturally there is no such thing as “groupthink” at the ABC - heavens no! - but the military must change its ways to deal with its “institutional culture”."

Thanks Foxy, while I knew about the link contents it is the best one seen in this debate.
The horrible truth is every word is true!
Recently Murdock,s group failed in its effort to win the right to run Radio Australia.
*Just consider a fox like network broadcasting to the world in our name!*

In the end this is true while I spoke of 32 percent voting first preference ALP in truth at worst, very nearly 50 percent of us do not, now or ever, support this government.
The righteous beatings of the extremes who support this government would have us think they talk for us all.
ABC vs Murdock/Abbott?
I vote ABC

A well worn tactic there SM. Start off with a snippet of a fact, ABC stops broadcast, but then start presenting as "facts" you own biased thoughts and opinions, your post is littered with them.

"it became clear" clear to whom? You
"were played up; were played down" so say you, evidence of the playing ups and downs please.
"reporters agonised" do you have any examples of reporters agonising?
"hand-wringing" ditto for reporters agonising.
"Hicks a hero; Bush a dangerous fool." examples please of the ABC editorialising on that score!
"the illegitimacy of the wars was assumed" by whom within the ABC, the dunny cleaner? Some, all, a few? How was it publicised/editorialise
"Many see nothing wrong in reporting unfounded allegations" Who are the many? Nothing should be reported unless it is a proven fact? If that was the case the news bulletins would be rather short at times. There would be no reporting on what was said in court cases or inquires. No reporting of sex scandals at the ADFA, all hearsay.
Is it reasonably likely that trained military personnel would act in such a brutal fashion? Frankly SM yes, if the military is capable of a criminal cover ups at ADFA, why shouldn't they also be capable of covering up this kind of brutality. Answer that one

Paul,

You really are the arch hypocrite. You accuse me of using tactics then immediately use the shonky tactic of ignoring the most damaging accepted information, then focus on nit picking some of the minor details and demanding "proof" that would require hours to gather and more space than available in the blog in a silly attempt to discredit the genuine information. I challenge you then to provide proof that what I posted was wrong! The last time you tried you failed dismally.

Considering the wishy washy drivelling emotive opinion pieces that you have proffered to support your case, you are in no position to demand far more than you are capable of providing.

You then come up with a gem of hypocrisy that almost made me choke on my coffee: "Nothing should be reported unless it is a proven fact? If that was the case the news bulletins would be rather short at times."

Most reputable news organisations incl Fairfax and Newscorp, have many full time fact checkers and do not report potentially harmful allegations (especially from those with a vested interest in lying) without corroborating information.

If they feel the news is in the public interest they make it very clear that the information is only alleged and uncorroborated, and offer no opinion on its veracity. The ABC went far further than this and the reporter clearly indicated that it believed that the allegations were true and the Navy had a case to answer, a basic error that would in a reputable news organisation got the journalist fired or crippled his career.

SM,

Yes we have some marvellous examples of "good journalism"
from the journalists at News Corp. Piers Akerman, Andrew
Bolt, Miranda Devine, immediately spring to mind.
Totally unbiased and fair reporting, full of accuracy,
nothing made up to see there. It's only those awful
people at Independent Media outlets that we should shun.
And the ABC - well just like Qantas - is not worthy
of our support.

Thankfully most of Australia does not agree with this take
on things and the current polls show it.
Mr Abbott and Mr Joe Hockey - combined, are suddenly less
popular than Malcom Turnbull - gee, I wonder why that is?
Take your blinkers off Sir, and come into the real world.
Look at what the current government's been doing in its
short term in office. One day people will be asking,
"Remember when those idiots ran the country?"
Well, hopefully not for much longer!

Shadow, for example if A said B was corrupt whilst giving evidence before the ICAC, then its not unreasonable for a news outlet to report the fact that A gave such evidence about B, it doesn't need to prove B is corrupt, by proving the evidence that A's evidence is true.
In the case of the allegation against the navy, the ABC was within its rights to report the allegation, it did not name any naval personnel.
You say; "The ABC went far further than this and the reporter clearly indicated that it believed that the allegations were true and the Navy had a case to answer. Show me anywhere in the story where the reporter George Roberts, done as you claim.

Here is an ABC story on what you are going on about.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/australian-navy-accused-of-beating-burning-asylum-seekers/5211996

At the bottom of the story is a link to the ABC's statement on the story, both seem reasonable to me.
p/s Don't think you would ever get such a statement like that from News Corp.

Watching the rebroadcast of media watch, ABC gee if you did not get to see it it is worth going to ABC site and doing so.
Seems some Conservatives may not think at all if some coments are seen.

Paul,

Firstly, a legal snippet: What is reported in a court, or in parliament can be reported verbatim with no risk to the news organisation, However, outside of these areas there are strict guidelines to news organisations publishing unfounded claims.

For example if I said to a reporter that I had seen Adam Bandt shagging Sarah Hanson Young in the parliamentary toilets, that would be slander, if the journalist published it, he and the paper could be sued for libel even if they offered no opinion on the veracity of the claim, as the simple publishing of the claim gives weight to the claim and causes damage. Several newspapers have lost millions for just this error.

Your link gives us the ABC's opinion on the validity of the uncorroborated claims:

"Video footage appears to back asylum seeker claims of injuries
Updated Tue 18 Feb 2014, 8:24pm AEDT

New footage appears to back asylum seekers' claims of mistreatment by the Australian Navy. Passengers claim the Navy fixed up their boat's engine and forced them back to Indonesia. They say some passengers were punched and beaten and others were burnt."

It is clear that the ABC violated some of the most basic tenets of journalistic integrity, and if this had been against a private individual, the ABC would be shelling out a small fortune.

Foxy,

I know that you and other left whingers don't like the journalists you mentioned, as they effectively expose the lies of the left. But if you have specifics then mention them. Considering these journalists prolific nature, they have made very few errors, probably less than the ABC journalists you defend.

SM,

This isn't about liking or not liking journalists -
it's about ethical journalism and reporting.
We can dislike someone intensely yet still respect
the accuracy of their reporting. However the
journalists mentioned previously -
unfortunately do not subscribe
to ethical journalism. Not in any thinking person's books
anyway.

All one has to do is look at the reporting record
of these people. Piers Akerman's persistent personal
attacks on our former PM - for example, and the private
relationship of her and her partner being brought into
question. Of course you may think that sort of
journalism appropriate - just as you may also
think that Peppa Pig is a strident feminist.
You may think that the lawsuit against Mr Bolt
was an infringement of the freedom of speech - despite
the fact that Mr Bolt should have checked his facts
before writing his column.

However, you may like to ask
why Mr Akerman has been sacked from the ABC? Surely a
journalist of his calibre (your claim, not mine), deserved
to be kept on. But then I'll wager you'll brush that aside
as well - as being part of a Left-Wing conspiracy.
Ahhhh, those Lefties - making things difficult - for
"honest" decent people like yourself.

I have a question, what is the reason very nearly half of this country find the rants of Bolt and others like him obnoxious?
Are we who both value the ABC and fear the rants Murdock,s media serves up mad?
See SM at the least, as many think as I do, as those who think so badly about the ABC.

Is there anyone prepared to say Murdock press is any better than a rag?
No honestly Murdock,s Sydney paper is no longer a news paper but some thing just a bit dirty.
Joseph Gobbles would be proud of it.

SM, there is nothing wrong in anything George Roberts wrote, or said one his video report. The allegation by asylum seekers, that their hands were burnt by Australian Naval Personnel. Then the Indonesian police reported the burns were inflicted by the Australian Navy. Finally its reported that a video appeared to support the claims. Where is the bad journalism there. Unless you take the simplistic line that the Australian military can do no wrong.

"I had seen Adam Bandt shagging Sarah Hanson Young in the parliamentary toilets," A disgusting bit of smut by you, that's not even funny. To impugn two peoples reputation on a public forum, with a pathetic attempt at crass jocularity is a low act. Yet you are the first to jump onto your high moral horse when it suits.
p/s Forget the attempted humor, your are a bore.

The ABC does presume to 'fact check' everyone else, why not itself?

"ABC Fact Check determines the accuracy of claims by politicians, public figures, advocacy groups and institutions engaged in the public debate"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/about/

Few would believe that Aunty is as independent as some decades ago, at least before the political correctness that the ABC seems to excel at.

Foxy,

Firstly, this is about the ABC being a publicly funded organisation that is mandated to remain politically neutral, but fails spectacularly to do so.

With regards Piers Ackerman, your hissy fit is misguided. PA denounced Sadler for his questions, but had the temerity to state the bleeding obvious which is that there were similar rumours circulating in the press gallery.

PA's attacks on Juliar for lying and being generally underhand was because she had lied and was devious for which she was dumped.

Paul,

The sentence used was "New footage appears to back asylum seekers' claims of mistreatment by the Australian Navy." The footage did nothing of the sort. It showed the asylum seekers with burns to their hands, and aired their claims. There was nothing else to support their claims. Considering that the ABC admitted that this was a mistake, I don't feel the need to try and prove it further.

Secondly, I said:

"For example if I said to a reporter that I had seen Adam Bandt shagging Sarah Hanson Young in the parliamentary toilets, that would be slander"

So please don't misquote me then attack me for something that you said, especially after your regular tirades of insults against Abbott. You are a boor, (and I can spell it too).

SM, you are a typical sounding English public school bore (regardless of how you spell it), who comes across as a smug conservative know it all, with an elitists attitude. Who to show superiority over us lesser mortals needs to post "You are a boor, (and I can spell it too)" jolly good old chap. jolly good, you have dictionary online, unlike you, something I rarely use.
Your smutty "joke" about two Greens MP having sex in a toilet was not funny. Humor, amongst many other things is something conservatives like yourself lack. If you want to make smutty jokes about "sex", make one about Abbott, the failed priestly candidate, and the popular sexual practices of Catholic Priests, that could be funny to some.
End of subject.

The ABC enjoys a privileged position in broadcasting.

It swings from the taxpayers' teat and as found with Julia Gillard, is not afraid to ask for more from the trough of public money. It presumes to lecture others on standards and ethics, and even on 'facts', which in many cases are merely its own interpretations, factoids, and no more to be relied upon than any other.

It isn't just that the ABC got it wrong, but that many were not surprised at all that it erred where it did. If such predictability isn't a problem, what is?

Why should public broadcasting continue to be propped up by the overtaxed taxpayer? Why should it be draining money out of the bucket of taxpayers' money for broadcasting services that are redundant within itself and are already available privately?

Generally, taxpayers do not object to money being compulsorily taken from them where that money is directed at the 'must-haves' government services. However public broadcasting isn't even a 'should-have' in modern times where the public have easy usually free access to a broad range of sources of information, education, entertainment and culture.

What is it anyway with all of those time-filler talking heads who consider themselves personalities?

Many would like to see more community television, but the ABC swamps that out.

Here is a thought, what about the ABC being required to give a proportion of its program time and facilities to community TV and Community radio? The taxpayer is already paying so why shouldn't they have access to the resources for independent, local use?

Paul,

"you have dictionary online, unlike you, something I rarely use." No kidding! It is obvious that spelling is not the only limitations you have with the English Language. Your comprehension is also sketchy. If you had a modicum of understanding, you would realise that what I said was not a joke. Neither was implying nor imputing anything about your sanctimonious MPs.

I'm sorry if you find my careful and accurate prose elitist and prefer to bumble blindly through life. I guess that you find all forms of competence threatening, which is why you are so comfortable with the greens.