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.