"The Guardian" reports that countries with public broadcasting have "less rightwing extremism and corruption". This announcement was based on a 'finding' by the European Broadcasting Union.

I say, unbelievable! What do you think, bearing in mind 'their ABC? Do you think that the researchers just prefer left wing extremism and corruption?

It anyone ever doubted that secularism/feminism has ever led to corruption, perversion, lies and distortions then they have never done an analysis at what the abc/sbs puts out with tax payer money. Yes the commercial channels put out nearly as much garbage but they don't try and pretend to be neutral or thoughtful. It is also not done with tax payer money. Anyone noticed lately how the drum has to have a muslim (usually female) about twice a week these days. What are they? 2 per cent of the population? Their is never any mocking. That is left for conservatives or Christians when they occasionally get a voice.

'The Guardian" reports that countries with public broadcasting have "less rightwing extremism and corruption"'

Probably false attribution. About as good as politicians saying that quadrupling the number of politicians and their remuneration 'improves' democracy. The Australian experience proves otherwise, remember Julia Galah'd :(

Did the European Broadcasting Union's sloppy 'research' explain why its member media outlets don't recognise ISIS and Islamic Fascism aka Islamofascism as Right Wing?

OTB,

The article can be found on Google Newstand or via "The Spectator" online. There is a bit of toing, froing and duckshoving but, like all papers, the message is in the headline. They know that most people don't get past the headline, so people who agree with them would say, "Too right", and move on, whereas, we would say, "bulldust" and move on.

One must defend our ABC though, for the excellence of many of its imported programmw\es.
Commercial TV is so full of dross that I rarely watch it and then, usually, for its reruns of old films.

A bloke in Britain refused to pay his TV lience so the BBC took the case to court and lost. Since he has never paid TV licence fees.

The bloke claimed the BBC was a terrorist organisation under the definition of terrorism in the relevant statue.

To prove his claim he showed videos of the BBC reporting the fall of Building 7, 20 minutes before it fell, during 911 (when the twin towers in Manhatten fell down in 2001)

The bloke proved, through the use of a video in court, the BBC had advanced knowledge that Building 7 was coming down but made no attempt to save the lives of people in the building by advising the US govt so it could be evacuated. By failing to advise the US govt, the BBC was guilty of an act of terrorism.

In the background of the visuals behind the reporter building 7 could been still standing.

The BBC is a terrorists organisation.