"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.

Is Mise,

I agree. ABC is the best for drama. I'm watching "New Blood" tonight. Normally watch ABC Friday to Sunday only. Commercial TV is crap.

ttbn,
"Do you think that the researchers just prefer left wing extremism and corruption?"
Firstly, your comprehension is atrocious! Corruption is one of the things they found there's LESS of when there's public broadcasting, so why would they prefer it?

Secondly, left wing extremism was so discredited by the fall of the Soviet Union that it's no longer a serious threat anywhere.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Referundemdrivensocienty,

That sounds like a hoax to me. If that bloke really exists, what was his name?

There were no people in Tower 7 when it collapsed. The building had been on fire for hours due to burning debris falling on it, and fire fighters weren't fighting those fires (partly because of insufficient water available, but mostly because they were concentrating on the rescue effort. The people in it had been evacuated hours before, and the fire fighters knew the collapse was imminent.

//I agree. ABC is the best for drama.//

They've got all the best comedy as well. But I find that SBS is generally better for documentaries (although the ABC does get some crackers). But what really makes them the best, in my opinion, is that they are not wall-to-wall full of reality TV shite. By gods that rubbish gets up my nose.

No ads during programs is also very nice. And their streaming service, iView, is miles ahead of anything the commercial stations offer. Pretty good value for your 14 cents a day (it's blown out a bit since the 1980's), which also covers all their other services like local radio that I don't use much.

Yes, Toni, the SBS has good documentaries but, like the ABC, its opinions are well to one side. As for ABC comedy : can't agree there. I find Australian comedy about as funny as a shark attack. Give me the Poms any day. Totally agree on the 'reality' shows. I only see the non-stop promos for them, and even then, I'm sick to death of cooking and bulding. If the constant production of these awful, boring programs is reflective of audience surveys, it doesn't say much for the mass of Australian TV viewers.

Aidan,

I was going to say that your sense of humour was "atrocious", but I'll replace that with 'non-existent'.

An advocate for public broadcasting finds that public broadcasting is good. Well colour me convinced.

The opening paragraph of the report says that "Building the case for Public Service Media (PSM) has always been at the centre of EBU activities". So they decided on the results and then went looking for the data.

Note that this only applies to Europe. Note also that they simply found a correlation ie they think they can show that more funds to PSM means more press freedom. But the data could just as easily been used to show that countries that can afford to put more funds into PSM also have press freedom ie that wealth provides freedom and PSM funding.

So tortured data confesses as required.

Re Referundemdrivensocienty, the guy (Tony Rooke) didn't show "videos of the BBC reporting the fall of Building 7" as you assert. The court didn't accept that evidence and didn't allow it as admissible. I think the judge made that ruling after he stopped laughing :) . Rooke lost the case and was required to pay all costs.

I'm no fan of the BBC but calling it a terrorist organisation simply bastardises the term.

//Yes, Toni, the SBS has good documentaries but, like the ABC, its opinions are well to one side.//

Yeah, I know. The documentaries I watch are nearly always pro-science. I can see why that would upset you.

//I find Australian comedy about as funny as a shark attack.//

What, even The Micallef P(r)ogram(me)? Some people just have no sense of humour.

//Give me the Poms any day.//

Yeah, they're all on the ABC as well. In some ways, it might be more accurate to call it BBC-Aus or something. I don't mind if the ABC are the ones that are importing British programs, because the commercials channels won't and if the ABC don't then I'll miss out on my Doctor Who and QI and WILTY and everything.

Then there is "Eggheads" and "Clarke and Dawe", both on my 'Don't miss' list.

Wow, just Wow. After 25 years of ABC only, they drove me away.

In my experience ABC drama is all to a formula.

Drama they shout a lot, or look meaningfully directly into the camera.

Serious drama, they shout more & louder.

Comedy, stupid people doing stupid things, with canned laughter fed in regularly so you know which bit was funny.

I'm damned if I know how anyone can watch it. I once tried 10 minutes of the highly acclaimed "Brideshead Revisited", & have never been back to the rubbish again. I finally abandoned their ABC totally when even Catalyst started brainwashing rubbish.

I do agree that much commercial stuff is no better, but it couldn't actually be worse. I( spend much of my time on the computer, so don't really know. Yes SBS have cornered the good documentaries that once were ABC territory, & I do watch them. However it is only because they can use our money to outbid the commercials they get the stuff. Get rid of public funding, & the commercials would pick up the same stuff.

Their radio is even worse. Their not very bright presenters thinking they are cunningly slipping brainwashing into everything is almost funny for a little while, but really boring long term.

Onya Toni. You can't keep the nastiness out even when someone agrees with with you. The bias I spoke of in the SBS was is the same political bias of the ABC. And, I don't watch dreary documentaries about science and climate change. I like interesting things that are not actually opinion pieces about the climate, by rent-seekers.

And some incomprehensible mumbling about Shaun McAyliffe and no sense of humour? That's funny in itself. Most of what passes for Australian humour is played to a bunch of dimly lit, pimply youths, who laugh themselves silly every time the 'comic' uses the copulation word to cover his/her lack of talent and decent material.

Dip you left eye in cocky poop, you miserable grouch.

"Most of what passes for Australian humour is played to a bunch of dimly lit, pimply youths, who laugh themselves silly every time the 'comic' uses the copulation word to cover his/her lack of talent and decent material"

True.

It never ceases to amaze me that people complain about a taxpayer funded broadcaster that is subject to continual scrutiny for bias and distortion but overlook the fact that the so-called "free-to-air" option (which costs both taxpayers and consumers much more to finance) remains totally immune to the same allegations.

Private broadcasters are entirely motivated by self-interest - commercial and economic and thus political - and when complaints arise, those are effectively investigated by themselves.

Go ahead and get all your information filtered down from the requirements of corporate moguls and supported by bogus "think tanks" and astro-turf support groups but don't try to suggest that you are completely informed.

Let the multitude of shock-jocks or the Sunrise Cash-Cow do your thinking for you.

In the end public broadcasters are there just to sell you stuff and make money for themselves.