There's been quite a few articles about media bias
including one that stated bias was OK
as long as you were honest about it.

The article questioned the fact that:

Is there such a thing as a neutral journalist?

The argument put forward was that journalists
all have moral instincts and points of view
that will colour their interpretations of the facts.

The suggestion was that surely if journalists
and commentators -
showed an awareness of their own political leanings
(like for example Andrew Bolt does) it can
actually make them more trustworthy than if they
denied them. Can the same be said about the ABC,
News Corp and others?

Your views please.

very few commentators can rise above their bias.

it is one's views and values that often shape an author's perspective, their opinions, and only articles that thoroughly research all sides of the arguments have the potential to make appeal across the political spectrum.

also, most readers have their own bias so any understanding of an article will have to overcome this

Thanks Chris for your comments.

Today, we take the barrage of media and its influence
for granted.

We take the flood of information into our homes for
granted, forgetting that much of it is highly
selective or distorted. News programs, for example
tend to feature the visually exciting or emotionally
moving stories that draw large viewing audiences -
even if this means omitting issues that are more
sober but perhaps more significant also.

Fictional portrayals too, often overrepresent some
categories of the population, such as the wealthy or
physicians, and underrepresent others, such as the
aged or minorities.

There are of course legitimate stories that have to
be pursued. The media's job should be unflinching in
providing Australians with independent news and
information. It's job should be to pursue evidence based
reporting and the truth. But often it's what sells
that matters more.

I suspect if not for Bolt the man the High Court found innocent due to corrupt Police, abc witch hunt and totally ignorant Victorian judges would still be in prison.

what about lawyers who kept appealing as soon as cases were lost.

Bolt merely took up Pell's plight and other media places helped with fund raising

runner,

In light of the high court ruling there is now
opportunity for reflection.

The ABC editorial policies make it very clear that
it is the job of the public broadcaster's
journalists to report:

"Without fear or favour, even when that might be
uncomfortable or unpopular."

Some of the language thrown around in the aftermath
of the high court ruling in Cardinal Pell's case
about "prejudice" and a "witch-hunt" seems to
ignore the first principles of journalism and the
facts.

Cardinal Pell's case was unquestionably a legitimate
story, one that had to be pursued. The ABC is not a
police force or court. It's job is to be unflinching
in providing us with independent news and information.

It's job is to pursue evidence based reporting and
the truth. For example - the high court decision was
published online on ABC News Digital and read out loud
by news presenter Joe O'Brien on the ABC News Channel
as was Cardinal Pell's entire statement which was both
published and read aloud.

The judgement summary was also published. Future reporting
will continue and it won't be a "witch-hunt". It will
be responsible public interest journalism.

That is right Foxy. Interest in Pell is generated by immense social interest in abuses related to the Catholic Church.

Australian society did not wake up one day and decide to target Cardinal Pell. The interest was already there.

If anything, blame the Catholic Church rather than the ABC

'The ABC editorial policies make it very clear that
it is the job of the public broadcaster's
journalists to report:'

we know Foxy out of the numerous very highly paid journalist not one of them with an ounce of doubt or courage to go against the witch hunt group think. Basically they were cowardly virtue signalling low life's who have been exposed as not having an ounce of integrity.

runner,

The ABC News sources their
information to credible sources such as -
judiciary house.gov. NPR news Gallup, NY Times, Sky News,
Reuters, and the Associated Press. A factual search
reveals that ABC News Australia has not failed a fact
check. In fact they are a fact-checker and a signatory
of the International Fact Checking Network (FCN) through
a partnership RMIT University.

The ABC's bias accusations invariably relate to
programmes based around exploring and questioning key
issues.

Some people don't like their ideas being explored and
questioned so anyone who does it is biased.

The fact that the ABC takes the same approach to both
sides (everyone) is ignored. What's worse people claime bias
against the ABC because some guests on programs express
opinions they don't like.

This is when you realise that for these people freedom of
speech is not extended to those they disagree with

runner,

Is Andrew Bolt biased?

'runner,

Is Andrew Bolt biased?'

if believing in the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty and expecting a fair trial is bias YES!

runner,

I'm afraid who you are describing is not
Mr Andrew Bolt.

Hi Foxy

for years I have read stuff from Bolt. His integrity is far more in tact than yours on olo.

Media bias is simply a fact of life. Anyone who absorbs ANY media without recognising that it will have some bias, is simply naive beyond help.

Bias has always existed as far back as we know. When the Egyptians wrote about Kadesh they were biased. Herodotus was biased toward Kimon's father.

There are two ways to arm yourself against bias. One is to pick out the facts from the media you read/hear, ignore the opinion and form your own opinion. I recently posted a link to an article here where I urged the readers to do just that.

The other way is read widely and get multiple views so that one bias will offset another. In the past I've urged Foxy to expand her reading. Relying on the ABC,NYT and other left leaning media solely, is to be inevitably led down the garden path.

I think part of the phenomena around Trump Derangement Syndrome and those that hopelessly fell for the whole Russian collusion saga and the rage that ensued, was that many were so misled by their media that they couldn't fathom the outcome and were outraged by the unexpected outcome.

If you solely relied on ABC/NYT etc you were sure that Hillary was a certainty. When it wasn't they reacted with outrage at their own naivety.

There is always bias. There will always be bias. Read widely to defeat it and learn to pick out the facts from the propaganda.

It used to be the editor and specialist columnists who produced opinions for readers to consider and make up their own minds. Now, with television, we have every hack and boy/girl learner reporter handing out instructions, not opinions, with sneers and other facial expressions making it quite clear what they think and, therefore, what their audiences should think.

I prefer straight reporting, not lectures. However, if the independent media wants to toss its opinions in, that's fine if they can square it with their advertisers, who keep them in business. It is not fine when a public broadcaster, dependent on taxpayers for its existence, pulls the same stunt. Anyone employed by the government is a public servant, and public servants should not be forcing their views on the public. No other departmental officials would get away with doing it.The ABC is in continuous breach of its charter, and it should be abolished. Government owned media is the stuff of totalitarian countries. At the very least, it's out of date. Leave the rabble raising to the Nine Network and The Guardian, who actually earn their own keep.

I now get suspicious when someone brings up bias. I get that way because people have used the term to dismiss my perspectives that they want to dismiss. If bias is looked at when you want to dismiss something, and bias is ignored when you support something, that is a red flag. There is something amiss in sencerity and honesty.

That said, being aware of your own bias is a good thing. You can look at your support or your convictions in light of whether you relate to a story or to a person, or because you have sympathy to their struggles and their plight. Think on the lines with self suspecision "do I agree because it might be true, or does the truth actually matter."

Bias in the media is a different beast. You get to shape the stories you work on, or only work on the stories that are in agreement with a bias (yours or the new organization's). You focus on stories that say one thing and ignore stories that say the other thing. News agencies that report on a conservative narrative versus news orginizations that report on a liberal naritive, are both showing a bias in their reporting because of what they report on, as well as how they report on it. This is both something that day with news branding themselves to a certian audience, as well as the news agency or the reporters having a bias they hold to.

Because of the element of reporting to certian audiences, media will always have a bias in their reporting.

Thanks for all of your contributions thus far.

We've seen that people in different walks of life
may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it is
a demonstration, a PM's policies, a religious
doctrine, or even court trials - in a very different
way.

In other words, people tend to see the world from a
viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpretation based on
personal values and experiences.

We have seen that journalists and political commentators,
and even lawyers, and other professionals, can adopt
varying perspectives on the same subject and or problem
and can come to different and even contradictory
conclusions as a result.

This fact raises a very important issue.

Is it really possible to understand things from a
viewpoint of objectivity - an interpretation that eliminates
the influence of personal values and experiences?

If the world consisted simply of some self evident reality
that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there
might be no disagreement among observers.

But the truth of the matter is that what we see in the
world is determined by what exists "out there".

It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us to
see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

The thing is as has been pointed out each of us is
inclined to perceive facts selectively and to interpret them
accordingly.

That is inevitably true of journalists, commentators,
and others whose outlook is also influenced by their
background, training, education, and prior experiences.

Many journalists are well-educated, urban, middle-class,
and they naturally tend to interpret reality differently
from people who do not share those characteristics.

Their background and interests for example
might make them significantly more open-minded
depending on
their background, education, training and prior
experiences.

Therefore inevitably they, like anyone else will be
guilty of some measure of bias.

This problem of bias is particularly acute in matters whose
subject matter involves issues of deep human and moral
concern.

What we need to ask is how can the problem be resolved?

runner,

So you think that Andrew has more integrity
than me?

Seeing as you don't know either one of us -
that says more about you than we need to know.

Foxy,

I think the reality of bias on most issues comes from having two very different arguments about how best to address a problem.

We see this in lots of recent arguments.

whether or not have a jury system.

who leads, govt or public opinion.

should we stay in lockdown with regard to the virus.

is global warming caused by human activity.

should we protect our economy or simply rely on market forces.

should we regulate more.

should we reduce or raise levels of taxation.

should we privatise the ABC.

and so on it goes.

the search for absolute truth is important, but avoiding bias is difficult as we are all shaped by our own unique perspective and experience.

However, i feel from extensive debate, Aust's liberal democracy evolves mostly with policies that are acceptable to the majority, although a policy trend can always change.

To Foxy. You said:

<<This fact raises a very important issue. Is it really possible to understand things from a viewpoint of objectivity - an interpretation that eliminates the influence of personal values and experiences?>>

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that I would get suspicious about with regards to bringing up bias. Bias used as a term as to dismiss someone else's values or their experiences.

Think about this for a few seconds before reading on, because this is an important point. It's a red flag in reasoning.

My recommendation is to only consider what could be your own bias, not someone else's. If they value one thing there could be a reason for it. Or it could be a bias. You can't make that judgment call. What you can do is consider what they have to say and see if it has any merit behind it. Forget about bias and consentrate on merit.

The same issue is if their experience says one thing. That's not bias, that's time tested experience. If experience isn't always right (it isn't), it's still always worth consideration instead of dismissal.

Hi Chris,

Thank you for that.

How to resolve the problem of objectivity is
going to be difficult. I guess the first step would
be to recognise that subjectivity and objectivity are
not two neat and separate categories, they're really
matters of degree. All a journalist or any one can
do is exercise caution and try to be as objective
as possible.

This would of course involve a deliberate effort to
be conscious of one's own biases to that they can
be kept out of the process of research and interpretation.
No easy job.

The ethical code of journalism requires that journalists be
intellectually honest - and that they attempt to be
aware of their own values and not allow these values to
distort their work. (that is according to a journalist
friend of mine).

That they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and not
ignore those that are inconvenient. And that they not
manipulate data to prove a point, and that they not use
their research to suppress or misuse information.

Of course, we also have in our society the advantage
that we don't have to rely entirely on the integrity
of the individual journalists to ensure that objectivity
is strived for. When the material is published other
journalists or media can access the stories and attempt to
verify them as true or false.

Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve since
some bias is always unconscious. But a self-conscious
effort to be as objective as possible will produce
vastly less biased results than not making the attempt.
In a perfect world that is what our media should strive
for.

yes, i agree with that last post Foxy. Well said.

An unbiased ABC, yes, no doubt in my mind at all.
The ABC that I know and love is short for a perfectly good and honest Alphabet.

'Seeing as you don't know either one of us -
that says more about you than we need to know.'

Oh Foxy do you know George Pell personally. Or that say more about you than we need to know.

To Chris Lewis.

Matters of should or shouldn't are subjective matters, not objective matters.
Should there be a jury system. That can only be answered by subjective means, not objective means.

Same goes with:
Should the people or the government lead
Should there be as struct a lockdown
Should we protect the market or let it run it's course
Should you regulate industries more, regulate speech more, regulate populations more
Should taxes be raised, lowered, scrutinized more, allowed more ability to be used and trust the system they are in
Should the ABC be private.

The only matter on there that wasn't a subjective matter in your list was about global warming. That isn't a should we do this, or do that, it's what is really going on in the climate.

Here's the point. Being subjective does not automatically mean bias, nor are all subjective answers equal. There still is a right way and a wrong way. Even in subjective matters of giving up your rights for safety, or fighting over-reaching abuse of power under the reason of plague, war, terrorism, or anything else. Or on matters of corruption in the justice system, it's weighed subjectively based on what has happened so far and how to fix issues (when they come up) and protect the integrity of the system from falling apart (when the system is challenged or people try to "fix" it).

There is still a right and a wrong way of doing things. Even when judging subjective matters.

(Continued)

With media bias, "just the facts please" is a good approach to start with. Moving past that goes to interviews and honestly conveying the values and the words of the people being interviewed.

Underneath all of this is the issue of what the media reports on and what is it not reporting on. That bias is more on salesmanship to an audience then it is about seeking out the truth. Bad news sells. Local news that isn't that bad, not so much. Bad news to one population based on their demographic, or successes to that same demographic sells to that section of population.

Want a point to prove it? Every election I've paid attention to has experts and expert polls saying what the people want, the dangers of popular opinion (danger to one set of values or population), and how the majority agrees with them. Then later the tallies come back and every poll and expert is wrong. Around election time the muscle is pressed on how to manipulate people to join or leave a stance. This is the time to witness media manipulation to the point close to trying to brain wash the masses.

Is the media biased. Yes. How do I know? I pay attention at their weakest so moments, when there is a cause or an issue to push, or when there is an election to report on.

To Foxy.

You asked, how do we fix the problem? My answer is that first ask if there's merit behind what's being said, and what's being reported on. If people hold their news to being credible or not, then that will fix a lot of the issues of whether they are objective or not in their reporting. This approach won't weed out a bias entirely, but it will ask whether that bias has merit or whether it harms the news report.

Hi NNS,

Your suggestion of people needing to ask themselves
if there's merit behind what's being reported on is
one I whole-heartedly agree with.

Julian Burnside, QC - wrote an article a few years ago
on the media. Some of the things he pointed out were:
Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity and
such diversity as there is runs along predictable lines.

1) The economics of print and electronic media tends to
drive opinion in the direction of populism. This has
unhappy results now that both major political parties
have, it seems, abandoned their founding principles and
form policies by reference to media coverage generally and
to news polls and focus groups in particular.

2) It's also the case that the internet offers a vast
supply of news and - especially opinion. To dive into
that pool in order to learn something different is to
risk drowning.

3) Just as mainstream traditional media is full of voices
(mainly strident) telling government what to do, so the
blogosphere and social media is full of voices, more
numerous and diverse, and often more strident doing the
same thing.

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

I therefore find it wise to use a variety of sources -
and as you
suggest make up my own mind as to the merits of what's
being said.

Another thing that could be done is starting with
the education of journalists. As someone wrote on
the web - many journalists have forgotten that the
job journalists have is to report on the -
Who, What, When, and Where, of a story. Not the Why?

The Why? leads to their own individual opinion being
included in reports.

Interesting bit of news.

Malcolm Turnbull's new book - A bigger Picture
is now available as of today (20/04/2020) for
purchase from bookshops.

It will be interesting how the media reacts to
it. Who will pre-judge without having even read it?

Leigh Sales is interviewing Malcolm Turnbull
this evening on the 7.30 Report on the ABC.
Should also be interesting to see what questions
are asked and what Mr Turnbull has to say. I believe
the time frame has been extended to an hour instead
of the usual half an hour.

Worth watching.

Foxy, Media Watch was good tonight.

Did you see it?

Hi Chris,

Yes I saw Media Watch.

I thought it was very fair. I also watched the
Turnbull interview with Leigh Sales. It will
take a while for me to digest it all. I can't
help but wonder why did our former PM do this
interview. Most unbecoming. Surely his book should
have been enough.

I have to give it more thought. It's too fresh
in my mind right now.

I also watched Q and A this evening.
Excellent show. Good panel - and Hamish - great!

Foxy,

A unbiased independent ABC is in the best interests of the country, and I look forward to achieving it.

Don't hold your breath SR.

You would have to get rid of 95% of the staff to even start to make the ABC a reasonable broadcaster or a worthwhile organisation.

Gentlemen,

Perhaps you need to broaden your outlooks somewhat.
Fact-checking on media bias may help. As would using
various sources for your news and not just those of
News Corp.

A majority of Australians believe a strong independent
ABC is critical to a healthy democracy and they oppose
cuts to ABC funding.

The Australian Institute found 70% of people wanted a
strong ABC. The poll was released after the Coalition
slashed the ABC's budget by $84m.

Seven in 10 Australians think a strong independent
national broadcaster is critical to a healthy democracy.
Cutting funding to the ABC is the opposite of what we
should be doing in an age of "fake news"and when the
business model for journalism has been seriously
disrupted.

Foxy, i also support the ABC as the best source of Australian news, but i strongly believe it would still be the best source of news with a greater reliance upon private sources.

however, this remains an issue for public debate. you are right, the public supports govt funding as of recent polls

Turnbull suffers from RDS (Relevance deprivation syndrome).

Foxy,

There is no reason why the ABC should be funded by the government. There are plenty of other better sources of information. Plus no sane person could claim that the ABC is unbiased.

There are many reasons why the ABC should be funded.

The following link explains some of them:

http://www.about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FINAL_a11y_ABC_Efficiency_Paper_A4_Final-ammeded.pdf

As I stated earlier, for those of us who are torn between the
desert of mainstream media and the jungle of the internet need a
place where rational but diverse views can be found on matters
of enduring importance.

For me the ABC is the place I turn to. It would be difficult
to agree with every view expressed on the ABC but it would
be equally difficult to disagree with them all. And it would
be impossible to criticise any of them as irrational or
foolish.

In these circumstances it is important to go to sources
which are rational and principled without being biased to
any social or political position.

Accusations of bias will continue to crop up by those
whose views don't agree with the views and information being
provided on the ABC. As we've seen recently with the
Cardinal Pell case. However as fact-check and Media Watch
has confirmed the accusations of "prejudice" and a
"witch-hunt" were simply not true.

My apologies for the typo on the link.

Here it is again:

http://www.about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FINAL_a11y_ABC_Efficiency_Paper_A4_Final-Ammended.pdf

Foxy, last link did not work for me.

i listen to NPR, US public radio, and it is very good and has regular ads

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the NPR referral. I'll look into it.
I've got to admit though that I've gone off
American news lately. I find it too depressing.

I'm sorry about the link. Not sure what I did wrong.

Try Googling -

"Your ABC: Efficient. Trusted. Valued. Yours...About the ABC"

You'll find the link.

yes, got it.

For anyone still interested in the media coverage
of the Cardinal Pell case and the accusations
leveled against the ABC of being "prejudiced"
and on a "witch-hunt", here is a link from the
Media Watch program explaining:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/pell/12166274

Click onto and read the response from an ABC spokesperson
and also click onto the transcript of the show as well.

Foxy,

The ABC is overwhelmingly biased to the left. Its panels in Q&A etc are overwhelmingly left whinge as are the selected audience questions.

That the ABC's self appointed Media watch comes back again and again to whitewash the the ABC and find no bias is not surprising pretty much along the lines of the Labor party review into Craig Thompson finding no fault.

Other than left whingers getting a comfortingly predigested version of the news which is often incorrect, there is no justification for the $1bn p.a. that the ABC is given.

Shadow Minister,

Your opinion is not my reality. Nor that of the
fact-checkers at RMIT University or the Australian
Institute. Both Q&A and Media Watch present all sides
of an issue and have panelists from all sides of politics.
And as stated earlier - it would be difficult to agree with
every view expressed on the ABC but it would be equally
difficult to disagree with them all.

On the other side of the coin you have mainstream medium that
offers precious little in diversity and such diversity as
there is runs along predictable lines.

Under these circumstances it is important to go to sources
such as our national broadcaster - which is rational and
principled without being biased to any social or
political position.

Foxy,

"Both Q&A and Media Watch present all sides of an issue and have panelists from all sides of politics"

No they don't. At best they have 1 conservative and 4 left whingers.

Shadow Minister,

Absolutely not true.

Their guest lists indicate the opposite.
Perhaps you need to watch more often.

Also the audience numbers given prior to the
shows tend to tip more towards conservatives.

Foxy,

I have watched Q&A probably a dozen times over the years, and I only once saw more than one conservative on the panel and once saw a conservative free panel. In addition the host definitely was biased towards the left. Secondly, whatever the declared bias of the audience, the selected questions were almost exclusively for the left.

As you are clearly well left of center, I have no doubt that you are well within your comfort zone here. However, for most people right of centre there is no doubt as to the rampant bias of the ABC and its selective reporting.

Finally, I see no reason why the taxpayers should fork out $1bn for this drivel. At least they should allow advertising to pay for 50%.

Shadow Minister,

I can see that our realities differ.
I don't like labeling people - because
people can and do change their minds
on issues. However, I watch Q&A regularly
and I have always considered the panelists
to be fairly balanced as are the questions.
I'm not buying into your interpretations or
your labels.

You see everything through your conservative
political prism. By doing that you run the
risk that policy, national interest
objectives get cast aside, over looked.

You need to look into how much an average tax
payer pays for our national broadcaster as
compared to commercial media.

Perhaps then we can continue this conversation.
Removing your political blinkers would also help.

To Foxy.

Sorry for the late reply, but It took some time to think about it.

If you are really looking over several news sources then you're doing a lot better then I am. So with that in mind you can take this comment with a grain of salt, (hopefully it's worth more then that), because with regards to looking into the news you might be doing a better job then I am.

Nonetheless, here's my thought. I use this more with gathering differing points of view then with comparing media sources, but in theory it should apply to both. The first step of seeking a diverse set of sources to consider opens you up to different takes on the same thing, and different ways of looking at it, different attitudes. With this approach you get a broader view that will likely be better at explaining and understanding other views, instead of being surprised or shocked by a different perspective. (You'll problem still get that just because there is so much out there, but diverse perspectives helps that). More sources sometimes can help justify or challenge other news sources too.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second step is to consider the reliability of what's said. This can help you from drowning in information. This second step is in itself a bias contributor, but it's also just from being observant and paying attention. For instance in media published that homosexual sex is safe, is dramatically countered by stats that deal with medicine stats and the gay populations. The truth in this aspect is a harsher reality of cancer and other issues. Another example is with the Covid virus and how at first there was news that a Chinese whistle blower first tried to blow the alarm about this virus, but no one listened and China may have even gone to some trouble to shut this guy up. Then later we get a story from the WHO, because that congratulate how well China has handled this virus. Something about the second story is amiss because we still remember the first.

I'm sure there are other examples, but in general getting a diverse set of news sources won't help set straighten out which ones are are correct and which ones are wrong, that needs a second step. And that second step (at least for me) is recognized as a task that can't be accomplished on every news story. Fact checking news is a thing because of this, but for the most part that's too much trouble for most people that have other obligations, responsibilities, or just lives in general.

(Continued)

(Continued)

And that leads to a third option. Just skip the first step of getting a diverse set of news, and instead focus on one or two outlets that are trusted. I think this is largely where we get anti-this source and anti-that source. (Sometimes they might be right, there are a lot of media sources out there that are unreliable).

I know none of this is new to consider, but I though this might help with the idea of drowning in the jungle of internet media. If you search out there in that jungle, keep in mind that what's out there are just things that are possible and might be true, until you can get a better stable ground to understand their reliability.

Know this though, one down fall of getting too much information, is to push your own values and morals into questionable ground. After all what you're doing is exposing yourself to a lot of other ideas that say why they are right, and your own values that you grew up with might be taken for granted and tossed because you don't have a defense against the Internet narrative you find in the jungle out there. This won't be as big an issue on values you've invested time and consideration into, but for other time tested values that you have from generations before you and the local community that know from trial and error, those ones are the ones that might be in danger even if they are right.

...Just a caution to be aware of and why I say to hold a stance of "it's possible," instead of anything stronger that might make a person throw out their values and convictions at a moment's notice from a trusted news story.

Dear NNS,

Thank You for giving me such an in depth reply.

You've made me realise how much I still have to
learn.

Thanks - much to think about.

Foxy,

Labels can be useful, the right generally supports the views of the Liberal party and the left generally supports the views of the labor and greens. You for example almost invariably support the latter and me the former. While accepting that no one on the left or right are uniform in their thinking, given the brevity of posts it makes the conversation simpler.

My conservative values are based on economics, physics and the assumption that individual rights should take precedence over those of the state. Where ever these principles are ignored there are consequences and the man in the street pays. The left whinge feel good policies usually have unintended consequences that outweigh any good they might achieve.

As for what individual taxpayers pay, the commercial stations are all free. Imagine what $1bn p.a. could do for health, schools etc. Simply make the ABC pay for itself.