The ABC is an unaffordable anachronism, lacking the discipline that comes from meeting the needs of paying customers and meeting the demands of investors; they do as they please - there is no need to please anyone else. They claim that Australians trust them, but statistics show that very few Australians actually use the ABC at all.

The people who pay for the ABC, taxpayers via the government have no say; satisfying the needs of staff and running campaigns against conservatives is the reason for its existence.

The world is saturated with media organisations, all paying their way. There is no need for an outdated organisation like the ABC. In 2018, the Liberal Federal Council voted to privatise the ABC, but gutless Liberal Party politicians squibbed it.

In the face of burgeoning public debt, keeping a fully funded ABC is an unaffordable indulgence - particularly as ABS figures indicate that only 8.6% of Australians bother with it normally. Even when it is in 'emergency broadcaster' mode during bushfires e.g, it still gleans only 25% of the Australia's listening/viewing audience.

Oh, 50% or 0-4 year olds are kept quiet by it in the mornings. Mustn't forget that.

So, the cutting off of the ABC by a responsible government would have no effect on their votes; they might even gain some.

Imagine. The Chinese communist government funds a public broadcaster. It has a charter protecting its independence from the communist party; from the government. It regularly criticises the communist party, and many politicians and supporters of the party hate this. They think it should be defunded, closed down or sold to some corporation owned by the party or its supporters.

We in the west would cheer if the CCP created and funded such an independent body; we would see it as a positive change from the standard authoritarianism. We'd understand the pushback against it by the hardline communists but we'd really hope the CCP would recognise the value of criticism.

Realisticlly, we know the CCP would never fund an independent media agency, however valuable that would be to good government. But blindly, some of us argue to get rid of our ABC.

I having been a farmer for 39 years regularly watched Landline on the ABC but lately it has turned away from hard Rural and agricultural industry reporting to soft light reporting. The entertainment shown only appeals to minorities and wacky minds. If it was equally confronting to all political positions you could say it is seeking out the agenda of their political opinion. However it lauds the communist, the antifascists, the socialist and the anarchist, instead of equally challenging all points of view in journalism. They seek out Anthony Mundine, instead of Warren Mundine opinion on aboriginal affairs. The SBS is twice as biased and false in their reporting.

Josephus, I agree that in an ideal world the ABC/SBS should be balanced: interview both Anthony and Warren Mundine. So should all other media outlets. But if in our non-ideal world all the others interview just Warren, then the ABC does us a service by providing an alternate view, by interviewing Anthony.

I'm using the Mundines as an example only because you did, the argument applies to a thousand other cases where the ABC gives us a perspective that few other media outlets do. You may be happy to live in an echo chamber where you only want to hear reinforcement of what you already think. I like to keep up with views that I don't necessarily agree with. Of course if you do that, the risk is that you may change your mind! That's a scary thought, isn't it.

Don't worry, when China takes over Australia they will get rid of the ABC so that it doesn't go around criticising the new government to be installed under the Chinese.

There, happy now?

I turn the commercial channels off as there is little of interest to watch or listen too, this costs me nothing. I turn the ABC off (dont turn it on often) and I am still paying and paying huge money for plenty of rubbish. They would not survive in a commercial world.