the UK. The corporate media largely propagandized on behalf of governments while the government owned media stayed true to their obligations to their stakeholders (the citizens) and provided journalism that genuinely challenged and questioned what governments were saying. arry: 14 Jun 2012 3:36:42pm Under Howard the ABC wasn't a propaganda unit, it was largely antagonistic, reflecting the predominant left-stupid mindset of its journalists. My comment referred to its ability to be held to account against its own charter by a government benefiting from its propaganda. Harquebus: Peter W: 14 Jun 2012 8:42:11am The good old private sector argument , does private make it better I think not , look at British Railways , sold off , sucking in huge amounts of government money and private railway companies paying share holders instead providing services , Make things private at your own peril. Ian should read a few history books - remember those that forget history will relive it Mitor the Bold: 14 Jun 2012 9:15:01am It's funny that the state-backed media organisation is predominantly anti-establishment while the private sector media organisation is the defacto Ministry of Truth. The danger in commercialising an organisation like the ABC which is actually answerable to Australian taxpayers is that it makes it answerable to only a board of directors - or worse still a single oligarch like Murdoch or (soon) Rinehart. Media isn't a business - it's a service. Would we sell off our government or public service under the ideology that private enterprise could