Former ABC managing director David Hill told Fairfax Media Abbott's criticism was ''dangerous''. The Age's political editor, Michael Gordon, labelled it ''astonishing''. The Guardian's Katharine Murphy darkly warned that things might ''escalate''. The ABC is not such a faultless organisation that it should be above criticism. As a media outlet totally funded by taxpayers, it deserves much greater scrutiny, and has special obligations to be rigorously fair, balanced and impartial. As an organisation, it has shown itself to be tone deaf when it comes to the legitimate concerns of many Australians that it leans to the left and is not a welcome home for conservatives or classical liberals - particularly among its salaried employees. In many ways, the ABC has made a rod for its own back. Its defenders are right to argue that it should not be an uncritical cheerleader for Australia, and that it should place the pursuit of truth above nationalism. The ABC was perfectly entitled to report on revelations from Edward Snowden on the growing apparatus of state surveillance in much of the Western world. It was a legitimate news story unquestionably in the public interest, and ignoring it would have done Australians a disservice. But at the same time that it claims to be a news organisation dedicated to the pursuit of truth at home, it also assures Australians that it is best placed to sell our wares abroad. In bidding - aggressively - for the Australia Network tender, the ABC opted to become a tool of diplomacy on behalf of the federal government. The ABC is set to receive $223 million over 10 years to promote Australia's interests in our region.

That's not an appropriate role for any media organisation - public or private. It hopelessly conflicts its news-gathering operation and opens the ABC up to criticism that it undermines Australia's interests through its reporting. That's why it is in the ABC's best interests that the federal government is now considering axing the Australia Network service. The Abbott government should go a step further and privatise the ABC - but not because it's unhappy with its journalism. Ultimately the case for reforming the ABC does not rest on one week of reporting. If there were ever a case for a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster, it doesn't exist today. Australians have at their fingertips access to more news from more varied sources than ever before. Online, every niche interest and point of view is well covered. And as private media companies continue to struggle with profitability, the continued lavish funding of the ABC only serves to undermine their business model further. James Paterson is editor of the IPA Review at the Institute of Public Affairs. The case against David Hill

There's probably a great deal more to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's criticism of the ABC. It is less likely to have been some off-the-cuff comment born out of frustration that the ABC may have got the odd story wrong and more likely to be the launch of a new attack on the nation's public broadcaster. This is certainly not the first time an Australian prime minister has publicly criticised the ABC in the way it handles its news. Practically every prime minister since Bob Menzies has at some stage complained that the ABC either got it wrong, or demonstrated bias in reporting. We all remember Bob Hawke's accusation that the 7.30 Report coverage of the Gulf War in 1991 was ''loaded,'' ''biased'' and ''disgraceful'' because of the views expressed by an analyst invited on to the show. However, Abbott is going a lot further by suggesting the ABC should censor its news coverage and withhold information to the public when it portrays Australia in a bad light. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister suggested the ABC ''instinctively takes everyone's side but Australia's'' and he wanted to see ''some basic affection for the home team''.

He criticised the ABC for running a story alleging the Australian navy was the cause of some asylum seekers being burnt and that the navy should have been given ''the benefit of the doubt''. In the same interview he made it clear that the ABC should not have broadcast the revelations that Australian spy agencies had tapped the mobile phones of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife Kristiani Herawati because the information came from documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. According to Abbott, the ABC ''seemed to delight in broadcasting allegations by a traitor''. The inference to be drawn from this is that patriotism should now become part of the ABC editorial responsibility and the ABC should deny the public access to news and information that would portray Australia, and presumably its government, in a poor light. There is no doubt that Abbott and his more conservative Coalition colleagues genuinely believe the ABC is too left-wing. They feel a frustration at not being able to change what they see as a culture within the ABC that is hostile to the Coalition. Even stacking the ABC board in the Howard years with conservatives such as Michael Kroger, Janet Albrechtsen and Keith Windschuttle failed to fundamentally change the organisation. No doubt Abbott's recent comments are the first of a series of new assaults we can expect on the ABC. In March the ABC funding for next year goes before federal cabinet's expenditure review committee and the ABC would be wise to brace itself for a new round of cuts. And then there is the ABC international TV service contract, which looks certain to be handed to a commercial operator and probably one in which Rupert Murdoch has an interest. It is a great shame that governments don't recognise the ABC's greatest patriotic duty is to continue to hold governments to account by the fearless provision of independent, unbiased and honest news to the Australian public.

David Hill is former chairman and managing director of the ABC.