tip off

The ABC of why we need public broadcasting

There are some things that the private sector cannot provide — which is why privatising the ABC is a bad idea. The commercial sector simply won’t deliver.

Roger Colman’s argument that the ABC and SBS should be privatised is presumably intended to kickstart a debate rather than closely argue the merits or otherwise of public broadcasting. There’s nothing wrong with that. But unfortunately the flaws of Colman’s argument end up defeating the legitimate purpose of working out what governments should be doing in the media space and what they shouldn’t.

First, some housekeeping: the ABC hasn’t run orchestras for years — they were separated in the mid-1990s and then made independent in the 2000s. Nor does it run many “remote regional radio services”. Perhaps Colman doesn’t understand the difference between “remote” and “regional”, but it’s a huge one. The ABC has over 50 regional local radio stations — i.e. stations serving communities outside capital cities, which encompass major centres like Wollongong and Newcastle as well as more “remote” places like Broken Hill and Broome.

Colman glides over the fact that these “peripheral services” would not be provided by the private sector. That is a key point: the history of regional radio over the last 20 years, even in large population centres, has been of steady withdrawal of local radio content by commercial radio licensees in favour of networked programming put together in capital cities, with the ABC left to provide the only genuine local content and emergency broadcasting services in the event of natural disasters. And, by the way, this abandonment of regional centres (whose residents aren’t exactly the higher-income demographic that Colman says is mainly served by the ABC) by commercial radio licensees has significant effects for media ownership across the whole industry: as Colman knows, it’s the key reason why the National Party is so reluctant to support reform of cross-media ownership laws.

The broader point about the ABC that Colman doesn’t address is that it is required by legislation to deliver a “comprehensive” service. He compares the efficiency of its TV and radio performance (curiously he selects Seven with which to compare it, and not Ten, which the ABC often outrates) to that of commercial broadcasters and declares it about even, but then argues it’s only because the ABC doesn’t interrupt its programs with advertising. But the flip side of its ad-free status is the “comprehensive” requirement. The ABC can’t just chase ratings and assume viewers will watch any old crap as long as there are no ads; it is required by law to “inform, educate, entertain all Australians” and thus invest in television and radio programming that will necessarily not be of wide appeal (like regional content), nor achieve the sort of reach that commercial broadcasters aim for in their target markets.

Alas, another error hurts Colman’s next argument, that governments should never own or control the media. “[C]onvention has prevented some public broadcasters like the ABC, BBC, and CBC becoming like Lenin’s Pravda and Himmler’s Der Sturmer,” he allows. Nothing to do with “convention”, Roger: the ABC’s independence, like that of other public broadcasters, is embedded in its act. Governments are explicitly prevented by legislation from directing the ABC (except in one limited circumstance). The government’s control is limited to board appointments, and as we saw during the Howard years, even when egregiously stacked with ideologues, the ABC board has minimal capacity to influence editorial content.

A privatised ABC would be no different in that regard and would be unable to provide an independent news service.”

More to the point, beyond Godwinning, Colman doesn’t explain why governments shouldn’t own or control media. True, governments shouldn’t own or control anything without a strong public interest rationale, but the rationale for public broadcasting has been clear for many decades: broadcasting isn’t just another industry, it is an enormously important one, which is why we regulate private-sector broadcasters so tightly and why governments seek to provide broadcasting services that the private sector will not.

And the market failure that justifies government involvement in broadcasting isn’t limited to providing services to regional communities that could be provided by community service obligations. The ABC is required by its legislation to provide “an independent service for the broadcasting of news and information”. This is a service that no privately owned news outlet can provide, because no matter how rigorous an outlet’s editorial standards, it will always have commercial interests that potentially affect both the independence, and the appearance of independence, of its reportage, especially in areas such as business journalism, where editorial-commercial tensions frequently arise.

A privatised ABC would be no different in that regard and would be unable to provide an independent news service. Whether the entire population tunes in to the ABC TV 7pm news or not (and whether private-sector media like Crikey like the competition or not), all Australians greatly benefit from the country having one genuinely independent mass media news and current affairs service — and one that is trusted far more than commercial media. Similarly, the ABC is the only source for quality children’s programming, which commercial broadcasters are unable to provide without relying heavily on marketing to the target audience, despite heavy regulatory restrictions.

It’s true that other ABC functions, like Australian drama production, could indeed be privatised — but in effect its drama production already is, with the ABC now screening far more independently produced drama than the days when its in-house productions dominated.

Where Colman’s arguments have greater purchase is in relation to SBS; the public interest in government ownership of SBS TV (as opposed to SBS Radio, which performs an important community role for non-English-speaking people) is far less clear than for the ABC, certainly compared to the 1970s when SBS was established as an important component of our multiculturalism. What, exactly, is the public interest currently being served by retaining SBS in government ownership? Then again, SBS TV is already semi-privatised via its advertising. As Colman knows, the commercial free-to-airs were angry enough about SBS being allowed to advertise. Their reaction to ABC being required to advertise to fund itself would be explosive. That’s about the only reason I can think of that makes it sound like a good idea …

Related stories:

14
  • 1
    paddy
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Sheesh. Talk about fish in a barrel.
    BTW. Since when did Crikey feel the need to publish Coleman’s pathetic strawman, so BK could bring out the heavy artillery and blast it out of the sky?
    A waste of electrons.

  • 2
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    We need public broadcasting to balance (give broader exposure to reality) and off-set vanity pieces owned by media moguls and run by employees who wouldn’t want to offend “His (T)Ruthlessness” (it doesn’t have to be overt - just consider what happens to those that don’t tow the party line?), editing news to suit a political agenda.
    Who nobble “public interest” to suit their narrow, one-eyed narrative.
    Strangling intelligence - much the same way Abbott and Morrison run this “War on People Smugglers/Boat People” - controlling what intelligence the enemy gets - in this case the enemy being those that might not vote the Right way .
    Using their dominance of the medium to subjugate the greater democratic good to their own, to peddle their personal politics - trying to influence voter perceptions of which outfit is most qualified to run government.

    And it’s always good to know what the others are up too.

  • 3
    zut alors
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Well argued, BK.

    A point also worth mentioning is the innovative history in TV programming at the ABC. Controversial shows such as Aunty Jack, The Norman Gunston Show, Phoenix, Rake, along with innumerable other series which the commercial stations would’ve been too gutless to air due to quirky or sensitive content.

    Commercial networks may still be run by Boys Clubs but those executives turn lily-livered if there’s even slight risk of a sponsor being offended. Or, in the case of the Nine Network many years ago, fear of antagonising the prudish Sir Frank Packer. As if a quality production such as ‘Mad Men’ would ever have aired on Seven, Nine or Ten.

  • 4
    Simon
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    I’m largely onside here but…

    with the ABC left to provide the only genuine local content and emergency broadcasting services in the event of natural disasters.”

    And yet on February 9, with fires in several locations in Gippsland, I tuned into ABC Gippsland, and instead found myself listening to a relayed broadcast from Jon Faine in Melbourne, which attempted to cover all of the emergencies happening in the state on that day. Which meant waiting what could have been critical amounts of time for attention to turn back to Gippsland, only to then be given mispronounced locality names and dodgy geography (like being told that Orbost was in the Latrobe Valley, or that Moe was east of Morwell).

    The one day we really needed genuine local content, we didn’t get it.

  • 5
    bjb
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    BK: “Their reaction to ABC being required to advertise to fund itself would be explosive.”

    .. and this is the reason the ABC will never be privatised. The commercial media want the ABC to confined to those segments of the market they don’t find profitable. Privatising will mean more competition, which is the last thing they want. You’d think that Coleman chap in the other piece today surely would have grokked that.

  • 6
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    We need it to counter the self-serving bull-shit churned out by self-obsessed privately owned propagandists - that act as toll/gate-keepers on the Intelligence Hi-way.
    If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t need it as much.
    The fount of all beneficence and knowledge does not rise on one side or the other - despite what the Right thinks.

    For the sake of a well-informed public debate/democracy, if nothing else.

  • 7
    AR
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    BK finally got religion! About time, given some of his stranger ventures in off-planet loopiness.Welcome back, hope that you suffered no long term ill effects from your recent attempts to become a mudorc hack.

  • 8
    geomac62
    Posted Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Simon
    I live in Morwell and find the ABC gives very good information regarding fires . I was asked to evacuate a while back so went to Coles and some neighbours were taken to Traralgon ( not the mine fire ) . I went back home some hours later and every half hour updates were broadcast on the local ABC breaking into normal programs . The govt was very slow getting info to the public with the mine fire . Now I hear its contained but the helicopters are still going flat out so contained means still going but less smoke and dust .

  • 9
    R. Ambrose Raven
    Posted Friday, 14 March 2014 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Suggestions of the ABC’s imminent decease have been around virtually from 1932. Then, it was even more Right-wing then than it is now. For a large part of that time, ASIO was conspiring with the ABC’s senior management to marginalise, if not sack, anyone of “leftist” views.

    ABC chairman James Spigelman’s moral cowardice in so supinely caving in to the customary pressure from the duplicity of ideologues at The Australian and elsewhere is therefore typical. Not only did Spigelman take care to avoid challenging the institutionalised Hard Right bias of The Australian, he thus openly demonstrated his failure to carry out his duty to defend his organisation from such pressures. His “reviews” are not being used by him to confront the ABC’s critics, but to appease them.

    Their ABC has its faults, which do need attention, and for which senior management is largely responsible. Take The Drum, for instance. It suffers from an increasing number of shortcomings, managerial as much as ethical:
    • Right-wing bias is a serious issue. Two well-known Hard Right commentators – Peter Reith and Chris Berg – at least until recently contributed weekly, with no countervailing equally regular appearance of specific Left-wing contributors.
    • the uncertainty and inconsistency of posting is a serious annoyance – but it doesn’t discourage the negative contributions; we should have automatic posting, with the moderator deleting “unacceptable” messages, as is now standard practice at more progressive sites.
    • Articles posted late on a Friday afternoon are closed within a few hours.
    • Editorial management at The Drum is biased, as a number of reports in The Conversation have found.
    • access to the very large archive is now impossible to find.

    Criticisms are made that while the ABC was formed as a state-owned broadcasting corporation, in the newly converged media environment it operates as a virtual newspaper online, competes in the 24-hour news space (with pay-TV) and runs a host of other enterprises that are not based on broadcasting but that support its brand. What gives strength to those criticisms is not that they are true, but that what was Our ABC has degenerated into little more than a mainstream media clone, obeying the prejudices and biases of The Australian.

  • 10
    @chrispydog
    Posted Friday, 14 March 2014 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    The idea that commercial media is in any way an equivalent to the ABC is risible. “Selling off” the national broadcaster would be a crime against all Australians, now and into the future. This isn’t a bank or an airline company we are talking about here folks, it’s not some profit driven service industry; it’s part of who we are.

    Which is not to say it doesn’t have faults, or that it’s not without a basket weavers collective or two, but in the scheme of things these are small criticisms. Most of what the ABC does would not exist in a purely commercial space and we would all be so much poorer for that.

    Murdoch and his minions have whined on about how unfair it is to their commercial interests and for once we should just ask, but what about our interests?

    They aren’t the same thing.

  • 11
    PDGFD1
    Posted Friday, 14 March 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    One thing Mr. K,
    Re: “…ABC functions, like Australian drama production, could indeed be privatised — but in effect its drama production already is, with the ABC now screening far more independently produced drama than the days when its in-house productions dominated…”

    I would argue that the reduction of ‘in-house’ production facilities and support is equivalent to the destruction of mangroves (hear me out)… Once upon a time the ABC was the place where a huge number of technical and artistic people were ‘apprenticed’.
    The ‘nursery’ (like a mangrove is for sea life) has been very much diminished.
    Yes, there are a plethora of commercial education establishments that provide a similar ‘service’, if a person can afford them.
    However, there was (and is) nothing like the ABC drama, or natural history units for bringing young ‘fry’ into a hotbed where their mettle was tested each day (for little pay I might add, but far better for the taxpayer than having aspirants on the dole I’d argue)…
    Once upon a time if you said you had trained at the ABC, no-one questioned your capacity, once you ‘sank or swam’ there, the rest followed.

    It’s a question of ‘taste’ whether one prefers the ‘bought in’ content, but the selling-off of ABC studios was a very sad day for the ‘university’ that was the ABC, and for our cultural capacity as a nation.

  • 12
    R. Ambrose Raven
    Posted Friday, 14 March 2014 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Incidentally, there is a group of state-based organisations called “The Friends of the ABC”. I have never come across them in these forums, or indeed in any other for a very long time.

  • 13
    R. Ambrose Raven
    Posted Saturday, 15 March 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    PDGFD1 is absolutely correct.

  • 14
    condel
    Posted Tuesday, 18 March 2014 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Rupert’s not a youg man, ABC should hold siege, even falsely flattering him, until he’s gone. So attack News individual journos with out any restraint, but no senior people - make it personal, so News bosses will think its a great slanging match, as they have been left out. Should have 1 crikey journo dedicated to slandering journo by journo at news
    Just have a section in cricket dedicated to ‘factckeck’ on news coorp and you will get a hinders ideas a week. be relentless, let every news jouno know they are tai game - family, reputation, - just make idiot innuendo like they do. The fight for the ABC might need mercenary journos
    .

    But call it reconciliation.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...