tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/local-television-10752/articleslocal television – The Conversation2020-10-01T06:00:59Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1471832020-10-01T06:00:59Z2020-10-01T06:00:59ZCheese ‘n’ crackers! Concerns deepen for the future of Australian children’s television<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360977/original/file-20201001-16-156xx7n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=30%2C3%2C2521%2C1429&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Screen Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today ABC, BBC Studios and Screen Australia <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2020/10-01-bluey-returns-for-season-3?utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=2020-10-01-bluey-returns-for-season-3">announced</a> series three of the award-winning animation series Bluey will commence production in Brisbane later this year. </p>
<p>But despite Bluey’s <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bluey-cartoon-australia-ludo-studio-2020-6">global success</a>, policy changes announced yesterday mean that we may see fewer Australian-made children’s shows on broadcast TV in the future.</p>
<p>The federal government has <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/government-scraps-childrens-content-quotas-in-revamp-of-commercial-tv-regulations-644659">scrapped quotas</a> for minimum hours of local children’s content for commercial television networks. Foxtel’s obligation to Australian content has also been halved.</p>
<p>These changes represent a rapid unravelling of regulatory infrastructure established in the 1970s — and refined over decades — to support production and broadcast of quality Australian children’s content. </p>
<p>Responding to the policy changes, Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF) CEO Jenny Buckland explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The argument about children’s content quotas has been going ever since they were introduced nearly 40 years ago. The broadcasters never wanted to do it and they didn’t treat the shows well.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/save-our-screens-3-things-government-must-do-now-to-keep-australian-content-alive-132758">Save our screens: 3 things government must do now to keep Australian content alive</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Changes to TV content regulation</h2>
<p>Under the existing system, commercial networks must abide by <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/television/industry-trends/content-regulation">strict requirements</a> to broadcast a certain amount of children’s content each year: 130 hours for pre-school children, and 260 hours for children under 14, including at least 25 hours of new drama. </p>
<p>From 2021, commercial networks will have no such obligation. </p>
<p>Children’s content quotas were suspended in April 2020, a decision Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts Paul Fletcher <a href="https://tvtonight.com.au/2020/04/local-quotas-suspended-spectrum-fees-waived-in-media-rescue.html">said</a> was in response to COVID-19. </p>
<p>Now a decision initially described as “an emergency red tape reduction measure” has been enshrined into policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Boy with mouth stuck together and girl laughing" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360980/original/file-20201001-24-12x9397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Locally made kids’ shows like Round the Twist remain popular, 30-odd years since their first airing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2QwYjJlZDAtZjk2MC00ZTU5LWIyMTgtY2Q4YTNjOTMwYjNiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQ0Mzk3MDg@._V1_.jpg">IMDB</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-tv-support-package-leaves-screen-writers-and-directors-even-less-certain-than-before-136545">Coronavirus TV 'support' package leaves screen writers and directors even less certain than before</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Strength in numbers</h2>
<p>The government’s decision to remove children’s quotas responds to intense lobbying from commercial networks. In February 2020, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/seven-halts-children-s-production-in-australian-content-quota-protest-20200225-p5445r.html">Seven declared it planned to halt the production of Australian children’s content</a>, a decision that would likely have resulted in a breach of children’s content quotas in 2021 if the current system was sustained. Seven’s Chief Executive explained he wanted the government to take “immediate action” to remove the quotas. </p>
<p>In 2017, the chief executives of Seven, Nine and Ten advocated together at a parliamentary inquiry <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/australian-commercial-television-networks-want-to-scrap-childrens-content-quota-20170720-gxfdsg.html">for the removal of children’s content quotas</a>.</p>
<p>They argued <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/australian-commercial-television-networks-want-to-scrap-childrens-content-quota-20170720-gxfdsg.html">children weren’t watching</a> their children’s programming. Indeed, many children’s programs on <a href="https://www.freetv.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Free-TV-Submission-to-Australian-Content-Options-Paper-6-July-2020.pdf">commercial networks don’t rate well.</a> This may relate to the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/academic-anna-potter-warns-australian-childrens-television-drama-under-threat-from-a-tsunami-of-animation-shows-20150325-1m752v.html">cheaply produced, culturally non-specific animated programs</a> made to meet the quotas. </p>
<p>ACTF CEO Jenny Buckland notes that <a href="https://blog-actf.com.au/when-broadcasters-cut-costs-on-local-tv-content-its-the-children-who-pay/">over the past decade</a>, commercial broadcasters have halved their spending on children’s drama. International co-productions also count towards the quotas, resulting in a surfeit of “co-produced animated series based on international concepts”. </p>
<p>The networks also argue the rising popularity of streaming services <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/sites/default/files/submissions/freetv-australia-childrens-content.pdf?acsf_files_redirect">has made the quota system outdated</a>. Indeed, an increasing number of Australian children are turning to streaming services such as Netflix and YouTube, however the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s research has found that children still watch broadcast TV programs <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2017-08/report/kids-tv-viewing-and-multi-screen-behaviour">made specifically for them</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tv-has-changed-so-must-the-way-we-support-local-content-139674">TV has changed, so must the way we support local content</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Where the ABC fits in</h2>
<p>Bluey is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-01/bluey-abc-kids-show-wins-international-emmys-childrens-award/12111308">the most popular show</a> in the history of the ABC’s streaming app ABC iView, demonstrating there is demand for quality local children’s content.</p>
<p>But rather than seeing this as an endorsement, commercial broadcasters claim the popularity of children’s content on the ABC <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/sites/default/files/submissions/freetv-australia-childrens-content.pdf?acsf_files_redirect">diminishes the need</a> for quotas. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1311483473929162753"}"></div></p>
<p>However, public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, are not obligated to produce or broadcast a certain amount of local children’s content (rather than quotas, they have internal targets underpinned by their charters). This means the ABC can <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-slow-death-of-australian-childrens-tv-drama-75394">pull funding from the children’s television budget as it sees fit</a>. Local content targets on children’s channel <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/abcme/">ABC ME</a> were <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-dramas-what-budget-cuts-signal-for-homegrown-childrens-shows-on-abc3-50004">reduced to 25% (from 50%) in 2015</a>. </p>
<p>Budget restrictions make the ABC’s track record of quality local children’s content difficult to sustain. <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Communications/AustralianfilmandTV/Report">Government analysis</a> in 2017 raised concerns that the ABC may have “reduced its commitment to producing children’s content”.</p>
<p>Despite the ABC’s role in broadcasting quality Australian content, and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1329878X20948272">even directly helping with remote education during the pandemic</a>, the government has pressed pause on the indexation of ABC funding until July 2022. This means by end of the financial year (2020–21), the ABC’s operational funding base will have <a href="https://www.artshub.com.au/news-article/features/public-policy/vyshnavee-wijekumar/the-real-cost-of-defunding-the-abc-260708">reduced by 10%</a> since 2013.</p>
<p>Children’s content was a key target of a recent round of redundancies at the ABC. June saw <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/abc-me-presenters-mourn-sad-cuts-20200627-p556ti.html#comments.">the closure</a> of Melbourne children’s division ME TV and the cancellation of kids’ show <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/definitely-not-news-2020/38889/">Definitely Not News</a>. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/government-scraps-childrens-content-quotas-in-revamp-of-commercial-tv-regulations-644659">warns</a> changes to production quotas could “mean the demise of children’s content on commercial TV, leaving a cash-strapped ABC to pick up the slack”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bgzQ9DE9zOM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Definitely Not News was cancelled in June.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Defending local children’s TV</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/television/modernising-australian-screen-content-settings/qa#:%7E:text=The%20Government%20is%20providing%20funding,%2D22%20and%202022%2D23.&text=This%20funding%20makes%20it%20more,and%20values%20on%20alternative%20platforms.">government has announced</a> a welcome A$20 million in funding for the ACTF for children’s content, supplemented by $30 million in funding for Screen Australia.</p>
<p>Jenny Buckland notes, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>we’ll be working very hard with producers to try and open those commissioning doors to new content, and tracking what happens to production over the 2-year period.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Perhaps this funding will stave off the end of local children’s content for now. Though the policy and budgetary ecosystem that supports a robust domestic children’s content sector is in flux, Buckland is still hopeful: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… there needs to be Australian children’s content on all the places that children go to watch content — that includes having well-resourced public broadcasters with a major commitment to kids, as well as content on commercial video-on-demand platforms and other destinations. We were hoping there would be Australian content expenditure requirements on these platforms, and the door might still be open for that.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147183/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pandemic pause on local children’s television content has become policy. Now what for kids’ TV?Jessica Balanzategui, Lecturer in Cinema and Screen Studies, Swinburne University of TechnologyJoanna McIntyre, Lecturer in Media Studies, Swinburne University of TechnologyLiam Burke, Associate Professor and Cinema and Screen Studies Discipline Leader, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/790962017-06-26T01:07:57Z2017-06-26T01:07:57ZA pair of decades-old policies may change the way rural America gets local news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175069/original/file-20170621-30190-w5sbc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What will be left of rural television stations?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWCIA_television_tower_Seymour_Illinois.jpg">Dual Freq</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>While Americans were distracted by the very important public debates around an <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/338471-pelosi-asks-fcc-chairman-to-hold-hearing-in-san-francisco-on-net-neutrality">open internet</a> and the proliferation of fake news online, the Federal Communications Commission quietly proposed reshaping a key way rural Americans stay informed – their <a href="https://www.poynter.org/2017/whats-america-really-watching-in-the-morning-local-news/459495/">local television news</a>.</p>
<p>Two decades-old rules – called by policymakers the “main studio rule” and the “UHF discount” – come from different eras of broadcasting, one when the only electronic media was radio and the other from the days before the dominance of cable television. They also come from a different era of government, when policymakers promoted <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838159409364243">the principle of localism</a> – the belief that local broadcasters should serve their communities.</p>
<p>In my new book on <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/64kmn4yx9780252040726.html">local media policy in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada</a>, I note a withdrawal from localism in media policy and the chipping away at this <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-fcc-continues-to-redefine-the-public-interest-as-business-interests-75120">bedrock principle of American democracy</a>. The recent FCC moves join this trend, to the detriment of local voices, local people and local stories.</p>
<h2>Connecting with the community</h2>
<p><a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308654A1.pdf">In 1939</a>, radio was dominant and television just an experiment. The power of electronic media was already becoming clear. As a result, the FCC required all radio stations to have their main offices and broadcast studios located in the community they served. This became called the “<a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=fclj">main studio rule</a>.”</p>
<p>The FCC believed this rule would <a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=fclj">encourage radio stations to be responsive to their communities</a>, in several ways. <a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=fclj">First</a>, stations would likely employ people who lived in their coverage areas. Those people would be aware of issues facing the community and use the studio facilities to create and broadcast relevant programming.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=fclj">In addition</a>, listeners would not have to travel long distances to give input and feedback to station management. At those offices, stations had to maintain equipment for producing and airing local programming, keep records of what had been broadcast, and have <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-88-235A1.txt">both management and staff regularly on hand</a>.</p>
<p>These requirements were based on the belief – central to telecommunications policy even today – that <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting">the airwaves are a public resource</a>, managed by the government for the benefit of the public at large. In exchange for being allowed the exclusive use of specific frequencies, broadcasters had a <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/64kmn4yx9780252040726.html">duty to serve their communities</a>.</p>
<h2>Loosening the reins</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=fclj">By 1987</a>, it was clear that people didn’t often visit stations, but rather called or sent letters. As a result, the FCC allowed stations to locate their studios anywhere the station’s signal could be clearly received. </p>
<p>At the same time, the FCC also removed the rule requiring stations to <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0518/FCC-17-59A1.pdf">produce local programming</a> – though they remained able to do so, because they were still required to maintain production and transmission equipment in their studios. <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0518/FCC-17-59A1.pdf">In 1998</a>, the FCC let stations move even farther away from their audiences.</p>
<p><a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0518/FCC-17-59A1.pdf">In April 2017</a>, the FCC proposed doing away with the rule altogether. In its proposal, the FCC noted telephones, email and social media mean listeners don’t need to be physically nearby to communicate with station management.</p>
<p>As a result, the FCC said, it was unnecessarily burdensome to force broadcasting companies to maintain local studios even somewhat near the communities they serve. This continues the ongoing policy <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0518/FCC-17-59A1.pdf">shift from a focus on connections to the local community</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-fcc-continues-to-redefine-the-public-interest-as-business-interests-75120">toward benefiting broadcasters’ business operations</a> and profit margins.</p>
<p>That can cause problems, and not just because small communities that used to have local newsrooms may become afterthoughts for reporters and editors in centralized regional hubs. A deadly example happened in January 2002: One person died and a thousand were injured when a freight train derailed, releasing clouds of poisonous gas over Minot, the fourth-largest city in North Dakota. The <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2007/01/what_really_happened_in_minot_nd.html">residents weren’t warned of the danger for hours</a>. Local authorities had technical problems with an automated emergency alert system, and there was no one at the designated radio station to simply cut into the broadcast on a studio microphone and tell listeners what was happening.</p>
<h2>Allowing even larger media mergers</h2>
<p>The second decades-old rule the FCC wants to repeal would complicate matters further by allowing media companies to own even more TV stations across the country.</p>
<p>Media consolidation is already a major problem today, with <a href="https://www.freepress.net/media-consolidation">critics claiming it leads to a lack of diversity</a> in programming, in journalism and in employment. When it comes to local television, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/11/buying-spree-brings-more-local-tv-stations-to-fewer-big-companies/">Pew Research</a> recently reported that the five largest television ownership groups – Sinclair, Nexstar, Gray, Tegna and Tribune – own 37 percent of all full-power TV stations in the country. </p>
<p>Increasingly, these owners are also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html?_r=0">editorializing</a> on their local stations: The New York Times recently reported that Sinclair was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html?_r=0">forcing its stations to air conservative-leaning news segments</a>, for instance. </p>
<p>This situation does not prioritize giving local viewpoints to the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/11/buying-spree-brings-more-local-tv-stations-to-fewer-big-companies/">46 percent of Americans</a> who get their news from local TV, <a href="https://www.poynter.org/2017/whats-america-really-watching-in-the-morning-local-news/459495/">especially in the morning</a>. And the problem of uniform perspectives from far away may get worse. </p>
<h2>Defending diversity</h2>
<p>To fight consolidation in the hopes it would encourage diversity of ownership and therefore of viewpoints being broadcast, the FCC limited the number of people any one broadcaster can reach. Companies cannot own so many stations that, when combined, their total potential audience reaches <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-107A1.pdf">more than 39 percent of viewers nationwide</a>.</p>
<p>But the policy is not as straightforward as it might seem. When calculating how many viewers a station reaches, the FCC takes into account the physical properties of different parts of the broadcast spectrum. Some stations broadcast on VHF (very high frequency) channels (numbers 2 to 13 on TV controls), while others are UHF (ultra high frequency) stations, using channels 14 to 69. UHF channels don’t travel as far as VHF ones, so the FCC assumes that, when compared with VHF signals serving the same area, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/reinstatement-uhf-discount">UHF stations reach fewer people</a>. This became called the “<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/reinstatement-uhf-discount">UHF discount</a>.”</p>
<p>In the days when over-the-air broadcasting was how most Americans got their TV, that meant a company could own more stations, even in the largest markets, so long as they were UHF broadcasters. It would take more UHF stations to serve enough viewers to hit the 39 percent audience threshold. </p>
<h2>Changing the rules</h2>
<p>In 2016, President Obama’s FCC <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-116A1_Rcd.pdf">eliminated the UHF discount</a>, noting that digital broadcasting over the airwaves reduced the technical difference between VHF and UHF. (In fact, the <a href="http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/33407/vhf-now-everything-you-know-is-wrong">UHF band is actually better for digital television</a>.) Four companies that owned many UHF stations found their viewership calculations changed significantly, exceeding 39 percent of the population. These four, <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-116A1_Rcd.pdf">ION, Univision, Tribune and Trinity</a>, were allowed to keep their stations.</p>
<p>In April, led by Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the FCC under Obama who was elevated by Trump to chair the agency, the <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-116A1_Rcd.pdf">FCC restored the UHF discount</a>. The move was intended to be <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-116A1_Rcd.pdf">the first part of a full review</a> of the 39 percent audience cap. A federal lawsuit aimed to stop the rule change <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0601/DOC-345149A1.pdf">just recently failed</a>.</p>
<p>The timing of this rule change is important. On May 8, Sinclair, the nation’s largest owner of local television stations, announced that it planned to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/business/media/sinclair-tribune-media-sale.html">buy Tribune Media</a>, the country’s fourth-biggest local TV company. The US$3.9 billion deal would add Tribune’s 42 stations to Sinclair’s existing 173.</p>
<p>More important, from the perspective of ensuring diverse media ownership, is the question of how many viewers Sinclair would be able to reach. Without the UHF discount, Sinclair was already approaching the 39 percent threshold, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-07/sinclair-said-close-to-buying-tribune-for-about-45-a-share">reaching 37.7 percent of American TV viewers</a>, giving the company no room to expand. </p>
<p>But with the UHF discount back in place, the company’s reach would be just 23.8 percent of U.S. households. Adding Tribune would bring it up to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-07/sinclair-said-close-to-buying-tribune-for-about-45-a-share">over 42 percent</a>. That would force Sinclair to sell a few stations to get back under the cap – but the deal would still be a significant merger. It would be so big, in fact, that if the UHF discount didn’t exist, the merged Sinclair-Tribune would be considered to reach <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/business/media/sinclair-tribune-media-sale.html">more than 70 percent of American households</a>.</p>
<h2>Alas, local interests</h2>
<p>These two changes – eliminating rules about where stations’ main studios were located and restoring the UHF discount – strip away most of the remaining regulations protecting local influence over local news broadcasting. Companies like Sinclair can get even bigger, and can centralize the production of what should be local news broadcasts in faraway places. </p>
<p>Viewers in the major markets, like New York, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles, will always be able to find locally produced news reports on nearly any channel or platform. But rural residents served by Sinclair – like <a href="http://klewtv.com/">Lewiston, Idaho</a>; <a href="http://wwmt.com/">Grand Rapids, Michigan</a>; and <a href="http://wtov9.com/">Steubenville, Ohio</a> – would have a harder time finding their own communities represented in broadcast news.</p>
<p>Americans are <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/americans-attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/pj_2017-05-10_media-attitudes_a-05/">clamoring for better journalism</a>. The FCC should be protecting local TV news in small communities, not threatening this information lifeline for rural-dwelling Americans.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79096/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Ali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Federal rules governing television stations were meant to keep them connected to the communities they serve. The Trump administration wants to weaken those rules, and those civic links.Christopher Ali, Assistant Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/603082016-06-05T20:12:58Z2016-06-05T20:12:58ZIs a quota the key to getting Netflix and co. to spend more on Australian content?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125085/original/image-20160603-11600-1xjwz5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Television is changing rapidly in the Netflix era, but are Australia's industry protections keeping up?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Daniel Go</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The European Commission has released a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/proposal-updated-audiovisual-media-services-directive">proposal</a> that will <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052616/netflix-faces-new-quota-local-content-eu-nflx.asp">require</a> video streaming services, including Netflix, Amazon and Apple to meet at least a 20% quota of locally produced (ie European) works. This is part of a push to create a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market_en">digital single market</a> within the European Union.</p>
<p>In Australia, around 10% of <a href="http://www.adnews.com.au/news/netflix-reaches-2-2m-australians-but-growth-is-slowing-down">homes</a> have Netflix (although Stan and Presto are in less than 1%). The uptake of these services is clearly <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-battle-for-audiences-as-free-tv-viewing-continues-its-decline-58051">impacting</a> the local television industry. </p>
<p>Whilst the Australian government has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/screen-producers-australia-calls-for-netflix-local-content-quota-nine-prefers-deregulation-20160529-gp6ef9.html">said</a> it “has no plans to expand existing content regulations”, if the EU were to embrace a local content quota, pressure would grow for one here.</p>
<h2>Local Content in the Australian Media Landscape</h2>
<p>The question of a local content quota for online video services in Australia was raised last year. Both the ABC and Screen Producers Australia asked the government to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/netflix-and-youtube-should-invest-in-aussie-content-20150916-gjo3pn.html">consider</a> a new digital content fund to which new media distributors, such as Netflix and Google, would contribute.</p>
<p>YouTube’s parent company, Google, responded <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/netflix-and-youtube-should-invest-in-aussie-content-20150916-gjo3pn.html">by saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We care a lot about Aussie voices reaching a global audience, which is why we invest in programs like Skip Ahead with Screen Australia [a A$250,000 investment for Google], run regular creator training, and bring new business models to Australia so that creators can make money from their talents</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/funding-and-support/television-and-online/production/skip-ahead">Skip Ahead</a> initiative funds successful Australian YouTube creators to “make the leap to a longer narrative-driven film of at least half an hour in length”. Content produced as part of the initiative could potentially be used toward original content for YouTube’s new subscription service, YouTube Red. </p>
<p>This subscription service, <a href="https://theconversation.com/youtube-red-is-here-and-it-breaks-the-video-on-demand-mould-59656">launched here</a> last month, is ad-free and includes music streaming and original YouTube content not available for free. Australia is the first country outside of the United States to gain access to it.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YL9RetC0ook?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Meet YouTube Red.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Scanning <a href="https://www.stan.com.au/watch">Stan’s library</a>, Netflix’s <a href="https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/5230">Australian Movies</a> and Presto’s dedicated <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/tv/australian-made-2">Australian Made section</a>, it’s clear that all three provide local content. But gauging the percentage of local content within these libraries is difficult due to the continuous <a href="http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/06/heres-everything-coming-to-netflix-stan-presto-and-foxtel-this-june/">additions</a>. </p>
<p>Stan has licensed an extensive <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/netflix-stan-and-presto-support-local-content-to-a-point-20150602-ghdvfj.html">back catalogue</a> of content both from the ABC and SBS. Presto, as a joint venture between Seven and Foxtel, has acquired a large back catalogue of Seven content.</p>
<p>Despite it being within their libraries, there is a limited amount of new local content being produced by video on demand services. </p>
<p>Recently, Stan produced local content including Wolf Creek and No Activity. It has also <a href="http://if.com.au/2016/05/26/article/Stan-announces-first-feature-with-Screen-Queensland-funded-The-Second/IRLKFFRBFE.html">announced</a> a feature film funded with Screen Queensland, The Second. The other locally owned service, Presto, was involved in the local production Wentworth. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TuNBnAotFHc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">No Activity - A Stan Original.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The international companies are yet to show the same level of participation in producing local content. Whilst YouTube has begun to show signs that it will assist, with its joint initiative with Screen Australia, it’s not clear if this will be expanded upon. Netflix, which is leading the uptake of video on demand services in Australia, has yet to fund any local production, nor show clear signs that it will. </p>
<p>Since the announcement of the EU proposal, Screen Producers Australia have again called for more to be done. SPA’s chief executive Matthew Deaner <a href="https://screenproducers.org.au/news/svod-regulation/">argued</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>These are big, disruptive, successful businesses that have had time to expand in this market without making any significant investment in local production. It’s time they step up to the plate and contribute to new Australian film and television production.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In response, Andrew Maiden, the CEO of the subscription television industry body ASTRA, warned that the EU proposal:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>risks adding complexity and cost to over-the-top platforms whose successful growth and innovation is propelled by the unregulated nature of their operations. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is a local content quota, similar to the regulation for the Australian commercial free to air broadcasters, the answer to video on demand services supporting the local TV and film production industry?</p>
<h2>Current Local Quotas for Australian Media</h2>
<p>Currently, Australian commercial free to air broadcasters are required to broadcast 55% of Australian content in a calendar year, as stated in the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/s121g.html">Broadcasting Services Act 1992</a>, Commercial television broadcasters also have minimum <a href="http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/television/industry-trends/content-regulation">sub-quotas</a> in areas such as first-run Australian adult drama, documentary and children’s programs.</p>
<p>Nine Network argues these local quotas should be abolished, to allow it to compete with video on demand services.</p>
<p>Overall, it has been <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/netflix-and-youtube-should-invest-in-aussie-content-20150916-gjo3pn.html">estimated</a> that total local content investment in 2015, including news and sport, by free to air and subscription television was A$3 billion. As well as telling our stories, the local industry employs many Australians.</p>
<p>A 2015 Deloitte <a href="http://www.screenassociation.com.au/uploads/reports/ASA_Economic_Contribution_Report.pdf">report</a> shows that in 2012-2013 the film and TV sector contributed $5.8 billion to the Australian gross domestic product. This was more than Internet service providers ($1.8 billion) and slightly less than air (and space) transport ($6.5 billion).</p>
<p>Still, the report notes that the film and TV sector’s contribution to the GDP had in fact declined by 12.2% since 2009-2010. The period analysed within the report was before the introduction of Netflix, Stan and Presto. Despite this, revenue in the areas of distribution and rental within the film and TV sector had already begun to decline.</p>
<h2>What now for Australian local content?</h2>
<p>In Australia <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Australian%20Multi%20Screen%20Report%20Q4%202015%20FINAL.pdf">32% of homes</a> have a connected television - with internet access – well above the projected <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/ugc/connected%20TV%20TOC%20pdf_toc_83.pdf">global penetration</a> of rate of 26.8% in 2018. This will only increase the uptake of online video services.</p>
<p>It is unclear yet how a quota, or any other regulation, would be managed, but a recent <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/acma-review-draft-report">draft review</a> of the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Communicating/introduction-to-the-acma">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> could shed some light on this. In the draft review, Netflix was given as an example that may fall under the watch of the Authority under an “applications and content” area.</p>
<p>While it’s clear that the new video on demand services are changing the local media landscape, a simple local quota won’t fix this. If a quota were introduced, a company like Netflix could just buy old Australian content, rather than fund original local productions.</p>
<p>Given that Nine jointly owns Stan with Fairfax, and Presto is jointly owned by Seven and Foxtel, a local quota could mean that these broadcasters simply redistribute the same locally made programs airing on free to air TV onto their streaming services. This would not boost local production. </p>
<p>For any new regulation to work, it must mandate the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-must-act-now-to-preserve-its-culture-in-the-face-of-global-tech-giants-58724">production of new Australian content</a>, which would help the industry as a whole.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60308/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>The European Union is considering imposing a local content quota on video streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon. With local storytelling under threat from global tech giants, could such an approach work here?Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/483822015-10-04T19:20:07Z2015-10-04T19:20:07ZTo save local voices we need a different kind of deregulation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96889/original/image-20151001-5861-1gsdfw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As regional television flounders, a new approach to deregulation is needed.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.saveourvoices.com.au/">Save Our Voices</a> campaign was launched in August by the regional TV networks, Prime, WIN, Southern Cross-Austereo and Imparja. Its goal is to reform media laws that “prevent regional broadcasters from competing fairly with big city media and news available online”. </p>
<p>Backed by Fairfax Media and gilded by the <a href="http://www.saveourvoices.com.au/tim_fischer_lends_his_voice_to_save_our_voices_campaign">recruitment of the former leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer</a>, the campaign is misleading. So too are <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/media-legislation-has-fallen-far-behind-the-times-and-its-time-for-change-20150927-gjvuo7.html">opinion pieces</a> that argue existing rules “squeeze the life out of our regional TV networks”.</p>
<p>Simply put, if their proposed reforms go through, there’s no guarantee local newsrooms – and the jobs of journalists in those newsrooms – will be protected. </p>
<p>If successful, the campaign will remove the “<a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Media-ownership-and-control/Ownership-and-control-rules/statutory-control-rules-media-ownership-control-acma">75% reach rule</a>” and the “<a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Media-ownership-and-control/Ownership-and-control-rules/media-diversity-rules">two out of three</a>” rule, the last vestiges of media regulations introduced between <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s870237.htm">1987 and 1992</a> </p>
<p>The foreign ownership rules, created back then, were <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/media-ownership-shackles-to-end/2006/03/14/1142098443584.html">scrapped in 2006</a>, throwing commercial television into turmoil and bringing Channel Nine to bankruptcy’s door. </p>
<p>These <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/">two rules</a>
limit any one licensee to owning free-to-air TV stations that cover more than 75% of the population and prevent one media business from controlling more than two of the radio, television or newspapers within a market.</p>
<p>The campaign cites the former Minister for Communications, now Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull’s description of the regulations as “horse-and-buggy legislation in the 21st century”. It’s true that reform is needed. But horse-and-buggy, Prius or Porsche, road rules still apply.</p>
<h2>Declining revenues, declining audiences</h2>
<p>The TV world has changed dramatically since the 1990s. Overseas video-on-demand services such as Netflix, and local competitors like Stan and Presto, have a growing impact on free-to-air, as will Plus7, Seven Network’s online service.</p>
<p>Advertising revenues for free-to-air are <a href="http://www.ventureconsulting.com/assets/Advertising-Update-2013-Report2.pdf">declining</a>. Indeed, based on ABA and ACMA figures, the regionals’ gross revenues for FY 2011-12 were almost exactly the same as 2000-01 in 2014-corrected dollars. </p>
<p>Audiences, too, are declining. Nevertheless more than 90% of Australians still watch TV at home. Penetration by smart phones and other devices is under 10% but growing. Pay TV take-up has stalled below 35% and is unlikely to break out without easing of the sports <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/policy/policy-listing/anti-siphoning">anti-siphoning rules</a>. </p>
<p>The Save Our Voices campaign argues these rules must be dropped but ignores the reasons the rules were imposed: Labor’s belated attempt to support diversity of content, especially news and opinion, and as a barrier to the further concentration of media ownership. </p>
<p>They came in the wake of Labor allowing Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited to take over the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/cabinet-papers/print-princes-or-screen-queens/story-fnkuhyre-1226792596529">Herald and Weekly Times</a>, so establishing News’ domination of newsprint media in Australia.</p>
<p>Save our Voices makes much of the identity of the regional broadcasters. But in reality, the 75% reach rule actually protects them from being gobbled up by their city affiliates.</p>
<h2>The tough business of regional television</h2>
<p>Neither rule substantially impacts on their profitability. But a key element that does is the usurious affiliation fees demanded by their city affiliates for programming. These fees substantially compromise their ability to deliver local content.</p>
<p>In 2013, WIN Corporation agreed to pay Nine an affiliation fee of 39% of advertising revenue, in a deal ending in December 2015. According to the Australian, Nine now wants <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/nine-network-hits-win-with-50pc-fee-increase/story-fna045gd-1227349517454">an additional A$43 million a year</a>, pushing the fee up 50%. Prime’s city affiliate, Seven, is entitled to 46% of advertising revenues until 2019. </p>
<p>You can run a lot of newsrooms on a fraction of that money. The Save Our Voices website makes no mention of this as a factor affecting the delivery of local news.</p>
<p>For the city networks, this is money for jam. They buy the Australian right to programs in anticipation of on-selling them to their regional affiliates, so the income goes straight to the bottom line at little additional expense.</p>
<p>Now Prime’s participation in the Save Our Voices is starting to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/seven-media-slams-prime-regional-jobs-cuts/story-e6frg996-1227536058525">worry the Seven Network</a>, as their affiliation agreement guarantees quality local news. Despite record earnings of A$35.5 million for FY2015, Prime has sacked senior journalists in the Wagga Wagga, Tamworth and Canberra. </p>
<p>But regional TV is a tough business. They reach about 35% of Australians but advertising revenues are below 25% of the television spend. In addition, they have far more transmission infrastructure than the city networks.</p>
<p>One option for the regional broadcasters is to follow Seven’s Plus7, if they have digital rights. But to be competitive, they have to have something to offer that the city stations cannot. A good choice is local news. </p>
<p>If the 75% rule is dropped, mergers will inevitably follow. Mergers will largely benefit the city networks at the expense of regional viewers.</p>
<p>At present, there are eight commercial television newsrooms covering Australia, if you regard NBN Newcastle as a separate entity to its owner, the Nine Entertainment Co. With mergers diversity suffers: eight newsrooms becomes five.</p>
<p>In addition, if the 60-year history of television in Australia is any guide, it’s always “Sydney or the Bush”. If economies are to be made then the cuts will fall in regional Australia.</p>
<p>Under the present rules, the regional broadcasters are required to screen minimum amounts of local news and locally significant material, but they are not required to gather it first-hand, nor run it as conventional bulletins.</p>
<p>For example, WIN Mt Gambier buys in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/05/26/4012257.htm">two or three news briefs</a>, one or two sport stories and a weather update from Mt Gambier’s Border Watch newspaper. WIN packages these as news updates without local vision and runs them in schedule breaks.</p>
<p>This re-branding of news seems to skate close to subverting the two out of three rule restricting ownership of radio, television and newspapers within the same market.</p>
<p>There would be financial benefits to the regional broadcaster if the two out of three rule was dropped. But would that deliver any diversity of news and opinion to a community? </p>
<p>Free-to-air television remains the modern market place of ideas. News and opinion, largely conveyed by TV, shape our thoughts, and we, in turn, shape our government and our country. It’s diversity or a slow death to democracy.</p>
<h2>But what is the best way to protect local content?</h2>
<p>This news starvation of regional audiences cannot continue. Senator Fifield could take a real free market approach, rather than appease the existing benign oligarchy. </p>
<p>Drop the “75% rule” but keep the “two out of three”. Outlaw the closed market in TV program rights in regional service areas and let the stations bid competitively. </p>
<p>Free the regional networks to stand as truly independent broadcasters, not country cousins of their city affiliates. Free their identities from the city network branding.</p>
<p>In this free market, licence fees would then reflect their advertising revenues, not the city networks’ greed, and the regional broadcaster could exploit their one competitive advantage over other screen media, local content especially news.</p>
<p>That is real deregulation, Minister Fifield.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48382/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vincent O'Donnell owns shares in Fairfax Media.</span></em></p>The Save Our Voices campaign argues that existing media rules are “squeezing the life out of our regional TV networks”. But the real story is more complex. Reform is necessary, but so too is local content.Vincent O'Donnell, Honorary Research Associate of the School of Media and Communication , RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/274692014-06-02T13:12:29Z2014-06-02T13:12:29ZIf local TV fails in Glasgow, it’s unlikely to succeed anywhere<p>At 6.30pm tonight, Scotland will lay down a milestone in one of the key debates in television: will local television become a successful and profitable part of the UK’s media scene or remain one politician’s unproven dream?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27657514">STV Glasgow</a>, which starts broadcasting this evening to two million potential viewers, is the first of a <a href="http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a450204/stv-wins-edinburgh-and-glasgow-local-tv-licences.html#%7EoG1GbXDSygGFrv">new generation</a> of local TV launches in Scotland. Across the UK it is the fourth such launch, but unlike <a href="http://www.estuary.tv/">Estuary TV</a> on Humberside, which is run by a community-based group; and <a href="http://www.londonlive.co.uk/">London Live</a> and Norwich’s <a href="http://www.mustardtv.co.uk/">Mustard TV</a>, which are both partly or wholly owned by local newspaper groups; STV Glasgow is the first such service to be based on an existing mainstream TV operation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49995/original/7cb9mgkn-1401711427.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Launch programme: daily magazine The Riverside Show starts tonight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">STV</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This gives it an important point of difference from previous local TV failures such as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/loony-tv-the-first-local-channel--faces-closedown-724414.html">Lanarkshire TV</a>, <a href="http://www.meccsa.org.uk/news/three-d-issue-18-local-public-service-television-new-idea-for-masters-level-course/">Edinburgh Television</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Six_Dundee">Channel Six Dundee</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/16/manchester-channel-m-closes">Channel M in Manchester</a>. It is also the only place where this version of the concept will be tested, since STV <a href="http://www.itvplc.com/">sister company ITV</a> chose to ignore the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12220187">invitation by then culture secretary Jeremy Hunt</a> to apply to join his local TV revolution further south. For the coalition government’s only media initiative of the past four years, not to mention the shareholders of STV, this makes the stakes particularly high.</p>
<h2>Brand recognition</h2>
<p>While the three English local TV launches are all newish brands, STV Glasgow will seem so familiar to viewers in the west of Scotland that they may wonder exactly what’s new about it. At the same time, local TV already exists in these parts. STV’s flagship news programme, STV News at Six, already has regional editions, one of which is for Glasgow and the west of Scotland. So for half an hour each weekday, viewers in the area have already been watching TV made just for them. </p>
<p>There may be some brand confusion between STV’s Glasgow news and the STV Glasgow channel. There is also the potentially significant issue that unlike the English stations, STV Glasgow <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27657514">will not use Freeview channel 8</a> because the slot is taken up by Gaelic service <a href="http://www.locatetv.com/uk/listings/bbc-alba">BBC Alba</a>. Instead it will have to find an audience from Channel 23. </p>
<p>On the other hand the advantages of this model over the other local TV launches are obvious: STV Glasgow will be cheaper to run because of shared production facilities, premises and airtime sales with the existing STV. On top of that is access to an archive of network-quality shows such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088621/">Taggart</a> and the opportunity to cross-promote between channels. Other fare will include new daily magazine programme <a href="http://shows.stv.tv/talk-tv/274531-storm-huntley-and-colin-stone-announced-for-riverside-show-on-stv-glasgow/">The Riverside Show</a> and other archive shows like longstanding soap <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt0163499%2F&ei=oVqMU5a7LPSI7Aa6yYDwAg&usg=AFQjCNHHeIrdXYNk0qY32IXk2A0L36u15Q&bvm=bv.67720277,d.ZGU">Take The High Road</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iYMVejPWfoM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Will Take The High Road repeats have them turning on in droves?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the result of the 2010 general election had been a few seats in the other direction and Labour had hung on to power, the opportunity for STV would potentially have looked very different. The chances were that STV wouldn’t still have its own news-gathering operation, thanks to the government’s decision in 2009 to choose Scotland as one of the three areas in the UK in which to pilot the <a href="independently%20funded%20news%20consortia">independently funded news consortia (IFNC) initiative</a>. </p>
<p>The IFNCs were the suggested solution to ITV/STV’s difficulties with continuing to pay for local content. The plan was that these companies would keep showing regional news but would neither have to make nor pay for it. Instead some spare cash from the licence fee would pay the winners of a competitive process in each pilot area. </p>
<p>In Scotland a consortium including newspaper publishers Johnston Press, the Herald and Times Group and DC Thomson <a href="http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/article/992816/regional-publishers-win-local-tv-news-contracts">won that process</a>. But before this became a reality the incoming government scrapped the scheme. The status quo prevailed, and indeed a new regime at ITV decided it liked regional news after all. Anyway Jeremy Hunt preferred local TV.</p>
<h2>University assistance</h2>
<p>One thing that has survived from the IFNC process is that some of the news consortia were put together between media owners and universities with media departments. So when STV applied for the Glasgow licence, it included a partnership with <a href="http://www.gcu.ac.uk/">Glasgow Caledonian University</a>. When STV Edinburgh comes on the air later this year, the partner will be <a href="http://www.napier.ac.uk/Pages/home.aspx">Napier University</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">Broadcast regulator Ofcom</a> highlighted these partnerships in its rationale for awarding the Glasgow and Edinburgh licences to STV. Students at these universities will get experience of working in live TV that both partners hope will eventually convert into full-time jobs. </p>
<p>Another political twist is that if Scotland votes yes to independence in September, having its own Scottish channel would put STV in a stronger negotiating position with the SNP about post-referendum broadcasting in Scotland than simply being the junior partner in a UK channel. With so much uncertainty about the future of the BBC post-independence, this could very useful to STV.</p>
<h2>London a bad marker</h2>
<p>But the more immediate test is for local TV itself. It has become something of a cliché to say that if the concept is to work anywhere it will be in London because of the sheer size of the market. </p>
<p>I have never shared that view. London has always been a problematic “local” market. The regional TV news bulletins on BBC and ITV get much lower shares of audiences than other regions of the UK. So does the BBC local radio station. So I’m not surprised that London Live <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/25/local-tv-london-live-bbc-funding-stefano-hatfield">has seen low ratings</a> so far. </p>
<p>My own experience running a TV station in, of all places, Kiev, is that the capital city of a country is not necessarily the best place for local TV. Other top-five cities, with none of the distractions of being a national centre of government, often have a more defined and cohesive sense of community. A bit of chippiness often helps. </p>
<p>So STV Glasgow seems to have a lot going for it. The right kind of city, a strong partnership with an existing player, on-air cross-promotions, a university partnership that produces potentially talented and initially lower-paid staff. The management is committed to the extent that the <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/business/media-tech-leisure/rob-woodward-on-the-launch-of-stv-s-local-channels-1-3407176">chief executive has even</a> done an in-depth interview with Glasgow businessman Willie Haughey as part of the inaugural programme. But put another way, if Glasgow doesn’t work, then local TV really has got problems. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stewart Purvis is a former senior executive at Ofcom where he helped develop policy on regional TV news and local TV. He has played no role in the licensing or development of local TV stations.
The chief executive of STV, Rob Woodward, is pro-chancellor of City University London, where The Conversation has offices.
</span></em></p>At 6.30pm tonight, Scotland will lay down a milestone in one of the key debates in television: will local television become a successful and profitable part of the UK’s media scene or remain one politician’s…Stewart Purvis, Professor of Television Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.