tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/public-broadcasting-1461/articlesPublic broadcasting – The Conversation2023-06-04T11:19:15Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2062512023-06-04T11:19:15Z2023-06-04T11:19:15ZCanada should look to its past and Europe for guidance on media policy — but not south<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528960/original/file-20230530-8555-7cvlkt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C35%2C6000%2C3925&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Canada needs to look back on its history of establishing the CBC to avoid its media landscape going the route of its neighbour to the south.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Rod Flores/Unsplash)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Seventy years ago, <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/37-2/HERI/report-2/page-54">Canadian leaders turned away</a> from the British model of media policy that rejected advertising-supported private broadcasting. </p>
<p>While it’s gone well for a few private corporations, it hasn’t benefited the Canadian public. And the future heralds an even more dangerous American-style media landscape here in Canada.</p>
<p>Canadian leaders once understood the importance and even the potential danger of media to the public. Those lessons need to be remembered. The honourable early history of media policy in Canada needs to be embraced anew.</p>
<h2>Aird Commission findings</h2>
<p>In 1928, <a href="https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/472642/publication.html">the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, also known as the Aird Commission</a>, was created to consider alternative models for the future of Canadian broadcasting. </p>
<p>It was led by Sir John Aird, the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. As media scholar Marc Raboy writes in his comprehensive history of Canadian broadcasting, <a href="https://www.mqup.ca/missed-opportunities-products-9780773507432.php"><em>Missed Opportunities</em></a>, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established because of public pressure that came from a broad coalition of civic organizations that made up the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1676675341">Canadian Radio League</a>. </p>
<p>The Aird Commission found much to be alarmed about regarding radio. As <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/372/HERI/Reports/RP1032284/herirp02/herirp02-e.pdf">Aird stated in 1932</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I have watched — naturally I felt it my duty to watch — the program and the material that was coming over the air, and much of it is of the most objectionable character … what I object to most strongly is the character of the ribald songs and vulgar dialogues regarding robberies, burglaries, hold-ups of banks and things like that.” </p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A black and white photo of two farmers sitting in a living room listening to a large wooden radio with a bullhorn attached." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528958/original/file-20230530-15-9ga0mu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528958/original/file-20230530-15-9ga0mu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528958/original/file-20230530-15-9ga0mu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528958/original/file-20230530-15-9ga0mu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528958/original/file-20230530-15-9ga0mu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528958/original/file-20230530-15-9ga0mu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528958/original/file-20230530-15-9ga0mu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A farmer and his son listen to the radio in the mid-1920s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The commissioners listened to radio around the world and heard the concerns of various communities with access to the medium. They consistently heard complaints about content, but also about advertising. </p>
<p>As a result of its research, the Aird Commission <a href="https://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=472642&sl=0">proposed a publicly owned corporation</a> not unlike the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC). It argued the new medium of radio should be regarded as a national public service rather than a profit-making industry, and its ownership and operating structure should be organized to recognize this principle.</p>
<h2>Creation of the CBC/Radio-Canada</h2>
<p>In 1936, the <a href="https://canadianlabour.ca/uncategorized/twilh-cbc-founded-november-2-1936/">Canadian Broadcasting Act</a> created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio-Canada as a Crown corporation funded through fees known as receiver set licences (initially $2.50 per licence) with limited financing from advertising.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/richard-bedford-viscount-bennett">Richard Bedford Bennett, the Conservative prime minister</a> of Canada who had the unfortunate task of attempting to unite a divided and economically struggling country through the Great Depression of the 1930s, pushed the CBC through its parliamentary hurdles. </p>
<p><a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC1703_03">Bennett proclaimed</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources. Without such control, broadcasting can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition to telling the Canadian story to the booming cities of Vancouver, Montréal and Toronto, the CBC was tasked with reaching remote and isolated rural and maritime communities, providing both national and local voices reflecting Canada and in two languages: English and French. Canada’s vast territory and multilingual character made the CBC one of the world’s most far-reaching and complex public broadcasters. </p>
<p>Yet the Aird Commission recommendation that private broadcasting should be fully replaced by public broadcasting never happened. </p>
<p>The British model of public service media funded through receiver licence fees was eventually abandoned in 1953, and CBC funding would be tied to the shifting sands of <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/CHPC/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=3699874">parliamentary funding</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A red and white circular logo is projected on a screen." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528962/original/file-20230530-24-kf5nip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528962/original/file-20230530-24-kf5nip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528962/original/file-20230530-24-kf5nip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528962/original/file-20230530-24-kf5nip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528962/original/file-20230530-24-kf5nip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528962/original/file-20230530-24-kf5nip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528962/original/file-20230530-24-kf5nip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The CBC logo is projected onto a screen during the CBC’s annual upfront presentation in Toronto in 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Tijana Martin</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Cuts to the CBC</h2>
<p>In 1984, the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney made <a href="https://legacy.friends.ca/explore/article/change-in-parliamentary-appropriation-to-cbc-in-2014/">significant cuts</a> to the CBC, and <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/cbc-funding-history-over-time/article17898560/">those cuts increased under the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien</a>.</p>
<p>Make no mistake — the BBC has more than its share of problems. While it’s <a href="https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/short-history-british-tv-advertising">thrived without advertising</a>, it has been under pressure, losing some of its audience to private commercial broadcasting (which began in 1955) and from political pressure exerted by both Labor and Tory administrations. Yet, the BBC <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/bbc-under-scrutiny-heres-what-research-tells-about-its-role-uk">dominate broadcast and online news</a> in the U.K. The CBC has not fared as well.</p>
<p>Budget cuts to the CBC, often fuelled by partisan politics, have wrought havoc. The Windsor CBC station I watched as a child growing up in Detroit was once a profitable Canadian production powerhouse, but it cancelled popular local programming and slashed the news operation. </p>
<p>In 1990, because of further budget cuts, CBC closed down the station’s news department, spurring street protests from thousands of Windsor citizens.</p>
<p>A “<a href="https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/transcripts/1999/tb0318d.htm">Save Our Station</a>” committee was formed to pressure both CBC and the Canadian government to preserve the Windsor operation. Some limited news service was established because of these protests, but other communities once served by the CBC had no such luck.</p>
<p>Private broadcaster CTV <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211014986a">has eclipsed</a> the CBC as Canada’s most-watched television network. And according to the independent media database IMDb, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0080139">CTV’s top programs</a> are all American productions; mainly police and medical dramas.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A blonde woman sits in front of a TV screen that says Nashville with the CTV logo at the bottom." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528967/original/file-20230530-27-6hdgbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528967/original/file-20230530-27-6hdgbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528967/original/file-20230530-27-6hdgbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528967/original/file-20230530-27-6hdgbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528967/original/file-20230530-27-6hdgbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528967/original/file-20230530-27-6hdgbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528967/original/file-20230530-27-6hdgbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">American-produced shows have long been CTV’s most-watched.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The European way</h2>
<p>Europe suggests a better path. <a href="https://www.ebu.ch/news/2022/01/protect-public-service-media-to-protect-democracy">A recent study</a> by the European Broadcasting Union shows a strong correlation between a country’s democratic well-being and robust public service media, including online media. </p>
<p>Social media policy in the United States has generated echo chambers of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09734-6">misinformation and conspiracy</a> and has certainly not curtailed the erosion of civic knowledge. <a href="https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-civics-knowledge-drops-on-first-amendment-and-branches-of-government/%22%22">A 2022 study</a> by the Annenberg Public Policy Center reveals that while many Americans are angry about politics, less than half of those surveyed understood the basics of U.S. government.</p>
<p>And in Canada? According to <a href="https://www.statista.com/topics/2729/social-networking-in-canada/">Statista</a>, Canada is one of the world’s most connected online populations, with a social media penetration rate of 89 per cent of the Canadian population.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://reviewlution.ca/resources/canadian-social-media-statistics/">most popular</a> media sites in Canada are also U.S.-based — Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A protester holds a sign of Justin Trudeau's face behind bars." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=861&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=861&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443847/original/file-20220201-22-1a82oie.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=861&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protester holds an anti-Trudeau sign near Parliament Hill in Ottawa.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>U.S.-based, advertising-driven social media sites designed to stoke outrage are not creating more informed Canadians. <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/social-mediea-convoy-protests-emergencies-act-inquiry-1.6668543">The actions of the so-called Freedom Convoy</a> illustrates this phenomenon.</p>
<p>And, unfortunately, similar to American civic illiteracy, a recent <a href="http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2990/canada-day-2019/">Forum Research Poll</a> suggests only one in 10 Canadians would pass the Canadian citizenship exam. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/canadas-legal-disinformation-pandemic-is-exposed-by-the-freedom-convoy-176522">Canada’s legal disinformation pandemic is exposed by the 'freedom convoy'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>The future of advertising-driven media does not bode well for democracy. Even <a href="https://thehill.com/newsletters/technology/4007422-chatgpt-chief-issues-ai-warning/">Silicon Valley leaders are warning</a> against a laissez-faire U.S. policy approach in terms of generative artificial intelligence/large language models like ChatGPT.</p>
<p>The American threat to Canada continues not because of U.S. power, but because Canadian leaders have not put in place policies to foster and protect Canadian democracy.</p>
<p>Civic organizations of all stripes need to come together to demand a new approach to media that’s informed by lessons from Canada’s past and by the obvious mistakes evident south of the border.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206251/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Lloyd does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A hundred years ago, civic organizations of all stripes came together to demand a new Canadian approach to media policy. Canada has done it before — it must do so again.Mark Lloyd, Associate Professor, Communication Studies, McGill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2019682023-03-16T16:50:35Z2023-03-16T16:50:35ZLineker-BBC row: survey shows how different outlets approach their staff’s social media presence<p>The row over Gary Lineker’s tweet criticising the UK government’s proposed asylum legislation has re-ignited the debate about impartiality in journalism and the way news organisations deal with social media.</p>
<p>The BBC now looks set to review its social media policies again (it last did this in 2020). This decision is in line with a wider international media effort. In 2022, the UK Guardian revised its 2018 policies to include language on disciplinary action after <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/features-main/guardian-social-media-guidelines-owen-jones/">a row</a> involving its journalists spilled over onto Twitter. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/inside-the-washington-posts-social-media-meltdown">Washington Post</a> updated its policies a month later after another high-profile Twitter clash which drew in multiple Post staffers and resulted in the firing of one reporter and the suspension of another. </p>
<p>In 2020, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/individual-use-of-social-media/">the BBC</a> revised its <a href="https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media">2019 guidelines</a> after a row over “virtue signalling” saying that staff could not use activist hashtags or retweets “no matter how worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial”. </p>
<p>And in a situation which echoes the current BBC brouhaha, the US sports giant ESPN <a href="https://apnews.com/article/7284c75a5f2943ce86db394a3963f923">revamped its guidelines</a> in 2017 after suspending TV anchor Jemele Hill for tweeting that then-president Donald Trump was racist. Like Lineker, Hill worked in sports rather than news – but ESPN said it needed to revisit the guidelines to make sure that all employees, no matter the field, were aware of the new expectations around impartiality on social media.</p>
<p>ESPN’s 2017 guidelines were markedly different to their 2011 policies which, like many others, were focused more on maintaining control of content than concerns about political commentary. It’s difficult to comprehend now, but news outlets initially declined to set formal policies. Most have tended to use what the BBC used to see as its “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_03_15_bbc_news_group_social_media_guidance.pdf">common sense</a>” approach. This was that reporters should refrain from posting anything “that would embarrass them personally or professionally or their organisation”. This hands-off style of guidance was perhaps best symbolised by the reluctance of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-strategy-new-york-times-bill-keller-twitter-facebook-bbc-video-2011-5?r=US&IR=T">The New York Times</a> to set any policy at all.</p>
<p>The BBC, like many news organisations surveyed here, is in a different place now. The concerns about reputational damage are driving policy to the point that a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355869313_Business_as_Usual_How_Journalism's_Professional_Logics_Continue_to_Shape_News_Organization_Policies_Around_Social_Media_Audiences/link/6381590e554def619370bdc3/download">survey I conducted of 13 mainstream news organisations</a> in the US, Canada, the UK, and Ireland shows that impartiality is the primary theme among a wide swath of news organisations. The list includes state broadcasters (RTÉ, CBC, BBC and NPR), commercial broadcasters (Sky), centre-right tabloids (Globe and Mail, Daily Express/Daily Star), centre-left broadsheets (The Guardian and The New York Times) as well as wire agencies (Reuters and AP), sports news (ESPN) and digital (BuzzFeed).</p>
<h2>Impartiality</h2>
<p>Impartiality informs every aspect of the guidelines – from obvious pursuits such as commentary to relatively innocuous activities such as “liking” content and retweets. The rules appear to be pretty consistent across regions and types of media outlet. </p>
<p>In the US, the independent non-profit media organisation NPR emphasises the importance of avoiding revealing “personal views on a political or other controversial issue”. Irish state broadcaster RTÉ, meanwhile, warns against showing “bias on current topics” and in the UK the BBC cautions against sharing “views on any policy which is a matter of current political debate”.</p>
<p>In Canada, the Globe and Mail says it’s fine to express views in private but any “political or partisan views which go beyond your public-facing role should not be expressed in public”. ESPN is a bit more nuanced, requesting that employees “do nothing that would undercut your colleagues’ work or embroil the company in unwanted controversy”. </p>
<p>But the overriding concern among all news organisations is that any partisan opinions or political views will damage the specific news organisation’s reputation as a source of news and bring them into disrepute.</p>
<p>The problem, as far as the news organisations see it, is that every action of their employees is connected to their workplace. So their social media posts, likes, and shares can be viewed as representing an official position of the organisation. ESPN reminds its employees that “at all times you are representing ESPN, and social sites offer the equivalent of a live microphone”. </p>
<p>RTÉ says that employees are always considered public representatives of the organisation and the Guardian and its stablemate The Observer says that such restrictions extend to every employee associated with their organisation, whether staff or freelance, but particularly those with large followings. </p>
<h2>Retweets</h2>
<p>Retweets, as the BBC puts it, are typically viewed as “an expression of opinion on social media”. It’s a comment echoed by the Daily Express/Daily Star which describes them as “an endorsement of the original tweet”. </p>
<p>The Guardian and The New York Times say retweets can reveal “personal prejudices and opinions,” which could raise doubts about a journalist’s ability to cover news events fairly and impartially. As NPR cautions, journalists should not assume that their retweets will not be seen as reflecting their own views: “Don’t assume it’s not going to be viewed that way.”</p>
<h2>Liking and friending</h2>
<p>Retweets, likes, and friending activities are also considered suspect. The BBC warns against “revealed bias”, in liking and reposting other people’s messages. RTÉ cautions that “liking and following accounts may make other users think those accounts are more trustworthy or that you endorse them”. </p>
<p>The Guardian warns that likes “can easily become public and may be seen as representing an official GNM position”. This is a sentiment echoed in the US where The New York Times emphasises that “everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times”.</p>
<h2>Disclaimers or separate accounts</h2>
<p>Overall, while the guidelines highlight the concerns around impartiality on social media they also highlight the absence of guardrails for journalists using any of these platforms. There is no “un-send” button on social media and frequently used strategies such as disclaimers or private accounts are discouraged with all news outlets saying that neither can help in mitigating negative publicity. </p>
<p>The BBC specifically says that there is no difference between how personal and official accounts are perceived on social media – so it will be interesting to see how the UK public broadcaster’s new guidelines further tighten up what is already a fairly restrictive environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201968/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kelly Fincham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Over the past few years, most big media organisations have updated their social media rules.Kelly Fincham, Lecturer in Journalism and Communications, University of GalwayLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1941162022-11-08T19:13:42Z2022-11-08T19:13:42ZCanada’s public broadcaster should use Mastodon to provide a social media service<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494001/original/file-20221108-22-1h5b84.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5132%2C2887&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mastodon's decentralized network could be leveraged as a model for future social media.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/canada-s-public-broadcaster-should-use-mastodon-to-provide-a-social-media-service" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and ensuing confusion has driven many to look for alternatives to the platform. One popular option has been Mastodon, a social network distributed on many servers with no central ownership.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/twitter-mastodon-faq-1.6642946">Mastodon has seen its profile raised over the past few weeks, and user registration has skyrocketed</a>. Mastodon is not one company, but many federated servers working together. These individual servers need resources. These resources should be public.</p>
<p>As internet communications scholars, we propose that Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, should build a Mastodon server on the global network. </p>
<p>CBC starting a Mastodon server could be the start of the news organization seeing itself as not just creating content online, but building better infrastructure for Canadians to create online.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wfI4QeB2jE8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">ITV News explains why users are leaving Twitter for Mastodon.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Canadian social media</h2>
<p>Mastodon is free and open-source social media software, available to anyone who wants to install it on a computer server. Once installed, a Mastodon server allows people to sign up for accounts and from there do familiar social media activities, such as sharing posts and following others.</p>
<p>What makes Mastodon powerful is that it’s part of a larger network of servers referred to as the fediverse. This network allows one Mastodon server to connect to another — as well as to many other social media software systems. The result is a large, non-centralized network of smaller servers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/citizens-social-media-like-mastodon-can-provide-an-antidote-to-propaganda-and-disinformation-192491">Citizens' social media, like Mastodon, can provide an antidote to propaganda and disinformation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So the CBC could use the Mastodon platform and build its own server to provide access to Canadians who want social media without the reliance upon predominantly American corporations. Ideally, this could be provided globally as an important service in an age when platform interests and national interests have increasingly aligned.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1589701721059565570"}"></div></p>
<h2>The future of public service media</h2>
<p>In the past, the CBC has been a little sensitive about its social media strategy. When <a href="https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/an-issue-worth-torching-your-job-over/">former CBC tech columnist Jesse Hirsh called out the public broadcaster for its over-reliance on Facebook, his spot ended</a>. </p>
<p>His comments raise an awkward point: why does a public broadcaster rely so much on privately owned platforms to reach its audience?</p>
<p>The reason is that the work of running a social media service is a challenge for an organization mostly dedicated to content production. But that’s not always been the case. </p>
<p>Historically, Canada’s publicly funded media has many great examples of thinking beyond content production. The National Film Board’s <a href="https://www.nfb.ca/playlist/challenge-for-change/">Challenge for Change program sent filmmakers to document the lives of Fogo Island residents</a>. CBC’s ZeD was an experiment in open-source television — the long-forgotten platform <a href="https://exclaim.ca/music/article/do_i_want_my_zed_tv-cbc_attempts_open_source">allowed Canadians to share their videos online in 2002, three years before YouTube launched</a>. </p>
<p>These media projects were not so much about creating content, but creating the possibilities for what we might call social media today. Running a Mastodon server would do the same.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a building entry with CBC NEWS and CBC logos" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The CBC could consider its role as a public service for Canadians alongside changing technologies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Re-inventing the future of media</h2>
<p>Starting a Mastodon server would also put the CBC on a path to re-invent what social media and online content could look like in the future. This will not be easy, but in our opinion, will <a href="https://runyourown.social/">raise questions that go along with starting a server</a> and are directly applicable to future social media policy in Canada: sustainability, moderation and trust.</p>
<p>First, we need to consider the sustainability of our internet infrastructure. There is already <a href="https://chaos.social/@greenfediverse">a green collective on Mastodon</a> trying to run on renewable energy. The <a href="https://www.akamai.com/company/corporate-responsibility/sustainability">CBC relies on Akamai Technologies</a> for its infrastructure. As <a href="https://www.akamai.com/company/corporate-responsibility/sustainability">Akamai</a> commits to lower the carbon footprint of its infrastructure, the same questions apply to the CBC. <a href="https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/greening-our-story">Could making its Mastodon server help the CBC lower its footprint beyond just media industries</a>?</p>
<p>Second, each server needs to set its own community guidelines that decide its content moderation. The CBC has been <a href="https://cbchelp.cbc.ca/hc/en-ca/sections/115000541654-About-Commenting-on-CBC-ca-">quietly working on these issues for years around comments on its website</a>. Starting a Mastodon server would apply the lessons they have learned so far.</p>
<p>Rather than the top-down community values driven by corporate interests, there is an opportunity to align community standards with Canada’s established rights framework and media policy. Starting its own Mastodon service will require the CBC to interpret its own mandate and Canada’s Human Rights Code and Multiculturalism Act before drafting its own community standards for the service. </p>
<p>Third, the CBC would have to contend with fake media, such as <a href="https://thewalrus.ca/fighting-ai-with-ai-the-battle-against-deepfakes/">deepfakes</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/russian-embassy-in-canada-weaponizes-social-media-to-fuel-support-for-ukraine-invasion-180109">foreign propaganda</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-sunny-ways-to-pelted-with-stones-why-do-some-canadians-hate-justin-trudeau-167607">conspiracy theories</a>. </p>
<p>Strong moderation policies with clear guidelines would be essential. The CBC could bring the power of its fact-checking and verification to social media, tamping down on misinformation. Perhaps the service could even find its own alternative to Twitter’s blue check marks, helping Canadians find information sources they can trust. </p>
<p>Our proposal applies to Radio-Canada as much as the CBC — really, to any public service media. Indeed, we hope that taking alternative social media seriously would reignite a collective and global imagination of the future of public service media.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/social-media-and-society-125586" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479539/original/file-20220817-20-g5jxhm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="100%"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194116/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fenwick McKelvey has received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, Les Fonds de recherche du Québec, and the Government of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert W. Gehl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With Twitter users considering a relocation to the decentralized social media network Mastodon, there’s an opportunity for the CBC to lead the way in re-imagining online futures for Canadians.Fenwick McKelvey, Associate Professor in Information and Communication Technology Policy, Concordia UniversityRobert W. Gehl, Ontario Research Chair of Digital Governance for Social Justice, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1925142022-10-14T14:00:18Z2022-10-14T14:00:18ZBBC at 100: a century of informing, educating, entertaining – and trying to keep politicians honest<p>The BBC as it is known in Britain – as a breathing part of our political and social life, the soundtrack to our private lives, our thinking as citizens and our voice to the world – was born out of conflict. </p>
<p>It was a reaction to the nihilistic slaughter of the first world war, created by a tiny band of young visionaries in 1922, who rejected the grinding propaganda of the war. Theirs was a vision for a new public space, using the technological boundlessness of broadcasting – that was in itself ignorant of hierarchies and conventional barriers – for good purposes. </p>
<p>One of those pioneers, <a href="https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/365695">George Barnes</a>, defined a quality that would become the essence of the BBC – it would be an instrument to “radiate amusement and instruction”. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/directors-general/john-reith">John Reith</a>, the first director and later first director general of the corporation, wanted it to be “the expression of a new and better relationship between man and man”. Equal access to all for information would enable individuals to “be in a position to make up their own minds on many matters of vital moment”.</p>
<p>It was to make everyone’s lives richer, their choices more intelligent, and to make society function more equally and indeed efficiently. In doing so it would help people think of the world as coherent whole, not “merely atomised particles”. The pioneers believed in the capacity of ideas to transform lives and societies.</p>
<p>But the corporation as an institution, a guardian of proprieties, was also forged in the fire of political conflict – the shattering divisiveness, four years after its founding, of the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/research/editorial-independence/general-strike">general strike</a>. While 11,000,000 miners fought against a decrease in their pay, the government sought to break the strike and Winston Churchill campaigned to take over the BBC for government influence to crush the miners.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Early BBC TV logo." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489762/original/file-20221014-17-kxet9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=172%2C8%2C1096%2C808&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489762/original/file-20221014-17-kxet9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489762/original/file-20221014-17-kxet9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489762/original/file-20221014-17-kxet9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489762/original/file-20221014-17-kxet9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489762/original/file-20221014-17-kxet9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/489762/original/file-20221014-17-kxet9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A mirror to its audiences: over the years, the BBC has attracted criticism from all sides of politics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was at this most precarious moment that the BBC emerged as a “public service”. The BBC told a divided nation what was happening during an acute crisis. And, while later criticised for being too much on the side of the government, it did manage to put representatives of both sides of the case on air. </p>
<p>Most importantly, people came to trust it to tell them as accurately as it could what was happening and, in that sense, to be completely on their side. Impartiality – never perfect and always improvable – was embedded in the project. The BBC would tether everyone to reality (as well as daftness and beauty). The BBC had gone on an expedition whose outcome was unknown to try and hold power to account and be on the side of the public.</p>
<h2>The government and the BBC</h2>
<p>The history of the BBC is littered with explosive conflicts with the government of the day. It is a sorry (yet glorious) tale of attacks on the BBC for bias, unfairness and being a pest. </p>
<p>At the beginning of the second world war, BBC mandarins negotiated an inevitably close relationship with the government, but fought hard to <a href="https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/2222">maintain editorial independence</a> within an overall sense of national effort. The BBC made the best of Britain’s shattering defeats of 1940-42 – but never tried to deny them. </p>
<p>After the war, the relationship saw many tests. Famously, during the 1956 Suez invasion the BBC reported the failure of the UK and French expedition and was punished by an irate government with a <a href="https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/6992">licence fee cut</a>. </p>
<p>There was fury over the BBC’s reporting of the <a href="https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/15701/1/The-BBC-Persian-Service-and-the-Islamic-Revolution-of-1979.pdf">Iranian revolution in 1979</a> and more than 30 years of anguished debate between the government and the BBC over Northern Ireland that culminated in direct censorship – <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4409447.stm">outlawing the direct broadcasting</a> of the voices of “terrorists”. </p>
<p>Governments struggled with something close to civil war in Northern Ireland as it escalated, and the BBC battled locally, nationally and internationally to describe the origins and impetus of the conflict and explain what was happening into a divided community. </p>
<p>Coverage of <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0160mtw">apartheid</a> in South Africa and the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11684868/Margaret-Thatcher-papers-BBC-assisted-the-enemy-during-the-Falklands-War.html">Falklands War</a> further placed the BBC in the government’s firing line. During the Iraq war, BBC claims that Tony Blair’s government had deliberately used misinformation to exaggerate the case for conflict <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3441181.stm">brought down a director general and chairman</a>) after the allegations were rejected by a judicial inquiry. A few years later, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/talking_to_the_enemy.html">BBC reporter David Loyn</a> was condemned as a “traitor” in parliament because he was embedded with the Taliban. </p>
<p>But the BBC handled the threats in a way that kept its independence, assessing and evaluating them but not mostly being cowed. “Without fear or favour” is a dangerous place in the contemporary world – but it keeps us safe.</p>
<p>Even now, 91% of UK adults see or hear something on the BBC every week. And contrary to what many believe, 80% of people under 35 young people still <a href="https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/ara-2021-22.pdf">consume BBC content</a>. Globally, the BBC attracts <a href="https://www.mediaweek.com.au/bbc-reveals-its-biggest-global-audience-ever-468m-a-week/">468 million people</a> per week and is the <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/bbc-most-trusted-news-source-2020">most trusted provider of news</a> by some distance.</p>
<h2>Attacks intensifying</h2>
<p>As Britain faces a cost of living crisis and a wildly unpopular government, the case for a universal BBC, holding power to account as it has done for so long, and informing while amusing and distracting, has never been stronger. In an age of deliberate misinformation and malcontent, you might expect government to want a trusted, reliable institution such as the BBC to anchor people in reality. However, the political attacks have only intensified in recent years. </p>
<p>Even Margaret Thatcher, who had fierce arguments with the BBC, understood its value at home while projecting soft power to the world. Yet the current ruling Conservative party has slashed the BBC’s funds by <a href="https://www.vlv.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/VLV-Briefing-note-BBC-Funding-Settlement-final-17-January-2022.pdf">30% over the past 10 years</a> with a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tv-licence-fee-settlement-2022">licence fee settlement</a> agreed before inflation kicked in. These politicians have arguably put the future of the corporation in danger, cheered on by a print media that has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival">set itself in direct competition</a> with a cult-like ideological fervour.</p>
<p>Alarmingly, there appear to be people in the heart of government who really do not believe that they should not be asked difficult questions. Boris Johnson’s government for a while tried the trick often favoured by authoritarians of avoiding scrutiny and refusing to appear on BBC programmes. </p>
<p>Johnson even reneged on a promise to join other party leaders in being <a href="https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-westminster-news-dominic-cummings-blog-post-8070908/">interviewed by Andrew Neill</a> in the run-up to the 2019 election. More recently, business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/12/jacob-rees-mogg-accuses-bbc-breaking-impartiality-rules-mini/">suggested</a> that his interviewer’s line of questioning broke the BBC’s impartiality rules.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1580112413088940038"}"></div></p>
<p>The British public trusts broadcast news more than other news media, because the BBC and other public service broadcasters make programmes about Britain – imbued with British mores and humour. It also makes programmes that become worldwide successes. The UK is the <a href="https://variety.com/2016/tv/global/u-s-u-k-tv-exporters-australia-1201713741/">world’s second-biggest exporter</a> of TV content, thanks mainly to the BBC.</p>
<p>The government should consider that focusing its energy on endangering the corporation risks betraying the trust that the British public – and so many people around the world – vest in their public broadcaster. A century on, those values that drove the corporation’s founders still resonate. Happy Birthday BBC.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean Seaton is the Official Historian of the BBC. She received funding from the AHRC for work on the history of the BBC, she held a British Academy "Thank-Offering to Britain" fellowship for work on the BBC and the holocaust. She is the Director of the Orwell Foundation but receives no funding or payment from it.</span></em></p>The official historian of the BBC mounts a passionate defence of Britain’s public broadcaster.Jean Seaton, Professor of Media History, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1876992022-07-27T20:12:54Z2022-07-27T20:12:54ZCan Q&A lead us out of the opinion wars it’s helped to fuel?<p>This week’s announcement that Stan Grant will be permanent host of the ABC’s Q&A follows widespread speculation about the future of the program. On some estimates, ratings have fallen by more than 50% from a peak of over 600,000 during its first decade under Tony Jones, who served as host from 2008.</p>
<p>Hamish Macdonald succeeded Jones in November 2019 but resigned in July last year, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/it-was-pretty-isolating-why-hamish-macdonald-left-q-a-to-return-to-the-project-20210818-p58jxz.html">describing</a>his 18-month tenure as “a bruising experience”. Aside from being <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/even-the-abc-types-tuning-out-of-hamish-macdonalds-farleft-qanda/video/681731268676da24829ab656e442a9c2">attacked on Sky News</a> for his “far left Green agenda”, he was relentlessly trolled on social media, with virulent accusations of bias from both the left and the right.</p>
<p>Curiously, the BBC’s Question Time – Q&A’s prototype – has followed a parallel trajectory. Its ratings have fallen precipitously, from nearly nine million to just over a million – and the decline coincides with the replacement of veteran host David Dimbleby by seasoned BBC personality Fiona Bruce, whose own brand of charisma is no match for the gravitas of her predecessor.</p>
<p>Question Time is something of a cuckoo in the nest. In its 43-year history it has consistently featured leading commentators and parliamentarians; its two most longstanding presenters, Dimbleby and Robin Day, were the equivalent of BBC royalty. But since its takeover by a commercial production company in 1998, the program has crossed the line into terrain more generally associated with tabloid media.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="David Dimbleby and panel" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476221/original/file-20220727-4217-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476221/original/file-20220727-4217-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476221/original/file-20220727-4217-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476221/original/file-20220727-4217-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476221/original/file-20220727-4217-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476221/original/file-20220727-4217-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476221/original/file-20220727-4217-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parallels: presenter David Dimbleby and guests during the filming of an episode of the BBC’s Question Time in Finchley, the former constituency of Margaret Thatcher, in 2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ian West/PA Images via Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now its producers prefer guests like Brexiteer Nigel Farage, conservative psychologist Jordan Peterson and John Lydon (alias punk rocker Johnny Rotten), who serve to ratchet up the controversy. It’s been claimed that paid audience plants are instructed to ask heavily weighted questions, and that the chairing is biased. And Bruce endures the kind of social media onslaught that drove Macdonald out.</p>
<p>Reports of “disastrous” ratings may themselves be a form of motivated attack. Audiences now have many more viewing options than the original live transmissions, and the BBC has persistently asserted that audience figures are higher than some surveys suggest.</p>
<p>Q&A is in much the same situation: while Sky claims the “lefty lovefest” has scored as low as 228,000, the ABC estimates the regular following through 2021 at more than 400,000. But that’s still quite a drop-off since the program’s heyday.</p>
<h2>Business as usual</h2>
<p>Are we just jaded with celebrity opinion shows, especially those founded in the left–right dramaturgy? The predictability is at times exhausting. </p>
<p>Macdonald’s best episode was his first, in February 2020, when he chaired a session on the bushfires with a panel that included Kirsty McBain, then mayor of Bega, and Andrew Constance, Liberal MP for the area. The panel sat on office chairs in a semi-circle, genuinely sharing what they had all just been through, including Macdonald himself, who had reported from an evacuation centre as the fire front approached.</p>
<p>A few weeks later, though, it was back to business as usual, with the presenter in a glossy suit fielding the play of left–right argy-bargy in the studio.</p>
<p>We don’t need this anymore. In many ways, the conventions of “robust disagreement” and “both sides-ism” are no longer a positive feature of civil society but rather a threat to it. As Republican Liz Cheney put it in a recent <a href="https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sotu/date/2022-07-24/segment/01">statement</a> to the January 6th Committee, “the normal sort of vitriolic, toxic partisanship has got to stop. And we have to recognise what is at stake.”</p>
<p>Stan Grant has several times taken the helm as guest host of Q&A since Tony Jones’s departure. He prompted a furore in March this year when he <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-03/stan-grant-tells-audience-member-to-leave-qanda/100880520">expelled an audience member</a> who expressed support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, asserting the program was contributing to media bias against Russia. There were calls of “propaganda” from the audience as the speaker proceeded to claim that Ukraine was responsible for all the violence.</p>
<p>Aired in the second week of the Russian invasion, this episode included speakers and audience members with family in the war zone. “We encourage different points of view here,” Grant said. “But we can’t have anyone who is sanctioning, supporting, violence.”</p>
<p>Clearly caught off guard by an unscheduled audience intervention, Grant may have missed the essential point: that the statement, intentionally or not, was Russian propaganda. It was a critical moment for many reasons, one of which is that Grant’s subsequent appointment as host could signal a change in direction for the program.</p>
<h2>Expertise versus opinion</h2>
<p>That moment also raised the question of when we should call foul on claims about the right to express opinion, especially in a media culture increasingly subject to influence from organised, even state-run, propaganda. And what is propaganda? How does it manifest and how should we respond?</p>
<p>This, surely, would be a good focus for a Q&A program. Peter Pomerantsev, who has studied Russian propaganda for decades, would be the perfect guest. These are times in which we need sustained, forensic focus on complex issues. We need insight and analysis from people with knowledge and experience, not extemporised opinion from celebrities.</p>
<p>The Ukraine invasion is the starkest manifestation of the transformed geopolitical environment. With Donald Trump already moving to gather support for another tilt at the presidency, and the US justice department taking its time over the evidence against him, the future of American democracy is in jeopardy. In Australia we have a leader of the opposition who talks openly about war with China.</p>
<p>Jones, Macdonald and Grant have all had extensive experience as foreign correspondents. With domestic politics increasingly dwarfed by the massive geopolitical tensions of our era, those issues should be to the fore. Q&A, which originated as a premier platform for the opinion wars, now has an opportunity to lead the way out of them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Goodall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The stakes are too high for business as usual on the flagship programJane Goodall, Emeritus Professor, Writing and Society Research Centre, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1847332022-06-09T06:17:01Z2022-06-09T06:17:01ZThe ABC’s plan to axe its librarians will damage its journalism. Here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467941/original/file-20220609-15-3b1r0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the war broke out in the Ukraine early this year, journalists scrambled to gather stories and images from the archives to supplement information and images gathered on the ground. A similar scramble occurred when floods struck Queensland, as it often does when big stories break. </p>
<p>We saw the results on our screens, but what we didn’t see was the invisible yet critical work of librarians and archivists – the people who design, manage and facilitate access to the archival systems that house vital news resources. </p>
<p>This makes all the more surprising the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/08/abc-to-abolish-58-librarian-and-archivist-jobs-with-journalists-to-do-archival-work">news</a> that the ABC plans to eliminate librarian and archivist positions and require its journalists to fill the gap. Journalists are expert investigators and storytellers, but their success in reporting stories rests on their ability to find source material quickly and effortlessly – a process in which librarians and archivists play a key role. </p>
<p>Timely access to source material is critical. Extra time spent looking for resources – not to mention uploading and describing new material – is time taken away from journalists’ other work. </p>
<p>The ABC’s information professionals are trained according to the requirements of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). They are experienced in helping journalists access resources easily and quickly. They digitise and store resources methodically and apply the “metadata” – the detailed descriptive tags – necessary for efficient retrieval. This archival work is especially important at the ABC, a vital repository of Australian history and culture.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1534719760834777089"}"></div></p>
<p>When information professionals do their jobs well, journalists and other researchers can readily find what they need and download material seamlessly.</p>
<h2>Why does this matter?</h2>
<p>Relying on untrained journalists to do the work of qualified information professionals – asking them to archive their own materials and apply metadata – means valuable material will be mislabelled, or not labelled at all. As ALIA and the Australian Society of Archivists put it in their <a href="https://www.alia.org.au/Web/News/Articles/2022/June-2022/ASA_ALIA_Joint_Statement.aspx">joint response</a> to the planned staff cuts: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ability to find archival footage and reports which underpin everything from TV drama to news radio is deeply valued by other ABC professional staff, who do not have the professional skills to undertake this work themselves.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Without the librarians’ and archivists’ expertise to draw on, journalists will be hampered by less reliable and efficient metadata, wasting critical time for those working to deadline. Key resources needed to verify facts will be overlooked, undermining the trustworthiness of reporting. </p>
<p>Metadata are critical for finding materials in an ever-growing sea of new information. Although some metadata tags (the name of the creator of a work, for example, or the date the work was created) may be easy to assign, other tags require expert, trained judgement. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-abcs-budget-hasnt-been-restored-its-still-facing-1-2-billion-in-accumulated-losses-over-a-decade-176532">The ABC's budget hasn't been restored – it's still facing $1.2 billion in accumulated losses over a decade</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Consider a journalist who takes a photo of a building. When she archives this resource she must take care to note date, location and specifications. She will need to decide, for example, whether the location tag should be Australia, Victoria, Melbourne or Collingwood – or some combination of these terms. Librarians and archivists make these decisions to suit the needs of journalists and editors who might search for that image months, years or decades later. </p>
<p>More importantly, though, archivists and librarians need to assign these terms consistently. If all buildings are assigned generic city locations (such as “Melbourne”), future journalists will find it hard to locate images for stories about specific suburbs. Worse still, if journalists make different choices about how specific to be – with some assigning “Collingwood” while others assign “Australia” – future users of the system won’t easily be able to retrieve all images of buildings in the same location. If a busy journalist chooses not to identify the location at all – understandable in the midst of a busy newsroom – the image becomes lost in the system.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Photos from ABC archive" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467945/original/file-20220609-12-7pmyhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You must remember this: part of a Powerhouse Museum display of photos from the ABC archive to mark the broadcaster’s 75th anniversary.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/exhibitions/broadcasting-sydney-images-abc-archives">Jenni Carter for Sydney Living Museums</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Over time, the problem compounds. As thousands of images, articles, recordings and other materials are added, people searching for material will be forced to search using multiple keywords, eating into their time for other journalistic work.</p>
<p>Research in information science demonstrates that people often take the simplest route, particularly when facing deadlines. So they may search for “Collingwood buildings” and – finding nothing – presume that no relevant images exist, without realising that only a “Melbourne” tag was assigned.</p>
<h2>A vital part of our history</h2>
<p>Journalists will also lose access to specialist advice to help them find the information they need for credible, reliable reporting. Although some journalists may turn elsewhere for this advice – staff in public or government libraries, for instance – <a href="https://books.emeraldinsight.com/page/detail/looking-for-information/?k=9781785609688">research</a> demonstrates that reporters and editors trained in digital searching practices are less likely to seek the advice of librarians and colleagues overall. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1534703103705985024"}"></div></p>
<p>Information science researchers and practitioners across the GLAM sector – galleries, libraries, archives and museums – developed this expertise over many centuries. </p>
<p>Following the second world war, they spearheaded the development of complex automated systems designed to gather, catalogue, index, and present information to the public. This work underpins everyday practices, from searching Google to finding movies on Netflix. </p>
<p>Although the stereotypes of librarians and archivists remain (inappropriately) grounded in a presumption of work happening in dusty bookshelves and basement collections, these professionals are taking the lead in ensuring digital materials are accessible. As ALIA and ASA note, the ABC’s collections are “of national significance,” the value of which goes well beyond the work of just one news organisation.</p>
<p>Without complete, easily findable records, journalists can’t tell the whole story; their ability to quickly retrieve historic source material, to complete background work and conduct fact-checking, will be eroded, as will their ability to tell Australia’s stories with integrity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council, including projects in partnership with the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and the National State Libraries Association. She is a former President of the Association for Information Science and Technology.</span></em></p>The national broadcaster has a special role in preserving audio and visual materials, not least to underpin its own reportuingLisa M. Given, Director, Social Change Enabling Capability Platform & Professor of Information Sciences, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1768462022-02-11T11:46:53Z2022-02-11T11:46:53ZRadio is thriving in South Africa: 80% are tuning in<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445897/original/file-20220211-15-vk5i7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cecilie Arcurs/Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost three decades into <a href="https://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/books/broadcasting-democracy">democracy</a>, radio is thriving in South Africa. Radio listenership in the country is consistently higher than the global average. And it in fact <a href="https://www.mediamark.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Insights-Radio-Listenership-patterns-during-Lockdown.pdf">increased</a> during the COVID-19 lockdowns of the past two years. </p>
<p>This is perhaps not surprising given that radio acts as a companion and that people were confined to their homes and so more likely to tune in, more often. But during the pandemic, radio has also played an <a href="https://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/758/217410.html">important role</a> in bringing educational broadcasts to youth who did not have access to the internet. People also listened to radio station podcasts during lockdown, and podcast listenership in South Africa is also higher than the global average.</p>
<p>Despite South Africa’s divisive history, I <a href="https://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/books/broadcasting-democracy">have argued</a> that this is because radio listening provides background texture to everyday life. It’s a social activity which reminds people that there is a social world “out there” and helps them link to it. </p>
<h2>The numbers</h2>
<p>Radio is a universal mass medium in South Africa, since more people have access to radio receivers and broadcasts than they do television sets. In fact, radio remains the most popular and pervasive medium across the continent. This is despite the proliferation of cellphones, the growth of social media apps and on-demand streaming music services. </p>
<p>One might assume that fewer people would listen to the radio given these technological innovations. But the most recent <a href="https://brcsa.org.za/rams-amplify-radio-listenership-report-apr-oct21/">measurement figures</a> show that radio audiences in South Africa continue to grow. </p>
<p>In 2021, about <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/redzone/news-insights/2021-11-11-radio-is-as-popular-as-ever/">80% of South Africans</a> had tuned into a radio station within the last week, with most people still listening on traditional radio sets. There are 40 commercial and public broadcast stations and 284 community stations in South Africa.</p>
<p>Radio audience numbers in South Africa have not <a href="https://variety.com/2021/music/news/radio-signal-fading-streaming-1234904387/">declined</a> as they have in North America, due to an increase in streaming service options. There is, in particular, high listenership <a href="https://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/758/217410.html">among young people</a>, who listen to radio as a source of both news and companionship.</p>
<h2>Vernacular radio</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.un.org/en/observances/radio-day">World Radio Day</a> is a good time to reflect on the role of the medium in a country like South Africa, characterised by inequality and a ethnically divisive history under <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa">apartheid</a>. </p>
<p>Historically, South African broadcasting has not provided a common space of public communication, but instead reinforced notions of separateness, in line with apartheid narratives of difference. As I argued in my book <em><a href="https://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/books/broadcasting-democracy">Broadcasting Democracy</a></em>, people “consume” radio, making strategic choices about which stations to tune into on the basis of their personal or group identities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-zulu-radio-dramas-subverted-apartheids-grand-design-126786">How Zulu radio dramas subverted apartheid's grand design</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Commercial music radio stations in particular are still often seen and sometimes even explicitly framed along racial lines. There is a <a href="https://www.sabc.co.za/sabc/radio/">plethora</a> of radio stations in all 11 official languages available at the public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation. </p>
<p>South African scholar Liz Gunner has <a href="https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/intellect/jams/2017/00000009/00000001/art00005?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf&casa_token=R4Z4BjSYrscAAAAA:q0YoXpLvKaamXaH_LCZqhgDBSR36GzGfVFsWYbdedmh-6YZn1QV0gZIp98-thswfJhEpRXQJCUIS7aKKeA">shown how</a> a station like the Zulu language <a href="http://www.ukhozifm.co.za">Ukhozi FM</a> has been significant in connecting with urban and rural listeners to navigate post-apartheid Zulu identity. Ukhozi FM has the highest radio listenership with nearly 8-million listeners. While during apartheid language and ethnic differences were used as a means to segregate citizens, today these are celebrated as part of a diverse “rainbow nation”.</p>
<h2>The public sphere</h2>
<p>Despite the continued popularity of vernacular radio, English-language talk radio stations and shows still attract African language speakers who frequently phone in and participate. This could be linked to the dominance of English-language media in South Africa and the fact that English media spaces are also often dominant. </p>
<p>In other words, despite the range of vernacular options, English stations are perceived as being sites of the public sphere and attract debate and conversation between a diverse range of South Africans. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A young man in bright blue shirt sits in a high tech radio studio." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445700/original/file-20220210-48670-1ylvmip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">YFM DJ Kutloano Nhlapo, 2017, Johannesburg.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Leon Neal/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Regardless of language, talk radio shows are booming with vibrant conversations, highlighting the important role of radio as a space to bring together geographically diverse South Africans to debate matters of social and political importance.</p>
<p>Aside from identity, radio also plays a key role as a companion for people, as in <a href="https://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/758/217410.html">this study</a> where the majority of youth said that radio “keeps me company”. Another <a href="https://www.mediamark.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Insights-Radio-Listenership-patterns-during-Lockdown.pdf">recent study</a> confirmed that listeners often see their preferred radio station as a companion and feel a deep connection with both the station and its DJs.</p>
<h2>Social media</h2>
<p>While traditional listenership is growing in South Africa, people are also listening more online and interacting with radio stations in different ways, for example via social media platforms.</p>
<p>Whereas in the past listeners could only access radio hosts via calling in to the station, they can now easily and instantly reach them via apps like Twitter. And equally instantly receive responses. While calling in to a station usually implies negotiating one’s way past a call screener or producer and engaging on a specific topic, Twitter communication is often more casual, relaxed and personal. </p>
<p>Radio is thus no longer a one-dimensional platform or “blind medium”, and this is a key contributing factor to its growth. And radio listeners are able to now communicate directly not only with the station, but also one another.</p>
<h2>Community radio</h2>
<p>And with 284 stations, the role of <a href="http://localvoices.co.za/community-radio/">community radio</a> in South Africa also remains key to continuing to build and consolidate democracy. Originally designed as the “voice of the voiceless”, community radio emerged as part of the liberalisation of the airwaves in the early 1990s. They were a key strategy in the repositioning of the apartheid-state media landscape. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-has-a-rich-bag-of-big-small-and-eclectic-community-radio-stations-131573">South Africa has a rich bag of big, small and eclectic community radio stations</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Like many other organisations in the NGO sector, community stations have faced financial challenges after the withdrawal of international donor funds which sustained them during the apartheid period. But they are still flourishing, as evidenced by the large number of stations still in existence. </p>
<p>Stations like <a href="https://bushradio.wordpress.com/">Bush Radio</a>, the oldest community radio project in Cape Town, still boast an exciting lineup of alternative talk and music content. And smaller community projects like <a href="http://rxradio.co.za/">Rx Radio</a>, a children’s radio project based at Red Cross Children’s Hospital, also play a key role in providing children’s entertainment produced by children themselves.</p>
<p>Radio plays a significant role in South Africa as form of education and entertainment. The diverse and vibrant range of stations is a unique feature of the South African media landscape.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176846/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tanja Bosch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Radio audiences have not declined despite an increase in streaming service options.Tanja Bosch, Associate Professor in Media Studies and Production, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1765322022-02-08T02:55:36Z2022-02-08T02:55:36ZThe ABC’s budget hasn’t been restored – it’s still facing $1.2 billion in accumulated losses over a decade<p>ABC Chair Ita Buttrose is “delighted” and Managing Director David Anderson says he now has “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/07/abc-welcomes-funding-certainty-as-morrison-government-responds-to-media-reform-paper">certainty</a>” for planning. However, the Morrison government’s pre-election announcement it would restore the ABC’s budget to 2018 levels doesn’t come close to making up for what has been lost in cuts to funding and staff.</p>
<p>Seven weeks ahead of the budget, Communications Minister Paul Fletcher has <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/funding-boost-will-allow-the-abc-to-be-its-best-self/news-story/e5352fbb9a18a7124cfe4467e18d885a">announced</a> the ABC will receive $3.284 billion over three years from July 2022, while SBS will receive $953.7 million over the same period. </p>
<p>Significantly, the government says it is scrapping its controversial indexation freeze on the ABC’s budget. This was imposed by then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2018 and meant the broadcaster’s funding did not keep pace with inflation. It led to <a href="https://about.abc.net.au/press-releases/abc-five-year-plan-2020-2025/">drastic cuts</a> in programming and staffing in June 2020.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/latest-84-million-cuts-rip-the-heart-out-of-the-abc-and-our-democracy-141355">Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Fletcher also announced the ABC funding would include $45.8 million for another three years for the broadcaster’s “enhanced news gathering” program, which is earmarked for local public interest journalism in regional communities.</p>
<p>However, the funding comes with strings attached. </p>
<p>The Morrison government has published what it calls a <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/statements-expectations-national-broadcasters">statement of expectations</a>, a requirement for the ABC and SBS to provide a report each year detailing staff numbers in regional and remote Australia, as well as hours of programming tailored to those audiences. </p>
<p>Fletcher also said the ABC and SBS weren’t currently required to report on the number of hours of Australian drama and documentaries they show each year. Although these hours are published in the <a href="https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ABC10150_00_v14_FILM_WEB-a11y_FINAL2-1.pdf">ABC annual report</a>, the government will now require the ABC and SBS to provide further reporting on this through a national framework. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1490420250541629440"}"></div></p>
<h2>Impressive figures but it’s doesn’t undo the damage</h2>
<p>To those who haven’t been following the ABC’s funding situation closely, the announcement may seem like impressive numbers. Certainly, the government’s line is the ABC will be “boosted” by scrapping the indexation freeze. </p>
<p>However, the end of the index freeze and the retention of the news gathering program still do not make up for the massive cuts already inflicted on the ABC. </p>
<p>As we noted in our research in <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-abc-didnt-receive-a-reprieve-in-the-budget-its-still-facing-staggering-cuts-114922">2019</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/latest-84-million-cuts-rip-the-heart-out-of-the-abc-and-our-democracy-141355">2020</a>, a total of $783 million was removed from ABC funding between 2014 and 2022. As the table below shows, these accumulated funding losses include a series of budget announcements, cancelled funding contracts, reduced or ended specific programs and implemented major cuts. </p>
<p>In fact, taking into account the government’s latest announcement, we now calculate the ABC’s accumulated lost funding from fiscal years 2014-15 to 2024-25 will reach a staggering $1.201 billion. </p>
<p><strong>Tallying the ABC’s accumulated losses over a decade</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444910/original/file-20220207-25-1r27rqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444910/original/file-20220207-25-1r27rqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444910/original/file-20220207-25-1r27rqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444910/original/file-20220207-25-1r27rqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444910/original/file-20220207-25-1r27rqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444910/original/file-20220207-25-1r27rqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444910/original/file-20220207-25-1r27rqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To get to this figure, we used our previous research as a baseline and factored in this week’s funding announcements. This takes account of no additional plans by the government to restore any of the earlier ABC funding cuts, and the ongoing impact of the three-year indexation pause. </p>
<p>While ending the freeze means future ABC funding will take some account of inflation, it does not address the impact of the freeze itself from 2019. </p>
<p>The ABC has said this is a problem. In answer to a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_estimates/ec/2021-22_Supplementary_budget_estimates">Senate Estimates question</a> in October 2021, the broadcaster said this would result in a funding shortfall of just over $40 million annually, which would continue to be felt in future years.</p>
<p>Our research also factors in the ABC’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-14/80-jobs-to-go-at-abc/5595674">loss of the ten-year Australia Network contract</a> in 2014. This resulted in a reduction in funding of $186 million, which is represented across the balance of the contract term in the table above.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"488564931646603264"}"></div></p>
<p>Certainly, the ABC does continue to do some international broadcasting, particularly in the Pacific, but it is <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/demise-australia-network">no longer the dominant broadcaster</a> in the region it once was. Restoring and even boosting the funding that was given to the Australia Network would go some way to improving Australia’s standing in the Indo-Pacific region.</p>
<p>We found the total lost funding continues to accumulate at well over <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_estimates/ec/2021-22_Supplementary_budget_estimates">$100 million annually</a> through 2024-25. In other words, if the government truly wanted to restore the ABC’s funding, it would need to <em>increase</em> its budget by at least 10% annually.</p>
<p>It is difficult to be definite with the numbers because the triennial funding total announced by Fletcher lacks detail. </p>
<p>It is not clear, for instance, how much will be available for the broadcasters’ operations after funds are allocated for broadcast distribution and transmission contracts that go to third-party suppliers. In the ABC’s case, these contracts are worth almost $600 million over the next three-year budget cycle. </p>
<p>It must also be noted Fletcher <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/funding-boost-will-allow-the-abc-to-be-its-best-self/news-story/e5352fbb9a18a7124cfe4467e18d885a">rejects the assertion</a> the ABC’s funding has been cut at all in the current three-year funding period from 2019–22. </p>
<p>In fairness to the minister, while the indexation freeze and other funding reductions continue to reduce the available funds to the ABC, they were not announced during the current three-year period.</p>
<h2>The ABC lacks funds for future-proofing</h2>
<p>This week’s announcement was warmly greeted as a significant change in the government’s position towards the public broadcasters. It is also certainly a positive response to the dire state of journalism in some areas, particularly in the suburbs and regional and remote communities, where the <a href="https://theconversation.com/local-news-sources-are-closing-across-australia-we-are-tracking-the-devastation-and-some-reasons-for-hope-139756">closure of commercial newsrooms</a> has left many without a local journalist or any local news service. </p>
<p>But we’d argue more needs to be done. The ABC still gets only about half the per capita government funding other <a href="https://site-cbc.radio-canada.ca/documents/vision/strategy/latest-studies/Nordicity-analysis-of-government-support-for-public-service-broadcasting-april-2020.pdf">democratic countries</a> provide to their national broadcasters. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/local-news-sources-are-closing-across-australia-we-are-tracking-the-devastation-and-some-reasons-for-hope-139756">Local news sources are closing across Australia. We are tracking the devastation (and some reasons for hope)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This funding will also not future-proof the ABC or SBS with the extra resources needed to remain at the forefront of delivering digital content to Australians as they continue to change the way they access quality and trusted news and information.</p>
<p>The announcement may at least prevent the ABC from becoming an election issue.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.abcfriends.net.au/donate">Friends of the ABC</a> had been gearing up its campaigning across the nation, fundraising to target key marginal seats. And last week, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/07/abc-welcomes-funding-certainty-as-morrison-government-responds-to-media-reform-paper">Guardian Australia</a> reported the majority of Australians would support restoring funding to the ABC. </p>
<p>It remains to be seen if the announcement is sufficient to convince Australians who love and trust the national broadcasters that the Coalition has actually has done enough to support them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176532/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake was a senior journalist with the ABC, and did her last shift with ABC Radio Australia in 2015. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Ward is a Ph.D. candidate in media and communications at the University of Sydney. From 1999 to 2017 he worked for the ABC, including as a senior executive.</span></em></p>The end of the controversial indexation freeze and retention of the news gathering program do not make up for the massive cuts already inflicted on the national broadcasters.Alexandra Wake, Program Manager, Journalism, RMIT UniversityMichael Ward, PhD candidate, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1703612021-11-03T04:01:13Z2021-11-03T04:01:13ZAmerica’s public broadcasters are thriving – here’s what Australian media can learn from them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429859/original/file-20211103-25-4o0vqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=180%2C36%2C2355%2C1781&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When ABC chair Ita Buttrose told a National Press Club lunch earlier this year that the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol <a href="https://www.victorharbortimes.com.au/story/7239670/abc-chair-links-funding-to-extremism-cases/">could be blamed</a> on the lack of a “well-funded public broadcaster”, she echoed a dangerous misunderstanding about the American media landscape. </p>
<p>In fact, America’s public broadcasters are better funded than Australia’s, and the rise of Trumpism led to a golden age of journalism in the United States. </p>
<p>The January 6 insurrection happened <em>in spite</em> of excellent journalism. Australian policymakers and media leaders need a more sophisticated understanding of America’s information ecosystem if they’re to counter the same forces here. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429855/original/file-20211103-13-tt3hu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429855/original/file-20211103-13-tt3hu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429855/original/file-20211103-13-tt3hu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429855/original/file-20211103-13-tt3hu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429855/original/file-20211103-13-tt3hu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429855/original/file-20211103-13-tt3hu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429855/original/file-20211103-13-tt3hu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Buttrose said in May that countries without a well-funded public broadcaster often have examples of right-wing extremism, as was evident in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jose Luis Magana/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A different definition of ‘public funding’</h2>
<p>The US has two public broadcast systems. The biggest of them - National Public Radio - attracts an audience of <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/08/radio-listening-has-plummeted-npr-is-reaching-a-bigger-audience-than-ever-what-gives/">57 million</a> each week. One in five US adults gets their political news from NPR. That is the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/democrats-report-much-higher-levels-of-trust-in-a-number-of-news-sources-than-republicans/#sortable-tables">seventh-largest audience</a> of any news organisation in any medium in the US. </p>
<p>If you’ve ever listened to This American Life, Serial or Radio Lab - among the most downloaded podcasts ever - you’re part of the American public radio audience. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/philanthropy-is-funding-serious-journalism-in-the-us-it-could-work-for-australia-too-79349">Philanthropy is funding serious journalism in the US, it could work for Australia too</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>NPR staff would agree with Buttrose that they need more funding, but not in the way she means. US public radio has nearly twice the budget of the entire ABC, with <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/public-broadcasting/">US$1.3 billion (AUD$1.8 billion) in annual revenue</a> for NPR, the <a href="https://www.prx.org/">Public Radio Exchange (PRX)</a> and the 123 largest local public radio stations. </p>
<p>Annual revenue for public TV in the US is smaller at <a href="https://d1qbemlbhjecig.cloudfront.net/prod/filer_public/pbsabout-bento-live-pbs/Financial%20Reports/7c75dcd648_FY%202020%20Audited%20PBS%20Consolidated%20FS.pdf">$US690 million</a> (A$927 million). Still, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/democrats-report-much-higher-levels-of-trust-in-a-number-of-news-sources-than-republicans/#sortable-tables">16% of all US adults</a> get their political news from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), comparable to the BBC audience in the US.</p>
<p>The depth of NPR funding shows in deeply reported programs such as Morning Edition and The New Yorker Radio Hour, which feature experienced journalists (some of whom have been on the same beat for decades). Solid resources underpin shows that are dense with field recordings and interviews with real people across America and from 17 international bureaus. </p>
<p>NPR has also funded a spring of innovative, popular podcasts such as Invisibilia and In the Dark, which are finding large global audiences.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1443653921600425992"}"></div></p>
<h2>A different definition of ‘public broadcaster’</h2>
<p>Buttrose’s narrow definition of “public broadcaster” is based on how much money comes directly from government. </p>
<p>NPR’s coalition of 1,000+ content makers and stations receives <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/public-broadcasting/">only 12% of its funding</a> directly from the government. But the bulk of funding still comes from taxpayers. Public radio stations are structured as not-for-profits and all contributions are tax deductible. Nearly 40% of their funding comes directly from audience members, while another 10% comes from foundations. </p>
<p>“Corporate sponsorships” from <a href="https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2018/10/which-corporations-get-to-sponsor-wnyc-its-not-so-black-and-white/178050/">carefully vetted</a> companies – which are also <a href="https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/corporate-sponsorship-income-taxable-or-charitable-contribution">mostly tax deductible</a> – make up 19% of NPR’s funding.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/npr-is-still-expanding-the-range-of-what-authority-sounds-like-after-50-years-124571">NPR is still expanding the range of what authority sounds like after 50 years</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In 2019, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/public-broadcasting/">individual</a> donations to the top 123 public radio stations totalled $US430 million (A$593 million) from 2.35 million listeners. The average listener contribution was $US183 (A$250).</p>
<p>Those are still taxpayer dollars – money diverted from government coffers where it might have been used on education, health care or infrastructure. But by making news media donations tax deductible, the US government allows audiences to decide which public interest journalism they want to support with their tax money, if any at all. </p>
<p>That, in turn, gives news media that qualify for tax-deductible status a strong incentive to reach as big an audience as possible with content that is so trusted, valuable and engaging, people want to pay to help keep it alive.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"947517418812960768"}"></div></p>
<p>It’s the same case Guardian Australia has made to persuade 170,000 readers to voluntarily contribute to keep its content free for all. </p>
<p>This is not necessarily an argument to change the ABC funding model in Australia. (The ABC only accepts money from government – and none from donors – in the belief this protects it from influence.) Australia also has a more dispersed population and smaller news media market, which is highly vulnerable to foreign competition. </p>
<p>It <em>is</em> an argument for a more sophisticated understanding of the options available to all public interest media as they battle for financial survival. </p>
<p>Like NPR, Australian not-for-profit media should have access to tax-deductible status. Among content makers, only The Conversation, Australian Associated Press and the Judith Neilson Institute have made their way through the opaque and subjective government approval process. </p>
<p>The ACCC and a coalition of media and politicians have <a href="https://piji.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/dickson-g-2021.-proposals-to-provide-news-organisations-tax-deductible-gifts.pdf">advocated</a> for this change, but it has yet to gain parliamentary support. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1302716696164147201"}"></div></p>
<h2>A pioneer in reader-revenue business models</h2>
<p>This audience revenue-driven business model made NPR a pioneer in the world of media “community building”, which has gone mainstream as advertising revenue has shrunk. Successful media businesses are now working hard to replicate NPR’s success in persuading audiences to pay.</p>
<p>Jad Abumrad, creator of the groundbreaking public radio program Radio Lab, explained the concept to my class at the Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York in 2015. </p>
<p>Build audience trust and engagement with authenticity, he said. Tell stories that are driven by real people, with language that is accessible to all. Reporter diversity is key to ensuring stories engage with a broad audience. Be transparent about the reporting process and funding (<a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/133015230/202111329349304686/IRS990">financial statements</a> including staff salaries are published online). </p>
<p>Like all American public radio journalists I’ve met, he had no envy of the government-funded model for public broadcasters. Audience funding makes journalists answerable and responsive to their audiences, he said, and he liked it that way. It has also protected NPR from government pressure.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/funding-public-interest-journalism-requires-creative-solutions-a-tax-rebate-for-news-media-could-work-146563">Funding public interest journalism requires creative solutions. A tax rebate for news media could work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A golden age of journalism is not enough to stop extremism</h2>
<p>In truth, the rise of Trumpism has been a gift to American journalism in important ways. President Donald Trump’s attacks on the press and democracy itself unleashed a flood of funding from audiences and philanthropists, who saw quality journalism as their best defence against authoritarianism. </p>
<p>The New York Times <a href="https://www.axios.com/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions-8e888fd7-5484-44c7-ad43-39564e06c84f.html">quadrupled its subscriptions</a> to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/04/business/media/nyt-new-york-times-earnings-q2-2021.html">eight million</a>, while <a href="https://www.axios.com/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions-8e888fd7-5484-44c7-ad43-39564e06c84f.html">The Washington Post</a> and <a href="https://newscorp.com/2020/05/07/news-corp-reports-third-quarter-results-for-fiscal-2020/">Wall Street Journal</a> have each grown to more than three million subscribers. </p>
<p>The rise of Trumpism was rooted in America’s decades-long lack of investment in education, healthcare and a social safety net. The resulting inequality was fanned by right-wing media and voices on social media. </p>
<p>Those same forces have driven a big rise in far-right politics in Europe and the UK, in spite of government-funded broadcasters and strong social welfare nets. And, as the pandemic has made clear, social-media-driven, right-wing extremism and growing inequality are alive in Australia, too. </p>
<p>Australia will need strong media to combat this rise. A more nuanced understanding of what’s happening in the US media ecosystem is a critical place to start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170361/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prue Clarke heads a not-for-profit media development organisation that receives funding from foundations and governments not mentioned in this article including the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, German Development Cooperation, Australian Aid, American Jewish World Service. She is a contributor to National Public Radio. </span></em></p>Contrary to what some think, US public broadcasters are well-funded. Public radio stations bring in US$1.3 billion in annual revenue – most of it generated from their audience.Prue Clarke, Research Fellow at the Centre for Media Transition and head of New Narratives, a US-based not-for-profit newsroom and media development organisation working in low income countries., University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1502982020-11-17T13:53:08Z2020-11-17T13:53:08ZIs UK public broadcasting still ‘fit for purpose’ in the digital age?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369792/original/file-20201117-21-fnnv0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C4928%2C3245&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Still fit for purpose?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">seeshooteatrepeat via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The future of UK public broadcasting is in play. On November 10 the culture minister <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54885985">Oliver Dowden announced</a> that he was establishing a panel to advise his department as part of the government’s strategic review of public service broadcasting. Ominously he wrote, in an article in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/10/time-ask-big-questions-future-bbc/">The Daily Telegraph</a> that the review would “ask really profound questions” about the role of public service broadcasters in the digital age, “and indeed whether we need them at all”.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-service-broadcasting-advisory-panel">panel includes</a> former Downing Street spokesman Robbie Gibb, Michael, former chief executive of Channel 4, BBC chair and executive chairman of ITV, Andrew Griffith, MP for Arundel and South Downs and former chief operating officer of Sky, and Jane Turton, chief executive of All3Media.</p>
<p>Given the UK-wide remit, voices from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland appear to be thin on the ground. And, as the former Labour home secretary David Blunkett has pointed out in a <a href="https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1328683234440458241">letter to the Financial Times</a>, most members of the panel have had either close ties to the Conservative government or have professional backgrounds which might colour their thinking on public broadcasting.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-service-broadcasting-advisory-panel-terms-of-reference">aim of the panel</a> is to provide “independent expertise and advice” for the review of public service broadcasting, taking into consideration a number of issues, including whether it is still needed. The panel will also consider whether the current funding model for the UK’s public service broadcasters – the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, S4C, STV and Channel 5 – is sustainable and fit for purpose.</p>
<p>Public service broadcasting has a specific and challenging remit in the UK. Trying to define it in a single sentence is notoriously difficult. For proponents, the phrase embodies ideas of quality: “the best”. Its detractors, on the other hand, might argue that it is a covert method of state interference and influence over what people listen to and watch.</p>
<p>At the heart of public service broadcasting is a desire to provide something for everybody, to provide access to information, education, and entertainment regardless of class, status, background, gender, race. Idealistic, some might argue, yet surely a cornerstone of a healthy democracy and a pluralist society. Apart from anything else, public service broadcasters provide content that the market alone cannot provide.</p>
<h2>Inform, educate, entertain</h2>
<p>But the world in which the concept of public service broadcasting, as espoused by the BBC’s first director general, John Reith, was developed and nurtured has long gone. The argument, put forward by government-appointed committees in the 1920s, that the scarcity of space on the airwaves necessitated a broadcasting service “in the nation’s best interests”, and that it should be a monopoly is dead. </p>
<p>In those early days, broadcasting was viewed as a public utility, and – as the broadcasting historian Paddy Scannell has argued – the mandate to develop it as a national service in the public interest came from the state.</p>
<p>This Reithian approach to public broadcasting in the early days of radio broadcasting was based on four tenets. First, the need to protect broadcasting from commercial pressures was safeguarded by creating an assured source of funding (a licence fee for all those who owned wireless sets). Second, the service was to be provided for the whole nation regardless of the geographic location of the listener. The policy of a universal service was achieved, third, by the establishment of a National Programme (broadcast from London) and, fourth, by a Regional Programme from selected cities across the UK (including Cardiff and Birmingham).</p>
<p>When Independent Television (ITV) broke the BBC’s monopoly on broadcasting in 1955, many painted a picture of a broadcasting landscape in which public service broadcasting was represented by the BBC and commercial broadcasting was championed by ITV. Yet this is misleading, as the commercial network was firmly established on public service broadcasting principles, with a state-appointed authority to regulate it and ensure programme quality. There were clear public service obligations laid down in the <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/208620585.pdf">1954 Television Act</a>, and in subsequent broadcasting Acts, although it’s fair to say that since the 1990s, these have been gradually eroded.</p>
<h2>Modern times</h2>
<p>During the 1980s, the BBC was embroiled in a bitter battle with the Conservative government under <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/20/bbc-war-margaret-thatcher-life-on-earth-grange-hill-eastenders-falklands">Margaret Thatcher</a>. At the heart of it was a clash of ideals and a desire on the part of the government to “modernise” the corporation (including a failed attempt to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30622889">introduce advertising</a> to the BBC in the mid-1980s). </p>
<p>By the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, it was the turn of ITV to face the wrath of the government, and the Broadcasting Acts of <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/data.pdf">1990</a> and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/55/contents">1996</a> led to a process which would change the face of ITV forever. The legislation set up a sealed-bid auction for ITV franchises and relaxed the laws on the ownership of ITV companies.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Channel 4's new offices under construction in Leeds." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spreading the love: Channel 4’s new HQ in Leeds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Duncan Cuthbertson via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since then, increasing competition from satellite broadcasters and now companies such as Netflix and Amazon, not to mention social media platforms, all pose a threat to public service broadcasting. But as the BBC’s centenary approaches, we cannot abandon the core principles upon which the broadcasting services of the UK’s nations and, indeed, the public broadcasting services of myriad other countries, including Germany, Japan and Australia, have been founded. </p>
<p>Despite a feeling in government, perhaps, that the BBC and other public services broadcasters are an anachronism, a relic of the past, broadcasting historians are more than happy to show that they have, in fact, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X1415200129?journalCode=miad">always adapted to changing times</a>. They have managed to adapt for a hundred years – they need to be allowed to continue to adapt for another hundred.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150298/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie Medhurst receives funding from AHRC, British Academy, Leverhulme Trust</span></em></p>The UK government has set up a committee to report on the future of public broadcasting – sounds ominous.Jamie Medhurst, Reader in Film, Television and Media/Co-Director, Centre for Media History, Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1475582020-10-07T02:05:20Z2020-10-07T02:05:20ZLike the care economy, arts and culture are an opportunity missed in the 2020-21 budget<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362047/original/file-20201006-14-1as1h3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bangarra Dance Theatre</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If a week is a long time in politics, a year’s an eon. The 2019-20 budget announced a regal return to surplus, with a “fundamentally sound” Australian economy at 2.75% growth and unemployment under 5%. Low interest rates and continuing flat wages left the Coalition free to pursue its beloved trifecta of smaller government, reduced public expenditure and deregulation.</p>
<p>The pandemic has knocked these goals out of the ballpark. It’s not just the numbers that have changed, it’s the narrative. At the time of the GFC, the Coalition <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/fear-of-a-black-hole-bad-for-nations-future-20090619-cpq3.html">castigated deficit budgeting</a> as the acme of financial imprudence. Now they are proposing a 2020-21 deficit of A$213 billion. How to square that?</p>
<p>You can’t. All you can do is blow and bluster and hope no one notices you are saying the opposite of what you once proclaimed. </p>
<p>The business of Australia is business, it seems, rather than Australia more broadly. Which is perhaps why anyone listening to the ABC’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/budget-special-analysis/12737496">PM Budget Special</a> would not have heard the words “arts and culture” mentioned once.</p>
<p>For the cultural sector, this is a budget with no big surprises. Such feelings as exist around already announced measures will continue. In the budget papers they are laid out as a job lot.</p>
<h2>The broad view</h2>
<p><a href="https://budget.gov.au/2020-21/content/bp1/index.htm">Budget Paper No. 1</a> provides the broad view for “the recreation and culture function”. (Treasury have their usual poetic way with words). Broadcasting funding for 2020-21 is $1,497 million (up from the 2019-20 estimate of $1,482 million) while the “arts and cultural heritage subfunction” gets $1,647 million (up from the 2019-20 estimate of $1,379 millon).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/remember-the-arts-departments-and-budgets-disappear-as-politics-backs-culture-into-a-dead-end-128110">Remember the arts? Departments and budgets disappear as politics backs culture into a dead end</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Amazingly, given its visibility over the COVID period, ABC operational funding continues to decline in real terms (-0.7% in 2020-21, then -3.7% by 2023-24). This “indexation pause” is partially offset by “additional program measures” (though there is some inconsistency here, as the <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/statements/2020_2021/budget/index.aspx">Portfolio Budget Statement tells a more positive story</a>.)</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362066/original/file-20201006-20-fyj615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Signage at the ABC building in Sydney: operational funding to the public broadcaster continues to decline in real terms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joel Carrett/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Arts and cultural heritage increases by 13.9% in 2020-21 then decreases by -8.9% by 2023-24 (this includes the <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/new-400-million-incentive-boost-jobs-screen-industry">Location Incentive Program,</a> without which the decrease would be larger).</p>
<p>Total expenditure on recreation and culture thus resembles a plane landing at an oblique angle: from $4,364 million this year, to $4,000 million in 2021-22, to $3,836 million in 2022-23, to $3,900 million in 2023-24.</p>
<p>There’s also $90 million of loan guarantees issued under the <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/covid-19-update">Arts and Entertainment Guarantee Scheme</a>, to help cultural businesses facing immediate cash flow problems.</p>
<h2>The detail</h2>
<p>There is $22.9 million in COVID-19 response packages for a range of institutions from the National Portrait Gallery ($1.2 million) to the National Library of Australia ($5.4 million).</p>
<p>From 2019-20 to 2020-21, estimated funding falls to the National Gallery of Australia by $10 million and the National Museum by $23 million. It increases to the National Library by $9 million and holds steady-ish for Screen Australia, the National Film and Sound Archive and the National Portrait Gallery. The ABC gets $43.7 million for enhanced news services and SBS $7.6 million for enhanced language services. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362069/original/file-20201006-22-oxj6q1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A visitor examines an artwork at the National Gallery of Australia after it reopened in June following closure due to COVID-19.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Media Reform Package includes $30 million to Screen Australia, $20.2 million to the Children’s Television Foundation and $3 million to the Screen Writing and Script Development Fund — a total of $53.2 million.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cheese-n-crackers-concerns-deepen-for-the-future-of-australian-childrens-television-147183">Cheese 'n' crackers! Concerns deepen for the future of Australian children's television</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>By contrast, the government is giving “$400M over seven years to extend the Location Incentive Program to attract international investment in the screen industry and provide local employment and training opportunities”.</p>
<p>My colleague Jo Caust <a href="https://theconversation.com/400-million-in-government-funding-for-hollywood-but-only-scraps-for-australian-film-142979">has written </a>on the paradox of this. Two comments can be made about it here. First, any Australian government should think very carefully before using taxpayer’s money to subsidise another nation’s culture. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/400-million-in-government-funding-for-hollywood-but-only-scraps-for-australian-film-142979">$400 million in government funding for Hollywood, but only scraps for Australian film</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Second, if it is, for non-cultural reasons, determined to do so, it must ensure the incentives for Australian filmmakers are at least commensurate. Otherwise, it is offering up the workforce of its highly trained industry as drone labour.</p>
<p>The centrepiece of this part of the budget are the <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/funding-and-support/rise-fund">Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand Fund</a> of $75 million, and the <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/funding-and-support/arts-sustainability-fund">Arts Sustainability Fund</a> of $35 million for “Commonwealth-funded arts and culture organisations facing threats to their viability” due to the pandemic (hint, it’ll be most of them).</p>
<p>Together with the <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/funding-and-support/covid-19-support/temporary-interruption-fund">Temporary Interruption Fund</a> of $50 million for COVID-affected screen productions, new support for Regional Arts Australia of $10 million, for Indigenous Visual Arts of $7 million, and crisis counselling for cultural workers of $10 million (they need it), these are useful expressions of support — albeit ones that have been slow to arrive — for a sector that’s experienced the economic equivalent of having its head blown off with a bazooka.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-little-too-late-too-confusing-the-funding-criteria-for-the-arts-covid-package-is-a-mess-145397">Too little, too late, too confusing? The funding criteria for the arts COVID package is a mess</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is it enough?</h2>
<p>Not really. It’s welcome, but the amount going to arts and culture is a pimple to a pumpkin compared to what’s going into the economy as a whole. There are interesting touches – a Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, for example ($16 million). And it’s a relief to see the Australia Council’s allocation bump up by $1 million. But based on these numbers alone, you wouldn’t think anything bad had happened to Australian culture at all.</p>
<p>The issue of an effective balance of support between the major and smaller organisations remains outstanding. This will present the government’s new <a href="https://www.arts.gov.au/departmental-news/meet-creative-economy-taskforce">Cultural Economy Taskforce</a> with a headache almost as throbbing as the one the Treasurer will nurse into the new year.</p>
<p>Then there is the question of how to ensure the money goes to the right people for the right (economy restarting) reasons? This is a budget weighted towards the private sector, based on the expectation tax cuts and asset write-offs will be reinvested and not used to retire debt or, worse, plopped on the short-term money market.</p>
<p>Cultural workers often complain the government is deaf to their needs. It’s not entirely true. But they are part of the public sector. As such, they are a target for governments wanting to use fiscal instruments in a controlled way, dialling down the narrative of leadership and entrepreneurship, dialling up the one on nation building and public works.</p>
<p>Like the care economy, arts and culture are an opportunity missed in the 2020-21 budget. What’s there is helpful. What isn’t remains significant. PM’s Melissa Clarke described the Coalition as adopting a “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/budget-special-analysis/12737496">tried and tested policy approach to economic recovery</a>”. </p>
<p>But in the face of catastrophic disaster, nothing is tried and tested. The truth is Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is taking a risk. Arts and culture are not part of his bet, not this time at any rate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147558/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julian Meyrick does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The amount going to arts and culture is a pimple to a pumpkin compared to what’s being pumped into the economy as a whole.Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1413262020-06-25T08:03:48Z2020-06-25T08:03:48ZVoice of America struggle for independence highlights issue of state role in government-backed media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343689/original/file-20200624-132965-nu4vy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C14%2C1908%2C1051&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Michael Pack at his confirmation hearing in Washington, September 2019.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">VOA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/voice-america-will-sound-like-trump/613321/">Journalists</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/bzelizer/status/1273454503317114881">scholars</a>, <a href="https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-alarmed-abrupt-dismissals-us-news-agency-heads-trump-appointed-ceo">media freedom organisations</a> and even senior <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/18/trump-global-media-chief-faces-gop-backlash-over-f/">Republicans</a> have been alarmed by the appointment of Donald Trump’s nominee, Michael Pack, as chief executive of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees state-funded international media. </p>
<p>Pack has been described as an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/06/michael-pack-steve-bannon-ally-broadcasting-board-of-governors">ally of Steve Bannon</a>, the chief executive of the far-right media outlet, Breitbart News. Within two weeks of his formal appointment on June 4, Pack had “<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/17/media/us-agency-for-global-media-michael-pack/index.html">purged</a>” the heads of four state-funded news organisations, Middle East Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Open Technology Fund. He is <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882654831/citing-a-breached-firewall-media-leaders-sue-u-s-official-over-firings?">now being sued</a> by former members of these organisations’ advisory boards, who claim that this mass sacking breaks federal guarantees about their journalistic independence.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/voice-of-american-resignations.html">The director and deputy director of Voice of America (VoA) resigned</a> on June 2 two days before Pack took up his post. The radio network – which is the largest and best-known international news organisation funded by the US – also has a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/15/2020-12696/firewall-and-highest-standards-of-professional-journalism">statutory</a> “firewall” designed to protect its editorial independence. Yet VoA is also obliged to carry “editorials” which present the views of the US government – editorials which <a href="https://www.usagm.gov/2020/06/24/usagm-ceo-michael-pack-moves-to-restore-voa-editorials-to-former-prominence/">Pack has ruled</a> must now be positioned much more prominently. </p>
<p>Journalists at VoA are <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/15/media/voice-of-america-top-officials-resign/index.html">reported</a> to be seriously concerned that Pack intends to “interfere with VoA’s independent newsroom and turn it into a pro-Trump messaging machine”. These fears are likely to be exacerbated by recent <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/">legislative changes</a> allowing VoA to broadcast domestically, which was previously forbidden under “anti-propaganda” laws passed during the cold war.</p>
<p>But perhaps the most obvious cause of concern is VoA’s increasingly fraught relationship with the White House. Earlier this year, Trump’s criticisms of VoA escalated, when he alleged that its journalists were spreading “Chinese propaganda” about <a href="https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/831988148/white-house-attacks-voice-of-america-over-china-coronavirus-coverage">coronavirus</a>. Then, just before Pack’s appointment, VoA journalists used a Freedom of Information request to discover that that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had emailed staff telling them to <a href="https://www.voanews.com/press-freedom/cdc-media-guidance-blacklists-voa-interview-requests">ignore media requests from VoA journalists</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343729/original/file-20200624-133002-ut5kai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343729/original/file-20200624-133002-ut5kai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343729/original/file-20200624-133002-ut5kai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343729/original/file-20200624-133002-ut5kai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343729/original/file-20200624-133002-ut5kai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343729/original/file-20200624-133002-ut5kai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343729/original/file-20200624-133002-ut5kai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">VoA is the largest US international broadcaster.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Van Scyoc via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, how will VoA journalists respond to Pack’s new appointment? <a href="https://www.usagm.gov/2020/06/18/ceo-message-to-staff/">In an introductory email</a> to the staff of state-funded media organisations, Pack stressed his commitment to honouring VoA’s charter and the independence of its “heroic” staff around the world. The White House then issued a <a href="https://www.usagm.gov/2020/06/18/usagm-ceo-implements-critical-changes-on-day-one-to-fulfill-legislative-mandate/">press release</a> claiming that Pack’s reassuring message was met with an “overwhelmingly positive response” from journalists and grantees “who personally reached out and candidly congratulated him.” </p>
<p>One is even <a href="https://www.usagm.gov/2020/06/18/usagm-ceo-implements-critical-changes-on-day-one-to-fulfill-legislative-mandate/">cited as having said</a>: “I am sure that with your arrival, we will be able to rejuvenate our agency, to get rid of any bias and partisanship, and will be able to adequately transmit America’s image and ideas to the outer world.”</p>
<h2>Muddled mission</h2>
<p>Our recently published research shows that Pack’s appointment is unlikely to be viewed enthusiastically by many VoA journalists. Over the past five years, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1940161220922832">we have studied</a> the relationships between journalists at various state-supported news outlets and the countries that fund them. The VoA journalists we spoke to said they had been seriously worried for a long time about Pack’s nomination, and their organisation’s relationship to the Trump administration. </p>
<p>Their concern was initially prompted by Trump’s notoriously poor relationship with the media, when combined with other legislative changes (passed late in the Obama administration), which removed the regulatory power of the bipartisan <a href="https://bbgwatch.com/bbgwatch/obama-signs-off-on-reducing-status-of-broadcasting-board-of-governors/">Broadcasting Board of Governors</a>. As one put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We all saw what happened during the [election] campaign and the various different attacks on the media that the president, as a candidate, was waging.</p>
<p>There was a concern amongst journalists … that [without the BBG firewall] there would be some sort of real focus on how VoA can reach audiences around the world, and a look at, perhaps, how the White House can take advantage of that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, VoA journalists also thought that the radio network was vulnerable to political interference because of specific tensions within <a href="https://www.voanews.com/archive/voa-charter-0">VoA’s Charter</a>. This obliges the network’s journalists to offer “accurate, objective, and comprehensive” news while “present[ing] the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.” </p>
<p>The charter states that VoA output should include “responsible discussions and opinion” on these policies, rather than simply representing the views of a “single segment of American society.” But this inevitably means that, as one editor put it, journalists report on international news “through the prism of United States’ government policy”. </p>
<p>The “red line” for VoA’s news journalists seemed to be their ability to make editorial decisions without explicit interference from the US government. Indeed, some told us that they had already decided to resign if the administration tried to use Pack’s appointment to curb their editorial independence. However, VoA journalists are not alone in experiencing serious ethical quandaries about their relationship to their funding state.</p>
<h2>Heavy hand of government</h2>
<p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1940161220922832">Our research</a> shows that a series of events between 2015-2018 have made it increasingly difficult for journalists at other state-funded international media to avoid confronting their role in diplomatic struggles for influence. </p>
<p>The most obvious example of this is international media funded by China, the premier of which takes an increasingly <a href="https://america.cgtn.com/2018/03/21/china-to-merge-state-media-broadcasting-giants">centralised and controlling approach to state-funded journalism</a>. Journalists working for China Global Television Network (CGTN), who had previously been allowed far more editorial discretion than their colleagues at other China-supported outlets, were deeply distressed by growing censorship, and other kinds of managerial intervention. This threatened their sense of themselves as “journalists”, with <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1940161220922832">one even saying</a> that they worried that the network was being pushed “towards the point of propaganda.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343734/original/file-20200624-132978-1qy5x2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343734/original/file-20200624-132978-1qy5x2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343734/original/file-20200624-132978-1qy5x2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343734/original/file-20200624-132978-1qy5x2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343734/original/file-20200624-132978-1qy5x2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343734/original/file-20200624-132978-1qy5x2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343734/original/file-20200624-132978-1qy5x2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Advertising banner for China Global Television Network at Heathrow Airport Terminal Five.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Harper via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By contrast, we found no evidence that the UK government interfered in editorial matters. But its explicit framing of generous funding for the BBC World Service in terms of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-strategy-and-strategic-defence-and-security-review-2015">British security interests</a> seriously troubled some journalists, especially those working in sensitive areas, such as former British colonies. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343736/original/file-20200624-132982-14k87gz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343736/original/file-20200624-132982-14k87gz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343736/original/file-20200624-132982-14k87gz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343736/original/file-20200624-132982-14k87gz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343736/original/file-20200624-132982-14k87gz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343736/original/file-20200624-132982-14k87gz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343736/original/file-20200624-132982-14k87gz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">BBC World Service headquarters on Portland Place in London.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Willy Barton via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although the Qatari government does not appear to have restructured or reframed its relationship to Al Jazeera English, its journalists became acutely aware of their involvement in international struggles during the Gulf diplomatic crisis, when Qatar’s neighbours and their allies demanded that Qatar <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/arab-states-issue-list-demands-qatar-crisis-170623022133024.html">close the network down</a>.</p>
<p>Journalists working for all of these state-funded news organisations have struggled to reconcile their understandings of their diplomatic role with their ideals of journalistic independence. Yet no matter how fraught relations with their funding governments became – and how compromised journalists sometimes felt – it was very unusual for them to resign or come together to resist state pressure en masse. </p>
<p>Indeed, we found that active resistance only happened when journalists feared that they would lose all credibility in the eyes of journalists outside of their news organisation, thus seriously damaging their own career prospects. So, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/877762070/top-executives-at-voa-resign-as-trump-ally-prepares-to-take-over">the decision of the two most senior executives at VoA to resign,</a> just before Pack’s appointment, should not be underestimated.</p>
<p>Instead of resisting government pressure, we found that journalists tended to use what we call “legitimising narratives” to reassure themselves and others that their work was still worthwhile. First, they compared themselves favourably with a shared “other” – Russia Today – arguing that they did not disseminate “state propaganda” like RT, because they told the truth. At other times, they would talk about the resources and access that their state funding gave them to do morally important, but time-consuming and expensive forms of investigative reporting — money that is increasingly vanishing at commercial news outlets.</p>
<p>Finally, the journalists would talk about the concept of “soft power” – and the fact that the government funded their news outlet to make them “look good” abroad. This soft power could only work, the journalists reasoned, if their news outlet was perceived as reporting in an independent and credible manner. So, they said they felt reasonably confident that the state was unlikely to erode their freedom further in the future. The latest events at VoA suggest that this confidence may have been misplaced.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141326/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Wright receives funding from the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Scott receives funding from the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mel Bunce receives funding from the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. </span></em></p>New research shows that journalists tend to only resist government interference when they fear it will seriously damage their career prospects’.Kate Wright, Academic Lead of Media and Communications Research Cluster, The University of EdinburghMartin Scott, Senior Lecturer in Media and International Development, University of East AngliaMel Bunce, Reader in Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1317622020-02-14T19:38:43Z2020-02-14T19:38:43ZNZ’s classical music station is not safe yet. It now needs innovation and leadership<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315406/original/file-20200214-11040-19zqrwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=66%2C253%2C7282%2C4429&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After a week-long controversy, New Zealand’s public broadcaster Radio New Zealand (<a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/">RNZ</a>) has withdrawn a <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018732872/rnz-set-to-cut-back-concert-and-launch-new-youth-service">proposal to axe</a> its classical music station <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/concert">RNZ Concert</a>.</p>
<p>But despite the sudden backtrack, RNZ Concert isn’t safe yet. Whatever the final outcome of RNZ’s <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/119521953/rnz-concert-future-brightens-as-staff-told-to-prepare-for-focus-on-growth">rethink</a>, it is clear the board and management placed little value on the significant role the station plays in New Zealand musical culture.</p>
<p>RNZ Concert now needs a compelling new strategic direction to create a redefined – rather than eviscerated – station that is central to a more diverse 21st-century artistic vision in New Zealand.</p>
<h2>Decades of decline</h2>
<p>The announcement that RNZ planned to fire RNZ Concert presenters and producers, and replace them with an automated jukebox on an inferior AM frequency, prompted <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/10/calls-to-save-radio-new-zealand-classical-music-station-reach-crescendo">a public outcry</a> spearheaded by former <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409336/rnz-concert-proposal-disastrously-handled-helen-clark">prime minister Helen Clark</a>, and a <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/119395756/prominent-lawyers-prepare-legal-battle-against-rnz-in-attempt-to-save-concert">legal challenge from a coalition of orchestras</a>.</p>
<p>But this was merely the bleak endgame to a managed decline of RNZ Concert over the past 20 years. During this period, it lost its flagship studio (to make way for government buildings that never eventuated), and had to <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4968745/Hard-up-Radio-New-Zealand-selling-off-pianos">sell its grand pianos to stay afloat</a>. </p>
<p>On a budget of only 7% of RNZ’s total annual expenditure, it nevertheless <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/about/audience-research">attracts almost 22% of its total audience</a> — despite there being virtually no advertising of the station.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1226995084672946176"}"></div></p>
<p>The announcement was also poorly timed, landing just a few days before the government launched a business case to <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/work-begin-possible-new-public-media-entity">merge RNZ with the television network TVNZ</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/newsrooms-not-keeping-up-with-changing-demographics-study-suggests-125368">Newsrooms not keeping up with changing demographics, study suggests</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>RNZ’s role in preserving culture</h2>
<p>No broadcaster has done as much to both record and promote New Zealand music as RNZ Concert. Many regard the station as a “<a href="http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=125649">cultural taonga</a>” (treasure). </p>
<p>With a new mandate, and a revised strategic direction, it could be central to supporting a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/classical-music-white-male-orchestra-proms-female-bme-chineke">broadening of horizons</a>” currently underway in classical music. Orchestras and ensembles worldwide are finally beginning to understand the need to address systematic imbalances of generational, gender and cultural representation in their programmes to ensure their continued relevance. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/beethoven-or-brexit-battle-for-chart-domination-shows-uks-divided-soul-131158">Beethoven or Brexit? Battle for chart domination shows UK's divided soul</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In New Zealand, this is evidenced by the number of ambitious cross-cultural, cross-genre and cross-generational projects in recent years. In 2019, soul singer <a href="https://www.teeks.nz">Teeks</a> headlined a <a href="https://www.apo.co.nz">collaboration with the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra</a> in a series of songs arranged by <a href="http://www.mahuia.com">Mahuia Bridgman-Cooper</a>. This concert was recorded and broadcast by RNZ Concert.</p>
<p>Several <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Sistema">Sistema-style</a> groups are now training a new generation of Māori and Pasifika in orchestral playing skills, some of which have resulted in packed-out public performances alongside <a href="http://orchestrawellington.co.nz">Orchestra Wellington</a>. These are also recorded and broadcast by RNZ Concert.</p>
<p>My own composition <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmzq1zNvlvE"><em>Mātauranga (Rerenga)</em></a>, premiered by the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in 2019, features traditional Māori musical instruments (taonga puoro). Once again, RNZ Concert recorded this, just one of a number of new works featuring these once-suppressed instruments that are being nurtured back to life by artists such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nunns">Richard Nunns</a>, <a href="https://www.horomonahoro.com">Horomona Horo</a>, <a href="http://arianatikao.com">Ariana Tikao</a> and <a href="https://alfraser.net">Alistair Fraser</a>.</p>
<h2>At the heart of the arts</h2>
<p>RNZ Concert is uniquely positioned to lead a more representative arts experience in a way no other radio station in New Zealand is equipped to do. It is an active partner in a number of collaborative projects such as <a href="https://sounz.org.nz/films-audio/resound">Resound</a>, which is responsible for amassing a treasure trove of live concert videos of New Zealand music, hosted on YouTube and Vimeo. </p>
<p>It produces documentaries and interviews, presents educational programmes, and has recently expanded its coverage to include musical practices that defy the dominance of mainstream commercial pop – such as jazz, Māori music, experimentalism, sonic art and non-Western music. While these are currently only a small part of Concert’s programming, they could expand and flourish.</p>
<p>Having had a stay of execution, RNZ Concert now deserves a new kind of strategic leadership that can develop an innovative, exciting brand of musical diversity.
It needs a new vision to set it at the heart of 21st-century music-making in Aotearoa.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131762/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Norris has had over 20 compositions recorded by RNZ Concert.</span></em></p>Classical music station RNZ Concert may have been saved by an outcry from music lovers – but as a composer, it’s clear to me that its management still doesn’t realise what a national treasure it is.Michael Norris, Associate Professor, Programme Director (Composition), Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1220372019-10-18T01:00:07Z2019-10-18T01:00:07ZThe Coalition government is (again) trying to put the squeeze on the ABC<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296389/original/file-20191010-188819-u1t46k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=64%2C1110%2C3303%2C2042&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Coalition government has reintroduced a bill seeking to mandate the ABC devote more resources to covering regional Australia – a measure that has been defeated before by parliament.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Danny Casey/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the basic tenets of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00079">ABC Act</a> is independence from government. Yet once again, in contravention to that principle, the federal government is trying to push through major, unnecessary changes to the <a href="https://about.abc.net.au/how-the-abc-is-run/what-guides-us/legislative-framework/">ABC’s governing laws</a>.</p>
<p>The changes themselves might seem innocuous, even positive. They seek to ensure the ABC devotes more resources to covering regional Australia, and to mandate that its news reporting is “fair and balanced”. </p>
<p>Yet, they come at a time when the ABC has <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-abc-didnt-receive-a-reprieve-in-the-budget-its-still-facing-staggering-cuts-114922">less funding than ever</a>, in relative terms, to deal with the bureaucratic burdens these measures would impose. </p>
<p>If passed, these measures will also expose the organisation to political claims that it’s not doing its job. And they represent blatant political interference in how the ABC determines its objectives and what it spends its money on.</p>
<h2>More emphasis on regional reporting</h2>
<p>On July 31, with little fanfare, the Coalition government introduced the first of three proposed changes to the ABC Act. The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6382">Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019</a> requires the ABC to: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>contribute to a sense of “regional” identity as well as “a sense of national identity”</p></li>
<li><p>reflect “geographical”, as well “cultural diversity” </p></li>
<li><p>establish a Regional Advisory Council that the ABC Board will have to consult “before making a [significant] change to a broadcasting service in a regional area”. The ABC also has to report annually on these consultations.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The bill suggests the council will cost $100,000 per year, while “other measures … are expected to have no financial impact”. But this is a ludicrous notion given the potential cost of expanding local services across the country.</p>
<p>This regional push by the Coalition government is no benign shepherding of the ABC back to its core duties. It’s actually designed to tie the corporation up in red tape and shift its attention away from national coverage – and the machinations of federal government.</p>
<p>The House of Representatives debated the proposed changes last month, splitting along party lines. A vote is likely in the house early next week. And unless there is significant public opposition, the bill could potentially be passed before the end of the year.</p>
<p>The legislation has been before parliament <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-government-and-one-nation-may-use-media-reforms-to-clip-the-abcs-wings-84615">in various forms since 2015</a>, but failed to get through. It has been the subject of two Senate investigations, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/ABCRuralMeasuresBill/Report">most recently in 2018</a>, with Coalition senators supporting its reintroduction to parliament. </p>
<p>However, dissenting reports <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/ABCRuralMeasuresBill/Report/d01">from Labor</a> and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/ABCRuralMeasuresBill/Report/d02">the Greens</a> noted the ABC was already committed to regional coverage and couldn’t provide more without a funding increase.</p>
<h2>Another mandate for ‘fair and balanced’ reporting</h2>
<p>The second amendment due to be introduced during the spring sitting is similarly unnecessary. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill, which is yet to be tabled, is a sop to One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson for her support with the Coalition government’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abc-sbs-funding-could-unlock-media-reform-say-greens-20170815-gxwgrq.html">2017 media ownership legislation</a>. </p>
<p>This proposal, too, was debated and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1095">rejected in parliament</a> in 2017.</p>
<p>As many critics noted when it was rejected, the legislation duplicates existing balance and fairness provisions in the ABC’s editorial policies, and has the potential to constrain coverage of contentious issues.</p>
<p>It is unclear why the Coalition is putting up this bill again, except as an attempt to keep Hanson on side in the Senate.</p>
<h2>Increased pressure on public broadcasting</h2>
<p>We have to read the political intent of these changes in light of the ongoing pressures on the ABC. In recent years, the broadcaster has been faced with</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-abc-didnt-receive-a-reprieve-in-the-budget-its-still-facing-staggering-cuts-114922">six reductions in funding</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>two efficiency reviews <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/sites/g/files/net301/f/ABC_and_SBS_efficiency_report_Redacted.pdf">in 2014</a> and <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/television/national-broadcasters-efficiency-review">in 2018</a> (which has not been publicly released). </p></li>
<li><p>Liberal calls for its privatisation or <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-20/senator-says-abc-should-relocate-to-regional-centres/11229970">sale of its property</a> to “help pay down the national debt”.</p></li>
<li><p>the deputy prime minister’s call to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/abc-should-go-bush-says-acting-pm-michael-mccormack/news-story/af36b10851edc940b894b285532a8d31">move it wholesale to regional Australia</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-15/abc-raids-australian-federal-police-press-freedom/11309810">recent federal police raids</a> on its investigative reporters.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These latest proposals to amend the ABC Charter raise bigger questions about how we deal with media law reform. Crucially, to be effective and sustainable, it needs to be strategic, not ad hoc and politicised. </p>
<p>Ever since the ABC was established, one of the country’s most important public policy objectives has been ensuring regional media services. So, rather than tinkering with the ABC, or even granting <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/regional-media-in-crisis-antony-catalano-to-push-for-regulation-changes-20190919-p52sz3.html">private owners more concessions</a>, what we need is a comprehensive analysis of media and communications services for regional, rural and remote communities.</p>
<p>The ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry gave us important insights into the complexity of national media policy <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-media-regulators-face-the-challenge-of-dealing-with-global-platforms-google-and-facebook-121430">in a global environment</a> and recommended stable, adequate budgets for the ABC and SBS. </p>
<p>Pointedly, the ACCC said they are not yet funded </p>
<blockquote>
<p>to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>No amount of changes to the ABC Charter will fix that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122037/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Ward is affiliated with ABC Alumni. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona R Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The latest proposals to amend the ABC Charter raise questions about media law reform. To be effective and sustainable, it needs to be strategic, not ad hoc and politicised.Fiona R Martin, Senior Lecturer in Convergent and Online Media, University of SydneyMichael Ward, PhD candidate, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1246462019-10-04T09:27:13Z2019-10-04T09:27:13ZBBC: Munchetty affair shows it is struggling with changing times and new challenges<p>Here’s an everyday story about BBC internal politics. BBC presenter Naga Munchetty is pressed by her Breakfast colleague Dan Walker for her views on an <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49004860">offensively racist statement</a> by Donald Trump. She gives a relatively calm, guarded answer. A single viewer writes in and the complaint is, partially, upheld. The <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-bans-staff-from-protest-against-racism-censure-cmb6mcmnx">outrage, letters and petitions</a> generated by this judgement force the BBC’s director-general Lord Tony Hall to intervene. He wisely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/30/naga-munchetty-bbc-reverses-decision-to-censure-presenter">reverses the decision</a>. </p>
<p>This sequence of events should be no surprise. Anyone trying to read the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines">BBC’s editorial guidelines</a> would be struck by how confused they have become. The corporation once dominated a tiny number of TV channels in an age when such organisations were controlled by a disciplined hierarchy and online communication didn’t exist. The style of its news was impersonal and much of its audience thought that increased its authority.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1177560825915150337"}"></div></p>
<p>The BBC now <a href="https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2018-19.pdf">employs 20,000 people</a>, costs £4bn a year and operates in a less formal world in which most people on earth can command a torrent of information to flow through a small device in their pocket.</p>
<p>The editorial guidelines make a brave attempt to sound clear and consistent with the founding traditions of a public service broadcaster. But the spread of digital communications has changed the impact of information, weakened the authority of expertise, encouraged sinking popular papers to abandon accuracy completely and provided dozens of points of view which any consumer of news and opinion can compare and contrast at will. It’s hardly surprising that public service broadcasters are finding it ever harder to set down stable and consistent rules which preserve impartiality.</p>
<p>The guidelines try to take account of the fact that a broadcaster must be able to express some personality without expressing opinions of the wrong sort. The part of the complaint originally upheld against Munchetty did not object to her giving an opinion about racism but criticised her for speculating about Trump’s motives – a delicate distinction to say the least. </p>
<p>BBC rules bend over backwards to give presenters and journalists wriggle room for judgements, but are complex and vague about exactly what is off limits. They say more than once that opinions ought to be “reasoned” and supported by facts. If someone is making a film for the documentary series Panorama over several weeks, that might reasonable. For a presenter needing to keep up the pace of an on-air conversation and compelled to reply in a few words, that is unrealistic.</p>
<h2>Lost in the noise</h2>
<p>A much larger and more dangerous issue lurks underneath rows such as the one over Munchetty’s brief words. It is painful to record this, but the world’s politicians are <a href="https://voxeu.org/article/effect-fake-news-populist-voting">learning a lot from Donald Trump</a>. Trump realised some time ago that in an age saturated by information, only certain assertions and images stand out well enough to be remembered.</p>
<p>He campaigned in the 2016 presidential election by saying several tendentious or untrue things on Twitter every day. Facebook shares and likes then gave him a real-time read-out about which of those eruptions was striking enough to stick. Then he doubled down on it the next day. If he was caught or corrected, he switched topics and the incident was swiftly forgotten in the ceaseless flood of words and images. Accuracy or inaccuracy was not the point – blurring certainty was the aim.</p>
<p>For many politicians, truth is less important than that old marketing idea of “cut-through” – the phrase or allegation which sticks when others fade. A few years ago, an ambitious interviewer asked Salman Rushdie: “What is the biggest problem of all?” <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/salman-rushdie-when-people-stop-believing-in-truth-demagogues-come-forward">He replied</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our collective inability to agree on the nature of reality. There are such conflicting descriptions of how things are that it becomes difficult to make agreements that allow people to move forward.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The problem with truth</h2>
<p>The shrinking space for agreement about how to establish the truth is a danger to every society which depends on the quality of public reason. But that assault on reason and facts is a special danger to organisations such as the BBC. And Brexit is currently the biggest risk of all to it.</p>
<p>Politicians have plenty to answer for but they did not create this problem. They are riding a tide of disillusion, resentment and national populism which has been building for years. Social media have helped to accelerate and amplify the idea that all opinions have equal value, that outrage gets you the most attention, that elites are self-preserving and corrupt and that global organisations are inherently bad.</p>
<p>Public service broadcasters depend on assumptions about how societies rest on shared values and on what those values are. They can survive certain changes – and the BBC, since its foundation just under a century ago has seen and weathered huge changes in attitudes to religion, social deference and diversity. But the planting of doubt about facts and how we go about relying on them generates unprecendented strain. Mark Damazer, a former controller of BBC Radio 4 made this comment in March.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every senior editorial manager I spoke to believes that it has become more difficult to persuade both the public and politicians that the BBC is doing its impartial duty on Brexit.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the face of these dangers, Lord Hall has taken the only line he can. The BBC, he says, is as close to a journalistic gold standard as we have – so value and preserve it. The BBC is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49615771">backing a scheme</a>, shared with the hi-tech giants, to detect and stop misinformation, particularly at election times. There is talk of a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2019/tony-hall-lords">BBC-backed foundation</a> to promote journalism of quality.</p>
<p>Hi-tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter have a <a href="http://georgebrock.net/social-media-and-democracy/">role to play as well</a>. They are not, strictly speaking, media organisations – but they are part of the infrastructure of free speech. Neither they nor anyone else foresaw that an enormous increase in peoples’ power to communicate could be used to damage truth and reason. </p>
<p>These new players should control the amplification of material that can do harm (even if they do not suppress the original expression), they should base their own guidelines more closely on international human rights laws and they will have to devote yet more resources to “curation”, otherwise known as editing. They have moved in these directions, but they need to go further, faster. The hi-tech platforms are wrestling with problems which most editors have faced for centuries and which the director-general of the BBC faces every day.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Brock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK’s public broadcaster is struggling to maintain its values in a news environment being remade by digital technology.George Brock, Visiting Professor of Practice (Journalism), City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1240322019-09-25T13:44:06Z2019-09-25T13:44:06ZWhy South Africa needs to fix its troubled public broadcaster<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294022/original/file-20190925-51429-fmr9t4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Each of South Africa's former presidents treated the state broadcaster very differently. From left Jacob Zuma, Nelson Mandela, and Thabo Mbeki (2008).</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Epa/Kim Ludbrook</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), the country’s <a href="https://www.icasa.org.za/uploads/files/Broadcasting-Act-4-OF-1999.pdf">legislated public broadcasting service</a>, has been in the news for all the wrong reasons in recent times. The extent of its woes were laid bare in testimony at the <a href="https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/">judicial commission</a> investigating allegations of corruption at various state institutions under former President Jacob Zuma.</p>
<p>Witnesses, including former and current South African Broadcasting Corporation executives, painted a frightening picture of an institution hobbled by financial bankruptcy, corruption, political interference, erosion of editorial independence and abuse of power and low staff morale.</p>
<p>The South African Broadcasting Corporation has had a long a painful history. For years it was a mouthpiece of the apartheid government. But it was not destroyed after 1994 when South Africa became an inclusive democracy. Rather the aim was to build it into a strong institution that would contribute to the new South Africa.</p>
<p>After an initial promising start, that project began to fall apart. There’s no question that the South African Broadcasting Corporation has violated its public broadcasting service obligations. And that it continues to place a massive strain on taxpayers.</p>
<p>The question that therefore needs answering is: what needs to be done to fix it?</p>
<h2>Media diversity</h2>
<p>It is in the very spirit of democracy and media diversity that the citizens must be exposed to a variety of media types. That’s why it’s perfectly reasonable that a public broadcasting service should co-exist alongside commercial and community media forms. </p>
<p>These should ideally be owned by a wide variety of proprietors, and widely divergent content. </p>
<p>But a public broadcaster is an essential part of the mix. Unlike other media, a typical public service broadcaster has a legislated obligation to be universally geographically accessible; have universal appeal; pay attention to the needs of the minorities such as people living with disabilites; contribute to creation of national identity and sense of community; and, compete on the basis of good programming rather than in numbers or ratings. </p>
<p>Another reason for defending South Africa’s public broadcaster is that the problem lies with the way in which the institution has been run, rather than the underlying concept of a public broadcaster. The problems that afflict the institution affect only some parts of the South African Broadcasting Corporation – and only some people. </p>
<p>It doesn’t make sense to discard the entire institution just because it has attracted people who have failed in their duties, and who have failed to make it the great broadcaster it could be. </p>
<p>One of these failures has been the inability to insulate the institution from vested political interests. Yet a public broadcaster’s primary responsibility – anywhere in the world – is to exclusively serve the interest of the public, and not any political (factional) and commercial interests. </p>
<p>Yet the ruinous eras of both Hlaudi Motsoeneng, the former SABC acting chief operating officer as well as the former news and current affairs <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2006-10-13-inside-the-sabc-blacklist-report">managing director, Snuki Zikalala,</a> are just two examples of the calamitous failure to insulate the institution from vested political interests. </p>
<h2>What it got right post-1994</h2>
<p>Politically, the SABC had a good start in early post-apartheid South Africa under the leadership of Zwelekhe Sisulu, the CEO and Dr Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, the Board Chair. Nelson Mandela was the President at the time. His respect for public institutions is legendary. </p>
<p>Sisulu and Matsepe-Casaburri came from the African National Congress (ANC), but understood the difference between a public and state broadcaster. Merit was also the primary consideration in choosing the CEO and board chairs. </p>
<p>Even though the <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/20042gon584.pdf">Broadcasting Act</a> was only passed in 1999, political will was enough to protect the broadcaster. In addition, the SABC was largely stable, and had money. It used this to commission good quality dramas such as “Isidingo”, “Generations” and “Yizo Yizo”. Its news and current Affairs programmes, such as “Special Assignment”, were produced by seasoned journalists. And it had a solid investigative unit. </p>
<p>But the landscape began to change and the broadcaster’s market share and commercial fortunes began to shrink in the face of scores of community and regional commercial radio stations, a new free-to-air broadcaster, etv, and cheaper packages from DSTV (a sub-Saharan African direct broadcast satellite service) aimed at the growing black middle class. At the same time, the broadcaster was being politicised too. CEOs left before the end of their terms, some with massive golden handshakes. </p>
<p>President Thabo Mbeki began to rely on the SABC as the platform on which he could be defended. In 2006, the Sisulu Marcus Report <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2006-10-13-inside-the-sabc-blacklist-report">revealed</a> that the broadcaster blacklisted commentators critical of him. The SABC was to <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2005-09-05-cameraman-blamed-in-sabc-bias-probe">hide a clip</a> showing the booing of the Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo Ngcuka. This culture of censorship was continued with the banning of violent protects and insistence on the positive coverage of President Jacob Zuma. </p>
<h2>What needs to be done</h2>
<p>The country needs to devise the legislative means to insulate the SABC - internally and externally - from people who are beholden to (political and commercial) interests other than the public interest. The country cannot afford to lose the SABC.</p>
<p>It is constituted in Chapter IV of the <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/20042gon584.pdf">Broadcasting Act (1999)</a> in defence of the South African public. It is supposed to be a practical platform where people’s Constitutional rights - freedom of speech and the right to information - are realised and equally protected.</p>
<p>This role has become increasingly important given the fact that we live in an era of shrinking commercial media newsrooms amid a rise in manipulative forms of political and commercial communications designed to cover up both government and private sector corruption and other malfeasance. </p>
<p>We also live in an era known for its preponderance of leisure and entertainment. As a public broadcaster the SABC has the potential to critically engage South African citizens on serious matters for the common good, and not exploit them in pursuit of profit. The SABC can execute this task comparatively better than any other media. It also has the distinct advantage of reach.</p>
<h2>Footprint</h2>
<p>The state broadcaster reaches millions of South Africans, in their own languages. Its physical infrastructure makes it almost universally accessible in a country beset by inequality.</p>
<p>With its 19 radio stations and four television channels, it is better suited to defend the interests of the public than other media. The SABC’s biggest radio station, Ukhozi FM, alone touches the lives of 7.7 million South Africans daily. </p>
<p>In a developing country like South Africa, it is public broadcasting, particularly radio, that provides valuable information that matters in the lives of ordinary people. It can meet the information needs of South Africans, while also providing for the needs of the minorities, whose programmes may not be profitable. As such, an SABC that lives up to the ethos of a public service broadcaster can contribute to national identity and coherence, and a sense of community in a fragile country. </p>
<p>The SABC, like South Africa itself, is a symbol of contradictions. While there are bad people who work for it, there are also many good ones. It it because of the good people that the broadcaster has survived.</p>
<p>For their sakes, and the country’s democracy, it’s imperative that the government provides the SABC with the necessary financial backing it needs to weather its current financial storms.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124032/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Musawenkosi Ndlovu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The South African Broadcasting Corporation, like South Africa itself, is a symbol of contradictions. While there are bad people who work for it, there are also many good ones.Musawenkosi Ndlovu, Associate Professor, Centre for Film and Media Studies, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1152332019-04-23T04:33:55Z2019-04-23T04:33:55ZEthnic media are essential for new migrants and should be better funded<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270324/original/file-20190423-15194-mjo8lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An annual indexation freeze in funding introduced by the Liberal government in 2013 has cost the sector almost A$1 million.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/498395695?size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fact that the community ethnic and multicultural broadcasting sector didn’t receive additional funding in the latest budget reflects a misunderstanding of the important role of ethnic media in Australian society.</p>
<p>Ethnic print and broadcasting have a long history in Australia, dating back to at least 1848 with the publication of <a href="http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1475">Die Deutsche Post</a>. </p>
<p>Early foreign language broadcasting featured on <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14443050609388075">commercial radio in the 1930s</a>, and throughout the middle of the 20th century. This was before the boom days of the 1970s, when both the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and community radio were firmly established.</p>
<p>Today, along with SBS, more than 100 community radio stations <a href="https://www.nembc.org.au/about/">feature content in over 100 languages</a>. There are also ethnic media organisations that broadcast or print content in English.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1107592068925276165"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-and-social-responsibility-at-a-time-of-radicalisation-45428">Media and social responsibility at a time of radicalisation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How ethnic media are funded</h2>
<p>Much like mainstream print, ethnic newspapers receive little if any direct government funding. They rely on advertising dollars, as well as occasional small grants.</p>
<p>Ethnic broadcasting is primarily funded through two streams:</p>
<ul>
<li>government funding of SBS </li>
<li>funding of community ethnic broadcasters through the Community Broadcasting Foundation (<a href="https://cbf.org.au/">CBF</a>), which is itself funded federally. </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/budget-leaves-ethnic-community-broadcasting-short-funding">According to</a> the peak body of ethnic community broadcasting in Australia, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters’ Council (<a href="https://www.nembc.org.au/">NEMBC</a>), an annual indexation freeze in funding introduced by the Liberal government in 2013 has cost the sector almost A$1 million. That’s approximately 20% of their total support.</p>
<p>A significant fund of <a href="https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/budget-leaves-ethnic-community-broadcasting-short-funding">A$12 million</a> over four years has been granted to the community broadcasting sector. But this is generalist funding rather than aimed at ethnic broadcasting specifically. It’s directed towards assisting community stations to transition to a digital signal, the production of local news in English, and management training.</p>
<p>The NEMBC is also in its third year of a new <a href="https://www.nembc.org.au/advocacy/concern-for-community-broadcasting-funds/">competitive grants</a> process introduced by the Community Broadcasting Foundation. </p>
<p>According to the NEMBC, many ethnic broadcasters are facing a precarious funding environment. This is due to the lack of specialist funding, the costs associated with transitioning to digital broadcasting, and the complexity of the Community Broadcasting Foundation grants process.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whitewash-thats-not-the-colour-of-the-sbs-charter-40837">Whitewash? That's not the colour of the SBS charter</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why it’s important</h2>
<p>The difficulties facing ethnic broadcasting impact the unique contribution it can make to modern Australia. And it’s a problem that extends beyond policy – media funding for <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-abc-didnt-receive-a-reprieve-in-the-budget-its-still-facing-staggering-cuts-114922">public service</a>, community and ethnic broadcasting is regularly under siege. It’s also a broader social issue. </p>
<p>Ethnic media are often thought of as either quaint services for nostalgic migrants, or as dangerous sources of ethnic segregation. For many, the role of ethnic media rarely, if ever, extends beyond a specific cultural, ethnic or linguistic community.</p>
<p>What’s missing from this image is the role of ethnic media in facilitating successful migrant settlement. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1440783316657430">Research</a> shows that ethnic media can facilitate feelings of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Dialogues-Indigenous-Community-Broadcasting/dp/1841502758">belonging and social participation</a> among first and subsequent generation migrants. Ethnic media connect migrants and culturally and linguistically diverse Australians with other social groups, as well as with their own local communities.</p>
<p>On a more practical level, ethnic media are important sources of information. When advice is needed on a range of issues, from health care services to migration law, ethnic media play a vital role.</p>
<p>This is not a case of migrants staying in their linguistic “ghettos” and building separate ethnic economies. Rather, it involves seeking sources of relevant, and culturally and linguistically appropriate, information in order to live and thrive in Australian society.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/vIJQ7Asa7R","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>That might be providing advice on voting or taxation to migrants from Sudan. Or informing elderly German migrants of changes to aged care services. Ethnic media provide information that is attuned to the particular needs of their audience.</p>
<p>This is a service that mainstream media are largely unable to provide, with their focus on a broad audience. But without it, migrants potentially miss out on important information.</p>
<p>These are also services that benefit both recent migrant groups, such as those from Africa or the Middle East, and more established communities. For elderly Germans in South Australia, information today comes in the form of German broadcasting in Adelaide, with presenters and producers who understand the needs and histories of their audience.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/debate-on-free-speech-alone-means-little-for-minorities-30397">Debate on free speech alone means little for minorities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Essential sources of vital information</h2>
<p>Ethnic media may also be valuable allies to relevant government departments and settlement service providers. My own ongoing work with ethnic broadcasters and community leaders indicates a level of dissatisfaction with the way government services are communicated to migrant groups from non-English speaking backgrounds.</p>
<p>Ethnic broadcasting is often able to capture the subtleties and nuances that one-size-fits-all government communication campaigns cannot. They are therefore in a unique position to effectively communicate government initiatives at a local, state and national level. </p>
<p>It is no surprise that what would become <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/a-brief-history-of-sbs">SBS Radio</a> was originally designed to inform migrants about the introduction of Medibank health insurance scheme. </p>
<p>It’s important that the services provided by the ethnic media sector, particularly those that cannot be measured in purely economic terms, are understood and supported.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Budarick does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ethnic media outlets provide valuable resources for new migrants settling in Australia, but recent government funding decisions suggest they’re not valued as they should be.John Budarick, Lecturer in Media, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/997842018-07-13T01:10:05Z2018-07-13T01:10:05ZWhy the ABC, and the public that trusts it, must stand firm against threats to its editorial independence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227302/original/file-20180712-27018-1tb8zum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Author Tom Keneally, actress Magda Szubanski and journalist Kerry O'Brien are among the ABC's high-profile supporters.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Jeremy Ng</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The people who are turning up at Save the ABC rallies around the country are defending a cultural institution they value because they trust it.</p>
<p>In particular, they trust its news service. <a href="https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7641-media-net-trust-june-2018-201806260239">Public opinion polls</a> going back to the 1950s consistently show it is by far the most trusted in the country.</p>
<p>So at this time it is pertinent to look at what creates a trustworthy news service. The cornerstone is editorial independence. As opinion polls have shown time and again, where people suspect a newspaper, radio, TV or online news service of pushing some commercial or political interest, their level of trust falls.</p>
<p>Editorial independence does not mean giving journalists licence to broadcast or publish whatever they want or to avoid accountability for their mistakes.</p>
<p>It means encouraging journalists to tackle important stories regardless of what people in power might think, then backing them to make judgments based on news values and the public interest, not on irrelevant considerations such as commercial, financial or political pressure.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/constant-attacks-on-the-abc-will-come-back-to-haunt-the-coalition-government-98456">Constant attacks on the ABC will come back to haunt the Coalition government</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Editorial independence is hard won and under constant pressure from outside the newsroom.</p>
<p>In commercial media, this pressure comes from big advertisers or company bosses with financial or political interests to push.</p>
<p>In public-sector broadcasting, the pressure comes from the federal government, which provides the funding and has powerful means of subjecting the broadcaster to intense political pressure.</p>
<p>A robust editorial leadership is essential to resisting this heat. It’s a daily battle. If the senior editorial management wilts, the weakness is swiftly transmitted down the hierarchy.</p>
<p>Middle-level editors and the staff journalists who work to them start looking over their shoulders, tempted to take easy options and avoid possible heat. The easiest option is self-censorship, dodging sensitive stories, leaving out material or watering it down.</p>
<p>This is where the ABC is at a crossroads. It has as its managing director and editor-in-chief Michelle Guthrie, a person with no journalistic background and who until recently showed scant signs of understanding the impact on the ABC’s editorial independence of the Turnbull government’s relentless bullying.</p>
<p>Then last month she <a href="https://www.melbournepressclub.com/article/standing-up-for-the-abc">gave a speech</a> at the Melbourne Press Club in which she said Australians regard the ABC as a great national institution and deeply resent it being used as “a punching bag by narrow political, commercial or ideological interests”.</p>
<p>It was a start, and now the cause has been taken up by ABC staff themselves and by the wider public in the Save the ABC movement led by ABC Friends.</p>
<p>It is strongly reminiscent of events at The Age nearly 30 years ago, when I was an associate editor there. Then, a Save The Age campaign showed how effective a public outpouring of support for a news outlet can be when they set out to defend one they trust.</p>
<p>The campaign’s origins lay in concerns among senior journalists at the paper over what might happen to its editorial independence when receivers were appointed in 1990. This followed a disastrous attempt by “young” Warwick Fairfax to privatise the Fairfax company, which was the paper’s owner.</p>
<p>A group of senior journalists, including the late David Wilson and the distinguished business writer Stephen Bartholomeusz, formed The Age Independence Committee. It drew up a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/fairfax-media-charter-of-editorial-independence-20120619-20l4t.html">charter of editorial independence</a>.</p>
<p>The key passages stated that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the proprietors acknowledge that journalists, artists and photographers must record the affairs of the city, state, nation and the world fairly, fully and regardless of any commercial, political or personal interests, including those of any proprietors, shareholders or board members</p></li>
<li><p>full editorial control of the newspaper, within a negotiated, fixed budget, is vested in the editor</p></li>
<li><p>the editor alone decides the editorial content, and controls the hiring, firing and deployment of editorial staff.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Save The Age campaign generated tremendous public support. Former prime ministers Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam, who had barely been on speaking terms since <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-explainer-gough-whitlams-dismissal-as-prime-minister-74148">the Dismissal</a> 15 years earlier, joined together at the head of a public demonstration in Melbourne’s Treasury Gardens. One of the campaign slogans was “Maintain Your Age”, a pun on Whitlam’s post-Dismissal election slogan, “Maintain Your Rage”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-politics-behind-the-competitive-neutrality-inquiry-into-abc-and-sbs-95925">The politics behind the competitive neutrality inquiry into ABC and SBS</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Eventually, the receivers signed the charter and so, after some wrangling, did the new owners led by the Canadian-born newspaper baron, Conrad Black. Black is gone but the charter remains.</p>
<p>Like The Age in 1990, the ABC today has strong public support.</p>
<p>Like The Age in 1990, senior journalistic staff, most notably the Melbourne “Mornings” radio presenter Jon Faine, and former presenter of 7.30 on ABC TV, Kerry O’Brien, have shown leadership, lending their profile and authority to the cause.</p>
<p>But unlike The Age, the ABC does not have publicly acknowledged bipartisan political support.</p>
<p>Whatever Malcolm Turnbull’s private views of the ABC, and whatever the stated policy of his government, the facts are that since 2014 the Abbott and Turnbull governments have cut $338 million from the ABC’s funding, and the federal council of the Liberal Party <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-16/liberal-members-vote-to-privatise-abc-move-embassy-to-jerusalem/9877524">voted last month</a> to sell it off.</p>
<p>It is quite possible that when it reports in September, the present <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/inquiry-competitive-neutrality-national-broadcasters">inquiry into</a> the ABC’s competitive neutrality will provide some impetus to this proposition or propose some other ways to clip the ABC’s wings.</p>
<p>It is significant in the context of editorial independence that the inquiry is taking a particular interest in the ABC news service. That is the part of the ABC most detested by politicians, and on which the present government has focused its most intense pressure.</p>
<p>If editorial independence weakens, public trust will weaken too. That would make the ABC an even more attractive political target for a hostile government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99784/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>From 2007 to 2011 Denis Muller worked as a consultant to the ABC devising and testing a method for assessing impartiality of editorial content.
</span></em></p>The public broadcaster’s editorial independence must be protected at all costs – from within and without.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/920442018-02-20T03:39:04Z2018-02-20T03:39:04ZA public broadcaster that bows to political pressure isn’t doing its job<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207016/original/file-20180219-116330-15nphvn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The ABC's independence is a global concern.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ABC’s chief economics correspondent, Emma Alberici, did her job the other day. She wrote a well-researched <a href="https://johnmenadue.com/emma-alberici-theres-no-case-for-a-corporate-tax-cut-when-one-in-five-of-australias-top-companies-dont-pay-it/">analysis piece</a> investigating whether the Turnbull government’s proposed company tax cuts would grow the economy and break Australia’s wages deadlock. </p>
<p>Alberici’s article came in for a lot of criticism from the Turnbull government for its one-sidedness and lack of balance. Later, the ABC took down the article from its website.</p>
<p>If you read <a href="https://johnmenadue.com/emma-alberici-theres-no-case-for-a-corporate-tax-cut-when-one-in-five-of-australias-top-companies-dont-pay-it/">her piece</a>, you’ll see that, yes, she could have included more voices, and yes, the case for company tax cuts was forcefully argued against. But the argument and analysis was built on sound research, as Saul Eslake (one of Australia’s most senior and respected independent economists, who was quoted in Alberici’s story) <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4805870.htm">has pointed out</a>.</p>
<p>So, why on earth did ABC take the article down? </p>
<p>Part of the answer to this lies in the very editorial policies that are supposed to safeguard the ABC’s independence. The current wording of these polices function as a straitjacket on ABC journalists and make it <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4805870.htm">hard for them</a> to toe the line between analysis and opinion.</p>
<p>And that in turn makes the ABC look less independent.</p>
<h2>High level of trust</h2>
<p>One of the ABC’s greatest assets is the high <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/trust-in-daily-and-local-newspapers-on-a-steady-decline-according-to-essential-research-432670">public trust</a> it enjoys compared to many of its commercial media competitors. </p>
<p>That trust is to a large extent built on the broadcaster maintaining and defending its independence from commercial, political and any other societal interests.</p>
<p>There are a lot of misconceptions regarding what a public broadcaster is. But one thing it is not is a government or state broadcaster. </p>
<p>There are certainly examples of some public broadcasters that are. One prominent recent case was when the Polish government in practice <a href="https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN0US2IC20160114">took control</a> of the country’s public broadcaster and turned it into a government mouthpiece.</p>
<h2>A serious case of self-doubt</h2>
<p>The ABC Act and the <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/abca1983361/s6.html">ABC Charter</a> are the safeguards of ABC’s independence from the government of the day. This independence was challenged to unprecedented levels <a href="https://theconversation.com/crude-tone-of-attacks-is-new-but-softening-up-the-abc-for-cuts-isnt-25993">by the Abbott government</a> a few years ago.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/crude-tone-of-attacks-is-new-but-softening-up-the-abc-for-cuts-isnt-25993">Crude tone of attacks is new, but softening up the ABC for cuts isn't</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A new major challenge to the ABC’s independence is the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abc-sbs-funding-could-unlock-media-reform-say-greens-20170815-gxwgrq.html">current change</a>, driven by One Nation, to the ABC Charter requiring it to be “fair” and “balanced” in its reporting. If you recognise these terms, that’s because it used to be Fox News’ catchphrase.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-government-and-one-nation-may-use-media-reforms-to-clip-the-abcs-wings-84615">How the government and One Nation may use media reforms to clip the ABC's wings</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The ABC is not turning into the Polish Broadcasting Corporation, but it has clearly lost a lot of confidence lately. In Alberici’s case, it appears it <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4805870.htm">bowed to government pressure</a> when it should have stood its ground. </p>
<p>But getting heat from the government of the day (regardless of the particular side of politics) is an indication that a public broadcaster is doing its most important job (provided you get your facts right): holding power to account. If you bow to political pressure, you’re not doing your job.</p>
<p>A public broadcaster with a confidence problem is a serious issue for political and democratic wellbeing.</p>
<p>Globally, there are between ten and 15 properly funded public broadcasters (depending on what level of funding you define as proper) with enough funding and safeguards to be able to call themselves editorially independent. This means there are only ten to 15 large repositories of in-depth public interest journalism – globally. </p>
<p>So, the case is strong for the Australian public to get behind the ABC and ask it to snap out of its crisis of confidence. Then it can get on with the job of keeping power to account – just like Alberici tried to do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92044/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Johan Lidberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are a lot of misconceptions regarding what a public broadcaster is. But one thing it is not is a government or state broadcaster.Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/751202017-03-28T22:06:51Z2017-03-28T22:06:51ZTrump’s FCC continues to redefine the public interest as business interests<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162940/original/image-20170328-3798-jcvd7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Speak up!</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-illustration-website-horizontal-banner-concept-464473052">Speech bubbles via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. Senate voted last week to <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/24/517050966/fcc-chairman-goes-after-his-predecessors-internet-privacy-rules">allow internet service providers</a> to <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/senate-overturns-an-obama-era-regulation-to-protect-your-privacy-online/">sell data about their customers’ online activities</a> to advertisers. The <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-private-browsing-history/">House of Representatives</a> <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/230">agreed on Tuesday</a>; President Trump is <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15073162/fcc-broadband-internet-privacy-rules-congress-vote">expected to sign</a> the measure into law.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title47/USCODE-2011-title47-chap4">As far back as 1927</a>, American lawmakers sought to balance the needs of the public against the desire of big telecommunications companies to make huge profits off delivering information to Americans nationwide. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is charged with ensuring that the broadcasting and telecommunications systems work in “<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996">the public interest, convenience and necessity</a>.”</p>
<p>Policymakers have struggled to specifically define “the public interest,” but the broad intent was clear: Government rules and programs worked to ensure a diversity of programming, distributed by a multitude of companies, with many different owners, through multiple channels that all Americans had access to.</p>
<p>While conducting research for 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 watched as officials’ priorities changed, favoring what they say is “freer” competition in the marketplace of ideas. As new proposals come up for public comment and debate in the next few months, we, the American public, must join these discussions, to ensure our interests are in fact served.</p>
<h2>A shift in priorities</h2>
<p>Over the last 30 years, America’s communications regulators have moved away from focusing on society’s benefit, and toward an interpretation of the public interest as <a href="http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/rise-and-fall-broadcasting-commons">equivalent to what businesses want</a>. For decades the FCC has chipped away at that broadly understood sense of the public interest, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/20102014-media-ownership-rules-review">allowing more stations to be owned by one company</a>, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/mergers-transactions/general/major-transaction-decisions">letting major media corporations merge</a> and <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/broadcast-radio-license-renewal">renewing station licenses</a> with a rubber stamp. And TV and radio stations are now allowed to be located <a href="http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2011/06/articles/what-do-the-fcc-main-studio-rules-require-recent-21000-fine-offers-some-clarification/">far away from the communities they serve</a>.</p>
<p>As a result, the national media system is dominated by a handful of companies, including <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6">Comcast, Time Warner, Fox and Disney</a>. This trend is mirrored at the local level, where Sinclair Broadcasting owns <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342889A1.pdf">173 of the country’s 1,778 local television stations</a> and is on the <a href="http://nypost.com/2017/03/14/sinclair-tribune-merger-would-surpass-fcc-ownership-rules/">hunt to acquire more</a>.</p>
<p>These changes have seen media and telecommunications companies making money and acquiring more properties, while the public receives less and less in return.</p>
<h2>Moving quickly</h2>
<p>In addition to the moves in Congress, Trump’s FCC has acted quickly, too. Upon his promotion to FCC chairman, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai">Ajit Pai</a> cited other companies’ fraudulent practices as a reason for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-makes-it-harder-for-poor-people-to-get-subsidized-broadband/">removing nine internet service providers</a> from the list of companies approved to provide federally subsidized internet access to low-income families.</p>
<p>Pai also ended an investigation into <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/fcc-oks-streaming-free-net-neutrality-will-pay/">mobile phone companies’ practice of exempting mobile data</a> associated with certain apps (such as Spotify or Netflix) from the data limits normally imposed on customers’ plans. Because this explicitly favored some companies’ internet traffic over others’, many people viewed this practice, called “zero rating,” as a violation of open internet (also called “<a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/what-happens-now-with-net-neutrality">net neutrality</a>”) rules – the FCC’s requirements barring internet service providers from playing favorites with different providers’ internet content.</p>
<p>Taken together, these actions represent a major attack on what is left of the public interest as we once knew it. They also represent a reversal for the FCC, which was <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/net-neutrality-appeals-court">hailed for protecting the public interest</a> when it approved the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet">Open Internet Order</a> in 2015.</p>
<p>Pai himself <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ajit-pai-fcc-net-neutrality-trump-what-to-expect-2017-2">opposes those rules</a>, as does his congressional counterpart, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/">Marsha Blackburn</a>, chair of the powerful House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. </p>
<h2>Attacking broadcasting too</h2>
<p>The Trump administration also appears to be adhering to this view of the public interest in media policy. </p>
<p>Trump’s initial proposed budget <a href="http://current.org/2017/03/trump-budget-seeks-to-zero-out-cpb-funding-by-2018/">zeroed out federal funding for public broadcasting</a>. The U.S. allocates <a href="http://current.org/2017/03/cpb-says-trump-budget-will-aim-to-rescind-fy2018-appropriation/">US$445 million</a> a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports organizations like NPR and PBS. That amounts to about <a href="https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/03/16/presidents-attack-public-broadcasting-puts-him-odds-american-people">$1.35 per person</a>. In contrast, <a href="http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/_files/cbcrc/documents/latest-studies/nordicity-public-broadcaster-comparison-2016.pdf">Germany</a> spends $143 a person; Norway spends more on public broadcasting than any other country – $180 per Norwegian. Cutting this already anemic funding would spell disaster for public broadcasting, most notably stations in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/media/corporation-for-public-broadcasting-cuts.html">rural America</a>.</p>
<p>And over at the FCC, Pai eliminated <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-eliminates-two-public-inspection-file-requirements/pai-statement">requirements that broadcasters keep records of what they aired, for public inspection</a>. While perhaps antiquated and <a href="http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/inspecting_local_tvs_public_in.php">certainly rarely used by the public</a>, it was one of the last holdovers of a time when <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/64kmn4yx9780252040726.html">local broadcasters</a> were thought to be responsive to their communities. </p>
<p>As for <a href="http://nypost.com/2017/03/14/sinclair-tribune-merger-would-surpass-fcc-ownership-rules/">Sinclair Broadcasting’s expansion hopes</a>, the company may be making its plans precisely because Commissioner Pai wants to <a href="http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-ajit-pai-media-ownership-1202008630/">relax ownership restrictions</a>. </p>
<h2>Stepping up to the mic?</h2>
<p>The next few months will see debates about a diverse range of communications-related topics, all of which center on the public interest. We need to ask hard, clear questions of legislators, regulators and ourselves:</p>
<p>Is it in the public’s interest to have an internet where ISPs can decide which websites load fastest? Is it in the public interest for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/att-says-youll-love-more-relevant-advertising-after-time-warner-merger/">AT&T to buy Time Warner</a>, creating an even larger and more powerful media company? Is it in the public interest for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-fcc-drops-court-defense-of-inmate-calling-rate-cap/">incarcerated people</a> and their families to pay exorbitant sums to speak to one another on the phone? Is it in the public interest to retain access to public broadcasting, which brings us everything from “Sherlock” to “Sesame Street”? </p>
<p>Media is more than just our window on the world. It’s how we talk to each other, how we engage with our society and our government. Without a media environment that serves the public’s need to be informed, connected and involved, <a href="http://thenewpress.com/books/rich-media-poor-democracy">our democracy and our society will suffer</a>. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/nicholas-johnson/your-second-priority-a-former-fcc-commissioner-speaks-out/paperback/product-3028022.html">former FCC chairman Nicholas Johnson</a> put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Whatever is your first priority, whether it is women’s rights or saving wildlife, your second priority has to be media reform. With it you at least have a chance of accomplishing your first priority. Without it, you don’t have a prayer.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If only a few wealthy companies control how Americans communicate with each other, it will be harder for people to talk among ourselves about the kind of society we want to build.</p>
<p>It is time for a sustained public conversation about media policy, akin to the ones we have about health care, the economy, defense and the budget. Regulators and policymakers must communicate regularly to the public. News organizations must report on these issues with the same frequency and intensity as they do other areas of public policy. And the people must pay attention and make their voices heard. </p>
<p>We did it before, powerfully influencing rules about <a href="https://www.savetheinternet.com/release/156">media ownership in 2003</a> and <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/17/349243335/3-7-million-comments-later-heres-where-net-neutrality-stands">ensuring net neutrality in 2015</a>. We can do it again. For us, as members of the public, and as avid media consumers, it’s time the public got interested in the public interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75120/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>As the Trump administration settles into office, regulators and lawmakers have big plans for shifting the country’s media landscape, with potentially profound effects on the public.Christopher Ali, Assistant Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664072016-10-03T04:55:18Z2016-10-03T04:55:18ZThe Conversation working with The ABC<p>Today I’d like to fill you in on some work we’ve been doing behind the scenes. The Conversation’s mission is to help create a better informed public debate by making it easier for academics and researchers to take part. </p>
<p>One way we do this is by sharing the expertise of The Conversation’s academic authors as widely as we can. We make everything we do free to republish under creative commons and work in partnership with key media organisations in Australia and globally.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago we deepened our collaboration with the ABC to ensure the Australian public broadcaster gets the best from The Conversation authors. For the past six weeks Adam Connors, a senior member of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/">ABC news</a> team, has been working with us to alert ABC journalists to our upcoming articles and identify opportunities to work with the ABC to inform its audience with deep context and explanation.</p>
<p>In that time Conversation articles have been viewed more than 1 million times on the ABC and there has also been a terrific appetite to interview authors on TV and radio. It’s a good result for everyone involved: the authors, The Conversation, the ABC and most importantly everyone who wants to better understand what’s going on in an increasingly specialised and complex world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66407/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conversation is sharing more of its articles with the ABC.Misha Ketchell, Editor, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642432016-08-22T14:54:04Z2016-08-22T14:54:04ZQuestions that need to be asked to save South Africa’s public broadcaster<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134931/original/image-20160822-18702-fp7ame.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters decry the decision by the South African Broadcasting Corporation not to air scenes of violent protest.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Mike Hutchings</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The problems at South Africa’s public broadcaster have become legendary in the country. These range from serious mismanagement, to loss of editorial independence and poor financial management. </p>
<p>The problem is particularly serious because the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) remains the only source of information for <a href="http://www.saarf.co.za/saarf/newsreleases.asp">most South Africans</a>. But fixing the problem isn’t easy. This is because the country’s parliament, which has oversight, has been unable to impose its authority on decisions made by the SABC’s board, or on the minister in charge.</p>
<p>As a result the SABC has stumbled from one crisis to another. Its financial situation has become more <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/investigations/2016/07/10/Cash-starved-SABC-wants-bank-loan-of-R1.5bn">precarious every year</a> and its ability to fulfil its mandate more tenuous.</p>
<p>There were high hopes that the SABC would become a true public broadcaster after the end of apartheid – an era when it was used ruthlessly as a propaganda machine. But after a <a href="http://www.nab.org.za/content/page/broadcast-industry">promising start</a>, with concerted efforts to turn the SABC into a true public broadcaster (that included a democratically elected board and strong public service orientated editorial policies) it soon became clear that there was ongoing interference from the governing African National Congress (ANC). A glaring example included the <a href="http://www.fxi.org.za/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=174">blacklisting</a> in 2006 of commentators critical of then president Thabo Mbeki.</p>
<h2>Parliament’s failure</h2>
<p>The South African Parliament has a <a href="http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-07-14-sabc-mess-now-in-parliaments-care.-dont-hold-your-breath./#.V7oefCh96hc">dismal track record</a> of sorting out the SABC’s problems. This goes back years.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.acts.co.za/broadcasting-act-1999/2_object_of_act">Broadcasting Act of 1999</a> gave the legislature significant oversight powers, including the power to appoint the SABC’s board and to hold it to account in terms of its financial and corporate plans. Parliament was also given the power to hold the SABC to account in terms of its <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/portal/SABC/SABCCHARTER">charter</a>. </p>
<p>But parliament’s portfolio committee has fallen victim to <a href="http://www.theafricareport.com/Southern-Africa/south-africa-anc-factionalism-battles-emerge-ahead-of-2016-polls.html">internal battles</a> within the ANC and has simply not performed. It has routinely abandoned its oversight role.</p>
<p>The hard questions that members of parliament have failed to ask range from issues of editorial integrity through to questions on finances, particularly linked to financial mismanagement.</p>
<p>The SABC is <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/wcm/connect/abcc2f8049f38beead0defa53d9712f0/ANNUAL+REPORT+2015+part+3.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=abcc2f8049f38beead0defa53d9712f0">financed</a> through a combination of advertising (about 80%) licence fees (about 18%) and government (2%). It differs from public broadcasters in other countries because it relies heavily on advertising. Generally they rely on approximately 60% public funding. </p>
<h2>Editorial principles</h2>
<p>The first set of hard questions MPs ought to have asked is around the SABC abandoning its editorial principles. For example, why did management issue the clearly illegal <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2016/05/27/SABC-will-no-longer-broadcast-footage-displaying-violent-protests">policy directive</a> to ban footage of violent protests, particularly during an election period? A number of violent service delivery protests broke out in the run-up to local government elections in August. The SABC claimed that showing footage of protests would encourage further violence.</p>
<p>Management should have been asked why it initially <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2016-07-11-hlaudi-and-sabc-board-refuse-to-end-their-ban-on-airing-violent-protests-because-regulatory-body-icasa-is-not-a-court-of-law">defied</a> a ruling by the broadcast regulator that its ban was <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/91c56f004d746c0499c0df4b5facb1b5/Icasa-orders-SABC-to-withdraw-its-decision-to-ban-violent-protests-20161107">illegal</a>. The SABC initially played for time, saying it would take the matter on review. It eventually said it would comply. </p>
<p>Finally, management should have been asked why it went ahead and <a href="https://www.enca.com/south-africa/dismissed-sabc-journalists-back-in-court-today">illegally</a> fired journalists for defying the ban. </p>
<p>There is every indication that the broadcaster’s management is still bent on continuing to show the government – and particularly President Jacob Zuma – in a good light. Management recently passed a set of <a href="http://www.soscoalition.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SABC-Editorial-Policy.pdf">editorial policies</a> that make its intentions clear. </p>
<p>A planned <a href="http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2016/08/22/political-week-ahead-sabc-board-set-for-grilling-in-parliament">portfolio committee meeting</a> in August 2016 gives MPs a chance to ask these and additional questions.</p>
<p>For instance, they should ask why under the new policies the role of editor-in-chief has shifted from the chief executive to the chief operating officer, Hlaudi Motsoeneng. Motsoeneng is a highly controversial figure. He is accused of lying about his <a href="http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/How-Hlaudi-Motsoeneng-lied-in-SABC-application-4-Es-and-an-F-in-matric-20150429">qualifications</a>, raising his own salary <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-17-sabcs-motsoeneng-unlawfully-hiked-salary-finds-madonsela">illegally</a> and pushing for the SABC to play a propaganda role by, for example, calling for <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-30-00-sabc-calls-for-70-happy-news/">70% “good news”</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, MPs need to ask some pointed questions about why the SABC has abandoned an open and transparent system of commissioning programmes that relied on “request for proposals”. Instead it has opted for a <a href="http://city-press.news24.com/News/hlaudi-fires-tv-boss-20160730-2">secretive</a> process that centres on Motsoeneng. It allows select producers to approach him directly, creating fertile ground for dodgy deals and corruption.</p>
<h2>Finances</h2>
<p>The second set of hard questions concerns the SABC’s finances. The broadcaster appears to have hit a cash flow problem and requires a major financial bail-out to continue operating.</p>
<p>Motsoeneng and the new acting CEO James Aguma have approached commercial banks for a <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/investigations/2016/07/10/Cash-starved-SABC-wants-bank-loan-of-R1.5bn">R1.5bn loan</a> to plug a current expenditure shortfall. Without additional borrowing it could soon be unable to pay suppliers and salaries.</p>
<p>The key source of these problems appears to be <a href="http://www.financialmail.co.za/features/2016/07/15/sabc-in-financial-meltdown?platform=hootsuite">financial mismanagement</a>. </p>
<p>Other reasons include ballooning staff and consultant costs, fruitless and wasteful expenditure on legal fees and <a href="http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-sunday-independent/20160717/281779923469622">golden handshakes to staff</a>. </p>
<p>The most recent allegation of mismanagement involves the <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/2016/08/14/Gupta-pal-in-R380m-SABC-licence-fee-deal">awarding of a contract</a> to collect unpaid licence fees. Non-pensioner adults are expected to pay an annual fee of <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/portal/SABC/tvlicquestionanswer">R265</a>. The contract was allegedly awarded to a politically connected company without going out to tender.</p>
<p>Finally, Aguma reportedly plans to <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/2016/08/21/Now-SABC-boss-seeks-bonus-for-Hlaudi">pay Motsoeneng a bonus</a> for a questionable deal he signed with MultiChoice, the subscription television service, in 2013. </p>
<p>In terms of the deal, it was agreed that the SABC would supply MultiChoice’s DSTV platform with a 24 hour news channel, an entertainment channel and access to the SABC’s archives. MultiChoice was to pay R570m for a five year contract. </p>
<p>Industry insiders have argued that the SABC was hugely underpaid. Civil society organisations have instituted legal action against the SABC, <a href="http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-10-06-sabc-multichoice-deal-is-effectively-a-merger/#.V7onjCh96hc">arguing</a> that selling off its archives is equivalent to selling off the family silver. </p>
<p>Parliament needs to ask these hard questions and ensure rigorous follow-up on all the promises the broadcaster makes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Skinner received funding from the Open Society Foundation. She is affiliated with SOS: Support Public Broadcasting and the Right2Know Campaign. </span></em></p>There were high hopes that the SABC would become a true public broadcaster after the end of apartheid when it was used ruthlessly as a propaganda machine. But those hopes have since been dashed.Kate Skinner, PhD student in Media Studies, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620062016-07-05T14:24:51Z2016-07-05T14:24:51ZThe BBC and public service TV has a future – but it must change to survive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129247/original/image-20160704-19113-1ais3hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What is the future of television, in an era of extraordinary technological change that has brought new challengers to the established broadcasting companies and their scheduled programmes? Who should it be aimed at and how will it be paid for? These are among the questions that <a href="http://futureoftv.org.uk/about/">our inquiry, chaired by Lord Puttnam</a>, into the future of public service television aimed to answer – answers contained in the recently published <a href="http://futureoftv.org.uk/report/">final report</a>.</p>
<p>Coming so soon after the result of the EU referendum the report’s findings share many of the same characteristics of that vote: a growing lack of trust in mainstream institutions, a failure to articulate the voices and experiences of all British citizens, and a tendency for broadcasters to commission uncontroversial content and to strive to provide some kind of consensus in situations where such agreement is virtually impossible.</p>
<p>These problems are most obvious in relation to news content. While television news is not guilty of the <a href="http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/#immigration">sort of partisanship that exists in the printed press</a>, its efforts to provide a more balanced allocation of airtime to opposing sides tends toward manufacturing a balance that is artificial. During the referendum campaign, for example, the “balance” was often comprised on both sides of voices framing the issue as a civil war inside the Conservative Party. This excluded any more serious consideration of the range of economic and social issues the referendum raised, and the anxieties of a whole range of different groups across the UK.</p>
<p>This isn’t just a problem with news; it is about the relationship audiences have with television in this digital age. We wanted to ask some fundamental questions about the purposes of television today. To what extent has television successfully moved with changing demographics of the UK? How has it sought to represent the lives of people, no matter where they live? And has it done enough to engage with the new ways that audiences consume content?</p>
<p>We were guided by the principles of the <a href="http://www.communicationethics.net/journal/v12n1/feat1.pdf">1962 Pilkington report</a>, which led to the creation of BBC2 and colour television, but which was also critical of the distorting and sensationalising aspects of commercial broadcasting. Presciently, it argued that audiences deserved to be treated more than as just consumers. But times have moved on: we now have hundreds of channels, not just two, the audience is far more unsettled and fragmented, and many are moving away from television and radio to digital platforms. </p>
<p>It is precisely because of this fragmentation and polarisation that there remains a necessary role for public service television to act as the counterweight to a commercial system more likely to chase ratings than to cater to its viewers’ needs. The challenge for the inquiry was to consider ways in which television can relate to the very diverse requirements of its audiences without imposing a false consensus.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129251/original/image-20160704-19094-1ok0s0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129251/original/image-20160704-19094-1ok0s0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129251/original/image-20160704-19094-1ok0s0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129251/original/image-20160704-19094-1ok0s0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129251/original/image-20160704-19094-1ok0s0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129251/original/image-20160704-19094-1ok0s0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129251/original/image-20160704-19094-1ok0s0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s room for television in today’s world, and for the future.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The danger of the fabled ‘centre ground’</h2>
<p>For too long broadcasters have gravitated towards a perceived “centre ground” even as this centre ground was coming unstuck. Instead of promoting a multitude of voices and taking risks, they have too often clung to the familiar and acceptable.</p>
<p>Now, faced with changing political and technological conditions, we need a new vision for public service television. More than ever we need a creative, spirited and independent public service media. The truth is that the status quo isn’t really an option: technology won’t allow it, markets won’t allow it and, as the referendum result showed, audiences won’t allow it either.</p>
<p>So here’s our deal: we believe that public service broadcasters should continue to receive special privileges, such as onscreen prominence and universal funding (in the case of the BBC). They will have to earn these privileges, however, raising their game and generating truly innovative and relevant content. We need to foster new types of public service content for the digital age so that our public service media does more to cater to the whole breadth of the UK audience. And we urgently need to address some of the barriers to entry, both on and off-screen.</p>
<h2>Recommendations for the future</h2>
<p>The report makes recommendations concerning how best to improve the system we have, but also how to adapt it in order to meet the opportunities offered by new digital platforms:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>We need to democratise the BBC and ensure it has a solid foundation for the future. That means more digital engagement, a new and transparent funding regime, a new constitutional settlement in law, and a properly independent appointments system.</p></li>
<li><p>Channel 4 should not be privatised, and the government should clarify its view on Channel 4’s future as soon as possible. We believe ITV’s commitment to public service should be strengthened, and that Ofcom should require it to take on a more ambitious role – especially in regional television and current affairs programming.</p></li>
<li><p>A major new fund for public service content should be established, available to cultural institutions and small organisations that aren’t already engaged in commercial media or broadcasting. This would be funded by a tax on the largest internet service providers and commercial digital services.</p></li>
<li><p>To reach new audiences, any commitment to diversity must be accompanied by the money to do so: public service broadcasters should ring-fence funding specifically for content aimed at audiences such as those from black and ethic minority communities.</p></li>
<li><p>New commissioning structures and funding streams are needed that better reflect the current approach of devolving decisions and planning from the centre to the various nations of the UK, and also to local regions within them. Budgets to be spent in those regions should be controlled by local commissioners there.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Many more recommendations are made in the <a href="http://futureoftv.org.uk/report">report</a>. These may be too contentious or not contentious enough, too timid or too controversial – and certainly the reports authors would welcome your feedback. But the point is that television needs to change – it cannot afford not to, if it is to survive the technological and sociological earthquakes of the last few decades.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62006/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Des Freedman was the lead project author of the Future of Television report (the Puttnam inquiry). He has received funding from the AHRC, and is the former chair of the Media Reform Coalition.</span></em></p>Television is a 20th century medium that must change to survive in the 21st century.Des Freedman, Professor of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595802016-05-20T00:11:14Z2016-05-20T00:11:14ZThe Conservatives and the BBC – falling in love again?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122921/original/image-20160517-9494-sgvpub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Peter Nicholls</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We who love and cherish the BBC, even from afar – and I am unashamedly one of them – have been awaiting with some anxiety the UK government’s white paper on the future of the corporation. </p>
<p>The culture secretary responsible for the review process leading up to this document, John Whittingdale, had made a number of statements indicating this would be a tough Charter renewal round for the Beeb. With a Conservative majority in parliament, and many Tory MPs hostile to public service media, there were grounds for concern about the outcome. </p>
<p>Well, now <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522824/DCMS_A-BBC-for-the-future_linked__1_.pdf">the paper has been published</a>, and it turns out to be a rather strong endorsement both of the principle of public service media in general, and of the BBC’s place within it. </p>
<p>After wide consultation of stakeholders, including a survey of 9,000 members of the public, Whittingdale concludes that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The BBC has a vital and enduring role … It is a revered national institution, and familiar treasured companion. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>After a period of serious cuts to its budget, the BBC’s licence fee will be permitted to increase with inflation for more than a decade ahead. That is nearly $8 billion income in 2016, secure into the reasonably long-term future. </p>
<p>All good. But there are conditions attached to the deal. </p>
<p>The BBC has had a difficult few years, faced with criticism over excessive salaries for talent, waste and bloated management, anti-competitive practices, and a dysfunctional culture (exemplified by the Jimmy Savile scandal and the public relations disaster which followed). </p>
<p>Commercial rivals such as the Murdoch-owned UK media were at the forefront of that criticism, as one would expect, but these were concerns expressed widely among the public and other stakeholders. There was consensus that things at the corporation had to change. </p>
<p>Thus, the white paper records huge majorities of the public in support of maintaining a strong BBC, assures us that this is government policy, and then gets into the task of fixing some of the broken bits. </p>
<p>Key points include a requirement for all BBC programming to be “distinctive”, not in the sense that it should become a “market-failure” organisation, but in providing content that has clear “public value”. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Distinctive programmes can have wide appeal … [but] popularity should not be the BBC’s primary objective; its public value must come first.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How program-makers and commissioning editors apply this balance, particularly in primetime entertainment slots, will be interesting to watch. Will the BBC still feel able to produce game shows and reality TV formats of the type also seen on commercial free-to-air, often in the same timeslots? The UK government clearly feels there is too much of this at present. </p>
<p>A major strand in the white paper is to make the BBC much more transparent and accountable – not unreasonable, given the $7.5 billion of public money it receives annually. </p>
<p>The unpopular Trust goes, and independent regulator OFCOM steps into monitor “distinctiveness”, as well as the market impacts of current and proposed BBC activities that might be anti-competitive. </p>
<p>The National Audit Office – a state organ independent of the government of the day – will take over scrutiny of the BBC’s financial operations, holding it to account for its spending. </p>
<p>A unitary board of 12-14 members will be established, with six members appointed by the government through the ostensibly impartial public service appointments process (including one for each UK nation). Whittingdale assures us that the BBC will have a majority of its appointees on the board, but this proposal remains the most controversial, given the potential for politicisation of public appointments. </p>
<p>There will be more commissioning of independent production at the BBC, with only news and news-related current affairs kept exclusively in-house. A $40 million annual fund for new content providers will be established, with four years of funding in the first instance.</p>
<p>There will be less London-centrism, and more resources devoted to representing the UK’s nations and regions, such as Scotland. </p>
<p>Crucially, the BBC will be mandated to support local journalism through sharing of resources and content, the provision of local journalists and material for pooling, and other steps. </p>
<p>The white paper calls for a step-change in how the BBC engages and works with its competitors, seeing itself not so much as a self-interested player in a zero-sum ratings game with the big commercial organisations, but a privileged (because protected from market conditions), public cultural resource within a much larger media ecology where it should facilitate and support as well as compete. </p>
<p>The government will also legislate to make digital users of BBC content pay the licence fee, recognising the shift in consumption patterns away from the box in the corner to the mobile device. </p>
<p>Use of tablets and other devices to access BBC content has increased by 400% since 2009, while the number of UK households with a conventional TV has fallen by 2% in the same period. Bringing that 400% into the licence fee system will strengthen the corporation’s resource base going forward, especially when it is now required to absorb the costs of free access for senior citizens.</p>
<p>Michelle Guthrie and her ABC executives will be poring over the white paper with great interest, one imagines. The challenges facing the ABC are similar in many ways to those now being addressed by the BBC.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/memo-to-michelle-guthrie-as-local-newspapers-die-might-the-abc-help-out-58983">As I wrote recently in this space</a>, the ABC could play a bigger role in the support of Australia’s local journalism, and this white paper provides practical examples of how a public service media organisation can do that, some of which might be transferable. </p>
<p>Considerations of “distinctiveness”, “public value” and market impact also apply to the ABC in a time of tough public spending rounds.</p>
<p>The ABC is overwhelmingly popular with the Australian people, like the BBC, and for much the same reasons. But like the BBC too, there can be no complacency in identifying and tackling the challenges generated by our fast-changing media system and ecology in the years and indeed decades ahead. The UK white paper makes a helpful contribution to that effort.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59580/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian McNair receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Chief Investigator within the Digital Media Research Centre at QUT. </span></em></p>We who love and cherish the BBC, even from afar – and I am unashamedly one of them – have been awaiting with some anxiety the UK government’s white paper on the future of the corporation. The culture secretary…Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/582882016-04-25T20:14:43Z2016-04-25T20:14:43ZIn Conversation: Mark Scott on his decade in charge of the ABC<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119780/original/image-20160422-4752-eb1c7y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mark Scott has altered the ABC in profound ways.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Mark Scott is to step down as the ABC’s managing director in May following ten years in charge of the national broadcaster. These years have been marked by technological change and significant disruption in Australia’s media landscape.</em></p>
<p><em>Scott recently caught up with University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis to reflect on his time as ABC managing director. You can listen to listen to their discussion below in audio produced by <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/the-policy-shop">The Policy Shop</a>, a monthly public policy podcast based at the University of Melbourne.</em></p>
<iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/260611700%3Fsecret_token%3Ds-RRXsF&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p>If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mark Scott, the ABC’s outgoing managing director, cites the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45bb2ef4-de3a-11df-9364-00144feabdc0.html">famous quote</a> from Giuseppe Di Lampedusa’s The Leopard to encapsulate his time at the helm of the national broadcaster.</p>
<p>Scott joined the ABC in 2006 with major technological change about to hit. There was “no smartphone, no tablet, no fast broadband, no big streaming services, no social media”, he recalls.</p>
<p>Yet the wave was on its way. If ABC was to be “as loved and respected for future generations as it had been in the past”, concluded Scott, “then change was an inevitability”.</p>
<p>There are parallels for those in public universities. There, new technology is challenging long-standing practices. Yet as the ABC has demonstrated, it is possible to embrace change and thrive.</p>
<p>Scott’s leadership at ABC is recognised for innovation and new digital initiatives. Podcasts, online catch-up service iview and its 24-hour news channel, ABC News 24, have proved critical to sharing Australian content and building internal capacity within the ABC.</p>
<p>The right decisions may only look clear in retrospect. The decision to proceed with podcasting content was not initially obvious or strategic. Scott says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It was really a bunch of people at Radio National saying “have a go at this”. It was an experiment, an innovative moment. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Downloads of ABC podcasts will reach 160 million this year.</p>
<p>iview, another success from Scott’s time at the ABC, started with a conversation about audience expectations:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With iview we didn’t know whether it would be a streaming service that would be important or a download-to-keep service that would be important. We just knew people wanted to catch up with programming.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Scott set two teams to work on the problem. This initially small but ambitious program now supports around 35 million iview plays a month.</p>
<p>Scott believes News 24 proved transformative for the ABC well beyond its initial remit. For Scott, it was almost a Trojan horse:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You were going to put this behind the wall of the ABC and the ABC would be different forever as a consequence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The lessons from News 24 flowed back into state-based news broadcasting, and reshaped how the ABC now develops all news broadcasts, Scott says.</p>
<p>Again, there are interesting similarities with universities, as the campus <a href="https://theconversation.com/moocs-learning-about-online-learning-one-click-at-a-time-30782">embraces online learning</a>. It requires new digital, pedagogical and production skills to deliver high-quality online content, yet public universities have proved skilled and sprightly. </p>
<p>At the University of Melbourne nearly one million students have now enrolled for a Massive Online Open Course, with content developed for an online setting also available for the classroom.</p>
<p>Digital media is ubiquitous. It allows international players to offer content directly to Australians, requiring the ABC to find a distinctive voice for its offerings. </p>
<p>As Scott notes, the ABC serves fewer than 25 million people who speak English, a language used by more than 700 million people worldwide. The challenges become more obvious as Netflix and other aggressive new media services seek out global markets.</p>
<p>Scott says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The world’s content is going to flood in. You can listen to great radio from all around the world. But who will tell Australian stories? Who will have local voices on the ground, all around Australia? Who will celebrate Australian culture? I think that is the space the public broadcaster will increasingly need to play.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A global media accentuates the difficulties funding local media. Scott points to the challenges for newspapers groups like <a href="https://theconversation.com/fairfax-media-holds-steady-on-digital-strategy-54959">Fairfax</a>, where he worked as a senior executive. The loss of traditional advertising income bodes ill for the traditional newsroom.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is very hard for traditional newspaper companies to find a revenue model, either through advertising or through paywalls, and I think they are still challenged by that. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s that they won’t survive. I think the challenge is what kind of services will the revenue model allow them to afford. And part of the pain at Fairfax is coming back from big staffing numbers that were funded by classified monopolies, to the reality that they face today.</p>
<p>It is almost easier for The Guardian in this country to build up from nothing than it is for Fairfax to come back from where they were.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Scott is clear: if the ABC is to survive such challenges, it will be sharper, more strategic and more relevant than ever before.</p>
<p>Scott is a thoughtful chief executive who has altered the ABC in profound ways to preserve its core mission as the place that tells Australian stories. As commercial rivals succumb to internet economics, only the ABC with its public funding can support a national newsroom and multiple channels. Maintaining the independence and public trust of such an institution is a significant responsibility for any managing director.</p>
<p>Scott will hand to Michelle Guthrie a much-transformed ABC – one that does the same things in very new ways.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58288/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Glyn Davis is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, and host of The Policy Shop.</span></em></p>Mark Scott will hand to Michelle Guthrie a much-transformed ABC – one that does the same things in very new ways.Glyn Davis, Professor of Political Science and Vice-Chancellor, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.