The future of public broadcasting

In his US election campaign, Governor Romney has promised to cut out funding for public broadcasting. True to the trivializing of modern politics, this has been summarized as 'Big Bird - Bye Bye'.

Let's take this opportunity of reflecting on what public broadcasting does, with some passing glances at the US and then a look at Australia's ABC and SBS. I'll be keeping mainly to TV.

The first point about public broadcasting is the issue of being able to disagree with government. It's the contrast between a single-party state and a multi-party state. If we looked at the USSR or Nazi Germany, the State controlled the media. Around the Pacific rim today, there would be very many countries in which the media are dependent for their views on what the government lets them say.

The second issue (naturally, related to the first) is that of balance. In some countries one media owner has unwarranted power. Public broadcasting is meant to offer an alternative to the dominant view. It has little point if it reinforces existing opinions. We should be hearing fresh points of view, not the same ones over and over. We could list any number of social issues: control of natural resources; the roles of the army and the police; to what extent clean energy is used; issues of abortion and birth control. Thomas Jefferson's idea was that good media were essential to democracy. He felt that a healthy society needed many views on social issues, not just one. And make things more nuanced, not always be dumbing down. As Malcolm Turnbull said in a useful recent discussion, 'We have a duty to raise the level of public discourse'.

It was disturbing to hear in the Sun-Herald on 14^th October this year that Dick Smith was unable to get News Ltd papers to include any material critical of that corporation.

The American PBS does seem to meet the challenges we discussed.

Mainstream US media tend to pander to the lower end of the spectrum. We need to talk about an elite: Washington Post, Huffington Post,[a digest of other news stories] , perhaps New York Times, and on television, CNN. These days we must also refer to Fox News. For an amusing if startling commentary, see Mark Howard's statement that Fox News makes you stupid.

So the challenge for public broadcasting in the USA is massive: to raise levels of sophistication and education of Americans. Australian viewers would recognize the News Hour on SBS. It is a solid (if sometimes dull ) presentation of various American views, with debates, commentary and issue-exploring programs. It is very American-centred. But the mainstream American media are far more so. I happened to be in New York during the OJ Simpson trial. That issue was on TV virtually 24 hours a day. On almost every station. Or consider the 11^th of September attack on New York. Clearly, the most important event anywhere that year, to judge from US TV. Or perhaps some air strike by US forces. Any of these issues will saturate US TV. What is going in Canada or the Caribbean will barely appear in most news programs, unless American interests are threatened.

In sum, the PBS offers a range of intelligent, educational and alternative programs. I would be inclined to think that issues such as the native peoples of Brazil or wildlife programs will appear in the main on PBS or on the Discovery Channel, but rarely on mainstream US TV.

Let's turn to Australia. Our media landscape is dominated by commercial interests. Many of us found out how mindless Australian commercial TV is when the Olympics were on a commercial station in mid-year. And we were forced by the station's monopoly of the Olympics to watch large amounts of commercial TV. Inane commentary, brainless 'celebrities' who cluttered up the screen, and a barrage of advertisements at ear-shattering volume and high intensity : these were merely the most obvious faults.

Australian public broadcasting, like its US cousin, provides an alternative to the commercials. There are some programs of depth and solidity. On the Australian ABC, these are not interrupted by advertising ( whereas on some of the newer commercial stations there seems to be about 8 minutes of the show, sandwiched between 5 minutes of mind-numbing ads.) Australian public broadcasting can be proud of some solid news presentations, some fine educational programs and some top-quality drama.

Unfortunately it also has its faults. Where would we start?

1. There is a dreadful sameness to public broadcasting. Yes, I enjoyed 'Doc Martin', the first time around. I've enjoyed many British comedies. But I weary of British accents in show after show, especially when we need a translation for some of the more outlandish accents. Do we really need so many British programs on SBS as well as on ABC? Why? SBS is supposed to be showing us 'multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain'. That's what its charter says. Why do we need endless British programs on SBS? Check through SBS and ABC TV and there are far too many British presenters, British cookery programs, British house-fixing… and so on. The same tedious people crop up time after time: Stephen Fry again. Neil Oliver again. Give us all a rest, please!
2. Too many public broadcasting programs here are weak imitations of British programs. As if to make the point, we get both. Two versions of 'Letters and Numbers'. 'QI' with Stephen Fry and then 'Randling'. Yawn….
3. Certain topics seem to be sacred. Anything about women has to present women breaking through barriers and smashing stereotypes. Aborigines seem to get the same treatment, even when someone like Anthony Mundine is carrying on with some of his stranger antics shortly before he has a fight scheduled. We are constantly lectured against making any generalizations about Muslims. And the pontificating over asylum seekers has become extremely tedious. What happened to the idea of presenting multiple viewpoints?
4. Lindsay Tanner's excellent book on media and politics savages the way in which issues are trivialized. The ABC is no exception. I saw the Prime Minister lose her shoe on some news service at midday in the middle of last week. And again on SBS TV. Again on ABC News. And on '7.30'. No doubt it appeared again on 'Lateline'. Enough, already! It wasn't that amusing or significant in the first place.
5. Whoever is in charge of ABC TV promotions must have been a kindergarten teacher. Don't just say it once. Say it over and over. Why on earth do they persist with that annoying chant "ABC News…ABC News…ABC News" four seconds before the news, which we are all about to watch anyway? Why tell us what will be on every Monday night, and then say, again, that 'Q and A' is on later? Some ABC promotions spoil the point of the program, as someone did giving away Michael Palin's punch-line one Thursday night. And we get the same promotions promoting the same tedious shows, urging us with a silly laugh to watch something that often isn't funny anyway. Could we appeal to people with an IQ of more than fifty, please?
6. Some of the sporting coverage needs a good clean-up. Grammatical mistakes in the sporting commentary are common. 'Less' and 'fewer' are confused, as are 'lie' and 'lay'. Is this quality TV? Did we really need a whole 'Four Corners' program to tell us that cycling was full of drug cheats? I never would have guessed! And do we have to hear about cricket half the year, with the commentator giving it the reverence that Vatican radio gives the pope? Where is the full range of sport: athletics, gymnastics, rowing, netball? And please, racing is not a sport, to judge from the recent torrent of allegations about doping and fixing. Coverage of the 'sport' in the Caulfield Cup gave us two minutes of women in silly hats. Why?
7. What people in the media do best is draw attention to themselves. Some supposed travel program on 7 or 9 is meant to be showing us Bali or Budapest or Dubrovnik. Sadly, little of this can be seen, for here is Mary Jane - if possible in a brief bikini, unless we are in the Arctic- talking excitedly about somewhere she knows little about. So many ABC and SBS programs are little better. Self-important people, 'celebrities' in their own bathrooms no doubt, jabber away, and the scenery can be seen somewhere in the blurry background. The exceptions are notable: David Attenborough and Michael Palin. And Professor Mary Beard, who explained what Rome was like. Forget the rest.
8. ABC News and '7.30' need a shakeup. One should not simply repeat the other. We are all bored with footage of Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard 'helping' someone put cans on a factory shelf. Or clean a factory floor. Often there seems little point to a story. The footage of 'Sculpture by the Sea' this year was a mess. The point of the wooden sculpture which makes a sound in the wind was lost, because there was no sound included. And too often there will be some famous choir which can't be heard since Monty Important talks right over it. The boys on 'The Hamster Wheel' made many useful points about stupid TV coverage in a recent episode. Good on them.

There are issues that Australian public broadcasting should investigate. The plight of indigenous peoples in West Papua, Brazil. Ecuador and so on. The daily lives of Tamils in Sri Lanka and minorities in Malaysia and Indonesia. Again, ownership and control of resources in Australia and other Pacific countries has been talked about, but rarely properly investigated. We need more than a quick reference to Cubby Station on a public broadcaster which is supposed to be better than the commercials.

Finally, SBS and ABC need to be more self-critical. Not constantly congratulating themselves. To hear SBS talk about 'Back Where You Came From', you would think it was the greatest news since the Bible was written. Enough, already. If it's good, it will speak for itself. ABC FM radio is just as bad. Just play the music, please, and forget the silly chatter from too many people who love to hear their own voices. "It's Not All About You!" might be a theme we want to hammer over and over.

We need a program like 'Backchat' to let ordinary people criticize the programs foisted on them. The Jones controversy has shown us that, given the chance, Australians are very capable of sustained critical thought, as Jane Caro and Malcolm Turnbull pointed out. Let's give people credit for intelligence and not treat them like six year olds, as most commercial media do. Yes, public broadcasting does a great job. It has a great future, if Romney doesn't get in. But we need always to keep the media on their toes.