Our Voices, Our
Stories on the Small Screen ?
We have to Create to
Compete
By Carole Tongue
Former MEP and public
service broadcasting spokesperson
Visiting Professor in
Audiovisual Policy at the London Institute
“We must secure a future of the unfettered imagination on our screeens”, so said former Irish Culture Minister Michael D Higgins in 1995 when the European Parliament was legislating for the future of television. The challenge for OFCOM remains the same.
In this spirit, our broadcasting system should reflect British creativity and talent, our multicultural diversity and social values. Furthermore OFCOM must take into account that national drama, documentary, feature and tele- film play an important role in developing and reflecting a sense of local, regional and national identity, character and cultural diversity as well as ensuring a strong audiovisual industry that is competitive national and internationally. This is in addition to the description of duties and objectives as proposed in the report on the Bill by David Puttnam’s Joint Scrutiny Committee composed of Members of Lords and Commons.
The Content Board will talk to the Main Board of OFCOM. It must represent civil society and creators vigorously to ensure the public interest is put forward. Also its recommendations must be heard and acted upon unless the OFCOM board can give genuine justification for not doing so.
That’s enough of structures….what should our broadcasting legislation say to television channels about their obligations to create, commission and broadcast ? That is the important question.
The Bill actually said very little and a lot less than other OECD countries.1 Unlike most others, the Bill urges minimal regulation, allow as much competition as possible, opening up ownership of ITV and Channel 5 beyond the EU. The backstop is a strong, well-funded BBC. Cable and satellite channels, let alone BskyB, were not mentioned in the Bill as having any obligations beyond those we know on taste and decency. They are judged obviously not to be of the same broadcasting ecology.
The Puttnam Committee proposed in its report that the future OFCOM should look at the public service broadcasting obligations of all channels. I could not agree more. Taking the lead from Australia, OFCOM could hold an enquiry within the context of its study of public service obligations and look at what investment in public service programming is appropriate and fair for all broadcasters.
It is wholly insufficient and inappropriately vague to state that the psb remit is simply “the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming,” as the Bill did.
If we look to Canada, Australia and other OCED countries then, our legislation should specify how much of the overall programme budget of the terrestrial channels should be invested in indigenous drama, documentary, tele and feature film and even children’s programming. So for example it could be stipulated that:
It should not be left to broadcasters alone to decide what the level of the broadcast of original productions should be. Ch3 broadcast and investment obligations should also be spelt out in order to maintain at least present levels of broadcast and investment in drama, documentary, feature film and childrens programming. If ITV are presently obliged to commission 65% original programming and this is to be maintained, then it should be spelt out.
The ITC has argued that ITV should have a higher level of specification in its individual remit than C5 – at the moment these remits look similar. C5 should also be asked to spend specific parts of its programme budget on specific high production value genres.
As for Channel 4 its remit is fine but once again the legislation should spell out broadcast and investment obligations in the above-mentioned genres which are no less than at present.
Recent mediterranean legislation asks all cable and satellite channels to invest in original indigenous programming as a percentage of advertising revenue or turnover. OFCOM should hold an immediate hearing into this issue, as recommended in the Puttnam report. If BskyB’s opposite number Canal Plus can be obliged to invest 20% of its turnover in French and European film which equals £100 million per annum then why are we not considering similar obligations here ? Obligations to invest in our audiovisual industry by all channels according to their longevity, nature and viewing numbers should be an economic and cultural imperative.
Regulation in this sense can make absolute commercial sense and improve the ability of all channels to create and then compete on world markets.
Media Ownership
A public interest test will now have to be carried out before commercial broadcasting is opened up to takeovers by foreign companies beyond the EU. This provision in the Bill was passed in the House of Lords thanks to the hard work of Lord Puttnam and others.
This is most welcome and could help avoid significant risks for the future of the British broadcasting ecology, our audiovisual industry and cultural integrity.
In the meantime OFCOM could carry out an impact study into the economic and cultural effects of non-EU ownership of ITV ? It should be remembered that no reciprocity on media ownership is being sought from USA or others and unobtainable even within GATS framework. The EU has not and will not put audiovisual matters on the GATS table given the cultural and economic specificities of the sector.
Furthermore the USA shows no inclination to remove ownership restrictions which they justify for national security reasons and anyway only apply to the networks. Questions of national security fall outside of the GATS framework.
It is unclear what kind of investment is desired from outside. In this respect programming is very different from infrastructure. With no stipulations in the bill on obligatory investment in and broadcast of British and European drama, documentary, film and children’s programmes, there is a risk either of increasing imported programmes which reflect the cultural imperatives of other countries and not our own or of programmes being made which are culturally tailored to a US audience to maximise export income.
It is unclear what effect there will be on Ch4 and BBC in respect of the effects of competition with programme and resource rich multinational companies. What economic benefit will there be when there is likely to be repatriation of profits to the home country ?
Given huge programme libraries of audiovisual multinationals from North America in particular, what would be the likely effect on our trade balance with US now standing at £403 million deficit in audiovisual programmes and films ?
CONCLUSION
One hour of Pride and Prejudice costs £500.000. You can buy in a cheap import for less than one tenth of that cost. Competition alone will not deliver creation. We have to create to compete. That creation will not be delivered by broadcasters goodwill alone. The obligation to create in the high quality genres of drama, documentary, children’s and feature film has to be part of new broadcasting rules.
At stake is nothing less than our creativity, culture and a strong audiovisual industry.
Carole Tongue
