Attacks from the right on the BBC and NPR actually ensure that public service broadcasters provide value-for-money excellence
"Let's not be under any misapprehension, the notion that we can look for a 16% reduction in budget and sail on as you are is inconceivable."
So said Michael Lyons, BBC Trust Chairman, as he hinted on Tuesday that major BBC services are at risk under the corporation's strategic review. Words of defeat, you might conclude.
Defeat is an appropriate term, because those who support public broadcasting tend to see things as a battle. On one side, there are the snarling rightwing media and politicians, and on the other, the defenceless public broadcasters. The salvos, accusations of unaccountability, bias and market dominance thinly veil an otherwise naked pursuit of commercial and political interests.
The enticing narrative of media conflict encourages us to pick sides, but it would be better to view the issue holistically. The truth is that the BBC, alongside all public broadcasters, needs its enemies. Cuts may even be good for it.
The "Public Broadcaster v Murdoch-and-friends" yarn can be spun just as well here in the US. Last month, Republicans tried and failed to defund National Public Radio (NPR). Fox News boss Roger Ailes, apparently drinking Glenn Beck's Kool-Aid, was quoted claiming that NPR executives were "of course, Nazis". These scraps go back a long way ? through the Bush era, at least as far as Newt Gingrich's tenure as House speaker.
The attacks come in different flavours on either side of the Atlantic. The BBC, with its �4bn budget, is most often accused of depriving consumers of choice through market dominance and the mandatory licence fee. James Murdoch, in his infamous MacTaggart lecture, decried British public broadcasting ? "a managed process with an omniscient authority" ? as "creationism".
In the United States, where creationism is more popular, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) channels public funding for television and radio. It is a much smaller fish in a much bigger pond: this year, it received $420m (pdf) from Congress. That doesn't make for a compelling diagnosis of monopoly, so critics instead allege that recipients of CPB funding are biased. Case in point, NPR was targeted in an apparent response to perceived partiality in the Juan Williams debacle.
This all provides ample material for those determined to defend public broadcasters as the victims of unwarranted aggression. Yet, to blusteringly cry out that media crusades and funding tussles are corrosive to the public interest is to miss the bigger picture.
That's not to say there aren't plausible rebuttals. We know that the British are not held hostage by the license fee (as Mark Thompson pointed out in his own MacTaggart Lecture, even readers of the rightwing press overwhelmingly support the BBC). When James Murdoch accused the BBC of posing a threat to media plurality, he was guilty of staggering hypocrisy. Moreover, NPR was over-cautious, if anything, about bias in firing Juan Williams. But these defences don't need to be made. The people already understand the value of public broadcasting: the BBC has a 71% approval rating, and the US public television provider PBS has been repeatedly polled as the most trusted institution in America. How many other taxpayer-supported services could lay claim to such popularity?
Instead of wielding the excellence of the BBC, NPR and PBS as a shield against rhetorical cudgelling by the Murdochs and their transatlantic minions, we should ask why they are so good in the first place. Doing so, we will find that the very forces attacking them play a vital role in their success.
Theoretically, public broadcasters can take their existence for granted. Whether you tune in or not, they will get their taxpayer money. A downside of this situation is the loss of a profit incentive. If good work is not connected to pecuniary reward, things go askew ? as shown by the inefficiencies of government initiatives the world over. So why do public broadcasters bother to produce outstanding content? Why do their allegedly leftist journalists meticulously include the views of conservatives? Shouldn't they all be quaffing subsidised champagne in their wood-panelled boardrooms?
The secret is that most public broadcasters are far from taking their existence for granted. Consider the fact that, last month, NPR could have lost all public funding without notice. How many private broadcasting companies face analogous dangers? With the right confluence of media pressure, political will and straitened government finances, public broadcasters could be shut down in short order. To an extent, that is the story behind the BBC's present predicament. Recall that the funding freeze came after the Tories regained power, the press having drummed up antipathy to the corporation over the pay and behaviour of top talent.
The only protection that public broadcasters have is their reputation. They need to win the argument that they are worth funding, and worth donating to. Constant pressure from opponents in media and politics provides them with the "profit incentive" they would otherwise lack. It's analogous to the pressures of market competition ? the prize is the continued support of the taxpayer, not advertising revenue, but the arena is the same. If the existence of the BBC, NPR or PBS was really beyond question, it is doubtful that they would do anywhere near as good a job. It is healthy for public broadcasters to have something to fear ? the more unreasonable and devious their critics, the higher their standards must reach.
For evidence, look no further than Michael Lyons, who said that the BBC "knew it was going to be a tough settlement". Anticipating harsh treatment, they pre-empted it ? hence early, surprisingly non-apocalyptic licence fee negotiations. Murdoch and the Tories may be wishing they had held out for a killer blow; as it is, they've given the BBC an opportunity to reinvent itself.
It is possible to support public broadcasting while recognising the value of opposition, even when it is misplaced. Let them fight it out ? we will be the ones who benefit.
Students US military Eric Cantona John Barnes Inflation Sevilla
No comments:
Post a Comment