Since the government announced it would freeze the ABC’s funding in the budget, opponents have focused on restoring that money to the public broadcaster. Labor says it will restore funding, and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has labelled the cuts “dangerous and irresponsible”, calling for future funding to be guaranteed.
When managing director Michelle Guthrie gave a speech last week defending the ABC, she cited a yet-to-be published Deloitte report that found the public broadcaster contributed $1 billion to the Australian economy. All the debate so far questions whether funding should go into the public broadcaster as it is.
But Canadian media analyst Ken Goldstein, who has watched a similar debate about the public broadcaster in Canada, says there could be other options that governments, including Australia’s, aren’t even considering.
Sure, media benefits the broader economy
“It should not be surprising that there is a benefit to the broader economy from the spending by the ABC,” Goldstein told Crikey. “There is also a benefit to the broader economy from the spending by the commercial radio and television services.”
Goldstein said that given the changing media landscape, there should be more research into whether public broadcasters, as they were set up and originally funded, are the best use of public money for the same goals.
“The three public broadcasters (ABC in Australia, BBC in the UK and CBC in Canada) were set up 80 to 90 years ago. They were set up for radio — no television, no cable, no satellite, no internet,” he said. “After 80 years, it might be a useful idea to test whether, a) public intervention is still required, and b) what is the best form that intervention should take.”
He said financial data from the Australian Communications and Media Authority from 2015-16 indicated that the value-added economic benefit from the commercial radio and television services was likely substantially greater than that of the ABC.
Same public funds, different result
But he said the “real issue” was whether public broadcasters were the best way to spend the public’s money on broadcasting. Studies by Deloitte in Canada and elsewhere about the value of public broadcasters presented a “counterfactual” case — where that money was taken out of broadcasting and/or the money was replaced by advertising.
“On that basis, it was then concluded that the current system was better than the alternative,” he said. “My criticism of that approach is that it measured alternatives to public funding per se, rather than alternative ways of spending the same level of public funds within the same field and in pursuit of the same goals — on, say, more ‘pump-priming‘ for under-represented categories of programming that could then be broadcast/distributed in many ways, instead of only being funneled through a facilities-based corporation.”
He said that in order for governments to know whether public broadcasting corporations were really fulfilling their original purposes, they needed to break down how their funding is spent (a little more opaque in Australia than at the CBC or BBC) across different platforms and content.
“One might still fund radio, or news programming across platforms, in the same way. But for expensive television entertainment programs, a greater emphasis on ‘pump-priming’ might be more efficient (eg Screen Australia), with the resulting programs broadcast or distributed in many ways through many outlets,” he said.
Goldstein has raised the issue in Canadian parliamentary inquiries — also noting that cries from public broadcasters for more money are not new. He quoted then-CBC chairman Arnold Davidson Dunton, in 1947, telling a parliamentary committee: “Unless further funds come in, it will be impossible to keep the present level of service; it will be impossible to produce as much broadcasting by Canadian artists as it is doing at present. And this is apart from the question of needed improvements.”
In the UK, regulator Ofcom proposed creating a “public service publisher” in 2004, which would produce, distribute and fund public service content for broadcasters which were saying they couldn’t afford to produce public service programming. It was abandoned, and Goldstein said nothing like it had been implemented in the UK or elsewhere due to: “Pushback from established public broadcasters, combined with the rapidly-changing technology and economics of the industry”.
While the mainstream media lacks diversity and is the hands of conservatives or right wing nut jobs, then I say yes, the ABC is vital.
As for spending money through things like ScreenAustralia rather than the ABC, surely that programming would still end up on the ABC, since all the commercial networks seem to make are shit reality TV programs?
Screen Australia productions would certainly air on the public broadcaster rather than a commercial network if there was any controversial content which may put them in conflict with an advertiser.
The ABC has no such constraints hence can be fearless & enjoy the luxury of taking risks.
Emily, I don’t know about the ABC anymore. I get the sense that it is sliding away. The ABC is becoming mediocre and mundane in my view and I am not sure that is how public money should be spent now. Of my seventy years I have spent half listening and watching to the ABC and the other half doing the same with National Public Radio and the PBS (Public Broadcasting System) in the US. Both NPR and PBS are funded in part/mostly by the government and the rest by private foundations, listeners and viewers (“people like you” as they say). Without fail the conservatives in the Republican party argue for its defunding but always bipartisan public outcry and lobbying of congressmen/women keeps the government funding ongoing.
Republicans consider them left wing and to some extent they are left of centre but not much. So its the same for them in the us as it is here for the ABC. But despite the pressures of bias real or perceived the programming produced by them is par excellence.
Public affairs programmes such as Frontline (last Monday’s Four Corner on Second Chance Kids is from Frontline) and the American Experience (most of these shows go to SBS) comes a certain mindset that with exceptions is sorely lacking at the ABC. It has to do with standard of excellence I think.
I cannot help wonder if the 24-hour News channel has weakened the ABC’s credentials. 24 hour news is pretty intimidating to keep it going and maintain starters if excellence. PBS doesn’t not have a 24-hour new channel. The ones in America are privately owned and work it so there is relevant news gathered globally.
But ABC’s News Channel is pretty slapdash. It’s not 24/7. It really only actively broadcasts from 6:00 am-12 midnight. The remaining hours in early morning has the BBC World Service and alJazeera satellite channels alternating until 5:00am when they stick a repeat news program from the night before. What happens in my view is that ABC News when ii does come on puts on stories that are many time four to six hours old and often out of date when they do air and call it “Breaking News” which is pretty laughable in my view because actually my line of work has me watching those breaking news stories as they actually happen either on alJazeera, BBC, CNN. CGTN (the Chinese news channel). So for me its old news by the time the ABC gets to it at 6:00am and beyond. I won’t go into their particular biases here because they all have them but I can tell when they are pushing their agendas. I am pretty good at discerning that.
My point it, the ABC lets others do their news gathering. When the Washington news correspondents report on Trump’s doings overnight, I watch Connor Duffy quoting CNN chapter and verse even when he goes on assignment. That you would put a guy who did rural news crosses into a news bureau as intense as DC just beggars belief. Duffy does try I do give him that, but he’s still miles behind in discerning American relevancy. It’s pretty embarrassing. But why do you put someone with next to nothing experience in American affairs in that job when what you really need is someone who can hit the ground running? It’s just arse backwards in the thinking at the top of ABC news to make that decision. But it just seems so typical.
But I digress would the ABC be better if it was split up into separate entities each with different boards. ABC Entertainment does drama, comedy etc.. ABC Public Affairs does daily news and docos. Each gets a majority of funding from government but the remainder comes from foundations and from viewer subscriptions.Might that be a solution? At the very least it might begat a standard of excellence to aspire to than what we have now, which just seems to be going down, down, down. Down.
You digress. The words “digress” are for people without anything to say.
You digress. The words “digress” are for people without anything to say.
The US uses public funding/begging to pay for their PBS – but you do get the likes of News Hour, which leaves our ‘opinion as news’ media for dead.
Neo liberalism at its worst. There are things in life that can not be valued in money terms.
Trust, and credibility are two of them. It follows that benefit the community, like conservation, our institutions, fairness and impartiality – a concept with three opinions for every two commentators – belong to the people, every body. These they tell us who we, as a nation are, and if we value them they are a service rather than a profit centre.
ABC TV news reportage and comedy/ drama quality has suffered from the funding freeze, but also the programmers seem not to know their audience and what people like to watch.
I once watched ABC almost exclusively, now I prefer youtube, netflicks for information and entertainment, and Crikey for current affairs.
ABC regional/ rural radio service is still the most essential media outlet in the country, by a long margin. No other organisation gets a audience share like ABC radio in times of crisis and looming natural disaster, and ABC radio has always met the challenge to inform and alert the public without panic and sensationalism.