The ABC’s jump into pay TV was questionable and done without ABC examining its role in Australian broadcasting, according to the chairman of The Canberra Times, Kerry Stokes.
The ABC had two important roles: to reflect Australian culture and to service needs which are not catered for by other media, Mr Stokes said in his sixth and final Boyer lecture being broadcast today on Radio National (at 8.30am and 9.30pm).
“”The problem is to some extent these roles are contradictory,” he said. “”How can one reflect the culture of a nation if one is catering only to that segment of the audience not being satisfied by other services? Surely that means excluding a large part of the Australian cultural mix?
“”The Janus-like role of the ABC has allowed its management to argue that it should be more representative of Australian culture as a whole _ which can be a more ideologically sound way of saying let’s join the ratings game and chase the mass audience.”
Mr Stokes said that this meant the marginal audiences would be poorly served and there would be little incentive for the production industry to engage in innovation and to target diverse audiences.
“”The recent recession has only made things worse,” he said. “”When money is tight people expect more for their dollar. When the ABC focuses on arguably minority interests, people feel entitled to ask why we are wasting public money on something only a few people use.
In the new world of extra television and radio channels, the ABC may find its role even harder to define.
“”Its decision to jump into pay TV, for example, has been the cause of some controversy. Is this what we expect the national broadcaster to do?
“”I think the role of the government in broadcasting through the ABC, and also SBS, has to be examined in the context of the changing world of communications technology.
“”It’s up to us to decide whether its role should be to plug the gaps left by the commercial operators, or to reflect the diversity of Australian culture, or indeed continue to as now and somehow attempt to do both. Perhaps we can determine a different strategy that can achieve both aims with less conflict?”
Mr Stokes summarised the themes of his previous five lectures. He called for a greater government and regulatory role. He called for public ownership and control (through an independent authority) of the fibre-optic and other delivery platforms for pay TV and the so-called information super-highway. Private enterprise would compete in the delivery of content, but capacity would be left on the broadcast and narrowcast bands and fibre cable for minority players to provide diversity and content of cultural importance.
Mr Stokes warned of the folly of building a fibre-optic information super-highway to every house in Australia, at least in the short to medium term.
“”I cannot see it doing anything significantly different or better than what present technology can offer us in combination with some relatively cheap enhancements,” he said.
The present regime _ where consortiums could own the delivery system and the content delivery _ was headed for unnecessary duplication of infrastructure and targetting of the mass market in the big cities to the detriment of cultural diversity, Australian content and regional Australia.
“”Because the communications industry is being driven mainly by private interests, it is essentially profit-driven at the moment and public interest isn’t always being served,” he said. “”If nothing changes in the present course Australia is following, we are heading towards a situation where access to mass communications capacity is restricted to major players, with foreign owners predominating; where mass appeal programs displace locally-made programs appealing to diverse interests and tastes; where global culture, in particular American culture, swamps the fragile home-grown product; and where, as a result, the national agendas are set and directed by private interests with private motives, often unrelated to and remote from Australia.”
However, with proper checks and balances, new communications technology offered great opportunity for Australia.
“”As consumers of communication we have to be active rather than passive,” he said. “”We should demand to be involved in the consultation and ongoing management process. The best way to do this is to educate ourselves about the nature of the communications process.
“”Knowledge is power and at present the Australian public has arguably been disempowered through ignorance when it comes to making decisions in this crucial area.
“”It is up to us to inform ourselves, and this means pressuring those we delegate to govern us to keep us informed.
“”What is needed is a proper process of public consultation, via an overarching inquiry, I would even suggest a Royal Commission into the future of the communications industry. . . . It could determine public opinion in crucial areas such as access, diversity, foreign ownership and content, and to provide government with the hard facts required to set firm policy and structures into place.
“”If we were to follow this plan of action, we would be the first nation in the world to do so. For we are not alone in suffering from policy-making on the run when it comes to the new technologies.
“”And we would be the first to try to harness the forces of technology for the greater common good.”