the channels

Pim Opinion

Time to change the channels

It is important for every nation to see itself on television if that country’s national cultural identity is not to be eroded. Thus Mr Martin of Television New Zealand which seeks to broadcast a region-wide public service system.(Page 24).

Meanwhile, NTN’s Mr Finlay sees it as a natural progression for countries to support a state-run service as well as a commercial channel.

As a cornered politician might remark, there is much to be said for both sides.

A regional public service station is a fine idea. For once, people would be asked what they want to see on television as opposed to being offered something that advertisers want to buy time in. The problem arises in who it is that will be answering the question.

To expect politicians to stay out of that is asking too much of them. The TVNZ proposal of countries recording their own material for broadcast would, we suspect, open the floodgates. Once people have digested the novelty of seeing their own country on their own television, what then? Ministerial broadcasts? MPs officially opening pet projects?

There has to be a limit. But if TVNZ seeks to set that limit, shrill cries of neocolonialism will surely follow. An editorial board with representatives from the various receiving nations might overcome such a difficulty. But there’s always the danger that these too might become political appointments.

Not that the commercial stations will be above giving time to politicians. But they, at least, are saddled with the constraint of keeping their advertisers on screen and on side. And therein lies another problem.

For if commercial TV sees its job as to entertain, the less appealing and possibly more vital areas will find it hard to compete for time and advertising with canned cops and robber-car chase-kitchen sink dramas that will do nothing to protect or develop cultural sovereignty.

And, on a more general level, television will have a murderous effect on individual countries’ radio stations which already reach more people than television can hope to find in the coming ten years.

At the same time, to pretend that television won’t or shouldn’t happen is to deny islands people the opportunity to see and judge for themselves.

For this reason the TVNZ proposal deserves con

sideration in that it provides an alternative. At the same time, to ask it to do the job the commercials want to do is asking far too much of a basic four-hours-a-day broadcaster.

The vital question is: Who’s going to pay for it? There must be an argument for the kiwis paying for their influence through support for the service. It seems fair. It may even seem fair to New Zealand at present.

But, as Radio Australia might discover, governments can take away as easily as they can give and external services are often the first to feel the pinch in times of domestic stress. That could leave the island nations with a choice of committing unbudgeted funds or accepting a reduced service.

Commercial stations, too, are not immune to financial sickness. For despite the high hopes of the advertising agencies (the real winners in the TV battle) and the stations themselves, there must be some doubt remain ing in everybody’s minds that the market is simply not biq enough.

A solution might be to deregulate the airwaves. Let the professional risk-takers fight it out and may the best broadcaster win, while supporting a low cost public service system with inbuilt checks on political misuse.

It may not even be too much to hope that some portion of government revenue from television might go towards support for public service broadcasting.

Commercial broadcasters in most countries are pre pared to compete for audiences with state-run television and there seems no reason why they should expect a clear field in the Pacific. In any case, satellite broadcas ting is such that exclusive contracts are going to be hard to enforce.

For example, if a viewer in Fiji chooses to turn to a regional service to the exclusion of the local “exclusive” broadcaster, who can or should prevent him?

Fears of a population gorged on the Coca Cola culture to the exclusion of its own heritage are probably unfounded. The commercial stations will conform to sensible regulations covering content if only to protect their licences. In any case, most island cultures are both vital and dynamic and probably well able to recover from the initial shock of broadcast television. They are not, as some people fear, unable to look after their traditions.

But freedom of choice in television is enjoyed practically world wide. Why not here?