State Broadcasting Companies - Relic or Asset?
RTÉ – It’s one of those things the Irish love to hate. To say that the state broadcaster has a questionable reputation here in Ireland would be an understatement. Many people just simply hate it, revile it. And it’s not just RTÉ either. Whether it’s BBC in the UK, ORF in Austria, or ARD, ZDF, and the regional public broadcasters in Germany, the amount of vitriol directed against them is almost unbelievable, and has grown immensely over the last few years. The fact that all these broadcasters finance themselves through a TV license fee of some sort while also taking in millions with advertising deals may be one explanation, but it certainly does not explain the sheer volume. Where does that come from, and why did the state get involved in broadcasting in the first place?
To explain that, we’ll have to go all the way back to the dawn of the 20th century. When the first reliable wireless voice transmission came around, it was nothing short of a miracle, especially since nothing of that sort had ever been around before. In keeping with such a new and groundbreaking technology, the costs of setting up a radio station were enormous, especially when it came to ensuring nationwide radio coverage. This was not so much an issue in the US, where large amounts of capital were easy to come by following the end of the Great War, hence why private radio stations started pretty early over there. However, Europe was still reeling from said war. Swathes of countryside were nothing more than barren wastelands, many of the former great empires of the continent had crumbled into a plethora of smaller successor states, scores of displaced moved from one country to another to find a nation that would match their own ethnic identity, and the Spanish Flu outbreak hadn’t really helped either. So, it was often only the governments that had the financial resources to invest in this new technology. So, from the 1920s onwards, publicly owned and operated broadcasters started appearing all over Europe, some becoming iconic, such as BBC, while others would remain more obscure, such as a small station in Dublin known as 2RN, which would later morph into Radio Éireann. The license fee was often brought in to ensure a steady stream of income not connected to general taxation, which could often fluctuate wildly, and whose allocation was often subjected to the whims of whatever government was in power at the time.
How did we get into this mess?
However, that’s not all there was to it. Back in the 1920s, when most of these stations were established, the world was embroiled in a war of ideologies, with communism on one side, free market capitalism on the other, several flavours of fascism coming to the boil in Europe, and many newly formed nations still trying to find their own ideological footing. In such chaotic times, radio gave the respective governments an unprecedented measure of influence over its populace. Therefore, it quickly became a priority for most nations to set up public broadcasting companies, and by the time the Second World War rolled around, the airwaves of the world were flooded with programs from dozens of radio stations, and radio sets were a staple in many households. This situation repeated itself almost to the point after the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, as the Iron Curtain descended on Europe. Shortly afterwards, yet another new technology appeared on stage – Television. It had been experimented on back in the 1930s, but only in the 1950s did this new form of sound and image transmission become widespread. Once again, the investment needed to set up such a station were huge, even more so than they had been for the advent of radio only decades earlier, and once again, only large corporations and governments had the financial means to set up such stations. So, up until the late 1970s, the airwaves were once again dominated by public broadcasters, with Radio Éireann morphing into Radio Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) in 1961. From the late Seventies and early Eighties onwards, private radio and television stations began making inroads into the European markets, aided by the advent of computer technology, and subsequently the availability of cheaper equipment, cameras, transmitters, and more advanced editing tools. Still, public broadcasters remained the dominant players in broadcasting right up until the turn of the millennium.
Nowadays, things are drastically different. A “democratisation” of news media is taking place, and has been ever since the first decade of the new century. Nowadays, every mid-range laptop computer has enough power to enable video editing that would have been limited to large studios only twenty years earlier. The same evolution that enabled private operators to enter the TV and radio market in the 1980s has now opened the door for private individuals to produce and broadcast content. Granted, “citizen’s TV stations” have been on the air since the 1980s, but they rarely had anything more than fringe appeal, and were limited by the transmitters they could utilise. Nowadays, platforms like YouTube completely negate the need for a dedicated transmitter. Any broadband internet connection is enough. As for the production side, a quick check of Amazon shows that a full setup including camera, tripod, microphone, as well as a laptop for editing the footage are available for less than 1000€.
 |
| Forget large studios, a camera, a tripod,... |
 |
| ...and some editing software is all you need in order to reach an audience these day. You don't even need something like Final Cut Pro, which I use, for editing purposes. Free programs like iMovie are more than enough to get started. |
 |
| There's no need to wait for feedback from focus groups to come back. Platforms like YouTube provide detailed viewer information and analytics within just a few hours after publishing a new video. |
 |
| With modern smartphones, even a computer for editing isn't needed anymore, it can all be done on one device these days. |
 |
| Need some aerial pictures? Gone are the days of chartering helicopters with expensive camera rigs. Consumer drones these days are available for less than 500€, and are easily controlled via smartphone. |
Even if you take the whole YouTube stuff out of the equation, there‘s still the issue of private radio and TV stations. While their beginnings sometimes looked hokey and wooden, they have since matured into media powerhouses that can produce all types of content with a quality that has long since equalled or surpassed that of many state broadcasters, all financed simply by advertising revenue, without seeing a cent from any license fees.
At the same time, many state broadcasters have developed into large, sometimes monstrous, bureaucracies. It is not uncommon for large broadcasters such as ZDF in Germany to have tens of thousands of employees, with most being in mid-level managerial positions and not involved in actual content production. Even „small“ outfits such as RTÉ have several thousand employees, with little to show for it in terms of production value. In addition, as public bodies, these broadcasters are often paid salaries similar to those of civil servants, which are often significantly higher than those for private sector employees. Of course, this creates a certain sense of envy, and lends itself to accusations of nepotism, “old boys club” scenarios, and a huge public-sector gravy train.
These close ties do not just exist within these stations. While many public broadcasters are nominally independent from any government influence, for decades, they were the only broadcast game in town, and close ties developed between the various political parties and key managers and directors in the broadcasting companies. This includes, but is not limited to, oversight bodies set up to oversee the proper operation of these broadcasters. Now, I’m not implying that those connections are used to influence programming, but the impression is very much there. Plus, any close connection between an oversight body and the organisation it is charged with overseeing invariably sabotages any attempts at actual oversight, even if it is unintended.
Finally, given that they are public sector bodies, their appreciation of, or experience with social media, or even the internet in general is rather limited, to be generous. This is not only limited to their use of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube, but also to their very understanding of said platforms. Reports or news items run by state broadcasters usually drastically overstate the dangers poised by social media platforms, while ignoring, playing down, or flat-out ridiculing the many positive aspects of this democratisation of broadcasting. Granted, private broadcasters aren‘t any better in that regard, though the latter are mostly motivated by greed and a desire to protect their own ad revenue, while the former simply aren‘t mentally agile enough. Take YouTube for example, a platform that I have had quite a bit of experience with since launching a weather themed channel two weeks ago. Often, any YouTube creators are dismissed as either „beauty/lifestyle“ vloggers or Let‘s-players, and often, broadcasters will use examples that are so stereotypical they‘re almost a parody. Really ambitious projects, such as The Great War, an online video series that retells the events of World War 1 on a week by week basis, or fan film projects like Prelude to Axanar are almost invisible in the perception of „traditional“ broadcasters.
That brings us to today, and the situation many state broadcasters find themselves in. They lack a unique selling point. They‘re not the only players on the field anymore. They‘re not fast enough to rival modern day news stations, despite their nationwide reach. They lack the guts or the willingness to experiment with new, unproven formats, relying on content purchased from other producers, while any in-house productions they do churn out invariably are hampered by a lack of quality and an often ham-fisted approach to storytelling or reporting, brought about by myriads of layers of management and bureaucracy that attempt to influence any production.
Speaking of management and bureaucracy, these management layers often result in a thick, opaque web of red tape that makes any attempts at transparency all but impossible. What‘s more, the large administrative overhead that these organisations invariably have all lead to the impression of an „old boy‘s club“ being at work, as I mentioned above. Staff appointments are often seen as „friends“ helping one another out, and lead to accusations of political influence, partisanship, or outright kleptocracy, even though the actual processes could very well be perfectly legal and explainable.
All this has left public broadcasters with a large bullseye on their back, wide open to attack from all angles. These attacks can come from many angles. It might come from private broadcasting groups trying to shut down a competitor, it might be from extremist political groups who just want to take out any potential source of opposition, or even from outside both state and non-state players. It is these voices that usually scream the loudest, or agitate the most, when broadcasters like RTÉ or BBC invariably screw up again, playing on the frustration with a mandatory paid service, and they find an unpleasantly large audience in the large group of frequently undereducated „disenfranchised“ who lap it all up and will happily blame the „gub‘mint“ for their own failures in life. It is in many respects a perfect storm.
What's the way forward like?
So, how do state broadcasters get out of it? Because I certainly believe that simply abolishing such bodies will serve no one. Well, for one, better oversight is desperately needed. Current state-appointed oversight bodies only further reinforce existing impressions of kleptocracy, nepotism and corruption, and play into the hands of those who want to have these broadcasters silenced. I’d rather prefer an oversight body made up of regular citizens, who are drawn from the general population in a lottery system and sit for a certain fixed period, similar to juries for court cases or the citizen’s assembly. Now, such a body would need legal and media experts to draw on when required, but would ultimately review any decision taken by management, whether it is staffing or any other business decision.
Then, there’s the programming side of things. Many state broadcasters have spectacularly unambitious program rosters, producing a bit of news here, a bit of documentary there, and a bit of original dramatic or comedic programming there, mostly in the shape of sitcoms or daily soaps, some of them self-produced, but most of them bought in from abroad. This has got to stop, stations like RTÉ can’t be all things to all people. A drastic review of TV and radio programming is needed, with money being put where it is most useful. Personally, I believe that a dedicated news and current affairs channel, and one dedicated channel for documentaries and educational programs are the best way forward, and present the most cost effective solutions. The situation with radio isn’t quite as grim and restrictive, so multiple radio stations are still pretty much a “go” in my eyes.
The biggest change however will have to come with regards to the social media angle. As I mentioned above, platforms like YouTube have permanently changed the media landscape, and enabled anyone to produce and broadcast content from any location, so long as they have internet access and a smartphone. This means that cameras are now available even in the most remote spots of this country, and can be on the scene before news of a breaking event even reach the newsroom of ANY TV station in Ireland. Now granted, the YouTube scene in Ireland seems to be pretty fragmented and underdeveloped, with a plethora of Beauty/Lifestyle channels, some comedians, but very little actual informative content. Still, the potential is there, and from my perspective, RTÉ should set about channelling that potential by not just ripping that material for a 30 second clip in the main evening news, but by giving YouTube creators access to tools and resources to professionalise their production.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe state broadcasters should start handing out top of the line DSLR cameras, lenses, microphones, as well as laptops with Adobe Premiere and After Effects. However, I do believe that they can provide workshops for up and coming creators to improve the quality of their work, by teaching them basics about lighting, sound and camera position, image composition, the effects of certain lens types on the image, as well as basics about post-production. They are also ideally positioned to provide such creators with a database of archive material dating back to the beginnings of RTÉ in the 1960s, which would be a godsend for many creatives. As a blogger, I can speak from experience on just how hard it can be to even get archive photos that don’t land you in a load of legal trouble, much less videos, and having a reliable source for this would remove a lot of worries about copyright and the likes. Besides, YouTube doesn't really do that much for its creators in the early stages, and with monetisation only kicking in from 1000 subscribers, and dedicated spaces for shooting only available in a handful of cities, RTÉ could garner some serious support with comparatively little expenditure. Young creatives get access to resources, while RTÉ gets access to locally produced content that it could never afford to produce in its own. A win-win situation in my eyes.
 |
| Granted, the YouTube Creators Academy is a pretty valuable resource for anyone starting off on that platform... |
 |
| ...however, online courses can only take you so far, and at some point, personal coaching is pretty much the most effective way forward. |
Now granted, state broadcasters will hardly hand out all of these resources willy-nilly to anyone who wants them, and I believe that a certain type of access control is definitely needed. I envision something along the lines of an “RTÉ Affiliate Program” for lack of a better word of it. The access criteria should however be much more lenient than they are today. An active YouTube channel is obviously a must, as is the payment of the license fee, obviously. I would also find it acceptable that any creative should be asked to adhere to certain standards of reporting, like not promoting extremist ideologies, or illegal activities, as well as respecting the privacy of people they may be dealing with. And yes, I believe it is wholly acceptable to ask creatives who want to access this program to go to one of the regional RTÉ offices and identify themselves there after registering.
Now, none of these changes will be popular. Some will not sit well with the management team, while the whole social media/YouTube angle will almost certainly draw the ire of the fifty-plus anti-everything brigade of old men (mostly, a few old hags in there as well) who believe that anyone under thirty is just a clueless waste of space and that they’re the only people with any idea about what’s going on. However, continuing with the same old scheme of things just won’t fly in this day and age. Platforms like YouTube or Vimeo have completely torn up the rulebook on broadcasting. Inaction is simply not an option, and only those broadcasters that actually engage and harness the power of these new platforms will be able to survive in the long run.
Comments
Post a Comment