6th May 2010: The significance of your vote on British broadcasting

29Apr10

Over the past few weeks talk of the general election has greatly intensified, particularly as a result of the recent television leader debates. It is fitting that these television debates have sparked such public interest in the election, as this post looks into the repercussions a Tory government would bring to television in Britain, particularly regional news.

I’m just going to put this out there: I support Labour. Now you don’t have to scrutinise this post and come to the conclusion that I’m trying to influence your vote. All I want is to highlight the significance your vote will have on British television on May the 6th. In fact, this post may end up being counter-productive if you disagree with the points I make!

Cast your minds back to the 1980s, or, if you’re like me and your lifespan doesn’t stretch that far, turn your history book back 30 years, and you will find one Margaret Thatcher in office. Below is an extract from my Media Policy essay written earlier this year that highlights the impact Thatcher’s power had over British broadcasting:

Thatcherism was evident across the whole of Britain, with her neo-liberal ideologies forming a much different Britain to what we had previously seen. Deregulation, privatisation, liberalisation and imposition of free trade disciplines are all trends associated with neo-liberalism (Freedman, 2008, p37), trends that Thatcher intended to apply to British broadcasting.
.
Thatcher envisaged a broadcasting system similar to that in the United States, were commercialism ruled. However, due to the Peacock Report in 1986, ‘consensus reigned that the BBC must remain under taxpayer-supported public control’ (Allen, 2001, p253), ruling out the possibility of a privatised BBC. Despite this, Thatcher was still able to reform broadcasting in Britain; intervening with Britain’s commercial television:
.
‘the Thatcher government succeeded in pushing through the Broadcasting Law of 1990, which provided for the auctioning off of the regional ITV companies and the creation of a new terrestrial channel, all to be funded by advertising.’ (Herman and McChesney, 1997, p167)
.
The act helped deregulate and expand commercial broadcasting in Britain, and even replaced the IBA (Independent Broadcasting Authority) with a ‘new, “lighter touch” regulator, the Independent Television Commission (ITC)’ (Galperin, 2004, p159). Although the act was passed, there were a number of authoritative figures who opposed the reform:
.
‘Labour and most incumbent ITV operators opposed the reforms, but more importantly, so did a number of Conservative front benchers in Parliament, who managed to introduce a number of Reithian safeguards to the broadly deregulatory bill.’ (Galperin, 2004, p159)

Now 30 years on, it looks increasingly more likely that we will once again be living in a Conservative Britain in a few weeks time, meaning the vision of Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt, is extremely significant for the future of British broadcasting. In his recent speech Jeremy Hunt: No public subsidy for outdated regional news, Hunt reveals that a Conservative government would bring the following changes:

Our priority must be to make our media regulation fit for a new media age.  This means moving to a light touch regulatory model that allows media companies to develop and test new business models.

…as in America advertising on local TV franchises can be sold nationally as well as locally.

It appears to me that the Conservatives would look to continue where Thatcher left of. For me, British broadcasting works due to the PSB remits still in place on commercial channels such as ITV and channel 4. I dread the day when our commercial stations churn out the borderline propaganda that is television news in America, and this ‘light touch regulatory model’ that Hunt mentions above is the beginning of the deregulation a Tory government would bring. I am sceptical about the proposed reform of our regional news system which centres around the idea of ‘city-based TV franchises’. Our cities are simply not big enough to uphold the American system, and the rural areas of our regions will be even more under-represented in the news then they already are. It’s no secret that ITV regional news is losing money, but a change in the structure of regional news will not necessarily increase the number of viewers, which is ultimately the only statistic that will make advertisers pay more.

It is important that our government safeguards the core values that is associated with British broadcasting, and does not bow down to the American model, which would only help increase this so-called ‘Americanisation’ that is apparent across the world. In the United States, regulation bodies work around the market competition, adapting numerous policies in order to comply with the change in the market; whereas in Britain, market competition works around the regulations that are in place. Allowing market competition to rule is a dangerous approach, and without regulation our television screens will become nothing more than a moving billboard, rather than the medium for entertainment, information and education that it is today. I know which system I would prefer.

Filed under: TV Student   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: british, broadcasting, conservative, crumpton, culture, election, general, ITV, jeremy hunt, labour, matthew, media, news, regional, regulation, shadow secretary, sport, student, television, thatcher