People in and around what remains of ‘public service broadcasting’ are anxious. They have every reason.

Treasury and MCH are scrambling to deliver to Cabinet shortly on Jonathan Coleman’s instruction, made explicit in an OIAed December 22 letter to TVNZ, to find a way “to provide and fund public broadcasting.”

I understand this has seen MCH CEO Lewis Holden visit integrated television/radio newsrooms at the BBC and elsewhere, though Treasury’s Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit is donkey deep. 

As the BBC and ABC show,  joint operations can work. But not if radio becomes the perpetual poor cousin of television.  And that’s almost certainly in prospect under this government. Its track record on broadcasting over the last 20 months – and for many years before – shows palpable contempt for public service broadcasting as a concept.

Now it is faced with the dilemma of what to do once the $79m in funding provided to TVNZ to fund Channels 6 + 7 runs out in 2012. Credit to TVNZ for having made these channels work.  I attended the launch last week of the Spotlight on Science series – probably funded for less than Rick Ellis’  Amex bill – but worthy and important television nonetheless. It could not happen without TVNZ stretching its resources to help foster these channels and the Freeview digital platform they support.

Now the explicit instruction to TVNZ is to simply crank up the dividend and nothing else. There’s barely even a ritual bow in the current TVNZ Amendment Bill to New Zealand content, let alone anything vaguely non-commercial. Meantime, it’s handing over its archives and audience share to Sky via the new Heartland channel.

So one option is for Radio NZ’s news and perhaps wider operations to be morphed into TVNZ 7 (and possibly 6). A sort of ‘radio with pictures.’

This is just too important  to emerge from a quick circuit of MCH/Treasury/Cabinet before announcement and implementation; especially from a Government with a known loathing for ‘public service broadcasting’, heavyweight Ministers who’ve made their loot in private radio and a clear Cabinet agenda to sell TVNZ when politically possible.

The list of possible losers is substantial: 

• Radio NZ, if reporters/broacasters have to service television with little new resource, the current ethos and excellence takes a bath
• The NZ independent production community, if NZ on Air funding is cut to part-fund a new television/radio combine
• TVNZ and TV3, where New Zealand content funded by NZ on Air, helps keep ratings and revenue up against Sky’s increasing penetration 
• Those who value Radio NZ and who don’t want it gutted by a fast Government fiat

These issues are far-reaching. They stretch beyond the life of one government. Jonathan Coleman should open them up to submission and input from interested New Zealanders in a genuine process without any pre-determination of the outcome.

Am I hopeful of this? Well here’s a link to an article from one of Britain’s best commentators, Will Hutton, who urges Poms to stick up for the BBC as the new Tory/Libs Government get it in their sights. He argues it’s the last bulwark against rule by the mob

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/will-hutton-bbc-democracy-culture

Here’s a  sign of troubled times. John Drinnan reports today that TVNZ is looking at halving the news hour to cut cost – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10631450&pnum=0

The news hour is the anchor for ratings and revenue. It consistently rates near the top for audiences. Frankly I can’t pretend that it is compelling viewing from end to end. But if cutting it back to half an hour means it will be replaced by a game show or similar, then our capacity to be informed as a nation, albeit through the skewed lens of commercial television is reduced.

You have to ask if the budget could not be more easily trimmed (especially if TVNZ is indeed seeking agreement from TV3

What about:

• reducing to one presenter (and doing away with the cutesy pie chit chat)
• cutting the number of silly ‘live’ crosses to times when there actually is something happening, not just using motorway bridges and court entrances for after-the-fact reports
• filling the rest of the news hour with some more meat  – like decent local or foreign- sourced news backgrounders and  some live interviews . We deserve to see the Prime Minister on the night of his Statement to parliament outlining major tax changes
• Leave ex-All Black grovelling gropers and their ilk to Close Up, where ratings are all king

doing away w

TVNZ’s announcement that it is creating a special channel of previously-screened NZ content only for Sky subscribers raises a number of issues.

First, it will mean that programmes funded by taxpayers – either through NZ on Air or as effective stakeholders in TVNZ revenue streams – will not be able to see content, second-time round, that they have paid for.

Secondly, by putting its toes into becoming a pay tv model, TVNZ erodes the benefits it earlier applied to getting up Freeview as a free, digital alternative to Sky.

Thirdly, it nibbles away at its own economic base. Yes, there will be short-term return from what Sky will pay – but it ultimately builds Sky’s viewership, which is to the detriment of TVNZ.

Little wonder Sky’s John Fellet is describing the TVNZ content library, which he now has access to. as “the biggest untapped resource since the Maui oil fields.”

TVNZ is now explicitly told by the Government to only concern itself with making a profit- not to worry about concerns about content. The thing is, how can it be inspiring New Zealanders on every screen when one in two won’t be able to see the new Sky TVNZ channel?,