25.02.2014 Views

Download - Global Journalist

Download - Global Journalist

Download - Global Journalist

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

GLOBAL JOURNALIST Winter 2008<br />

That debate has been raging<br />

for months already and shows no<br />

sign of early resolution. But give<br />

it an extra twist before you stick<br />

over any quavering answer. For<br />

who says that public service begins<br />

or ends with a button on your<br />

TV? The BBC already spends over<br />

$212 million of license fee money<br />

on its Web sites, sending news and<br />

videos around the world. In that<br />

process, inescapably, it competes<br />

with British newspapers great and<br />

small—some reaching for salience<br />

in global markets, some merely<br />

happy to keep news flowing to local<br />

towns and villages.<br />

When the BBC pushes to collect<br />

money from advertising in<br />

the U.S. or Europe, for instance,<br />

it elbows the Telegraph, Times<br />

and Guardian aside. When it announces<br />

a dramatic upgrading of<br />

video news on its 65 local news<br />

Web sites, it causes a competitive<br />

grief to local newspapers<br />

in exactly the same line of service<br />

struggling to make sense<br />

of a lousy economy. Why, then,<br />

should broadcasting itself be left<br />

as the only media area where top<br />

slicing could conceivably apply?<br />

Why not slice away a few million<br />

more to help local papers keep<br />

the public informed about things<br />

it has a right to know but won’t as<br />

the cutbacks continue?<br />

That’s the argument raised recently<br />

by the state regulator Ofcom<br />

and it automatically lands<br />

slap in the middle of a hot pot<br />

of debate for the BBC’s governing<br />

Trust, as well as Ofcom, to try to<br />

sort out.<br />

Ridiculous? Observe, indeed,<br />

how the concept rolls merrily<br />

along. Begin by funding one giant<br />

state corporation devoted to<br />

quality, neutrality and all things<br />

nice. End by slicing the cash far<br />

thinner and giving it to commercial<br />

broadcasters who want their<br />

news programs paid for and local<br />

papers who can’t afford to<br />

be left out of the action. In one<br />

sense, this is perfectly consistent.<br />

The cash goes to worthy things<br />

in print or on screen. In another<br />

sense, though, it’s a bad headache<br />

waiting to happen.<br />

Why, on a channel free to<br />

make money from selling advertisements,<br />

should the tax payer<br />

have to step in to fund expensive<br />

3 Article 3 of 134<br />

Show Contents<br />

5 Page 34 of 836

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!