A scathing editorial in The West Australian today referred to the “increasingly irrelevant ABC”. I don’t always agree with The West, and if my paper had trumpeted something which turned out to be false I might have been less strident, but that particular remark struck a chord.
What is the relevance of ABC television?
Before the days of satellite and regional aggregation, the ABC provided an essential service. When I grew up at Traralgon in the 1970s the Melbourne channels were hazy. We relied mainly on the ABC and a regional station. In many parts of country Australia the ABC was the only station people could watch.
That’s all changed. Add SBS and pay television into the mix and viewers are flooded with choice.
You could argue the ABC provides a niche service to promote the arts, science, culture, etc. I would argue that the Australian taxpayer shouldn’t be subsidising the promotion of elite activities. Subsidise the activities themselves by all means, but not their promotion.
If it is deemed essential to provide niche content, this could be done by either freeing up licences for public broadcasters (eg community radio) or by requiring commercial services to deliver it.
For example, if the ABC were privatised, the successful bidder could be required by law to deliver particular content. The operator could factor this into the bid.
I don’t watch much television at all these days. Our TV at home is generally on Foxtel for the kids. I read books and newspapers or browse the web for entertainment.
It doesn’t bother me what the commercial television stations do; that’s their business. It does bother me that my taxes are supporting an irrelevant broadcaster.
I don’t feel as strongly about ABC Radio. It delivers the only reliable regional radio news service in most parts of country Australia. Radio National provides niche content which should be broadcast and does it well.
I’m just not convinced that ABC Television does anything which someone else couldn’t do better.
