Paul Norris: Public asset in danger of losing its soul

The scriptwriters for the latest reality TV show, set in the studios of an infamous state broadcaster, would have been hard put to better the storylines of recent weeks - CEO walks out after tiff with meddlesome board; viewers in revolt against huge presenter salaries; court slams contract bungle; ratings gap opens up as viewers switch channels; millions of dollars of advertising revenue lost to competitors; and the final touch of farce - Judy Bailey returns to find her wardrobe sold off.

Truly, truth can be stranger than fiction.

Of course there are those who will lose no opportunity to attack TVNZ under any pretext. But some, politicians and commentators alike, are rushing to the judgment that the whole sorry saga simply shows the failure of Labour's policy of trying to revive TVNZ as a public broadcaster with a dual mandate to both deliver the broadcasting charter and maintain commercial performance. In the words of one critic, TVNZ cannot serve both God and Mammon.

This conclusion is wrong-headed. The dual remit is challenging but possible. The problems we have seen are failures of management and relationships, not inherent to the hybrid nature of the model.

Furthermore it can be argued that the very future of free-to-air television in New Zealand depends on making TVNZ work as a public broadcaster largely dependent on commercial revenue. There are ways forward, but neither Government nor TVNZ can afford to be fazed by the current shambles.

The Government can take some comfort from yesterday's annual report. Commercial performance strong enough to provide a dividend of $10.5 million and a substantial list of programmes to confirm that the charter is not a mere document with no impact on TVNZ's programming or culture.

But the annual report takes us only to the year ended June 30, 2005. Since then the ratings trend in key demographics has continued downwards. Ad revenue is also down, with TVNZ being driven to cut its advertising rates - something of a desperate measure.

There are signs of panic in the TVNZ camp. Within the last few days there has been a reining back of key charter programmes such as Mataku and the Festival documentary series. This move - which could be seen as the betrayal of charter ideals for the saving of small pieces of silver - sends entirely the wrong message to viewers, the production community and Government.

One can only speculate if this stems from a board placing too much emphasis on the commercial side of the remit, or from leaderless executives too mindful of bonuses linked to ratings success.

The whole point about the charter, and indeed public broadcasting, is that some programmes must be in the schedule for their social and cultural value, not for their contribution to revenue or market share.

It undermines the fine words in the annual report to learn that there is no commitment beyond 2006 to the Festival documentary series, which has seen such inspiring programmes as those on Colin McCahon, Michael King and David Lange.

As for the Government, if it is serious about the charter, it should rethink its determination to extract a dividend from TVNZ, despite it no longer being a state-owned enterprise driven primarily for profit. If TVNZ's revenue continues to decline the Government may have to support its public asset by increasing the level of public funding. Not requiring a dividend is one way of doing this.

Opposition politicians calling for a public inquiry on the basis that a public asset is losing value reveal their failure to understand the charter or public broadcasting. Commercial value must not be the only measure of success. Where is their assessment of public value, of the social and cultural benefits that accrue from public broadcasting?

Commercial value does become a key factor if the asset is to be sold, which is certainly the cry from some critics. TVNZ has botched the job so badly there is nothing for it but to cut the losses and privatise - effectively the final abuse of a public asset. No doubt there could be a ready sale to a Murdoch or a Packer, but does anybody imagine that, when the chips are down, such foreign moguls would put our public interest before the private interests of their shareholders?

Their commitment to New Zealand programmes and stories would depend on how much money they could extract from NZ On Air for commercial programmes. Do we really want a return to the late 90s when a thoroughly commercial TVNZ refused NZ On Air money even for documentaries?

There are ways forward. The boldest strategy would be to encourage the public broadcaster to demonstrate that it can create more public value, especially from the opportunities afforded by the digital future.

TVNZ has been working for some time to create a digital free-to-air platform, together with CanWest and Prime. Once such a platform is launched, many new channels will be possible, indeed desirable, as new channels are one reason why viewers switch to digital.

TVNZ could create a number of new channels of largely charter content. One might be a factual channel, with new international documentaries, minority programmes at accessible times, and repeats of factual programmes. Other channels could be targeted at children, drama and the arts, or lifestyle.

These new digital channels, free-to-air unlike those on Sky, could be non-commercial or with a low level of advertising. Their funding would rely either on new taxpayer funding (some $30 million to $50 million) or subsidy from TV One and TV2 perhaps under a new no-dividend policy, or some mix.

This strategy allows TVNZ's two main channels to continue much as at present, delivering some charter content without, in Ian Fraser's phrase, "screwing the business". But it then enables TVNZ to deliver much more charter and add considerable public value. The new digital channels could establish TVNZ in public broadcasting mode as not seen in the past 15 years.

Digital also allows TVNZ to ramp up its online presence, offering all kinds of interactive experiences and access to Video on Demand, meaning viewers could download recent or archived programmes. This too can be seen as adding public value to its mainstream activities and delivering on the charter in another form.

So here is a vision for TVNZ to move on from its present troubles and rejuvenate its mission as a commercial public broadcaster. As with any vision, it requires leadership, staff support and commitment.

As a first step, the Government needs to move fast on two fronts.

First, crack the whip to get the digital platform launched. Second, appoint a new chairperson to the TVNZ board.

The present chairman, Craig Boyce, is due to depart next April, but the search for a new CEO requires that a new chair be put in place without delay, as any incoming CEO must know who he/she will be working to.

Above all, it will be absolutely vital that both chair and CEO know what TVNZ is for. It is not just another commercial broadcaster. It is a public asset to be used for public purposes. Let them both swear to this, that the blood let in recent days may not be shed in vain.

* Paul Norris is the head of the Broadcasting School at the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology.