Week 5: The new bill on public television in the Netherlands

No more Boer Zoekt Vrouw, Ranking the Stars and Bananasplit!? How the public broadcast channels in the Netherlands need to adapt to future regulations

Many television personalities and broadcasters like VPRO and NCRV were outraged after secretary Sander Dekker of the department for Education, Culture and Science, announced his new bill on public broadcasting channels (the NPO). The bill is supposed to be in place on January 1st 2016, and states that that the public broadcasters are no longer allowed to make programs solely for the purpose of entertainment. The main aim of the bill is to create more diversity within the Dutch television market by forcing the public broadcasting channels to differentiate themselves from the commercial broadcasters. Another key point Dekker tries to encourage through this new bill is to open up the monopoly of the public broadcast channels by offering creative talents, but also social and cultural institutions, a chance to present their programs.

Creative talents that see opportunities with the new bill (in Dutch)

Whereas before the bill the public broadcasters had a monopoly on making the programs that were aired, after January 1st there must be a whopping 50% of content made by private producers. This is supposed to create competition amongst producers and therefore increase the quality of the programs. The bill tries to establish an ideal market situation, that of diverse competition. Diverse competition is described as a market structure where numerous sellers offer various products from which consumers can choose; in this case, television programs (Croteau & Hoynes 2006: 20). This is supposed to create innovation in and increase the quality of the television programming.

In short the bill is supposed to produce more diversity through state regulation, and at the same time promote more competition by abolishing privileges of monopoly and promoting a free market environment. In their essay Media, markets and the public sphere, Croteau and Hoynes juxtapose these two approaches using the terms ‘market model’ and ‘public sphere model’. The first model promotes exchange based on the dynamics of supply and demand with little regulation. The consumers, instead of the government, will ultimately force companies to behave in a way that best serves the public. The advocates of this model argue that markets promote efficiency, responsiveness (through supply and demand), flexibility and innovation. The main condition to have a healthy market is to have robust competition. (Croteau & Hoynes 2006)

Croteau and Hoynes place the public sphere model on the other side of the spectrum. This model strongly denies the democracy of ‘free’ markets, because markets tend to reproduce the inequality that exists in a society. They also address the amorality of a market and the fact that it doesn’t necessarily meet social or democratic needs. This ties in with the principle of stewardship that Curtin introduces in his article Global Media Capital and Local Media Policy (2011). This principle presumes that markets will provide limited diversity and therefore seek to protect resources and render them productive in ways that the market cannot imagine. He emphasizes the public purpose of modern media, which like parks, libraries, and childcare centres are resources that make places worth living. Interesting is that she sees the public media as an ecosystem, characterized by tension and antagonism, interdependence and symbiosis (Curtin 2011: 555). How does tie in with the NPO?

The NPO is in fact an ecosystem. It still represents, though not as strongly as in the past, the pillars of the Dutch society. A striking example of this old notion of pilarisation that is still present in contemporary dutch television is the EO or the KRO. The tensions and symbioses that characterize this ecosystem can be found in the merging broadcasters, like AVRO-TROS. The bill will change this traditional system. However, the public media should be ‘protean institutions that change over time but nevertheless are guided by a long-term ambition to foster a diversity of cultural resources at a variety of spatial scales, as Curtin so eloquently pointed out.’ (Curtin 2011: 555) In other words: change may not be such a bad thing in the case of the Dutch public television. This makes us wonder, does the bill apply only for the first type of programs or is the existing infotainment also too entertaining in Dekkers opinion?

Much like secretary Dekker, Croteau and Hoynes stress that the media are resources for citizens with important informational, educational and integrative functions. These functions should be highlighted through the regulation of content. Croteau and Hoynes argue that the media industries are not like any other industries, and therefore blindly using the market model would be inappropriate (Croteau and Hoynes 2006: 26-27). According to the public sphere model, media should promote diversity and avoid homogeneity by artificially regulating the content that is broadcasted. The government should play a useful and necessary role in ensuring that the media meet the need of citizens, not just of the consumers. This should offer citizens a wide range of options in content and format. This is exactly what the bill is attempting to realise. By obliging the broadcasters to only transmit shows that are in some way linked to education, information or culture, the state is keeping tabs on the ‘free market’ which might promote mostly commercial amusement. By making a clear distinction between the public broadcasting channels, who now have to produce either educational, informational or cultural programs, and the commercial broadcasting channels who mainly produce amusement, the state is forcing the Dutch television to have a more diversified programming. However, when we examine the current programs that are aired on the public broadcast channels, we find that they broadcast much more infotainment as opposed to entertainment. Programs such as Ranking the Stars and Bananasplit (the programs Dekker had the most difficulty with) are a mere exception amongst the more popular ‘informative’ programs like De Wereld Draait Door, Tussen Kunst en Kitsch and Brandpunt.

Finally we can ask ourselves whether or not the juxtaposition Croteau and Hoynes create in their argument is in fact a juxtaposition at all. Their plea that the public sphere model is preferred over the market model suggests that the two are irreconcilably different, but when we take a close look at the new Dutch bill this proves to be untrue. The bill carries both sides of the argument: on the one hand it creates diversity through regulation, on the other hand it also promotes more competition and is anti-monopolistic. Does the bill have the best of both worlds or does this ambiguous character only create more pitfalls? Only the future will tell. That is, IF the bill ever gets approved.

Besides television presenters and broadcasters, politicians have obviously taken an interest in this new proposal and they are not positive at all (of course not, they are politicians). Multiple members of parliament have reacted cynically, stating that it is likely that nothing will change after the passing of the bill. They argue that, given the right argumentation, everything can be labelled to be informative, educational or cultural. Indeed, forms of media that we classify as entertainment can play an important role in public life through the stories that they circulate, as Croteau and Hoynes so eloquently pointed out. Another possible downside of regulation is the constant luring of elitism. Who will decide where to draw the line between what is interesting enough to be labelled educational and what not? Who will decide what is culture and what is not? And most importantly, will this mean that there will be no more Boer Zoekt Vrouw on the Dutch television? Let’s all pray that it won’t get that far.

AH - SH - MS - GV - MW

Thesis: Do the public broadcast channels also (like most commercial channels) respond to their advertisers or do they mainly focus on their public (as citizens)?

Bibliography
Croteau, D.R. & Hoynes, W.D. (2006) Media/Society: Industries, Images and Audiences. 3rd Edition. Routledge. Curtin, M (2011) The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Global media capital and local media policy. Blackwell publishing Ltd.

Digital sources
Nu.NL: 
http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3936453/cruciale-opdracht-publieke-omroep-bedreigd.html (Consulted 04-10-15)
Rijksoverheid: 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/media-en-publieke-omroep/inhoud/publieke-omroep (Consulted 04-10-15)
Televisier: 
http://www.televizier.nl/nieuws/amusement/jan-slagter-woest-door-kabinetsplannen.4342090.lynkx (Consulted 04-10-15)
http://www.televizier.nl/nieuws/actualiteiten/worden-ranking-the-stars-en-bananasplit-geschrapt.4341653.lynkx (Consulted 04-10-15)