ABC mission creep

However, this market failure is limited to a narrow range of programming. There is no market failure in the broadcast of reality TV. Nor game shows. Nor football matches. Or music videos, pop music or naff talk shows. Or celebrity gossip. All of these things are very successfully provided for by the commercial media, where consumer demand is met by supply on a commercially successful basis. There is no great positive externality generated by the broadcast of these sorts of programs: they add nothing to our democracy or society that wouldn’t be present if commercial broadcasters were to broadcast the material.

So what is sometimes considered the single market for broadcasting are actually several markets: one for news and current affairs, and another for entertainment. In the former, market failure demands state intervention, while in the latter the market operates successfully. Despite this distinction, the ABC has taken it upon itself to participate in all parts of the market: it is trying to be an all-singing, all-dancing something-for-everyone media conglomerate. In doing so, it is doing more harm than good.

With a limited budget, understandably so given the competition for government resources, the ABC needs to be frugal in its spending. Every dollar spent on lightweight entertainment broadcasting is a dollar not spent on news, current affairs and educational programs. This creates the absurd situation within the ABC of Newscaf (news and current affairs), which goes a long way toward the ABC fulfilling its core purpose, competing for funds and airtime against frothy entertainment programs, which best belong in the commercial media and do little toward fulfilling the ABC’s purpose.

It’s scandalous for the ABC to put its hand out for more money while simultaneously spending its existing funds so poorly. This is not an argument against the ABC: it’s instead an argument for a dramatic reorganisation of priorities.

The argument often put up in defence of a bit-of-everything ABC is that it needs to broaden its audience. This is superficially appealing, but intellectually deceptive. The ABC could broaden its audience tomorrow were it to abandon its current schedule and broadcast nothing but sport and titillation. There would, however, be public outrage, and rightfully so. Why? Because achieving populism by abandoning its raison d’être would be no achievement at all.

There’s nothing inherently meritorious about watching the ABC: it’s only when the ABC is broadcasting programs of quality and substance that an audience gains something from it. While not quite at the “footy and nudity” stage yet, the logic against populism for the sake of populism holds true. If the ABC doesn’t rate well, that’s fine. So long as it is broadcasting something worthwhile. This is what separates it from its commercial rivals.

The reality is that at present the ABC can barely be distinguished from these commercial rivals. Apart from the particularly egregious example identified at the start, there is plenty of ABC content that sits at the lightweight end of the spectrum. Numerous bland chat shows dominate the ABC TV schedule, usually involving insubstantial nonsense (Agony Aunts, Spicks and Specks, Can We Help?). The direction of ABC local radio is also alarming, with much news content driven out of the schedule, only to be replaced by painfully inane banter and talkback.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this sort of content, so long as it can pay its own way in commercial media. When it’s the taxpayer-funded commercial-free ABC that is broadcasting the content, however, we have a severe case of role confusion.

So far there’s been plenty of debate about whether the ABC is biased. This is an important debate, but perhaps more fundamental is the debate over what role the ABC should perform: whether it should be an important component of a vibrant democracy, or a pale imitation of its commercial rivals. With a taxpayer-funded ABC blog devoted to the antics of Britney and Delta, it seems to be a debate that needs to be had.