Time to Sell Biased State Media

One of the first and most significant appointments David Cameron has made after his landslide UK election victory was that of John Whittingdale as Culture Secretary. The reason this appointment is significant is that Whittingdale will be the minister responsible for the BBC and in his previous role as chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee he has been very critical of the BBC and the licence fee that funds it. Some are going as far to suggest that Whittingdale's appointment is the Conservative Government's payback to the BBC for its very biased (i.e. pro-Labour Party) coverage of the election.

In Britain the BBC has a dominance over broadcast media that state media outlets in former Soviet bloc countries could only dream of.  It owns nine television channels and sixteen radio stations as well as numerous digital media outlets and cultural assets such as symphony orchestras. The BBC paints itself as unbiased but it is certainly not. It is partisan, secretive and ruthless in pushing its biases, and it is incredibly arrogant in refusing to concede its errors. 

Some examples of the BBC's behaviour are its cover-up of accusations of child abuse against Jimmy Savile, its promotion of the scandalous libel against former Tory peer Lord McAlpine and its reliance on a secretive panel of so-called independent climate scientists for its coverage of climate change issues (that turned out to largely comprise non-scientists from environmental lobby groups). The BBC is, in short, a malevolent presence in British culture.

In New Zealand over the last few weeks there has been a minor furore about the likely cancellation of TV3's current affairs Campbell Live. I have written before about left-wing bias in the the coverage of politics by the New Zealand media and in particular about how partisan John Campbell is. I said that I didn't have a particular problem with Campbell Live because TV3 is a privately-owned broadcaster and that eventually the market would sort him out. The uncertain future of the show is proof I was right. The BBC and our own state broadcasters Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand are a different matter. State-owned enterprises, even those like Television New Zealand that are commercially-focused, are not subject to the economic realities of private enterprises. The market cannot sort them out.

Thomas Jefferson said that 'to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical'. State broadcasting, particularly state broadcasting that is politically biased, does exactly that.

If there were ever valid arguments for the state to own media outlets (presumably around the lack of sufficient scale in small countries to justify private sector investment and monopolistic practices of a small number of private media outlets even in larger markets) those arguments no longer exist. The internet has reduced the cost so dramatically that anyone can afford to broadcast to millions from their bedroom and there are literally millions of news and opinion outlets of every possible political persuasion. It is time for the state to get out of broadcasting. Cameron's government should break up and sell the BBC and the New Zealand government should do the same for Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand.

I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be interested.

The Demise of Objective Journalism?

In his blog post this week, Kiwi journalist Karl du Fresne laments the loss of an objective viewpoint in the mainstream media.  In particular, he comments on the obvious bias of New Zealand television current affairs presenter John Campbell. Personally, I don't watch John Campbell and haven't done so since the 2005 election campaign in which he was so one-sided in his coverage (in favour of the left-of-centre Labour Party and its leader, Prime Minister Helen Clark, and against the right-of-centre National Party) that his broadcasts resembled the party political advertisements that were being run between the programme segments rather than a current affairs show.  However, I commented on du Fresne's blog that I did not agree with him that journalists had some sort of moral obligation to be unbiased.  If someone like John Campbell wants to push his personal political views, then those like myself who don't agree with him can turn his programme off. Fortunately, in most Western countries at least, we are not yet in the position where we are forced to watch such biased opinion masquerading as informed commentary.  Don't get me wrong, I think Campbell abuses the trust that the viewing public and the channels owners are placing in him and should be sacked, but the reason it doesn't bother me is that I know he and his kind are doomed.

The mainstream media in most Western countries is becoming increasingly fragmented and traditional newspaper, television and radio outlets are becoming uncompetitive and unprofitable.  The reason for this is, of course, the huge growth of online media such as news websites, blogs, and instant message feeds.  I get most of my news from online sources. I no longer subscribe to a major daily print newspaper and rarely watch or listen to television and radio news. On my iPad I have the dozens of feeds from media outlets all over the world, all funneled through some very smart software applications that know what I am interested in and enjoy reading and watching.  Many of my sources of news and commentary are individuals or very small businesses rather the traditional large corporate and government media outlets that dominate the mainstream media.  I often get the news unfiltered, in real-time from people on the ground in New York, Moscow, Benghazi or Harare and I get a much broader and better informed range of opinions than I ever got from New Zealand's television networks, radio channels and daily newspapers.  I know that I am immensely better informed and have access to a much broader range of editorial comment than I ever was when I relied on traditional print and broadcast media.

The new on-line media allow me to be far more selective and far more precise about my sources of news.  They allow me to pick and choose from a broad smorgasbord of information rather than having to take the set menu that the likes of TV3 (the New Zealand television channel that employs John Campbell) serves up each night. I am not alone – every other informed consumer of news I know has made the transition (but perhaps not as completely as I have) to online sources.

The only reason the likes of John Campbell survive is because they are part of the set fare that New Zealand network television viewers are forced to consume each night.  But it is only a matter of time before almost all video, including news and current affairs, is watched on the Internet rather than on broadcast TV.  Viewers and advertisers will be much more selective about the content they consume and pay for.  I cannot imagine that anyone in this new world will want to pay to hear the ill-informed, petty and highly-biased comments of a silly New Zealand current affairs presenter.  Can you?