To prevent the number of broadcasters from continuing to increase, the Council for Culture argues for a maximum above which no new broadcasters may be admitted to the system. That is what the Council, an advisory body to the government, writes in a letter to State Secretary Gunay Uslu (D66) of Culture and Media.
“Since 2009 we have noticed that the manageability of the broadcasting system is at stake, because you have to admit more and more broadcasters,” says Kristel Baele, chairman of the Council. “The amount of airtime, and money, is limited. And the cake must be divided among more and more parties. But the criteria for possibly not admitting potential broadcasters are neither clear nor unambiguous.”
The latter appeared last year. The Council for Culture, the Media Authority and the NPO, which had to advise the minister on the admission of Ongehoord Nederland and Zwart as aspiring broadcasters, complained that clear criteria are actually lacking. In practice, they could only test whether the two newcomers had the required 50,000 members – and they did. Based on that, they advised to admit the two to the order.
The Media Act stipulates that member broadcasters ‘must represent a social, cultural, religious or spiritual movement’ – without giving a clear definition of what a movement is exactly. “It is a concept from the time of the pillarization, from the period in the last century in which the system originated,” says Baele. “Back then, society was also compartmentalised, which made it easier. But now society has become fragmented, and this system is no longer in line with that.”
At the end of last year, then minister Arie Slob (CU) acknowledged that “the broadcaster’s house is very full”. At his request, consultancy AEF research into a possible tightening up of the admission criteria. That did yield a few suggestions, but according to Baele they still resemble the existing criteria too much and her Council cannot work with them.
Also read: New broadcasters easily admitted due to ‘idiotic test’
“We have to recognize that there are no useful admission criteria that can be found legally and with which you can simultaneously guarantee pluralism and manageability.”
How many broadcasters would you consider the maximum?
“We deliberately did not make a statement about that. Above all, we want to indicate a mindset. If the State Secretary opts for this direction, we are prepared to think along with you about what this could look like.
“The Dutch broadcasting system is of good quality and provides a good and diverse range. But at some point, the shore turns the ship. Suppose another ten broadcasters are added, then we fear for the controllability and sustainability of the system. Then it becomes more and more complicated to take all parties into account when programming, for example.”
When the agreed maximum number of broadcasters is reached, a new movement may arise that does not feel represented. Does that apply: full is full?
“If you agree on a maximum, you have to think about how to guarantee pluralism. We think that the existing broadcasters, under the direction of the NPO, should continue to feel the pulse of society and translate it into their programming. Pluralism then becomes more a question of programs and genres than of multiplicity of broadcasters. And the direction will then lie more with the NPO.”
How do you see that in practice?
“We are not going to fill in how the public broadcaster should do that. If there is support for our mindset, you can start thinking about implementation.”
But if the NPO gets even more direction, will the broadcasters still be needed? You write that they should have “an involvement” – that sounds very frugal.
“It is not intended that way. We don’t want to take the place of the broadcasters. But suppose we do nothing, and the number of broadcasters continues to rise, then that is not good for the existing broadcasters either.”
In addition to public broadcasting, all kinds of alternatives have emerged: the commercialists, YouTube, the streaming services. Has the importance of public broadcasting diminished as a result?
“We don’t notice that, not even from the viewing figures. But you can indeed get your news and entertainment in many places and the public broadcaster has to take this into account, and adjust its method and offer accordingly. That also costs time and energy and maybe money, you have to play chess on two boards. That is also why it is wise not to let it get to the point where the order gets stuck.”
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of April 14, 2022