Will the public broadcasting system indeed undergo a major overhaul, as the advisory board led by former State Secretary Pieter van Geel proposes? The report that the council presented last week received favorable responses in Hilversum and The Hague. But its status is unclear as the cabinet is outgoing and elections are approaching. Still, the chance that the report will disappear into a drawer seems small. Because many political parties and broadcasters believe that something needs to change and that the advice contains good starting points for this.
“It is an important report with a clear vision,” says Arjan Lock, EO director and chairman of the College of Broadcasters (CvO), which advises the NPO on policy matters on behalf of the broadcasters. “I am very pleased with the recognition that a well-functioning democracy needs a strong public system. That is a strong basis, which the council then develops in a good and concrete manner. How do you ensure that the system is independent, has a clear division of roles, and remains manageable? The council is based on public value, not on efficiency, centralism and market thinking, which predominated for years.”
Only six broadcasters left
The council recommends taking primacy within the public system away from the NPO and returning it to the broadcasters. The number of broadcasters with administrative responsibility should be limited to six. There must be clear criteria that new and existing broadcasters must meet. The decision on the entry and exit of broadcasters from the system should no longer lie with politicians, but with a newly established Public Media Authority. And the current supervisory authority, the Media Authority, must be abolished.
Also read the editorial: An open public system with stricter frameworks is justified
Strengthening their position within the system is music to the ears of broadcasters. There was dissatisfaction about Frans Klein, who as video director of the NPO became the most powerful man in the media park, and who quietly left for Talpa last summer. The major broadcasters in particular are pleased with the advice, as they are confident that they can meet the proposed criteria. Lock: “But small broadcasters think: ‘We are just about to become a mature broadcaster, and now the bar is being raised again. I understand that.”
This applies, for example, to the broadcaster PowNed, which joined the public system in 2009. Director Dominique Weesie calls the report “a step back in time”. “It offers a lot of space for the six major existing broadcasters,” he explains. “But the little ones – WNL, Human, Powned, Zwart, and Ongehoord Nederland – will soon only be allowed to join in as so-called ‘editorial broadcasters’. They fight for their survival every concession period. And that’s not too easy, I can tell you. We hoped that the council would propose other forms of legitimization of broadcasters than members.”
The number of members is a sensitive issue, which is seen by many as an outdated criterion for determining the social roots of broadcasters. PowNed had to have 50,000 members in 2009 to join the system. But according to the advice, an editorial broadcaster that is more than three years old must have 75,000 members in the future. “Then we as PowNed have no chance,” says Weesie. “Two years ago we still had 57,000 members, but now the number is back to 20,000. That’s why I hoped for other forms of legitimization, such as online reach. Because after NOS we are the largest in this regard.”
The difference between supporting broadcasters and editorial broadcasters also leads to resentment. Because as an editorial broadcaster, PowNed would not be eligible for ‘organization money’, from which the expensive membership recruitment is now paid. The broadcaster would also no longer have a seat on the CvO. “Well, I can tell you one thing: that’s where all the important decisions are made,” says Weesie. “About the future of the public system, for example, or how the money is distributed among the broadcasters. We don’t want to leave this to others.”
New political wind
With its emphasis on public value and social roots, the Van Geel committee report seems to be in line with the new political winds blowing in The Hague. But now that the elections are just around the corner, political reactions are harder to gauge. The media spokespersons of many parties will not return to the new parliament. In addition, there are some new parties, such as NSC and BBB, whose position on public broadcasting is unclear. Moreover, the subject does not play a significant role in the election campaign.
Also read: Commission advocates major reform of the broadcasting system
The VVD and PvdA/GroenLinks had requested a briefing in Parliament this week with the members of the advisory board. But due to lack of enthusiasm, that did not happen. The VVD and PvdA are cautiously positive about the report. “Some of the recommendations are good, such as more space for broadcasters,” says Pim van Strien (VVD). “I have my doubts about others, such as the division into carrier and editorial broadcasters.” Mohammed Mohandis (PvdA) especially lacks a clear vision on addressing young people. Yet he also expects that the report will be followed up after the elections.
The Media Authority, which monitors compliance with the Media Act, reacts ambiguously to the report. “Although the report contains a number of valuable insights, the Commissioner believes that essential aspects that are necessary for political decision-making about the public system are not taken into account,” the media watchdog wrote in a response. The Commission sees no point in the advice to split the supervision of the public and commercial media and to set up a new supervisor. “The Commission advocates integrated and independent supervision of the entire media sector, based on the public interests protected by the Media Act.”