[cma-l] Local TV and Community Radio

[Dave Rushton]

Hi CMA-ers

Throughout the 90s there was quite a lot of discussion around the use of the terms 'community' and 'local' for a new small(er) scale TV. Before the analogue RSL trials starting in 1999 the political running and legislative change was being made by those with a community and social enterprise background.

After the consolidation of cable, first into regions then into a national service, some of us favoured using 'local' for the simple reason that the realistic scale achievable from terrestrial TV transmitters was most likely to be local rather than community. 

That did not stop us lobbying for a public service component in the licence. I'm not entirely convinced though that the public service component has not been deliberately misinterpreted by Ofcom to represent the appearance of the supply side of larger scale TV.

Personally I can't say I'm happy with the LTDPS solution advanced by Ofcom, not least having been asked by Ofcom to identify local TV demand in Scotland concluding over five years that Scotland was able to provide a comprehensive network technical solution and that licences should be answerable to the communities being served and not to Ofcom or Westminster.

But we were caught in the politics of Westminster's refusal to cede broadcasting responsibilities to Scotland, in light of the SNPs electoral success at Holyrood. 

The majority of written evidence on broadcasting provided to the Calman Commission set up by the pro-union parties to explore further devolution in in Scotland in 2008 recommended greater devolved responsibility (if not downright independence) for broadcasting in Scotland. Calman ignored this evidence altogether.

So the battle for a genuine local public service television has not been lost; but it has not been won either.

Notwithstanding the public service commitments in the LTDPS licences I fear these commitments are straightjacketed to err towards satisfaction on the large scale and herald future commercial consolidation, as if here lies safety for Ofcom regardless of public needs on the ground.

Ofcom shows little sensitivity towards fundamental differences between local areas served by signals, to the requirements from news and the equal need for identity enhancing qualities from television serving diverse geographic communities. While the services in major urban conurbations need to look for gaps in TV provision - and avoid cheap and cheerful duplication - those in more rural areas might find there is little news to worry about duplicating but that sparse populations demand a very different approach to establish and reflect their common identities and interests. 

The input from Ofcom's nations to represent greater cultural difference and the variables across the nations of terrestrial opportunities, to better represent cultural and social conditions, either failed to register in London or were not delivered. Ofcom is a centre to periphery operation a colonial rather than representative model. 

The old refrains calling for 'local channels under local control' because there is 'no democracy without media democracy' are as relevant now as twenty years ago. Before the merger of the functions of the Radio Communications Agency and the Independent Television Commission into Ofcom in 2002-3  there was a clear separation of the technical issues (interference, European compromise on signals etc) and the regulation of content. 

Now these lines have been blurred and technical excuses (most often relegated to the private operator Arqiva) have become convenient excuses for limiting and fitting change into a centrally regulated cast. 

Ofcom's lightness of touch has been particularly heavy-handed applying a UK wide technical solution for local TV where there are more rational and sensitive local (regional and nation) solutions that can be applied.

Dave
Dr David Rushton
Director, Institute of Local Television