Independent news coverage took
another hit last week with the decision of the United States Administration to
wipe the cost of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from its budget. It is
the most dramatic, but certainly not the only attack on news services independent
of political, corporate or other sectional interests in recent times.
A combination of government
indifference or direct interference and pressure from commercial interests is
eating into the ability of news outlets to provide balanced, well-researched
reporting at a time when this is needed more than ever.
In an increasing number of
countries around the world, the media is either incapable or afraid of covering
the issues of the day in a way than can do justice to the people it is supposed
to serve.
And I am not talking about
countries like North Korea, China or Vietnam where the wearying diet of
nationalist propaganda simply reflects the unrelenting grip their governments
have on the means of communication.
Nations which have previously
had proud reputations for robust, independent reportage are seeing their news
sources fall victims to tightened budgets, government tinkering and the whims
of powerful elites that subtly and not so subtly manipulate the outlets under
their control to reflect their interests and prejudices.
Never is this so apparent
than in Russia which, for a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union
enjoyed a vibrant, irrelevant and varied media that delighted in pushing the
boundaries of its new-found freedom. That quickly ended in a repressive
backlash so that now almost all outlets are controlled by the government or
their stooges, and non-conforming journalists are hounded, in some cases into
their graves.
In the United Kingdom a
combination of short-sighted management, declining revenues and a failure to
accommodate changing tastes has resulted in newspaper closures becoming an
almost weekly event with hundreds of experienced news people thrown onto the
employment scrap heap.
The British Broadcasting
Corporation, which is administered by an independent trust, faces regular
battles to hang on to the funds it receives from a £145.50 licence fee. Elsewhere, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which
is dependent on direct funding from the government, has had to endure a series
of cutbacks and retrenchments in recent years.
In a review of the
increasingly parlous state of public broadcasting in South-Eastern Europe, the
European Union was prompted to remind its members that public service media was
the last path of mass communication left to its populations.
“The privatisation of that path by any partial interest (be it
political, economic, or rooted in the particular interests of civil society
segments) is unacceptable,” the statement said.
In relation to most other
items that have to be paid for in a nation’s budget, maintaining a public
broadcaster is ridiculously cheap. The Chief
Executive of PBS, Paula Kerger, says it costs Americans just $1.35 per person
per year — a tiny price to pay, which raises a worrying question: If cost is
not the issue, is it simply that in the new order emerging before our eyes,
there is a determination that its works must be hidden from independent
scrutiny and judgement?
No comments:
Post a Comment