Hot topics click link for more
The enduring question as the rise of streaming video services disrupts traditional television is still about the money. Broadcasters really do not relish no-holds barred competition with the blockbuster productions from Disney, HBO and Netflix. The most savvy media watchers also see TV ad spending slipping evermore toward online and social media. Public broadcasters are caught in a vice.
Early this past summer Dutch Minister of Media and Education Arie Slob telegraphed a proposal to reduce advertising on public broadcasting channels. Details have come forth in recent days and Minister Slob faced a barrage of questions. Advertising on all NPO channels before 8pm (20h00) and all web advertising would disappear. The obvious loss of revenue would be partially compensated through the State budget. (See more about public broadcasting here)
At a hearing (September 11) with the lower house of parliament the tension was palpable, reported news portal trouw.nl. Minister Slob called the partial end to advertising “an intermediate step” on the way to totally scrapping ads on public television. “That would be a historic step.” He also offered that the funding gap, estimated between €20 and €60 million annually, would not compromise the quality of NPO programming. (See more about media in the Netherlands here)
“The workload (at NPO broadcasters) is already very high,” said Labor Party MP Kirsten van der Hul, quoted by news portal nu.nl (September 11). “The bottom is already in sight.” GroenLinks MP wondered, aloud, if “there will still be a public broadcaster in ten years.”
Nobody really knows the effect of advertising on voters but everybody is very concerned. Noting the official advertising “quiet day” ahead of last weekend’s Moscow municipal elections, Russia’s multi-purpose media regulator Roskomnadzor complained that social media platforms - notably Facebook and YouTube - broke the rules, reported Vedomosti (September 8). Elections were held, some new candidates won seats and a few were voted out. The agency complained that the US tech giants “ignored” demands to block the ads.
“These actions can be seen as interference in Russia's sovereign affairs and obstruction of democratic elections in the Russian Federation,” said the agency in a statement. “Such actions on the part of foreign companies are unacceptable.” No details were given on what ads appeared and for which candidates. (See more about elections and media here)
Roskomnadzor has complained before about ads and other content popping up on Facebook and Google subsidiary YouTube. Last year the General Electoral Commission and Prosecutor’s Office sent warnings to Google demanding the removal of “paid advertising” supporting opposition leader Alexei Navanly. The videos were removed and General Electoral Commission “praised” Google for its prompt action. (See more about media in Russia here)
"We support responsible political advertising and expect that it has to comply with local legislative demands including the laws on elections and voting rights and mandatory 'election silence' for any geographical areas where such advertising is oriented," said a Google statement, quoted by Reuters (September 9). A Facebook statement said advertisers and not it were responsible for following ad rules. (See more about social media here)
“Until now, (social media platforms) have come under pressure from American politicians who believe that Google and Facebook, mainly Facebook, have become instruments of influence on American elections by foreign agents, mainly Russian, of course,” noted Russian news portal vesti.ru (September 10).
State-funded international broadcasting has long been recognized as an important tool of soft diplomacy and outreach. Some might call this propaganda, depending on the origin. These broadcasters appear as television channels, radio channels - including shortwave - and through the miracle of the World Wide Web. The champions of this realm include BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle (DW) and Radio France International (RFI). On the other side there is Sputnik and RT.
After the New York Times (September 6) published an article about Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reestablishing broadcasts in Hungarian media watchers in Hungary, largely, waxed nostalgic and sighed. From 1950 until the early 1990s RFE/RL railed against Eastern European communists and fellow travels. The US Congress funds RFE/RL, as well as Voice of America (VOA) and several regional services. Since the end of the Soviet Union RFE/RL shifted editorially to outting corrupt politicians while maintaining a watchful eye for resurgent commies. By law their broadcasts are not available within the United States, guaranteeing a low profile among US voters. (See more about international broadcasting here)
The new Hungarian service, if the US Congress allocates funding, will start-up in 2020 with a full-throttled launch the following year. A “bureau” will be established in Budapest. Distribution will be online. The Hungarian service will follow restoration of broadcasts targeting Romania and Bulgaria, also notably corrupt. (See more about media in Hungary here)
But Hungary is different. The fist of prime minister Viktor Orban’s government has squeezed the life out of media criticism. His authoritarian and xenophobic rule clearly resonates with the current US administration. Several Hungarian news portals (Budapest Business Journal, 444.hu, 24.hu, media1.hu) note prominently US Ambassador to Hungary David Cornstein “seeking assurances” that RFE/RL would refrain from “negative news” and “investigative journalism.” The director of the US agency overseeing RFE/RL, John Lansing, said political interference with RFE/RL would be “illegal.” Mr. Cornstein is a political appointee. Mr. Lansing is leaving the US Agency for Global Media for public radio network NPR.
|
