Party Political Broadcasting Review
A Response from mediawatch-uk to a consultation paper issued by The
Electoral Commission on 28 June 2002.
mediawatch-uk believes that Party Political Broadcasts are essential to
any democratic information society.
T |
elevision and Radio are now primary sources of political information for
many citizens and complement newspapers in this regard. In a mature democratic
society it is surely a right of every citizen to know what each political party
has to say for itself and what policies are being advocated, especially at
General and local Elections (6.7). This is essential if informed decisions
about casting votes to be confidently made.
mediawatch-uk has some sympathy for the view expressed in the
consultation paper that Party Political Broadcasts tend to be avoided or
ignored largely because of their content and presentation. It is evident from
recent low election turnout figures that these broadcasts have not overcome the
problem of 'voter apathy'. However, this is not the fault of the broadcasters.
It is a problem for the political parties to overcome rather than a reason for
stopping the broadcasts.
mediawatch-uk believes that time for PPBs should be allocated by every
licensed television and radio service. It should be part of
their broadcasting licence and agreement to make this provision free of charge.
This should be a requirement enshrined in law rather than a favour granted at
the whim of the regulator or the broadcaster.
Every political party, which meets the prescribed criteria on, for
example, the number of candidates, should be entitled to political broadcasts.
Because this is a public information service such access to the airwaves should
not be dependent upon payment of fees. Broadcasting is a very lucrative
enterprise and can well afford such provision, which is clearly in the public
interest.
mediawatch-uk is aware that politicians from all parties are selectively
interviewed in news and current affairs programmes. However, these tend to
feature only in the schedules of public service channels and not in
subscription channels that do not specialise in news or current affairs.
We note the observation made in 'The Challenge for Parliament', a Report of the Hansard Society
Commission on Parliamentary scrutiny, that "the media has superseded
Parliament so that the main arena of British political debate is now the
broadcasting studio rather than the Chamber of the House of Commons …
Television allows politicians to communicate directly with voters much more
effectively than anything they say in the Chamber".
In recent years multi-channel television has become a reality which
offers a wide choice of channels to subscribers who may opt not to view public
service channels where political debate and discussion occurs. Audience
fragmentation is a consequence of multi-channel television and this lessens the
overall influence and reach of political debate and discussion. To overcome
this a 'must carry' rule should be applied, at least, for PPBs (6.5).
There should also be a statutory
requirement with regard to scheduling. Clearly it is pointless to allow time if such broadcasts
are at the margins when audiences are likely to be the smallest. Each licensed
service must be required by the regulator to produce an audience analysis in
order to determine when ratings are highest. It is at these times when PPBs
should be shown in order to maximise their reach (7.10). When OFCOM becomes
fully operational, in 2003, the attitude to PPBs should be part of the
Performance Review required under the new Communication Act.
Paid political advertising (4.5) is not allowed within the present
regulatory system because only the large wealthy parties can afford such expenditure.
On balance it is better to disallow all parties so that the less well off,
whose policies may be attractive to voters, are not subject to discrimination
owing simply to financial constraint.
We have no objection to PPBs being shown in 'blocks'
(6.11). Indeed, this could be an advantage for voters allowing direct
comparison of stated policies. This approach to PPBs should complement the
existing approach rather than replace it. The provision of information for the
electorate should assume a higher priority than the convenience of broadcasting
schedulers (7.11).
We have no objection to interactive functions being used in PPBs
(6.13). This capability, made possible by digital technology, has proved to be
very useful and an added attraction in other applications like sport and news.
Such a facility could be used to engage those who apparently have little or no
interest in party politics (7.13). The ability to find out more may well be a
key factor in reviving interest. Positive messages are essential if voter
apathy is to be reversed as are reminders of Election Day and polling hours
(6.15).
There should be provision for PPBs related to events, like the budget,
or when legislation directly affecting everyone is progressing through
Parliament (6.20). The Communications Bill is a prime example
where knowledge of it is scant among the general public because the media has
focused mainly on the narrow issue of extending overseas opportunities to buy
into UK broadcasting ("Murdoch set to buy Channel 5"). The Bill is
very much broader in scope and effect than this but the media has largely
ignored most of it.
We can see no good reason why the BBC should not be subject to the same
statutory requirements as independent television and radio and accordingly the
Corporation should be brought within clause 192 of the draft Communications
Bill (7.3), (7.4).
15 August 2002
Click here for Joining Form