Community television IS worth saving!

Last week, I wrote a piece defending the government's decision to axe community television. Despite cancellation directly affecting my studies, and despite my tendency to disagree with the government, I understood. It was weird. 

Let's recap. On Tuesday, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced community television will not be licensed to broadcast past 2015. This frees up the sixth spectrum, allowing the government to reassess and resell this frequency space to lucrative telcos (for non-broadcasting purposes like 4G) or existing tv networks to implement MPEG4 (more channels, HD content). In short, kicking community television off the air was an economically-driven decision; it will generate a neat revenue for the government. 

Turnbull recommends community television transition to the internet to stream their content. It's a medium that will enable these stations to reach audiences beyond their niche market in each capital city; perhaps, with the internet, community television will gather more momentum. Currently only 6000 people Australia-wide tune in to community television during prime time. A figure that dwindles in the face of Nine News' average of 1mil viewers for the same timeslot.  

But, and there's always a but...

The internet would be a viable domain for community television ... if current internet available to all Australians could handle live streaming. This will become a particularly evident problem for regional internet users, whose bandwidth and speed are already lagging behind what a developed nation theoretically should have. Considering the questionable prospects of the coalition's planned Fibre to the Node NBN, it is arguable not everyone will be able to stream community television, even if they do have a connection!

While Turnbull decrees the online transition is "especially good news" he fails to understand the distributive means are perhaps not so especially good. You can read more about the NBN here.

Malcolm Turnbull at the ACMA Conference

Economically, freeing spectrum makes sense. However, I argue the worth of community television cannot be fiscally measured. It fosters creativity, it's an outlet for enthusiastic media souls, it enables diversity to reach the community.

Think beyond just the consumers. Community television is a real world media environment where keen-as-mustard students from all media disciplines can gain some experience and get noticed. Arguably, if it weren't for community television, the likes of Waleed Aly, Rove McManus, Corinne Grant, even 2014-graduate Pippa Sheehan would not be known to us.

It makes you wonder how the axing will affect us, as QUT Journalism students. 

Without QUT News on 31 Digital, will out chances of success be quashed?! Just another applicant on the pile. QUT prides itself on offering the most practical journalism course of the four major universities in Brisbane (UQ, Griffith and USQ), and RTVJ1 may very well be the lynchpin of the braodcasting major.

Turn on the television. How many ex-QUT journalists can you spot?!

 

Natasha Exelby

Marion Grasby

 Anna Daniels

 Nathan Bazley

Andrew Lund

If the right to broadcast across the sixth spectrum is discontinued, how does QUT News differentiate itself from those competing students AND every day people with a camera and a YouTube channel? And how can we make sure our laborious productions for RTVJ1 are not lost in the exponential swarm of videos already floating around?!

QUT News is only one example of quality community television embraced. As a grassroots outlet, community television celebrates all diversity in an otherwise highly concentrated media environment. Diversity through provision of a socially-cohesive place for overlooked Australians - ethnic Australians, LGBT Australians, low socio-economic Australians, and students with shoes still too big, to name a few. True, not all content is brilliant and deserving of a sheet of gold stars, but the process is undeniably worthy. These voices will be silenced by the shuttling of community television, and to gain what exactly?

Remember all of the great programming that popped up after the analogue-digital switchover? No, neither. In fact, I only recall Danoz Direct style channels clogging the spectrum. Yet these shopping channels and community television manage to attract similar viewership. The difference: one relies on a business model of minimal cost production of uninspired, lacklustre content tied together with a sell-sell-sell mindset; the other fosters the media professionals of tomorrow, produces worthwhile content, and colours in the lines budget-wise.

Community television does not receive funding from the Australian Government, instead relying on local business advertisers for income. Convincing these advertisers to transition to the internet with the station is a tremendous task. The more pressing issue is exposing the same niche consumers to these advertisements on the web. Take this loyal viewership away and the networks, which usually manage to balance the budget wisely, will be inflicted with a scarring deficit. In the realm of the internet, no one will be rushing to assist with such a collapse. Community television would be dead.

Turnbull may have misread a signal; he endorses the idea our real needs in broadcast are reality tv and shopping channels ... and I'm not yet bursting-with-cash enough to need a new multi-purpose thermomix (read: debt), nor do I require the services of a Soup Mate Pro. It seems unfair to prod independent, quality television off the airwaves if it stands to be replaced by this commercial dribble (sorry not sorry, BB or Bachelor fans).

Your breasts probably look fine.

 

and you're an idiot if you buy that. 

It's free-to-air television. The internet, no matter how widespread, will never be free-to-use. By herding content to the internet, Turnbull creates a barrier for citizens to access what is rightfully theirs: citizen media.

The spectrum is a public asset. A public asset being steadily chipped away to satisfy the interests of corporate Australia. While a reviewed telecommunications framework is no doubt required in Australia, the minister has acted too soon and without proper consideration of the true ramifications. Turnbull has attacked the weakest link, not the least valuable.

Shutting down community television does a great disservice to Australia's media landscape, consumers, current volunteers and employees, and media professionals of tomorrow. The government is overlooking their role to serve society. The only interest Turnbull's decision serves is the government's wallet.

If you'd like to sign the (one of many) petition to keep community television rolling, click here.

Have your say below!

Is community television even worth keeping around?

That was the question I asked myself this week after it was announced community television transmitter licenses in Australia would not be extended past 2015. Hear me out.

Federal Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull broke the news at an Australian Communications and Media Authority conference in Sydney on Tuesday causing a brouhaha, to say the least. Academics, journalism students, media personalities, and probably your Nan all weighed in on the debate.

Allow me to break it down.

Australia has six spectrums that each transport electronic communication via electronicmagnetic frequenices. Spectrums assist GPS signals, mobile phone coverage and television broadcast to reach Australians across the nation, but the space is limited and valuable. Currently Seven, Nine, Ten, ABC and SBS each occupy a spectrum; the "sixth channel" is dedicated to community broadcasters.

Arguably, the 'sixth channel' is not in the same league as its counterparts; averaging 6000 viewers tuning in at prime time across all five community channels combined, it is arguable these channels fail to make decent dividends to justify taking up valuable spectrum space. Purely from an economic perspective, the cost-benefit is poor.

Okay, okay. Refrain from calling me a Tory just yet.

This does not signify the ultimate end of community television. Mr Turnbull suggested the stations embrace the internet as the way forward for community television.

"The Government believes that the best outcome for community television is that, in the future, it uses the internet as its distribution platform.

"The internet is not new. It is the universal uber-platform to which most people in Australia are connected 24/7," he said.

Despite outcries from community television stations that 15 months is too soon to implement an entirely different business model for the internet, Turnbull disagrees. 

"I have no doubt that this transition is in the best interests of community television. It will deliver wider audiences, at less cost on a wider range of devices and the ability to do more than linear broadcasting," he said.

Yes, traditional media is converging with the internet for multi-platform delivery of content; however, this does not necessarily mean every Australian has access to technology/internet capable of handling content streaming ... let's mark that as another topic for another time!!

Let's be honest here. The LNP develops these policies with economic foci. By freeing up spectrum space, the government stands to make a lot of money from lucrative communications companies on the new-age technological frontier - as proven by last year's spectrum auction. The 2013 switch from analogue to digital television freed up the spectrum known as 'digital dividend'. The reallocation of this frequency to Optus, Telstra and TPG made the government a neat $2bil. The 'sixth channel' auction hopes to follow that lead, with talks of a second 'digital dividend' for non-broadcasting uses.

It is inefficient to keep community television on the air, when spectrum is a scarce, valuable asset for the government. Especially since viewership is poor. I've watched a few broadcasts of QUT News, but apart from that, my viewing is rare. Some capital city channels are capturing fewer than 1000 viewers; compare this to OzTAM statistics to see how dismal that number really is.

National broadcasters, generally less popular than commerical stations, report viewership of 100,000 during the evening news in Brisbane alone. Nine News draws the highest number of viewers with 200,000 (almost 1mil nationally). Even A Current Affair, to quote Roger Patching, the 'paragon of journalistic virtue' manages to, er, swindle 189,000 Brisbanites. These channels are making good use of spectrum, whereas arguably, community television is not.

How many of you, please be honest here, actually watch 31 Digital in Brisbane??

It's not all money though. Auctioning off the 'digital dividend' has given these three companies greater means to distribute 4G coverage to their clients. The sixth spectrum, like the digital dividend, has been described as 'beachfront frequency' making it ideal for long-distance and indoor coverage - a sought after attribute for $$$ telcos.

Turnbull has also noted additional spectrum space would encourage the remaining broadcasters, both commerical and national, to switch to MPEG4. In everyday speak, encourage broadcast of condensed media files (less bandwidth) to free up more spectrum (so more channels can be broadcast, including in HD).

Turnbull isn't targetting the young guns slogging away on community television, it's part of a greater plan for communication efficiency. The current framework was devised under the Radiocommunications Act in 1992, and reviewed by the Productivity Commission. Twelve years ago. When most of us were watching CheezTV (unless you woke up too early and had to watch Aerobics Oz Style).



The government's review is modernising the current framework to better suit Australia's media consumption, markets and technology.

"It is timely to recast the current broadcasting spectrum policy framework to ensure it is fit-for-purpose for the next wave of innovation in the media sector,” said Mr Turnbull at the conference. In a society where technology is constantly evolving, maybe Turnbull's plan is the right one.

As a journalism student, I cannot say I wholly support Turnbull's decision, but I can understand it. Perhaps Turnbull's decision won't spell the end for community television in Australia. I guess we'll find out 1 January 2016 and onwards.

Watch this space! I'm currently writing my own counter-argument: Why community television is worth keeping around!!

Google Maps and those pink bunny installations of Brisbane

You know how sometimes you can be oblivious to something, until one day this something is pointed out and, suddenly, it's EVERYWHERE. Waiting in your mailbox, whizzing past on your way to the bus; it's like that Donnie-Darko-meets-UniKitty pink rabbit thing Brisbane Festival has lurking around. The holy "cannot unsee".

My "cannot unsee" is the use of Google My Maps by online news outlets' I read. I knew the function existed, and it was a common tool used by journalists. Until Sir Sherratt and Lady Hetherington pointed it out a few weeks ago though, the maps were ... glossed over?

Now, during my morning peruse, I notice.

Okay, so this is not the worst "cannot unsee". It would've been much more, er, awkward to walk in on you on the loo. Or worse, on the loo AND wearing one of those Unit shirts.You know, those half-naked-blonde on a sexually-suggestive-motorbike tee-shirts*.

Ahem. Awkward for him.

As these maps are so prolific, I thought I'd jump on the metaphorical bandwagon and map tomorrow's journey. Let's start from Grand Plaza (contrary, not grand; people with rats tails congregate there). Kinda like the Unit guy pictured above.

First, I'm going to a gym class tomorrow morning. Yep. I'm fergalicious.

Okay, maybe not fergalicious.

After, Joel and I will drive to Mt Gravatt Park n Ride. We'll then take the 130 'Buz' along the busway to the Cultural Centre. We're venturing to a lecture at the State Library for the Brisbane Writer's Festival (!!). We'll have to walk from CC to the SLQ. First though, we're going to wander through the Suitcase Rummage happening at Reddacliffe Place.

We'll meander across the bridge back to the SLQ for the talk. Intellectual banter will occur, which Joel and I will discuss overly-loudly on the bus home because we're pretentious (not really, did I mention we're from Browns Plains?). Dahling. But we won't be going home yet...

Needed a Harry Potter reference. Not sorry.

Alas! We're driving to the Brisbane Airport to pick up Joel's parents returning from their Tasmania sojourn (back to the Park n Ride first!). I've devised a cunning (read: pretty mediocre) plan to get them to stop at Sunnybank on the way home for delicious fare.

Step one: I mention I'm hungry. 

Step two: I plead for food like Dudley Dursley. 

Cunning.

Then home. I'm not mapping that route. I like to leave a little mystery and allure. You're not knowing my address, even if Google already does.

TA-DAAAAAH! Google My Maps is funky, indeed. As a consumer, I like the interactivity. I think it's also a great way to catch the reader's attention, and keep it trained to the page, especially serial skim-readers!

View Sunday Adventure in a larger map

Thanks for making it to the end of this post, sans falling asleep. Unless you're on modafinil; then thanks to the drug for getting you to the end of this post.

Until next time,
Grace

*Seriously, males. Stop making such incredibly poor clothing choices. Get a collar and some class.

Social Media Patrol

The rise of Twitter has been game-changing for how news is conveyed and consumed. The microblogging site has crafted its own niche; part news source, part social media network. Yet, this has also created a major dilemma. The regulation of content. Should it be done? More realistically, could it be done?

But wait! That would just be ... censorship! A word which conjures thoughts of government secrecy, Orwellian society, or perhaps even China's inability to search the three t's: Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen. Based on the backlash of Malcolm Turnbull's proposed (but then not-proposed) opt-out internet filter blunder last September, the Australian public are, for the most part, wary of censorship.

But don't get your knickers in a twist. Regulation doesn't necessarily propose bans on accessing fetish porn. Ahem. Think about this: after US journalist James Foley was beheaded almost two weeks ago, graphic imagery of the event was posted and shared all across the Twittersphere. The same occurred after the shooting of Michael Brown in Missouri, USA. This disturbing material was available to all 271 million active monthly users. Children and adults alike.



James Foley. AFP: Nicole Tung

Michael Brown. ABC News24.


 Graphic imagery is confronting, and on social media, its difficult to avoid.

As Dr Dean Burnett, a psychiatry lecturer at Uni of Cardiff, UK, puts it, "today’s media makes it easier than ever to find it, and then to share it, even if those with whom you’re sharing have no desire to see it". 

 

If Twitter is a prominent news source, perhaps it needs to be held to the same media code of practice as traditional broadcast or print outlets. Yes, that statement itself rouses a plethora of issues: responsibility, identity, enforcement, jurisdiction, and so on. Here's one slice of the debate though, what should be done about graphic imagery at least?

Twitter's stance:



Such violations include 'obscene or pornographic images' and  'specific threats of violence'.

Unlike the nightly news, or daily broadsheet, They does not have an editor to green light what's published via the forum. Especially considering 500 million tweets are tapped every day! Their stance is justified.

For the most part, imagery violating their policy must be reported. However, that's not to say Twitter is entirely inactive. After the ISIS event, Twitter responded:



So, something is being done, but the problem is, well ... bigger, stronger. Perhaps if people really don't want to see it, they're going to have to do something about it themselves. The question is how?

Let that ruminate for a while. Censorship is unwanted and graphic imagery is unwanted. These co-exist. Being such a contentious issue, they will most likely continue hovering around each other for a long time to come.

More to come soon.