The Channel | 2002 | June

17 / 22

18 | the channel
Downstairs is an exhibition of
dinosaurs. It is not far fetched to see the
symbolism in this. When you listen to
the line of “content providers”
describing their businesses, extinction
feels not too far away. We dinosaurs
speak a different language. Instead of
“news” and “editing”, modern
terminology is “content flow” and
“service operation”. In fact, these
various media business sales executives
sound like they are giving a lecture on
how a metropolis has organised its
intake and distribution of food.
Actually, one digital content provider
says his company is “the top of the food
chain…”. But to me, as an aspiring
dinosaur, news and information can
never be a commodity. It is a human
right.
I am attending the AIB Global Media
Business conference, held in the
Museum of Science and Industry in
Manchester. It is a great event,
“everyone” is there and the packed
agenda brings an excellent exposé of
our branch as of now.
We hear a lot about wonderful gadgets.
The Gulf war and the conflicts on
Balkan are pictured as excellent testing
fields for all the technology that now
has revolutionised our business. In
dinosaur-language, one could then think
in terms of better coverage, deeper
insights, bringing the true world to the
viewers, etc… Maybe even this
marvellous technology, for once, could
help us prevent disaster and tragedy, to
tell the world before it is too late.
But that is not, of course, the point. The
role of the gadgets is to cheaply get a
close up of someone’s brain being
blown to pieces and to immediately get
that picture up into the Great Digital
Smörgåsbord above us for rapid sale.
Of course, as in every conference of its
kind, someone proclaims “but content
is king!”, earning appreciative
mumbling. This time, however, BBC
World’s Nic Gowing, excellently
chairing the meeting, remarks: “But is
this not only a mantra?”
However, I give credit to the content
providers that they are not hypocritical.
They see the role of the new techniques
as that of packaging the goods cheaper,
faster and dramatically enough to sell.
Not in the slightest to utilise new
methods to bring substance and depth
and versatility and meaningfulness. Not
to improve journalism and “content”.
And no one is hypocritical about where
international television is going. What
pays - and therefore what “everyone” is
focusing on - is Big Brother and
simplified game shows that allow the
viewers to interactively vote for the
footballer with the most alluring knee
caps.
One panellist is very proud of how the
company managed to disguise a
campaign for a toothpaste brand in a
game show, with the viewers believing
that they watched a programme. Market
share of the toothpaste brand sky-
rocketed. Someone is very proud that
more Brits voted in “Pop Idol” than in
the latest election (is that really true?).
Twenty years ago, I spent a month in
the USA, supposedly to study new
production techniques for the group of
newspapers that I worked for. But
mostly I watched television, night after
night, absolutely flabbergasted that
human brains could invent such
disgusting, tasteless, idiotic, humiliating
nonsense. And I thought: OK, public
service television at home may be a little
old fashioned and introvert but still,
thank God, we will never get this crap.
Little did I know…
My favourite PowerPoint slide in
Manchester is a slide of the ordinary PC
in an ordinary English home. A
workplace, cramped, ugly and boring.
Next picture – the cosy and comfortable
living roomwith TV and radio receivers
and surround sound loudspeakers.
Question: “Will the family gather
around the PC?”.
“Radio is geared for the stressed modern
man,” someone says. It can be
everything, anytime, anywhere. It can
survive in the smallest, narrowest niche.
But what will be inside? “The market
will decide,” one content-provider MD
explains. That is not can decide
if we believe there still is a fair
proportion of humanity that basically
pukes if forced to watch Temptation
Island or Ricky Lake. And above all,
politicians have to decide if they want
voters stupefied or conscious. We do
have a lot of good arguments to justify
our existence.
Since that month spent in the USA, I
have been a devout supporter of good
old public service. But it is scary to see
the impact commercial television has
had on our national television.
Therefore it is encouraging to hear, from
many countries, the demand for radio
that considers listeners to be intelligent
people.
In Stockholm, Swedes can listen to
Radio Sweden on FM. Most people
probably have not got a clue what it is,
but those who have discovered this
service often express a gratitude that
“there is still someone who takes news
seriously”.
The national public service radio news
is of course serious, and good. But even
Personal View
Finn Norgren
Director, Radio Sweden