Editorial: TVNZ's third channel plan questionable

Never mind the quality, feel the width. Such could be the dubious lot of viewers if Television New Zealand's proposed third channel gets off the ground. The state broadcaster, having failed to fulfil its charter obligations through TV One and TV2, now plans another free-to-air channel based on the formulas of leading Australian and American public-service and special-interest networks. At worst this could be merely a dumping ground for the type of programme expected under the charter. Even at best, the hitherto-secret proposal has fish-hooks that warrant the closest scrutiny.

Most pertinently, one of TVNZ's main motives seems to be simply to block rival broadcasters. In particular, it appears concerned that Sky will win the right to broadcast Parliament if it does not act quickly. Thus, the highlights of the parliamentary day - question time, major debates and so on - would be a staple of the new channel. Shutting out the opposition is, however, hardly a valid reason for such an enterprise, especially if it is a burden, potential or real, on the taxpayer. And if the upshot is increased state domination of the country's television framework.

Already, TVNZ boasts two channels, a number considered quite sufficient for state broadcasters in most comparable countries, including those in which Governments have dictated similar charter requirements. Other broadcasters have grappled with TVNZ's essential problem, that of meeting an expectation to show programmes that reflect identity and culture, history and heritage while continuing to remain commercially focused. TVNZ has chosen to sidestep the issue, using reality TV-type shows as its charter touchstone. The popularity of such programmes might well limit the charter's damage to TVNZ's bottom line but they can hardly be said to be a genuine reflection of the charter's intent.

At the same time, such shows have alienated large numbers of viewers who look to television for education and stimulation as well as entertainment. Little that is shown in prime-time could be said to be truly cultural or educational - or to be driven by anything other than ratings. The people who crave such programmes would be the natural audience for the proposed third channel. Right now they are being attracted to the likes of Sky's History and Discovery channels. Better still, the new channel would provide TVNZ with another advertising outlet - it has more advertisements than available advertising time. That being the case, the degree of cross-subsidisation of the third channel might be relatively modest.

It is, thus, easy to see why TVNZ would relish a third channel. In one shot, the financial and logistical shackles imposed by the charter would be largely neutralised. No longer would there be a hue and cry for TVNZ to show more charter-style programmes while, at the same time, remaining a commercial beast. But at what cost? It is unfortunate that TVNZ has not made a more genuine attempt to meet the demands of the charter on TV One and TV2. Mainstream channels were clearly the intended vehicle for such programmes. Whatever the contradictory agenda, far better accommodations have been reached in countries such as Canada.

So pallid has been TVNZ's response that it is difficult to be confident a third channel would offer public-service television of a high standard. It could well, as some critics have suggested, become nothing more than a poorly resourced depository for programmes that meet the Government's expectation.

These are matters that must be closely considered by the Minister of Broadcasting when he receives TVNZ's business case. Is a third channel really necessary, or is it simply an easy out for the state broadcaster? And a way of reinforcing its broadcasting dominance in the process.