Our public broadcasting system is unique in the world. Unfortunately, it is not something to be particularly proud of. The system and the thinking behind it are virtually incomprehensible. Or as NTR director Paul Römer put it less diplomatically in August: we have 'a backward system that cannot (anymore) be explained to anyone'.
It was a sideline in his interview with The Telegraph, in which he argued mainly for an advertising-free public broadcaster. A public broadcaster with less commercial pressure and therefore more room for experimentation.
It will have sounded like music to many. At least until the moment he turned out to seek funding from radio, specifically from 'a real music station like Radio 2 or Little 5'. Stations that could disappear as far as he was concerned. A difficult argument to follow. How 'more room for experimentation' (and, although he did not put it that way, for public service) can go hand in hand with the consideration, after Radio 6, of sacrificing Radio 5 too, is hard to understand.
Why do we have a public broadcaster?
Because: what do we actually have a public broadcaster for? To make possible what is not possible in the market. Therein lies the core.
Originally, the means to make radio and then television were extremely limited. The scarce number of airwaves alone necessitated government regulation for many years.
The Netherlands opted for a segregated broadcasting system. Broadcasting, according to the 1930 Radio Regulations, could only be carried out by organisations that could demonstrate 'that they are aimed at satisfying the cultural or religious needs of the people to such an extent that their broadcasts can be considered to be of general interest.
Soon other political motives were added. The government and politicians, led by the denominations, wished to watch over the moral health of the population. In 1933, for instance, they laid down in the Radio Regulations that '[broadcasts] may not involve direct or indirect or covert subversion of religion, morality, authority and popular power, nor be manifestly intended for foreign countries if it is known that they are not allowed in a friendly state'.
The allocation of airtime to the various broadcasters continued to be debated for years. Nevertheless, a reasonably democratic and time-appropriate distribution of scarce resources was thus chosen.
Hot potato
However, the alliances between broadcasting associations and the political parties of the pillar era have led to major political clashes over the years. Clashes between anti-pillar parties such as D66 and, in particular, the confessionals (the CDA) and the socialists (PvdA). The 'old' parties wanted to protect the current system from the attacks of the new era for as long as possible. The endless compromises between the advocates of a newly established 'BBC model' (with one public broadcaster) and the protectors of the existing broadcasting associations, turned public broadcasting into a monstrosity that could no longer be explained away. A system with network managers and coordinators, with old and new broadcasters and broadcasting associations forced to merge. Up to and including memberless broadcasting organisations like NTR, NOS and NPO, between which even Paul Römer can no longer explain the difference. I therefore abandon the ambition to actually describe the system here.
Add to this the pressure from the 'new right' movements to simply abolish public broadcasting, and the pressure against anything that reeks of subsidising 'art', 'culture' and 'elitist taste'. The political view of the broadcasting system changes with every cabinet formation. It is an old problem. Back in 1965, the Marijnen cabinet fell over the expansion of the broadcasting system. Public broadcasting reform has been a politically red-hot potato for many years.
Public task
In all these political struggles, the public service, the legitimacy of public broadcasting, seems to have become the child of the bill. That legitimacy can no longer be found in the scarcity of airwaves. It can only be found in economic terms, in the merit good-argument, be found. In supporting a product with great general social value that the market does not believe in. Short and sweet: in enabling what is not possible in the market.
This is the space for experimentation advocated by Römer. It is also the visibility of vulnerable cultural offerings and attention to the smaller cultural markets, which are not of sufficient interest to the commercialists.
Too many gentlemen
Public broadcasting has to serve too many lords. That is certainly not Römer's fault. Any manager would find it hard to make chocolate out of it. Traditionally, the various broadcasters should propagate their philosophical vision, be there for everyone, generate advertising revenue. But they must also encourage diversity, provide a platform for vulnerable offerings and find room for experimentation. These are partly opposing demands. The oft-sung 'public service' is under permanent pressure from the other demands, which are more focused on audience reach and disguised commerce. As a result, the public task has actually been increasingly pushed into the background.
The real solution
An advertising-free broadcaster is therefore a good first step towards putting the public service back at the centre. In that, Römer is right. But the only real austerity, if austerity is necessary at all, is not cutting music stations, and certainly not 'little Radio 5', but divesting expensive popular productions. To begin with, I understand Römer did not dare to suggest - and I hope I am not kicking too many readers in the shins - with football and skating.
Grassroots sports have a place in public broadcasting. Popular, hugely expensive public sports do not. There is no commercial broadcaster that would not be interested in taking over the broadcasting rights. And more important than that: there is no longer any legitimacy to invest taxpayers' money in directly competing with the commercials in the areas best suited to them. Not in the advertising market, but not in the sports rights market either.
Alternative to the market
Public broadcasting exists to offer an alternative to the market. To give young makers and experiments a stage, to enable Dutch quality drama (often an overpriced branch of sport for the commercials), to preserve vulnerable supply and support high-quality niche repertoire.
It is unfortunate that Paul Römer did not have the courage, or presumably especially the vision, to tell that story in full. But even sadder is that even the new cabinet will almost certainly not - or not really - pick up the hot potato. We will muddle on for years to come.
(This article also appeared in abridged form in Performers Magazine 3, 2017)
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
){kind=link}