THERE have been times over the past year or so when I have thought The Australian was being unduly critical of the ABC and its public broadcaster status.

But the recent news of cuts to arts programs and personnel at ABC TV, and the reasons given for those cuts, have caused me to pause and think again.

If ABC TV director Kim Dalton is correctly reported as saying the changes are due to poor ratings, this is a real concern to all who believe in the value of a public broadcaster.

Read Next

The public-good values that led to governments funding arts and cultural institutions due to their tendency towards "market failure" was the same ethos that led to the establishment of the great public broadcasters of Great Britain, Canada and Australia.

This came with an understanding that education as well as entertainment was an essential part of the broadcaster's output. The value of the broadcaster was not only about ratings but also about impact on and for the community. And in some parts of the ABC, notably Radio National and Classic FM, these values still seem to be alive and well. But not, it seems, ABC TV.

It's quite different for the commercial broadcasters, where the numbers are an essential tool in attracting advertisers.

But why does a TV broadcaster that does not have a commercial imperative appear to be so obsessed with ratings, to the extent that commitments in its charter look like being blithely tossed aside?

And why is it seemingly copying the commercial channels, with its ads and promos, with its local news services that rival the commercial channels in terms of "law and order" stories, and with its whittling away of local productions and niche programs?

And why does it seem to have lost interest in the notion of public good? The closer ABC TV comes to looking like a commercial broadcaster, the louder the voices will be who argue that the ABC might as well go commercial and get off the public purse. And what a long-term tragedy that would be for our country.

The internal email announcing the cuts at the ABC apparently spoke of "an increasingly competitive broadcasting environment" and of the need to focus resources on prime-time TV and, apparently, away from the arts.

Why is the ABC so concerned about competing with commercial television? It's not competing for sponsors, and who says it has to compete for viewers? It must be possible to look at other ways of measuring impact, other than with the crude tool of ratings.

If the ratings drive is coming from pressure from politicians, then perhaps it's time for a public debate involving our elected representatives about what exactly we think we want from a national broadcaster.

We've got enough TV channels that all look pretty similar to one another. Surely we can have one or two that look and sound just a bit different and a bit more interesting?

I'm sure that respondents from the ABC will tell us that there is plenty of exposure for the arts on ABC Online.

That's great. But why not on television too? After all, there's news and current affairs on both. There's cooking on both. What's wrong with the arts on both?

Is there some sort of cultural cringe going on here, dressed up as a worry about money and ratings? From my time chairing the ABC's Arts Advisory Committee nearly a decade ago, I recall that savings in the arts would provide such small pickings compared with, for example, news and current affairs across all platforms, that it's hard not to think that this must be about more than just money and ratings.

Whatever the motivation, it would be good to hear that the board and management decide to go back to first principles, back to the ABC's charter, and look at other ways of dealing with an issue that goes right to the heart of what a public broadcaster is all about.

Margaret Seares is a former chairwoman of the ABC's Arts Advisory Committee and of the Australia Council for the Arts.

Read Next