Is anyone else sick of the constant attacks on our public broadcasters?
In the past year, it seems not a week passes by when either SBS or the ABC (or often both) aren't unfairly criticised for a dereliction of their public service responsibilities.
For the ABC, this usually involves conservative politicians and/or commentators raging about the public broadcaster's 'left-leaning' bias – a claim that is rarely, if ever, proven.
The BBC cops the same spray from conservatives in the UK, despite the Beeb being widely regarded as one of the finest content producers on the planet and revered as a national treasure.
Attacks on SBS, which I'd like to focus on as it pertains to advertising, target the multicultural broadcaster's hybrid funding model and how it spends the money on programming.
Of course, conservatives bashing public broadcasting is nothing new or particularly interesting. Often these attacks are driven by right-wing ideology, media barons or as fodder in calls for funding cuts.
But recent attacks on SBS's hybrid funding model and how it spends its money on programming are strange and contradictory.
Yesterday, SBS CEO and managing director Michael Ebeid defended the $100 million SBS generates from advertising and for spending some of this money on content deals with Vice and Scripps Networks Interactive (the makers of The Food Network).
Ebeid said without the commercial top up, SBS wouldn't be able to produce half of the content it airs.
In an article in The Australian, it was suggested that “critics” argue that growing SBS's audience isn't part of its charter, which has a principle function to “inform, educate and entertain all Australians, and this is very different to 100% national audience reach”.
Such claims are contradictory. How is it possible for SBS to carry out its duties to inform and educate all Australians if nobody is watching, listening or viewing SBS content?
All media, including public broadcasters, newspapers and other commercial operators, exist to be consumed. Failure to attract audiences would be a dereliction of a public broadcaster's duties and also a waste of taxpayer money.
Audience figures don't add weight to the idea that SBS is muscling in on commercial TV networks ratings. The addition of SBS Food Network has only helped the broadcaster increase its network audience share by less than 1% in this ratings year, from 4.7% to 5.6%. That's still only a third of the audience delivered by Ten, the smallest commercial TV network.
A multicultural counterweight
The SBS Charter also contains requirements that the broadcaster needs to increase awareness of how different cultures contribute to Australian society as well as promote understanding and acceptance.
Both of these goals require an audience and engaging, thought-provoking content that informs and challenges how Australian's view the world they live in – which brings me to SBS Viceland.
When former ABC chairman Maurice Newman and former managing director David Hill grumbled that SBS's tie-up with Vice was a departure from its charter, it's pretty obvious that they hadn't even bothered to watch anything Vice had produced.
The channel is loaded with multicultural content from around the world that tackles issues pertinent to this country. In its first week, this included the legalisation of medicinal marijuana, what its like to fast for the month of Ramadan, the challenges of coming out and cyber warfare.
Although the content sings to young people, it providers all viewers with a different perspective on other cultures and the issues they face.
It's no secret some folks connected to the ABC view SBS as an M&A target and you have to question whether this is what's really behind some of the Viceland noise. Others just want to bring down public broadcasting because it doesn't sit well with their world view, and there are those that have a vested commercial interest to curtail SBS's success.
Frankly, SBS would struggle to find a much better fit than Viceland to introduce new, engaging content to millennials at a fraction of the price it would cost to produce inhouse.
It's also more efficient to strike a deal with one content production house, such as Vice, than scour the world and strike individual deals, as SBS does for its main channel.
This makes criticisms about SBS's hybrid funding model difficult to take seriously. Public broadcasters across the world, with few exceptions, are struggling to remain viable as governments (including Australia's) consistently cut funding.
Hybrid funding is common
A hybrid funding model is one way public broadcasters can remain viable while carrying out their public responsibilities, and it's by no means unique to SBS.
RTE in Ireland derives half of its income from commercial sources, Canadian public broadcaster CBC carries advertising as does TVNZ and Italy's RAI.
In Australia, there is a limit to the amount of advertising SBS can run of five minutes per hour of content. This is a third of the 15-minute limit imposed on commercial TV networks.
Without advertising, SBS wouldn't be able provide the range of culturally-diverse programming that makes it one of the truly unique TV networks anywhere in the world.
A 100% publicly-funded model would cost taxpayers considerably more for a similar programming slate, free market commentators should actually applaud SBS for trying to become more self-sufficient.
For the majority of Australians from ethnically diverse backgrounds, including myself, it provides a culturally rich source of news, information, sport and entertainment - a valuable counterweight to the lack of diversity elsewhere.
Viceland is the latest piece, and let's hope it is not the last.