Oh well, that’s just one of the ways to privatise and market everything that once held public.Think for a moment who benefits from it and you know what political flow is behind it. It really doesn’t become any better. More of the same: RTL/SBS/Veronica pulp.
Edit June 13th:
Fedor van Eldijk has written a good, balanced and comprehensive answer.Featured.
In particular, it means that the political influence is greater because public broadcasting is dependent on the money that The Hague raises to a much greater extent.
The beauty of our original broadcasting system was that public service broadcasting had access to-the then most important-mass media offered to all the family with a reasonable rank.The number of members who supported a broadcaster provided direct funding, allocation of broadcasting time and broadcasters were free to fill that in its own discretion-albeit within a limited number of frameworks.
Nowadays broadcasters are no longer defacto, the transmitter coordinators determine what is coming on TV and when.And if the transmitter coordinator does not want it, it does not come on TV-what the broadcasters also find.
That is all because public broadcasting should compete with the commercial-initially because of that advertising revenues but also increasingly because politics thinks in the market, and not in social interest.
The social importance is that relevant currents have access to the media, and means to provide level journalism and share information from their perspective.Therefore, it would be good if the central coordination of the transmitters were to be unleashed, broadcasters based on a measurement of their supporters or elections-resources and transmission time and clear frameworks are drawn up which they should make for their money : Limit entertainment and sports, strengthen journalism and culture.
And of course, but that’s where the public service is doing pretty well, push the field of work to the Internet.Because there is also a need for better funded, non-commercially driven journalism.
I would like to suggest to anyone who has something to do with an interest in media to read the letter from Slob (see resource list for link).The Sensatiemakerijk of advertisement and the media is actually quite predictable. It does cost a whole lot of income (60 鈧?”120 million) and the viewing figures will drop and Baker change.
In essence I see some elements
- The current programming and spending on progammas does not adequately reflect the diversity of society
- Children already have a lot to do with advertising and are influenced, this is not cool and the government offers a good plek 鈧?娄 bit of a pity that they NPO3 then change to a region transmitter so how does that kite go?
- The home broadcasters order must change drastically and via budgets is that a good tool.
Also, the memberships and qualifications to be allowed to be a broadcaster are kept up to the light
More attention must be given to this, and the minister’s argumentation is that by not competing commercially but focusing on qualitative journalism, the public broadcasters are more able to honour its right to exist.
Back to the question:
What do you think will happen to the television landscape now that the NPO is advertising free?
Is it a necessary step to change things for the best?
Necessity: Yes, another way of affecting freedoms would be to blatantly corroding charmed said you could say:
NPO Dutch state television better than Chinese and North Korean channels!
If the goal is actually to change the broadcasters order, to stimulate an innovative qualitative form of journalism and TV making and at the same time change the current programming.. I understand that Slob makes this move.
What will happen: lots of mud throwing, sighs/props/Stemmingmakerij.Try to make the decision run back. What I hope: that the focus is more and more on quality and diversity.
Several parties do recall that the commercial channels will be worth more, advertisements will become more expensive and thus the consumer will pay more for its products.No idea if it is, I think that there will be a fusion between online and regular television and that so revenue will be generated by the NPO. But who knows?
Brief Slob: Vision Future Public Broadcasting order: value for the public
First leak message June 5:NPO 1, 2 and 3 are largely advertising FREE, NPO 3 region transmitter
Comments after letter June 14th
Minister Slob officially announces NPO plans in chamber letter