Email
Selling off Channel 5 or ITV to a US company would lead to the creeping Americanisation of TV schedules, Lord Puttnam's influential parliamentary committee warned today as it outlined explicit reasons for opposing government plans to relax TV ownership laws.
It said the government has gone too far with controversial proposals in the communications bill to scrap restrictions on American companies such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation buying UK broadcasters.
While accepting that commercial considerations would ensure a US owned broadcaster could not flood the market overnight with foreign programming, the committee warned the damage would be tangible, albeit subtle.
The government plans to liberalise ownership rules to allow non-EU companies snap up ITV, Channel 5 or radio groups such as GWR or Capital through new legislation designed to come into force next November.
But the committee pointed out that the four basic arguments behind the government's reasoning were "lacking in force".
The four reasons given by supporters of the reforms are: they would strengthen management in British TV; investment would benefit broadcasting in the same way as it had in other industries such as the car sector; foreign owners are generally benign as proven by RTL's ownership of Channel 5; audience preferences and tough regulations would safeguard quality of programming.
Lord Puttnam's committee argued that broadcasting was fundamentally different from other industries because US broadcasters would be able to dominate through a pool of ready-made content.
Although today's report wasn't explicit on programming, Lord Puttnam was clearly referring to fears that British schedules would be further swamped by US shows such as ER, Ally McBeal, CSI, Law And Order and 24.
"We would not wish to characterise this as 'dumping'; rather what is more likely is a determined and sophisticated attempt - backed by enormous marketing expense - to shift the balance of regulatory expectations away from domestic content produced primarily with a British audience in mind, towards a more internationally focused product mix," it said.
"The inescapable reality is that a US media company investing in the United Kingdom would be concerned every bit as much with enhancing the wider market value of its domestic content as with increasing its return on investment in the British based market place," the report added.
The joint media select committee, chaired by Lord Puttnam, concluded that the decision by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, to recommend the restrictions be lifted was based on "largely unproven expectations".
Despite the committee's recommendations, Ms Jowell has continually argued that she is determined to lift the restriction as part of Labour's commitment to improving inward investment.
"The policy in the bill is not lightly arrived at. We believe it to be right for broadcasting, for the public, for the wider industry and for the country as a whole. Under this government, Britain is open for business," she said earlier this month at a Westminster forum for broadcasters and MPs.
Critics argue that the government's determination to force the rule change onto the statute books is a sop to Rupert Murdoch in return for his UK newspapers, including the Sun and the Times, adopting a softer line towards Europe in the run-up to a possible referendum.
Ms Jowell had told the committee there was "general support" for lifting the restriction on foreign ownership.
But the committee said her arguments were "lacking in force" and the level of support was "more balanced" than both Ms Jowell and the trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, had argued.
