Letter: Quality TV in the balance
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Hamish McRae advances a possible, rather than probable future for the TV industry ("Tune in to the last of the dinosaurs", 19 February). In advancing the "magazine rack" model of the relationship between viewers and programme-makers, he is missing the point.
There is no doubt that technological advances will reduce production costs in some areas, but quality TV programming will still cost vastly more than the production costs of a magazine. There will, therefore, continue to be significant barriers to entry into this market that far outstrip those in the magazine trade.
For decades, the public has been used to getting very-high-quality programmes very cheaply. The "progress" that McRae envisages will result in this diet being replaced by cheaply made, low-quality content.
The real issue however, is the proven public demand for quality programming - for the diversity and pluralism only provided by public service broadcasting. Do we want existing public service broadcasters to be eliminated by the multi-channel process? Or are we to insist that the states of Europe continue to provide the framework that protects broadcasters who invest in quality programming?
We need continuing investment in original content. Should we allow new channels to simply suck in imports? Or should we address the huge and growing deficit between the European Union and the United States that is killing our jobs and threatening the very basis of our future prosperity?
Finally, let us not forget our culture and social cohesion. Should the public have the right to see major national sporting events on free-to- air TV? Should they have the right to know that the emergency phone number is 999, and not 911 as some London schoolchildren now believe?
In adopting my report on Public Service Broadcasting in September 1996, the European Parliament not only demanded continuing support for public service broadcasting, it called upon the EU to enshrine such an obligation in the European treaties.
CAROLE TONGUE MEP
Socialist Group Co-ordinator on Media
Ilford, Essex
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments