Taken from “Local and Community Television in the UK: A New Beginning?” by Chris Hewson (Commissioned by the Community Media Association, 2005). 

A Pre-History

It has been argued that the UK has no established history of community television , this is true in as much as a clear linear development cannot be charted, yet this ignores the emergence of periodic fissures within accepted models and definitions of television. With reference to Swindon Viewpoint,  a community cable channel in operation in the 1970’s, Peter Lewis notes a set of issues still pertinent today, arguing that Viewpoint’s aim:

Was to 'demythologise television' and show that there were other valid styles as well as the national one. However, it could be argued that part of the value to the participant group was precisely this myth of television. That part of its symbolic importance and the enthusiasm with which television was seized on, came from notions derived from national television, of television as a scarce resource and as a technically difficult and glamorous activity (Lewis, 1978: 48).

It is notable that at the time community media found itself criticised both by 'conservative' commentators, possibly to be expected, yet also from the left, the suggestion being that such grassroots ‘local interest’ based activity proved insufficiently radical in practice.  Indeed the dissipation of prior political intention in the subsequent practice of community media is a recurring theme, providing an early indication that attempts to fashion a diverse LCTV proposition could rapidly become perceived as parochial or irrelevant, rather than genuinely ‘inclusive’ or ‘alternative’.

The US cable access PEG (public, education, government) system, provides an inspirational model for those arguing for participation within LCTV. It was hoped that the expansion of cable as a commercial proposition, throughout the UK, would signal a way forward for this type of service, however although cable providers were required to screen local content, in retrospect this appeared to have been undertaken as a precursor to market entry, rather than through a genuine desire to connect with the communities their cable infrastructure traversed. Under-funded local cable channels were a loss leader, to be jettisoned in the struggle to meet the escalating costs of supplying this increasingly unprofitable network.  Moreover, the UK boasted none of the protections on community access that the US model, with its first amendment grounding, and local franchising authorities – separate accountable entities positioned between state legislatures, and the cable companies themselves.

Cable development and uptake was initially slow, with the Peacock Committee (1986) suggesting that a more centralised ‘British Telecom lead’ approach was required. However deregulationary forces prevailed , and somewhat regrettably cable companies were permitted to retain both retail and ‘last mile’ delivery elements. As Rushton notes, “central planning had returned, but this time it was to favour the investor at the expense of public service and the public itself.”,  and the ‘free market’ as constituted appeared unlikely to generate an adequate space for local television. Furthermore both BT and the cable operators were outflanked by the rapid and unforeseen expansion of the satellite platform BSkyB.

 

The formation in 1982 of Channel 4 triggered the initial stages of the ‘publisher’ archetype for broadcast television,  however it was subsequently recognised that merely sub-contracting the production process would not on its own necessarily lead to democratic or pluralist outcomes. More generally, policy debates around media decentralisation have too readily been transformed into arguments championing the extension of independent production , however this simply represents a particular moment within the decentralisation and diversification of capitalist production processes, rather than an acknowledgement of the need, or desire, to decentralise or diversify the national broadcasting apparatus itself. So although the channel was considered a positive commitment to the dispersed workshop sector, as Rushton rightly argues, its “involvement re-aligned the role and identity of the community programme maker”.  This dynamic was similar to that encountered by early RSL operators, in that firstly the amount of material deemed ‘broadcastable’ was lower than originally envisioned; secondly, the (re)adjustment of groups to regular broadcasting cycles proved taxing; and finally, funded groups begin to neglect training and resource commitments, in favour of TV production. Also in the case of Channel 4, what made it to the screen was often less ‘alternative’ – less an ‘end in itself –  than was originally envisioned, as independent production companies as a newly emerging sector began to enclose the market.

A decade later, arguments aired around the desirability of a city-oriented Channel 5 suggested that de facto subsidiarity – an alliance of city stations first, a national network second – could be enshrined into the broadcasting landscape.  As Blanchard (2001) noted, although unsuccessful, this vision kept the question of local television on the policy table – and also created the precedent, due to a lack of available frequencies for the new service, that universal coverage was no longer a PSB necessity. This move indirectly legitimated RSL Television,  but also vindicated moves within the PSB ecology, towards a form of audience segmentation  which promotes programmes and services tailored towards niche communities of interest, over provision for marginal locales and peripheral regions.

 

The issues examined above can be formed into a clear policy question: In attempting to be included as PSB, does community media activity in fact undermine the foundations of the PSB system as constituted? The answer to this question is both yes and no – ‘yes’, in the sense that any promotion of localised services within a digital environment further erodes the primacy of a unified ‘national public’ – the nation sitting down to watch television together – ‘no’ in the sense that traditional PSB providers are increasingly attempting to delineate (and potentially marginalise) community media in terms of niche outputs, geared towards communities of interest. The genie of localisation, it could be said, has already been let out of the bottle. 

 

As Elinor Rennie notes with reference to the Australian community media movement, “the provision of localism in the community broadcasting comes relatively easily – it is a by-product of access and community group participation”.  This is an important point, as it is through localised forms of access and community involvement that models of localism – within communities of practice – should be developed in order to take their place within Ofcom’s updated PSB compact. The idealisation of ‘the local’ or ‘community’ per se, without a grounding in local participatory activity easily leads to commercial capture. The example of Italian local television emphasises this point, local channels became rapidly chained, leading ultimately to the disintegration of locally originated programming and the centralisation and standardisation of programme commissioning. 

Localism, as a formal principle, must be based upon grounded research into the types of ‘local connection’ which can be generated around the introduction of community media activity. To aid this process full scale audit of the community media sector nationwide would be required , in order to uncover prospective contributors to future community television service provision. Local television has hitherto not registered in the popular consciousness, only being recognised in a post-hoc manner – that is in response to descriptions of how such services are (or might be) constituted. A community media audit must take into account citizens’ views, but move beyond an analysis of what they liked, what they like, and what they would like, and then inquiring as to what, in an ‘ideal society’, audiences expect of particular services – a problematic methodology which Ofcom utilises within its recent PSB Television Review . This type of inquiry tends to buttress the status quo, rather than facilitating the development of innovative community media models: local television is positioned as the little brother of regional; traditional hierarchies of ‘taste’ and ‘quality’ are reaffirmed; cultural divisions between media professionals and laypersons are reinforced ; and the conceptual middle ground between the State, the BBC, and an ever expanding and diversifying commercial sector is ignored.

The development of an ongoing research and testing process, must be supplemented with an assessment of what motivates and interests actual citizens  in real localities, gauging ‘local enthusiasms’ as a pre-cursor to developing a solid and grounded business case. This requires both an extensive consideration of new partnership forms – for instance new public-private financing arrangements, and potentially the utilisation of structures such as the Community Interest Company (CIC)  – and more nuanced, and qualitative, methods of audience development, engagement, and evaluation.

It is also important to note that this historical narrative reveals continuities, as well as disruptions. Within the 1988 White Paper Broadcasting in the 90’s: Competition, Choice and Quality,  the market began to be seen more completely as the prime mechanism through which choice could be promoted, trumping both actual and imagined claims to participation, and ignoring the inherent uncertainties capitalist markets necessarily generate.  Yet the ITV franchise auctioning process neglected considerations of how existing television franchise regions might be dissected.  Likewise, although the further separation of programme supply and delivery enlarged the potential for a diffusion of independent production into the nations and regions, a shift towards commissioning decisions being regionally, or even locally, devolved has not followed,  due in large part to the inherent link between standardisation of product and ‘necessary’ cost-efficiencies.

RSL Television emerged as a Conservative counterproposal to the lobbying efforts around the 1996 Broadcasting Act  by the community media sector, and it resulted in a model closely allied the Radio RSL provisions in the 1990 Broadcasting Act . Again there was a nagging fear that a priori definitions of locality would blight the proposals. As Rushton presciently concludes:
 

As Blanchard (2001) noted, the development of RSL television inadvertently coincides with the initiation of New Labour’s new social policy agenda, characterised by a further intermingling of cultural, political, and economic considerations,  cross-currents encapsulated in the Policy Action Team 15 (PAT15) report Closing the Digital Divide.  However the problems within this approach in terms of technological deployment on the ground soon became clear, as the vision of joined up government proposed proved ahead of the reality. As Kevin Harris notes, access was given precedence over the communication based aspects of technology roll-out , technology seen in terms of objects to be manipulated and consumed, rather than as part of an integrated social fabric, to be shaped within local contexts. Moreover, as the PAT’s recommendations ended up at the door of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), a qualifications agenda the began to displace the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) originated economic exclusion/social engagement agenda.

The key point to take from these developments is that RSLs were not even on the policy radar, as traditional communications media were generally overlooked in the drive towards a ‘Digital Britain’.  It is only more recently that a consideration of ‘joined-up’ local solutions, including the DfES sponsored development of UKOnline centres , has taken place. However a realignment is now needed, towards these centres promoting more holistic programmes of community media provision, away from a singular emphasis upon access to new technologies. The key task for government is to generate joined up thinking around new communications technologies, capable of encapsulating local culture as both plural as well as cohesive, diverse as well interconnected.

After the first RSL television channels came on air, the aim was simply to generate sustainable services. However, the fact that the RSL radio model, essentially an experimental service, had been retro-fitted for television, with its short licence period and low-priority frequencies was beginning to hit home. During this period ‘joined up’ solutions appeared to be the exclusive preserve of Access Radio, which was gaining popular support both in parliament, and within wider policy circles, for its ground-breaking approach towards serving its – potential and actual – listener’s need.

 

2.16. The Communications White Paper (2000) suggested that RSL television might exist within an increasingly fragmented media environment. However, the formation of the Local Broadcasting Group (LBG) demonstrated a vision which extended beyond the perceived parochialism, and inconsequence, of disparate and poorly resourced services. Yet criticism was soon forthcoming, from both established media interests, questioning the expansionist ambitions of LBG as a proposed ‘alternative regional network’ of around 36 local stations , as well as citizen-advocates, concerned that the ‘network-effects’ of such a formation would inevitably mute community involvement, and local programme origination. Nevertheless, evidence emerged that local specificity could survive within this configuration, and the idea that local news represented LCTV’s unique selling proposition (USP) emerged for the first time.

2.17. The LBG structure collapsed for a number of reasons, although the Yattendon Investment Trust pulling out to fund a bid for the ‘Channel TV’ ITV franchise, and LBG’s subsequent takeover by the Einstein Group (who went into administration in July 2003), were the final nails in the coffin. I summarise a number of LBG’s problems below. 

Beset with its short tenure Local Television is – as yet a tender plant. It has no nationally-audited audience figures with which to underpin national ad sales. The licence timescales are too short and the margins just to slim to justify the investment required. For all too many Local Television stations life is about having one eye on the calendar for the next licence application and the other on the sales graph. (Capital TV, 2004: 7)