Spooks and Extras

Movie extra opportunities in Canberra? There aren’t any, silly. Please try somewhere that makes movies and television shows. Like any city that is not in Australia.  Cities with more cultural type thingys, and fewer public servants. 

London has the awesome but extremely clichéd Spooks.  L.A. has everything, including the now defunct 24 and the brilliant Criminal Minds.  Canberra has Catalyst and Parliamentary Question Time. As far as I'm concerned, this lack of production of visual entertainment in Canberra is a ridiculous oversight, and indicates that our taxpayer dollars are being whittled away on programs that no-one cares about.

ABC: “We cater for minority groups and the millions of Catalyst fans spread all across the globe, blah, blah, blah, blah.”

Well guess what minority groups are watching, ABC?  Probably not the crap you serve up every night. (Disclaimer: this inference could be true; but it could also not be true). Well, okay, Spooks is on the ABC, but they only show that because it has intermittent subtitles, due to its recurring storyline that involves many actors who ramble on in broken Russian.  No-one really cares what subtitled quasi-Russians are saying – as long as they are tough and mean and look like they eat nails and human thumbs for breakfast.

I can't believe how much spooking they do on that show out in the open on the mean streets of Westminster.  The mean, mean, mean streets of Westminster.  It's anyone's guess how these spooks stay in one piece - what with all those bankers and politicians lurking about.  And why are the streets always deserted anyway? That NEVER happens in London. And there is no chance in hell of being able to fly through the traffic like they do without getting stuck behind a red double decker bus or two on Piccadilly. Get real. 

A friendly spook



Any why is there always some stupid woman hanging around an agent, making his day job very difficult with her incessant whining about their relationship and future together? Same goes for 24.  In his heyday, Jack Bauer had to suffer, along with the rest of us, as one severely stupid woman after the other threatened to derail his mission and completely jeopardise national security.

Anyway; extras.  I think if you want to be an extra in Canberra, it will have to be on Parliamentary Question Time. You could sit next to Julia, and read the newspaper or smoke a Cuban cigar.  Depends on what the script calls for really. 

I guess the key skills to bring to the role would be an ability to sit, stand, walk, laugh hysterically when nothing’s funny, sleep like no-one’s watching, glare with vigour, throw Molotov cocktails; you name it, you'd better be able to handle it.  I imagine it would also be fairly useful to practice some stunt work in your backyard too.  Perhaps some light commando rolling and diving across chairs and desks.  That sort of thing.  Then give the ABC a call.

There are some TV shows that you can participate in, however.  If you hold up an IGA and/or intimately involve yourself in a hostage situation, you will likely end up on WIN evening news; especially when it is time to shoot the court scenes. And then you'll be, like, totally famous.

Public service broadcasting - its relevance

There is agreement in the literature of the role Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) should play in society and that it should be judged on the way it manages that role. Both the ABC and the BBC, arguably the most influential public broadcaster in the world, take measures in programming to justify their existence. Some commentators see this as a justification for PSB, there is also criticism PSB lacks consumer sovereignty, is no more relevant to society than commercial broadcasting, and its programming is prone to bias and interference by the government.

While government intervention into PSB can be seen as an economic success, one commentator highlights the need for governments to take care to avoid PSB failures, and there is call for PSB to adapt to the new technological era of endless choice for the consumer to avoid becoming irrelevant.  PSB includes television and radio that receive funding direct from the government, from a specific tax (eg. a television licence fee) or from public donations.

There is mostly agreement in the literature I read of the role that public service broadcasting should play. According to Burns (2008: 868), a public service broadcaster should be universally available, have universal appeal, have provisions for minorities, should educate the public, should remain distant from vested interests and have freedom from the programme maker.

Jacka (2006: 344) discusses the vision of the BBC’s founder, Lord John Reith, to see public broadcasting as a new way of forming public opinion; a ‘public service’ that would act as a “moral and educative force”. The Reithian ideals can be summarised as the access to fine culture for all and the key role it should play in informing the public, reaffirming that high quality content continues to be a defence for the existence of PSB.

According to Oesterlen (2008: 34) public service broadcasters assert their value and cultural credentials by broadcasting high culture to prove they are still culturally relevant and beneficial to the taxpayer. Oesterlen (2008) discusses BBC's global broadcast of the Shakespeare play King Lear as an attempt to assert power in determining cultural content in the new competitive media landscape of the twenty-first century.

The ABC Charter (ABC Online) maintains the ABC is valuable to society. Its core functions include keeping the public informed through programs that contribute to a sense of national identity, that educate and entertain and that reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. Also, to transmit internationally to encourage an awareness of Australia and enable expatriate or travelling Australians to be aware of what's going on at home. The Charter also says the ABC has an awareness of the multicultural nature of the Australian community, and has an understanding of its responsibility to provide a balance of popular programs with those of special interest.

But what about what happens to the taxpayer’s dollars? According to Doyle (2002: 61), PSB is valuable to society from an economic perspective. The author discusses this value in terms of its ‘public good’ characteristics; which are its non-excludability, meaning the consumption of the good by a viewer does not reduce its availability for anyone else, and its non-exhaustibility, meaning no-one is excluded from accessing the good.

But Doyle (2002: 64) also explores public broadcasting as a market failure, due to the fact the price and quantity of the goods are not determined by supply and demand, so there is no mechanism for direct revenue from the consumer. This is relevant because PSB is funded by the public. The author (2002: 66) discusses the idea that governments produce PSB because it is thought the market does not supply the values that are need to maintain a civil society, and the people are not capable of judging what is in their own best interests. Cooper (2007: 2) says governments know that television is engrained in modern life, and will seek to control what may be broadcast, as a form of social control.

But according to Williams (1996: 103), public service broadcasters are “running smack” into television’s basic law, which is “give people more choice, they use it”. Williams (1996) also found that the public don’t really want to be educated by television. In a study, the author looked at the most popular television programs in 1995, even before the internet had really caught on, and found consumers want popular, commercial television, not specialised PSB. The top programs from the ABC didn’t even rate in the top 100.

Other literature says commercial television is just as relevant as PSB in terms of keeping the public informed on important issues. Krajina (2007: 198) thinks popular commercial television is as useful as PSB, and should not be condemned as “mere profit-motivated irrational pleasures”; because consumers are involved in “rational deliberation” as active citizens. The author (2007: 199) looked at the power of “democratic entertainment”, through an assessment of a game/talk show “The Pyramid”, which involved informed discussions on important national issues with an audience, celebrities and politicians.

There is agreement in the literature that consumer sovereignty is important to viewers; they like to engage and have some say in a medium they are paying for. According to some commentators, PSB consumers do not get to dictate what is produced, so there is a lack of consumer sovereignty. Doyle (2002) argues that in a normal market, public service broadcasters would need to meet the preferences of their consumers if they wished to remain in business.

Others argue consumer sovereignty is a myth that is perpetuated by the media to defend its programming (Pauwels & Bauwens, 2007, 149). Pauwels & Bauwens (2007) argue TV viewers have a choice of programmes, but it is merely a reflection of the consumers’ personal socio-economic conditions and relations, and a choice only from what is on offer, which is not to say it is what they really want.

To this end, the extent consumers come into contact with different forms of cultural expression can be limited. The authors also explore the “interiorisation of consumer sovereignty” (2007: 58), the idea that viewers blame themselves when they can’t choose a program they like, and in doing so, they actively contribute to their own powerlessness, by actively reproducing the myth of consumer sovereignty.

According to Ferguson (2007: 182), the democratic ideals of access and participation are critically important in defending the existence of PSB in today's environment of endless programme choice and mediums. Particularly so in an era where governments are cutting back on PSB funding and commercial and pay television broadcasting are rapidly expanding.

Richards (2005) discusses this as a “gentle, gradual, evolving, historic act of liberation” for consumers. That is, the liberty to determine what they watch and what they listen to, on their own schedule.

So, what of the future for PSB, particularly in Australia? Curran (1981: 324) discusses the growing disparity in revenue between the commercial broadcasters and PSB which means outlets like the ABC will continue to be vulnerable to political pressure, as long as it relies on government funding. And Dempster (2000: 56) points to the ongoing accusations of bias against the ABC generated from both sides of politics.

One commentator gave a description of the failure of the PSB model in New Zealand, as an example for governments to avoid. Cocker (2008: 40) gives an insight into the several eras of bad policies from New Zealand governments, including the early restrictive regulation of television and an unwillingness to give public service broadcasters political independence or adequate funding. According to Cocker (2008: 42), the New Zealand model has never met public expectations and needs and has not measured up to the ideals of a public service broadcaster in a democracy.

The literature was reviewed in relation to the role, value and future of PSB. There is agreement among commentators that PSB should be judged on how it manages its role. One commentator highlights how public service broadcasters take measures to justify their existence, and there exists criticism over its lack of consumer sovereignty, whether it is any more relevant for society than commercial broadcasting, and the issue of bias and interference by the government. One commentator argues PSB can be viewed as an economic success, another warns of a PSB failure. Further, there is commentary regarding the future relevance of public service broadcasters in the new technological era of endless choice and mediums for consumers.


REFERENCE LIST

ABC Online (2008) ABC Charter 1983, About the ABC. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/ABCcharter.htm Accessed 9 April 2009.

Burns (2008) Public Service Broadcasting meets the Internet at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 22, 6, pp. 867-881.

Cocker, A. (2008) Broadcasting in New Zealand: A story of public policy failure. Australia Journal of Communication, 35, 2, pp. 39-55.

Cooper, C. (2007) Television on the Internet: Regulating News Ways of Viewing. Information & Communications Technology Law, 16, 1, pp. 1-16.

Curran, J. (1981) The Impact of Advertising on the British Mass Media. Media, Culture & Society, 3, 1, pp. 43-69.

Dempster, Q. (2000) Death Struggle. Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, NSW.

Doyle, G. (2002) Understanding Media Economics, First Edition, Sage: University of Glasgow.

Ferguson (2007) Locking out the Mother Corp: Nationalism and Popular Imaginings of Public Service Broadcasting in the Print News Media, Canadian Journal of Communication, 32, 2, pp. 181-200.

Jacka, E. (Edited by Cunningham, S. & Turner, G.) (1997) The Media and Communications in Australia. Allen & Unwin: Sydney.

Krajina, Z. (2007) Democratic Potentials of Media Entertainment: Reading ‘The Pyramid’. Political Thought: Croatian Political Science Review, 16, 5, pp. 179-202.

Oesterlen, E. (2008) Lend me your 84 million ears: Exploring a special radio event – Shakespeare’s King Lear on BBC World Radio Service. The Radio Journal, 6, 1, pp. 33-44.

Pauwels, C. & Bauwens, J. (2007) ‘Power to the People’? The myth of television consumer sovereignty revisited. International Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 3, 2, pp. 149-165.

Richards, E. (2005) OFCOM Annual Lecture: Trends in Television, Radio and Telecoms, 20 July. Available online at: www.ofcom.org.uk/media/speeches/2005/07/

Williams, R. (1996) Normal Service won’t be resumed. Allen & Unwin: St Leonard’s , NSW.