TV's melting pot full of Yankee stew
NEW YORK -- When it comes to media, globalization necessarily means Americanization. Or does it?
That was the gauntlet thrown down by the BBC's director general Greg Dyke last week in remarks to the Intl. Academy of Television Arts & Sciences -- a gathering made up in part by the very Hollywood contingent responsible for spreading U.S. pop culture around the world.
A number of the Hollywood types who heard the discourse -- folks who have, ironically, been in a three-year funk over declining revenues and interest in their shows abroad -- were not amused.
Dyke's point, which is shared not only by the antiglobalization contingent that demonstrates whenever the World Trade Organization meets up but, judging by the applause, by a number of foreign media types as well, is that American cultural products tend to run roughshod over local fare wherever they are unleashed on the world.
But that's clearly an overstatement.
Foreign entities generally get to cherry-pick the best of U.S. culture to intersperse with their own fare. "Band of Brothers" and "24" do not dominate the BBC sked: They simply enhance it with similarly high-quality standards.
Dyke was in New York to receive the Intl. Academy's Directorate Award for his contributions to broadcasting; the annual trophy is reserved for the great and good of the global TV biz.
"He criticized us in our own house," one American exec carped. "He even sounded French!" Could it be that Dyke would support a 'cultural exclusion' for audiovisual products the next time that contentious issue comes up at trade talks?
Dyke's argument was not that American programming or values are all bad or should be stamped out, but rather that there also should be room for (or protection for?) that other kind of media, the publicly funded kind.
"I'm not anticommercial and I am in favor of choice," Dyke said, "but if we treat TV like Coke or Starbucks, it will become like these."
That's something of a surprising pronouncement, though, given that Dyke heads the BBC -- a corporation that is one of the world's best-known, most respected brands.
It doesn't make the kind of money that U.S. media entities have managed to extract from foreign exposure, but the Beeb's influence is arguably second to none.
Dyke's remarks come just as the BBC's own funding comes up for scrutiny -- and as it strives to make more money from its commercial efforts abroad. The consultation on the Beeb's 10-year charter kicks off soon and will trundle on for a couple of years; in addition, the rise of subscription services has raised the question of whether a compulsory license fee makes sense in a multichoice world.
It also comes as a new British law potentially opens up commercial net ITV to non-EU (i.e., American) majority ownership. A lot of Brits are nervous about this eventuality, even as the Hollywood players seem oddly uninterested in the idea.
Dyke's spirited defense of the Beeb is two-pronged.
On the one hand, he contends Britain spends more per head on its own original programming than even America does, some $75 per person vs. the U.S.' $65.
("Original," dare I say, is not necessarily synonymous with "good," however.)
Were the Beeb not around to reflect the values and uphold "fundamentally British" standards, Dyke continues, media cost-cutting would be rampant and "we'd be importing more rather than producing our own shows."
(It's hard to imagine though those feisty Brit producers just laying down their cameras and vegging out in front of second-string Yank material.)
About another issue, Dyke has a stronger point.
He maintains the BBC, despite being government "backed," fiercely guards its independence: Witness the recent ruckus with the Blair government over Iraq.
By contrast, he suggests, American broadcasters, ever more consolidated and apparently ever more beholden to Washington, largely "toed the line" when it came to Iraqi war coverage.
Of the 840 experts queried on U.S. TV during the war, only four were openly opposed to the conflict, Dyke says, citing a recent survey.
"I sense that concern is growing over how consolidation is impacting unbiased new coverage in the States," he says.
(He's right, there is unease and there is polarization Stateside: The left thinks the right is taking over the media; the right thinks the left is still too firmly entrenched.)
Dyke's comments were not the only ones that suggest the gulf between the American way and nearly everybody else's has widened of late.
Even Bob Costas, who breezily emceed the Intl. Emmy awards ceremony Nov. 24, read out the long list of countries in attendance, only to quip that three or four might even be American allies.
As for the foreign shows that won or were nommed for Intl. Emmys, they looked to be of high standard. The winners enthused onstage as if they had copped an Oscar.
Hollywood is right about one thing: There are some fierce local traditions being created, and celebrated, in broadcasting that appear to have resisted being snuffed out by American imperialism.
Dyke, however, is right about another: Rarely do any of these locally made products travel beyond their borders. Other than format deals, pop cultural exchange is still largely a one-way, U.S. to wherever, street.
