As far as PR disasters go, they don’t come much worse than this.
STV’s proposals to scrap the separate news service for the north of Scotland have attracted huge criticism and little or no support.
The leaders of all 5 main political parties in Scotland signed a letter condemning the proposals.
Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, perhaps unsurprisingly, is campaigning vigorously on the issue.
And STV’s senior management faced hostile questioning at a Scottish parliament committee.
Ironically it seems to be the two broadcasting unions which are taking a slightly more nuanced approach.
The NUJ and BECTU are both strongly opposed to the proposals and fighting for their members’ jobs. If compulsory redundancies start to look likely, this could become an industrial dispute. The proposed editorial changes have been branded cultural vandalism by them.
But they also recognise the challenges facing the TV industry.
Their concern seems to be that the company is simply intent on making massive cuts, perhaps in direct response to its immediate financial problems and share price, rather than an insistence that the current format of the STV News remains fixed in stone.
If it were not for the immediacy of the situation, that would be an important issue to consider carefully.
There is no doubt that Grampian’s legacy endures around the north east of Scotland.
That explains the passion of opponents. It is also a credit to the current staff and their predecessors.
But what sort of news service should be provided by STV?
Should it provide a national service like BBC Scotland?
Should it provide regional news programmes for distinct parts of Scotland with some Scottish national news included too?
The actual boundary between STV’s two areas reflects the transmitter coverage areas.
Do viewers in the Western Isles want a local story from Stonehaven?
Do viewers in Perth – practically in the Edinburgh commuter zone – want to hear about Shetland?
It’s not a straightforward question. This is an issue that needs proper examination.
I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for Ofcom. It will be under intense political pressure in Scotland over STV’s proposals.
It will need to decide whether to accept or reject the plan. But it will also be mindful of financial realities.
In short, it only has a limited scope to impose loss-making legal obligations on STV. The value of a Channel 3 licence is not what it was.
My guess is a compromise.
Some form of sub-opt will stay. Perhaps 10 minutes dedicated to the Central and North areas within the 6pm programme and dedicated bulletins at 10.30pm.
The examples elsewhere appear to suggest that Ofcom would have no issue with production and presentation in Glasgow.
Nobody would pretend that the north of scotland will get a better local service as a result. But is it the best that can realistically be afforded?
How might STV (which made a loss and is barely worth £50m) react if Ofcom throws out its plans completely?
Hopefully Ofcom’s public consultation will allow all these arguments to be voiced and explored.
The unions seem able to distinguish between their members’ jobs, their concern for good journalism and simply holding on to keeping things the way they were for the sake of doing so.
It is important to have an informed debate where the choice is not simply between the end of Grampian and no change at all.
Can politicians and others whose concern is primarily for the good of the north of Scotland – but who may know little of the realities of commercial television – rise to the challenge of that debate?
Acknowledgements
FEATURE IMAGE:
PICTURED: STV News opening titles. COPYRIGHT: STV Group.
Related