Saturday, 26 December 2015

Open Public Broadcasting Services: The Good, Bad, and Ugly of a Public Funding Discussion

OVERVIEW
A recent article published in the Sunday Sydney News, titled 'Dreadful and appalling': Government senator slams idea of ABC paywall, serves as a backdrop for a broader discussion about the potential of open public broadcasting services (OPB). An argument is developed in which OPB better serves the public than do the knowledge restriction schemes that are discussed in the article. Well-funded public broadcasting coupled with bipartisan public leadership is needed for a public-minded conversation leading to progressive public policy concerning public funding of public broadcasting. The problems and opportunities that are described are shared by many publicly funded knowledge creation and dissemination organisations harbouring public good values and missions. Perhaps the problem described for public broadcasting serves as an invitation for a broad and robust program of discussion and action among public broadcasters, universities, libraries, and other sympathetic organisations.

BACKGROUND

Used under the doctrine of Fair Use
Australian Broadcast Corporation
 Used under the doctrine of Fair Use
Every once in a while I read a story that presses a lot of buttons. A few nights ago I came upon a newspaper article, by Latika Bourke, courtesy of the Sunday Sydney News, titled 'Dreadful and appalling': Government senator slams idea of ABC paywall. It is a very short article and is probably worth reading for a few reasons. Practically, it touches on an ongoing debate that has been occurring in many countries for a number of decades. It is principally about the role of public broadcasting and the nature of its funding, with a hint of rhetorical conservative political partisanship.

The earliest recollections that I have of the public broadcasting debate in the US extend to the Reagan era in the 1980s. Not surprisingly, due in part to half a century of reiterative and self-referential neoliberal political follow-the-leader, the tone and the script has remained intact across the decades and the continents. Here in Australia the conversation about public broadcasting, particularly public television, was (re)activated and brought to public pitch as Tony Abbott’s conservative Liberal National Party (LNP) government swept into office in 2013. I know that the debate was active before then and it remains so under the political influences and civic vision of the Abbott-free LNP.

I have chosen to read and interpret the “Dreadful and Appalling” article as a broader commentary about the nature of publicly funded culture creation, public good, and commercial affairs. There are four main characters in the article including:

  • Michelle Guthrie: former Google executive who has been recently appointed as Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Guthrie identifies three approaches to managing ABC programming and content. They include erecting paywalls, increasing commercial advertising, and committing to digital first distribution.
  • Fiona Nash: National Party Deputy Leader serving in the Australian Senate for the state of New South Wales, former Assistant Minister for Health in the Abbott Government and currently serving as the Minister for Rural Health under the Turnbull Government. Nash criticises Guthrie's proposal to erect paywalls, providing a public good argument.
  • Julie Flynn: Chief Executive Officer of FreeTV Australia and longtime political journalist and media executive. Flynn criticises Guthrie's proposal to increase commercial advertising, providing a commercial protectionist argument.
  • Peter Costello: Currently Chairman of ECG Financial Pty Ltd, which is a boutique corporate advisory firm. Costello is formally a perennial Member of the Australian House of Representatives representing the Liberal Party of Australia for nearly 20 years starting in 1990 and Treasurer in the Howard Government for more than a decade starting in 1996. Costello criticises Guthrie's proposal to pursue a digital first approach to program and content distribution, providing a confusing and apparently nonsensical argument.


The criticisms reflect the good, bad, and ugly of thinking on the topic of publicly funded knowledge. Within the context of the “Dreadful and Appalling” article, each of these individuals, Nash, Flynn, and Costello, reflects a position on funding public knowledge. I do not know if the positions presented in the article are fair, typical, or consistent with the views that they have previously expressed. I do not know if those views conflict with other things that they have said or represented elsewhere. I do not know of any ulterior motives latent in their statements that may or may not exist. But I do see examples of good, bad, and ugly thinking.


THE PROBLEM

Apparently as part of a plan to manage the estimated 36 billion dollar hole in the 2016 Australian national budget, it is assumed that the ABC will be facing significant decreases in public funding during the coming 5 years. Guthrie, speaking in her new role as ABC Manager has indicates that she wants to

  1. erect pay walls around content to raise additional revenue,
  2. increase levels of commercial advertising at the ABC, and
  3. aggressively pursue a digital first strategy for the ABC.

Nash's, Flynn's, and Costello's objectives leave room for a different approach to thinking about the value of publicly funded knowledge that should at least appease Nash and Flynn. Part of rationale that Guthrie has adopted is that she needs to exercise initiatives that make-up the difference in forthcoming public funding and needed expenditure for the ABC to fulfil its mission.

None of Guthrie's recommendations should be particularly surprising given her background at Google. Online would seem petty natural, as would commercial advertising, and surly she would have had plenty of exposure to costumers using pay walls for limiting access to content. The interesting part of the “Dreadful and Appalling” article is the responses that these recommendations received.

The Good…
Minister Fiona Nash, responded rather negatively to Guthrie’s first proposal. As a public servant with an eye turned toward probity and the common-sense use of public funding, she objected to charging the public for assets that they had already paid for through their taxes and transferred through government allocations made to the ABC. Nash's response Guthrie's plan to erect paywalls is that
It's a dreadful idea, Australians have already paid for the ABC once why should they pay for it again?... That regional people could miss out on regional content because they would forced to pay for it is appalling." - Fiona Nash

Once again, this righteous and common-sense position might actually engender a little faith, even among the most cynical observers, in the spirit of public mindedness among some politicians. That is, so long as the progressive attitudes of those politicians extend to a commitment for appropriate funding levels for public broadcasting.

Assuming the best intent on the part of our elected representatives of the public good, I would though suggest that in addition to not intentionally limiting access to publicly funded programming we actually advocate for increasing creation and access. Along these lines, why not make publicly funded programming and content open, reducing legal as well as practical barriers to use and distribution? After all, public is public, and if the public is underwriting the expense to create and distribute the ABC content and programming, why not maximise its value to the public directly? The whole cycle makes sense.

  1. The ABC receives public funding through annual appropriations. 
  2. The public benefits from its investment in Open Public Broadcasting services (OPB) though the creativity and expertise applied by the ABC staff and mediated through their professional discretion as servants of the public good, and reflected in their programming, services, and content. 
  3. The programming and content created is then made available openly to the public for unfettered reused, modification, and distribution in the public domain.
  4. The content now in the public domain once again benefits the public, but this time for their direct benefit unmediated through the ABC as a public agency. 
  5. Increase value is created through open public use, including the potential for entrepreneurial activities generating tax revenues.

With appropriate licensing, something like under something like  CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and appropriate distribution channels, perhaps something like the Internet, the value generated could be maintained for many cycles.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the idea of OPB would require more “public mindedness,” and perhaps courage than has been generally exhibited among elected servants of the public good. Australian politics are as partisan as those in the US, and a truly open Public Broadcasting Service would require the government, representing the interests of the whole public to fund the OPB at levels that assume little syndication and reselling revenue. While it is true that some traditional revenue streams would be reduced, others may emerge through value-added services if that is appropriate, but it would clearly provide opportunities for others to generate value and potentially taxable revenue on the public investment. At the end of the day though, the argument needs to be about improving quality of life and civic capacity, which is kind of the point of any public service. In short, political budget-makers would need to fund the ABC at levels that allow the ABC to forgo short-term revenue generation schemes like paywalls, in lieu of long-term investment in knowledge for public good. Incidentally, the public good includes providing the openly available content necessary to support commercial and entrepreneurial activities and develop new value creation models based on changing assumptions about intellectual property restrictions on public goods.

The Bad…
Now that we really don’t need paywalls, we can turn to Guthrie’s proposal to increase commercial advertising. My principal concern with this proposal is that as commercial advertising becomes more important to Public Broadcasting we all run the risk of creating full-length commercials masquerading as public or educational broadcasting designed to take advantage of the trusting public. That is, we run the risk of having another commercial culture creation entity posing as producer and curator of public knowledge. That being said, my concerns are obviously misplaced and quite naive, as the principal objection to more commercial advertising that is made in the article, is not at all about protecting public interests. It is about protecting the pecuniary interests of commercial broadcasters, as is clearly articulated by Julie Flynn the CEO and spokesperson of FreeTV Australia, an industry and lobbying group for commercial broadcasters.
"Commercial free-to-air broadcasters invest significantly in local content, and we would oppose any changes to the ABC that would result in metro and regional broadcasters having to compete for advertising dollars with a very generously funded broadcaster," – Flynn

On the upside, if this is the principal opposition to commercial advertising for ABC, then FreeTV, should logically support appropriately funded Open Public Broadcasting. If appropriately funded, ABC would not need to extend beyond traditional sponsorships, commercial broadcasters would not need to compete with ABC for limited advertising dollars, and perhaps profits increase for commercial broadcasters, additional tax revenue is generated, excellent public broadcasting services are provided, and everybody is happy.

So, perhaps Open Public Broadcasting actually addresses a few concerns and forces a non-partisan discussion across multiple interests about public investment, in public knowledge, for the public good.

The Ugly…
Having made paywall restrictions and commercial advertising unnecessary, this leaves us with the last of Guthrie’s proposals; digital first, which is the only proposal that actually creates value for the public. Although digital distribution is part of the ABC Charter, reactionary business interests and politicians whose motives we must take with some healthy scepticism, are still questioning the idea of public broadcasting entering the age of digital creation and distribution. For example, Peter Costello is actually reported to have asked,
Why does the ABC need to be across all this different media? Why does the taxpayer need to fund a competitor in an internet space that is crowded with private operators? … There are so many things that taxpayers are asked to pay for. How high, as a priority, is digital communication and entertainment? - Costello

Wow... Oddly enough, I am left a bit speechless – I think bewildered. I do not think that I have anything to add to Costello’s statements that is not already painfully obvious. They do though call into question if the rest of us need to recalibrate the conversation and our expectations for progressing a meaningful public dialogue that is meant to progress the public good. Is it possible to seriously discuss public policy and the economics of OPB, when public figures are seriously questioning the appropriateness of publicly funded knowledge and culture finding a home on the most broadly accessed and openly available communication system available? Could Costello possibly be articulating a message that public knowledge has no place in the public commons? Is he expressing a latent attitude that the Internet is not a place for the public, but instead should be reserved for private commercial use? Is he suggesting that the Internet is little more than a forum in which commercial interests do competitive battle for market supremacy, as his quotation indicates? Is his vision widely shared and highly regarded?


IN REFLECTION

To be fair, I have not thoroughly researched the nuances of the ABC, or the histories and the long-standing attitudes of Guthrie, Nash, Flynn, or Costello. Perhaps they have been misquoted in the few articles that I have read.

Regardless, it seems clear that some voices are louder and more organised than others. The ABC, like FreeTV, and other organisations have well-established ways of influencing policy. It would be great to see one of these influencers seriously take up the topic of open publicly funded knowledge and put away the idea and odd logic that we need to restrict access to public knowledge to generate revenue to produce more restricted knowledge. Instead we need to articulate our values and goals in ways that reject the cycle of restriction and scarcity and substitute it for one of growth and abundance. I suspect that there are other publicly supported culture and knowledge creation, preservation, and dissemination organisations including libraries and universities that have common interests with public broadcasting. These are organisations, along with museums, galleries, archives, and public theatres that are meant to support vibrant social life and civic capacity. Perhaps together, with and among organisations with common values and exercising a shared voice, the notion of a public open knowledge economy will find fertile ground.





RESOURCES

'Dreadful and appalling': Government senator slams idea of ABC paywall
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/dreadful-and-appalling-government-senator-slams-idea-of-abc-paywall-20151221-glsy86.html#ixzz3v4v9OlQL

MYEFO: Budget deficit increases to $37b as Government releases economic update
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-15/budget-deficit-increased-as-myefo-released/7029472

About The Licenses (including cc-by and cc-by-sa)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
http://www.abc.net.au/

Fiona Nash, Senator Page
http://www.fionanash.com.au/

Peter Costello Page
http://www.petercostello.com.au/

Free TV
http://www.freetv.com.au/




Creative Commons Licence

Open Public Broadcasting Services: The Good, Bad, and Ugly of a Public Funding Discussion by Ken Udas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Friday, 18 December 2015

Fee-Free, Stigma-Free, and Open Education

OVERVIEW:
In a recent commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Kenneth Warren and Samir Sonti made an important point about the stigmatising effect of anything that is made freely available based on personal financial need. They point to the problem of creating a stratified "welfare education" system that will likely undermine the public good value of free college.  In addition to considering the logic of free education, it is also worth considering the benefits of open education, and asking why fee-free college and open education are critically important and not being discussed together as part of the same public policy debate. 


Kenneth W. Warren and Samir Sonti, posted a commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education on December 16, 2015 titled Nobody Should Have to Pay to Go to College. I think that it is worth a quick read (it is a short article) and the main point of the commentary deserves some thought. Reading through the arguments and putting aside the objections to free college, I believe that the central point of the article is that a free college education, like any other investment in a public good ought to be stigma free. The authors express this notion succinctly, pointing out that,
[t]he first step to stigmatizing the idea of the public good is to divide the citizenry into those who need help and those who don’t — a move that only masks certain forms of public assistance (tax breaks) while making other forms (Aid to Families With Dependent Children) markers of irresponsibility.

I am making a point of this, because I think that it is the point of the article, and it seems to be one that is easily missed. Perhaps most commenters on the Chronicle site looked past this point because the objections to free college or university education are a bit incendiary. 
  • The first objection was economic. Free education would be a waste of public funds because the college dropout rate is currently so high.
  • The second objection was also economic. Public funds for free college education should not be available to those who can afford to pay. 
Interestingly the first argument might be construed as supporting the idea that education is a public good, while the second objection is logically an argument that education is a private good. The reasonableness of both objections really needs to be considered alongside an assessment of the aggregate private and public benefits that individuals and society enjoy by participation in and graduation from college. If those aggregated benefits exceed the total costs, then free education is a good public investment regardless of either argument. The idea of free education is best framed in terms of an investment in social progress and personal wellbeing, rather than as an entitlement of citizenship or a reward for previous service. That is not to say that higher education is necessarily the best investment on the long list of important public good investments, although it might be, but it is at least a place to start the public policy discussion. I do not think that we need to assume that the best investment is in 4 year degrees, or elaborate athletic programs, or we need to assume that free education necessarily means open admission to every public college or university. All of these and many other topics need to be rationally discussed as part of the public policy debate.

Free Cooper Union CC BY-SA 3.0
Free Education To All Banner - Free Cooper Union
CC BY-SA 3.0
It seems to me that in any event we ought to be considering how the transaction costs associated with fee-free college can be decreased in order to increase the net public and private benefit. This simple point recognises that fee-free college is not cost free. We are after all talking about the redistribution of income, which is a serious commitment. We all have an obligation to ensure that public funding is spent responsibly and effectively. To Warren’s and Sonti’s point, I would suggest that there are a number of transaction costs associated with stigmatising fee-free college education. First, there are the emotional and social costs associated with stigmatising any group. There is a personal cost of overcoming the stigma of accepting something free that may be considered inferior by some simply because it is free for those who cannot afford it, which might even decreasing its market value artificially. There are also transaction costs for the government, universities, and students. They take the form of regulation, compliance, and enforcement necessary to ensure that only those who qualify for “welfare education” have access. Although costs associated with the oversight of public funds are essential, stigma and related compliance costs are unnecessary and counter productive. They can be easily addressed by adopting the principle that a public college education ought to free to all, because it is good for all - so long as the aggregate benefits are greater than the total costs. Recognising "stigma costs" is a good contribution to the discussion, as they seem to get little meaningful attention or consideration.

I would suggest that a discussion about open education more broadly is worth considering in this context as well. Theoretically using open and free educational resources whenever practicable should reduce the transaction costs of acquiring, sharing and managing educational content. For example, today, if I were to assign Herbert Crowly’s The Promise of American Life for a history or political science course, I could order it from a vendor carrying a distribution from a proprietary publisher and it would cost students about 25 USD per copy. Alternatively, I could refer learners to the Internet Archive and they could download it for no cost as it is in the public domain. To the extent that the cost of books and other learning materials can be reduced, the overall transaction costs for access to education can also be reduced. Likewise, if we believe that university professors provide a benefit to students by designing their courses and providing structure, assigning particular readings, posing thoughtful questions, and making meaningful assignments that help guide learning, why would we not want to make those artefacts freely available to self-directed learners for their benefit? That is, if we do believe that some students are more likely to learn more effectively when engaging in a structured course of study than she or he is without any guidance, then we might realise additional public good coming from reducing the transaction costs to learners who are not registered at a free university, but are engaging in self-study. The costs are reduced for learners and spread across different types of learners, while the benefits are increased by providing access to anything that can help support learning and access generally.

Much of this is not novel. There are many examples of open course content and open curriculum. Much of it is rather vocational in nature, and much if it is not terribly well designed for independent learning, but it is available. We are fortunate to be seriously discussing fee-free education at this time at a national level, in public, with passion, and with urgency. A cursory scan of the 80 plus comments posted on The Chronicle site to Warren and Sonti's commentary illustrates that there are perspectives on the topic and those willing to contribute to the conversation. Everything about this conversation is complex. Topics for example, ranging from education financing, faculty autonomy, academic integrity, credentialism, perspectives on private and public good, measurement of educational impact on society, assumptions about equity and welfare, and the consequences of tax burden, are technically complex, value laden, and emotionally charged. That is, they are not simple conversations and they do require participation from a range of interests.

In the United States, Democratic nominee candidates, Sanders and Clinton both have free-college proposals on the table. It would be wonderful if during the next 24 months free college is assumed and the discussion turns to debate over the details of various plans. For example, we might be exploring the relative benefits of integrating service learning into the curriculum of all public education; the possibilities of promoting citizen science at an international scale to stir interest in STEM and provide open data supporting educational, social, and commercial progress; and the practicalities of making resources funded by the public available to the public. All of these topics have the potential to generate additional public good benefits that are lost when educational access is restricted, framed exclusively as a private good, and closed. It is important that before any proposal is adopted and refined or dismissed and taken off the table it is subject to the type of rigorous and critical debate necessary for the development of well-crafted and thoughtful public policy. One of the arguments for free and open public education is to ensure that as a society we have the civic capacity to engage in this and similar debates.

If we can have a serious and critical discussion at the national level about fee-free college, why can we not have a similarly serious discussion about Open Education for those attending a public university and for those who want to study independently?  Is there an underlying logic that supports not only free college for all, but open access to publicly funded educational resources - as a matter of practical and sound public policy?




RESOURCES


From The Chronicle of Higher Education, By  December 16, 2015.
http://chronicle.com/article/Nobody-Should-Have-to-Pay-to/234612

Internet Archive
The Internet Archive is a non-profit library of millions of free books, movies, software, music, and more.
https://archive.org/index.php




Creative Commons Licence
Fee-Free, Stigma-Free, and Open Education by Ken Udas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.