Dekker wanted in announcing his plans exiled pure entertainment of the public broadcaster, limit the power of the broadcasters and make the broadcasting system future-proof.
At the end of the ride turn the wishes of the Secretary of State to have been too ambitious. Entertainment does not disappear and broadcasters remain a firm finger in holding the porridge.
In an interview with NU.nl Dekker looks back on his plans, the role of broadcasters and the future of public broadcasting.
André van Duin’s next season The Great British Bake Off present. On public broadcasting. Your law, which you announced that shelf entertainment was banned from public broadcasting, could do nothing against it, and there will also be able to do anything about it. There is actually nothing has changed.
“First, I am a great fan of André van Duin, I am also very curious how he will do it. But this law does not address individual programs. “
” What the law does do is reinforce the core functions of public service broadcasting and restrict the batters information, culture and education. Where entertainment, which now belongs to the core of public service broadcasting in the future will be employed only by the three aforementioned points. “
” There are different views about this law. Some call that is being demolished Hilversum with this law and others recall that this law will not change anything. And both are wrong. If you look at the facts, I think this is a neat law. “
When the viewer is there anything of note?
“we have to be very realistic about this. the programs for this season and for next season are as good as bought, but I believe that in the longer term it is very good that in Hilversum is critical thinking. “
But pure entertainment so will not disappear from public broadcasting.
“Now is the command that we give to the public broadcasters very broad. That gives absolutely no direction. This bill tightens what to.”
“I do not find it strange that, when you put 600 million euros of taxpayers’ money in the public service every year, you think about what you want to accomplish as a team. “
announcing your plans at nota bene the ship of the pirate radio station Veronica, took you right programs like Banana Split and Ranking the Stars as examples of programs that would disappear.
“That’s not entirely true.”
You said: I do not think that tax money go must
“No, if I remember well, I asked the question. You can you wonder why these programs are created with tax money that’s a question that I agree with 100 percent sympathize, because precisely the issue on the table:. why we do certain things with public money “
? “the core of the law still stands. the key tasks to be tightened, producers outside the system can now directly to the NPO turn with ideas for programs and NPO gets a firmer and a more controlling role.”
“at the same time we must continue to lead the discussion about public broadcasting and continue to ask the question: what are the programs that we want to do with taxpayers’ money”
You are asking this question and there made a law. Again, what is the viewer than brand?
“I’m not going to re-do statements about programs.”
You have done that yourself in the presentation of your plans.
“I am then very deliberately chose not to stay vaguely linger and turn it sharper. This is a lot of people and people have know what the discussion is about. “
” But it is nonsense that we are going to determine how the programs will look like from the Hague. ”
You can not confirm that programs such as Banana Split will not see in the future. But the opportunities for external producers to make programs as you want, limited by the Court. These producers must now work together yet with the broadcasters.
“The sharp edges are indeed the law down. But no party can carry out its election one on one. We live in a country where you and the parties have to look for majorities. “
” But when I look at these important parts, I have the impression that they are still good. the external producers previously had to pass the broadcasters. Later she can report to the NPOs. it will lay down the broadcast flag external producer can make his program. And if the producer can at NTR’s program. “
is the resistance in Senate you disappointing?
“I see that the debate in the Senate lasted longer and was more intense than in the House.”
Do you feel there on misjudged?
“There are some fundamental aspects to the bill which I think it is logical that the Senate there longer at a standstill.”
especially has put bad blood your own performance. Namely the appointment of party members in the top of the NPO.
“The debate is indeed in the light stand of the appointment of the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the NPO. But in my view totally unjustified, because the appointment is neat expired. “
But you know that kind of things are politicized
Smiling:.” I see that the discussions about changes in the Media Act always much interest concerns. ”
I taste you find that the Senate has gone beyond the historically defined mandate?
“No, it is a finding of fact that in the Senate longer when it is stopped. In the Lower House was completed the plenary in a day.”
the Senate still requires changes to the law, so the law will soon come back again in the House. Do you expect any problems there?
“The Chamber will take a critical look. There will be a supplement on appointments at the NPO. The distance to the policy must be greater if the NPO is mightier . I think I can follow. “
” the other point is the clarification of the role of broadcasting and the NPO. the fear was that the NPO can dictate who a program like Peacock should present that is absolutely not the intention, so we’re going to capture more clearly in the law “
But the room they think:.. there you have Dekker again with its Media Act .
“This is the room used to it. it does not happen with every law, but it happens that the Senate says that there are things to be adjusted.”
What did you think of the campaign by Jan Slagter of Broadcasting Max, who used advertising to attack you personally? You would demolish public broadcasting.
“You have to take a beating can in this profession. I think mine of. I also completely disagree with Mr Slagter. But we live in a free country. I had myself done differently. You can spend the money only once. He can also make nice programs with the money for these commercials. ”
You are satisfied with the law, but also the chairman of the Senate was not happy with how the law tries to push.
” I agree with the chairman agreed that it should not set a precedent, but it is not as if this has never happened before. Some parts go a little later so we have time to process those additional measures. “
Do you think the process the most elegant
“When a law is never any beauty Donner (former minister, ed.) said earlier?.: “Laws are like sausages: you can not know better how they are made” “
we just want it
.” Ultimately it. for how tastes the worst. I do not find it strange that in a political process here and there makes a concession. But the core must remain intact. and that’s the case, I think. “
And what do you rate this sausage
“A large enough.”
No comments:
Post a Comment