Telling internet platforms where to stick public service media will serve nobody. Turn it on its head

OPINION Microsoft is making massive progress in quantum computing, says Microsoft. Oh no they're not, say researchers. Anthropic's frontier models are too powerful for general use, says the US government. No, it's just Anthropic being punished for not doing what the US government tells them, say critics. Humans-in-the-loop are a pain-in-the-neck, says Amazon exec. Go do one, says this human. Three tech news stories from last week, six interpretations. You can probably decide between Microsoft PR and a peer-reviewed paper in Nature. Likewise, whether vindictiveness or virtue is at work with Anthropic. Amazon or a Reg hack? Harder to call. In all these cases, as in all cases, prior knowledge is the best context in which to judge media reports. Most citizens don't know much about most news, an eternal truth that is causing the UK government to fret about the future of public service broadcasting - or as it has become, public service media (PSM). With fewer people, especially that dread tribe, Young People, watching the wholesome fare of highly regulated broadcasters but feeding instead on firehoses of algo-spew, public service media risks suffocating on insignificance. That's a reasonable fear, if you feel that public service media deserves to be heard. It is a complicated argument where great forces have clashed since the birth of broadcasting, but if you know that the rhetoric of "fake news" has an antecedent in the German slur "Lugenpresse," you'll know the answer is yes, and yes, with a side order of yes. Vivat Reith. Having identified the problem, the brains of Britgov propose exactly the wrong solution. Get the algorithms that drive content consumption on social media to rank the quality PSM product higher. All those lost eyeballs will be brought back into the fold. This won't work for reasons both obvious and subtle. Forcing a quota of state-mandated media into the stream, even with the best of intentions, is a hostage to fortune. It's probably unenforceable, will be deeply unpopular with users and companies alike, and will poison PSM across the board. It also amplifies two falsehoods about PSM: that it's about news, and that it's about numbers. Both are important, but neither is anywhere near enough to argue for PSM's right to life. One of PSM's primary roles is to provide content that isn't commercially viable or is otherwise invisible. That reflects culture, art, science, all the human stuff that enriches life. It's where new ideas and new people come from, and some of those will become box-office hits. Putting numbers first, as parts of the BBC are moving toward, kills diversity and gives the commercial sector the killer argument that PSM is just unfair competition. PSM has always had the tension between being popular enough to matter to lots of people and broad enough to do the things that only it can do, but it does need both. That has been very expensive, but arguably worth it. High-quality news is one pillar of that, but only one. The one thing that keeps PSM alive is the editorial process, the decision-making that understands the purpose, constituent parts, and audiences, and applies that equation to the resources available. Those resources have changed, but they haven't gone away. What's needed now isn't a public service tweak to secret commercial algorithms, but a public service algorithm with humans in the loop, amplifying the good stuff on the platforms by driving traffic through exposure. How to design channels that do that and are compatible with the platforms themselves is an interesting challenge begging to be explored. However realized, it would be entirely compatible with providing natively sourced news, entertainment, sport, and everything else that keeps a brand current. It adapts seamlessly to multiple platforms, all of which have PSM-worthy content in quantity, if you filter out the toxins. It's a model that scales up and down, provided only that there are sufficient motivated and trained editorial staff who know who they're serving and why. There have to be ethical standards, transparency, training and support, and just the right level of management. That would turn the threat of the new media environment into a huge promise, all the techniques of distributed, diverse digital content from adversary to amplification. Public service broadcasting, at least in the UK, has been moving in this direction for decades, in the name of efficiency, outsourcing more and more programming to independent production companies - usually staffed by ex-BBC employees. You can't move very far in TV, radio, film, or digital media in the UK without tripping over ex-BBC bodies. That's another role of PSM, creating a huge pool of talent that irrigates an entire economic sector. A PSM strategy that encourages content creators to align with production and editorial standards would have invigorating effects in the new landscape. Public service media deserves to survive and thrive in an attention economy driven by so many forces designed to exploit rather than enlighten the public. Done well, it gives voice to the voiceless, describes a nation to itself, and sets standards that inspire trust and quench cynicism. All of this is there to be had, even today, even in the future. We just need to keep the right humans in the loop. Sorry, Amazon. (R)