‘Fortress Europe’ of the Airways : Television: The European Community comes up with a shortsighted, political attempt to “protect” European TV viewers.

The television blockbuster of the decade may have just taken over the airwaves of Europe. It’s called “Europe 1992” and it stars the European Parliament, which voted last week in favor of a morass of restrictions and quotas that are blatantly directed at shutting out the American television and advertising industries.

Europe is in the midst of establishing a unified market by the end of 1992. Essential to achieving this goal within the 12 European Community nations is the reduction, and where possible the elimination, of barriers to the movement of people, goods, currency, services and information. Throughout this process, European Community representatives have gone to great lengths to assure Americans they have no intention of creating a “fortress Europe.”

The forerunner of the European Community’s directive, the Council of Europe’s draft Convention on Transfrontier Television, starts out by affirming the “commitment to the principles of the free flow of information and ideas and the independence of broadcasters.”

Thus it is a real shock to suddenly find oneself wading through a quagmire of restrictions and European-content requirements that are a shortsighted and highly political attempt to “protect,” as well as subsidize, European culture at the expense of the European viewer.

In practical terms, the restrictions adopted by the European Community will do little to preserve culture, but may do a lot toward limiting the creative and economic ingredients that make culture so vibrant in the electronic age.

With a doubling in the amount of air time in the last six years, and more than 100 European TV stations projected to come on air in the next five years, this directive will seriously disadvantage the newcomers. With privatization still a relatively new phenomenon in Europe, it is especially important that these new non-governmental stations have the flexibility to provide broad appeal and affordable programming--which American productions and co-productions can offer--if they are to survive without digging deeply into the European taxpayers’ pockets or supporting a lot of dead air.

There is also clearly a need to generate new advertising revenues to finance these new TV offerings. Unfortunately, the directive will reduce, not enhance, Europe’s ability to break new ground in programming. For example, the prohibition against any commercial sponsorship of news and public-affairs programs will severely disadvantage a vital, but costly, dimension of television programming. Not only does it unsubtly target current American news and public-affairs programs, which are gaining popularity in Europe, it will also undercut the economic attractiveness for Europeans to produce their own diverse programming on public affairs. Indeed, European production money is already going into series such as “Euro-Cop”--a blatant clone of a current American series. What kind of cultural protection is that?

Culture has an important social value. The recent American jitters about Sony’s purchase of Columbia Pictures brings home the concept to our own shores. But European cultures won’t be preserved by trying to restrict exposure to non-European cultures, especially when the restrictions target the origin of the programs and not their cultural merit or social acceptability.

Ironically, American shows with wide audience appeal such as “Dallas” and “Dynasty,” to which some Europeans most object, will still be shown in Europe. The real victims will be the more diverse, special audience programs, such as “National Geographic,” “Live From Lincoln Center,” “Sesame Street” and other programs that show different dimensions of American and global culture.

And, lest anyone be lulled into thinking that these European Community restrictions will remain toothless political rhetoric, they might see how the French have already implemented their own prototype broadcast restrictions. Until recently, newly privatized French broadcasters were able to ignore the quotas in their quest for new and diverse programs. This summer, however, the reality of quotas hit when the French government’s Higher Audiovisual Committee announced that it would fine broadcasters $10,000 for each hour of “non-European” programming they air beyond the quota.

The air is already heavy with political static over U.S. trade relations with Europe. U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills and other top Bush Administration officials made it known this summer that the proposed broadcast directives had serious trade implications.

Ultimately, it will be in the hands of the European audience to decide whether it wants the European community to erect trade barriers in European living rooms. But in the coming months, the American television and advertising industries must do a better job of laying out the case for free trade in practical terms. If they do, time, technology and the European viewers will be on our side.