What Is Public Service Broadcasting? Why Is It Now Under Attack And Is It Worth Defending?

8/14/2019 What Is Public Service Broadcasting? Why Is It Now Under Attack And Is It Worth Defending?

1/4

MC1101 Historical Development Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 1

WHAT SS 'PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING'? WHY IS ST NQIV UNDER ATTACK

AND IS IT WORTH DEFEMO'NR?

'Public service broadcasting' appears to be steeped in notions of a timewarp, authoritarian

control, and a condescending image ofwhat mu.'it interest the public,

"The idea that the BBC is not just a media company, but some sort ofsacred trust has its roots

in historyand halftruth" '."rote N4eg Carter. "It makes the corporation oddlyschizophrenic. It

doesn't want to be crass hut it has to be popular, orit can hardly justifythe fact that everyone

pays forit."1

Ifwe listen to Carter, the opening claims are difficult to dismiss.

The BBC prides itselfon simply remaining 'Auntie,' the everpresent relative, always with a

war story, always a metaphor co'acidentally like her 'B'g Brother,' The Sykes and Crawford

committees ofits early history agreed with T.ord Reith that public service broadcasting should

mean shying from commerce, embracing centralised control, national coverage and high

standards. These ideals came into their own particularly during war time, when information

and media plurality were hard to come by; and it was an important instructional and morale

boosting organ for the government. Today

it plays an assumedimportant role in education

and childrens' broadcasting, but appears to have a slightly different agenda.

Public service broadcasting itselfis concerned with maintaining and instilling these standards,

and claims to take a stand against commercial values. It is there f o r the public, funded by it

and the state. There is a compulsory relationship with the former, arid an uncomfortable one

\vith the latter. Every ten to fifteen years, the BBC's charter comes up for renewal. Defining

the corporation, its remit and its funding, the charterhas said that public service was there "to

educate, inform and entertain." This is said to be at odds with 'independent' media, which pay

attention to what the public want, ratherthan what theyneed.

But what is clear in defining 'public service broadcasting' is tliat there has been a shift from thehighminded to the popular. A symptom not so much of the 'postmodern condition' as of

broadcasters' drive for viewing figures, the distinctions between 'high' and 'low' culture on

television have somewhat diminished; leading to a reappraisal of what 'public service

broadcasting' is actuallyworth "Developing countries will not be spared [in this], despite their

evident need for a kind of television that pays careful attention to the cultural, social,

educational and economic needs of people."2

When the BBC's form ofpublic service broadcasting lost audiences to the more attractive ITV

in the l^Ws^. and the BBC decided to win them back these values seemed to disappear in

favour of more populist programming. It was in this attempt to compete from within an

inherently lioncompetitive organisation ifaat the BBC began to disregard the principles on

which is was founded.'

Today, public service exists in a curious state, somewhere between the commercial television

it decries and the original values it once upheld. Increasingly, public service has turned to

'LCDTV^ television produced in the style of the independents for the 'lowest common

49Bominator.'

It appears to want to somewhat imitate commercial television but exists in a framework which

gives it a special place tliat commands the viewer pay a licence fee even within in a larger

system which allows the viewerto use a variety of other channels and media. The BBCITV

relationship was dubbed a "cosy duopoly^' .but the manner in which public service

broadcasting in Britain defines ift attentions is equallycurious.

I . C ( l v yff


2/4

MC1101 Historical Development Of Mass Communications Part One Coureework: Question 1

And the BBC is now very prominent in commercial cable and satellite programming, mostly

outside of tlie UK. "[The BBC1 can't run adverts on its two UK TV channels, but in otherplaces and other media, it can whore itself to Babylon and back"

1 it seeks to maintain the

brand image ofquality across its range ofnew commercial, worldwide companies.

l ?Not so much tlie original benchmark for moralist programming, as a reaction / o commerce,Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the USA was established in 1967 by a group ofeducational stations. Through the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBSmoved from strictly educational programming, typified by professors at blackboards, to a

wide variety ofofferings, including serious drama, the performing arts. science, public affairs

documentaries, and children's programs.3

y

More than 50 percent of American households tune in to PBS each week to watch such /T^.programs as 'Sesame Street.' Perhaps public service broadcastin", is not under the attackonce ' f , 1

thought. Perhaps audiences, because they cannot find programming of high moral ar.d

educational standards on commercial TV, turn to public service for a particular and special

type ofviewing.

PBS seems to sit, defiant and Canutelike, on the media beach, while the torrents ofcommercial TV wash ashore The BBC, perhaps "because Britaiiriias been without cheap,

diverse networks, swims further outward into ITV's waters, yet expects to withhold itsprivileged status as national broadcaster.

Public service's Reithian ideals are an age apart from today's world, and borne out of a war

time era which assumed tlie public had little choice in what to consume, that tlie nation wanted

to be a whole and that broadcasters have a right to cultural highground.

There are currently a number of factors which may see public service broadcasting comeunder attack.

Public service's new 'general interest' aims may be at odds with. the increasing specialisationand niche market"

1" of tlie new narrowcastin", channel ex"losion. which offers a heightened

degree of usesandgratification. Viewers interested in a particular topic can switch to that

topic's own channel and instantly watch a specialised area ofcoverage, then choose to changeto a new topic when they get bored. Public service broadcasting commands greater attention

and televisual awareness: because it deals in varied programming, and often broadcasts

particular topics at wide intervals. So, a viewer must plan his viewing more carefully andspecificallyto find out when his topic of interest will be given airtime,

Narrowcast companies could not survive as a single specialist channel because, by definition,they appeal to minority audiences. So a single network, like BSkyB, will bring together many

narrowcast channels in one package. A public service broadcaster like the BBC is, then, facedwith tlie prospect of surviving by producing widely varying programmes fora single channel,

while the narrowcasters' parent networks offermore indepth coverage and more airtime to tlie

individual interests, and everyone'chases an industrywide audience depletion. The narrowcastbundles, therefore, could be said to offer a more valuable product than is available frompublic service.

Furthermore, this depletion in audiences is due, in large part, to the wide range of mediathemselves now available. In much tlie same way as tlie press' circulation suffered at thearrival of radio and television, television itself is losing audiences to the worldwide web,


3/4

MC1101 Historical Development Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework:Question 1

Internet, CDROM multimedia, video, cable and interactive services, digital broadcasting, the

muchfabled videoondemand, interactive TV developments, the convergence of all these

media, and new personalised news and entertainment services. Particularly the latter which,

like 'CNN Interactive," is primarily put into practice on the former gives users the ability to

tailor the media content they receive to suit their own requirements. Tills adds considerable

value to the media experience value which public service broadcasting may find difficult to

match.

Customisation of content embraces user choice, and trusts that the audience is allowed and

able to make their own decisions about which type of news or entertainment they receive.

Public service broadcasting is at odds with this system because it is alleged to have a clear,

highminded focus of what tlie audience should be seeing. Therefore, public service

broadcasters will very soon find themselves having to lure audiences from the fragmented,

ernpow'ered media users, back to a style of broadcasting which offers less value and choice.The clioice between 'personalise' and 'patronise' appa^r'; tn lip an nnwinnable situation m\d

one which, if we want a democratic, pluralist media, fhonlil see this interaction and

customisation prevail, because "new media and all sorts ofdigital delights could create a new

kind ofpublicservice broadcasting that includes, ratherthan edifies, the public."1

In a freemarket Western economy, the triumph ofconsumer choice is one whicli usuallywins

over what others think is correct for the masses. With an everincreasing plurality of topics

given coverage, and even theirown channels, perhaps public service broadcasting is not worth

defending particularlywhen much ofthe said moralist programming tliat sought "to educate,

inform and entertain" can be found on specialist channels devoting more airtime to these very

principles Trying to be all tilings to all people seems a lost cause, and may mean public

service broadcasters like tlie BBC end up catering forno group particularlywell.

Also, all broadcasters are facing up to the budgetcutting challenge of moving into digitals

broadcasting. Much of this fledgling subindustry wi.u be dominated and practised by

commercial companies, models and tactics. Forthis, the public service broadcasters who wanta piece of the action, or a slice of the digital multiplex cake, need money to tender a bid

moneywhich theiraudience maynot be prepared to fund, even though 8% ofthe BBC licencefee is going into setting .up a digital service which will initiallyreach only paying subscribers.

4

Tlie Welsh broadcaster, S4C the most highly subsidised broadcaster in the world won the

right to use a multiplex in the forthcoming British digital broadcasting effort5

Yet still it must

cut costs in orderto expand its Welshlanguage content to account forthe increased airtime. It

has vowed to build 'virtual sets' in computers, which, they hope will reduce the cost and time

of programme production.6

All of public service broadcasting will need to go through

similarly harsh costcutting measures, jeopardising their crnent status in their established

media, as well as theirmigration into new ones.

In conclusion, if public sen ice broadcasting is worth defending, then it nust cast aside itsdivided remits. Crucially, it cannot be seen to be offering a similar product to commercial

television, because its viewers will find no justification for paying a licence fee when rival

channels charge nothing, ora smaller fee.

Public service broadcasting will certainly be worth defending if such a time arises when the

majority of methods of accessing the media become subscriptiononly. In a mediaspace in

which every service must be paid for, a rogue force offering free service is essential. But

currently, mere are competitors which are both commercial and free, and there is no reason

public service should be that force.


4/4

MC1101 Historical Development OfMass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 1

Ultimately, tlie reprivatisation of the BBC may free it to be the unified service it once was,

but without the highminded approach to handling its audience. Being allowed to run

advertisements around programming which could certainly support them would attract enough

revenue to continue making the c.!i,'n!ily programming it prides itself on. The BBC has the

ability to produce good content,.isgaidless offrom which direction it is financed.

But producing progranmiea it thinks are of interest to a wide crosssection of viewers will

serve neitherthe viewerncrthe broadcaster particularlywell when narrowcasting is proving so

popular. If public sen,'ice broadcasting is to remain with a small numberofchannels, then it

must blur the divisions between the popular and the Reithian. If it is to be defended, then it

/must be finelyattuned to what the audience ",'cinis, as well as "/hat '.key thinkthey need. This is

the stance adopted i'c facto by personalisation, which inherently places an emphasis on giving

the audience qiiuliiy packages of everything they are looking for. But in a noninteractive

medium like television, public service broadcasters will need to listen to the viewerto discover

what is liked. Then this should be combined with programming with covers what society

thinks is good for i t se l f , to create a coherent ideology.

In those interactive media which do allow the audience to specify their own media content,public service can come into its own, creating a wholly defensible product that could prove the

saviourofthe service philosophy. If the BBC maintains quality in everything it produces, then

there is no reason to feartlie abilityofthe empowered user to choose from this his own media

content on, say, the worldwide web. It would strengthen the image of the organisation as a

comprehensive service you may not want all the news all the time, but you can get it if you

want to. This would level the playing field between the popular and tlie said Reithian ideals,

giving audiences real choice about what they want to consume, but always with gentle pointers

from Auntie as to what she thinks is important. This is trulypublic xen'ice.

"As the range of choices becomes ever larger, people will increasingly choose programmes,

not channels,'"' and there will seer", no justification fora compulsory tax because no media

consumerwill stay loyal to she BBC, public service orany other broadcaster ormedium, and"an end to licencefee funding does not mean an end to public service.'"

Public service can embrace the new media and come out with the hearts of the public it

allegedly serves, but simplyExtern!;''TJ, ('ku'.ce7

in a limited range ofmedia which still rely on

the Auntieknowsbest mentality is not enough in a comiTiercial environment real choice

means the ability to decide which part of the quality service is consumed, and that is entirely

defensible.

ENDNOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Carter, M. (1997) 'Down The Tubes,' in Wired 3.02 UK(1997, Feb), pp5963; Wired UK; London

2. Juneau; P. (Chairman, Wcirid Radio and Teievision Council) (1996), in Raboy, M. (ed) Public Broadcasting for the21st Century, pvii; John Liubery Media/University of Lluon, Beciioidahifc

3. Funk & Wagnalis. (1995), 'Public Broadcasting Service;' Microsoft Encarta 95: Microsoft Corporation/Funk &Wagnaite

4. BBC (1997), The BBC's Digital Service Proposition: AConsultation Document. p16; British BroadcastingCorporation, London

5. S4C (30/06/(997) Press Release: S4C Creates Foundation for Stable industry: S4C Press Office, Cardiff

6. S4C (Summer 1997) Press Release: virtual Sets Put S4C Into Digital Broadcasting: S4C Press Office, Cardiff

7. BBC (1996) Extending Choice In The Digital Age: British Broadcasting Corporation, London

Documents

What Is Public Service Broadcasting? Why Is It Now Under Attack And Is It Worth Defending?