The final principle of Public Service Broadcasting is that it should recognise the value of the national view. The public sphere is an arena for social interaction and public debate. Broadcasting is powerful in promoting social unity through its coverage of national events such as royal occasions, sporting events and the news. “As a national service, broadcasting might bring together all classes of the population.” (Scannell 1990, p.14) Broadcasting creates the social cement for a national identity.
But how is National Identity defined? Before this can be answered, the definition of Government and state, and their relationship with the media and broadcasting needs to be considered. There is a clear distinction between the state and government. Government is the executive body which passes laws, while the state administers affairs. The state can be seen as part of a class structure similar to the superstructure in the classic Marxist model of theory. This model considers capitalist society in which the population is divided into class according to the criteria of wealth and occupation. In this model, individuals have no power or influence on the state. The state holds the power of the judiciary, the church and the military. In today’s society this model still applies, although we now consider the media to be the fourth estate, which maintains the capitalist state in power. Therefore the state can be seen as self sustaining, separate from society and therefore not directly accountable to it. This model can be applied to Public Service Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Producers are seen as the elite upper class, with a degree of self government, and therefore independent from the state, however they still have to work within guidelines and a public charter.
Since the inception of Public Service Broadcasting, there have been several models for the state and these are linked closely to theories of the media, and these must be examined when considering the role of the state in broadcasting. During the early 1920’s amidst post war concerns, Public Service Broadcasting followed an authoritarian model. The state believed that broadcasting had the potential to have immense power over the public and society, and therefore it should be controlled by the state. “The operation of so important a national service ought not to be allowed to become an unrestricted commercial monopoly.” (Scannell 1990 p.12). However, following a report made by the very first broadcasting committee in 1923, broadcasting became a public utility guided by public interest. In spite of this, broadcasters were still heavily answerable to the state, and rather than producing programmes which followed public interests, the state wanted to lead the way. “He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often creating a fictitious demand for lower standards which he himself will then satisfy”. (Reith 1925: 3).The 1977 Annan Report marked a change in Public Service Broadcasting as it began to move towards libertarianism and “the new right theory of the state”. The Annan report called for “a free market place in which balance could be achieved through the multiplicity of voices”. (Seaton 1991, p.296). It followed Adam Smith’s theory of rejecting regulation, except to ensure an open market. It gives the individual the opportunity to express their opinions; everyone should be catered for, rather than broadcasting trying to offer moral leadership. This concept was key to the broadcasting act of 1990. However, it did raise some issues over rationalisation, and whether humans can truly judge what is best for them. Therefore, there was a shift towards the Neo Pluralist Conception of the state; an acceptance of capitalism, and the suggestion that because society is so complex it needs governing. The BBC is a good example of this, as on the Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport website: The broadcasters have a certain amount of independence, however, “Within the framework provided by the Charter and Agreement, the BBC Governors are responsible for ensuring that the BBC meets all its statutory and other obligations.” The Governors are elected by parliament, and the Secretary of State the power to “approve and review the operation of new licence-fee funded public services”. (2004) This model supports the social responsibility theory, the media has an obligation to society, and the government regulates them to ensure that they are acting responsibly. Therefore the state intervenes to a certain extent to ensure that society’s expectations are being fulfilled, and “broadcasters operate in the public interest and are responsive to public opinion”. (Seaton, 1991, p301).
Having considered the role of the state in public service broadcasting, it is necessary to reflect on the distinction between Nation and the State. One way of defining nationalism is the groups that people divide themselves into, for example, a cultural or ethnic group. Each nation should have its own state, i.e. although England is part of the United Kingdom, it has its own set of values such as a flag and football team for example, that creates an English state. Therefore it is apparent that Nation and State are not the same. National Identity is about defining groups by similarities such as accents or languages. In his book “National Identity”, A. Smith proposes that national identity is defined by ethnicity, “an ethnic group is a type of cultural collectivity, one that emphasises the role of myths of descent and historical memories, and is recognised by cultural differences like religion, customs, language or institutions.” (1991 p20) He goes further to list six attributes of ethnic community; a collective name, a myth of common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more differentiating elements of common culture, an association with a specific homeland and a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population. Therefore the Public Service Broadcast’s role of reflecting National identity consists of trying to create a national identity for Britain – a sense of what Britain stands for. In “Understanding Television” Scannell summarises how broadcasters achieve this through the variety of programmes they produce. “The idea of a national culture was given new expression in broadcasting through those kinds of programmes that had the effect of making the nation as one man.” (1990 p.23) In particular, programmes such as royal occasions and sports coverage promote a sense of national pride and unity, although they are not the only examples. Series about the police or government such as “The Bill”, “Spooks” or even “My dad’s the Prime Minister” all promote national identity. They create a sense of what Britain is, by emphasising the roles of institution within Britain. However, they also create a sense of national unity on two levels. Firstly the significance of locality and regional sense of identity. In the case of “Spooks” in particular, people who live in / around or have been to London will recognise a lot of the locations and be able to relate to the programme. This will create a connection between and bring together people who have shared the same experiences or have the same accents etc. Secondly, even if a person cannot relate to the regional sense of identity of a programme, they will be able to share a national unity, people pulling together for the nation’s best interests. In the same way historical programmes such as “Black Adder” promote national identity and unity through the portrayal of history. People are brought together because of a shared history, even if it’s not in their lifetime. The reflection of national identity is important within broadcasting, because not only does it unite Britain and promote a sense of pride in our country, but it also reveals who we are, how we fit into social structures, and reinforces national values. “Any nation is a patchwork of localities and regions, but it is also a nation, heterogeneous and homogeneous to a remarkable degree at one and the same time.” (Tracey, 1998 p.29)
However, Public Service Broadcastings role of reflecting national identity suffers from drawbacks. J. Hartley argues that the term nation is often used to mean nation state – “a sovereign state with its own government, boundaries, defence forces, etc.” (1994 p.196) In today’s society, most nations i.e. countries are multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural to a certain extent. Nation State is considered in terms of political sovereignty. The United Kingdom and The European Union is an example of this. Most Britain’s feel a sense of unity for the country they live in, i.e., England, Ireland Scotland or Wales, and a national identity of being British. Not many people consider having a national identity of being European. However, United Kingdom does share a unity with Europe through the EU, EEC and political sphere. In fact, the European courts ultimately have supremacy over British courts. The IBA act of 1973 outlined that the majority of programmes shown should not be made outside of Britain, and therefore no more than 14 percent of commercial programmes could be foreign. The Broadcasting Act of 1981 redefined the term “foreign”, to “apply to countries outside the EEC”. (Seaton 1991 p327). Therefore it becomes nearly impossible to define nation. Instead, Hartley suggests the idea of Imagined communities, the idea that the word nation refers to a symbolic referent, which is reinforced by the media. People imagine participation in a nation, because they cannot know everyone in that nation; however it is a “community” because “everyone has complete confidence in the simultaneous co-existence of all the others”.
The creation of a national identity gives rise to nationalism and issues regarding identity and representation. The term Nationalism refers to “an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity on behalf of a population deemed to constitute an actual or potential nation.” (Smith, 1991, p.72) It’s the social and political movements for maintaining nations and nation states. However, although nationalism can be seen as a positive aspect in maintaining national identity, some definitions of the term are contradictory. Historically, fascist and racist groups have formed under the banner of nationalism. In today’s society The British Nationalist party’s key beliefs have foundations in racism, their policies look to form a nation of true British people. On their website, the British Nationalist Party’s mission statement is to “exist to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia. We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age.” (2004).
Another complication the Public Service Broadcast faces in its role of reflecting national identity is that in its desire to promote unity, it fails to fully address the needs of the minority audiences. Whilst the introduction of channel 4 aimed to “develop a service that catered for all those interests presently underrepresented or excluded in the output of the BBC and ITV” (Scannell, 1990, p.20), one only needs to look at the scheduling of programmes to realise that, what is considered to be “prime time” television viewing consists of entertainment programmes and soaps such as “Hollyoaks” and “Big Brother”. Although these programmes don’t receive as large viewing figures as programmes broadcast by the BBC, or ITV, they still cater for majority audiences. It appears that the Reithian concept of broadcasting programmes, which “inform, educate and entertain” no longer seems so important. Whilst broadcasters do produce programmes for minority groups or the disadvantaged, they are often shown at inconvenient times such as very late at night. If the Public Service Broadcast seeks to provide a universality of appeal and cater for minority voices, then surely some minority programmes such as arts programmes etc, should be shown in prime time slots?
It has also been questioned as to whose interests Public Service Broadcasting aims to fulfil? Who decides the definition of national identity? Scannell illustrates this by suggesting that if royal occasions promote national unity, then what about moments of crisis? Whose interests do the broadcasters serve, the nation or the state? “Governments claim the right to define the national interest and expect the broadcasters, particularly in a crisis, to uphold their definition of it.” (1990 p24) It can then be argued that public service broadcasting does not entirely reflect national identity, but portrays governments notion of what the nation should deem important. Therefore this raises questions about how much control the state actually has over public service broadcasting.
Finally, through the introduction of services such as digital and satellite television, “it becomes clear that the sets of principles through which the idea of public service broadcasting was articulated have a precarious social, political, economic and cultural anchorage.” (Tracey, 1998, p.33) Digital broadcasting opens up an enormous variety of channels to viewers, including international channels which are subject to minimum regulation. These developments make the Public Service Broadcasts notion of national television less credible, because audiences have now become fragmented, “satellite will accelerate the decline in audiences for existing networks: more viewing opportunities will mean fewer viewing hours”. (Seaton 1991, p.240) Consequently, a decline in viewing figures restricts programme commissioning, as outlined by the White Paper in the 1990’s; one hour of commissioned programming could cost up to £20,000. In comparison, an hour of American television could be bought for £2,000. Inevitably, the mass public and government have been calling for a review of the television license. Digital Broadcasting enables viewers to pay for just the channels they wish to watch, including the BBC and ITV. Therefore why should an additional payment be made in the form of the licensing fee, particularly if people choose not to watch the BBC?
In conclusion, it seems inevitable that public service broadcasting will eventually cease to exist. The license fee will be abolished and replaced with some other form of funding such as through advertising revenue. This will lead to a rise in competition for viewing figures and funding. Good quality programmes will cease to be commissioned as cheaper programmes are imported by digital channels. Whilst people may believe that a wider range of channels means a freedom of choice for the viewer, without doubt, with a lack of regulation to maintain programmes of an informative and educative nature, “the new stations will naturally turn, like their American counterparts, to the common denominator of pop, chat, soap and sport.” (Seaton, 1991, p241). The lack of British programmes, defining what Britain stands for will eventually indicate the demise of a national identity.
Bibliography
BBC, The (2004) About the BBC: Purpose and Values [online] Available from: Accessed 24th November 2004
British National Party (2004) BNP Mission Statement, [online] Available from: Accessed 12th December 2004
Department for Media, Culture and Sport (2004) BBC and Other Public Service Broadcasting, [online] Available from:
Accessed 3rd December 2004
Hartley, J et al, (1994) Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies, 2nd Ed. London: Routledge
Reith, J, “Memorandum of information on the scope and conduct of the Broadcasting Service” in Goodwin, A and Whannel G, (1990) Understanding Television, London: Routledge
Scannell, P, “Public Service Broadcasting: the history of a concept” in Goodwin, A and Whannel G, (1990) Understanding Television, London: Routledge
Seaton, J (1991) Power Without Responsibility, 4th Ed. London: Routledge
Smith, A (1991) National Identity, St. Ives: Penguin Books
Tracey, M (1998) The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting, New York: Oxford University Press
