British Public Service Broadcasting at the Crossroads
British Public Service Broadcasting at the Crossroads
--with Reference to the BBC
Introduction
In recent years, a vital element of democracy - public service broadcasting - has been faced with declining budgets, audience fragmentation and debate over its actual role in a multichannel environment. Even so, 'public service broadcasting' remains a significant aspect of the British broadcasting landscape to a minor extent. This article traces British public service broadcasting back to its origins and its root principles; clarifies the nature and role of public service broadcasting in a democratic society, and discusses solutions for its future sustainability (with reference to the BBC).
Definition and role of public service broadcasting
There is no standard definition of what public service broadcasting exactly comprises, although a number of official bodies have attempted to pick out the key characteristics. According to the Broadcasting Research Unit, its key goals or hallmarks may be outlined under eight headings:
·Geographic universality-everyone should have access to the same services
·Catering for all interests and tastes
·Catering for minorities
·Catering for 'national identity and community'
·Detachment from vested interests and government
·One broadcasting system to be funded directly from the corpus of uses
·Competition in good programming rather than numbers
·Guidelines to liberate programme makers and not to restrict them
(Negrine, 1989:90)
More succinctly, public service broadcasting can be thought of as a universal service; receiving funds from the public, guiding its own operations to a considerable extent and addressing its audiences primarily as citizens, not as consumers, a factor which insulates public service broadcasting from both political and commercial influence.
According to Four Theories of the Press, the Authoritarian[1]; the Libertarian[2]; the Soviet Communist[3] and the Social Responsibility[4] are acknowledged as the most appropriate categories used to describe how different media systems operate in the world (Serverin, Tankard, Jr., 1979:338). The British media system can be placed within the overlapping categories of Libertarian and Social Responsibility; a position which means that the system need not only stick to 'the liberalist narrative' but can also encompass social morality, justice and responsibility, and provide a public service. Since its birth in the 1920s, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been commonly perceived as an exemplary public institution whose principal role is essentially a democratizing one, contributing to the on-gonging cumulative empowerment of the public. A key radical theme of Reith's[5] brief in 1942, was that the BBC had a high moral responsibility to carry into the greatest number of homes possible everything that is best in every sphere of human endeavour and achievement (Reith, Shankleman, 2000:70). In its public service form, the BBC acquires its funding primarily through the licence fee system, which, unlike advertising revenue, is immune to commercial pressure, in order to guarantee the balance of cost versus the execution of the public service mission. The licence fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC. Thus the BBC serves not the queen or the Prime Minister but the public.
Western economy is regulated by laws of supply and demand, and public initiative is generally used to 'rectify' the 'market error' (Just & Latzer, 2000:24, 395-441). In contrast, European television represents a massive exception to this general rule. Public service broadcasting does not play a subsidiary role and it attracts at least 40% of the audience (Pardo, 2002:47). European governments believed that state monopolies set up in each country were a better safeguard of the quality of the broadcasting and television service and pluralism of information (Tabemero, 2004:2). Therefore, in general, the state delegates a public management institute to be responsible for supervising the operation of public service broadcasting. By adapting to social change, to demands for new services, and to organizational reform, the broadcasting system in Britain was transformed from a monopoly to a duopoly with the creation of ITV in competition with the BBC in 1955 (Avery, 1993:4).
Challenges to public service broadcasting
Two related trends bear some influence on the debates concerning public service broadcasting. In the first place, the current offensive against public service broadcasting comes during an era of nearly unprecedented technological revolutions in communication and information. Digital signals relax spectrum constraints, greatly increasing the number of channels that can be broadcast (Avery,1993:1). The mass media is tremendously competitive, and as such, it can be difficult for a public service broadcaster to survive amongst commercial interests, especially with the increased number of channels that digital broadcasting provides. Satellite transmission, cable, and Web-casting ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Challenges to public service broadcasting
Two related trends bear some influence on the debates concerning public service broadcasting. In the first place, the current offensive against public service broadcasting comes during an era of nearly unprecedented technological revolutions in communication and information. Digital signals relax spectrum constraints, greatly increasing the number of channels that can be broadcast (Avery,1993:1). The mass media is tremendously competitive, and as such, it can be difficult for a public service broadcaster to survive amongst commercial interests, especially with the increased number of channels that digital broadcasting provides. Satellite transmission, cable, and Web-casting have all successively seemed to de-legitimize some of public service broadcasting's key claims to public funding, notably its provision of diversity and innovation. However, with the liberalization of the rules on satellite television reception at the end of May, 1985, the floodgates of new television choice opened upon Britain. Anybody who can attain planning permission can now install a 'dish', giving them access to satellite channels on pay-TV (MacCabe & Stewart, 1986:74). This will speed up the decline in audience numbers for existing public broadcasting channels or networks, because increased viewing choices will mean decreased viewing time. There is now more opportunity to choose between broadcasting services, a greater diversity in programmes, and a greater variety of channels and television service providers. So TV audiences and radio have characteristically moved away from public service broadcasting. The proliferation of viewing opportunities leads to two consequences: a change in the viewing habits on which public broadcast ethos is based and a change in the content of material broadcast.
When the BBC was a monopoly organization, the licence fee provided an adequate source of revenues. In recent years, however, this has ceased to be the case. The real value of the licence fee has grown at a relatively slow space and has never quite caught up with the rate of inflation. In contrast, the cost of producing the most popular programmes has become increasingly inflated, a cost which can no longer be covered by finite license fees. In any case, licence fee funding is likely to decline relative to the proliferation of advertising and subscription revenues enjoyed by commercial broadcasters. The U.K. consultancy, Zenithmedia, estimated that European television advertising finance would rise by 50% between 1994 and 2004, and subscription finance was estimated to rise by a factor of 6 in the same period, that is, by 600% (Zenithmedia, 2005). No one expects licence fee finance to rise by such a proportion. Acquiring its funds just through the licence fees, the BBC is like an island of welfare in an ocean of commercialism. There is no denying that funding sources (for the existing public broadcast service system of provision) come under serious pressure in a multichannel environment, threatening its long-term viability. According to the figures provided by Ofcom, in 1990, 47 percent of the audience watched BBC1 and BBC2. By 2003, the combined share of both channels had declined to only 35.6 percent of the audience (Ofcom, 2004). By the time the next BBC Charter is due to expire in 2016 we can be certain that every home in the UK will have access to far more channels than today so that decline looks set to continue. The BBC's continual decline in ratings is a result of a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the licence fee. Why should we be forced to pay for television we do not watch? As a compulsory charge on all viewers, the licence fee is subject to the constraint of popular acceptability. When audiences begin to display a resistance to the licence fee, the fate of the BBC will become uncertain.
Moreover, public service broadcasters in Britain are participating in the debate over their proper role. Brain McNair pointed out that the following function are upheld in the communication media of 'ideal-type' democratic societies: surveillance, education, a platform for political discourse, a 'watchdog' role and an advocacy function (Mcnair, 1995:21). The aim of the establishment of public service broadcasting lies in the constitution of 'the fourth power' which has an affinity with the public; outside administration, legislation and judicature. The social sphere consists of the public sphere and the private sphere. Once the government interferes in the public sphere excessively, it will result in the atrophy of public political discourse, which can result in the government no longer being regarded as the trustworthy executant of public opinion and its social protector. If none other than the government expand the function of the public sphere, it can guarantee a greater diaphaneity and fair standing (Giddens, 1998:47).
The BBC represents the paradigm of public service broadcasting, enjoying undisputed independence from the Government (Scriven & Lecomte, 1999:128), and its coverage of the war in Iraq has caused serious embarrassment to the British Government. However, British judge Lord Hutton's Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr. David Kelly C.M.G., challenged the independence of the BBC and influenced the condition of 'the forth power' to some extent[6] and resulted in a 'Chilling Effect' upon an entire journalistic field.
The future of public service broadcasting in Britain
It seems that the long-term fate of the public service ideal is uncertain. However, several alternative scenarios for its future role can be envisaged. The environment in which we operate is changing rapidly. Technology, society and dynamics are all changing. In light of the development mentioned above, the old rationale of public service broadcasting to, 'inform, educate and entertain', seems less appropriate in this contemporary multichannel environment and therefore we need to question whether public intervention is still required to fufill these aims. As Gavyn Davies points out:
'some form of market failure must lie at the heart of any concept of public service broadcasting. Beyond simply using the catch-phrase that public service broadcasting must "inform, educate and entertain", we must add "inform, educate and entertain in a way which the private sector, left unregulated, would not do". Otherwise, why not leave matters entirely to the private sector?'
(Davies, 1999:10)
While the old rationale of public service broadcasting formulated by Reith is now unworkable and needs to be rethought, the essence and the core objective of the matter do not, and will not change. The chief duties of public service broadcasters is to preserve due impartiality in news and in the treatment of controversial issues and to insist on 'editorial independence'. In addition, in order for audiences to be willing to pay for the licence fee, you must let them watch what they could not gain from other broadcasters. And this purpose can undoubtedly be satisfied with 'editorial independence' to some extent.
Turning to the financial problem of public service broadcasting; generally speaking, except for the licence fee, there are four alternative funding sources available: advertising, sponsorship, subscriptions and state grants. However, they each have their own deficits[7], one of which will cause public service broadcasters to be under the thumb of commercial and political influence, thereby injuring their credibility. And what is worse, it will threaten the health of the entire broadcasting industry in Britain. Thus despite its imperfections, the continuation of the licence fee is essential for the survival of high quality, diverse and original public service programming on the BBC. It is inevitable that without the licence fee, the BBC would be left with no choice other than to become commercially focused. How can audiences be induced o willingly pay for the licence fee? Besides persevering with the principle of 'editorial independence' mentioned above, another sound strategy is to sustain and upgrade the quality and range of television progammes[8]. What is also worth mentioning is that the BBC needs to be more open about what all the money from licence fee payments is being spent on.
In order to continue to serve the interests of the public in the best manner, public service broadcasters should drive innovation and its remit should provide flexibility. In my opinion, a new model of public service broadcasting has the characteristics of 'two separations', namely the separation of public notion and management strategy, and the separation of domestic service and international strategy. In order to guarantee the sturdy foundation of public service, public service broadcasters should distinguish between public notion and management strategy, and disengage commercial activities from public funds completely, as well as formulating the relevant specific regulations, including the division of public support activities and commercial activities. When the commercial subsidiary companies of public service broadcasters obtain material and service from other departments of public service broadcasting, they should pay for the fees, which can guarantee that public funds will not be used in commercial activities. As to the separation of domestic service and international strategy, public service broadcasters should walk on 'two feet', meaning that public service broadcasters should exert themselves to exploit the international market of products (sales of programmes, videos, books and periodicals) whilst still persevering to pursue the principles of public service broadcasting in domesticity. There is a dual method available to be used, namely the coexistence of two different management strategies; a public-operated interior and a commercially-operated international market. Just as the famous saying: 'To kill two birds with one stone', suggests, the strategy of 'two separations' not only upholds the principles of public service broadcasting, but also creates new revenue and encourages a large material income.
Conclusion
Within this paper, we have discussed the key questions of how to balance the coexistence of commercial operations and public operations; how to resist government intervention and how to avoid the erosion of commercial interests, whilst also acquiring sufficient funds and providing a public sphere for audiences. These questions are undoubtedly some of the most difficult problems that public service broadcasters have ever had to face.
We find ourselves, then, in the midst of an evolutionary process riddled with uncertainty on the brink of change. Will public service broadcasting be consigned to our heritage museums? At least, in the short term, this seems an unlikely end. Public service broadcasting looks set to remain a major player, if only in the short time.
Bibliography
Avery, R K. (1993) Public Service Broadcasting in a Multichannel Environment: The History and Survival of an Ideal, New York and London: Longman Publishing Group
Barker, C. (1997) Global Television: an Introduction, Oxford & Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd
Davies, G. (1999) The Future Funding of the BBC, http://www.culture.gov.uk
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: the Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press
Goodwin, A. & Whannel, G. (1990) Understanding Television, London, New York & Canada: Routledge
Just, N. & Latzer, M. (2000) EU Competition Policy and Market Power Control in the Mediamatics Era. Telecommunications Policy
Keane, J. (1991) The Media and Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press
MacCabe, C. & Stewart, O. (1986), The BBC and public service broadcasting Manchester, Manchester University Press
Mcnair, B. (1995) An Introduction to Political Communication, London, the USA and Canada: Routledge
Negrine, R. (1989) Politics and the Mass Media in Britain, London and New York: Routledge
Ofcom, (2004) Review of Public Service Television Broadcasting, http://www.ofcom.org.co.uk
Pardo, A. (2002). The Audiovisual Management Handbook, Madrid: Media Business School
Peacock, A. introduction by Booth, P. (2004) Public Service Broadcasting Without the BBC, London: The Institute of Economic Affairs
Reith, J. quoted in Shankleman, L. (2000) Inside the BBC and CNN: Managing Media Organisations, London: Routledge
Scriven, M. & Lecomte, M. (1999). Television Broadcasting in Contemporary France and Britain, New York: Berghahn Books
Serverin, W J. & Tankard, Jr., J W. (1979) Communication Theories: Origins Methods and Uses in the Mass Media, New York: Hastings House
Siebert, F S., Peterson, T. & Schramm, W. (1956) Four Theories of the Press, Urbana: University of Illinois Press
Tabernero, A. S. (2004). Competition between Public Service and Commercial Television Broadcasting in the European Market, 6th World Media Economic Conference, Canada 12rd- 15th May
Zenithmedia, (2005). http://www.zenithmedia.co.uk
[1] The Authoritarian theory developed in the late Renaissance and was based on the idea that truth is the product of a few wise men. See FourTtheories of the Press (1956)
[2] The Libertarian theory arose from the works of men like Milton, Locke, Mill, and Jefferson and avowed that search for truth is one of man's natural rights. See FourTtheories of the Press (1956)
[3] The Soviet Communist theory: an expanded and more positive version of the old Authoritarian theory. See FourTtheories of the Press (1956)
[4] The Social Responsibility theory of the modern day: equal radio and television time for political candidates, the obligations of the newspaper in a one-paper town, etc. See Four theories of the Press (1956)
[5] Lord John Reith (1889-1971):
·Managing Director of the British Broadcasting Company, 1923-1926
·Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation, 1927-1938
[6] As the American and British governments pointed to the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to make a case for war with Iraq, some say the American media took the government at its word and didn't dig deep enough to uncover the truth behind the intelligence claims. In Britain, a news report made by Andrew Gilligan accusing the Blair government of inflating evidence of WMDs erupted into a scandal that shook the BBC, one of the most respected news organizations in the world, to its foundation.
[7] Advertising: is being favoured more and more by broadcasters, but is still suffering from the effects of an economic downturn. ITV reports an 18% downturn in advertising since 2000. It makes no sense for the BBC to share a diminishing source of revenue, especially as it is likely to result in irreparable damage to all broadcasters. As well as reducing Channel 4's ability to produce high-quality programming, introducing advertising to the BBC threatens the quality and diversity of BBC programming. Producers would seek programmes generating high audiences to ensure high advertising. Sponsorship: programmes would become reliant on their sponsors and editorial values could be threatened. The risk of sponsorship withdrawal would make planning for the future less certain and is likely to result in a deterioration in the recognised quality of programming at a global level. Subscriptions: Making the BBC a subscription only service would create a number of problems. Firstly, while the Broadcasting Policy Group may consider that the BBC will be able to offer a selection of service packages, we believe that for the current television services to be financially viable, they would need to be either sold as a group or part of a bundled package with other broadcasters. The latter would cause problems for European audiovisual regulations. Additionally, it is likely to cost viewers more than the current Licence Fee to access these services, if the current quality and range levels are to be maintained.
See Ofcom Review of Public Service Television Broadcasting, http://www.ofcom.org.co.uk
[8] The BBC is accused of 'pilling' airtime with 'popularist' programmes such as soaps and also of showing repeats instead of new programmes.
