The Effects of Public, Private, and Hybrid Systems of Broadcasting on Democratic Debate

Authors Avatar

                The Effects of Broadcasting Systems on Democratic Debate.

The Effects of Public, Private, and Hybrid Systems of Broadcasting on Democratic Debate

The emergence of broadcasting in the early 1900’s resulted in the development of different broadcasting systems throughout the world (Nesbitt-Larking 58).  Britain and the US, two democratic nations with many shared cultural, economic, and political values, quickly developed remarkably dissimilar systems of broadcasting which became the models used by other countries as they struggled to develop their own systems (Emery 5).  Most eventually followed the British model, opting for public broadcasting systems (Emery 7).  Private systems similar to the US model thrived in others (Emery 7).  A few, including Canada, developed hybrid broadcasting systems, characterized by a relatively equal combination of public and private elements (Emery 8).

In addition to the launch of different broadcasting systems, the early days of broadcasting also marked the beginning of an enduring debate about the potential of these different systems to strengthen democracy and foster democratic debate in a democratic society (Browne 9).  This debate is a complicated one, offering no easy answers, and no clear path to a superior democracy (Browne 10).  Two viewpoints have typically been represented in this debate.  They agree that an important function of broadcasting should be to nurture democracy and that a democratic society must have a broadcasting system which informs the public and provides opportunity for diverse interests to contribute to public debate (Browne 3).  However, one view claims that democratic debate can only thrive in a public system of broadcasting, while the other favours a private system governed by free market forces, and both tend to see the differences between public and private broadcasting “in black and white terms (Taras 128).  The private US broadcasting system and the public British system offer some insight into the validity of these arguments.  A third perspective would argue that control over broadcasting is too important to democracy to be left solely in the hands of either the state or corporate and commercial interests (Browne 379).  The perseverance of Canada’s hybrid broadcasting system and the recent shifts experienced by both the US and the British systems demonstrate the strength of this argument.

A public system of broadcasting is a system that is non-commercial, financed entirely by public funds, accountable to the public, and aimed at serving the entire population (Browne 16).  In 1927 Britain established the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) , an independent public corporation, as a public broadcasting monopoly (Emery 86).  The British public broadcasting system quickly gained admiration and was imitated in other broadcasting systems throughout the world (Emery 87).  The BBC was funded by license fees paid by TV and radio users, which was sufficient to support program development and operation of the broadcasting system in general (Emery 631).  Therefore, broadcasting in Britain was independent of corporate sponsorship (Emery 631).  In theory, since user fee revenue was not collected by the government but went directly to the BBC, it was also independent of direct government control over funding (Emery 632).   The contrast between this form of funding and either corporate sponsorship or government funding is clear.  Corporate sponsorship produces a decidedly corporate slant on content (Emery 633).  The concern with direct government funding is that broadcasting may be reduced to a tool of government propaganda, as clearly occurred in the public broadcasting systems of several fascist and communist at that time (Emery 98).  Supporters of public broadcasting claim that a public system is a guarantee that all segments of the public, including minority groups, are provided with programs that are impartial and varied, free of interference, comprising of information, education, culture and entertainment (McChesney).  Through its mandated commitment to education, free access to information, and its divorce from commercial interests, public broadcasting is seen as catalyst for democratic debate (McChesney).  In reality, though, it is not immune to political and economic pressures (Browne 392).  As a result of these pressures, many public broadcasting systems become cautious about upsetting those in power, or keep criticism within narrow boundaries (Browne 392).  This is a form of self-censorship that can be so persistent that the broadcasting system may forsake its commitment to democratic debate (Browne 394).  Also, public broadcasting systems often develop an “armour of bureaucracy” in order to protect themselves from political attacks, and may even become anti-democratic in nature (Browne 394).  Another problem is that the operation of a public broadcasting system that democratically represents the entire population is a difficult proposition in modern societies that are ethnically and culturally diverse (Cook).  How public broadcasting can effectively maintain editorial and ideological independence from the state when dealing with sensitive issues is also a problem (Fletcher).  Public broadcasting also encounters ideological opposition from the Neo-Liberal perspective, “the prevailing view of the media and ideology” (Nesbitt-Larking 90).  Neo-Liberals see the market, and therefore commercial values, as the rightful regulator of broadcasting (McChesney).  According to the Neo-Liberal view, the democratic system that works best is one in which control over all aspects of society is "de-politicized" (McChesney).  Therefore, Neo-Liberals will always favour a private system of broadcasting.  In the Neo-Liberal view, the question concerning public broadcasting is "Why should it exist at all?" (McChesney).  However, it was not Neo-Liberal arguments that caused Britain to adopt an increasingly commercial broadcasting system, beginning with the creation of the Independent Television Authority (ITA) in 1945 (Emery 91).  Rather, it was the voice of its people in which “there was a growing democratic revulsion against 'someone else knowing best': people craved diversity and choice" in broadcasting (Emery 110).

Join now!

        Around the same time that the BBC was established in Britain, the US adopted a private system dominated by two private networks, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and the Central Broadcasting Service (CBS), supported entirely by advertising revenue (Emery 12).  As the British system became the model for public broadcasting, so the US system became the model for private broadcasting world-wide (Emery 87).  The US system developed according to the Neo-Liberal approach (McChesney).  To Neo-Liberals, the market was quintessentially democratic, and no debate was necessary to validate its full extension into broadcasting (McChesney).  Given this assumption, even debating the appropriateness ...

This is a preview of the whole essay