Advantages And Disadvantages Of State Intervention In Broadcasting Policy - Essay Example

Public service broadcasting is impossible to define and has no relevance in the contemporary broadcasting environment". Is this true, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of state intervention in broadcasting policy? Public broadcasting keeps playing an important role in lives of people, especially in the countries of Western Europe and North America (Hallin and Mancini 2004); it keeps affecting worldviews, educates people on social and political matters and sometimes provides life models. Despite the fact that commercial broadcasting represents the biggest competition on the market, public service broadcasting (PBS) has a lot to offer to its audience in order to stay competitive and up-to-date. Growing internet penetration represents another challenge for broadcasters. Governmental intervention has always represented a constant danger for media independence. According to the official website of UNESCO public broadcasting “is broadcasting made, financed and controlled by the public, for the public. It is neither commercial nor state-owned, free from political interference and pressure from commercial forces (Public Service Broadcasting).” What does it mean “financed and controlled by the public”? Does the government serve the interests of the public when impose regulations or censor the actions of the PBS? In this paper I would like to address these questions and issues that public broadcasters are facing. The role and importance of public service broadcasters has changed over the time, but the services that broadcasters provide are still valued, appreciated and needed. It is hard to define what public service broadcasting is since the role of the PBS is changing and there is no clear universal and accepted model in the world. However majority of scholars, journalists and media professionals agree that public broadcasting should be independent from the state interference and regulation, even though public broadcasters use public funds and serve the public interest. PBS should provide examples of professional journalistic standards and practices. At the same time transparency and accountability are also vital for the effective work of PBS. These ideas provide a definition of a perfect system of PBS, while things are different in reality. I would definitely support Richard Berry who believes that public services, such as enhancing democratic changes, supporting cultural values and educational norms should go first and broadcasting second (Jakubowicz 2007). The question is: “should PBS give public what it want or what it need?” and every country decides for itself what the public needs to know. In this regard a renowned economist Ronald Coase claims the following: “No one can say he is giving the public what it wants, unless the public knows the whole range of possibilities which television can offer and, from this range, chooses what it wants to see […] what the public wants and what it has the right to get is the freedom to choose from the widest possible range of programme matter. Anything less than that is deprivation...” (Coase 1966) In the situation of a constant competition with private sector, public service broadcasters need to create the content that would be financially profitable and serve the interests of the society at the same time. Karol Jakubowitz points out the fact that public broadcasters should not be seen as competitors of the private sector (Jakubowicz 2007). Therefore PBS should be able to provide the audience with services that private sector will fail to provide as it is financially risky. Since broadcasters face the challenges of market economy they are forced to find a balance between private and public sectors and survive the online media competition that is growing day by day. In this situation it might seem that PBS is losing its audience, yet there are many examples of popular and successful broadcasters that are able to provide its audience with unique and valued content. First of all I am talking about the British BBC, that has proved its importance and effectiveness over time. In the presence of these kinds of market failures the state increases its presence in the public sphere and sometimes guides profit driven companies to act in a socially responsible and beneficial manner. Robert Armstrong (Armstrong 2010) claims that it might bring positive and negative outcomes. First of all, it is vital for the state to minimize the market failures and yet promote social interests. Second of all, this kind of intervention is disadvantageous since the state is interested in promoting its own concerns. At the same time public broadcasters are interested in promoting and enhancing social welfare and interests. The system of public broadcasting in the US has a hybrid nature because public service broadcasters depend on governmental funds together with the private donations (Hallin and Mancini 2004). However the regulation authority – the Corporation for Public Broadcasting acts independently, even though the US president appoints its directors. I agree with Hallin and Mancini pointing out that public broadcasters in the US “of course have autonomy from political control, but they are not completely free from political pressures (Hallin and Mancini 2004)” as the state still has its ways to affect the media in a direct or indirect way. The state can affect broadcasters through the state-related corporations, businesses and individuals, since the private and public sectors are interrelated. In this regard Hallin and Mancini raise one of the most vital questions: “how to keep public broadcasting, or a regulatory authority, from falling under the control of the most powerful political force and failing to serve a politically diverse society?” (Hallin and Mancini 2004) From the legal perspective unique service broadcasting content should be ensured and “protected against political or commercial interference.” Editorial boards should not experience any political pressure, but enjoy its independence. At the same time principles of impartiality and unbiased information should be preserved (A Model Public Service Broadcasting Law June 2005). Article 19 believes that a Board of Directors should govern the broadcasters, while either the MPs of lower house or parliament or representatives of civil society should assign its members in a transparent and independent manner. Whereas “individuals with strong political connections or with vested interests in broadcasting are prohibited from being appointed to the Board.” (A Model Public Service Broadcasting Law June 2005). UNESCO also points out that PBS should bear in mind their “cultural, educational and social roles” when performing their activities. Even though the state should not be interfering in activities of public broadcasters it does not mean that media are allowed to deliver uncensored images of violence, to the contrary reporters should provide information in an unbiased manner. At the same time the best practice of public service broadcasting is country specific and varies from case to case. Theoretical and practical implementations of the laws differ. Legal systems do not exist in isolation but in particular environment. Even the best written law will not be successfully implemented in a country that lacks simple norms of democracy and if journalistic rights are breached and violated. High levels of self censorship can also affect the situation and restrain media professionals from producing the high quality content. There are also opposite examples when the legislation does not ensure basic protection for the broadcaster, but in practice PBS experience its independence fully while staying accountable to the public (A Model Public Service Broadcasting Law June 2005). Obviously public bodies and public broadcasters are closely connected to the political system. These connections vary from country to country. The British BBC represents one of the most successful examples when the state does not exercise its political control and media professionals enjoy their freedom to work for public good. At the same time Italian example provides a case when all the public broadcasters are controlled by the state and have little autonomy. Hungary represents an interesting case of formerly independent media structure that is under a threat now. A country enjoyed its media freedom for years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the current ruling party approved a new harsh media law all the public broadcasters experience direct control from the state. In this situation the European Union does not seem to have any control over the situation. Russia represents another example: the media laws claim that broadcasters and journalists should stay independent and free from any kind of political pressure or pressure from the media owner, whereas all public broadcasters in the country are controlled by the Kremlin. Italy provides another case of total governmental control over the public state broadcasters. Even though the country did not follow the authoritarian Russian model, the empire built by Silvio Berlusconi has severely affected the media situation in the country, limited freedom of speech and increased the number of cases of journalistic self-censorship. PBS became the most valued asset of the state since broadcasters use public funds allocated by the state. It is not a secret that the governments have a vested interest in media activities and they always had tools of direct and indirect control over PBS: direct subsidies, favourable VAT rates, licensing procedures, requirements to provide the pluralism of opinions, languages and political views; limitations on the foreign produced content (Hallin and Mancini 2004). All these measures represent a certain threat for the civil society, independence of the press and pluralism of opinions. Some states more than others abused these tools in their favour. Therefore I believe that this control over the media should be used wisely in order to avoid extremes. The direct state control over the public service broadcasters does not bring any good for the country’s society and political freedoms. Since the public broadcasters are public bodies they have a “significant relationship to the political system” (Hallin and Mancini 2004). It is important for PBS to stay independent as the content they produce still remains one of the most popular sources of information for countries across the globe. The state regulators should not assign and appoint the norms of the content for PBS to be produced. At the same time public broadcasters should not abuse its freedom and use its independence responsibly. The state should not have much control over the programming choices that the media prefers, yet these decisions should serve the interests of the public. Interests of the society should go first, both the state and the broadcasters should avoid clear cases of manipulation and falsification. The audience should have a tool to control the media activities and disagree with certain broadcaster decision. This practice should be normal as the PBS serve the public. A Model Public Service Broadcasting Law ARTICLE 19 June 2005 [cited February 22, 2012. Available from http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/modelpsblaw.pdf. Armstrong, Robert. 2010. Broadcasting Policy in Canada: University of Toronto Pres. Coase, Ronald. 1966. The Economics of Broadcasting and Government Policy. American Economic Review, 56(2), pp. 440-447. Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing media systems : three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jakubowicz, K. 2007. Public Service Broadcasting: A New Beginning, or the Beginning of the End? . Knowledge Politics. Public Service Broadcasting. UNESCO [cited 22 February, 2012. Available from http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1525&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Read More