UK Public Service Broadcasters - Assignment Example

Public Service Broadcasters The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the role of the regulators in UK in establishing of certain policies that ensure the political independence and the political accountability of the public service broadcasters in the country. Firstly, the essay talks about public service broadcasting. Then it moves on to discuss the importance of political independence and accountability with respect to public service broadcasting. The rest of the essay focuses on British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as an example of the public service broadcasters in the United Kingdom. The paper then considers how the governance system for BBC has changed over the time by considering three different eras where the strategies of the corporation have been different from each other. Further, it also discusses the relevance and the impacts of these changes on BBC’s accountability and political independence. Public Service Broadcasting There is no standard definition of Public Service Broadcasting1. The purpose of Public Service Broadcasting however has been determined to be the use of electronic media, especially the television and the radio, to inform the viewers about the current situation of the world around them. This is done with an intention to improve the society. There are four main purposes of the PSB, especially the Public Service Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. The first is to inform the public about what is happening in the world through the presentation and analysis of certain ideas. The second is to encourage people into learning more about different fields for example science, arts, history etc. The third one is to strengthen the cultural identity of the people by the presenting of programmes, which are common to the culture of the people residing in UK. The fourth and the most important one is to make the public aware of different ethnicities that are present in the United Kingdom so that they could be more tolerant towards these minorities.2 The role of the PSB is to carry out its above mentioned objectives properly, however, throughout history what has been observed is the fact that the PSB in UK has failed in its objectives.3 The reason given by some analysts is that the PSB in UK is dominated by a single organization that is the British Broadcasting Corporation. The British Broadcasting Corporation is also one of the corporations that are directly under the influence of the government as will be seen later throughout the course of the essay. The presence of such a single corporation leads to the failure of the PSB in providing relevant and true information to the public.4 Before the impacts of the present governance system on the PSB, and especially the BBC, are studied it is important to get an idea of the notions of political accountability and independence with regard to Public Service Broadcasting. PSB-Independence Political independence is the degree to which the employees of the PSB can operate and produce output (in terms of news and information) without being given a set of instructions or threats or without being having to consider that the interests of a certain group of people, particularly the incumbent government and the politicians, would be harmed.5 It is important for the public service broadcasters to be independent of any influence.6 Although the Public service broadcasters are generally funded by the government or any agencies and that makes them directly under the authority of these institutions, it is important for the broadcasters to be independent of such institutions. This would ensure that the public gets all the proper information and none of the views and notions presented to the public are biased. 7 Political independence of the Public Service Broadcasters is desirable normatively because it ensures the achievement of democracy.8 The independence of the Public Service Broadcasters means that alternative sources of information can be available to the people. The presence of such sources means that the public can make decisions after considering each argument about any particular problem. If political independence does not exist the ability of the voters to vote wisely would be impaired. This means that democracy or ‘rule by the people’ would not be attainable.9 Along with political independence, the notion of political accountability is also important for the Public Service Broadcasters. PSB-Accountability Political Accountability is the accountability of the broadcasters to the general public about the proper reporting and providing of information.10 Political accountability with respect to the public service broadcasting is important because the public is generally reliant on the broadcasters for true information. It is the duty of the broadcasters, as mentioned before, to provide the relevant data about every thing that happens in the world. It is expected of the broadcasters to be politically accountable so that they can provide true information on every issue and do not in any way hide some information from the public. Accountability also ensures that the government is more responsive to the needs of the citizens of the country.11 Political independence and political accountability are two very different qualities that the PSBs might possess yet they are linked to each other. Political independence ensures that a certain Public Service Broadcaster is independent of any influence which may be in the form of the pressure from the government or any other political parties. Political accountability on the other hand is the degree to which the PSBs can hold the governments and political accountable for their actions.12 However without political independence, there is a lesser chance of the PSBs being politically accountable. In order to study how the regulators in UK have tried to resolve the tension between the normative expectations of the PSB as being accountable and independent, it is important to concentrate on one example of PSB in UK. The example that has been used in this essay is of the British Broadcasting Corporation. (BBC) British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) The British Broadcasting Corporation or BBC is one of the largest public service broadcasters of the world.13 The mission of the BBC is to ‘inform, educate and entertain’14 Therefore the aims of the BBC are to ensure that better quality programmes are supplied to the people of all communities. Other aims also include the providing of education to the people about the ethnic minorities and how there is a need to be tolerant towards them. The British Broadcasting Corporation is one of the oldest public service broadcasters of the country. Although the main aim of the Corporation is to educate and inform the people it seems that the Corporation has not been successful in the attainment of its objectives. The reason is, as critics argue, that education and information can only be provided if the broadcasters are not under the influence of the government. Sadly, this has not been the case for the Corporation. Throughout the years, as will be explained in detail through the paper, the British Broadcasting Corporation has experienced limited political independence and political accountability. The reason for this is the increased interference from the government in the reports broadcasted by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Many policies of the Corporation are also responsible for the lack of political independence and accountability that is prevalent in the organisation. The laws and the policies introduced by the regulators in UK have also failed to help the corporation achieve its targets. The rest of the essay would concentrate on the policies and the laws made and implemented by the regulators in UK to ensure that BBC is more politically independent and accountable. It will also discuss how the certain policies implemented had been in direct relation to the interests of the incumbent governments. This analysis is formulated in a way that it provides the basic policies pertaining to the BBC over the years in different eras. There are three eras that the essay talks about; the first one is the era from 1922 to 1955, the second one from 1955 to 1980 and the third era deals with the media regulations after Thatcher’s reign. BBC- The Early Stages (1922 to 1955) The British Broadcasting Company was formed in 1922 by the collaboration of six of the largest British radio manufacturers, with John Reith as its Managing Director.15 From the beginning, the British Broadcasting Company had laid emphasis on the need for true information for the public. Initially the company was stopped by the then Post Master General from pursuing to write and telecast about general controversies. Government and Religious controversies were not something that could be discussed openly in the media. However due to the efforts of Reith, the British Broadcasting company gained for the first time a little political independence. The discussion of the political controversies also meant that the government to a little degree was held responsible for its actions. The British Broadcasting Company however did not give that much attention to the political issues at that time. The major concern of the company at that time was the development of a national standing among the people of UK and it tried its best to avoid the controversies that it might had to deal with if it had held the political activists responsible for some things. The notion of impartiality also was introduced in direct connection with the avoidance of the government controversies by the regulators of BBC. The positive effects of impartiality, however, were limited for the British Broadcasting company. The employees of the company were allowed to cover all public events but they were not allowed to express their opinions of certain policies of the government or of other political parties.16 Also, the term ‘objectivity’ could not apply to the actions of the government. Despite the limited role of the BBC in the public broadcasting, political interference was still observed in the era. The two instances where the political interference was greatly felt was at the time of the Great Strike in 1926 and the treatment of the Suez crisis.17 BBC had reported a few of the events of these incidents and as a result the government attacked it. However the company was generally unharmed because the government attacked the weakest part of BBC that was responsible for the direct funding of the company. After these incidents, the BBC tried its best to remain away from the limelight and mostly it tried to remain calm. It was at a very later stage that the government of UK realized that for impartiality to be prevalent in the news, that the BBC reported, there was a need for a little political independence. It was believed that the true reporting of incidents was essential to educate the people of the United Kingdom and for the people to be aware of the true happenings and events around them, impartiality was the best means. Impartiality of course could not be achieved without the political independence. Although the Vindication Act of 1954 gave the BBC a little freedom and political independence yet no attention was given to the political accountability of the Public Service Broadcasting18. The Company could not hold any political agents responsible for anything. There was limited criticism that was found in some of the reports of the BBC. However that was to a very limited extent. Overall, the regulators of UK in this era did little to ensure political independence and political accountability in the Public Service Broadcasting. Although notions of impartiality were introduced, the company could right little against the governments. It was at the end of this period that the Suez Incident took place and it was felt for the first time that the need for impartiality actually meant the need for political independence. British Broadcasting Corporation (1955-1979) This era was marked by an increase in the demand for news. This was because there was an increase in the interest in the politics. In this period the BBC concentrated more on professionalism. The notions of impartiality and independence were still present as far as Public Service Broadcasting was concerned however these notions were replaced by professionalism. What was good was considered to be professional and since the impartiality was good it was also considered professional. So therefore there was an emphasis on the professionalism of BBC. Previously the BBC had used anonymous presenters to report certain government actions and controversies. However, this was not possible now because of the introduction of the Independent Television Systems. The presence of televisions meant that the presenters could no longer be anonymous. It was for this reason that the BBC authorities trained a particular number of presenters and journalists. The only way through which BBC could survive the government restrictions was to conduct the reports and the news through a small group of individuals that had been professionally trained. Most of these professionals were from the political sector which meant that BBC could interact well with the political parties and the government sector. However, BBC had to pay the price of professionalization because the independence of BBC was gravely affected. The employees still were not allowed to give comments. Also they were not allowed to announce their political affiliation. Even the director general of BBC did not have that right.19 One editor also stated that around his 21 years of working as a BBC editor, he had not uttered a political statement. 20.There were particular rules that the BBC applied with respect to the political activities. The strictness and the seriousness of the rules can be deduced from the fact that a BBC reporter was given a warning just because he was seen attending a political procession against a certain political party. Along with personal rules, there were also rules that constrained what could be written. BBC could not publish everything it wanted. Often the more controversial things were reported and just stored. Some times they were transferred between the journalists and sometimes were given to the politicians to read, in the hope that they would like it. They were not published for the public, neither was anything for that matter broadcasted. Certain policies of the BBC about the presentation of news existed. However they were not accomplished because of the increased foreign enquiries. 21 In this period BBC showed no special respect for the politics. Since it did not have any power, BBC could not broadcast openly what ever it wanted to. The political interference in this period was because of the fact that the political parties and the government had refused to ‘democraticize’ the British Broadcasting Corporation. 22 The political parties were not intent on providing any kind of legal protection to the BBC. The BBC authorities also did not care about this. They had little power and so when the structure of BBC was criticised the authorities would have an atypical approach. The BBC governance would think of new sets of rules and designs that made the Corporation less likely to be criticised by the government and the political parties. In this era too, the BBC tried to remain as aloof as possible from the government and politics. Although unlike before, BBC had developed into a broadcasting network that had a standing among people, the authorities were too scared to take any action against the then present Labour Government. BBC tried to play its survival strategy by employing a few professionals. The employees were still not allowed to show their political affiliations and the BBC had no say in the politics of the country. Because of the strategies of the BBC in this era there was almost none independence found in the corporation. It was too scared to take any action against the government. British Broadcasting Corporation (Thatcher-2010) The government of Thatcher brought with it many changes; particularly the politics of Britain were greatly affected. The Conservative party, under Thatcher, did not seem to have any grudges against the corporation. The Labour party previously had not been very encouraging towards BBC. The situation under Thatcher’s government however was different. For the first time in its entire career the BBC got a multi year license fee settlement. This was particularly because the authorities at the BBC were concentrating more on the building of bridges between the government and the corporation. Despite the better relations between the government and the corporation, the BBC was not allowed to display or broadcast anything. The Head Governor in Thatcher’s reign Milne was not allowed to broadcast. A set of instructions had been provided to him that he had to follow. The BBC in this era was so much under the influence of the government that the government actually banned one of the documentaries of the BBC when the head Governor of the Corporation was on a holiday. The dismissal of the documentary meant that the corporation had no political independence and accountability. Also, when the head Governor protested he was removed from his designation in 1986.23 The dismissal of the head governor by the government meant that the corporation had no importance whatsoever. There was little the corporation could do and there was no concept of political independence. After the dismissal, the corporation again created new guidelines that could help them in that situation. Although the guidelines were initially criticised by the members of the corporation as being authoritative, majority of the guidelines were accepted by the members of because they provide them with protection. The corporation could not openly criticise the actions of the government. Although they could report events and public gatherings and even provide some arguments, they could not question the political activities of the incumbent government. So this meant that the corporation was still playing the defence strategy and it was more dependent on the government. These set of rules were followed till early 2000. In 2003 however, an incident occurred that proved that the corporation did not actually follow the government that much. In 2003 the British Broadcasting Corporation was under the constant pressure from the British Government for not recording the war in Iraq. At this time, a reporter Andrew Gilligan however made a documentary that criticised the British government for its role in the war. It also stated that the reasons that had been provided for the war by the government were wrong. This documentary was aired by the BBC. This action was an example of the political independence of the BBC. Since the government was held responsible for the action, this action also helped BBC achieve its outcome of political accountability. However the circumstances of this action were not good. The Head Director was forced to resign and the government criticised the BBC for its mismanagement and wrong reporting methods. The government tried its best to use the members of the corporation and force them into confessing that the research that had been done by Gilligan was not correct and not according to the guidelines of the British Broadcasting Corporation24. The relation between the government and the corporation worsened as a result. Throughout the three eras that have been discussed in the essay what has been observed is that there is little the BBC has done to achieve its goals of political independence and accountability. Conclusion To conclude, political independence and accountability are two very important features that Public service Broadcasters should have. Political independence ensures that the broadcasters are not under the influence of the government or any other political party. On the other hand, political accountability means that the government can be held responsible for its actions. Although these are two normative expectations that people have from public broadcasters from what we have seen throughout the essay, it is not easy to attain them. The example of BBC is a perfect one in this regard. Throughout the years, there has never been a period of time where the British Broadcasting Corporation has actually exercised its political independence. The same is true for its political accountability. In the beginning, the Corporation could not criticise the government because it was relatively new and there was a need for it to create a standing among people. The policy of the corporation could have been changed in the fifties however the Corporation showed no interest in the politics at that time. Instead it concentrated more on the need for professionalism when it should have concentrated on political independence. Thatcher’s era was a little better for the corporation. However that was because the corporation followed blindly whatever the government said. The only incident that was an opposition to the government was the airing of the documentary about the Iraq war. From what has been observed throughout the history of BBC, the corporation has had imposed a lot of restrictions on its own journalists. There has always been a trend to impress the government and this has led the BBC to have no or less political independence and no political accountability. Bibliography Armstrong,Mark. Public Service Broadcasting.UK : University College London, 2005. Solomon, Eve. “Public Service Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Issues and Lessons.” http://www.rthk.org.hk/mediadigest/20060614_76_121004.html (Accessed 26 April 2010) Besley,T. Burgess, R and Prat, A.Mass Media and Political Accountability. UK: London School of Economics, 2002. Baker, E. Media, Markets, and Democracy. UK: Cambridge University Press,2002. Baker, E. Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. UK: Cambridge University Press), 2002. Barendt, E. Broadcasting Law: A Comparative Study. UK : Clarendon Paperbacks, 1993 Barendt, E. and L. Hitchens. Media Law: Cases and Materials. UK: Longman, 2000. Collins, R. and C. Murroni . New Media, New Policies. UK : Polity, 1996. Crisell, A. An Introduction to British Broadcasting. UK : Routledge,1997. Curran, J. ‘Mediations of Democracy', in Curran and Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society, 4th Ed. London: Arnold, 2005. Curran, J. and J. Seaton. Power without Responsibility, 7th Ed. UK: Routledge, 2009. Doyle, G. Media Ownership: The Economics and Politics of Convergence and Concentration in the UK and European Media. Sage Publications, 2002. Feintuck, M. and M. Varney. Media Regulation, Public Interest and the Law, 2nd Ed. UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Goldberg, D., T. Prossel and S. Verhulst. EC Media Law and Policy. UK: Clarendon Press. 1998 Goodwin, P. Television under the Tories: Broadcasting Policy 1979-1997. UK: British Film Institute, 1998. Graham, A and G. Davies. Broadcasting, Society & Policy in the Multimedia Age. UK : John Libbey,1997. Hanretty, C. The Political Independence of Public service Broadcasters. UK: European University Institute, 2009 Harcourt, A. The European Union and the Regulation of Media Markets. UK: Manchester University Press, 2005. Harvey, S. ‘Living with Monsters: Can Broadcasting Regulation Make a Difference?’ in A. Calabrese and C. Sparks (eds) Toward a Political Economy of Culture. UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Hitchens, L. Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation. UK: Hart Publishing, 2006. Hoffmann-Riem. Regulating Media: The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in Six Countries. UK : The Guilford Press, 1996. Humphreys, P. Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe. UK : Manchester University Press, 1996. Hutchinson, D. Media Policy: An Introduction. UK : Arnold, 1999. Just, N. ‘Measuring Media Concentration and Diversity: New Approaches and Instruments in Europe and the US’, in Media, Culture & Society, 2009. Lichtenberg, J. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Smith, G. Internet Law and Regulation, 4th Ed. UK: Sweet & Maxwell, 2007. Tambini, D., D. Leonardi and C. Marsden. Codifying Cyberspace: Communications Self-regulation in the Age of Internet. UK: Routledge , 2008. Voon, T. Cultural Products and the World Trade Organization. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Ward, D. The European Union and the Culture Industries: Regulation and the Public Interest UK : Ashgate, 2008. Read More