System of Public Service Broadcasting - Essay Example

Issues in the public broadcasting service of UK Introduction Public service broadcasting (PBS) in UK refers to the broadcasting of programmes through the various media channels, like television and the radio, primarily for the benefit of public, rather than for commercial purposes. The basic purpose of PBS had been very aptly summarised by the first Director General of BBC, John Reith, in the 1920s, when he had remarked that the creation of PBS was chiefly to “inform, educate and entertain”. PBS, in modern UK, is controlled and regulated by Ofcom, and there are certain necessary obligations that form a part of its licence requirement, which a particular group of television and radio channels must fulfil, in order to broadcast their programs. “Neither commercial nor state controlled, public broadcasting’s only raison d’être is public service. It is the public broadcasting organisation...[that] develop knowledge, broaden horizons and enable people to better understand themselves by better understanding the world and others” (World Radio and Television Council, 2002). At present in this highly technological and globalised world, the system of public service broadcasting is facing “declining budgets, audience fragmentation, and debate over their proper role” (Collins, et al., 2001). In the present context, on examination we will find that the PBS in UK is facing serious challenges from the issue of substantial downgrading of support from the public funds, and the entry of competitors along with new advanced technology into the world of media and communication. We will examine these very issues and explore various subjects to find out logical and workable solutions to these imminent problems, which threat the very existence of modern day UK PBS. Discussion In UK by the regulations of the Ofcom it is mandatory for BBC to have public service addresses, for all its television and radio stations, including the ones that have digital transmission. Besides these, other stations that transmit through the terrestrial analogue television like ITV and Channel 4 whose programs are transmitted to all of UK, that includes Scotland, Northern Ireland, England; FIVE and also SC4 in Wales, are bound to transmit programs that fall under the category of public service broadcasting, since these free to air channels are available to all citizens in UK. Under the Community Radio Order 2004, it is also mandatory for the 200 community Radio services to play the role of public service providers; the only exemption in this case are the commercial radios, which are allowed to transmit nominal or minimum level of news aimed at public service. In face of the recent economical, technological, cultural (‘multicultural’ societies of this twentieth century globalised world), and regulatory (enforced by Ofcom) ambiguities, certain experts are of the view that PBS in UK is facing serious threats (Chalaby and Segell, 1999). At present the most important issue relevant to the public broadcasting service in UK is that which concerns economic uncertainties. This condition is arising from an increase in competition from other commercial broadcasting channels, a slowdown in advertising, economic recession and as a result the recent cut in public funds by the UK government, in the face of expanding multichannel broadcasting services at the risk of cutting down production costs. On the other hand we find that the competitor commercial broadcasters are generating increased revenues, by bringing in new subscriptions. These groups are also forming new models that allow them to earn multi- revenues from their various business ventures (Independent Television Commission, 2001). Since the PSBs are required to balance their revenue earning commercial activities with obligatory public services, along with the necessity to search for and locate the legitimate market openings, thus making competition with the commercial channels a big issue in terms of economic uncertainties. Another important issue that comes under this economic uncertainty is the matter of fair trading, where we find the entire PSB industry facing serious threat from BSkyB’s monopoly rule over distribution rights, through the effective launching of its DSat platform, which has vertical links to different popular film content viewing, the popular Sky channels, and also is linked to subjects on the highly popular theme of sports. Thus this dominating attitude of the commercial broadcasting players, that rule the various arenas of the popular and premium UK viewing channels, is making survival for the PBS’s a real serious issue (Shooshan and Cave, 2000). However here there is another dimension to the issue of digital transmission, where we find that economics in connection to commercial digital transmission is quite in a frangible condition, with 2001 seeing the closure of many commercial digital channels (even those that were backed by large MNCs). It thus naturally raised questions as to whether there is a need to bring in high quality content to generate more revenue from digital transmissions, which has been the latest technological innovation in the world of both public and commercial broadcasting services. The next issue that concerns the PBS is the recent changes in the cultural perspectives within the UK social fabric. The so called ‘national common culture’ has undergone sea changes, owing to the recent formation of a multicultural society in UK. There have also been certain changes associated with concept of multi channels and ‘time shift’ innovations. All these have brought about segmentation and division of the viewing audiences (Dodd and Stevenson, 2001). As Singer in his article writes, “increased number of TV services means that audiences are getting fragmented. Where once a show on the publicly owned BBC, or its commercial rival ITV, regularly commanded audiences of 20 million, now a good audience is under half this” (Singer, Getting over our public service broadcasting addiction, April 2010). The threat from technological innovations is even greater, when we find that the Internet has taken a large share of the UK audience under its wraps “70% (80% in urban areas) are on the internet; there are movies on your Xbox, and assorted forms of catch-up TV” (Singer, ibid). In this context, many experts have questioned the viability of keeping alive the publicly funded PBS, in the modern digital era of advanced technological innovations. It has been said that the easy availabilities of the spectrum, innumerable operating channels that are extremely diverse in nature and content, and the arrival of the so called ‘matured viewership’ have made the very concept of PBS redundant. It has been contented that the PBS mixed television programming have become old fashioned, and the content regulation of PBS by Ofcom has become obsolete in the face of other available convergent technologies, that the audience can easily view through various means (Dodd and Stevenson 2001, 130). There are others who feel that BBC alters or belies the markets in which it functions; and that only the economic theory that predicts market failure of PBS, owing to the presence of positive ‘externalities’ can really be justified (Bazalgette, 2001). Regarding this concept of market failure Gavin Davies (chairman of the BBC from 2001-2004) had once commented that “some form of market failure must lie at the heart of any concept of public service broadcasting”, however this claim has been refuted by Bazalgette, who has opined that this factor of market failure can be dealt with, by contracting out, in a competitive manner. In a recent survey by Ofcom (2007-08) on consumer choices: Fig A: Ofcom’s survey “into the consumers’ views on the public service purposes and characteristics shows that audiences of all types continue to find each of these purposes and characteristics important. Purpose 1 (informing our understanding of the world- 86%) is regarded as the most important purpose, followed by Purpose 3 (reflecting UK cultural identity 78%). Of the Characteristics, high quality (84%) and engaging (81%) are regarded as the most important” (Source: Ofcom, 21st January 2009, 21-22). From the above graph it can be clearly seen that UK audience is still ready to continue with the publicly funded PBS, provided that purpose 1 and purpose 2 are presented to them in an engaging manner with high quality content matter. Thus, it becomes imperative that PBS focuses more on providing viewing matter that is more focussed on these two purposes. The next series of questions in this context that is bound to crop up is that, since it the common people that are paying a part of their taxes to keep the PBS alive, should the PBS find it obligatory to broadcast only subjects that the people wish to see?, and, should the consumers be allowed to view only what they wish to view?, or should the government regulate and force their preferred subjects onto the UK consumers? Forcing the consumers to watch only certain regulated channels (even if they are aired free) would not be effective, as in this technological modern world, the viewers would find out some other means of watching the programs they wish to see. As Richard Eyre (chief executive of ITV) had aptly framed it “Free school milk doesn’t work when the kids go and buy Coca-Cola because it’s available and they prefer it and they can afford it. So public service broadcasting will soon be dead” (Eyre, 1999). Conclusion: From a discussion on the various issues that plague PBS in UK in today’s context, we find that this sector needs to undergo various reforms, if it wishes to survive. It would be both non-democratic and unethical (and also quite futile), to force the consumer to watch whatever the PBS serves. So the only alternative for PBS to survive in this highly technological and competitive market (along with budgetary constraints and further threats coming from the gradually disappearing government provided subsidies or public finding), is to broadcast programs that are more in line with what the consumers wish to view. Other than this, to survive, PBS also needs to chalk out various other revenue earning business plans, rather than simply depending on support from the public funding. Thus, while catering according to the viewers’ choice of programs; PBS also has to develop a keen economic acumen, so as to turn this business of broadcasting into a more profitable one, where it would not be completely dependent on the government provided subsidies. In this venture it is also important that Ofcom moderates it regulations, and allow the various channels that come under the PBS, to function more liberally and with better economic aims that would serve to bring in more revenues. Under such circumstances, it is worthwhile to take heed of what Coase advised, “The task of charting a sensible future for the broadcasting industry is not one which can be left to the industry, which has its own interests to protect. It cannot be left to the Federal Communications Commission, which cannot conceive of any future which is not essentially a repetition of the past...I suggest that it has to be assumed by academic economists...I would not argue that academic economists are technically the best qualified to investigate what government policy should be towards the broadcasting industry. But unless they do it, no one else will” (Coase, 1966, 446). Bibliography Bazalgette, P. 2001. “Contentedness”, in S. Higdon (ed.), Culture and Communications: Perspectives on Broadcasting and the Information Society. London: Independent Television Commission, 72-5. Chalaby, J. K. and Segell, G. 1999. The broadcasting media in the age of risk. New Media and Society 1, 3. Coase, R. 1966. The Economics of Broadcasting and Government Policy. American Economic Review, 56(2), 440-447. Collins, R., Finn, A., Mcfadyen, S., and Hoskins, C. 2001. Public Service Broadcasting Beyond 2000: Is There a Future for Public Service Broadcasting? Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 26, No 1. Retrieved from, http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/1192/1128 Davies, G. 1999. The Future Funding of the BBC. Report of the Independent Review Panel to Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 10. Dodd, P., & Stevenson, W. 2001. “Creative industries and joined-up culture”, in S. Higdon (ed.), Culture and Communications: Perspectives on Broadcasting and the Information Society. London: Independent Television Commission, 128-33. Eyre, R. 1999. MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, 27 August 1999. Independent Television Commission, ITI. 2001. Investing in UK Culture. Paper for Smith Institute seminar, London. Ofcom. 21st January 2009. Putting viewers first. Ofcom’s Second Public Service Broadcasting Review, 21-22. Accessed at, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/psb2_phase2/statement/psb2statement.pdf. Shooshan, H. and Cave, M. 2000. “Media and telecoms regulation in converging Markets”, in S. Barnett et al. E-Britannia: The Communications Revolution. Luton: University of Luton Press, 71- 83. Singer, April 2010. Getting over our public service broadcasting addiction. World Radio and Television Council. 2002. Why public broadcasting? Accessed at, http://www.cmrtv.org/documents/radio-publique-en.htm Read More