Role of Public Service Broadcasting in Maintaining Democracy in the UK - Essay Example

Topic: Critically analyse the role of public service broadcasting in maintaining democracy in one nation-state with which you are familiar - the UK Introduction Despite the fact that there has not been a universally agreed upon definition for public broadcasting, a number of scholars has agreed upon common attributes of the term. In the views of Harrison & Woods (2001), public broadcasting is taken to include radio, television and other electronic media outlets that are partly or fully funded by the public. To some extent, public broadcasters may also be funded by individuals in form of tokens or favours or even directly by the state. Claims by Negrine (2002) demonstrate that the line between public and commercial broadcasting is very thin. Most of the public radio and TV stations in the US for instance are licensed as non-commercial broadcasters, although they have some undertones of commercial advertising. This is contrary to the situation in other countries where public broadcasters can transmit commercials unabated (Blumler, 1992) The UK Broadcasting Research Unit in 1985 (quoted in Negrine, 2002) outlined the conditions that have to be fulfilled by public service broadcasting. Firstly, public service broadcasting should have a universal geographical presence accessible to all without any discrimination. Negrine (2002) argues that this is only attainable by setting up member stations across the country or having the broadcaster use sufficient transmitters capable of nationwide broadcasting. Similarly, public service broadcasting should cater for all interests and tastes as is the case of BBC, putting into considerations the plight of minority groups, Negrine further notes that public service broadcasting should demonstrate national identity and community meaning by airing local programmes from within the country other than importing shows from abroad. Theory and practice of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom There is a strong tradition of public service broadcasting in United Kingdom. Study findings indicate that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was established in 1922 as cited in (Harrison & Woods, 2001). In addition to BBC, Harrison & Woods further note that there are other four more registered channels in the UK namely Channel 4 which is a state-owned commercial public service broadcaster, a Welsh language broadcaster in Wales named S4C and two other commercial analogue broadcasters, ITV and Five which have significant public service obligations that are imposed as part of their licence to broadcast. All the four television broadcasters in UK provide five nationwide analogue terrestrial television channels. Moreover, it is cited that there are two TV channels operated by BBC namely BBC 1 and BBC 2. Further reports show that BBC radio is the only public operator of radio stations in the United Kingdom. Additionally, reports indicate that it is only BBC that receives state funding with government revenue generated from the collection of license fee amongst all the broadcasters operating in the UK (Harrison & Woods, 2001). As noted by Blumler (1992), the license fee quoted is legally levied to all UK households owning television sets. More observations made by Negrine (2002) indicate that even though Channel 4 is a publicly owned PSB operator, it is maintained through advertising revenue as opposed to the BBC. The same is applicable to the two privately owned broadcasters, ITV and Channel 5. Published reports show that the public service broadcasting (PSB) is a well funded enterprise in Britain and can boast of a much high quality and generally original and innovative programs with UK local content (Harrison & Woods, 2001). The public service broadcasting serves four main purposes in the UK namely: informing and educating the public on the happenings around the world through news and current affairs analysis. It secondly serves to enlighten the public on new knowledge available in arts, science, history and other topical issues through simple programmes. In the claims made by Blumler (1992), PSB attempts to entrench the public’s cultural identity and patriotic sense of belonging through original programming at UK national and regional levels. This in effect brings audiences together for shared experiences. Finally, PSB creates public awareness of different cultures and other points of view through programmes of varied nature as cited by Blumler (1992). In considering the operations of public service broadcasting in the UK, two main problems abound. Firstly, changing the mode of signal transmission from analogue to digital has faced a lot of challenges. Secondly, governance of the BBC has been under increased public scrutiny as cited by Negrine (2002). There is pressure from technological advancement pushing for TV broadcasting service in Britain to adopt digital transmission by 2012. Digital transmission is lauded to bring with it good visual quality and higher audio contents as well as allowing the audiences to select more choices in channels on the terrestrial platform (Blumler, 1992). Additionally, Harrison & Woods (2001) observe that the Governance of PSB broadcasters is under pressure to justify its existence and its use of public funds. Contrary to this justification, commitment to the principles and funding of PSB is at stake. Experts warn that unless BBC operates with high transparency and accountability, public trusts and sufficient public funding can not be further ensured (Negrine, 2002). The principles of public service broadcasting As outlined in previous paragraphs, PSB is based on the principles of offering universal service, variety of programmes, provision of programmes considerate of minority audiences including the disadvantaged, cultural and educational improvement as well as addressing the plight of a loyal and committed body of voters, all cited in Harrison & Woods (2001). This concept was conceived and nurtured with the idea of creating cultural and intellectual enlightenment for the entire society. Harrison & Woods (2001) trace the origins of PSB back to the 1927 documents prepared in support of the establishment of the British Broadcasting Corporation. From recommendations citing the creation of BBC in1925, it was unanimously agreed to create a public corporation to serve as a trustee for the national interest in broadcasting (Harrison & Woods, 2001). This public trustee was entrusted with the monitoring of educational and cultural programming that was believed to raise the level of intellectual and artistic tastes of the audience in the UK. At the time of inception, BBC was to be insulated from both political and commercial manipulation and influence as noted by Harrison & Woods (2001). Similarities and Differences in principles and practices of Public Service Broadcasting As it is the case in the UK, PSB grew in popularity across all western European democracies and beyond. As noted by Harrison & Woods (2001), each of these creations made a commitment to operate both radio and TV services for the publics’ good. Each of the separate cases was committed to establish a state-owned Broadcasting System (BS) to function independently in each particular nation. It was also established that funding for these broadcasting services would come from license fees, taxes and other non-commercial options (Blumler, 1992 and Negrine, 2002). Whereas the principles on which these broadcasting systems were founded suggested that services should be characterised by universality and diversity as mentioned elsewhere in this analysis. But on the contrary, there were notable violations to these ideals, especially in France, Italy and Germany (Negrine, 2002). In some cases the state-owned PSB corporations became the political mouthpiece for powers that be, making them the subject of recurrent political debates as argued out by Negrine (2002). Moreover, modern-day state of PSB worldwide is represented by the US Public Broadcasting Service and the National Public Radio as upheld by Negrine (2002). The US system of PSB as indicated earlier differs from that of the British by being commercially-financed and market- driven in nature. Another similarity is found in the periods when PSB was started in Britain and the United States. In fact, studies indicate that the United States Radio Act of 1927 (Negrine, 2002) created a policy framework that enabled advertiser-supported radio and television to flourish, exactly when the same happened in Britain. More reports stress that this Act explicitly mandated broadcasting stations to operate in the interest, convenience and necessity of the public (Blumler, 1992). However, the capitalistic incentives overtook the public service principles of raising the educational and cultural standards of the citizenry. Harrison & Woods (2001) point out that when the Communications Act of 1934 replaced the Radio Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recommended that “no fixed percentages of radio broadcast facilities should be allocated to a particular type or kind of non-profit radio programmes or to persons identified with particular types or kinds of non-profit activities”. A license for “non-commercial educational” radio stations was created in 1945 but dismally failed to fulfil America’s dream for an ideal PSB. During the 1970s and 1980s, PSB’s worldwide came under scathing attacks because the underlying principles on which the systems were founded were questionable. Thus, “new modes of television delivery including cable television, satellites, and video cassettes created new means of access to broadcast services and thus changed the public’s sensitivity about the importance and even legitimacy of a broadcasting service founded on the principle of spectrum scarcity” (Blumler, 1992). Specifically in the early 1990s, the upsurge of political and public displeasure with the privileged position of PSB entities had reached major proportion as highlighted by Negrine (2002). Cases of bureaucratic interference, cost over estimations and the misappropriation of funds were evident and commission after commission recommended at least the partial dismantling or reorganization of existing institutions (Negrine, 2002). In general, it is in order to state that broadcasting is involved with the running of cultural policy in the concerned nations. The Canadian government for instance is dedicated to official bilingualism that includes usage of English and French (quoted in Negrine, 2002). For effective service delivery under this bilingualism, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which is the Public Broadcaster utilises employees to translators and journalists who can speak both official languages. CBC also encourages production of materials with content from different cultures (Negrine, 2002). Similarly, the BBC in the UK makes use of on-screen commentators and hosts from different ethnic groups partly to support its spirited idea of multiculturalism and diversity. In retrospect, it becomes necessary to consider the financial matters relating to public broadcasting. An economic motivation for public broadcasting is that it exists to provide coverage of interests for which there are missing markets (Negrine, 2002). Studies have shown that the public broadcasting usually present the topics that are considered to have little unprofitability by the private broadcasting networks (Harrison & Woods, 2001). This has been found to work in the interest of the public. The society is variously willing to pay for such programming except that markets fail to provide it. This scenario is common in the less developed democracies that normally have low benefits to advertising (Harrison & Woods, 2001), hence the reasons for their preference to public broadcasting only. But this is contested by the fact that public broadcasting could crowd out potential private broadcasting. The foregoing is confirmed by the results of one study that compared the provision of classical and jazz music programmes by private and public radio. According to this study, public broadcasting displaces private entry in large markets in spite of the general knowledge that publicly funded broadcasting does not of necessity mean production of the best level (Blumler, 1992). This is attributed to a possible failure by the government to pay hence resulting to excessive public funding. On a light note, the author wishes to address the implementation of public broadcasting around the world. A number of major media houses across Europe, the British Empire and even the Commonwealth are reported to have emulated the BBC model of operation. Harrison & Woods (2001) attribute this emulation to the wide ranging trust vested upon the organization. Democratic function of public service broadcasting The British model of public broadcasting has received many praises and criticisms by both residents and visitors alike. In the arguments proffered by Negrine (2002), most of the criticisms received are found to originate from haters of the BBC media house. This is common practice where big successful organisations receive the wrath of the small and struggling ones. The praises that abound are related to the efforts demonstrated by the British model of public broadcasting in enhancing democracy in the UK and elsewhere around the world (Harrison & Woods, 2001). In recent published articles in regards to the success of PSB in bringing democratic changes, the reviews indicate that PSB has been very instrumental in this cause. The underlying reasons to this monumental success lies in the fact that public broadcasting together with commercial broadcasters have shaped the future of British democracy in a very big way. Harrison & Woods (2001) argue that these democratic lessons have been emulated by many other countries including the UK. A conference convened sometime back by industry players aimed at introducing a set of arguments from developing countries and apply them into a global forum debating on the relationship between public broadcasting, media and democracy and thus learn from the experience of developing countries (quoted Negrine, 2002). The eminent Western media houses in attendance are reported to have benefited so much from the insights given by participants from the developing countries. Similar forum was initiated by media houses in the UK to deliberate on the same topical issues. The conference was duped “the Oxford Media Convention” and reiterated the same feelings that the newspaper era is on the blink of its life with the advent of online advertising. As quoted in Blumler (1992), it emerged that revenues from advertising are surely dropping with a drastic fall in readership occasioning serious editorial budgetary cuts and general increases in bankruptcy levels. This has evidently led to the current precarious position the Newspapers in the West and their democratic function find themselves. The same has afflicted the fourth estate function that is provided by newspapers in “informing citizens, providing a platform for public debate and holding governments to account” (Blumler, 1992). According to reliable sources, it is not just newspapers that are in trouble but also the broadcasting corporations. Many people outside the UK perceive correctly that public service broadcasting is provided by the BBC. Moreover, the other broadcasters particularly Channel 4 and other terrestrial channels; ITV and Channel 5 have a public service responsibility and as such are also obligated to provide this democratic function (Negrine, 2002). The fact that BBC has its licence fee funded until 2012 makes it is reasonably secure and in a position to continue with its mandate in the future (Harrison & Woods, 2001). However, Harrison & Woods (2001) argue that the traditional values of the BBC to inform, educate and entertain should be supplemented by a fourth: to enable. This simply requires it to work in partnership with other public service media organisations in the UK. The reason is that other broadcasters face mounting losses due to the thinning advertising base on which they depend. This again is because advertising is migrating online and advertisers simply don’t need broadcasters like they did before (Harrison & Woods, 2001). The government and regulators are examining how to resolve this problem and most suggestions indicate an eminent merger between Channel 4 and 5. Moreover, study findings recommend that the democratisation of media and the reinvention of journalism should be critically and exhaustively covered to save total collapse of PSB, hence its democratic function. In fact, the recent electoral processes around the globe have stressed the significance of the press giving insights into the new opportunities of political communication as well as democratic engagement. One bare fact stands out clearly from the swift and fascinating change in broadcasting which is resident in the fact that there is a big problem of funding for public interest media and broadcasting (Negrine, 2002). This is regardless of “whether it is online, community broadcasting or print”. Public interest media is either dying on its feet, or it is thriving through public financial support as cited in Blumler (1992) quoted by Harrison & Woods (2001). This problem is afflicting both PSB and the local news including possibly online news. In view of this, it is in order to conclude that democratic media is going to depend more and more in the future on a democratic subsidy (Harrison & Woods, 2001). Finally, this analysis wishes to address the state of broadcasting in developing countries. Views by Harrison & Woods (2001) demonstrate that advertising revenues are largely increasing while online media is in its childhood stage, even though seen expanding rapidly. Additionally, there has been significant public demand for new media regulations that would help expand media markets and democracy as illustrated by Negrine (2002). Moreover, some reports show that PSB has reduced public trust where the citizens find it lacking in credibility. Although commercial media has grown robustly and assisted in increasing democratic space in many developing countries especially in Africa, there seems to be real market failures (Negrine, 2002). But all in all, PSB has faced some challenges like “providing information and communication opportunities to rural populations; enabling investigative journalism as media markets mature; intimidation of journalists increases and need for media that reaches across political, religious and ethnic boundaries” (Harrison & Woods, 2001). Arguments by Negrine (2002) indicate that the media plays an important role in informing the public and in keeping governments honest. Arguably, this is as democratically important just like elections are taken to be, and as such present a strong case for public subsidy in overcoming the market failures that prevented them from fulfilling these roles. Democracies across the globe are in dire need of free and plural public broadcasting that are served by state of the art technology. Similarly, donors with the mandate of supporting developing countries have been struggling to work out the best modalities of creating a free and independent media that would provide an enabling environment in expanding democracies of the 21st Century (Harrison & Woods, 2001). Conclusion From the analysis above, it is evident that PSB has an important role to play in maintaining democracy in the United Kingdom. It is also clear that PSB have a huge responsibility in highlighting issues and educating citizens on world affairs. However, the future of PSB is vulnerable to technological changes and political whims. These threats can be managed by forethought and planning. The need to embrace the online broadcasting is also paramount. REFERENCES Blumler, J. (1992) (ed). Television and the Public Interest: Vulnerable Values in West European Broadcasting, London: Sage. Harrison, J. & Woods, L. M. (2001). “Defining European Public Service Broadcasting”, European Journal of Communication, 16(4): 477-504. Negrine, R. (2002). “Models of Media Institutions”, in Briggs, A and Cobley, P (eds). The Media: An Introduction, Harlow: Pearson Longman, pp: 231-244. Read More