Public Service Broadcasting - Essay Example

? PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING by 14 March Public Service Broadcasting Introduction Public service broadcasting remains one of the most popular and, simultaneously, controversial elements in public service and media discussions. The body of literature discussing the effects and implications of digital television for public service broadcasting constantly increases. It seems that the rapid expansion of markets and competition leave no space for public services. However, the situation is not as simple as it seems. In the era of digital television, public service broadcasting remains a powerful source of freely accessible information for large audiences in Britain and the rest of the world. Public service broadcasting is, probably, the only truly public service left which is truly accessible and comprehensible by viewers, but it is clear that even the most effective PSB structure is not secured from the influences of the postmodern age. Given the bright promise of digital television and the profound alterations it brings to the culture and ecology of mass media, public service broadcasting should undergo a series of changes, to make sure it fits in and meets the needs of new audiences. Public service broadcasting: Defining the term Understanding the pros and cons of public service broadcasting in Britain is impossible without trying to delineate what stands behind the very term “public service broadcasting” (further PSB). The controversy and vagueness surrounding the PSB term cannot be easily dismissed. That there is no single definition of public and public service broadcasting has been abundantly established (Syvertsen 1999). During the past 60 years in the study of PSB no single definition of public service and its nature was developed and crystallized (Syvertsen 1999). Some definitions had considerable variations, whereas many others are obviously contradictory (Syvertsen 1999). For a long time, the term “public service broadcasting” was associated with BBC; but today, none of the existing definitions satisfies the changing demands of the media reality. The fact is in that the term “public service” is no longer limited to the community and those who are interested in this type of services. The terms “public service” and “public service broadcasting” have several distinct definitions, and all these definitions may help to explain the changing nature of PSB in the digital world. First, public service broadcasting can be treated as a unique and important type of public utility, namely, one of the many types of services provided by governments (Syvertsen 1999). In this sense, public service broadcasting is similar to postal services, railroads and roads, and other public utilities used by citizens on a daily basis and for no fee. Treating public service broadcasting as a public service utility is the same as underlining its socioeconomic and technical ingredients: from the viewpoint of public utility, PSB must meet the basic criteria of efficiency and quality, which include the quality of signal, the breadth and sophistication of the distribution network, operations efficiency, etc. (Syvertsen 1999). This definition of public service broadcasting emphasizes the “utility” aspect of the service provision. Second, public service broadcasting can be viewed as something provided in the public sphere (Syvertsen 1999). This definition shifts the emphasis away from “utility” towards the “public” character of broadcasting. Here, the meaning and boundaries of the “public sphere” should also be delineated. Syvertsen (1999) writes that “the public sphere represents institutions in which members of the public take part as citizens and collectively make decisions for the common good” (p.7). The public character of PSB implies that everyone, irrespective of their status or position, have the right and can access the services provided by public broadcasters. Here, PSB is also depicted as an invisible eye monitoring the progress of society and providing citizens with the information they need to fulfill their obligations (Syvertsen 1999). It is possible to assume that PSB also implies gradual withdrawal of the state from the broadcasting field and giving public broadcasting companies full freedom of action in a competitive media market. Third, PSB can be viewed as a unique type of service provided in the service of audience. This definition is remarkably different from the above statements of PSB. This definition of public service broadcasting fits better in the competitive and customer-focused realities of public media in the postmodern world. Based on this definition, PSB is provided with the goal of satisfying particular needs of customers/ viewers (Syvertsen 1999). These public service broadcasting options do not target collective entities but, on the contrary, seek to satisfy the interests of individual consumers (Syvertsen 1999). In this context, public service broadcasting is assuming a more central position than ten and twenty years ago, as globalization and integration of markets demand freedom of accessing and using information, whereas new technologies facilitate the analysis and processing of large volumes of broadcasting in the media world. Pros and cons of public service broadcasting in the U.K. It should be noted, that the United Kingdom has a long history of public service broadcasting. However, the rapid convergence of PSB, telecommunications and computing challenge established believes about public services in the media field (Born 2003). The culturalization of economy and economization of the media produce profound influences on public services (Born 2003). The growing centrality of market relationships and consumer-driven solutions emphasize the economic implications of providing public service broadcasting. However, even in the age of competition and marketization, PSB remains a viable instrument of quality public service provision and a unique element ensuring freedom of accessing and using information. One of the main benefits of public service broadcasting in the U.K. is in that PSB serves a unique and extremely important antipode to the growing marketization and commercialization of the media field. PSB has become a good contrast to market-driven broadcasting (Syvertsen 1999). In this sense, and unlike market-driven broadcasting, PSB reflects the changes in the public media preferences. The audience is becoming extremely demanding and fragmented. The diversity of interests is difficult to overestimate. Apparently, PSB is the only remaining public service which is truly public (Syvertsen 1999). Against all odds, PSB works to satisfy the information needs of the majority and provide information and content they need in an accessible and comprehensible way (Syvertsen 1999). The main benefits of having public service broadcasting include: (1) universal geographic accessibility; (2) universal appeal to interests and tastes; (3) particular attention paid to minorities; (4) contribution to the development of national identities and the sense of national belonging; (5) distance from vested interests; (6) universality of payment and direct funding; (7) competition aimed to improve the quality, not the quantity, of programs; and (8) guidelines that provide greater freedom of creativity and decision making (Raboy 1993). Certainly, the problems encountered by public service broadcasting companies are numerous and varied. Some of these benefits are straightforward, while some others are extremely difficult to implement. However, it is clear that the benefits offered by PSB justify its existence in the United Kingdom and guarantee that all British citizens have free access to comprehensive information and that, more importantly, minorities living in the U.K. can satisfy their information needs (Raboy 1993). That PSB contributes to the development of sustained national identities and the sense of national belonging is one of the strongest arguments in its favor. These, however, are not the only factors which justify the presence of PSB in Britain. It appears that, more than anything else, public service broadcasting reflects and fits in the realities of postmodern media times. The belief that public service broadcasting reflects and fits in the postmodern realities of media performance rests on the so-called standard defense proposition. The latter was developed by De Long and Froomkin (1998) and used to describe the changes leading to the creation of new economies. Based on the standard defense proposition, the new economy differs dramatically from the principles of the old economy, especially in terms of information processing (De Long & Froomkin 1998). The new system of media relationships weakens the relevance of the three market pillars, namely, rivalry, excludability, and transparency (Collins 2002). The new economy lacks rivalry and is not characterized by excludability (Collins 2002). Public service broadcasting is one of the brightest illustrations of this point. To begin with, by consuming the public broadcasting service, citizens do not deny the same right of other citizens (Collins 2002). Thousands of people can watch one and the same program without any damage to the quality and accessibility of the content to other people. Furthermore, public service is non-excludable, since it is available to everyone in one and the same form. By contrast, pay television that limits non-paying viewers from accessing information content returns them to the old economy (Collins 2002). Contrary to the principles of public service broadcasting, pay television reduces the wellbeing and welfare of states and their citizens and, therefore, denies the validity of commercial television as such. However, public service broadcasting is not without controversies. Basically, PSB does not seem to fit in the new conditions of media market competition. PSB is typically believed to be non-revenue driven, and this is why public service companies may lack substantial opportunities to expand their presence and diversify their content. Competition in the media market has far-reaching implications for public service: first, competition is inseparable from innovations and positive change, since competitors constantly strive to outperform one another (Chalaby & Segell 1999). Second, the growing number of corporate players in the market contributes to the media market uncertainty and fluidity (Chalaby & Segell 1999). In this context, public service broadcasting, on the one hand, may fall short of the resources and competencies needed to compete with profit-driven companies and, on the other hand, create a monopoly that impedes the development of competitive relations in the media. Another problem with public service broadcasting is the lack of inherently driven motives for positive change. Price (1999) calls this “the problem of aspiration.” In Price’s words, “for the very reason of the architecture of public broadcasting itself, there is insufficient incentive for radical, internally driven change” (Price 1999, p.420). As a result, public service broadcasting is neither capable of competing with more advanced profit-driven broadcasting players nor can they improve the quality of the programming content provided to viewers. In simple terms, public service broadcasting has no motivation to pursue continuous improvements. By removing public funding governments and authorities can motivate public service broadcasting companies to implement positive change. However, it is not clear whether these strategies and decisions can improve PSB’s standing in the media field. Finally, the lack of a clear public service definition makes the implementation of public service broadcasting extremely problematic. Ward (2003) asserts that, objectively, the prevailing majority of public broadcasting companies in Europe and the rest of the world have consistently failed to achieve the desired level of quality in public service. Moreover, many public service broadcasters have failed to achieve anything like a public service (Ward 2003). With the absence of a clear public service definition, PBS will fall short of instruments to construct new public service frameworks and remedy the situation. With the absence of a clear public service definition, the essence of public service broadcasting loses its essence at all. Simultaneously, free access to information may result in a number of negative externalities. These externalities result from the broad influences caused by broadcasting on individuals and communities (Armstrong 2005). For example, violent programs are believed to increase the degree of societal and individual violence (Armstrong 2005). How to control the externalities growing from public service broadcasting is difficult to define. However, given the bright future of digital TV (Iosifidis 2007), public service broadcasting has the potential to improve the wellbeing of citizens and contribute to welfare development in Great Britain, through strong national identities and greater sense of national belonging in British citizens. What can public broadcasting services do to improve their position? Several answers are possible. First, digital television strategies have the potential to renew the strategies and innovative spirit of PSB, by increasing and diversifying the revenue streams coming to public service media companies (Born 2003). This is how public service broadcasters can avoid budget shortfalls (Born 2003). Second, by digitizing their content, public service broadcasters will expand their presence and coverage and, therefore, successfully accomplish their public mission. However, bearing in mind the lack of clarity around the concept of public service and public service broadcasting, the main task faced by public service providers is to develop a single and coherent public service framework. This is how public service broadcasting can develop a set of quality criteria to be met, in order to guarantee free and effective access to information among all population groups. Conclusion Public service broadcasting has become a buzzword in contemporary media research. The pros and cons of PSB have been abundantly established. PSB is believed to be the last, truly public service provided to citizens. In light of the rapid commercialization, PSB offers unique and comprehensive access to information needed by citizens to successfully cope with their obligations and tasks. In addition, PSB contributes to the sense of national identity and belonging among citizens. These are the main benefits justifying the presence and use of public service broadcasting in the U.K. Certainly, the concept of PSB is not without limitations. More often than not, public service broadcasting is claimed to have no inherent motivation for innovation and change. However, the digitization of television has the potential to improve PSB’s standing in the British media world. References Armstrong, M 2005, Public service broadcasting, ELSE Working Papers 123. Born, G 2003, ‘Strategy, positioning and protection in digital television: Channel Four and the commercialization of public service broadcasting in the UK’, Media, Culture & Society, vol.25, pp.773-799. Born, G 2003, ‘Public service broadcasting and digital television in the UK’, in GF Lowe and T Hujanen (eds), Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, Ripe, pp.205-212. Collins, R 2002, ‘Public service broadcasting: Too much of a good thing’, in J Cowling & D Tambini, From public service broadcasting to public service communications, pp.131-152. De Long, JB & Froomkin, MA 1998, ‘Speculative microeconomics for tomorrow’s economy’, in B Kahin and H Varian, Internet publishing and beyond: The economics of digital information and intellectual property, Cambridge, MIT Press. Iosifidis, P 2007, ‘Digital TV, digital switchover and public service broadcasting in Europe’, The Public, vol.14, no.1, pp.5-20. Price, M 1999, ‘Public broadcasting and the crisis of corporate governance’, Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, vol.17, pp.417-446. Raboy, M 1993, ‘Towards a new ethical environment for public service broadcasting’, Studies in Broadcasting, vol.29, pp.7-35. Syvertsen, T 1999, ‘The many uses of the public service concept’, Nordicom Review, vol.20, no.1, pp.5-12. Ward, D 2003, ‘State aid or band aid? An evaluation of the European Commission’s approach to public service broadcasting’, Media, Culture & Society, vol.25, 233-250. Read More