MC1101 Historical Development Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 1

WHAT SS 'PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING'? WHY IS ST NQIV UNDER ATTACK!

AND IS IT WORTH DEFEMO'NR?

'Public service broadcasting' appears to be steeped in notions of a timewarp, authoritarian

control, and a condescending image of what mu.'it interest the public,

"The idea that the BBC is not just a media company, but some sort of sacred trust has its roots
in history and half!truth!" '."rote N4eg Carter. "It makes the corporation oddly schizophrenic. It
doesn't want to be crass ! hut it has to be popular, or it can hardly justify the fact that everyone
1
pays for it." If we listen to Carter, the opening claims are difficult to dismiss.

The BBC prides itself on simply remaining 'Auntie,' the ever!present relative, always with a
war story, always a metaphor co'acidentally like her 'B'g Brother,' The Sykes and Crawford
committees of its early history agreed with T.ord Reith that public service broadcasting should
mean shying from commerce, embracing centralised control, national coverage and high
standards. These ideals came into their own particularly during war time, when information
^!^ and media plurality were hard to come by; and it was an important instructional and morale!
boosting organ for the government. Today! it plays an assumed!important role in education
and childrens' broadcasting, but appears to have a slightly different agenda.

Public service broadcasting itself is concerned with maintaining and instilling these standards,
and claims to take a stand against commercial values. It is there f o r the public, funded by it
and the state. There is a compulsory relationship with the former, arid an uncomfortable one
\vith the latter. Every ten to fifteen years, the BBC's charter comes up for renewal. Defining
the corporation, its remit and its funding, the charter has said that public service was there "to
educate, inform and entertain." This is said to be at odds with 'independent' media, which pay
attention to what the public want, rather than what they need.

But what is clear in defining 'public service broadcasting' is tliat there has been a shift from the
high!minded to the popular. A symptom not so much of the 'postmodern condition' as of
broadcasters' drive for viewing figures, the distinctions between 'high' and 'low' culture on
television have somewhat diminished; leading to a re!appraisal of what 'public service
broadcasting' is actually worth! "Developing countries will not be spared [in this], despite their
evident need for a kind of television that pays careful attention to the cultural, social,
educational and economic needs of people."2

When the BBC's form of public service broadcasting lost audiences to the more attractive ITV
in the l^Ws^. and the BBC decided to win them back! these values seemed to disappear in
favour of more populist programming. It was in this attempt to compete from within an
inherently lion!competitive organisation ifaat the BBC began to disregard the principles on
which is was founded.'

Today, public service exists in a curious state, somewhere between the commercial television
it decries and the original values it once upheld. Increasingly, public service has turned to
'LCD!TV^ television produced in the style of the independents! for the 'lowest common
49Bominator.'

It appears to want to somewhat imitate commercial television! but exists in a framework which
gives it a special place tliat commands the viewer pay a licence fee ! even within in a larger
system which allows the viewer to use a variety of other channels and media. The BBC!ITV
relationship was dubbed a "cosy duopoly^' .but the manner in which public service
broadcasting in Britain defines ift attentions is equally curious.

I . C ( l^v yff
MC1101 Historical Development Of Mass Communications Part One Coureework: Question 1

And the BBC is now very prominent in commercial cable and satellite programming, mostly
outside of tlie UK. "[The BBC1 can't run adverts on its two UK TV channels, but in other
places and other media, it can whore itself to Babylon and back"1 ! it seeks to maintain the
brand image ofquality across its range of new commercial, worldwide companies.

l^?
Not so much tlie original benchmark for moralist programming, as a reaction / o commerce,
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the USA was established in 1967 by a group of
educational stations. Through the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS
y
moved from strictly educational programming, typified by professors at blackboards, to a
wide variety of offerings, including serious drama, the performing arts. science, public affairs
documentaries, and children's programs.3

More than 50 percent of American households tune in to PBS each week to watch such /T^.
programs as 'Sesame Street.' Perhaps public service broadcastin", is not under the attack once ' f ,1
thought. Perhaps audiences, because they cannot find programming of high moral ar.d
educational standards on commercial TV, turn to public service for a particular and special
type of viewing.

PBS seems to sit, defiant and Canute!like, on the media beach, while the torrents of
commercial TV wash ashore The BBC, perhaps "because Britaiiriias been without cheap,
diverse networks, swims further outward into ITV's waters, yet expects to withhold its
privileged status as national broadcaster.

Public service's Reithian ideals are an age apart from today's world, and borne out of a war!
time era which assumed tlie public had little choice in what to consume, that tlie nation wanted
to be a whole and that broadcasters have a right to cultural high!ground.

There are currently a number of factors which may see public service broadcasting come
under attack.

Public service's new 'general interest' aims may be at odds with. the increasing specialisation
and niche market"1" of tlie new narrowcastin", channel ex"losion. which offers a heightened
degree of uses!and!gratification. Viewers interested in a particular topic can switch to that
topic's own channel and instantly watch a specialised area of coverage, then choose to change
to a new topic when they get bored. Public service broadcasting commands greater attention
and televisual awareness: because it deals in varied programming, and often broadcasts
particular topics at wide intervals. So, a viewer must plan his viewing more carefully and
specifically to find out when his topic of interest will be given airtime,

Narrowcast companies could not survive as a single specialist channel because, by definition,
they appeal to minority audiences. So a single network, like BSkyB, will bring together many
narrowcast channels in one package. A public service broadcaster like the BBC is, then, faced
with tlie prospect of surviving by producing widely varying programmes for a single channel,
while the narrowcasters' parent networks offer more in!depth coverage and more airtime to tlie
individual interests, and everyone'chases an industry!wide audience depletion. The narrowcast
bundles, therefore, could be said to offer a more valuable product than is available from
public service.

Furthermore, this depletion in audiences is due, in large part, to the wide range of media
themselves now available. In much tlie same way as tlie press' circulation suffered at the
arrival of radio and television, television itself is losing audiences to the worldwide web,
MC1101 Historical Development Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 1

Internet, CD!ROM multimedia, video, cable and interactive services, digital broadcasting, the
much!fabled video!on!demand, interactive TV developments, the convergence of all these
media, and new personalised news and entertainment services. Pa!rticularly the latter ! which,
like 'CNN Interactive," is primarily put into practice on the former ! gives users the ability to
tailor the media content they receive to suit their own requirements. Tills adds considerable
value to the media experience ! value which public service broadcasting may find difficult to
match.

Customisation of content embraces user choice, and trusts that the audience is allowed and
able to make their own decisions about which type of news or entertainment they receive.
Public service broadcasting is at odds with this system because it is alleged to have a clear,
high!minded focus of what tlie audience should be seeing. Therefore, public service
broadcasters will very soon find themselves having to lure audiences from the fragmented,
ernpow'!ered media users, back to a style of broadcasting which offers less value and choice.
The clioice between 'personalise' and 'patronise' appa^r'; tn lip an nnwinnable situation ! m\d
one which, if we want a democratic, pluralist media, fhonlil see this interaction and
customisation prevail, because "new media and all sorts of digital delights could create a new
kind of public!service broadcasting that includes, rather than edifies, the public."1

In a free!market Western economy, the triumph of consumer choice is one whicli usually wins
over what others think is correct for the masses. With an ever!increasing plurality of topics
given coverage, and even their own channels, perhaps public service broadcasting is not worth
defending ! particularly when much of the said moralist programming tliat sought "to educate,
inform and entertain" can be found on specialist channels devoting more airtime to these very
principles! Trying to be all tilings to all people seems a lost cause, and may mean public
service broadcasters like tlie BBC end up catering for no group particularly well.

Also, all broadcasters are facing up to the budget!cutting challenge of moving into digitals
broadcasting. Much of this fledgling sub!industry wi.u be dominated and practised by
commercial companies, models and tactics. For this, the public service broadcasters who want
a piece of the action, or a slice of the digital multiplex cake, need money to tender a bid !
money which their audience may not be prepared to fund, even though 8% of the BBC licence
4
fee is going into setting .up a digital service which will initially reach only paying subscribers.

Tlie Welsh broadcaster, S4C ! the most highly subsidised broadcaster in the world ! won the
right to use a multiplex in the forthcoming British digital broadcasting effort!5 Yet still it must
cut costs in order to expand its Welsh!language content to account for the increased airtime. It
has vowed to build 'virtual sets' in computers, which, they hope! will reduce the cost and time
of programme production.6 All of public service broadcasting will need to go through
similarly harsh cost!cutting measures, jeopardising their crnent status in their established
media, as well as their migration into new ones.

In conclusion, if public sen ice broadcasting is worth defending, then it •nust cast aside its
divided remits. Crucially, it cannot be seen to be offering a similar product to commercial
television, because its viewers will find no justification for paying a licence fee when rival
channels charge nothing, or a smaller fee.

Public service broadcasting will certainly be worth defending if such a time arises when the
majority of methods of accessing the media become subscription!only. In a mediaspace in
which every service must be paid for, a rogue force offering free service is essential. But
currently, mere are competitors which are both commercial and free, and there is no reason
public service should be that force.
 MC1101 Historical Development Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 1

Ultimately, tlie re!privatisation of the BBC may free it to be the unified service it once was,
but without the high!minded approach to handling its audience. Being allowed to run
advertisements around programming which could certainly support them would attract enough
revenue to continue making the c.!i,'n!ily programming it prides itself on. The BBC has the
ability to produce good content, .isgaidless of from which direction it is financed.

But producing progranmiea it thinks are of interest to a wide cross!section of viewers will
serve neither the viewer ncr the broadcaster particularly well when narrowcasting is proving so
popular. If public sen, 'ice broadcasting is to remain with a small number of channels, then it
must blur the divisions between the popular and the Reithian. If it is to be defended, then it
must be finely attuned to what the audience ",'cinis, as well as "/hat '.key think they need. This is
/
the stance adopted i'c facto by personalisation, which inherently places an emphasis on giving
the audience qiiuliiy packages of everything they are looking for. But in a non!interactive
medium like television, public service broadcasters will need to listen to the viewer to discover
what is liked. Then this should be combined with programming with covers what society
thinks is good for itself, to create a coherent ideology.

In those interactive media which do allow the audience to specify their own media content,
public service can come into its own, creating a wholly defensible product that could prove the
saviour of the service philosophy. If the BBC maintains quality in everything it produces, then
there is no reason to fear tlie ability of the empowered user to choose from this his own media
content on, say, the worldwide web. It would strengthen the image of the organisation as a
comprehensive service ! you may not want all the news all the time, but you can get it if you
want to. This would level the playing field between the popular and tlie said Reithian ideals,
giving audiences real choice about what they want to consume, but always with gentle pointers
from Auntie as to what she thinks is important. This is truly public xen'ice.

"As the range of choices becomes ever larger, people will increasingly choose programmes,
not channels,'"' and there will seer", no justification for a compulsory tax because no media
consumer will stay loyal to she BBC, public service or any other broadcaster or medium, and
"an end to licence!fee funding does not mean an end to public service.'"

Public service can embrace the new media and come out with the hearts of the public it
7
allegedly serves, but simply Extern!;''TJ, ('ku'.ce in a limited range of media which still rely on
the Auntie!knows!best mentality is not enough in a comiTiercial environment ! real choice
means the ability to decide which part of the quality service is consumed, and that is entirely
defensible.

ENDNOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
•

1. Carter, M. (1997) 'Down The Tubes,' in Wired 3.02 UK (1997, Feb), pp59!63; Wired UK; London

2. Juneau; P. (Chairman, Wcirid Radio and Teievision Council) (1996), in Raboy, M. (ed) Public Broadcasting for the
21st Century, p!vii; John Liubery Media/University of Lluon, Beciioidahifc

3. Funk & Wagnalis. (1995), 'Public Broadcasting Service;' Microsoft Encarta 95: Microsoft Corporation/Funk &
Wagnaite

4. BBC (1997), The BBC's Digital Service Proposition: A Consultation Document. p16; British Broadcasting
Corporation, London

5. S4C (30/06/(997) Press Release: S4C Creates Foundation for Stable industry: S4C Press Office, Cardiff

6. S4C (Summer 1997) Press Release: virtual Sets Put S4C Into Digital Broadcasting: S4C Press Office, Cardiff

7. BBC (1996) Extending Choice In The Digital Age: British Broadcasting Corporation, London