Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
KEY WORDS:
Mgr. Kristýna Vysloužilová audience engagement, Czech Television, digital media, Facebook, public service media
Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism
Faculty of Social Sciences
Charles University
Smetanovo nábřeží 6 Introduction
110 01 Praha 1
Czech Republic Much has been said and written about public service media (PSM) over the past decades. There are many
kristyna.vyslouzilova@fsv.cuni.cz studies aiming at a comparison of PSM in different countries, comparing the mechanisms to ensure their
independence, financing, licensing or managerial procedures. However, any clear or definite definition of PSM
Kristýna Vysloužilová is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism at still seems to be hard to come by. PSM show quite different characteristics related both to their organisation
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. In her academic research, she focuses on public service media, and functions from country to country being determined by various political, cultural, and economic factors.
organisational legitimacy and Public Relations. She has working experience from the international PR agency Significant elements here are also historical experience with state-owned media and what had been labelled
Fleishman-Hillard, advertising agency Young&Rubicam and most recently from the market research agency as public service in the past. While analysing the attempts to define PSM,1 it is clear that the most typically
Ipsos, focusing on the research on customer and audience loyalty drivers, reputation and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). As a visiting researcher, she has spent over a year studying media in Brussels (Vrije 1 For more information about the attempts to define PSM, see: BENINGTON, J.: From Private Choice to Public Value. In BE-
Universiteit) and the Chinese city of Jinan (Shandong University). NINGTON, J., MOORE, M. (eds.): Public Value: The Theory and Practice. Basingstoke : Palgrave, 2009, p. 1-36; BLUMLER, J.: Public
Service Broadcasting before the Commercial Deluge. In BLUMLER, J. (ed.): Television and the Public Interest: Vulnerable Values in West
European Broadcasting. London : Sage, 1992, p. 7-21; BURRI, M.: Public Service Broadcasting 3.0: Legal Design for the Digital Present.
KEY WORDS:
Mgr. Kristýna Vysloužilová audience engagement, Czech Television, digital media, Facebook, public service media
Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism
Faculty of Social Sciences
Charles University
Smetanovo nábřeží 6 Introduction
110 01 Praha 1
Czech Republic Much has been said and written about public service media (PSM) over the past decades. There are many
kristyna.vyslouzilova@fsv.cuni.cz studies aiming at a comparison of PSM in different countries, comparing the mechanisms to ensure their
independence, financing, licensing or managerial procedures. However, any clear or definite definition of PSM
Kristýna Vysloužilová is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism at still seems to be hard to come by. PSM show quite different characteristics related both to their organisation
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. In her academic research, she focuses on public service media, and functions from country to country being determined by various political, cultural, and economic factors.
organisational legitimacy and Public Relations. She has working experience from the international PR agency Significant elements here are also historical experience with state-owned media and what had been labelled
Fleishman-Hillard, advertising agency Young&Rubicam and most recently from the market research agency as public service in the past. While analysing the attempts to define PSM,1 it is clear that the most typically
Ipsos, focusing on the research on customer and audience loyalty drivers, reputation and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). As a visiting researcher, she has spent over a year studying media in Brussels (Vrije 1 For more information about the attempts to define PSM, see: BENINGTON, J.: From Private Choice to Public Value. In BE-
Universiteit) and the Chinese city of Jinan (Shandong University). NINGTON, J., MOORE, M. (eds.): Public Value: The Theory and Practice. Basingstoke : Palgrave, 2009, p. 1-36; BLUMLER, J.: Public
Service Broadcasting before the Commercial Deluge. In BLUMLER, J. (ed.): Television and the Public Interest: Vulnerable Values in West
European Broadcasting. London : Sage, 1992, p. 7-21; BURRI, M.: Public Service Broadcasting 3.0: Legal Design for the Digital Present.
23 EUROPEAN UNION: Communication from the Commission on the Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broad-
casting, 2009. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009
16 ÖRNEBRING, H., JÖNSSON, A.: Tabloid Journalism and the Public Sphere: A Historical Perspective on Tabloid Journalism. XC1027%2801%29>.
In Journalism Studies, 2004, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 285. 24 COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Recommendation Rec on Measures to Promote the Democratic and Social Contribution of Digital
17 SCANNELL, P.: Public Service Broadcasting and Modern Public Life. In Media, Culture and Society, 1989, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 163-164. Broadcasting, 2003. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/leg_ref_coe_r2003_9_digital_broad-
18 JAKUBOWICZ, K.: PSB 3.0: Reinventing European PSB. In IOSIFIDIS, P. (ed.): Reinventing Public Service Communication. casting_280503_tcm6-5032.pdf>.
European Broadcasters and Beyond. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 9-10. 25 COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Recommendation Rec of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Public Service Media Gov-
19 See, for example: BURRI, M.: Public Service Broadcasting 3.0: Legal Design for the Digital Present. London : Routledge, 2016; ernance, 2012. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/Reference%20texts/
TREMBLAY, G.: Public Service Media in the Age of Digital Networks. In Canadian Journal of Communication, 2016, Vol. 41, No. 1, p. 191-206. CoE%20-%20PSM/CoE%20REF%20-%20CM-Rec(2012)1.pdf>.
20 IOSIFIDES, P.: Digital TV, Digital Switchover and Public Service Broadcasting in Britain. In Javnost/The Public, 2007, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 17. 26 EUROPEAN UNION: Communication from the Commission on the Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broad-
21 BREVINI, B.: Public Service Broadcasting Online: A Comparative European Policy Study of PSB 2.0. London : Palgrave, 2013, p. 5. casting, 2009. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009
22 PAULINO, F., GUAZINA, L., OLIVEIRA, M.: Public Service Media and Public Communication: Concept, Context and Ex- XC1027%2801%29>.
periences. In Comunicação e Sociedade, 2016, Vol. 30, p. 82. 27 BURRI, M.: Public Service Broadcasting 3.0: Legal Design for the Digital Present. London : Routledge, 2016, p. 34.
23 EUROPEAN UNION: Communication from the Commission on the Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broad-
casting, 2009. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009
16 ÖRNEBRING, H., JÖNSSON, A.: Tabloid Journalism and the Public Sphere: A Historical Perspective on Tabloid Journalism. XC1027%2801%29>.
In Journalism Studies, 2004, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 285. 24 COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Recommendation Rec on Measures to Promote the Democratic and Social Contribution of Digital
17 SCANNELL, P.: Public Service Broadcasting and Modern Public Life. In Media, Culture and Society, 1989, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 163-164. Broadcasting, 2003. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/leg_ref_coe_r2003_9_digital_broad-
18 JAKUBOWICZ, K.: PSB 3.0: Reinventing European PSB. In IOSIFIDIS, P. (ed.): Reinventing Public Service Communication. casting_280503_tcm6-5032.pdf>.
European Broadcasters and Beyond. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 9-10. 25 COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Recommendation Rec of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Public Service Media Gov-
19 See, for example: BURRI, M.: Public Service Broadcasting 3.0: Legal Design for the Digital Present. London : Routledge, 2016; ernance, 2012. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/Reference%20texts/
TREMBLAY, G.: Public Service Media in the Age of Digital Networks. In Canadian Journal of Communication, 2016, Vol. 41, No. 1, p. 191-206. CoE%20-%20PSM/CoE%20REF%20-%20CM-Rec(2012)1.pdf>.
20 IOSIFIDES, P.: Digital TV, Digital Switchover and Public Service Broadcasting in Britain. In Javnost/The Public, 2007, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 17. 26 EUROPEAN UNION: Communication from the Commission on the Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broad-
21 BREVINI, B.: Public Service Broadcasting Online: A Comparative European Policy Study of PSB 2.0. London : Palgrave, 2013, p. 5. casting, 2009. [online]. [2019-02-27]. Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009
22 PAULINO, F., GUAZINA, L., OLIVEIRA, M.: Public Service Media and Public Communication: Concept, Context and Ex- XC1027%2801%29>.
periences. In Comunicação e Sociedade, 2016, Vol. 30, p. 82. 27 BURRI, M.: Public Service Broadcasting 3.0: Legal Design for the Digital Present. London : Routledge, 2016, p. 34.
Other 1%
Radio 15%
Figure 1: Frequency of usage of various information sources (N = 1,500). Each respondent could select up to three information sources they
Figure 1: Frequency of usage of various information sources (N = 1,500). Each respondent could select up to
threeuse
information
the mostsources they use the
often (multiple most often
choice (multiple choice question)
question)
Source: Own processing Print (Newspaper, Magazines) 14%
Source: Own processing
Besides television and social networks, significant differences in information sources
usage among various age groups can be observed also in the cases of radio and friends, family Social Networks (Facebook,
Twitter, ...) 13%
Besides
or colleagues. Radiotelevision
is much lessandfrequently
social networks,
used by young significant
adults up todifferences in information sources usage among
26 years (19%)
compared to 28% of respondents in total. On the other hand, young people significantly more
various age groups can be observed also in the cases of radio
often look for the information or simply take it from people around them; 38% of young
and friends, family or colleagues. Radio is much
Other 3%
lessstated
people frequently
it is one used by young
of the three adultssources
information up tothey
26use years
most(19%) compared
frequently, comparedtoto28% of respondents in total. On the
27% in total or 21% among people aged 45 – 53 years and also 54 – 65 years. It is reasonable
other hand, young people significantly more often look for the information or simply take it from people
to expect that taking information from people around might be connected to social networks’
Figure 2:
Figure 2: Trust in
in information
informationsources
sources(N(N= =
1,500). Each
1,500). respondent
Each respondentcould select
could up to
select upthree information
to three sources they trust the most when
information
sources they trust the most when looking for reliable and objective information
around
usage them;dominated
(also heavily 38% of youngby youngpeople stated
people), whichitisisbased
one of
on the three information
the principles of mutual sources they use most frequently, looking for reliable and objective information
Source: Own processing
information sharing.
compared to 27% in total or 21% among people aged 45 – 53 years and also 54 – 65 years. It is reasonable to Source: Own processing
expect that taking information from people around might be connected to social networks’ usage (also heavily As we can see in Chart 2, the most trusted information source are online news
websites followed by television, which corresponds with the frequency of their usage. On the
dominated by young people), which is based on the principles of mutual information sharing. As we can see in Figure 2, the most trusted information source are online news websites followed by
other hand, we can observe a dramatic difference in case of young people again; only 17% of
them selectedwhich
television, corresponds
television as one ofwith the frequency
the three of sources
information their usage. On the
they trust the other
most, hand, we can observe a dramatic
compared
Table todifference
30% in total. Young
in case peoplepeople
of young significantly
again; more oftenofstated
only 17% themthey trust official
selected information
television as one of the three information
Table1: Frequency of usage
1: Frequency of various
of usage information
of various sources. Each
information respondent
sources. could select up
Each respondent to three
could information
select sources they use the most
up to three
provided by companies and institutions (35% compared to 24% in total); moreover, their trust
information
often. Detailedsources
summarythey
of use the most
answers in %often. Detailed
is divided summary
into five of answers in % is divided into five age groups
age groups sources they trust the most, compared to 30% in total. Young people significantly more often stated they trust
in people around them is higher (37% compared to 27% in total). See Table 2 for detailed
official information provided by companies and institutions (35% compared to 24% in total); moreover, their
results.
Age in years
Total trust in people around them is higher (37% compared to 27% in total). See Table 2 for detailed results.
18 – 26 27 – 35 36 – 44 45 – 53 54 – 65
Online News Websites % 75.3 74.6 77.2 73.8 75.8 74.9 Table 2: Trust in information sources (N = 1,500). Each respondent could select up to three information sources
Table 2: Trust
they trust the in information
most sources
when looking for (N = 1,500).
reliable Each respondent
and objective couldDetailed
information. select up to three of
summary information
answers insources
% is they trust the most when
divided into five age groups
looking for reliable and objective information. Detailed summary of answers in % is divided into five age groups
Television % 62.6 40.7 58.2 60.9 68.2 73.8
Age in years
Social Networks (Facebook, Total
% 40.3 70.3 55.8 35.4 33.2 23.4 18 – 26 27 – 35 36 – 44 45 – 53 54 – 65
Twitter, ...)
Radio % 27.7 18.7 23.5 27.2 33.2 31.9 Online News Websites % 52.1 55.0 53.7 50.3 49.1 52.9
Friends, Family, or Colleagues % 26.7 37.8 29.5 30.5 20.6 20.8 Television % 30.4 16.7 30.5 33.1 32.5 33.7
The Press (Newspapers, Friends, Family, or Colleagues % 27.3 36.8 25.3 23.8 25.6 27.4
% 14.7 10.5 12.3 14.6 16.2 17.6
Magazines)
Official Information Provided
Official Information Provided % 24.1 35.4 24.6 20.2 22.4 22.2
% 8.5 8.1 9.1 7.3 9.0 8.9 by Companies and Institutions
by Companies and Institutions
Radio % 14.8 14.8 11.2 12.9 18.8 15.9
Other % 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.2
The Press (Newspapers,
% 13.8 17.2 15.8 15.2 11.9 11.0
Total Count 1,500 209 285 302 277 427 Magazines)
Other 1%
Radio 15%
Figure 1: Frequency of usage of various information sources (N = 1,500). Each respondent could select up to three information sources they
Figure 1: Frequency of usage of various information sources (N = 1,500). Each respondent could select up to
threeuse
information
the mostsources they use the
often (multiple most often
choice (multiple choice question)
question)
Source: Own processing Print (Newspaper, Magazines) 14%
Source: Own processing
Besides television and social networks, significant differences in information sources
usage among various age groups can be observed also in the cases of radio and friends, family Social Networks (Facebook,
Twitter, ...) 13%
Besides
or colleagues. Radiotelevision
is much lessandfrequently
social networks,
used by young significant
adults up todifferences in information sources usage among
26 years (19%)
compared to 28% of respondents in total. On the other hand, young people significantly more
various age groups can be observed also in the cases of radio
often look for the information or simply take it from people around them; 38% of young
and friends, family or colleagues. Radio is much
Other 3%
lessstated
people frequently
it is one used by young
of the three adultssources
information up tothey
26use years
most(19%) compared
frequently, comparedtoto28% of respondents in total. On the
27% in total or 21% among people aged 45 – 53 years and also 54 – 65 years. It is reasonable
other hand, young people significantly more often look for the information or simply take it from people
to expect that taking information from people around might be connected to social networks’
Figure 2:
Figure 2: Trust in
in information
informationsources
sources(N(N= =
1,500). Each
1,500). respondent
Each respondentcould select
could up to
select upthree information
to three sources they trust the most when
information
sources they trust the most when looking for reliable and objective information
around
usage them;dominated
(also heavily 38% of youngby youngpeople stated
people), whichitisisbased
one of
on the three information
the principles of mutual sources they use most frequently, looking for reliable and objective information
Source: Own processing
information sharing.
compared to 27% in total or 21% among people aged 45 – 53 years and also 54 – 65 years. It is reasonable to Source: Own processing
expect that taking information from people around might be connected to social networks’ usage (also heavily As we can see in Chart 2, the most trusted information source are online news
websites followed by television, which corresponds with the frequency of their usage. On the
dominated by young people), which is based on the principles of mutual information sharing. As we can see in Figure 2, the most trusted information source are online news websites followed by
other hand, we can observe a dramatic difference in case of young people again; only 17% of
them selectedwhich
television, corresponds
television as one ofwith the frequency
the three of sources
information their usage. On the
they trust the other
most, hand, we can observe a dramatic
compared
Table todifference
30% in total. Young
in case peoplepeople
of young significantly
again; more oftenofstated
only 17% themthey trust official
selected information
television as one of the three information
Table1: Frequency of usage
1: Frequency of various
of usage information
of various sources. Each
information respondent
sources. could select up
Each respondent to three
could information
select sources they use the most
up to three
provided by companies and institutions (35% compared to 24% in total); moreover, their trust
information
often. Detailedsources
summarythey
of use the most
answers in %often. Detailed
is divided summary
into five of answers in % is divided into five age groups
age groups sources they trust the most, compared to 30% in total. Young people significantly more often stated they trust
in people around them is higher (37% compared to 27% in total). See Table 2 for detailed
official information provided by companies and institutions (35% compared to 24% in total); moreover, their
results.
Age in years
Total trust in people around them is higher (37% compared to 27% in total). See Table 2 for detailed results.
18 – 26 27 – 35 36 – 44 45 – 53 54 – 65
Online News Websites % 75.3 74.6 77.2 73.8 75.8 74.9 Table 2: Trust in information sources (N = 1,500). Each respondent could select up to three information sources
Table 2: Trust
they trust the in information
most sources
when looking for (N = 1,500).
reliable Each respondent
and objective couldDetailed
information. select up to three of
summary information
answers insources
% is they trust the most when
divided into five age groups
looking for reliable and objective information. Detailed summary of answers in % is divided into five age groups
Television % 62.6 40.7 58.2 60.9 68.2 73.8
Age in years
Social Networks (Facebook, Total
% 40.3 70.3 55.8 35.4 33.2 23.4 18 – 26 27 – 35 36 – 44 45 – 53 54 – 65
Twitter, ...)
Radio % 27.7 18.7 23.5 27.2 33.2 31.9 Online News Websites % 52.1 55.0 53.7 50.3 49.1 52.9
Friends, Family, or Colleagues % 26.7 37.8 29.5 30.5 20.6 20.8 Television % 30.4 16.7 30.5 33.1 32.5 33.7
The Press (Newspapers, Friends, Family, or Colleagues % 27.3 36.8 25.3 23.8 25.6 27.4
% 14.7 10.5 12.3 14.6 16.2 17.6
Magazines)
Official Information Provided
Official Information Provided % 24.1 35.4 24.6 20.2 22.4 22.2
% 8.5 8.1 9.1 7.3 9.0 8.9 by Companies and Institutions
by Companies and Institutions
Radio % 14.8 14.8 11.2 12.9 18.8 15.9
Other % 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.2
The Press (Newspapers,
% 13.8 17.2 15.8 15.2 11.9 11.0
Total Count 1,500 209 285 302 277 427 Magazines)
that they make the news and current affairs issues relevant to the respondent is also interesting; the Czech 27 - 35 years
Television scores significantly higher (67% compared to 48%). I feel Facebook takes care about my opinion and
I might be able to influence its services. 36 - 44 years
In terms of engagement as an important potential benefit of digital media platforms compared to the
PSM, we can actually observe that the percentage difference characteristic for all the other attributes is not 45 - 53 years
present; in the case of caring about the respondents’ opinions and possibility to influence services of the
During the last month, I have learned new things 54 - 65 years
media, the Czech Television and Facebook score exactly the same (27%). In the case of the attribute referring
from programmes or online content on Facebook.
to the content of the media making respondents talk about it with somebody else, Facebook scores higher
(46% compared to 39% in case of the Czech Television).
Facebook makes news and current affairs
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% interesting to me.
I trust information which I get from the Czech
Television/Facebook.
that they make the news and current affairs issues relevant to the respondent is also interesting; the Czech 27 - 35 years
Television scores significantly higher (67% compared to 48%). I feel Facebook takes care about my opinion and
I might be able to influence its services. 36 - 44 years
In terms of engagement as an important potential benefit of digital media platforms compared to the
PSM, we can actually observe that the percentage difference characteristic for all the other attributes is not 45 - 53 years
present; in the case of caring about the respondents’ opinions and possibility to influence services of the
During the last month, I have learned new things 54 - 65 years
media, the Czech Television and Facebook score exactly the same (27%). In the case of the attribute referring
from programmes or online content on Facebook.
to the content of the media making respondents talk about it with somebody else, Facebook scores higher
(46% compared to 39% in case of the Czech Television).
Facebook makes news and current affairs
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% interesting to me.
I trust information which I get from the Czech
Television/Facebook.