[Swprograms] Re: What does it mean to be a public service international broadcaster?

[John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments interspersed...

On Mar 30, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Richard Cuff wrote:

> Some have reported here that in "Write On" last week, the head of
> distribution for the BBCWS used the term "business" to characterize
> the BBCWS.  Many found fault with the use of that term, given that the
> BBCWS has a "public service" charter.
>
> The argument is that different methods of decision making and resource
> prioritization should apply to "public" or "public service"
> broadcasters than apply to commercial or religious broadcasters.
>
> Some points of differentiation are obvious -- a commercial broadcaster
> has ownership interests motivated--at least in part--by profit or cash
> generation.  Public broadcasters don't have that requirement, though
> they do have accountability to their boards and,  by inference, to
> those who contribute to fund-raising efforts, particularly here in the
> USA.

The difficulty in all this--and the overwhelming pressure brought to 
bear by the social bias favoring the commercial sector in general--is 
amply demonstrated by the slow drift toward commercialism evident in 
what has been at least up to now ostensibly public service 
broadcasting.  The growing importance of advertising (euphemistically 
rebranded "underwriting" despite the increasingly more aggressive 
adverts popping up throughout) as a funding mechanism, the pursuit of 
programming on the basis (increasingly) of larger general audiences 
rather than specific constituencies.  As a society, we have decreased 
our "general" support in the form of government grants (ie: general 
taxpayer support) in favor of voluntary pledge drives, reliance on 
corporate support and other funding that represents a creeping 
commercialism that is gaining momentum and erasing the distinction 
between public and commercial broadcasting.

> How should broadcasters like the BBCWS, RNW and DW make decisions?
> Should their charters be modified to reflect media choices and options
> available in 2005?
>
> My own take is that the decision-making time horizon needs to be
> longer for public broadcasters -- they should be making programming
> and delivery decisions considering a longer time frame, not the most
> recent fiscal quarter -- and that public broadcasters should bias
> their priorities towards listener groups that are under-served by
> commercial radio.  However, public broadcasters still need to be good
> stewards of the resources they've been given, and -- unfortunately --
> have to be sensitive to political whims when it comes to budgets.
>
> Do you agree?  Disagree?

I think the decline of "truly" public broadcasting can be largely 
traced to a general social shift away from and suspicious of publicly 
supported (in the form of taxes mostly) services and in favor of 
commercially provided services.  The subtle, but real, differences 
between the two have been smoothed---some by misrepresentation and 
ideological argument and some by the actions of the managers and 
stewards of public broadcasting entities themselves.

In other words, if you believe (and can get the larger society to 
believe) that commercial broadcasting can and will produce everything 
that public broadcasting traditionally has and still to some extent 
does now (whether that belief is supportable by fact or not), then what 
reason is there for public broadcasting to exist?

More to come as the conversation develops.

John Figliozzi
Halfmoon, NY

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.