Re: [Swprograms] What does it mean to be apublic serviceinternational broadcaster?

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ah, but you do not address my point. Namely, there can never be "programming
for its own sake." All we do is in service of some goal, and the most
altruistic goals are also the most elusive and ill-understood. I submit to
you that there is no true altruism, for even its most ardent seekers derive
some element of satisfaction from their efforts. Dogs are the purest example
of real altruism I can think of on this planet, and even they are responding
to an instinctive hunger to work with their humans. 

What I'm saying, John, is that all programming serves someone's goals. It
wouldn't be created if it didn't. That means, therefore, that "public
service" is a real misnomer, because SOMEBODY had to decide what message to
air. The "problem" is, you're more comfortable with the highly oblique
approach of the old BBC (and still evident today at RA and RNZI). I agree
that sort of method is often very easy to listen to, with the message so
highly polished that we can easily regard it as our own. Where do you think
Orwell got his ideas? He was a fine observer of British government. The fact
remains that another entity's message is still being sent. 

Your objection comes from the basic fact that the masters of the Beeb have
decided to go for another audience. Bummer, dude. No question about that.
Yet, we weren't paying the weight so we have no voice. Paying and having a
voice still wouldn't guarantee getting your way, either. You see that every
time you go to the polls in the US or buy stock in a company. All paying
does is to give you a vote you didn't have before.

-----Original Message-----
From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:18 AM
To: Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] What does it mean to be apublic
serviceinternational broadcaster?

I don't know what relevance who I voted for has to this discussion, but
you've inadvertently proved one of my points.  :-))

People like neatness, organization and pigeon-holing.  If you can figure out
who I voted for, then you can build your own "unified field theory" about
everything else I might think or believe.  Not so fast, Sherlock... <g>

Programming developed "for its own sake" will, by definition, be different
than that developed primarily "to make a profit".  Some think one is better
than the other.  I'm not claiming that.  What I am claiming is that we need
both orientations.  One isn't inherently better than the other.  The bias
today is that the commercial sector is better--more efficient with
resources, serves the interests of the majority...put it anyway you like.
At another time, the claim might have been (as it was in the UK for decades
and enforced by law) that the public service approach is better.  

All I want is both.  Is that asking too much?  Or is your argument that we
should each be required to pay only for that which we're willing to pay...or
which we agree we obtain a direct benefit from.  If I accept that, then will
you accept that IF I hate what's going on in Iraq...I should have no
responsibility to pay for it?

John Figliozzi
Clifton Park, NY



----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Royall <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, March 31, 2005 0:24 am
Subject: [Swprograms] Re: What does it mean to be a public
serviceinternational broadcaster?

> Let me guess, you voted for Kerry?
> 
> Of course my point is to challenge the underlying assumption that 
> "trulypublic broadcasting" is inherently more fair than the 
> private sector. It
> isn't, naturally. Yes, its motivations may be more altruistic, but 
> that'sanything but guaranteed. A truly public broadcaster still 
> has to serve the
> goals of its supporters in order to get funding, and even 
> governments have
> agendas. Everyone has their own set of biases, even organizations. 
> Do you
> really think the "old" BBC was fair? No, although we're discussing 
> a matter
> of degree here, the 'Beeb" has always served its government 
> supporters. Now,
> it's being pushed to reach a larger audience.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Figliozzi
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:43 PM
> To: Richard Cuff; Shortwave programming discussion
> Subject: [Swprograms] Re: What does it mean to be a public
> serviceinternational broadcaster?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> 
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@hard-core-
> dx.com?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
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.



_______________________________________________
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.