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

[John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, I let szomething pass that I shouldn't have.  I very much disagree 
with your assertion that the BBC has always served its government 
supporters.  That opinion may jibe with a preconceived notion by some 
about public service broadcasting, but it is wholly unsupported by any 
factual data--at least in the sense you apparently meant it.

jaf


On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:24 AM, Scott Royall wrote:

> Let me guess, you voted for Kerry?
>
> Of course my point is to challenge the underlying assumption that 
> "truly
> public broadcasting" is inherently more fair than the private sector. 
> It
> isn't, naturally. Yes, its motivations may be more altruistic, but 
> that's
> anything 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
> [mailto: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@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.