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

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well John, here is where the old adage about making the horse drink the
water must be applied. I mean, the BBC itself acknowledges that it routinely
transmitted false information as part of the WWII war effort. It was also
certainly not without bias during the Cold War. Neither of these examples
are considered as negatively impacting the BBC's reputation, but they do
show that Auntie isn't above being a propaganda tool. I also seem to recall
a row in the late 80's accusing the BBC of bias against the former colonies
in Asia, including sacking announcers from those countries. I am amused by
how the latter has supposedly changed. If that doesn't suggest to you that
the BBC is now serving different masters, I can only conclude that you're
not a thirsty horse.

-----Original Message-----
From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Figliozzi
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:48 PM
To: Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] What does it mean to be apublic
serviceinternational broadcaster?

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.



_______________________________________________
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.