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

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks. I don't drink alcohol, but you certainly can.

-----Original Message-----
From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Figliozzi
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:30 PM
To: Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] What does it mean to be apublic
serviceinternationalbroadcaster?

:-)

Point well expressed and well taken.

I thought you were saying that this was the BBC's primary raison 
d'etat, which now ?I can see was not your precise point.  I guess I 
wouls parallel this to what..say..NBC has done at times when an 
unflattering story about GE arises...

jaf

P.S.:  How 'bout a beer?

On Mar 31, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Scott Royall wrote:

> 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.
>

_______________________________________________
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.