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

[atlsvo@xxxxxxxxx (maryanne kehoe)]

Scott you are correct. The BBC has been sued several times over
discrimination isues. IIRC, the last lawsuit in the 1990's inolved an
Asian female announcer-and she won that one. 

Similar issues have croped up at VOA too. What is it with so-called
"public service" broadcasters? 




 
Discarded e-mail message   
 
Sender: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From:
royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx(Scott Royall) Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 8:07pm
(EDT-2) To: swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ('Shortwave programming
discussion') Subject: Re: [Swprograms] What does it mean to be
apublic     serviceinternational broadcaster? Reply to:
swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Shortwave programming discussion) 
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.