Public Service Broadcasting

Public service broadcasting (PSB) has emerged in three distinct waves: paternalistic (as in the UK, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere in the 1920s and 1930s); democratic and emancipatory (as in some Western European countries in the 1970s, when state [government] control of monopoly broadcasters could no longer be justified and they were transformed into autonomous PSB organizations); and systemic (as in West Germany after World War II, Spain, Portugal, and Greece in the 1970s, and in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989, when transition to democracy after an authoritarian or totalitarian system prompted corresponding change in the media).

Most European PSB organizations were originally created as public monopolies. Elsewhere, they emerged in the context of a mixed, public/commercial [Page 681]system. In special cases (as in the United States), they were created as alternatives to an already existing commercial broadcasting system, or recreated (as in New Zealand) in the conviction that commercial broadcasting alone fails to meet all the needs of society.

PSB mostly arose out of collectivistic, socialdemocratic social arrangements that assigned to the state a duty to create a public sector institution providing a fundamental service with all the content needed by the audience as members of a society, culture, and democratic polity. The objective was to sustain an informed electorate, cultural and educational enrichment, and enlightenment of society. An important element of this was the culture of “noncommercialism.”

Public service broadcasting emerged during what has been called the “public service” phase of media policy development, when it was dedicated to the achievement of cultural and social goals (mainly in broadcasting) and to the provision of “communication welfare.” The ultimate goal was protection of the public interest and enhancement of democracy, with PSB serving as a mainstay of the public sphere, a forum for public debate, and one of the primary channels of political communication. It had the democratizing effect of making virtually the whole spectrum of public life available to all and extending the universe of discourse.

PSB displays, as do all media systems, “systemic parallelism”: its organization, structure, governance, and financing reflect national specificities. Still, some shared features include public ownership; public funding, at least in part; universal access, free at the point of reception; a charter or legislative remit enshrining purpose; the Reithian doctrine that the purpose of broadcasting is “to inform, educate and entertain”; the promoting of national identity and culture, or nation building; a comprehensive range of programming to serve the whole audience (diversity of programming); programming to address the needs of minority audiences; programming that includes elements of “high culture” or other content unlikely to be provided by the free market; the encouraging of risk taking and innovation in programming; regard for the audience as citizens rather than consumers. Editorial independence and institutional autonomy are indispensable, as PSB is to serve the public, rather than the state, government, or political establishment. Often, however, political influence on PSB is strong.

As formulated by the Council of Europe in 1994, some additional program obligations of public service broadcasters provide a reference point and a factor for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, groups, and communities; provide a forum for a broad public discussion; develop pluralistic, innovative, and varied programming, meeting high ethical and quality standards; reflect the different philosophical ideas and religious beliefs in society, promote mutual understanding and tolerance and community relations in pluri-ethnic and multicultural societies; ensure that the programs offered contain a significant proportion of original productions and as appropriate use independent producers and cooperate with the cinema sector.

...