8/3/2019 Broadcasting in the Public Service

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/broadcasting-in-the-public-service 1/3

Broadcasting in the Public Service

 An Introduction to Marie Luise Kiefer and her Ideas about the Public Sector Media

By Sebastian A. Baciu (22.09.2011)

Since the widespread introduction of broadcast media in Europe, the market has traditionally beendominated by organizations designed to operate in the public interest. For most of that time, these publicbroadcasters enjoyed a dominant position in their respective markets and were given little reason toquestion either their purpose or legitimacy. However, the recent shift toward a ‘dual-market system1’ hascaused a surge in the number of private broadcasters throughout the continent. This dramatic increase incompetition has heightened the pressure on the public sector to adapt and reform. Meanwhile, the debatecontinues about what role public broadcasters ought to occupy in this new and vastly altered medialandscape.

Marie Luise Kiefer is a well-known German intellectual and media economist at the forefront of the

debate about public sector media and program quality in Europe. Although her work has not receivedmuch attention in the English speaking world, her arguments are in fact broadly relevant and have oftenserved as a signpost for the European media in more turbulent times. In one of her more recent essays2,

Ms Kiefer discusses how public broadcasters must adapt to the new “multimedia world”. She argues that,due to the deluge of private programming caused by the onset of digitization, public broadcast servicesmust dramatically reorient themselves in order to maintain their future relevance. To survive, sheproposes that public broadcasters must do two things: a) reinterpret their public service mandate and b)refine and elaborate on their understanding of public value as well.

Reinterpreting the Public Service Mandate

Most public sector media organizations in Europe are governed by law through what is known as a publicservice mandate. This is type of contract which legally binds broadcasters to serving in the public interest,thereby also legitimizing their use of public funds. As the premier public broadcasting institution, theBBC largely pioneered the concept of the public service mandate through its own Royal Charter. At theheart of this document were three words that would later become the governing maxim of numerous

public broadcasters throughout Europe: to inform, educate and entertain. In Germany and Austria forexample, public service media are still required by law to uphold the values of  Information, Bildung und 

Unterhaltung in their programming decisions. Many public broadcasters are also legally required to ensurethat their programmes meet a certain standard of quality, even though this directive is rarely elaboratedupon. And while these values remain as important as they are indisputable, their meaning in the context

of the modern media landscape must be revisited.

 Another feature critical to the concept of the public service mandate is the idea of ‘universal service’. Onthe one hand, this can be interpreted as a technical requirement which dictates that public broadcastsmust be accessible to everyone. This condition has proven to be a costly one in Austria, where it hasforced the country’s only public broadcaster to install expensive transmitters in sparsely populatedmountain areas. But more importantly, universal service must also be understood as the public sector’sobligation to cater to public taste in its entirety. And because private broadcasters have demonstrated aremarkable tendency to produce programmes which target only a very specific (and very similar)

1 In this case, a ‘dual-market system’ refers to the side-by-side operation of both public and private sector media within the same marketplace.2  KIEFER, Marie Luise: Univerzichtbar oder Überflüssig? Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk in der Multimediawelt (Pp. 153  –  172) inLANGENBUCHER, Wolfgang R. (Hg.): Elektronische Medien, Gesellschaft und Demokratie. Wilhelm Braumüller, Wien. 2000

8/3/2019 Broadcasting in the Public Service

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/broadcasting-in-the-public-service 2/3

audience, the requirement for universal service has become more important than ever. This is because‘cherry -picking’ on behalf of the private sector inevitably causes less lucrative portions of the market toremain chronically undersupplied. And as the number of private broadcasters continues to increase, sotoo will the programme deficit.

In her essay, Ms Kiefer ascribes public broadcasters a complementary purpose in this regard. That is, they must strive to supply those portions of the market which the private sector tends to disregard. Becausefor-profit media companies overwhelmingly prefer the 12  –  49 demographic due to its economicsignificance, it often falls to the public services to provide programmes for young children and the elderly,as well as for minorities and other ‘fringe’ groups. However, Ms Kiefer also cautions that this idea of 

complementarity should not be understood too narrowly. She insists that, while public broadcasters mustindeed focus on remedying the deficits created by the private sector, it is also vital that they remainattentive to changes and new developments in the market.

One such future development is the continued emergence of new players in the private sector. As a result

of digitization, many technical bottlenecks which formerly acted as barriers to entry are no longerrelevant. From an economist’s point of view however, increased competition in the market for mediaproducts might not necessarily have the benefits one would ordinarily expect. Because television and

radio shows are experience goods, it is very difficult and often even impossible for consumers toaccurately judge their quality. For example, viewers of news and information programs often have nomeans of independently verifying the validity of what they are seeing. Instead, they are forced to rely onimplicit quality indicators such as the reputation of the broadcaster or their own past experiences. As aconsequence, they are not able convert their expectations into market demand for appropriate products.

  And in turn, the supply side (broadcasters) will have no incentive to provide quality programs if consumers are neither able to recognize nor willing to pay for them. As a result, market competition shiftsfrom quality to price  –  a situation known as a downward quality-spiral. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)]

2000, P. 165)

Keeping these economic considerations in mind, Ms Kiefer suggests that public broadcasters must alsoserve as a corrective presence in the media marketplace.  (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165) Thismeans that they must actively compete for the same demographic groups favoured by the private sector.

  And in fact, this is something for which they happen to be uniquely qualified. Not only do publicbroadcasters not have to worry about their bottom line, but they are also legally mandated to provide‘high quality’ programmes across the board. These are both advantageous characteristics in a marketplaceswamped with cheap and largely similar shows and should encourage public broadcasters to create their

own distinct program schedules. Ideally, this also gives disaffected viewers an outlet by which ‘punish’ any 

perceived slip in the quality of private sector programming because they can simply turn instead to theirpublic counterparts. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165) By directly competing with private mediacompanies for their preferred audience, public broadcasters are able to grant consumers the opportunity of true choice.

By acting both in a complementary and corrective capacity while simultaneously adhering to the maxim of ‘quality’ programming, public broadcasters can establish a minimum standard in the marketplace. Andalthough the definition of quality in television programmes remains nebulous, it lies at the heart of thepublic service mandate. Yet recently, the modern debate about media and public broadcasting has givenrise to a new term which threatens to supplant the notion of quality in its traditional sense. It seems that‘public value’ has now taken centre stage, even though few seem know how the story might end.

Public Value (is what the Public Values?)

8/3/2019 Broadcasting in the Public Service

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/broadcasting-in-the-public-service 3/3

 

 The concept of ‘public value’ was initially developed in a 1995 publication by Professor Mark Moore as asynonym for shareholder value in the public realm. It has since found common currency among academics and think tanks as a means of describing the raison d’être  of public institutions. A 2004 reportpublished by the BBC entitled Building Public Value  stated that “[the BBC] exists solely to create public

 value”.   The term is also regularly employed by the Austrian ORF, which even releases a Public Value Report each year detailing how its programmes have contributed to creating public value. Because it is soexpansive, the concept also fits well into the existing legal framework which governs many publicbroadcasters. Yet it is precisely this interpretative leeway which softens its power as a guiding principle.

  There is no commonly accepted definition of what public value means with relation to publicbroadcasting. Sometimes, attempts to define the idea serve only to enhance the confusion: “What is

Public Value? Public Value is what the public values…”3 This definition is not entirely devoid of meaning however. It proposes that public value is created by the audience and is not an inherent attribute of programmes themselves. Instead, public value may be judged by the degree of harmony a programme has

 with the audience’s own personal values. This definition is flawed however, especially if it is to become a  wide-ranging standard for broadcasters. First of all, personal tastes and values are so broad and all-encompassing that almost any programme will be able to create a certain degree of public value in this

sense. Furthermore, this definition also offers no measure by which to compare the public value of different programmes and no clear objectives for producers and broadcasters to aim for.

  To better grasp the idea behind public value, it is helpful to draw a parallel to a similar concept ineconomics. In the context of discussing program quality, Ms Kiefer draws attention to the fact that, in

general, many economists consider media to be a merit good. Further, she points out that the market formeritorious goods is left chronically undersupplied by the private sector. The principle reason behind thisdeficit is that such programs serve societal rather than individual interests, and therefore do not offer the

same incentives in terms of market value. As a result, Ms Kiefer proposes public broadcasters havecomplementary and corrective roles to play in this regard as well. Again, the complementary functioninvolves simply supplying the appropriate programmes to compensate for the shortfall left by the privatesector. In doing so, public broadcasters also act correctively by exerting competitive pressure on theprivate sector to provide at least some small measure of their own meritorious programming. (Kiefer[Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 167)

In light of these considerations, it would appear that true ‘public value’ cannot be created simply by  pandering to an audience’s  tastes. In keeping with the meritocratic ideal, public value is not ‘what the

public values’ but instead, it is what the public should value. While such a definition might appear stifling 

and paternalistic to some, it is in fact largely in line with many of the traditional principles still espousedby public broadcasting. Both the universal service requirement and the obligation to supply high quality programmes can be interpreted in favour of this definition. Furthermore, public broadcasters are betterequipped than any other institution to provide for this kind of public value. Casual mass-appealprogrammes are supplied in surplus by the private sector, and while public broadcasters must still actcorrectively in this regard, they must also find their own niche.

3 OAKLEY , Kate & LEE, Richard: Giving them what they want: the construction of the public in ‘public value’.

[http://robertoigarza.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/art-public-value-giving-them-what-they-want-oakley-et-alt-2006.pdf] (11.11.2011)