Understanding the Role of Public Broadcasting

8/6/2019 Understanding the Role of Public Broadcasting

1/6

Understanding the Role of Public Broadcasting An Introduction to Marie Luise Kiefer and her Ideas about the Public Sector Media

By Sebastian A. Baciu (22.09.2011)

Over the last several decades there has been a dramatic surge in the number of private broadcastersacross Europe. This deluge of private programming has the left the public sector media considerably shaken. Since the widespread introduction of broadcast media in Europe, services operated with publicfunds were accustomed to a local monopoly and a guaranteed majority market share. However, theintroduction of a dual-market system1 has considerably weakened the position of public media acrossmuch of the continent, even though privatization has developed far more slowly in Europe compared tothe US. Austria, for example, only introduced its first nationwide private television station (called ATV) in2003. But the on-going debate about programme quality makes it obvious that the dynamic betweenpublic and private broadcasters will largely determine the nature of media markets in the years to come. With the onset of digitalization and the emergence of new distribution technologies such as IPTV, the

stage has been set for the continued introduction of new private broadcasters and the pressure on publicmedia will mount accordingly. To avoid succumbing to these new hardships, public broadcasters mustadapt their long-term strategies to account for these developments. But in order to do this, they must firstunderstand how their role in the media landscape has changed.

The greatest difference between public and private sector media is that the latter is market-oriented.Private broadcasters are owned and managed by people primarily interested in earning a profit from theirinvestment. On the other hand, public service broadcasting began as a response to the technicaldeficiencies of early broadcasting technology. In the first decades of broadcast media, the shortage of suitable frequencies in the radio wave spectrum made it impossible operate the same number of channels we are accustomed to today. In light of this limitation, the concept of broadcasting in the public interestestablished itself as a method of serving the broad interests of a country s population fairly and equally.Public service broadcasting was developed as way ensure there was at least some degree of variety withinthe available programming. As a result, certain core principles were established which public broadcasters were expected to abide by so as to maintain broad relevance. For the BBC, the premier publicbroadcasting institution, these fundamental values were circumscribed by their governing mantra toinform, educate and entertain. This credo was conceived in the 1920 s and remains central to themandate of public television and radio - and not just in Britain, but throughout Europe. In Germany and Austria for example, the undisputed core tasks of the public media areInformation, Bildung und Unterhaltung .Further, many European public broadcasters also have these tenets anchored at the legislative level andare consequently bound to them by law. In the German-speaking countries, this is known as theffentlich-rechtliches Auftrag whereas the BBC refers to its own legal mandate2 as the Royal Charter.

When the radio and television markets in Europe began to open up, private entrepreneurs seized thesegments of the market they considered most lucrative. In an essay about the role of public broadcastersbearing the titleUnverzichtbar oder berflssig: ffentlich-rechtliches Rundfunk in der Multimediawelt 3, Marie LuiseKiefer4 refers to this strategy of the private networks as Rosinenpicken that is, the cherry -picking of themost profitable sectors of the market. While at first this may appear to be a reasonable and soundeconomic strategy, there are certain drawbacks when one takes into consideration the public functions the

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 An ffentlich-Rechtliches Auftrag can be most appropriately translated as a legal mandate in the public interest . 3 The title can be roughly translated as Indispensable or Superfluous? Public Broadcasters in the Multimedia World 4 Marie Luise Kiefer is a German public intellectual and renowned media economist. Although not particularly well known in the Englishspeaking world, Ms Kiefer s ideas about public service media are applicable to broadcasters regardless of where they operate.


2/6

media is typically expected to perform. While it is certainly true that the mere availability of privatenetworks does not directly affect public broadcasters, they create a net effect on the market at large whichcan (and indeedmust ) influence programming decisions. The reason behind this is that publicbroadcasters are typically expected to maintain a minimum degree of rapport with the public at large.However, they are also designed by function to be fundamentally and visibly different from their private

sector counterparts. In certain cases, this is even mandated by law and further affirmed by the judicature. The Austrian public broadcaster ORF, for example, is required by law to ensure that it is clearly distinguishable from private alternatives in bothcontent and appearance. But because the mostprofitable segments of the market are also the most popular after all, media economics can be largely reduced to the economics of attention it often falls to the public broadcasters to pick up the slack inmarket segments which private sector companies are usually reluctant to service. In the legal materialconcerning public broadcasters, mention is often made of a concept referred to in German asGrundversorgung . To put it simply, this describes the responsibility of public media to cater to theircountry s popu lation in its entirety. But in her essay, Ms Kiefer arguesthat universal service may underno circumstances be interpreted as minimum service . In other wo rds, public broadcasters must not

focus solely on the most poorly supplied sectors of the market. Instead, they must move beyond thismerely compensatory role in the market and compete for the same target audiences being sought by theprivate sector.

Another important characteristic of the economic dichotomy of modern broadcast media markets is thatpublic and private media enterprises operate within largely different normative horizons. All privatesector companies must, by definition, mould their products to meet the market s expectations. They areprofit-driven, and their products are designed entirely to meet this end. For their part, public servicemedia are expected to fulfil their legal mandate and the degree to which they do this may be consideredthe primary determinant of their success. However, while a quick glance at a company s balance she etmight be enough to ascertain whether it is achieving profitability, it is substantially more difficult toevaluate the degree of compliance with a legal mandate. For evidence of this, one needs to look nofurther than the terms typically used in legal documents when elaborating on the duties of publicbroadcasters. For example, the Austrian ORF is required by its mandate to carry demanding orupmarket entertainment (anspruchsvolle Unterhaltung ) without any further qualifying statements onprecisely what this genre of entertainment might actually consist of.

As organisations governed by a legal mandate, public service broadcasters must necessarily satisfy a moreextensive set of demands than their profit-driven counterparts. It was previously mentioned that thedominant currency in media economics is attention. Therefore, the most profitable programmes are those which are the most popular especially if the programme is favoured amongst 12 49 age group most

coveted by advertisers. Consequently, it seems likely that the private sector will be primarily motivated tobroadcast programmes which are relatively cheap to produce and have a great deal of mass appeal quality.Such programs will yield the fattest margins and therefore be the most profitable. However, it is equally clear that the public sector media are also obligated to provide at least some amount of mass appealprogramming so as to avoid alienating large portions of their audience. Whereas an unpopular show might result in a dip in profits for private companies, sustained unpopularity could mean a loss of legitimacy for public broadcasters. But while private sector broadcasters are free to focus exclusively onpopular programming, the public sector media must focus on popularity in addition to whatever else mightbe prescribed by their mandate. However, public broadcasters do have one essential freedom in thisregard, and that is thatg they are not financially dependent on viewership. As a result, they can afford toforgo certain popular programmes in favour of something that might appeal to smaller and less lucrativesegments of the public. In her aforementioned essay, Ms Kiefer writes that public broadcasters have theliberty to interpret a viewer s decision to leave the TV switched off on any particular day as a sign of


3/6


4/6

programmes should strive to serve broader societal goals. Television and radio especially are best reservedfor programmes which seek to unite viewers in a manner that stretches beyond their immediateproprietary value system. This is further confirmed by the concept that the media act as a kind of socialglue which serves to bind together an otherwise divergent society. By providing common themes andtopics for people to talk about so called Anschlusskommunikation 5 the mass media help stretch a

common thread across the plurality of human experience.

Despite the difficulty of defining public value as a concept, the term is actually vital to the existence of public broadcasters in general. The dominance of the neo-liberal economic ideal is likely to rise, whichmeans that the privatization of the public sector will continue if not accelerate. Although the recenteconomic crises of the last few years might have tempered the blind faith some have in the market,providing for the security of private interests still often seems to rank ahead of the public good. However,it has been recognized that private companies are ill-equipped to supply certain parts of the market.Considered from an economic perspective, the market for media products is problematic becauseconsumers are only able to evaluatetheir true quality after purchase, if at all. However, an ideal market

allows consumers to demand goods based on their evaluation of quality before purchase. As a result, thegood quality products will succeed while the inferior ones will suffer from a lack of demand and beforced from the market. But because media products are so-called experience goods which can only beevaluated post-purchase, this fundamental market principle fails. As per accepted economic theory, themarket for such experience goods often degenerates into a quality spiral downward. Because there islittle incentive to improve quality, producers compete to make the cheapest goods rather than the bestgoods. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165)

Ms Kiefer cites the explosion in the amount of low-cost programmes that have come on-air since theestablishment of the dual market as potential evidence in support of this hypothesis. The competition toproduce cheap programmes is also a simultaneous trend toward homogeneity. Because low-costprogrammes are largely similar, the result is likely to be a net loss in programme diversity as the numberof private broadcasters continues to rise. In other words, there is a subtle but decisive difference betweenmere variety and real diversity; a quantitative increase does not necessarily guarantee an expansion of qualitative choice. Ms Kiefer argues that public service media have an important role to play in thisregard. Because they are legally mandated to provide quality programming irr espective of the potentialcosts, public broadcasters must play both a compensatory and acorrective role in the market. (Kiefer[Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165) The compensatory role consists of broadcasting programmes that would otherwise remain neglected by market-oriented providers, either because they are too expensive toproduce or because their target group might be too small or economically marginal, such as withminorities and the elderly . Following Ms Kiefer, it would seem that this compensatory function is the

commonly acceptedraison dtre

for public service broadcasters amongst lawmakers and mediaintellectuals. In the course of fulfilling their mandate to provide quality content, the public service mediamust also act as a counterweight to private broadcasters by directly competing with them in theirpreferred markets. This gives consumers a real choice between qualitatively different programmes andthey are free to react to a perceived loss (or lack) of quality by preferring one broadcaster over another. Infact, the mere availability of alternative programmes creates competition and thereby forces the privatesector to maintain a minimum level of quality, which in turn helps to inhibit the downward quality-spiral.(Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165) Put succinctly, the public service media have a particularresponsibility to provide high-quality mass appeal entertainment programmes which actively target thesame audiences sought by the private sector. Because they are notrequired to prove themselves on the

5 The word Anschlusskommunikation is often used in the German literature to refer to the communication one has with others about mass mediacontent such as articles, TV shows and the like.


5/6

market in terms of generating profit, public broadcasters are in fact uniquely qualified to occupy thisparticular role. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 166)

Finally, it seems necessary that we address an issue which has repeatedly punctuated the debatesurrounding public service media ever since the markets became accessible to private broadcasters: the

proposed contradiction between entertainment and information programmes. It has long been assumedthat both types of programmes are fundamental opposites and therefore mutually exclusive. Only recently has it been recognized that this dualism is actually unjustified and that there may exist a substantial degreeof overlap between the genres. From the audience s pe rspective, informational programmes may beentertaining just as entertainment programmes may also be educational. In a paper exploring therelationship between these two assumed opposites, Elisabeth Klaus points out how these supposedly different genres might be related. She mentions the work of British media researcher Dorothy Hobson who first highlighted the potential for fictional soap operas to closely involve viewers with social issues inmanner which would be otherwise impossible for traditional non-fiction formats such as news reports ordocumentaries. (Klaus [Neverla, Grittmann, Pater (Hg.)] 2002, P. 631) Because viewers of soap operas

usually relate closely to the characters, their problems and individual situations have increased relevance.In other words, fictional programmes are able to manipulate emotions in manner that helps overcome thedefault apathy many feel toward problems which do not directly concern them. On a purely relationallevel, it seems that the intensity of sympathy or empathy felt by a viewer is actually directly modulated by the program format.

As reflective interpretations of the real world, non-fiction programmes are actually more likely to distance viewers than to involve them. Because news is typically served as compartmentalized doses of reality, viewers often feel as if they are glimpsing through a portal into a strange and foreign world. And whilethey might recognize the plight of the people being portrayed, this rarely leads to understanding orcompassion because the relationship remains formal and quite frigid. (Klaus [Neverla, Grittmann, Pater]2002, P. 637) Some viewers even reach the point where the consumption of news becomes a caustic rituallargely devoid of any real meaning or significance. Furthermore, the compartmentalized format news isregularly presented in does little to encourage long-term association with the issues. Typical newsprogrammes are usually little more than a long series of disconnected events which are paraded in frontof the viewers accompanied by sparse commentary and little context. After watching such a program, viewers are more likely to feel overpowered and overwhelmed than anything else. Fictional programs cancompensate for many of the deficits inherent in traditional news reporting because they encourage viewers to maintain a close, long-term relationship with the events on the screen. At most, viewers areable to recognize the aesthetic differences between both genres but are likely to remain imperviousregarding what significance this might actually have in terms of programme effect. According to Ms

Klaus, most viewers see the opposite of entertainment as monotony and tedium, while the opposite of information is actually disinformation or even misinformation. Citing the numerous intellectuals who likego on vacation with their preferred quality newspapers as an example, Ms Klaus points out theconsumption of news can very well become an entertaining pastime for some. (Klaus [Neverla,Grittmann, Pater (Hg.)] 2002, P. 632f) Conversely, Ms Klaus also mentions a study conducted in theUnited States which claims that topoi and conflict categories specific to literature are often employed intraditional news reporting. It seems fit to conclude that a separation between these two categories islargely meaningless especially when seen fromthe recipient s point of view.

As for the public broadcast media, they are best advised to focus on programme quality rather than onthe information-entertainment dichotomy. As mentioned in our appraisal of the public value dilemma, itis largely the viewer who attributes certain qualities to particular programmes. Continuing in the same

vein, it is therefore not permissible to argue that a programme has public value just because it is


6/6

entertaining or informative. Instead, the merit of individual programmes must be considered on the basisof the extent to which they comply with other, less obtuse provisos.Literature KIEFER, Marie Luise: Univerzichtbar oder berflssig? ffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk in der

Multimediawelt (Pp. 153 172) inLANGENBUCHER, Wolfgang R. (Hg.): Elektronische Medien,Gesellschaft und Demokratie. Wilhelm Braumller, Wien. 2000

KLAUS , Elisabeth: Der Gegensatz von Information ist Desinformation, der Gegensatz vonUnterhaltung ist Langweile inNEVERLA , Irene,GRITTMANN , Elke &PRATER , Monika(Hg.): Grundlagentexte zur Journalistik. UTB Verlag, Stuttgart. 2002

Understanding the Role of Public Broadcasting

Documents

Transcript of Understanding the Role of Public Broadcasting