Public Broadcasting in World Perspective
Barcelona, Spain, May 2004

Dr. Jerold M. Starr, Executive Director,
Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting

Prepared for Forum Barcelona 2004, May 20, 2004

The free expression of public opinion is essential to democratic government. Such opinion must be the autonomous creation of citizens acting as members of a public rather than the representations of elites who presume to speak on behalf of the public. Local matters can still be addressed through public discussions within organizations or even town meetings. On matters of larger social importance, however, the size and complexity of modern society does not permit effective public opinion to form through direct participation.

The emergence of authentic public opinion on the big issues would be possible if the mass media of communications served as a vehicle for rational discussion featuring the full range of political and cultural perspectives. However, this would never occur if such communications were controlled by a narrow political elite or by commercial interests seeking to maximize their audiences by excluding controversial issues or views that dissented from the conventional wisdom.

It is public service broadcasting that bears primary responsibility for providing the media within which the public of public opinion can be activated. As articulated by Toby Mendel for UNESCO, a "fundamental principle" of "democratic public broadcasting" is that "the airwaves belong to the people and must be used for their benefit." Thus, as put by Australian media scholar Allan Brown, "Government policy of promoting PSB…places greater emphasis on viewers and listeners in their capacity as social beings, citizens and voters than as consumers."

The mission of public service broadcasting around the world has been characterized by certain key principles: (1) universal geographic access; (2) promoting national identity and indigenous culture; (3) serving community interests; (4) independence from government and commercial controls; (5) creative freedom; (6) offering a range of quality programs for all interests and tastes; and (7) fairness, accuracy and nonpartisanship in news and public affairs.
A truly democratic public broadcasting service would strive to instill democratic values and promote empathy and respect for all groups.

There are many ways that the State can promote PSB. For one, it can impose public service obligations on private commercial broadcasters as compensation for their profitable use of public spectrum. For another, it can underwrite public service program production and distribution for commercial broadcasters as well, as is done by the CRTC in Canada. And it can support community broadcasters that serve local publics.

None of this, however, would be sufficient to bear the burden of PSB's mission to promote democracy in a mass society subject to the shocks of global capitalism. For that, citizens need a fully developed public broadcasting institution serving the public sphere. As put by media scholar Patricia Aufderheide, this would be "a public project executed though broadcasting…using mass communication as a tool of public life.

Consistent with its mission, PSB must offer programming that is supplementary and complementary to that available on commercial channels. Commercial broadcasters typically avoid programs that are expensive to produce or that attract smaller or less commercially desirable audiences. Commercial broadcasters also avoid controversy, as it tends to divide the audience for the sponsors' products.

Finally, commercial broadcasters are vulnerable to censorship. Censorship occurs because the story may conflict with the interests of the parent company, because the story may offend valued advertisers, because the story may offend political officials in a position to regulate their enterprises, or because it is feared that the story may be too complicated or boring for the target audience.

Most recently in the U.S., the Sinclair Broadcasting station group blacked out ABC's Nightline for running a special program listing the names of U.S. combat soldiers who have been killed in action in Iraq. Disney has blocked distribution of Michael Moore's new documentary exposing the connections between the Bush and bin Laden families even though it was financed by its Miramax subsidiary. And Viacom refused to run an ad paid for by an advocacy group during broadcast of the Super Bowl because it was critical of the Bush Administration's economic policies.

Allan Brown and Martin Cave, thus, observe: "An unregulated, all-commercial system of broadcasting would, therefore result in market failure. Certain minority tastes and specific programming preferences of viewers would not be catered to, whereas some other program types would be overprovided." As such, "program diversity in a market is far more enhanced by the addition of a noncommercial channel than by the addition of another commercial station." In sum, the "economic rationale for PSB takes the familiar form of government intervention to address market failure."

H.J. Levin's research found that program diversity is enhanced in a market by the addition of a noncommercial channel far more than by the addition of another commercial station. He also found that the existing commercial stations suffer no apparent economic losses because of competition from the establishment and operation of a public television station.

PSB CONDITIONS

Consideration of any country's public service broadcasting (PSB) must be placed in the context of its total social system and culture; its economy, polity, and, especially, the size, structure and strength of its commercial broadcasting sector.
As Polish media analyst Karol Jakubowicz has observed, PSB worthy of its name has "certain prerequisites." These include: "a mature and stable democracy; the existence of a civil society and an independent public sphere; an accepted notion of the public interest; trust in, and acceptance of public regulation of broadcasting to serve the public interest; and the emergence of journalistic professionalism based on a notion of public service."

In countries with histories of political instability, like Italy until 1976 or France until 1989, state-funded broadcasters were vulnerable to political interference and too often served as mere mouthpieces for the ruling party.

Marc Raboy comments further that PSB is a "distant ideal" in much of the "transitional" world (Africa, Asia, and South America) as "neo-totalitarian or neo-colonial governments seek to retain power at all cost." For example, throughout its history, ruling elites in the Philippines have controlled the country's one television network, Maharlika Broadcasting System. Even the 1992 plan for a People's Television Network, Inc. (PTNI) confined its mission to promoting "national unity and political stability." South Africa has been liberated from Apartheid, but the African National Congress dominates national politics and the economy is so weak that the South African Broadcasting Corporation must rely on commercial sources for 77 percent of its revenue.

There is no PSB in Communist China where the Chinese Communist Party exercises complete editorial control over China Central Television (CCTV). Despite reforms in the post-Communist countries of eastern Europe, Jakubowicz further observes, none of the conditions for PSB have been met "and it will take a long time before they are."

In fascist Germany, radio was used exclusively for state propaganda and foreign radio broadcasts were forbidden. Today, in the German Democratic Republic, however, license fees of about US$100 per capita fund a two-station service that attracts a 39 percent share of the viewing public. In Japan, the NHK has a budget of US$6 billion (three times that of the U.S.) and draws a 17 percent share of the audience (six times that of the U.S.).

PSB MODELS

Today, the best models of PSB can be found in Europe and Japan. PSB was established in the European nations in the 1920s and 1930s, even before commercial broadcasting and within a system of communications that was regulated in the public interest. PSBs in England, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, France, Italy and Spain all attract audience shares of between 33 percent and 49 percent with Denmark at 69 percent. In France, Sweden and Germany commercial broadcasters must observe rules regarding advertising content, placement, and limits.

In the early twentieth century U.S., civic and public interest groups pioneered the advent of radio broadcasting. By the end of the 1920s, however, these stations were legislated to the margins of the spectrum by the U.S. Congress at the behest of the commercial networks. The first significant set aside for noncommercial frequencies did not occur until 1954 and the legislation creating a Corporation for Public Broadcasting was not enacted until 1967.

As a percentage of GNP, in 1993, U.S. PSB received about one-third that of Australia and Canada and one-sixth that of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, throughout its history, conservative Republican administrations have attacked the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), even calling for its elimination. In 1969, President Nixon vetoed the PBS authorization, replaced the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Board, and shifted funds from the national service to member stations as a punishment for its allegedly liberal bias.

In 1981, President Reagan rescinded the CPB authorization for two years, causing an almost total abandonment of experimental and progressive programming. In 1995, House leader Newt Gingrich announced his intention to kill all federal funding for public broadcasting, causing PBS chief Ervin Duggan to reject critical documentaries in favor of those that met some conservative notion of "balance." More recently, Congress and even PBS leaders have argued for reducing the number of PBS stations to one per market and the Federal Communications Commission has granted permission to PBS stations to use some of their digital spectrum allocation for commercial purposes. These days PBS has a rating of 1.7 and share of less than 3 percent.

PSB CHALLENGES

Unfortunately, even strong PSBs face serious challenges in today's world. First, cable, satellite and microwave distribution systems enable many more television channels. In addition to regularly scheduled programs there are pay-TV, video-on-demand (VOD), and DVD and VHS rentals available to consumers. The transition to digital transmission also will increase the number of TV channels and radio stations greatly.

Australian media scholar Allan Brown has noted: "As the number of commercial services increases, so does the service's potential to provide the programming that was traditionally the reserve of public broadcasters." In the U.S. whole cable networks are dedicated to traditional PBS fare like nature, history, cooking, and home decorating.

All of these developments have and will continue to fragment the audience for PSB. For example, in the U.S. today, Nielsen rates about 2,200 programs every week. Fewer than 25 of them attract more than 5 percent of the adult population. In 2000, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation President Robert Rabinovitch announced the layoffs of 670 staff and the closing of a dozen regional newsrooms. To Parliament, he explained: "CBC Television's share of the early-evening news audience is less than half of what it was a decade ago. During the 1990's it dropped from 28 percent to 13 percent."

Second, multinational corporations have been waging a successful assault on national governments, especially the welfare state. The increasing dominance of the market concept of society has led to the total commodification of land and labor and the reinvention of human nature as a purely rational, calculating and self-interested machine. Despite abundant evidence of their importance, politicians today rarely appeal to traditional social virtues like civic obligation, moral duty, self-respect and common decency.

As a consequence, governments have been reluctant to raise PSB license fees or increase government grants to reflect inflation or increased operating costs. Ironically, establishment apologists have attacked PSB as "elitist" and, thus, unworthy of general public funding. This further evidences the misanthropy of extreme libertarianism, reducing society to a pool of individual consumers/contractors and removing the rationale for any collective goods other than those favored by the conservative establishment like military appropriations and road construction for private vehicles.

Operating costs in recent years have been impacted especially by the expense in some countries of converting to digital broadcasting. PSBs subsidized by government grants, like Canada and the U.S., have seen their budgets slashed, leading to staff layoffs, greater centralization of decision-making and more commercialism.

The response has been to engage in more entrepreneurial ventures. This has had its own cost. Increasing commercial dependence corrupts the mission and the creative process of broadcasting. Program decisions are made to attract potential funders or larger ratings rather than to serve the public interest. Affluent audiences are privileged over others. Program content is "dumbed down" to have broader appeal. Moreover, commercials implicitly define the viewer/listener as a commodity to be sold to advertisers rather than a citizen, taxpayer, or subscriber to be served or audience member to be enlightened. Where commercials are allowed to interrupt the programs, they destroy the integrity of the program structure and the sensibility of the viewing experience.

In the U.S. five-second underwriting acknowledgements have expanded into
30-second commercials, including pitches on children's programs for fast food and theme parks. There are more co-production deals with commercial partners looking for lucrative back-ends. Such programs typically are designed for export and, consequently, are less local or even national in character.

PSB FUNDING

The authors of the 1999 McKinsey Report, commissioned by the BBC, propose that the most effective PSBs are those that manage to combine both share and distinctiveness. That is, not only do they offer programs not normally available on commercial channels, but they also attract a large share of the audience. This enhances their impact on the civic culture. Beyond that, it creates what the authors call a "virtuous circle," whereby commercial broadcasters follow successful programming examples set by public broadcasters. Thus, PSB actually makes commercial broadcasting better.

The key to the analysis is the source of funding. As the McKinsey Report amply demonstrates, an appropriate funding model for PSB must meet the following criteria: (1) substantial enough to create a true competitor to commercial channels; (2) independent from undue government or other influences; (3) predictable over the medium term; (4) growing at a similar or faster pace than the PSB's cost; and (5) sufficiently simple and equitable that it can be administered with the minimum of political controversy.

The firm's multinational comparison shows advertising income and government grants to be quite volatile. In contrast, license fees have been more stable and predictable. And the most effective PSBs, in terms of achieving both distinctiveness and share, are the ARD and ZDF in Germany, SVT in Sweden, and the BBC in the UK, all supported by license fees.

Writing for UNESCO, Toby Mendel notes that license fees do involve collection costs, are a tough sell in countries with no previous history of such and may exert some ratings pressure to justify the fee collection. Nevertheless, research indicates that, wherever in place, license fees are actively supported by the population. One survey indicates that, despite the availability of two commercial channels, 98 percent of households with color sets in Britain are willing to pay the US$100 license fee and even three times that if necessary.

My organization, Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting, advocates that U.S. PBS be restructured as a public trust, along the lines of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Red Cross or Little League Baseball. We advocate further that financing come from the commercial broadcasters who pay no use fee for their lucrative monopoly over the public's airwaves. A small tax on license use, license transfers and/or broadcast advertising would provide all we think is needed for a significantly enhanced PBS. A 1998 national poll found four out of five Americans favoring such a proposal. We feel that a new Public Broadcasting Trust would reduce the service's vulnerability to government and corporate influences and free it to pursue its mission with journalistic and editorial integrity.

It also must be noted that the transition to digital transmission, in time, will require all consumers to replace their TV sets with those that are HD ready. In the U.S. alone, this will affect about 220 million sets. This offers an opportunity, similar to that of the conversion to color, to introduce a manufacturer's surcharge that could generate a trust fund substantial enough to guarantee excellent PBS programming for years to come.

Stable, adequate and independent funding is only part of the solution, however. The structure and practice of PSB also must embody the key principles that justify its support. We need staff with vision; fewer accountants, lawyers and bureaucrats and more artists, educators and journalists. We need boards of directors with relevant expertise, from diverse social and professional backgrounds, committed to a clearly defined public mission, skillful in conducting the board's affairs, willing to challenge government or corporate restrictions, responsive to community input, and accountable to the appropriate government body. Accountability must include both fiscal discipline and program policy.

Finally, there must be well-designed efforts (e.g. advisory boards, surveys, focus groups, public meetings, consultation with community leaders, etc.) to ascertain what the community and general public knows and thinks about PSB, its mission, structure, funding and programming. Do they value this service and, if so, what are they willing to do to support it? Equally importantly, what programs and services would the public like to receive? This should go beyond a mere complaints process to genuine ascertainment. In short, this would be public broadcasting in the service of the public sphere, supporting and enhancing democracy in mass society.

All of this will require a social movement to challenge that of global capitalism and its ideology of the marketplace as the ideal model for society. It will require a frank and open discussion about what kind of a society we want. It will have to restore respect for the concepts of the public interest, collective goods, and good government as we consider all those things that make for a good society and create space for discussion as to how best to attain them. In societies where there is a strong PSB already in place, that is where such debate and discussion can, must and often does take place. Where such space is limited or not available, citizens must use whatever means possible to fight for such space and to engage others in such discussion.