The state, specific governments,
or the public, own a large proportion of the world's media - especially radio
and television. The term “public media” is often used to refer to these forms of media
ownership. There are important distinctions between these forms however.
- Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) uses public money to broadcast
in the interests of the public as a whole. They are often established by
law, but they are non-partisan, not supporting a particular party
including the incumbent ruling party. PSBs are not-for-profit.
- State and government media are owned by the state or the
government of the day (and financed out of public money) and directly
controlled by it. It may perform a public service function or it may be a
propaganda instrument of the state or government. State and government media
is also generally not-for-profit.
These
media may be financed out of one or all of these sources:
- A license fee paid by
television viewers
- The government budget
- A programming fee paid by
partner stations
- Public subscriptions and
grants
- Commercial advertising
These
different revenue sources have potential implications for the broadcaster's
day-to-day independence. A license fee, advertising, and other revenues that do
not go directly through the government budget may make it easier for the
broadcaster to maintain a distance from government (although many still depend
on government mechanisms to collect license fees).
UNESCO
defines Public Service Broadcasting
(PSB) as “broadcasting made,
financed and controlled by the public, for the public. PSBs are neither
commercial nor state-owned; they are free from political interference and
pressure from commercial forces. Through PSBs, citizens are informed, educated
and also entertained. When guaranteed with pluralism, programming diversity,
editorial independence, appropriate funding, accountability and transparency,
public service broadcasting can serve as a cornerstone of democracy.”[i]
Widely-accepted
principles for PSBs include:
- Universal
accessibility (geographic)
- Universal
appeal (general tastes and interests)
- Particular
attention to minorities
- Contribution
to sense of national identity and community
- Distance
from vested interests
- Direct
funding and universality of payment
- Competition
in good programming rather than numbers
- Guidelines
that liberate rather than restrict programme-makers
PSBs
may be mainly funded by television license fees, as is the case for the British
Broadcasting Commission (BBC); directly by the government, for example the
Australian Broadcasting Commission; by individual subscribers, grants and
programming fees as is the case for National Public Radio (NPR) in the US; or
at least partially from commercial sources, as is the case with the Australian
Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). What PSBs have in common in terms of
funding is that they are not dependent on advertising.
PSBs
are often established by government through acts of parliament, and while some
are subject to broad oversight by the state, most also have strict guarantees
of independence written into their constitutions. The Swedish PSB for example,
SvT, is kept at arms-length from the state by being owned by a foundation, not
the state, and by directly collecting license fees from the public, not via the
government. However it is subject to broad oversight by a parliamentary committee
as a check-and-balance mechanism.
In
transitional democracies there have been some bold attempts to rapidly retrieve
and modernize the public service ideal, after a history of heavy-handed state
control. In South Africa since 1993 the public broadcaster has statutory
independence and even, at one stage, had its board members appointed after
public hearings.[ii]
However
others struggle to achieve true public service broadcasting. In the former
Soviet Union, “PSB development…is still affected by local transitional
challenges [as well as] coping with global challenges of [the] media
environment.” In Latvia in 2011 for example, “PSB policy making is still
oriented to the value for officials or elite rather than for the public,” with
PSBs still operating as “paternalistic broadcasters that tend to function as
public educators “from above.”[iii]
State- and government-owned broadcasters, directly
controlled by the state, were a common model in the Soviet Union (and later in
many countries that followed its lead). In the post-Soviet era, these
broadcasters have often proven difficult and slow to reform. In Latvia for
example, two decades since independence the distinction between public service
broadcasting and state broadcasting remains unclear to many parliamentarians.[iv]
French
and British colonisers took their public broadcasting model overseas, but it
did not travel well, and colonial broadcasters enjoyed little independence.
After independence, many post-colonial governments continued with the same
tradition of broadcaster-as-government-propagandist.
Public
service broadcasting was founded on a belief that still holds true in most of
the world: the private sector alone cannot guarantee pluralism in broadcasting.
The trouble is that public media have largely failed to do that too. In many
countries, the advent of private broadcasting has made governments even more
determined to cling onto editorial control of the public broadcaster.
Public, state or
government media are usually broadcasters. But there are still some government-
and state-owned newspapers in existence. They do not enjoy the same economic
rationale as public broadcasters and often function as little more than
government propaganda sheets. There are exceptions, and Uganda is an
interesting example. The largest newspaper in the country is New Vision, in
which the state holds a controlling stake. The paper is known to have a level of
editorial independence, professionalism, and for publishing a range of views –
though this independence was questioned when New Vision was accused of
pro-government bias in the 2011 elections.
[v] Fortunately, there is also
a range of independent private media in Uganda that voice alternative views.
[ii] Robert Britt
Horwitz, Communication and Democratic
Reform in South Africa, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),171,
