("Oz" = slang for "Australia")
Here is an item from me on an Internet discussion list on the issue
of survivability of publicly sponsored broadcasting systems in countries that
have a tradition of such systems. The list is run by Douglas Henwood, N.Y.,
editor of the excellent Left Business Observer. Doug is discussing with Rob
Schaap from Canberra - and I chime in.
Trond Andresen
***************************************
At 12:50 16/05/98 -0400, Doug wrote:
>Rob Schaap wrote:
>
>>I don't often get to blow Oz's trumpet on these channels, but I'm
>>absolutely convinced that, with radio thrown in, Oz enjoys the best
>>broadcasting system in the Anglophone world.
>
>How do you keep a publicly sponsored broadcasting system from becoming a
>mouthpiece for the state? From what I know of the CBC, they manage, more or
>less, but how?
I take the liberty of replying, since I assume the question was to the list
in general and not only to Rob.
Doug suggests that a publicly sponsored broadcasting system will have to
be a state mouthpiece. An extreme example of this is the
Milosevic-controlled broadcasters in Serbia. This is obviously a fairly
stable, symbiotic arrangement. The state furnishes you with cash and a
(near-)monopoly, and you help the guys in power prevail through what
and how you choose to broadcast.
The question is then: Can one think of *another* reasonably stable
configuration with a publicly sponsored broadcasting system (psbs)
in a capitalist economy, where the psbs is fairly *independent*
of the state? Since this system, as opposed to in the Milosevic
scenario, must survive in spite of possible low-level but all the same
permanent animosity from the state sponsor towards the psbs, there is
obviously a need of some other checks and balances in place for such a
scenario to stably prevail.
Based on long-time watching/listening (to) the NRK (Norwegian state-owned
publicly sponsored broadcasting system), some tuning in to SR over the years
(Swedish state-owned psbs), and recent experience with the ABC (Australian
state-owned psbs) - there are IMO some mechanisms at work to defend such
broadcasters' independent position.
The most important factor is public support for psbs broadcasting. This
seems to me to be on the increase in countries which by now has had a fairly
long bout with commercial broadcasting in parallell with former monopoly
psbs broadcasters. I think the reason for this is that a significant part of
the public is starting to get fed up with the commercial broadcasters. It is
like kids when they are allowed a new sweet for the first time (in this case
the novelty of glitzy commercial TV): You tire of it after a while. At least
significant parts (and many of them are of the influential middle class academic
category) of the public do.
The public support is strengthened by interaction between psbs staff and the
public. The psbs staff is very concerned about being pressed by cutbacks
from the (usual) neoliberal governments (who of course want to tilt the
playing field in the favour of their mates who control the commercial
networks, and also discipline the psbs for being too independent). The psbs
staff know that their only means to stay in business is strong public
support. This among other things means that they must play the card that only
they (as opposed to the commercial brodcasters) hold: Credibility. Which is
enhanced by demonstrating independence from the state. The psbs
staff are also very active in the on-going debates within the media
pofession, and they have a lot of sympathy from
some influential colleagues in the printed
press, who see the obvious need for some independent broadcasting in a sea
of commercial stupidity/conformity. These colleagues are often supportive in their
columns in conflicts between the state and the psbs. (But colleagues in the
commercial channels are usually not, because of the psbs being a big and
dangerous competitor, and also - perhaps the most important factor - because
they deep down below know that they have sold out themselves,
and project this frustration into resentment towards the psbs).
Summing up, I think there are objective possibilities for such psbs institutions to
stably survive and even thrive, but it is a struggle every inch of the way.
One dangerous factor is the management
that the state appoints to run psbs institutions: Such management today are
typically neoliberal henchmen of the state. They loyally execute cutbacks,
and they try to make the psbs compete with the commercials *on commercial
premises* - thus undermining the two potent triumph cards the psbs
have at the outset: CREDIBILITY and public LOYALTY. Which then is being
undermined not because of mouthpiece-for-the-state tendencies, but because
of programming choices, style, sponsorship etc. which makes the psbs less
distinguishable from the commercials, so that in the next round the
public -very much helped by conservative politicians, the tabloid press and
the commercial channels - asks: Why should tax-payers fund this channel
which for all practical purposes is turning commercial ?
So for psbs institutions in countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia to
prevail, the staff also have to wage a successful struggle against their own
management. It is difficult, but feasible.
Returning to Doug, who sees this from a U.S. perspective: I think that you
cannot apply my type of careful optimism to the U.S. The non-commercial
broadcasters are to weak, and they have languished in the shadow of
commercial broadcasters for a couple of generations. For my arguments to
apply, the psbs must have a large critical mass at the outset: History, tradition,
experience, organization, audience size and public loyalty .
Trond Andresen
Btw, my compact "media dynamic laws", touted here earlier, are now somewhat
revised. See
http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/articles/media-dynamics.html
Responses are welcome!