This week’s lecture on Public Media was similar in structure to last week’s lecture. Public media was defined as “media whose mission is to serve or engage a public. Public media include traditional publicly-funded broadcasters and networks … as well as public uses of new platforms and distribution mechanisms, such as the Internet, podcasting, blogging. Increasingly the term "public media" is less associated with taxpayer supported media; it may be for profit so long as its ultimate purpose is to serve the public and not to turn a profit.”
The ABC and SBS are examples of the Australian landscape for public media, while internationally, the BBC, PBS, TVNZ, arte, DR, CBC, RTHK, NHK, 4 and npr make up this landscape. These companies are funded by governments, television license fees or donations from certain foundations, or a “hybrid” of more than one of these sources.
Public media, like commercial media, has a role in the democratic process, as it should have “public value”. Public value is made up of four main points.
1. Embedding a “public service ethos”
2. Providing value for the license fee (or, in Australia, value for the tax payer’s dollars that go towards producing programs)
3. Weighing public value above market value
4. Taking public consultations into account. This is now much more regular and causal, due to the invention and popularity of social networking sites such as twitter.
Public media is also required to provide “public service”. In 1985, the Broadcasting Researching Unit defined this “service” in several points:
· Geographical universality: Broadcast programmes should be available to the whole population.
· Universality of appeal. Broadcast programmes should cater for all tastes and interests.
· There should be special provision for minorities, especially disadvantaged minorities.
· Broadcasters should recognise their special relationship to the sense of national identity and community.
· Broadcasting should be distanced from all vested interests, and in particular from those of the government of the day.
· Universality of payment. One main instrument of broadcasting should be directly funded by the corpus of users.
· Broadcasting should be structured so as to encourage competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers.
· The public guidelines for broadcasting should liberate rather than restrict broadcasters.
Although this definition was decided almost two decades ago, it gives a full description of the ideal role of the media. As such, programs displayed on public media (in particular the ABC) was to develop nation building, national heritage and national identity, and to enable and facilitate national conversations. However, Dr Redman inferred that, now, is not the case.
The commercialism of this form of communication depicts the subtle change in its nature. For example, in conjunction with the aforementioned forms of funding, the BBC makes $200 million a year in merchandising. So too does the ABC accumulate much of their funding from their various franchises. Indeed, 41% of Australian’s claim to source their news from the ABC, and 12 million watch the daily news on the ABC television channel.
Unsurprisingly, news is a huge part of public media, though nowadays it has a “new style”. This has both advantages and disadvantages, as displayed in the table below:
Advantages | Disadvantages |
· Serious · Broadsheet (not tabloid) · Importance over interest · Considered news (not quick or unchecked) | · Boring · Elitist · Of limited interest · Poorly presented · Out of touch |
Although it may have its faults, Public Media is important because is the last defender of investigative journalism. Robert Richter stated: “is such a special vehicle for voices to be heard … [for] visions and viewpoints … ignored by commercial media.” As such, the commercial style works through “the press” and aims to provide entertainment, utility and propaganda. It also has a social function.
However, the media platform does face challenges. Rupert Murdoch believed that government regulation of commercial media and big public media should penalise the poor, promote inefficient infrastructure, build inaccessible institutions (such as the ABC, BBC, ARD, RHTK), threaten the growth of independent news and investment in new forms of journalism and stunt the growth of the creative industries dampens innovation.
In this case, the supporters of public media have a “to do list” (as displayed in the lecture slide below).
The dependence issue is of particular interest, as commercial pressures for a certain group may result in political pressures for the other. The current perceived lack of political independence is the result of great control and more targeted funding. Because of these funding system, issues of bias and agenda arise.
The future of public media journalism was described in the lecture as ‘an expanded vision for “public media 2.0” that places engaged publics at its core … educating, informing, and mobilizing its users. … an essential feature of truly democratic public life … media both for and by the public. …’ However, as Dr Redman hinted, we are supposed to already have this.
This lecture was jam-packed with information. I found it particularly interesting that journalist’s on the ABC are not supposed to comment on news with their own opinions, as the company may not consent to these.
No comments:
Post a Comment