One of the major issues to arise from this week's lecture surrounds whether public service broadcasting remains a necessity within the contemporary multi-channel, globalised television marketplace. For this week's further debate, then, I'd like you to summarise the contemporary issues for and against public service broadcasting nowadays and then offer your own informed reflection upon whether you think PSB is relevant to contemporary television's structures. Best of luck!
15 comments:
This post will explore views for and against public service broadcasting and be concluding on whether PSB is relevant to contemporary television’s structure.
The main purpose of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain (BBC online). Programmes like Doctor Who or BBC3 and BBC4 programmes which show more documental and arty programmes. However even BBC1 show such programmes like Countryfile which educate and entertain the viewer which suggests that BBC1 can be entertaining and educational which is seen to be what the aims of PSB are. Nowadays the audience does need public service broadcasting because there would be no way the audience would be informed, educated and entertain because the right-wing commercial media operators, such as Rupert Murdoch, would not provide high-quality programming (Petley.J, 2006: 43).
“Broadcasting acts as a form of social cement” (Petley.J, 2006:42). As Petley states, especially Public Broadcasting Services, act as a form of ‘social cement’ as they generate public values such as democratic values, cultural values, education values and social and community values (BBC Online). These values are seen in fictional programmes such as Doctor Who in ‘Victory of the Daleks’ with the Doctor refusing to smoke a cigar which enlightens the social value of smoking is bad. The BBC states that the audience are at the heart of what they do which shows that BBC use public values to make social comments. Overall, public services should aim to deliver not only value for individuals, but also value for people as citizens (ibid :29). This shows that public broadcasting services aim to deliver ‘public values’ and evidentially it is shown in programmes on the BBC.
Fifty per cent of households now have digital TV, and other forms of digital technology are increasingly competing for viewer’s attention (Petley.J, 2006: 43). Public broadcasting services have found this positive and negative because it shows that people have access to their channels however they have access to hundreds of other channels which affect their ratings which suggests that the broadcaster might have to change their programmes because of the decline of ratings due to the effect of digital TV. This might mean that public broadcasting services might have to find other ways to gain income so they can make ‘quality’ programmes. Overall this suggests that digital TV could affect public broadcasting services for the worse because of instead of producing ‘quality’ programmes they want to gain ratings which would affect their continuation of the licence fee (Petley.J, 2006:43).
Personally, I think PSB is relevant to contemporary television's structures as they inform, educate and entertain the audience unlike some broadcasters which are only interested in the ratings and not the quality of the programmes. Without PSB I think there would be no ‘social cement’ and no ‘public values’ which are important for educating audiences. Overall PSB is relevant for television’s structures because even with the digital advances BBC states they will include new ways of connecting communities and more convenient ways to watch and listen to programmes’ (Petley.J, 2006:44).
(Katie Morris - Assignment)
In this blog I am going to summarise the contemporary issues for and against public service television. One way you could argue that public service television is relevant to contemporary television structures is because of the benefit of the UK licence fee. It allows concessions for those over the age of 75 and the visually impaired. It is also affordable. According to Routledge Interactive (2011: p.266) in 2009 all BBC programmes were available for less than the cost of most daily newspapers a day which suggests that public service television is affordable. However a weakness of the licence fee is that it is compulsory. Some members of the public may dislike that they have to pay for it even if they don’t watch television or public service channels.
Another benefit of public service broadcasting is that the programmes, mainly the BBC channels, are not interrupted by regular commercial breaks. It is thought that the narrative flow of a programme is constantly damaged by commercials which can make it difficult for viewers to get too involved in a show. However regulation from Ofcom has helped to maintain shorter advertisement breaks which could make commercial television more appealing to audiences.
One contemporary issue against public service broadcasting however is the never-ending growth of the digital revolution. There is an expanding need for technology and updated technology in the home. In this age, there is a growing willingness to buy modern technology all of the time such as, for example, satellite and cable subscription. Families with young children are also more interested in entertainment channels which are not included in public service television as it focuses more on current affairs and culture. Because of this, public service broadcasting may soon be known as outdated in the growth of the digital revolution.
However, one could argue that without public service television, the viewers will go without being educated on culture and current affairs. Ofcom say that they aim to air shows which stimulate our knowledge and understanding of the world. Commercial television focuses more on entertainment. Because of this without public service television the public may not be as well informed about the UK’s cultural identity and its current affairs.
In conclusion there are many contemporary issues for and against contemporary television. However, I think that public service broadcasting is relevant to modern television structures. This is because, unlike commercial television, it broadens our understanding of culture and everyday current affairs. I think that without it we wouldn’t be as in touch with the world and other parts of the country. The UK licence is also affordable and allows concessions for certain people. The public service broadcasters such as the BBC do not have commercial breaks which can corrupt the narrative flow of a programme. Because of this, I think that public service television is relevant to contemporary television structures.
Suzanne Copp
PSB or Public Service Broadcasting has come under much criticism in recent years, which has led to debate over whether it should still exist in the same format that it does. PSB within the UK includes any channel sent via an analogue signal, or originally atleast. This includes the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5. However, all of those channels mentioned bar the BBC have atleast some form of commercial television, whereas the BBC is funded solely through the Television License fee (excluding sections of the BBC such as BBC Worldwide).
The fact that there are so many more channels than PSB channels these days is one of the major reasons some claim PSB is outdated. The advert of digital technology such as Satellite, and then later Sky brought about a mass of more channels. These services are subscription based, with customers choosing how much they pay based on a variety of different packages. Although the cost is much greater, many may see this as a viable route for the BBC, instead of charging everyone in the country the cost of the Television fee regardless of whether they watch the BBC or not.
However, despite the diverse programming offered by companies such as BSkyB or Virgin, looking at the weekly statistics on BARB.co.uk, in the week 17th through to 23rd of October, BBC 1 held a 19.8% of the total viewings, with ITV1 holding 15.5%, while Sky 1 only had 1.2%. This shows that viewers prefer the more traditional, quality programming of PSB over the multitude of newer channels. While opponents to the current PSB system may say that these figures are like this due to not everyone having Sky or similar Television packages, it is clear that for many viewers, PSB still holds a massive draw.
Supporters of PSB would argue that it is more than just television, but helps form social cement, or creates public value by representing the whole nation. This can include making shows that are racially diverse and represent a more accurate view of Britain, to airing a large range of programming, such as shows about the arts, history, and other higher culture. This is what separates PSB from commercial channels, which are not required to uphold an educational element (although channels such as “National Geographic” are educational by nature, so it is not always the case). PSB channels such as the BBC are also seen by the public as trustworthy sources of information, that lack bias, unlike a channel such as Fox News, which is widely known for its right wing slant.
In my own opinion, I think there is still a place for PSB in British Television, as they maintain a sense of quality that services such as Sky cannot always uphold. Although a commercial route for PSB may seem the more competitive answer, it risks losing their respective brand images, aswell part of our heritage.
No doubt public broadcasting has served us well since the dawn of its beginning, after all it’s what started television off, creating a new era in which is hard to imagine without, is it dying though? I myself do not see the need for public broadcasting, it’s provided a great service and now the time is right to move on instead of maintaining a service we don’t actually need.
With more and more genre specific channels coming to air we will focus on these certain commercial channels for our own personal preferences. No kidding TV adverts can be a pain but they are also a relief which gives a chance to have a little break, allowing ourselves to not be fixated; being unable to move from the chair with our eyes glued to the television due to the fact we want to see what happens next, even if it’s a show we hardly care about! However looking on a broader scale advertising is becoming stronger and stronger, with new adverts coming to air they are creating them so that they are an enjoyment to watch, so this could contradict highlighting the two minute break as a positive. If the BBC did switch to commercial there could be a risk of losing its multi cultural element which it has. The BBC is known for its delivery of multi cultural and educating programming which is necessary for the British viewers, so if the BBC were to turn commercial they could perhaps loose this emphasis of programming, and as a society I’m sure it would not benefit us loosing these types of necessary programmes. It has been said though that these types of programmes are becoming boring, and are hard to take a keen interest too, especially in the educating factor, but this is down to the directory, it’s naive to think that a channel can keep bringing out top quality shows one after the other without having at least a small set back, chances are the BBC will bounce back to their high quality ways when considering this matter.
Due to the fact the BBC still hosts the highest viewer ratings there is no doubt it will stay as PBS for some time, but when the digital switch over completely comes into place, a new dawn of television will likely to be born. With the way the internet is coming into action, becoming the next form of television, especially for those on a budget, live TV ratings will surely be on the decrease, this another factor which will determine the future for PBS channels. By the next decade I believe PBS will be on its knees and ready to turn to commercial television.
Sam Henson
This post will explore views for and against public service broadcasting and be concluding on whether PSB is relevant to contemporary television’s structure.
The main purpose of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain (BBC online). Programmes like Doctor Who or BBC3 and BBC4 programmes which show more documental and arty programmes. However even BBC1 show such programmes like Countryfile which educate and entertain the viewer which suggests that BBC1 can be entertaining and educational which is seen to be what the aims of PSB are. Nowadays the audience does need public service broadcasting because there would be no way the audience would be informed, educated and entertain because the right-wing commercial media operators, such as Rupert Murdoch, would not provide high-quality programming (Petley.J, 2006: 43).
“Broadcasting acts as a form of social cement” (Petley.J, 2006:42). As Petley states, especially Public Broadcasting Services, act as a form of ‘social cement’ as they generate public values such as democratic values, cultural values, education values and social and community values (BBC Online). These values are seen in fictional programmes such as Doctor Who in ‘Victory of the Daleks’ with the Doctor refusing to smoke a cigar which enlightens the social value of smoking is bad. The BBC states that the audience are at the heart of what they do which shows that BBC use public values to make social comments. Overall, public services should aim to deliver not only value for individuals, but also value for people as citizens (ibid :29). This shows that public broadcasting services aim to deliver ‘public values’ and evidentially it is shown in programmes on the BBC.
Fifty per cent of households now have digital TV, and other forms of digital technology are increasingly competing for viewer’s attention (Petley.J, 2006: 43). Public broadcasting services have found this positive and negative because it shows that people have access to their channels however they have access to hundreds of other channels which affect their ratings which suggests that the broadcaster might have to change their programmes because of the decline of ratings due to the effect of digital TV. This might mean that public broadcasting services might have to find other ways to gain income so they can make ‘quality’ programmes. Overall this suggests that digital TV could affect public broadcasting services for the worse because of instead of producing ‘quality’ programmes they want to gain ratings which would affect their continuation of the licence fee (Petley.J, 2006:43).
Personally, I think PSB is relevant to contemporary television's structures as they inform, educate and entertain the audience unlike some broadcasters which are only interested in the ratings and not the quality of the programmes. Without PSB I think there would be no ‘social cement’ and no ‘public values’ which are important for educating audiences. Overall PSB is relevant for television’s structures because even with the digital advances BBC states they will include new ways of connecting communities and more convenient ways to watch and listen to programmes’ (Petley.J, 2006:44).
Public service broadcasting (PSB) channels in the UK need to reflect “a wide range of programme types, not just programming thought to be ‘beneficial’; citizens’ interests can be met through many programme types and indeed may be most effectively met via programming which viewers think will entertain them as well as ‘make them think’ (Ofcom 2004a,P.75). The BBC, Channel 4, ITV and Channel 5 are all PSB channels. These channels aim to produce ‘quality’ television programmes which appeal to a large demographic of people and address all identity groups situated within the UK. PSB also aims to produce fair and balanced reporting.
Many people feel that public service broadcasting is required in the UK as it is used to produce programmes that bring culture and provide educating programmes to the masses. Many people may argue that without public service broadcasting these shows may not be made as they do not have the highest audience numbers therefore some culture is lost in British television or shown on more niche networks so the mass audience no longer watch these shows.
PSB also adds to the diversity of quality programmes on television. As PSB produces high quality programmes if this was removed the quality of some shows shown on PSB channels may decrease as more money is spent on particular shows that generate the higher audiences.
The licence fee is one of the main factors that people are opposed to the idea of PSB programming. Some people feel they shouldn't pay a licence fee for television they don’t watch. Although, the BBC1 and BBC2 together account for 26.2% of the overall television share in the week ending on the 23rd October (http://www.barb.co.uk/), this shows that most people still watch the BBC and this is likely to be because of the aims of PSB that the BBC provide to the public.
Due to the development of Sky and Virgin Media people pay for packages that they are interested in (e.g. movies, sport). People argue that if you want to watch PSB channels you could pay for them the same way, so people that do not watch PSB (BBC, Channel 4) do not have to pay.
In conclusion I feel that PSB is needed as part of contemporary television structures as it gives people a chance to ‘escape’ commercial television which tends to be entrainment shows and not educative programming. Commercial television also tends to appeal to certain audiences and not a mass audience so if PSB was removed it meant programmes might become more niche as the aim to provide to a variety of people would be lost and a group of people could be targeted by producing niche programmes. Although there is still some entertainment shows on PSB such as Doctor Who (BBC) it still provides information and quality TV that PSB are aimed to do.PSB also educates and informs audiences more than other channels as they give balanced accounts and are not shown to be left or right wing on particular issues.
Jamie Perkins
"A Place for Public Service Broadcasting"
There are so many issues for and against public service television.
Public service television was created from government funds with the aim of serving the public interest. It is important to know that public service broadcasting cannot be quantified on the basis of a head count of programmes and it has as one of its purposes to promote the access to consumption of and participation in the full range of initiatives supported through public intervention – in education, in the environment and in culture.
Sylvia Harvey (2004) wrote that “Public service television” sets standards of excellence in output across the full range of broadcast programming, with work that informs, entertains and educates. Its programmes offer some insight into the economic and social conditions that enable or obstruct the aspirations and choices of individuals whether acting in their capacity as citizens or as consumers.
By the mid-1990s telecommunications policy issues ranged from invasion of privacy and depictions of violence on television. Communication corporations appeared and disappeared daily. The environment of electronic communications was in a state of flux as the new technologies vied for a piece of a quickly expanding and constantly evolving marketplace. Public service broadcasters were reassessing their missions and were building new alliances with book publishers, computer software manufacturers, and commercial production houses.
New communications technologies have been crucial in this television model; coming with breathless hard sell promising a new leisure society, a new interactive capacity and a whole new era of democratic participation, the promises which remain largely unfulfilled a decade later.
Programmes of public service television may facilitate the recognition of human rights and also to enable democratic processes through news and current affairs programmes dealing with subjects of current public interest. This television model is important to society because it is trusted and also represents controversies and reflect conflicts. It will never support or uncritically reflect like national chauvinism, misogyny and racism. The BBC for example is trusted to select a flow of programmes partly because it is non - commercial, and therefore able to serve users interests without pre-emption by shareholders.
I conclude that the public service broadcasting is very important and it will never be privatising. It should serve to instil democratic values, promote respect for others and build a shared sense of citizenship. It is relevant to modern television structures. It would be a tragedy to behold the end of this form of broadcasting, which treats its audience primarily with needs and interests rather than as consumers of advertisers' products.
Camelia-Cristina Tarau , Student number: 11012453
In the United Kingdom the term "public service broadcasting" (PSB) I think that it refers to broadcasting intended for the public benefit rather than for purely commercial concerns We felt we had a very direct link with our audience. Not every household had a television set, of course. But travelling back home through London at night, we could spot a blue electronic glow in the windows of some of the houses and we would know for sure that the people in those rooms had been looking at the television. And what is more, that they had bought a special television licence, in addition to their sound licence, in order to do so. The next morning, as you travelled back to the work by tube or waited for a bus, everybody was discussing the same programme that they had been watching the previous evening.
PSB, to me, is not about selecting individual programme strands here or there, financing them from some outside source and then foisting them upon commercial networks. Public Service Broadcasting, watched by a healthy number of viewers, with programmes financed in proportion to their intrinsic needs and not the size of the audience, can only effectively operate as a network and a network measures its success not only by its audience size but by the range of its schedule.
Student number: 11012615
Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) is central to the formation of broadcasting, however in our multichannel era it is debated whether or not it’s still relevant. PSB differs from commercial television as its independent from state control and has no commercial pressures and therefore its only agenda is to perform a public service to its audience. Although Public Service Broadcasting exists in many forms all over the world, this blog will focus upon British television and the BBC.
PSB originated with the BBC at the beginning of television broadcasting and was put in place due to the anxiety of the effects of broadcasting getting into the wrong hands. BBC’s first Director John Reith believed Public Service Broadcasting could be used as a tool to educate and to explore culture for masses and therefore he created the Public Service Remit stating that the BBC would inform, educate and entertain its audiences. However entertainment took a backseat as strong ‘Reithian’ views were portrayed through the channels and its focus upon ‘high culture’.
BBC provides a mixed schedule of programming and state they broadcast ‘something for everyone’ at least once a week. They also have high quality programmes that are innovative, socially realistic, politically outspoken and high production values. The BBC initially followed Public Service Broadcasting strictly as it was the viewer’s only channel choice, however when other channels were introduced such as ITV, it had to focus less upon some parts of the remit to compete for viewers, for example showing more entertainment.
The impact of new technology has affected PSB’s place in television. Although the principal itself applied to all terrestrial television channels until recently, with the amount of digital and satellite channels there is always a choice for the consumer, leaving PSB in decline. Even the terrestrial channel ITV seems to have moved away from following aspects of PSR as commercial pressures are a higher priority and the fight for viewers is more crucial as there are more channels to choose from.
However it is argued that objections for Public Service Broadcasting could lead to a lack of quality in broadcasting, as the focus will be upon chasing ratings. There could be a loss of innovation and diversity within programming and a lack of contemporary debates, and the concept of dumbing down will become more relevant as the programming be controversial but not necessary informative.
Public Service Broadcasting is less relevant to our broadcasting as consumerism has taken over, and the television industry is market driven. The competition for viewers has led to PSB being put aside while different channels fight to but something more topical and controversial that the other, leaving Public Service Broadcasting irrelevant.
One negative technological aspect to Public Service Broadcasting (P.S.B) is the revolution in technology. People will always be wanting more and more as technology progresses further. There is a limit of which P.S.B will reach and will no longer be able to expand, there is a great fear of it loosing its audiences as better broadcasting services such as Sky become available to us. There is a constant need for us to be wanting more channels, better channels and faster channels. Commercial television can offer us this up to date service while P.S.B can still be viewed as quite old fashioned.
On the other hand there can be many advantages to P.S.B as it is best known for educating and informing the public, it keeps us up to date with issues wold-wide. For example BBC News and also Midlands today helps to provide us with regional news so that we can be aware of what is happening locally to us personally. Also one of the contemporary aims which benefit us further is that P.S.B provides us with a fair and balanced reporting; they are always sure to produce reports with both points of view. This then protects us from being brainwashed into ideas of capitalism which could be portrayed through contemporary broadcasting.
I personally feel that P.S.B is still relevant to the contemporary television structure of today. I believe that it is still necessary to uphold a more traditional way of formatting television broadcasting. As P.S.B is funded by the government I believe this is what helps to make the shows produced by it of a higher quality standard than those that are completely profit driven such as shows produced by contemporary broadcasters. As P.S.B reach out to a niche audience I also believe that this is an important factor as they reach out to everyone. As we live in a multi-cultural society I feel that is it crucial to have television shows which educate us about other cultures and religions.
“Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) in Britain is known for its high quality programming that refers to programmes that are purely based on public benefit instead of commercial purposes”. It originates from the purpose to provide quality programming that is aimed at a wide range of age groups.
Over the last few years, Public Service Broadcasting has become a dynamic concept that includes channels such as BBC, Channel 4, Five, and ITV. It is a principle that generates much debate within the media industry today. On one side, contemporary PSB has been the best thing for British television as it has not lost its initial aims to provide good quality television programmes, but now targets a wide range of audience niches by the variety of mixed schedules of programming. For example “Strictly come dancing”, “Doctor Who” and “watchdog” are all prime examples of the key concepts based on PSB; to inform, to educate and to entertain. This could also be seen as weakness because some people may not watch PSB yet still have to pay for it. Also it is vital to remember that the television content that is provided by the PSB is independent of both state and commercial pressures which create a ‘fair and balanced’ system of reporting. In addition to this, it is important for viewers to feel engaged while watching a show and PSB does this by not having constant commercials.
On the other hand, many believe that the British broadcasting system is in crisis. According to Ofcom, ‘the current model of commercial public service broadcasting is clearly no longer sustainable’. An important objection towards the PSB debate would be the dramatic loss of quality, as mentioned about the PSB focuses on targeting a wide range of audience niches but in many cases programme trends chases ratings and this can consequently lose the quality of programming. An example of this would be; American idol, Americas got talent, The voice, and Xfactor USA. The Primary focus for all shows is to find the next big act in the entertainment industry.
The debate surrounding PSB is very complex, and in my opinion there are many issues that need to be considered but I do feel that it is relevant to television’s contemporary structures. I think that the Democratic, Cultural, Educational, and Social values that we see can reflect British Society well. PSB keeps us up to date with current affairs and global news. I feel that it gives us a wider understanding of our society and in some cases without even knowing it broadens our educational knowledge, yet we must not forget that television is a very influential mechanism that can easily control and manipulate us whether it be public service of commercial. Overall I think that the Public Service Broadcasting is a cultural asset to this country as it tries and succeeds to address all identity groups within the UK and reflects society as well as educating the next generation
References
http://www.publicservicebroadcasting.org.uk/).
(Ofcom January 2009. See www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/psb2_phase2 /statement/psb2statement.pdf, page).
Public Service broadcasting in the past was there to provide education to the mass audience of the viewing public as television was a new media form; the idea about this came from the Sykes committee in the early 1920’s. The Format to which the Public Service broadcasting channels are now formed of where brought about by Lord John Reith, who was one of the members of the committee and who later become the head of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
In a modern world where there are hundreds of channels at just a click of a button away through the resent digitalisation of television it has become harder for channels to gain viewing numbers as there is so much choice, as in recent years with the increase in channel numbers there is now a niche market for most if not all audience types. Through this the old format of the BBC and Public Broadcasting channels as a whole has been called into doubt as audiences are no longer looking for be educated and informed, as the cultural view of television has changed. The old view of television was that it was there as a family activity where members of the family would watch television together as a cultural experience, with the advancements in technology those personal and family values have changed. Now the watching of television is a more personal experience as there is not just one television in a typical house hold. Also the watching of television has moved away from a social activity to a cultural activity with the new term Celebrity taking a more significant role in our lives, with links to different cults surrounding different TV shows.
In the Modern world where our cultural views on the world have been distorted due to advertisers and marketers, now there is no place we are safe away from the these influences as every day we are bombarded by the messages and hyper reality that are put to us in a more capitalist society. These pressures about how much profit the advertisers get in return for their investment, however the problem with the commercial channels is that they are ratting driven as such the funding for other programmes would not be made it all channels rely on commercial funding. Even throw the old stance of the BBC that education should come first then informing the audience whilst entertaining the audience takes a low priority, whereas the way threat commercial television is market driven with the ratting of programmes serving a proof of the success.
This attitude alienates the niche audiences as a more mass appeal to the audience makes the viewing experience after a while boring and monotonous with commercial televisions role only there to serve as a platform for the channels to serve ready audience types to advertisers and marketers. However with the funding for the BBC coming from licence payers, more educational niche programmes can be made that interests the audience in more than just an entertaining way, through this the reputation of the BBC is that of expert program making so in the day and age of hundreds of channels and nothing on it is good for the audience to have the security of the BBC for their viewing pleasure.
Public Service Broadcasting was first introduced to benefit and educate the public in a time where there was no competition because there were no other television models to compete with it. Nowadays it is very different. In the new digital age where television has become very globalised and there is so much available, do we really need PSB? It’s original intention was to educate the public by being funded by the state and by using a licence fee. However, nowadays it has had to broaden its programming anyway to that of any other channel so it is no longer unique or necessarily needed because the information you find from PSB, can be found possibly elsewhere on a different channel. It needed to do this to maintain its popularity and to not lose its audience.
It may seem that we no longer have a need for PSB, but an argument for it could be that we lose a lot of educational programmes that other channels may not offer, and for people who don’t use the digital models so much, they will lose out. We could also lose out on British Culture. The BBC is now a globally recognised brand which works with other nations. Without this, Britain would not be able to share its culture/talent with the world in the same way as it is done with the BBC currently. It is a channel that represents our nation as a whole, which no other channel really does. PBS also is not interrupted with constant advert breaks which is a positive thing because people may be irritated by their programmes constantly being paused and being bombarded with adverts.
My view is that PSB has developed so much to offer more democratic, cultural and creative, educational, and social and community value that it is still necessary. It is cultural and unites the nation, and represents the nation so still has a place in television.
Firstly I want to state that public service broadcasting is still a necessity within the contemporary multi-channel. PSB has gone through a lot of changes until recent days and of course cannot be compared to its earlier crucial existence, such as during the World Wars. The BBC programme example is here a relevant one, since its beginnings a radio post. Keeping regards of the unstopping fast growing competition and the developing technology, the BBC has somehow prevailed and is still one of the most important PSB sources. To achieve this goal however debatable measures have been taken.
The relevant matter nowadays is to choose the correct source of information. Furthermore the issue here lies in the huge amount of choice the audience has. In order to form an correct opinion about a certain world matter issue one has to observe and not be distracted by the theatrical way of presentation for example of FOX News. FOX news was widely influential and it promoted fear which could easily be an object of manipulation.
Audience awareness here is put in question in relation to whether or not it chooses the right information. In result the real issue here has its roots in the huge amount of incoming information and thus choice. Whilst there are PSB services that continue to mislead the opposites exist of course. In addition the competition of other channels will always have a huge impact on the main PSB programmes. One measure here witch to my opinion is correct is that PSB services are usually supported the basic television fee. This fee supports the channel and is a good weapon in order to not to rely on commercial abuse or be influenced in order to support itself materially.
In conclusion I would state that people do complain about the fee and its relevance to a doubtable programme, but this fee in part essential to keeping the programme clean and deliver a good public service broadcasting.
Jessica Worrall
A place for public service broadcasting?
Public service broadcasting (PSB) has become a highly arguable debate over the years through media and customer discussions that underline whether or not it is still worth its value amongst multi-channel box-sets like cable and satellite. With the BBC remaining one of the only private and publically funded network amongst all other terrestrial channels and over 250 digital channels that are commercially funded, you can begin to acknowledge why many wonder why PSB still exists- apart from the fact it withholds a necessary license fee to obtain and watch television.
With the statistics stating that over 96 per cent of households obtain a television within their household in the contemporary modern age; the BBC has had to compete against its competitors to offer a service that other digital/multichannel box sets cannot provide. Which even Ofcom- one of the providers of PSB explains on the website stated that they have struggled to do “There have been a number of significant changes in the ways audiences can consume media, which are likely to have affected attitudes towards TV and PSB delivery. For example, many people now have access to digital video recorders, as well as TV and internet on-demand services which provide more choice and control”
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/reviews-investigations/public-service-broadcasting/annrep/psb11/
In my own divided opinion I do believe Ofcom have understood that PSB has become a limited part of the way people view or wish to obtain information through television/radio and etc. There is a huge range of choice provided for an individual to choose from within the contemporary marketplace. “As the turn of the millennium, viewers can choose from more than 40,000 hours of programming in any single week”
Bob Franklin (2001). British Television Policy: A Reader. London: Routledge.
On the other hand I think it’s highly important that the BCC and other PSB remain available within Britain as I think audiences need to witness and obtain information from television programs that cannot be influenced by outsiders like advertisers or be highly driven by ratings. Seen as the BBC has always strived for the public to receive programming to ‘inform, educate and entertain’ I agree that PSB should withstand within the contemporary market as it still offers a reliable services to provide audience with factual and educational programs like the ‘BBC News’ and shows such as ‘Planet Earth’ that audiences enjoy to watch. ‘Audiences continue to value PSB programming. Ofcom's PSB Tracker shows that audience ratings of the importance of the PSB purposes and characteristics remained high in 2010, with some significant increases since 2007’
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/reviews-investigations/public-service-broadcasting/annrep/psb11/
Overall I strongly think that even though the license fee’s rising prices can be somewhat controversial, PSB television structure has been a huge part of giving the audience knowledge and publically including the whole of Britain for many years. With many shows by the BBC edited for people with disabilities and other languages such as welsh. PSB should not be excluded from the contemporary market and become a part of mass market programs that are controlled by money making businesses instead of catering the welfare and interest of Britain’s people.
Sources- Bibliography
Bob Franklin (2001). British Television Policy: A Reader. London: Routledge.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/reviews-investigations/public-service-broadcasting/annrep/psb11/
Post a Comment