Public service broadcasting - its relevance

There is agreement in the literature of the role Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) should play in society and that it should be judged on the way it manages that role. Both the ABC and the BBC, arguably the most influential public broadcaster in the world, take measures in programming to justify their existence. Some commentators see this as a justification for PSB, there is also criticism PSB lacks consumer sovereignty, is no more relevant to society than commercial broadcasting, and its programming is prone to bias and interference by the government.

While government intervention into PSB can be seen as an economic success, one commentator highlights the need for governments to take care to avoid PSB failures, and there is call for PSB to adapt to the new technological era of endless choice for the consumer to avoid becoming irrelevant.  PSB includes television and radio that receive funding direct from the government, from a specific tax (eg. a television licence fee) or from public donations.

There is mostly agreement in the literature I read of the role that public service broadcasting should play. According to Burns (2008: 868), a public service broadcaster should be universally available, have universal appeal, have provisions for minorities, should educate the public, should remain distant from vested interests and have freedom from the programme maker.

Jacka (2006: 344) discusses the vision of the BBC’s founder, Lord John Reith, to see public broadcasting as a new way of forming public opinion; a ‘public service’ that would act as a “moral and educative force”. The Reithian ideals can be summarised as the access to fine culture for all and the key role it should play in informing the public, reaffirming that high quality content continues to be a defence for the existence of PSB.

According to Oesterlen (2008: 34) public service broadcasters assert their value and cultural credentials by broadcasting high culture to prove they are still culturally relevant and beneficial to the taxpayer. Oesterlen (2008) discusses BBC's global broadcast of the Shakespeare play King Lear as an attempt to assert power in determining cultural content in the new competitive media landscape of the twenty-first century.

The ABC Charter (ABC Online) maintains the ABC is valuable to society. Its core functions include keeping the public informed through programs that contribute to a sense of national identity, that educate and entertain and that reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. Also, to transmit internationally to encourage an awareness of Australia and enable expatriate or travelling Australians to be aware of what's going on at home. The Charter also says the ABC has an awareness of the multicultural nature of the Australian community, and has an understanding of its responsibility to provide a balance of popular programs with those of special interest.

But what about what happens to the taxpayer’s dollars? According to Doyle (2002: 61), PSB is valuable to society from an economic perspective. The author discusses this value in terms of its ‘public good’ characteristics; which are its non-excludability, meaning the consumption of the good by a viewer does not reduce its availability for anyone else, and its non-exhaustibility, meaning no-one is excluded from accessing the good.

But Doyle (2002: 64) also explores public broadcasting as a market failure, due to the fact the price and quantity of the goods are not determined by supply and demand, so there is no mechanism for direct revenue from the consumer. This is relevant because PSB is funded by the public. The author (2002: 66) discusses the idea that governments produce PSB because it is thought the market does not supply the values that are need to maintain a civil society, and the people are not capable of judging what is in their own best interests. Cooper (2007: 2) says governments know that television is engrained in modern life, and will seek to control what may be broadcast, as a form of social control.

But according to Williams (1996: 103), public service broadcasters are “running smack” into television’s basic law, which is “give people more choice, they use it”. Williams (1996) also found that the public don’t really want to be educated by television. In a study, the author looked at the most popular television programs in 1995, even before the internet had really caught on, and found consumers want popular, commercial television, not specialised PSB. The top programs from the ABC didn’t even rate in the top 100.

Other literature says commercial television is just as relevant as PSB in terms of keeping the public informed on important issues. Krajina (2007: 198) thinks popular commercial television is as useful as PSB, and should not be condemned as “mere profit-motivated irrational pleasures”; because consumers are involved in “rational deliberation” as active citizens. The author (2007: 199) looked at the power of “democratic entertainment”, through an assessment of a game/talk show “The Pyramid”, which involved informed discussions on important national issues with an audience, celebrities and politicians.

There is agreement in the literature that consumer sovereignty is important to viewers; they like to engage and have some say in a medium they are paying for. According to some commentators, PSB consumers do not get to dictate what is produced, so there is a lack of consumer sovereignty. Doyle (2002) argues that in a normal market, public service broadcasters would need to meet the preferences of their consumers if they wished to remain in business.

Others argue consumer sovereignty is a myth that is perpetuated by the media to defend its programming (Pauwels & Bauwens, 2007, 149). Pauwels & Bauwens (2007) argue TV viewers have a choice of programmes, but it is merely a reflection of the consumers’ personal socio-economic conditions and relations, and a choice only from what is on offer, which is not to say it is what they really want.

To this end, the extent consumers come into contact with different forms of cultural expression can be limited. The authors also explore the “interiorisation of consumer sovereignty” (2007: 58), the idea that viewers blame themselves when they can’t choose a program they like, and in doing so, they actively contribute to their own powerlessness, by actively reproducing the myth of consumer sovereignty.

According to Ferguson (2007: 182), the democratic ideals of access and participation are critically important in defending the existence of PSB in today's environment of endless programme choice and mediums. Particularly so in an era where governments are cutting back on PSB funding and commercial and pay television broadcasting are rapidly expanding.

Richards (2005) discusses this as a “gentle, gradual, evolving, historic act of liberation” for consumers. That is, the liberty to determine what they watch and what they listen to, on their own schedule.

So, what of the future for PSB, particularly in Australia? Curran (1981: 324) discusses the growing disparity in revenue between the commercial broadcasters and PSB which means outlets like the ABC will continue to be vulnerable to political pressure, as long as it relies on government funding. And Dempster (2000: 56) points to the ongoing accusations of bias against the ABC generated from both sides of politics.

One commentator gave a description of the failure of the PSB model in New Zealand, as an example for governments to avoid. Cocker (2008: 40) gives an insight into the several eras of bad policies from New Zealand governments, including the early restrictive regulation of television and an unwillingness to give public service broadcasters political independence or adequate funding. According to Cocker (2008: 42), the New Zealand model has never met public expectations and needs and has not measured up to the ideals of a public service broadcaster in a democracy.

The literature was reviewed in relation to the role, value and future of PSB. There is agreement among commentators that PSB should be judged on how it manages its role. One commentator highlights how public service broadcasters take measures to justify their existence, and there exists criticism over its lack of consumer sovereignty, whether it is any more relevant for society than commercial broadcasting, and the issue of bias and interference by the government. One commentator argues PSB can be viewed as an economic success, another warns of a PSB failure. Further, there is commentary regarding the future relevance of public service broadcasters in the new technological era of endless choice and mediums for consumers.


REFERENCE LIST

ABC Online (2008) ABC Charter 1983, About the ABC. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/ABCcharter.htm Accessed 9 April 2009.

Burns (2008) Public Service Broadcasting meets the Internet at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 22, 6, pp. 867-881.

Cocker, A. (2008) Broadcasting in New Zealand: A story of public policy failure. Australia Journal of Communication, 35, 2, pp. 39-55.

Cooper, C. (2007) Television on the Internet: Regulating News Ways of Viewing. Information & Communications Technology Law, 16, 1, pp. 1-16.

Curran, J. (1981) The Impact of Advertising on the British Mass Media. Media, Culture & Society, 3, 1, pp. 43-69.

Dempster, Q. (2000) Death Struggle. Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, NSW.

Doyle, G. (2002) Understanding Media Economics, First Edition, Sage: University of Glasgow.

Ferguson (2007) Locking out the Mother Corp: Nationalism and Popular Imaginings of Public Service Broadcasting in the Print News Media, Canadian Journal of Communication, 32, 2, pp. 181-200.

Jacka, E. (Edited by Cunningham, S. & Turner, G.) (1997) The Media and Communications in Australia. Allen & Unwin: Sydney.

Krajina, Z. (2007) Democratic Potentials of Media Entertainment: Reading ‘The Pyramid’. Political Thought: Croatian Political Science Review, 16, 5, pp. 179-202.

Oesterlen, E. (2008) Lend me your 84 million ears: Exploring a special radio event – Shakespeare’s King Lear on BBC World Radio Service. The Radio Journal, 6, 1, pp. 33-44.

Pauwels, C. & Bauwens, J. (2007) ‘Power to the People’? The myth of television consumer sovereignty revisited. International Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 3, 2, pp. 149-165.

Richards, E. (2005) OFCOM Annual Lecture: Trends in Television, Radio and Telecoms, 20 July. Available online at: www.ofcom.org.uk/media/speeches/2005/07/

Williams, R. (1996) Normal Service won’t be resumed. Allen & Unwin: St Leonard’s , NSW.

Why is sport so important in Australia?

Sport is an important social institution in Australia and the values that are deemed most important in Australian society are reflected in sport in Australia. Any meaning and value that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed, and reflect the core societal values, which are generally linked to what it means to be Australian. Power is a feature of all social relations, and the dominant group will use the values that are important in society, as a way of maintaining their hegemony. The dominant group will change as society changes.

Sport is an important social institution in Australia that permeates through all sectors of Australian society. In any sport interactions, when there is engagement with other individuals, there will be a degree of regulation or authority, a controlling structure or body that determines the rules of the game, so to speak. In this way, sport can be considered to be like any other social institution.

And like other social or cultural practices, it should be placed into the context of the society in which it occurs (Mewett, 2003: 446). If sport can be said to mirror society, then it will provide a means of understanding the core values in society, and in turn, the core values placed on sport.

The sociologist Max Weber said that societies are constructed by the human beings living in that society (Weber 1938 cited in Sage: 4-5), meaning any value that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed. Weber’s theory rests on the assumption that there are no ideas independent of human existence (Sage, 1990: 4).

The importance that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed and articulated by the dominant group in society to represent their version of ‘social reality’, thereby expressing it as part of the national identity (Sage, 1990: 21).

Thus, allowing the dominant group in society to legitimise their hegemony. While the dominant group in society will change as society changes (McGregor, 2003: 144), those at the top of the power structure will generally have more power, wealth, possessions, opportunities and more control over their lives than those at the bottom” (McGregor, 2003: 144).

The importance placed on sport during the First World War was class divided, and was a mirror of the class divisions in society at the time. In 1914, there were two distinct views toward what importance should be placed on sport. The dominant group was the middle class, reflecting the hegemony of the middle class in society at the time (McKernan, 1979: 3)

The middle class wanted Australians to stop playing sport until the war was over, with the view that sport was a recreational pursuit and merely a good grounding for the more important things in life, an excellent moral and physical training ground for the “greater game”, which of course meant the war (McKernan, 1979: 2). To this end, they argued that sport was distracting Australians from the war. In their view, sport served a higher, rational purpose than mere entertainment (McKernan. 1979: 2).

The alternate view came from the working class, who held the view that sport was a profession that was primarily a form of entertainment and should not be taken too seriously. They rejected the suggestion that a few hours spent watching a game of football meant that it “induced apathy or indifference to higher struggles or duties” (McKernan,1979: 18). The implication by the middle class being that men who spent time watching sport should instead be fighting the war.

While the level of importance that each class placed on sport was determined by social and economical factors (Horne et al, 1999: 61) (and was also a reflection of the amateur/professional divide of sport at the time).

By 1917, the class conflict was breaking down social cohesiveness necessary for a civil society so, not unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister, W.M. Hughes, intervened and attempted to resolve the issue. In his May 1917 Budget, he said sporting matches should be halted during the war “in order to concentrate the minds of the people on the more serious aspect of war.” (McKernan, 1979: 15).

After waiting for the football finals to be completed, the Government placed restrictions on sport for the duration of the war, particularly the professional codes where large crowds of men would gather, in the hope of encouraging more men to enlist (McKernan, 1979: 14-15).

They didn’t enlist in great numbers, but the restrictions did promote a more cohesive social environment that kept society in check and so legitimated the government intervention. An important point is that the restrictions were delayed until after the football finals, which contradicted the governments’ reason for intervening in the first place.

During the years of the First World War, different class structures in Australia placed varying levels of importance on sport. And through legitimate government intervention, the dominant group in society maintained their hegemony through the restrictions that were placed on certain sports, those which entertained the masses.

In Australian society today, the dominant group has changed, reflecting the changes in society. Class is still an issue, but when it comes to the importance that is placed on sport, the government are the dominant group and are able to influence the importance of sport in Australian society, or at least use the significance of sport to maintain their hegemony.

In October 2005, the Minister for Small Business in Victoria issued a press release that stated the Victorian Government had decided to “delay” the end of day-light savings to coincide with the end of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne (Haermeyer, 2005). The decision “makes things easier for businesses as it minimises any disruption or change during this exciting international event”. The government created certain conditions to benefit the state economically, the Games bringing in more tourists to the State.

By stating the delay of the end of daylight savings will accommodate international viewers and allow Australia to receive maximum international attention, this created a perceived importance around the Games and legitimised the Victorian Government’s desire to generate money into the Victorian economy, which is one of the features of a dominant group, to “preserve the basis of privilege and dominance” (Horne et al, 1999: 123).

Through placing a high level of importance onto sport, the dominant group are able to manipulate the values held in society to maintain their hegemony

Australians learn to conform to the social norms (Horne et al, 1999: 133) to fit into Australian society. They will adhere to the values they are told are distinctly Australian because they are so closely associated with what it means to be Australian; qualities like mateship, courage, teamwork, loyalty, leadership and physical prowess (Australian War Memorial, 2006) are part of Australia’s history. Therefore, the core values of Australian society are expected to be displayed during events of national significance like the Olympic Games by Australian athletes, and anything that does not fit this mould will be rejected as ‘un-Australian’.

In the 2004 Athens Olympics, rower Sally Robbins ‘stopped’ rowing during the final, ‘denying’ the Australian team a chance at a medal. She said her collapse was due to the extreme heat but she was vilified by much of the media and the public (Radcliffe, 2004). BBC Sport called her action “very un-Australian” and that she had disappointed her “sport-mad country” (Radcliffe, 2004). The Australian newspaper compared her to the Australian ‘hero’ Grant Hackett saying “his was the definitive demonstration of heroism - he did everything it took to reach his goal” (Radcliffe, 2004).

The Melbourne Sun headline read “It's eight, mate, pull your weight” (Radcliffe, 2004) and the Sydney Morning Telegraph used the headline "Just Oarful" to demonstrate their views and ran a poll asking readers to vote on whether she had cost the team a medal (Radcliffe, 2004). The response from Australia’s Olympic chief John Coates was that "there have been breaches of our team guidelines which say team members shouldn't talk disparagingly about other team members” (Radcliffe, 2004).

Importantly, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard said “I wasn't there and I can understand the passion and the emotion and the effort that goes into these things and the sense of disappointment people feel - but I'm not taking sides” (Radcliffe, 2004). It is normal for a politician to distance themselves from a controversy that does not involve the government, but his comment can be compared to the situation in 1917, where the Government of the day will intervene as little as possible, particularly when the controversy involves the matter of sport.

This example highlights sport reflecting the wider community, where Australians will judge other Australians by their actions on the sporting field. To this end, many in the Australian community placed more importance on Australian winning another medal than on the welfare of a fellow Australian, with a poll in the Sydney Morning Herald revealing that only 27% of respondents though that she was treated unfairly (Sydney Morning Herald, 2004).

Sport is an important social institution in Australia and the values that are deemed most important in Australian society are reflected in sport in Australia. The value and importance that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed, and reflect the core societal values, which are generally linked to what it means to be Australian. They are linked with Australian history, and any move away from these values will be rejected by society. While the dominant group in Australian society has changed as society changes, power remains a feature of all social relations; and the dominant group in society will use these values of Australians is a means of maintaining their hegemony.


Bibliography

Haermeyer, André (2005) Media Releases, Victorian Government, The Minister for Small Business, Daylight Savings Shines on Commonwealth Games, 27/10/05

http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/955cbeae7df9460dca256c8c00152d2b/1e1c9b49ed5429e8ca2570a800047eb6!OpenDocument

Horne, John; Tomlinson, Alan & Whannel, Garry (1999) Understanding Sport – An Introduction to the Sociological and Cultural Analysis of Sport, London: E & FN Spon.

McGregor, Craig (2003) Class in Ray Jureidini & Marilyn Poole (eds), Sociology: Australian Connections, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp 141-157.

McKernan, Michael (1979) Sport, War and Society: Australia 1914-18.In Cashman Richard & McKernan Michael (Eds). Sport in History: The Making of Modern Sporting History. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press

Mewett, Peter (2003) Sport in Ray Jureidini & Marilyn Poole (eds), Sociology: Australian Connections, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp 443-467.

Radcliffe, Paula (2004) BBC Sport online, Olympics 2004, Rower Suffers Aussie Backlash, 25/8/04

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2004/rowing/3597914.stm

Sage, George (1990) Power and Ideology in American Sport -A Critical Perspective, United States: Human Kinetics Books:

Sydney Morning Herald (2004) Athens 2004 Polls, Rowing controversy : Has Sally Robbins been treated unfairly? http://www.smh.com.au/polls/athens/form.html

Australian War Memorial (2006) Special Exhibitions Gallery, Sport and War. http://www.awm.gov.au/