>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 expect the question was to the list in general and not only to Rob.
Doug suggests that a publicly sponsored broadcasting system will have to operate as 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 big critical mass at the outset: History, tradition, experience, organization, audience size and strong 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!