Public Service Broadcasting
On
6 November 2003 the Office of Communication (Ofcom) launched a Full Review of
UK Public Service Broadcasting.
In July 2000 mediawatch-uk published the following response to an
ITC Consultation on the same subject.
P |
ublic Service
Broadcasting, whereby a single television or radio channel, funded by the
public, provides a broad range of programming, including news and current
affairs, is a concept which has real validity where there is only one or a
small number of channels in operation. As such this approach to broadcasting
has worked very well in the past and has provided a genuine service to the
public by providing high technical quality and a mix of programming with wide
appeal. In a multi-channel environment, with many commercial channels providing
specialist or general programming, the case for PSB is much less valid.
In a mature
democracy it is essential that the system of broadcasting in operation provides
information, education and entertainment in which a passion for excellence is
the obvious and overriding consideration. Excellence, however, is achieved at a
price and adequate funding is necessary.
In the ITC
consultation document under consideration we would agree with its authors that
all of the elements mentioned in Section 4 constitute PSB but it is difficult
to see how this vision can be sustained indefinitely in a competitive
environment. Competition from other channels, a consequence of deregulation,
means that audiences will steadily fragment as more and more households opt to
subscribe to cable and/or satellite networks which offer programming in
different more appealing packages.
Although universal
access can be assured, universal viewing cannot be guaranteed as is
demonstrated by falling audience share for the main terrestrial TV channels.
Last year (1999) BBC audience share was reported to have fallen below 30% and
ITV is having difficulty in meeting its targets for audience share which, in
the multi-channel environment, may be becoming unrealistic.
There are a number
of reasons for this: take up of satellite and cable services has been
accelerated by BSKYB and ONdigital giving away digital decoders and by reducing
connection charges thus giving viewers greater choice; 90% of homes have video
recorders and the availability of bought or rented video cassettes must impact
on television viewing figures; many people now use Internet services and this
new medium must also impact on viewing figures. And not to be forgotten or
minimised is the obvious conclusion that the programmes on offer by the
established terrestrial channels simply do not appeal to viewers and perhaps
many people watch little television and now engage in other worthwhile
activities as a result. It is not without significance, either, that many
supermarkets and other retail out-lets, now stay open much later than in
previous generations and entertaining at home has moved up the modern social
agenda. Television has now to compete with many more leisure activities and
pursuits, as well as changing work patterns, than simply other channels.
T |
he fragmentation
of audiences that has already occurred means that PSB TV channels can no longer
command large audiences unless there is some national event that interests
everyone. The huge audiences of the past, for example, for the Christmas
Morecambe and Wise Shows or the final series of 'Only Fools and Horses',
will be impossible in the future. Only on the great state occasions of national
interest, where coverage is exclusive or shared by one or two channels, will
large audiences be achievable.
It is clear that
increasing competition that has resulted from technical innovation and
deregulation has had great impact on the way television is now used. PSB, as a
concept, has suffered as a consequence and programme standards have also
suffered in the frantic scramble to maintain audience share. For Independent
Television to abandon altogether its commitment to PSB is clearly not in the
public interest while the majority of households rely wholly on the five terrestrial
channels for their television services. We agree with the Culture Secretary's
reservation that analogue signals should not be switched off until the 95% of
households can afford and can access digital services. Until that time arrives
the PSB commitment of the commercial channels should remain. After analogue
switch off, and multi-channel television is a reality for every household, the
validity of PSB as defined above will be greatly diminished.
The BBC regards itself as the Public Service Broadcaster par-excellence
and has a rich heritage giving testimony to this claim. However, times have
changed and the BBC itself has succumbed to the general lowering of standards
in order to compete with the commercial sector. This trend was even criticised
by BBC Governors in the Annual Report published in June 2000. In order to stay
competitive and bolster falling ratings in the multi-channel digital age the
BBC has recently announced plans to stream programming across its channels. And
so even at the BBC the original concept of PSB has undergone a radical rethink,
which has not been met with universal approval or been the subject of any
dialogue with licence fee payers.
We can foresee
that legislative changes may be necessary to allow PSB channels to shed some of
the programme requirements that presently pertain. However, the public interest
must be safeguarded because programmes that have never attracted large
audiences, like news and current affairs, are necessary in a mature democracy
which can only function effectively with a well educated and informed public.
It should not be acceptable that news and current affairs should be found only
on specialised channels. Parliament must ensure that any new regulatory regime
must insist that most or all television channels have some requirements in this
regard even if it is only to 'advertise' news and current affairs programmes on
other channels. It is also most important that news and current affairs
maintain substantial national identity and relevance rather than 'local' news
be subsumed within some global or other context. It is apparent that different
news channels that presently exist have different agendas and priorities that
do not always reflect the national interest.
It is difficult to
speculate and predict how well the market will deliver PSB. Experience with
multi-channel television to date indicates that PSB is not the highest priority
for commercial channels whose main aim is obviously to maximise returns on
investment by attracting advertising revenue and profits for shareholders. It
is evident from the low budget off-the-shelf and usually repeated programming
that dominate many of the new channels that the provision of good quality
programming is either not the highest priority or cannot be afforded.
The growth of
television services paid for by subscription fees is a relatively new
phenomenon and their rapid take up is a consequence of increased levels of
income and improved living standards and expectations. Equally, it is an
indication that the established channels are simply not able to provide
programming that many people want or expect. It is plain that households that
have opted for additional services prefer to use the services for which they
have paid directly in preference to those they have not. As such there is an
emerging culture which regards obligatory licence fees for services they do not
want or use as unacceptable. This culture change is being accelerated simply by
the take up of multi-channel digital and other services.
It is evident that
"purely commercial channels" should be required within the conditions
of the licences issued by the competent regulatory authority that a wide range
of programming should be available from a range of channels. It is clearly not
in anyone's interests to have many channels devoted only to one style or genre
of programming. We appreciate that there are implications for viewer choice by
regulating the "bundles" of channels that are offered by some
providers. If the viewing public is to be served by television it is important
that value for money is evident from the programmes on offer. New, original
programming should be budgeted for in the prospectus of every channel seeking
or renewing a licence to operate.
F |
unding for PSB
provided by the BBC is by an obligatory Licence Fee. Funding for the Commercial
or Independent Television sector is by advertising revenue. The only other
source of adequate revenue is by direct taxation. This would certainly not be a
popular with the viewing public and would therefore not be considered by the
Government. Having set up the Davies Committee to examine ways that additional
funding might be raised for the BBC a "digital supplement" did not
win favour but a general increase in the licence fee was approved. Many licence
fee payers resented the fact that the increase was needed to fund digital
services and Internet services that not all use or want.
In the submission made to the Davies Committee this
Association said that additional funding could be made available from the
abundant proceeds of the National Lottery. The BBC could certainly be regarded
as a cultural institution that benefits practically every household in the
country. The Lottery, we said, owes its success principally to the BBC, which
promotes it throughout its television and radio schedules. The projected growth
of Lottery income, around £9 billion by 2001, is around four times the annual
amount raised to fund BBC operations by the Licence fee at its current level.
If Parliament
requires it the role of the competent regulatory authority should be to ensure
that PSB is delivered across a wide range of services and platforms. However,
the role of the regulatory authority, acting in the public interest, clearly
needs to evolve to keep pace with the evolving television environment.
T |
he way many people
now use television has changed significantly in recent years and will continue
to change as more and more people take advantage of the new capabilities. The
introduction of digital technology has been driven forward by the industry and
given considerable impetus by political pressure at home and abroad: the
Information Society, apparently, should not and cannot be stopped. With
high-pressure marketing and promotional television programming and advertising
the technical revolution has been carried forward. It is hardly surprising,
therefore, that many people have invested quite large sums of money and huge
amounts of time in the rapidly growing computer technologies. The pressure to
keep pace with the latest consumer fashion is hard to resist.
So far as
broadcasting is concerned it will always be essentially a service for the
public however this may be defined in the future. It is difficult to predict
how the viewing public will adapt to the multi-channel environment in the longer
term, but research done elsewhere indicates that most people stay with two or
three channels, that fulfil their requirements, after the initial 'channel
hopping' novelty wears off.
In these
circumstances the public interest is best served if television channels that
suit particular viewers are the ones they pay for by individual subscription.
It should not be necessary to have to pay subscriptions for channels, which
also benefit, that are not required. Consumer choice is the rationale in every
other market driven industry and reasons why this should not apply to
television in the future need to be explained. If programme costs are high then
subscriptions to those channels should be correspondingly high. There should
also be a workable system of pay-per-view by which individual programmes or
series from any channel may be viewed. Such a system could turn out to be the
best way to ensure that excellence is maintained because viewers will, by
choice, simply not pay for unacceptably offensive and/or inferior programming
that has been foisted on the viewing public for too long. Such a scheme will
prove, once and for all, whether the viewers really want the programming that
the broadcasters have been prescribing.
The justification for PSB is to be found in the need for
a well educated and informed public. It is true that this high ideal could be
achieved by the private as well as by the public sector. Competition between
the private and public sectors has led to healthy and robust debate and
discussion of a wide range of public policy issues. It has also led to a
healthy and robust questioning of those, in the political and other
institutions, who devise and implement policy decisions. That these matters can
be properly and adequately dealt with if PSB is diminished must rest with the
competent regulatory authority. In any event Parliament must ensure that
adequate provision is made for such programming, elements of which should be
met by each channel. If PSB is to be retained in the private sector this will probably
have to be a political decision.
In any event an
improved system of content regulation will be needed. This Association has
already submitted a paper, entitled 'Empowering the Viewer', responding
to the joint Department of Culture Media and Sport/Department of Trade and
Industry consultation, setting out how the viewer's role in determining content
acceptability can be improved. Regulation of broadcast content will remain a
high expectation of the public no matter what channel is received by whatever
platform. Digital switch over by itself should have no bearing on the
maintenance of high quality programming accompanied by properly regulated
standards of good taste and decency and impartiality. The facilities enabling
public participation in these matters are in need of radical improvement.
13 July 2000
Click here for ‘Empowering the viewer’
Click here for ‘Funding the BBC’
Click here
for Lottery funding for ITV
Click here for Ofcom: Latest
Developments
Click here for Joining Form
For news and information visit: www.ofcom.org.uk