The state, specific governments,or the public, own a large proportion of the world's media - especially radioand television. The term “public media” is often used to refer to these forms of mediaownership. There are important distinctions between these forms however.
- Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) uses public money to broadcast in the interests of the public as a whole. They are often established by law, but they are non-partisan, not supporting a particular party including the incumbent ruling party. PSBs are not-for-profit.
- State and government media are owned by the state or the government of the day (and financed out of public money) and directly controlled by it. It may perform a public service function or it may be a propaganda instrument of the state or government. State and government media is also generally not-for-profit.
Thesemedia may be financed out of one or all of these sources:
- A license fee paid by television viewers
- The government budget
- A programming fee paid by partner stations
- Public subscriptions and grants
- Commercial advertising
Thesedifferent revenue sources have potential implications for the broadcaster'sday-to-day independence. A license fee, advertising, and other revenues that donot go directly through the government budget may make it easier for thebroadcaster to maintain a distance from government (although many still dependon government mechanisms to collect license fees).
UNESCOdefinesPublic Service Broadcasting(PSB) as “broadcasting made,financed and controlled by the public, for the public. PSBs are neithercommercial nor state-owned; they are free from political interference andpressure from commercial forces. Through PSBs, citizens are informed, educatedand also entertained. When guaranteed with pluralism, programming diversity,editorial independence, appropriate funding, accountability and transparency,public service broadcasting can serve as a cornerstone of democracy.”[i]
Widely-acceptedprinciples for PSBs include:
- Universalaccessibility (geographic)
- Universalappeal (general tastes and interests)
- Particularattention to minorities
- Contributionto sense of national identity and community
- Distancefrom vested interests
- Directfunding and universality of payment
- Competitionin good programming rather than numbers
- Guidelinesthat liberate rather than restrict programme-makers
PSBsmay be mainly funded by television license fees, as is the case for the BritishBroadcasting Commission (BBC); directly by the government, for example theAustralian Broadcasting Commission; by individual subscribers, grants andprogramming fees as is the case for National Public Radio (NPR) in the US; orat least partially from commercial sources, as is the case with the AustralianSpecial Broadcasting Service (SBS). What PSBs have in common in terms offunding is that they are not dependent on advertising.
PSBsare often established by government through acts of parliament, and while someare subject to broad oversight by the state, most also have strict guaranteesof independence written into their constitutions. The Swedish PSB for example,SvT, is kept at arms-length from the state by being owned by a foundation, notthe state, and by directly collecting license fees from the public, not via thegovernment. However it is subject to broad oversight by a parliamentary committeeas a check-and-balance mechanism.
Intransitional democracies there have been some bold attempts to rapidly retrieveand modernize the public service ideal, after a history of heavy-handed statecontrol. In South Africa since 1993 the public broadcaster has statutoryindependence and even, at one stage, had its board members appointed afterpublic hearings.[ii]
Howeverothers struggle to achieve true public service broadcasting. In the formerSoviet Union, “PSB development…is still affected by local transitionalchallenges [as well as] coping with global challenges of [the] mediaenvironment.” In Latvia in 2011 for example, “PSB policy making is stilloriented to the value for officials or elite rather than for the public,” withPSBs still operating as “paternalistic broadcasters that tend to function aspublic educators “from above.”[iii]
State- and government-owned broadcasters, directlycontrolled by the state, were a common model in the Soviet Union (and later inmany countries that followed its lead). In the post-Soviet era, thesebroadcasters have often proven difficult and slow to reform. In Latvia forexample, two decades since independence the distinction between public servicebroadcasting and state broadcasting remains unclear to many parliamentarians.[iv]
Frenchand British colonisers took their public broadcasting model overseas, but itdid not travel well, and colonial broadcasters enjoyed little independence.After independence, many post-colonial governments continued with the sametradition of broadcaster-as-government-propagandist.
Publicservice broadcasting was founded on a belief that still holds true in most ofthe world: the private sector alone cannot guarantee pluralism in broadcasting.The trouble is that public media have largely failed to do that too. In manycountries, the advent of private broadcasting has made governments even moredetermined to cling onto editorial control of the public broadcaster.
Public, state orgovernment media are usually broadcasters. But there are still some government-and state-owned newspapers in existence. They do not enjoy the same economicrationale as public broadcasters and often function as little more thangovernment propaganda sheets. There are exceptions, and Uganda is aninteresting example. The largest newspaper in the country is New Vision, inwhich the state holds a controlling stake. The paper is known to have a level ofeditorial independence, professionalism, and for publishing a range of views –though this independence was questioned when New Vision was accused ofpro-government bias in the 2011 elections.
[v] Fortunately, there is alsoa range of independent private media in Uganda that voice alternative views.
[ii] Robert BrittHorwitz,Communication and DemocraticReform in South Africa, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),171,
