Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Film & TV Public Service Broadcasting Public Service Broadcasting From the establishment of the BBC in the late 1920s, British audiences were given the opportunity of taking part in a shared national experience and interest. Since that time, an apparent agreement has existed as to the general aims of broadcasting by the BBC which fell under the heading “public service broadcasting.” Although the BBC no longer enjoys a broadcasting monopoly, the promise to provide a mix of programming by which audiences may be educated as well as entertained has been emulated by the other terrestrial broadcasters, beginning with ITV in the 1950s. However, recent years have shown a breakdown to this widespread agreement and the term “public service broadcasting” now seems to exist as more of an amorphous notion than anything with a real concrete description. Perhaps because the term brings with it a number of complexities that serve to hinder the mission of public service broadcasting. How does one determine what someone else should watch? What type of person would be making that decision and does it have the potential to be elitist? Can a single broadcasting entity actually appeal to one mass audience in a society as diverse as Britain’s? And does the concept of this “national interest” even exist at all? It’s questions like these that bring to mind potential problems with the programs broadcast by the BBC and indicate that there is a lot more imbedded in the concept of public service broadcasting than one might assume. For no matter how no matter how much its traditions purport to reach out to create a cohesion for a mass audience, public service broadcasting can also contribute to a very misrepresentative appearance of British society. One aspect of the television medium that is so unique is its pervasive nature on our lives. For many, it is not only the primary source of entertainment and information, but also of education. Therefore, in a public service sense it is necessary to go beyond merely producing quality programs, even producing quality programs at peak hours that will attract a large audience. Rather, it also involves providing a focus for those activities which are best regarded as a common experience. Whether it be a the Wedding of Charles and Diana, a World Cup Football match, or news of a fateful event, “television has a unique ability to generate a sense of community, through the knowledge that the vast majority of the country is experiencing the same event at the same time. The sense of community so generated is a useful element in preserving coherence in society” (Green, 19). Throughout its history, the BBC has always been successful in providing audiences with this sense of national cohesion through its programming and no matter how many new cable and satellite channels arrive on the scene, this is unlikely to change. As one journalist put it, “when a wall collapses on football fans in Brussels, people are not going to tune to Sky Channel.” Public service broadcasting, however, consists of a much larger public function to the audience than merely covering special events or issues of national importance and from its early years the BBC has been criticized for being unable to truly involve itself with the deeper and more diverse levels of British society. Newspapers of the 1930s were probably getting ahead of themselves when they declared the BBC as “typical and representative a national institution as the Bank of England: reliable and responsible, the safe depository of the nation’s cultural capital” (MacCabe, 48). No matter what people may have liked to believe, the BBC could not but help become aware of its general lack of engagement by the eve of the Second World War. Independent researchers were showing as early as 1936 that the BBC was failing to reach “large sections of the people, or, at any rate, failing to make them feel that it had much to say to them” (Green, 14). With its (mis)conception of itself as the guardian of high culture and morality, the BBC maintained a devotion to virtuous and high-minded programs that left many audiences feeling alienated. These “reactions come from the nature of British society” and show how it can easily be problematic for a national institution to attempt to penetrate itself into the daily lives of diverse communities “many of which were tightly knit and resistant to mass centralized pressure” (MacCabe, 51). It was interestingly this very idea of a centralized monopoly that John Reith’s vision of public service broadcasting was founded from his egocentric view that “few know what they want, fewer still what they need” (Green, 15). Determined to bring the millions “listening in” what was good for them rather than what they wanted, Reith founded a corporation with the intent to inform, educate, and entertain. His beliefs of determining for the public that which is best for them echo the writings of James Madison who wrote a series of essays during the American revolution advocating the need for a strong central government. In discussing the issues of direct democracy in Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison favors a republic whereby individual representatives will be elected to speak for the majority. According to Madison, these “trustees” are necessary to “discern the public interest…[in order to] refine and enlarge the public views” (Madison). Madison may have been well intentioned, but his theories are nonetheless blatantly elitist. Compare this to the public service broadcasting concept of the BBC, which under all of its good intentions is equally elitist. How can one organization, whose programmers have largely been recruited from the educated class, be expected to “discern the interests” of an entire nation, especially one as diverse as Britain? It simply cannot, and no matter what Reith’s aspirations may have been, the BBC “could hardly be said be speaking for Britain, still less to it” (MacCabe, 50). With it’s centralizing power, the BBC has a great deal of power when dictating the expressions of British society and culture, but with this comes also the power to act as a censor. This should be considered fairly dangerous given the BBC’s reputation for being an inherently “British Institution.” With the power to control, organize, and exclude the passage of text and image, the BBC is essentially capable of presenting a very specific view of British society. Therefore, who controls the medium, truly does “control the production and distribution of truth and meaning” (MacCabe, 33). In a heterogeneous society like Britain, it is difficult to see why the BBC helps perpetuate the stereotype of a largely white, homogeneous society. A popular program like East Enders hardly challenges an audience to recognize Britain as anything more than a white experience even though Britain is extremely multicultural. For those who would like something more than simply the status quo, the BBC could hardly be considered a true form of public service broadcasting. Yes, people may be educated, informed, and entertained, but in an extremely restricted manner. Each year the BBC puts out a pamphlet entitled “Our Commitment to You,” containing a list of promises to its audience. One of the statements is always worded, “We promise to focus on our obligation to represent all groups in society accurately and to avoid reinforcing prejudice in our programs” (BBC, 2). Clearly, this is extremely subjective, as it is the programmer who holds the power of determining what is an “accurate” representation. This capability of producing a highly selective depiction of images has to lead one to question whether or not the BBC could actually be keeping partisan material from its audience. While this is impossible to determine, it is interesting to note that the archives are extremely “difficult to penetrate” (MacCabe, 33). This dangerous political factor in preserving a specific notion of British society also brings with it a national factor. If “the key to the BBC lies in its role as the voice or vision of the British nation,” one can’t ignore the national identity associated with its programming (MacCabe, 52). Given the great range that is penetrated by BBC broadcasts, the idea of “Britishness” can easily be reinforced throughout the national grid. Therefore, a national unity can be created by the BBC although the “audio-visual” messages it sends to the audience may be at complete odds with the existing political, cultural, and social realities. In their “Commitment to You,” the BBC promises to “respond to devolution and political change in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland,” however, each year the Department of National Heritage reports people to be critical of the BBC for reflecting the views and culture of only a small part of the population, reflecting the sentiments that were expressed close to sixty years ago. People living in the other parts of the United Kingdom want the BBC to “broadcast more programs made in their area about their area and the people living there…and in addition those which consider national and international issues from a regional viewpoint” (Heritage, 12). While all areas of the region are in some ways “British,” they are not all as “British” as the BBC deems them. Perhaps an Irish or Scottish community might object to a single nation covered by a single broadcasting outlet that claims its public service broadcasting is conducted with national policy in mind. “The term national policy [itself]…implies a degree of socio-political cohesion absent from out multi-racial society [and] it is the persistence of a powerful nation-wide network of communication that enables the perpetuation of this myth of unity” (MacCabe, 43). Funding for the BBC is carried out through a license fee, collected by the government as a hypothecated tax and paid for by everyone owning a television set, which thus keeps it insulated from the marketplace and commercial interests, but not necessarily government influence. In fact, the larger the increase in license fee it demands, the more politically vulnerable it probably renders itself. Researcher William Maley counters the BBC’s claim that the license fee “places it irrevocably inside the public sector, but insulated from government,” by saying that “no institution in our society is insulated from government” (MacCabe, 37). And while it may be an extremist view, Maley’s point is well grounded when he insists that “what we pay for in the licensee fee is a stream of sexist and racist effluence interspersed with testimonies to the freedom of our society” (MacCabe, 38). Rather than existing as a corporation that is determined to make a profit for its shareholders, the BBC’s primary concern should seemingly to provide a public service to the people of the nation. However, what incentive does a person have to pay for a license fee that may not in actuality be giving them a legitimate representation of British society and additionally may not even be catering to their own programming interests. One potential solution for this problem might be to make the BBC a service that will be paid for via subscription. In effect the BBC was actually funded this way during its first three decades in existence, because a person only had one choice; before ITV, if someone desired to watch BBC they paid for a license. Once ITV emerged, followed by the other terrestrial channels, a person had to pay the license fee to watch any television at all, even though they may have not been at all interested in BBC programming. Subscription would also alleviate pressure on the BBC to provide a public service for “everyone,” which it seems incapable of doing anyway. Additionally, a subscription could potentially increase the quantity of minority programs by alleviating the need for the BBC to have to consistently pursue a majority audience (MacCabe, 89). Therefore, much of the homogeneity of British society currently portrayed by public service broadcasting could ultimately be replaced by a more accurate representation of multicultural Britain. While the public service broadcasting of the BBC is depended upon by a mass audience during times when national experiences can be shared, it does not accurately reflect British society on a day to day basis. It has a broadcasting tradition that is elitist and that gives a great deal of authority to the programmers, rather than the audience that own the station. Its centralized monopoly can serve a censoring body and does not allow all voices in society to have a voice, although the BBC deems itself representative of a national institution. For this reason it cannot be justified to have a mass audience pay for a license fee that may not be catering at all to their interests or culture and perhaps the only way to justify the programming of the BBC is by adopting a method of optional subscription fees. As far as it may have developed since the time of its founding, the BBC still remains somewhat stuck to its original ideals which have made it impossible to become that national institution that it claims to be. Bibliography: BIBLIOGRPAHY British Broadcasting Corperation. Our Commitment to You. London: BBC Publications, 1998. Department of National Heritage. The Future of the BBC. London: Department of National Heritage, 1994. Green, Damien. A Better BBC: Public Service Broadcasting in the 90s. London: Center for Policy Studies England, 1991. MacCabe, Colin. The BBC and Public Service Broadcasting. London: Manchester University Press, 1986. Madison, James. Federalist Paper No. 10 Word Count: 2150
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.