Public interest – says Anthony Smith (1989: 23) – "implies the invocation of social purpose in all matters in which there remains a territory of discussable collective policy within society".

The continued existence – or otherwise – of public service broadcasting is certainly a remaining territory of "discussable collective policy". That discussion seeks to establish whether the continued existence of PSB would indeed serve the public interest and what the objectively understood public interest in this field really is.

The search for an answer can have a chance of being successful if we can define the object of the debate. However, the situation as regards the definition of public service broadcasting is abundantly clear: there isn’t any. To quote the researcher who probably has done as much, or even more than anyone to establish what the term means,

Seven years later, she reiterated this statement:

Of course, many more people have had problems with defining public service broadcasting. The UK Independent Review Panel, appointed to consider the future funding of the BBC, were quite open about the difficulties of "establishing a new definition of public service broadcasting":

The Panel also added that their goal was to "fund the minimum level of BBC output which is needed to maintain a critical mass of public service broadcasting in the changing marketplace", but that "defining that minimum is no easy task. It is more of an art than a science" (The Future Funding of the BBC …1999: 9).

"We knew it when we saw it", "more art than science" - defining public service broadcasting is a very tall order indeed.

The reason for this, says Syvertsen (1992: 17) is that the term is used to refer to different things:

• the national system as a whole;
• certain broadcasting institutions;
• or a certain mixture of programmes.

Later, however, she did identify (Syvertsen, 1999:6-7) three principal meanings of the term:

• The first definition was "public service" in the sense of a public utility, i.e a technical-economic interpretation of the term that refers to the kind of services governments commonly provide - postal service, roads, railroads, etc. - where the prime criteria of success are signal quality efficiency of operations and a distribution network that provides universal access. This understanding of the term predominated in the early years of European broadcasting.
• The second main meaning of "public service" arises out of the circumstance that "public" may refer to the "public sphere" or "the commons". In this sense, "public service" may be expressed as broadcasting in the service of the public sphere, i.e., a meaning in which content and values figure somewhat more explicitly The public sphere represents institutions in which members of the public take part as citizens and collectively make decisions for the common good. A medium "in the service of the public sphere" mainly guarantees that all members of society have access to the information and knowledge they need in order to perform their civic duties.
• The third definition of "public service" takes its starting point in the equation of "public" with "audience", which implies a conception of the public as individual consumers of the media. In this usage, "public service" may be translated as broadcasting in the service of the listener/viewer that is to say broadcasting whose prime purpose is to satisfy the interests and preferences of individual consumers rather than the needs of the collective, the citizenry. This sense of the term was not widely accepted in the late 1980s. Today, powerful forces are at play both, within the licence-financed, but competitively challenged broadcasting institutions and among new players on the market, to legitimize such an interpretation of the concept.

Setting aside the fact that not one of these meanings renders the full sense of the objectives of public service broadcasting, let us note that these references to the historical context point up one reason why it is difficult to define it: "[it] has changed over the last decade, so that many of the concepts that once were used to describe it are no longer adequate" (Sondergaard, 1996: 107).

As she tracks the future evolution of the usage of "public service", Syvertsen (1999: 11) sees two possible trends:

• on the one hand, "expansion ad absurdum" (as the concept is extended to the Internet, potentially also cinema and the press), public service "as a catch-all for everything good and right in a world where a lot of things are bad and wrong";
• or public service seen as signifying a set of ideals and norms that imbued all media and institutions in an historic era in the years around the mid-century, but which ebbed out slowly starting in the 1970s and 1980s and which today, "as a guiding principle for broadcasting and cultural policy, is definitely passé".

The latter approach, says Syvertsen, is much more fruitful. However, this view is far from universally shared. In the same issue of NORDICOM Review in which her article appeared, Olle Findahl (1999: 18)) called public service broadcasting "a fragile, yet durable construction". He says that "public service broadcasters must continue to perform their traditional threefold task of informing, enlightening and entertaining ... to what extent television will continue to hold this position, and not be reduced to solely an entertainment medium, is intimately bound up with the fate of public service companies".

Also in the same issue of NORDICOM Review, Sondergaard (1999: 27) sees public service broadcasters as the only defence against the emergence, in the process of media concentration, of new private media monopolies. He warns those broadcasters against digging their own graves in their "eagerness to survive on the market that really has no use for them" and seems to favour the view that "public service broadcasting [should] be counted among the objects of cultural policy, to be sustained despite market pressures".

Siune and Hulten (1998: 36) tend to agree with this approach:

For the time being, the condition specified by Siune and Hulten, namely support from the political system and the audience is satisfied, to some extent. Sondergaard (1999: 27) goes so far as to argue that "political support for public service media has never been stronger, and there are no signs that politicians are inclined to lay them to rest". If so, and that’s a big if, then it is still important to seek an understanding of what public service broadcasting is and stands for, how this service should be performed, and whether it has any future.

It is doubtful whether it is indeed possible to offer a rigorous definition of public service broadcasting. It takes too many forms and encompasses too many aspects to admit of such a definition. It should, however, be possible to offer a general description of some of the main distinguishing characteristics of PSB.

Of the three different approaches to defining PSB (in terms of the national system as a whole, of some institutions, and of a certain programme mix), listed by Syvertsen, the first two can hardly be applied in a literal sense today. Except in a few remaining European countries (see Appendix, Fig. 1), PSB is no longer co-terminous with national broadcasting. Any general definition referring to the legal and institutional form of PSB or its method of financing will fail, since these vary widely (depending on the social, cultural and political circumstances of each country) and there is no one common international pattern (see Appendix).

The criterion of the programme mix is another thing. Sondergaard (1999) points out that public service broadcasting is now defined nearly exclusively in terms of programme policy commitments, which concern the composition (diversity) and character (quality) of programme output .

This approach was also taken by Blumler (1992) who listed „vulnerable values" represented by PSB broadcasting and threatened by deregulation and market pressures on broadcasting. These are:

• Programme Quality;
• Diversity;
• Cultural Identity
• Independence of Programme Sources from Commercial Influences;
• The Integrity of Civic Communication;
• Welfare of Children and Juveniles;
• Maintenance of Standards.

In all cases but "independence of programme sources from commercial influences", these values relate to the content and characteristics of programme output. Blumler sees a special role for PSB in defending these values and regards this as the rationale for its continued existence.

Also the Amsterdam protocol on public service broadcasting, adopted by the European Council in 1997, defines it chiefly in terms its programme and other functions. It says that "the system of public broadcasting in Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism". It also indicates that the question of how public broadcasters are to be organized is – in a spirit of subsidiarity - a matter for EU member states to decide, leaving this entire question out of consideration.

However, a description of PSB in terms of its programme characteristics alone would be incomplete. It must be complemented in the following way:

• first of all by an understanding of how public service broadcasters define its audience and its needs and interests. This is one of its major distinguishing characteristics, and the foundation for its programme goals;
• secondly, a description of PSB operating on a competitive market must include some reference to its functions on that market.
• and thirdly, we believe that the institutional aspect must also be taken into account, chiefly in terms of the role of PSB as a social institution with certain characteristics (especially broadly understood autonomy) indispensable for its proper functioning.

Thus, a combination of axiological, functional and institutional elements is required to describe PSB.

It is important to note in this context that the special skill and role of public service broadcasting today has until now been to assemble and deliver a schedule: a programme service designed to achieve the manifold goals of its operation.

In his attempt to reconstruct the distinctive features of PSB in Europe „before the commercial deluge", Blumler (1992) identified the following elements of the „public service legacy", which can be said to elaborate on these "distinguishing marks:"

• a comprehensive remit;
• a generalized mandate (broadly worded obligations in legal documents)
• diversity, pluralism and range (offering programming reflecting the concerns of all groups in society, covering all programme types and genres);
• cultural role: generating and disseminating the linguistic, spiritual, aesthetic and ethnic wealth of the nation, playing a societally integrative role; in the age of globalization, PSB is increasingly important as a channel for cultural participation by its audience, as an instrument of upholding the national and cultural identity and promoting audiovisual production and other creativity;
• place in politics: news, current affairs and political programming serves as a political arena;
• non-commercialism.

In short, then, public service broadcasting aims to satisfy the democratic, social and cultural needs of society, providing content audience members want and objectively need, and for this purpose:

• perceives its audience as composed of whole human beings, with a full range of needs and interests (as citizens; members of different social groups, communities, minorities and cultures; consumers; and seekers of information, education, experience, advice and entertainment), also seeking to broaden their horizons and enrich their lives;
• provides programming serving all those needs and interests, which offers the audience a common pool of information and experience, while enabling its members to maintain and reinforce their ties to their identities, traditions, cultures and communities, as well as to function in contemporary times to best advantage and be aware of the promises and challenges of the future;
• offers authoritative and impartial news and current affairs programming , serves as a forum of public debate, ensuring a plurality of opinions and an informed electorate;
• serves a cultural mission by including in its programming a large amount of original productions made specifically for first showing in its own country, making full use of domestic talents and creativity, and maintaining high quality in terms of technical and production standards, while demonstrating a willingness to take creative risks and challenge audiences;
• operates on the media scene as a guarantor that whatever other broadcasters and content providers may be doing (e.g. to serve selected niche markets), content of sufficient range and quantity, serving the fundamental needs of society and various groups within it, will always be universally available. In so doing, public service broadcasters seek to correct market failure, to serve the needs of the entire audience and to maintain an audience share, and to use technologies, enabling it to reach, or make the content available to, the whole audience;
• seeks to adapt and change in response to changing social, market and technological change and the requirements of the audience, often spearheading innovation in many areas of broadcasting.

In Europe and elsewhere, societies have sought to ensure the production and distribution of public service broadcasting content through legal, institutional and funding arrangements necessary for the purpose and suited to national circumstances. Traditionally this has meant, among other things, the existence of institutions dedicated to the production and provision of public service broadcasting content (which is not to say that the same content is not, to some extent, provided also by other broadcasters).

Public interest is assumed to be served when a public service broadcaster (or public service broadcasters) conforming the above description operate(s) on the media market. Of course, public service broadcasters in different countries conform to it in different degrees.

In its traditional form, public service broadcasting was the product of, among other things, three sets of circumstances.

First, these concerned the societal conditions (including far-reaching social divisions and stratification) in which it emerged, resulting in what at one time could often be described as its paternalistic approach to a large part of its audience. This has been described, on the British example, by Raymond Williams (1968: 117-118) in a well-known passage:

Paddy Scannell (1989) has described another aspect of this model of public service broadcasting: despite its "fundamentally democratic thrust" (in that it made available to all virtually the whole spectrum of public life and has enhanced the reasonable character and conduct of twentieth-century life through extending the universe of discourse and entitling previously excluded voices to be heard and by questioning those in power on behalf of viewers and listeners), it is a system based on unequal and asymmetrical relations between broadcasters and the audience. In this system of representative communicative democracy, power accrued "to the representatives, not those whom they represent" (Scannell, 1989: 163-164) .

The second set of circumstances resulted from "an economy of scarcity" in broadcasting at the time when public service broadcasting was born and long afterwards, leading to a generalist orientation of its programme services.

And finally, it enjoyed a monopoly on the broadcasting scene, and was able to operate undisturbed by any competition and have a captive audience deprived of any choice.

This situation continued in Western European countries until the 1980s. The question before us is whether the rationale for the existence of public service broadcasting did indeed "ebb out slowly" when these circumstances began to change.

Sondergaard (1998) sees two "waves" of change affecting public service broadcasters:

• the "first wave" – mainly resulting from the introduction of commercial broadcasters, cable and satellite television;
• and the "second wave", currently being introduced by digital technology.

To this must be added a third "wave": the prospect – as convergence, the spread of broadband technology and the replacement of "push" by "pull" technology picks up momentum – that the broadcasting paradigm of electronic communication may gradually be weakened and ultimately possibly disappear altogether, to be replaced by non-linear, on-demand modes of communication, encompassing primarily "conversation" and "consultation" (Bordewijk, van Kaam, 1986).

In an Arthur Andersen report for the European Broadcasting Union (The Impact of Digital Television …, 1998), this is presented as the arrival of successive "generations" of (television) broadcasters. If we elaborate on the approach adopted there, we may arrive at the following (admittedly simplified) presentation of challenges facing public service broadcasters.

Adapted from: The Impact of Digital …, 1998: 26.

On this basis, let us consider the response (or likely response) of public service broadcasters to each of these challenges, and what possible public interest considerations have agitated, or potentially will agitate, at each of this stages in favour of preserving it.

The onset of commercial broadcasting was seen by some as undermining the legitimacy of, and indeed the need for, public service broadcasting. That was when deregulation and demonopolization led to the emergence of new commercial stations and media policies were progressively being transformed from „cultural" to „industrial" ones (treating media and their development as an engine of technological and economic growth, and thus promoting involvement of private capital in the media). Some saw television as gradually being redefined from a „service" to a „business" (Richeri, 1984).

That period of intense debates about PSB (see Syvertsen, 1992) ended, as predicted by Sydney W. Head (1988), with the countries concerned deciding „that European PSB services and their counterparts in Australia, Canada and Japan offer something worth preserving in the contexts of their respective cultures" and that therefore PSB „survived the onslaught of deregulation, albeit at the price of some adaptation":

Also Sondergaard (1998: 16) sees some salutary effects of the adaptation of PSB in consequence of deregulation and demonopolization:

That salutary effect, quite simply, is what Sondergaard (1996: 108-109) describes as the "modernization of publicly owned media", long overdue due to the "companies’ inability to adapt to the social and cultural change taking place in society as a whole". They needed the shock of demonopolization and competition to abandon their elitist and paternalistic approach to their audience.

It was probably this departure from the path of public service broadcasting as described by Williams which was one of the reasons for talk of its "crisis" or loss of identity, or even for calling into question its continued validity and existence. One explanation for this may perhaps be what Kornhauser (quoted in McQuail, 1969: 21-22) has called "aristocratic criticism" of mass culture and mass society, centring "on the intellectual defense of elite values against the rise of mass participation". This, McQuail adds, arises out of a "dilemma of those whose political and cultural values are in danger of being rejected by an unschooled and misled minority". In a word, then, the debate may stem from a difference of opinion on whether public service broadcasting should belong in the realm of high or mass culture (and if in both, then in what proportions) and whose values it should represent. In view of its axiological underpinnings, this debate cannot easily be resolved.

Given the economics of the media, especially television, many new commercial stations concentrated at first on recouping the original investment in the shortest possible time, understandably concentrating on mass-appeal and imported programming. The consequences of this are well known. While public service broadcasters (in most cases) sought to retain their rigorous schedules, viewers in increasing numbers opted for the more entertaining commercial channels. Although rigorous content was available, viewing figures fell. Public ambitions were being met in theory (distinctive programmes were available), but not in practice (distinctive programmes were not being watched).

As a result, as McKinsey&Company (1999) has found, public service broadcasters have typically adopted one of three strategies:

• A focus on distinctiveness (i.e. fidelity to the PSB remit, as expressed in prominence of "public service genres" – factual, cultural and children’s programming in schedules) over market share (e.g., PBS, ABC). These PSBs (often forced into this position by their remit or funding model) have had little impact on the main broadcast networks, as they pose no meaningful financial threat to commercial competition.
• A focus on market share over distinctiveness (e.g., RAI, RTVE). While these PSBs have the potential to significantly influence their market, in practice there is little to differentiate them from commercially funded operators. The majority of PSBs in this cluster depend heavily on advertising funding.
• Some form of equilibrium between the two (e.g., SVT, ARD). These PSBs have held a significant audience share while maintaining a distinctive approach and fulfilling their public service remit.

It is probably these strategies, all of which were based on recognition of the inevitable (that given a choice audiences will predominantly opt for less demanding and more escapist and entertaining programming) which have accounted for interpretations of "public service broadcasting" as oriented to satisfying the interests and preferences of individual consumers rather than the needs of the collective, the citizenry. Such statements probably overstate the case. In two cases out of three, the original goals of "pure" public service broadcasting are still pursued, though with less single-minded attention.

This is not to deny the changes and the lowering of standards that these new strategies have brought. These are well-known and disappointing. Yet, it has to be noted that the choice of strategy depended on a variety of factors, including – as McKinsey&Company point out – the broadcasting "ecology" of each country, including the system and sources of financing of public service broadcasters. The study compares the situation in Sweden (where public service television is financed exclusively from licence fee revenue, and in Portugal, where advertising revenue complements meagre state subsidies. As can be seen below, the result in terms of programme content – i.e. the proportion of what might be called "PSB content" (factual, cultural and children’s programming) to sports and entertainment, and to other content - is striking.

If the public service broadcaster – McKinsey&Company points out - is healthy and well-financed, it can be a strong shaper of the broadcasting ecology. If the PSB is weak, the

commercial players will tend to dominate the ecology, to the benefit of their shareholders, but often to the detriment of the overall range and quality of the broadcasting market:

Accordingly, by supporting and encouraging a PSB with high ratings, the government takes advantage of market dynamics to drive a more robust mix from all broadcasters .

This brings us back to the comment by Siune and Hulten (1998: 36) that public service broadcasting will continue as long as there is enough support from the political system as well as the audience for its services. Lack of a well though-out policy in this field will certainly doom public service broadcasting to failure. Well-funded public service broadcasters committed to maintaining their distinction from commercial ones and able to retain a significant market share, have been able to shape the new broadcasting ecology, creating a "virtuous circle" and encouraging commercial broadcasters to offer high-quality programming serving objectives and employing programme genres typical of PSB.

What all this means in terms of the raison d’etre of PSB is that in the early period commercial broadcasting did not threaten to supplant or replace public service broadcasters, typically offering an entertainment-oriented alternative to PSB programming, with only limited overlap between them. Accordingly, it showed that the values represented by public service broadcasting, though vulnerable, retained their validity.

Public service broadcasters could therefore easily argue that they were indispensable in the dual broadcasting system, and that the rationale for their continued existence was as strong as ever. The following figure illustrates this rationale:

Adapted from: Public Service Television..., 1991.

This argument is bolstered by the fact that 2^nd generation broadcasters can be shown to be producing less new programming, thus offering audiences less content deriving from its own social and cultural context, and produced with that particular audience in mind. This is an enduring phenomenon, as shown in the figure below.

Source: The Impact of Digital Television …, 1998.

One view of the unfolding digital revolution in broadcasting is that it will happen in three stages defined by technology and functionality.

Source: The Future Funding of the BBC … 1999: 14.

Benefits to consumers can be summed up in the following way:

Source: The Impact of digital television …, 1998: 76.

To this must be added the possibility that especially in larger and more affluent markets the EPGs will, for a time, at least, become the new channels. EPG operators could make payments to content providers or channels for programming, and could take advertising or even subscriptions from consumers.

Though the above two figures telescope two distinct sets of challenges to PSB into one continuum, let us consider them separately, i.e. deal with 3^rd generation of broadcasters first (relying in large part on current debates in the UK), and with the consequences of the gradual disappearance of the broadcasting paradigm second.

Due to digitization, among other factors, there is now a growing " economy of abundance" in multichannel broadcasting. This has led to the emergence of 3^rd generation cable and satellite channels which are mainly genre or thematic. As commercial broadcasters seek to occupy niche markets, they have entered areas of programming hitherto reserved mostly for public sector broadcasters and deprived them of their monopoly on "PSB content" or genres, though it is true that in the UK, at least arts, education, multi-cultural programmes, investigative current affairs programming, natural history programmes and the like continue to be under-supplied by commercial broadcasters, as they are "generally commercially unattractive to produce" (ITC Consultation …, 2000: 4). It is also the case, adds the ITC document, that, apart from sport, there is little first run programming on multi-channel television which was made specifically for a UK audience.

Much of the content which once was the exclusive domain of PSB is now provided also by "third-generation" broadcasters of thematic channels (often offered on a pay-TV basis), even if they usually have an insignificant market share. Thus, it is available piecemeal from specialized channels (many of them pay-tv ones), requiring audiences to undertake additional effort and incur considerable expense to access content from many sources comparable to that available from public service broadcasters. In any case, specialized channels attract only receivers who seek out the content they have to offer, whereas it is an important function of public service broadcasting to extend audience’s tastes and interests.

Still, the argument of no or little overlap between their programme offer and that of PSB no longer holds to the same degree as before. What, then, are the arguments for and against the continued existence of public service broadcasting?

One frequently used argument has been advanced by M. Souchon:

The UK Independent Review Panel attempted to formulate its own arguments in favour of PSB in the following way:

The Panel added in its report that it unanimously believed that the adoption of these three principles today would make out a strong case for a comprehensive public service broadcaster like the BBC in the UK market. Since the alternative might be to import even more American television, designed for American tastes, it is probably an argument in favour of the present structure.

Still, these are relatively lame arguments (PSB can do the same things, as the private sector, but better), so much so that the ITC in its consultation document understood it to infer that

This is probably a misunderstanding of the Panel’s intentions on the ITC’s part . What is more important, however, is that the ITC immediately went on to provide evidence to the contrary, by pointing out that in an age of growing international competition on the television market, neither Channel 3 nor Channel 5 in the UK would probably be able to "deliver PSB in the longer term, well beyond digital switchover":

Thus competitive pressures may leave the British audience, and even more so audiences in other countries, with a much narrower range of sources of "PSB content" than so far, at least so far as generally accessible generalist channels are concerned, boiling down to all intents and purposes to the BBC and Channel 4 (though the ITC says in its consultation document that Channel 4's long term viability as a self-funded channel based on advertising cannot be guaranteed). .

The ITC consultation document still seeks to argue the case for spreading PSB material across a range of (PSB and private sector) channels, using the same arguments that PSB broadcasters have long used to bolster their case:

In an age of growing specialization of channels and the audience’s growing freedom and ease of choice, it is highly doubtful, however, that such a concept would be successful. PSB content, implanted into a commercially-funded channel would disrupt the flow and vitiate the concept of programming designed to maximize market share or advertising revenue. There is even less of a possibility of applying this method to pay-tv channels which desperately need to attract subscribers in a highly competitive market.

This view of the dynamics of change on the broadcasting market may lead to two sets of conclusions:

• Any major policy decisions to dismantle public service broadcasters today (and perhaps replace them by a system of subsidizing commercial broadcasters to provide PSB content) would at best be premature ;
• Given the possible future trends in broadcasting, all the traditional arguments in favour of PSB are gaining a new lease on life.

On the first issue, the UK Independent Review Panel came to the conclusion that "Economic theory suggests that, rather than removing the case for public service broadcasting, the commercial pressures and globalisation that are reinforced by digital technology, could increase the need for such a broadcaster" (Funding the BBC,,, 1999: 204-205).

This, the Panel argues, is due to:

• The risk of over-concentration in the market and the emergence of private monopoly;
• Increased audience fragmentation which is likely to increase average costs and discourage commercial broadcasters to provide PSB content;
• Negative externalities may increase, so with expanding numbers of channels in the digital era, it may be substantially more difficult for regulators to ensure that programming standards are upheld.
• Programming in a free market: assuming that broadcasters operating in a free market are funded through either Pay TV (subscription or pay per view), advertising or sponsorship, economic theory suggests that not all types of desired programming would be provided. Though theoretically this market failure can be corrected through commercially provided Pay TV, because it enables the profitable production of the types of programme which small audiences value highly and are prepared to pay for. It is likely however, that Pay TV would still fail to produce programmes which have a wide appeal and are valued highly, eg certain sporting events, news programmes and classic serials. This is because it is difficult for the commercial broadcaster to maximise revenue for this type of programme - if a high price is charged, revenue is lost by excluding the large number of people who would pay a moderate price, and if a moderate price is charged a large amount of potential revenue from those people prepared to pay a higher price has been lost.

• act as a counterweight to the private concentration of ownership
• provide a centre of excellence which both makes and broadcasts programmes
• be large enough to influence the market and so act as the guarantor of quality
• widen choice both now and in the future by complementing the market through the pursuit of public service purposes.

On the question of the traditional arguments in favour of public service broadcasting, that of quality broadcasting being a merit good (i.e. one whose value exceeds the valuation an individual would place upon it) is still seen as valid.

Moreover, as observers are beginning to realize that commercial broadcast media, having tried to provide PSB content, are also free to direct their money and energies elsewhere, as they see fit, they begin to value PSB as the only guarantee that a certain type and range of content will always be available, no matter what else happens on the market.- all the more so that given expected changes in the business model of commercial broadcasters more and more of their services will be available as Pay-TV.

Bernd Holznagel (n.d.) shows that in Western Europe, the obligation to provide a balanced and pluralistic programme offer has often been derived from the national Constitutions. The French Conseil Constitutionnel and the Italian Corte Costituzionale, for example, argue that pluralism in the media sector is an "objectif de valeur constitutionnelle" or a "fondamentale valore costituzionale". They also stress the important role of PSB to fulfil this legal obligation. In Italy, public service broadcasters are even entitled to get sufficient financial resources and frequencies so that they can implement their tasks.

Germany is another example for this tradition. The German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has developed an elaborate legal theory in order to define the role of PBS. In a dual system, it is for the PSB, with its comprehensive programme mission, to compensate for the deficiencies of commercial broadcasters in terms of diversity. Consequently, the PSB is required to fulfil a special programme requirement, i .e. to provide for the "indispensable Grundversorgung" ("fundamental provider"). Only "as long and so far " as PSB efficiently accomplishes this assigned role, according to the Federal Constitutional Court, can it be justified not to require the same range of programming diversity from private broadcasters. The notion of Grundversorgung - i..e . an "all-embracing programming mission" implies that it cannot be, and does not need to be, delivered by private providers.

Recently, notes Holznagel, the Federal Constitutional Court tried to express in more concrete terms the missions and possibilities of action of the public service pillar of the already-established dual broadcasting system. In this context the Court speaks of a "functional remit" ("Funktionsauftrag") or a "traditional mission" of PSB. The Federal Constitutional Court has also stated that, regarding the provision of content, PSB should be enabled to compete within the dual broadcasting system ( "irn dualen System publizistisch konkurrenzfahig [bleiben]") . If not, it would be unable to fulfil the constitutional requirements regarding freedom of expression (i.e. "insgesamt die Anforderungen des Art . 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG verfehlen").

Such views are echoed elsewhere:

This is not to say that public service broadcasting is not faced with serious challenges. Within the European Union, there has been a flood of complaints against mixed financing of PSB (from both licence fees and advertising) launched by some commercial broadcasters with the European Commission, claiming that the systems of public or mixed funding in certain

Member States were incompatible with the competition and state aid rules of the EC Treaty, and especially Art. 87 concerning state aid (Wagner, 1999). Commercial broadcasters also challenge the take-up of new technologies by public service broadcasters, or their launching of new types of services (e.g. thematic channels), or indeed entry into the Internet.

While there is no dearth of statements of political intent that public service broadcasters should be free to take advantage of new technologies , from a legal point of view the matter is more complicated. Holznagel (n.d.: 3) points out, for example, that in Germany "it has not yet been clarified whether the legislator is obliged by constitutional requirements to let PSB participate in new technological and programme-related developments as well".

The question of financing is even more complex, since resolution of this issue requires action at the European Union level.

During a European Union Colloquium "European public television service in an age of economic and technological change" (Lille, July 19-20, 2000), the following methods of resolving the issue and giving public service broadcasters the legal certainty they require for the future:

• a change in the Treaty which either includes the Amsterdam protocol, possibly defining it in the form of a specific article, or creates a new exception to the system of State aid (article 87), or extends article 151 on culture to the audiovisual field and to new services;
• a rule of the Council on the initiative of the Commission established on the twofold basis of articles 87.3 and 89;
• a joint institutional declaration of the Council, the Commission and Parliament;
• guidelines defining the scope of rules concerning competition in public audiovisual services provided that they are prepared in cooperation with the member States, guaranteeing that they do not interfere with the jurisdiction of the States;
• a declaration of the Council which could be proposed at the formal meeting of November 23 to prepare one or another of the legal initiatives listed above;
• the inclusion of more precise provisions about public audiovisual services in the next communication of the Commission revising its text of 1996 about services of general interest.

Of course, the adoption of any of these measures will require the development of a political consensus within the European Union, which will not be easy.

McKinsey&Company (1999: 36) have listed some conditions which must be met in order to create a sustainable future for public service broadcasters:

1. a mission designed not only to provide distinctive programming in its own right, but also aiming to influence the overall market;
2. a scheduling approach that uses mainstream-type programming (albeit with appropriate standards of quality) to bring in the audience and "earn the right" from the viewers to expose them to a wider variety of genres – particularly in educational and informative areas;
3. a lean organization, as – if not more – cost-effective than its commercial rivals and able to market its unique benefits to its audience;
4. the launch of selected new services to support and enhance the proposition to audiences. Offering greater choice and convenience, and enabling the PSB to provide greater value for money – for example more extensive sports coverage from events for which it has the rights;
5. a stable funding regime that enables the PSB to maintain share and thereby direct influence and to invest in new services and "riskier" activities unlikely to be funded by commercial broadcasters.

The eventual break-down of the whole broadcasting paradigm (as non-linear online delivery of content and forms of communication acquire growing importance and may become the dominant means of communication).will have important consequences for all broadcasters, including public service ones.

It is too early to predict future patterns of communication and media operation. It might, however, be interesting to take a look at already discernible future societal conditions to see what they augur for the functions performed by public service broadcasting.

Of the many definitions of globalization, one (formulated by Anthony Giddens) clearly points to the inner contradictions of the process: "Globalization can be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant locations in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. This is a dialectical process because such local happenings may move in an obverse direction from the very distanciated relations that shape them. Local transformation is as much a part of globalization as the lateral extension of social connections across time and space" (cited after Waters, 1996: 50).

It is the contradiction between distant and local events, which provides the tensions mentioned above. They concern i.a.:

• Erosion of the nation-state (aided by disétatisation, attendant on the spread of liberal democracy) with the supra-national or global level seen as the most appropriate for tackling many important problems, while at the same time the sub-national or regional level acquires more importance as the proper framework for dealing with other issues. This may eventually lead to the break-up of especially larger, multi-ethnic states;
• Economic globalization and concentration, accompanied by renewed attention to local markets and customers’ individual taste, especially in e-commerce;
• Spread of a "global culture", leading in part to renewed attention to national and regional culture, or indeed to the birth of national, religious or cultural fundamentalism in many areas as they respond to the threat to their identity arising out of globalization. Some of the global television players (e.g. MTV or CNN) respond to this by a process of "regionalization", introducing new channels for particular regions or countries, involving specialized content originating from, or tailored specially for target audiences);
• "Glocalization" of the media and communication patterns, as they both concentrate at the European and global level and at the same time progressively localize.

These and other processes forming part of globalization may set in train an epochal reconfiguration of social organization and institutions, involving far-reaching social, political, economic and cultural change, raising many public policy and public interest issues and requiring a public debate and consensus-building. As they seek to respond to the challenges involved in these processes and develop new forms of social organization, societies will, it can safely be assumed, require the continued existence of some form of public service media as a public forum of debate on change affecting everyone in society. Also, they will need it and as a means of reinforcing existing identities, or projecting new national or regional identities emerging as part of the process.

The High-Level Expert Group appointed by the European Commission to analyse the social aspects of the Information Society defines the information society as "the society currently being put into place, where low-cost information and data storage and transmission technologies are in general use. This generalisation of information and data use is being accompanied by organisational, commercial, social and legal innovations that will profoundly change life both in the world of work and in society generally" (Building the European Information Society … 1997: 15).

In any discussion of Information Society, there is an inevitable emphasis on profound, all-encompassing change. The High Level Expert Group calls for the recognition of the information society as the knowledge society and for ICTs to be viewed as essentially complementary to investment in human resources and skills required in part for using ICTs to group or individual advantage. It also points out that information and communication technology must be perceived as operating in the specific social context, and as shaped and differentiated by that context. That is why it says that in the future there could be different models of information society, just as today we have different models of industrialised society.

These two premises, together with a call for social solidarity in dealing with problems of social exclusion and creating opportunities for the disadvantaged in the context of the Information Society, lead the Group to list major policy challenges which must be met to profit from prospects created by that society. These include:

• the particular importance of knowledge and skills acquisition;
• the changing role of public services which (like education, health, culture, the media, etc.) are crucial to dealing with some of the issues posed by the Information Society);
• the scope for decentralisation and implications for work organisation;
• the implications of globalisation for employment growth and capital flows;
• the particular concerns regarding social exclusion;
• the need to take advantage of European cultural and social diversity (taking advantage of the many emerging information societies);
• and the implications of growing transparency for democracy (including the issue of media concentration and finding ways of including everyone in the Information Society).

Though this is one of a number of differing approaches to the issue of the Information Society, the policy agenda developed by the Group clearly points to the need for the continued performance of the functions today performed by public service broadcasting.

Public service broadcasters welcome digital technology as finally offering them a chance to their job properly.

Supporters of public broadcasting see a vital role for them in the new situation. According to Holznagel (n.d.), there are ten central missions for PSB to fulfil in a digital communications system:

• PSB has to serve as an "island of credibility " in fragmented media markets.
• PSB guarantees participation by everybody in the advantages of the digital revolution.
• PSB has to serve as an independent and credible provider of information.
• PSB guarantees the based on nationwide provision of perspectives information and interests.
• PSB serves as [a] nation[']s voice in Europe and in the world.
• PSB guarantees quality standards.
• PSB corrects the supply shortages of the commercial sector.
• PSB serves as a guarantor of cultural identity.
• PSB encourages national and European productions.
• PSB is a motor for innovation.

Public service broadcasters recognize that it they must practically reinvent themselves, or at least many crucial aspects of its organization and operation in order to continue to fulfill their role. They are not guaranteed success in the digital age: it is expected that some may be privatized, others may be scaled down and the weakest may even vanish.

This approach supports the conclusions drawn by Wessberg (2000) namely that although changes are profound, the Information Society environment will not demolish the European PSB mission

1. the fundamental aims and values are valid despite the change
2. many aspects of the on-going change towards the digital underline and support the relevance of PSB aims and values.

Wessberg has listed some basic features of communication patterns in the Information Society and outlined what the response of public service broadcasters to them should be:

Of course, a great many questions remain to be answered. As the broadcasting paradigm becomes outdated and the concept of the channel becomes eroded (though it is hard to foresee just when public service broadcasting channels would finally go off the air), with more and more mediated communication taking on non-linear, on-demand forms, PSB will have to be reinvented for the Internet age, changing with time into PSCP - public service content production, or public service content provision.

It is accepted, though not always formally and in legal instruments, that no principle can be opposed to public channels conducting their activities in new types of broadcasting, digital technology, and the Internet, and in the creation of new content and interactive services. In fact, that they are needed to guarantee participation by everybody in the advantages of the digital revolution and to promote widespread take-up of that technology. It is also accepted that special attention must be paid to guaranteeing the presence and visibility of the public service in digital packages, programme guides or browsing systems. In fact, Marsden (1999: 4) says that "Government support of 'public service' Internet sites and universal Internet access is a valid public interest objective"..

It is too early to tell, assuming some form of public service communication survives, what institutional and financing patterns will prevail in the new circumstances.

Public service broadcasting is a creature of public media policy: often a beneficiary of that policy, but sometimes also a victim. Without the backstop of public policy, and a legal framework and institutional framework designed to maintain it, it would probably not survive. By the same token, its ability to pursue its objectives, as well as its manner of doing so, also depend on public policy and other external circumstances.

Public service broadcasting is trapped in a welter of conflicting expectations. While it is difficult to agree with every aspect of the diagnosis formulated by Atkinson (1997: 25), he renders the situation rather well:

As PSB bends over backwards to conform to these conflicting expectations, it may indeed begin to forget about its central purpose. The problem, however, is not so much with PSB itself, but with all the onlookers and commentators. PSB, unlike beauty, should not be in the eye of the beholder, because then it would never be possible to define or describe it. At the same time, given its dependence on outside support, it will never be able to free itself from this syndrome. And that may be the greatest threat to its survival.

Public Service Broadcasting: Europe's Opportunity (1993). Geneva: EBU

London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The Public Service Idea in British Broadcasting. Main Principles (n.d.). London: BRU.

Source: Public Service Television ... , 1991

Source: Tongue, 1996.

Source: Comparative Table ..., 1993.

Source: Mary Kelly, quoted in Blumler, 1992.

INTRODUCTION OF TELEVISION ADVERTISING IN WESTERN EUROPE

The Broadcasting Research Unit in a special publication set out to define „those main elements of public service broadcsting as it has evolved in Britain" and came up with the following list:

Universality: Geographic - broadcasting programmes should be available to the whole population;

Universality of Appeal - broadcast programmes should cater for all interests and tastes;

Minorities, especially disadvantaged minorities, should receive particular provision;

Broadcasters should recognize their special relationship to the sense of national identity and community;

Broadcasting should be distanced from all vested interests, and in particular from those of the government of the day;

Universality of Payment - one main instrument of broadcasting should be directly funded by the corpus of users;

Broadcasting should be structured so as to encourage competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers;

The public guidelines for broadcasting should be designed to liberate rather than to restrict the programme makers.

Source: The Public Service Idea ..., n.d.

A current ITC definition of a PSB channel would be one which brings together most or all of the following elements:

1. wide range of programmes catering for a variety of tastes and interests, taking scheduling into account
2. high quality in terms of technical and production standards, with evidence of being well resourced and of innovation and distinctiveness, making full use of new media to support television's educational role
3. catering for minorities (cultural, linguistic and social) and other special needs and interests, particularly education including schools programmes and provision for disabled people
4. catering for regional interests and communities of interest, and reflecting the regions to each other
5. reflecting a national identity, being a "voice of the nation", the place where people go on national occasions (particularly true of the mass audience channels BBC1 and ITV)
6. containing a large amount of original productions made specifically for first showing in the UK, reflecting the national cultures by making full use of UK-wide talents and creativity
7. in general demonstrating a willingness to take creative risks, challenging viewers, complementing other PSB channels and those which are purely market driven
8. strong sense of independence and impartiality, authoritative news, a forum for public debate, ensuring a plurality of opinions and an informed electorate
9. universal coverage ie 99% of the UK population
10. limited amounts of advertising (a maximum of seven minutes per hour, averaged across the day) as against the maximum of nine permitted to cable and satellite broadcasters, and set out in the EU Directive on Television without Frontiers
11. affordability i.e. either free at the point of delivery or at a cost which makes it accessible to the vast majority of people.

Source: ITC Consultation ,,, , 2000.

Only public service broadcasting can offer at the same time:

Programming for all;

A basic general programme service backed up by thematic channels;

A forum for democratic debate;

Unrestricted public access to events of significance;

A reference standard for quality; a spirit of innovation; extensive original production; a showcase for culture;

A contribution to reinforcement of the European identity and of its cultural and social values;

A driving force in technological research and development.

Source: Public Service Broadcasting ..., 1993

In its Resolution No. 1, the Conference defined „public service requirements" in the following passage:

Participating States agree that public service broadcasters, within the general framework defined for them and without prejudice to more specific public service remits, must have principally the following missions:

• to provide a common reference point for all members of the public and a factor for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, groups and communities ....,
• to provide a forum for public discussion in which as broad a spectrum of possible views and opinions can be expressed,
• to broadcast impartial and independent news, information and comment,
• to develop pluralistic, innovatory and varied programming which meets high ethical and quality standards, and not to sacrifice the pursuit of quality to market forces
• to develop and structure programme schedules and services of interest to a wide public while being attentive to the needs of minority groups,
• to reflect the different philosophical and religious beliefs in society, with the aim of strenghening mutual understanding and promoting community relations in pluriethnic and multicultural societies;
• to contribute actively ... to greater appreciation and dissemination of the diversity of national and European cultural heritage,
• to ensure that the programmes offered contain a significant promoting original audiovisual production, especially feature films, drama and other creative works,
• to extend the choice available to viewers and listeners by also offering programme service not normally provided by commercial broadcasters.

Public broadcasting:

• is accountable to the community - be it a regional or national constituency - and strives to serve all individuals and the groups that make up the community.
• contributes to the individual’s sense of belonging to the community and in doing so, strengthens the regional or national identity especially through the promotion and encouragement of indigenous culture(s) and language(s).
• cultivates its relationship with the community as this relationship is the basis for determining policy and programming directions and for measuring the effectiveness of policies and programmes;
• reflects societal diversity in its programming, its employment practices and in its community relations ....
• analyses societal concerns and interprets the rapid changes operating in society in terms of their effects on individuals and groups.
• aims to provide for the community an alternative to commercial broadcasting.

Public broadcasting

• treats viewers and listeners as citizens with a full range of needs, tastes, and interests rather than as potential purchasers of consumer products.
• responds to a broad range of programming expectations of the community with diverse programming covering news and information, culture, education, and entertainment.
• clearly identifies its programming objectives in order to engage the audience.
• actively involves the viewers and listeners by inviting from them assessments and comments on programming;
• in maintaining editorial integrity and independence from political and advertising influences, stresses objectivity, balance, and understanding.
• adheres to values of democracy and pluralism and promotes social and environmental responsibility, international peace and understanding.
• allows no programming that violates general moral standards, for example, no programming that it pornographic or that glorifies or sanitizes violence.
• allows no programming that it categorically unsuitable for children or adolescents during certain time periods.
• supports life-long education both formally and informally with programming aimed at learners and teachers.
• enhances the effectiveness of its programs through the use of multimedia.

Public broadcasting

endeavours to be aware of the various environments in which it must operate, including the economic, political, natural, democraphic, broadcast, educational and technological environments

Public broadcasting

• defines success and quality in terms of the effectiveness of its programs in meeting their objectives as determined by audience reaction.
• is willing to cooperate and to embark on collaborative ventures. Priority is placed on supporting regional and national institutions and production houses.
• trains its staff ....
• strives to secure long-term funding from diverse sources, including general revenues, non-commercial, foundations, etc.
• further to its principle of accountability to the community, operates independently of governments

Professor Karol Jakubowicz
Polish Television PLC
Woronicza 17,
00999 Warsaw
Poland

Tel: +48 22 647 66 56
Fax: +48 22 647 65 37
E-mail:  jkarol@mail.uw.edu.pl
karol.jakubowicz@waw.tvp.pl