CBA General Conference - 2004
NEWS AND SPEECHES
 |
|
Is broadcasting too important to be left to broadcasters?
Is more unfiltered broadcasting such as live broadcasting of Parliament of growing importance?
Tarja Virtanen, Adviser for Communication and Information UNESCO Asia-Pacific Burea, Delhi
It is my pleasure to address you today on the subject of the panel: Is broadcasting too important to be left for broadcasters ? Thank you, Elizabeth, for giving UNESCO this opportunity.
The mentioned question is important, complex and delicate, and like the box of Pandora. It will therefore be difficult to say anything new or substantive in a short time.
Graham Spry, who was lobbying for public service broadcasting in Canada some six-seven decades ago, said that "broadcasting... is great entertainment, education, artistic, and political power, too great, too valuable, too dangerous to be ... devoted for narrow .. purposes".
Another media personality, Adam Michnik (a Polish newspaper publisher) said some years ago that that the media without business is bankruptcy; but the media without mission is cynicism.
All four types of broadcasters, namely commercial, government, public service, and community broadcasting --- to the extent that they appear in their pure essence anywhere --- have each a different kind of purpose and mission.
The purpose of commercial broadcasting is largely defined by commercial realities. The mission of a government broadcaster is government controlled and oriented. In both cases, the impact of the ownership on the content is a reality, whether the broadcaster wants it or not.
As the CBA members share the calling for public service --- whether they are publicly owned or private companies --- in the following I narrow the question of the session down to public service broadcasting.
There is no one universally agreed definition on public service broadcasting, but – in my view – one of the best characterizations was developed by the World Radio and TV Council and reads as follows – I quote :
"Neither commercial nor State-controlled, public broadcasting’s only [purpose] raison d’etre is public service. It is the public’s broadcasting organization; it speaks to everyone as a citizen (nb: here the stress is on a citizen, no a consumer) . Public broadcasters encourage access to and participation in public life. They develop knowledge, broaden horizons and enable people to better understand themselves by better understanding the world and others – end quote."
In other words: the concept of public service broadcasting is based on public participation. Its mission is to serve the public.
The answer to the question ‘if broadcasting is too important to be left for broadcasters’ would therefore be ‘yes’.
However it is important to make a distinction between the public being at the center of broadcasting and public being in control of the professional process implied in broadcasting.
By definition, public service broadcasting is editorially independent and impartial and this independence should be respected. The greatest service that any media can perform for the society is to act independently and responsibly.
Late last year, the CBA, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Union and UNESCO published a survey on "Informed Democracies. Parliamentary Broadcasts as a Public Service".
The aim of the survey was to gather information, covering both radio and television, in order to find out how countries in the Commonwealth report the work of their Parliaments. Input was received from some 70 broadcasters, and it shows that live coverage of Parliamentary debates is expanding throughout the Commonwealth.
In the preface to the survey, a known Danish journalist Torben Krogh, who is also the Chairperson of UNESCO’s media development programme IPDC writes that - I quote –
"The ability of broadcast media to transmit live events allows listeners (and one should add viewers) to become virtual partners to those events.
Live parliamentary broadcasts (...) provide an opportunity for the constituents to appraise the conduct of their elected representatives.
No doubt, that such appraisal by electors is essential to develop effective and accountable representation in democratic governance. It also ensures the right of the people to receive diversity of viewpoints on important political issues and the freedom to seek information on matters that directly affect them. Parliamentary broadcasts therefore squarely fall within the remit of the public broadcasters" - end quote.
The second question of this session was "if more unfiltered broadcasting such as live broadcasting of Parliament is of growing importance?"
The answer would be that live broadcasting of Parliament is a logical consequence from a public broadcaster’s mission. In a democracy, the citizens have delegated their political power to the Parliament. It is therefore a logical consequence for a public broadcaster ---- who is a trustee of the citizens ---- to devote time to Parliamentary debates.
(A propos the survey, it also refers to some of the best practices in such very complex issues as how the media could regulate the parliamentary debates in public interest; and how it can prevent partisan interests from becoming dominant in the broadcasts.)
"Open radio" or "Open TV" which allow citizens’ groups to produce and air their own programmes are also good participatory formats, however, keeping in mind that that radio and television require the mastering of audiovisual language, and that subsequently the final control or responsibility of the form must be with broadcasters.
Moreover, an "Open Radio/TV" or "Citizen’s radio/TV" allow a broadcaster to tap on the creative talent available in the society.
This can form a major contribution into the increasing of locally relevant content at small and less rich stations whose own capacity to produce local content is limited. Local content, no doubt is of crucial importance. After all, it is important for all of us to see on TV (and hear in radio) our own image as depicted by our own people.
With new technologies, both production facilities and distribution channels are becoming more affordable for everyone. This type of "unfiltered" media content will become more and more common through the community media and in internet, in relation to which the public broadcasters will need to position themselves.
Still: more important than unfiltered broadcasting as such is that the content in general in radio and TV is relevant for citizens.
As said, public broadcasting is a vital element of democracy, but it is under threat. It is challenged by political and economic interests, by increasing competition, by media concentration and financial difficulties.
The first victim of such a challenge is the content – content that enhances social, political and cultural citizenship.
The culture of violence is more pervasive than ever before on direct satellite and cable television, in video, films, in computer games and on internet. Even more seriously, many potential public broadcasters opt for violent content as a quick solution to their financial and programming problems.
Another concern regarding content, which is expressed more and more often, is that the media on average, including public media, is less and less interested in development issues. Still, for a citizen (again: in difference from a consumer) key information is information which helps us improve our life situations – information which is based on - like someone said yesterday – "research, research, research".
A number of explanations have been given for the lack of interest in development issues: the lack of money; the lack of professional capacity; that development issues do not sell ; in the wealthier countries one argument goes that media practitioners form part of the elites and are therefore alienated from the overall development needs of the society and those of the disadvantages groups. Whatever the explanation, we risk to take a step away from the public broadcaster’s mission.
Broadcasting generates culture, it is culture. Broadcasting is therefore everyone’s business. It is up to us --- as citizens acting either individually, by forming viewers and listeners associations and lobby groups, or as media professionals --- to understand the role of broadcasting in the development of our societies and cultures; and lobby for enabling conditions for a vibrant public service broadcasting, which offers a variety of relevant programming and services catering for the needs of all groups in society.