The UK PSB: Broadcasting Influenced by the State

Thus far, pubic television has failed to adopt popular media forms. Public television stations such as PBS failed to attract larger and more diverse audiences because they kept their programming intellectual and dull rather than building on popular aspects of television culture. Ouellette and Lewis argue that PBS could have incorporated sitcoms, soaps, and sports into their programming and then

This is a contradiction to the types of popular culture which are made ‘by the people and for the people’. An example of this would be the services which are provided by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). T o start with, the BBC is a non profit organisation; in effect the money which it makes is put back into the corporation and consequently used to make the services that the BBC provides. Also, the BBC takes the majority of its funding from the public. Each household in the UK which owns a colour television set must pay for a TV license, which currently costs £145.50 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/licencefee). The money from the public also goes towards producing the BBC’s TV, radio and online services. The BBC also is for the people as the majority of its programming is made

The 1920s was an exciting time for broadcasting technology in the west; the possibilities of all that this era had to offer were infinite and with it came much needed regulatory policies. Radio and television broadcasting were at their infancy and no one knew how big this idea of instant, national connection would become. Soon after this, it became apparent that Canadians prominently turned their attention to American broadcasting and, in turn, overlooked their own. This piece of information sparked the birth of regulatory policies and the Canadian Broadcasting Act which would control percentages of original Canadian and foreign content to see to it that Canadians would not lose sight of their culture and that the Canadian broadcasting industries could stay in business. Then again, why should the government have say over what their people are allowed and not allowed to watch, listen to, or enjoy? As it is, times are changing and more and more people are able to download or stream movies to which the government has very little control over. Is the idea that the Canadian Broadcasting Act was originally implemented for, even still necessary? New media has taken over the world, social media is a constant, and even if attempted, people would not be able to get away from the hundreds of advertisements that they see each and every day. The essential control needed to keep Canadian content, culture, and industry thriving is found in the Canadian Broadcasting Act (CBA) to which

The public can now have a say in what they see, and this differs from ‘old guard newsrooms.’ Liquid journalism is intertwined, being a very fluctuating version. Generalizations do not seem to be the same words one would associate a journalist with. TV was free, but now people pay for in time and money. They are constantly looking for profit centers. Antitrust rulings keep companies from owning too much, and the companies are no longer stopped from syndicating by fin-syn. Buying smaller channels is a way for bigger companies to make money, too. CBS and NBC were the first two major companies for broadcasting. The FCC limits the sizes of conglomerates, questioned by the NRA. Critics argue that owning so much of each media type (radio, tv, newspaper) decreases competition of

Approximately 57% of Americans get their daily news by watching some kind of nightly news on their televisions, while the internet is not far behind at at 38% (Mitchell 2016). Being a nation of conglomerate monopolies the United States has three major news stations that control a majority of the viewership, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox Television. “The big three”, as they’re know, compete every day for the highest ratings by desperately pulling and keeping in as many viewers as possible, while providing vastly different agenda backed content. Public Broadcasting Service, PBS, draws in a much smaller crowd and with it has a significantly lower budget for stories. While companies like CNN and FOX are able to spend tens of millions of dollars on 24/7

The purpose of this paper is to explore the pros and cons of the proposal to eliminate federal funding to The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In doing so, first we will explore several facets of this issue including first the cost of funding from both a governmental and taxpayer perspective. Secondly, understanding the services provided and the audience served is integral in this discussion. Lastly, we will consider government’s role in media and education. The conversation, however, must start with the history, values, and goals of this organization.

The legislation that brought CPB into existence includes a declarative preamble lauding the development of public radio, television and other non-broadcast communications offerings as key to the public interest (Public Broadcasting Act of 1967). Through grants to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations, CPB has encouraged creation of diverse content by ultimately contributing to funding for non-profit media organizations including National Public Radio (“NPR”), whose mission centers on the development and distribution of high-quality journalism and cultural expression (National Public Radio, 2017A).

On average Canadians spend more time watching television, listening to the radio and browsing the Web than they do anything else (Rowland, 2015). What is seen, heard and read has an influence on culture, providing information and resources for information gathering, deliberation and analysis that enables democracy to function (Fenton, 2012). The public radio station was created to support that idea – flush out the subjective, at times propagandist, profit-driven private media and replace it with educational and objective information that would serve the interests of the public. After examining the historical context of public broadcasting in Canada, this case study will analyze the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), looking at its early

Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and

The media regulation in the U.K. is more extensive compared to the U.S. Ofcom is an independent regulator and competition authority across television, radio etc. The PCC, also an independent body, deals with complaints from members of the public about editorial content of newspaper and magazines. The behavior of media is far more regulated in Britain compared to the U.S. In U.S. the views can complain about the content to individual media outlets but in Britain the complaints are published on various governmental website making it more visible. This means that the impact of government regulation is more evident in British media than in the American media.

Finally the public television is used as an example to describe the peculiarities of the media and the political economy of the media.

As globalisation and commercialisation is constantly changing the media landscape, even on the TV sector more and more power is concentrated in just a few hands. " Today

1. BSB should have been able to identify potential competitors, particularly News Corporation. News Corporation was successful in US (in the US TV satellite industry), had experience transmitting television programs to Western Europe with a low-powered satellite and they already had presence in the UK with newspapers, which could allowed Sky to realize economies of scope. These economies of scope are even more significant if we take into account that News Corporation owns 20th Century Fox Studios. After purchasing 69% interests in SATV and renaming it to Sky Channel, this was a clear signal of a potential competitor to BSB. Adding to this, other signal was Murdoch’s personality, characterized by being aggressive and used to risk and make

The British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC, is one of the oldest broadcasting stations dating back to January of 1922. The company’s headquarters is located in London with over thirty-thousand employees. Since the BBC is one of the oldest and largest corporations, it has ruled the broadcasting field since its foundation. In fact, it is so prestigious that its total income was £5 billion (£5.066 billion) which is superior to the majority of broadcasting companies (BBC 's 2013/14 Annual Report). The BBC has set precedent that many other companies have followed. Stu Woo, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, states that, “In the past century, the British Broadcasting Corp. has comforted a nation during World War II’s blitzes, covered the globe via its far-flung news operations and entertained with exports like ‘Monty Python’ and ‘The Office’” (Woo, 2016). Although it has been such a highly respected and profitable corporation for so long, the BBC has recently developed consequential problems that could be detrimental to the company.

The British media has contributed to spreading elements of national identity but how has national identity influenced the British media? When it comes to the BBC, it has been closely defined in regards to servicing the British population as a whole, and this common link that everyone is supposed to be able to enjoy serves as yet another facet of national identity. Because of its founding principles of public service broadcasting, the BBC's identity was grounded in the idea