 |
 |
 |
Mass media: broadcasting
|
|||
|
Mass media: broadcasting
|
For information on EU legislation, please click here: 
Broadly speaking, up until the 1980s, broadcasting arrangements in Western Europe had developed along similar lines. Some, such as the former fascist dictatorships of Spain and Portugal, had come from different starting points and there were varying degrees of state control and intervention - in France, for example, from 1958 onwards President de Gaulle had almost tended to see TV as his private means of communication with the electorate, whenever it suited him, a tradition which was continued by his successors. By the late 1970s, however, most, including France, had converged on some variant of the state-regulated 'social responsibility' model, or public service broadcasting model.
During the 1980s Western European democracies started to move away from the social market economies which had been prevalent at least since World War II. Such economies are also known as mixed economies, i.e. they are essentially capitalist, but the state plays a major rôle in shaping economic development, as well as in the redistribution of wealth by means of taxation used to contribute to social benefits for all, such as the welfare state, council housing, unemployment benefits and so on.
During the 1980s the dominant ideology, especially in Reagan's USA and Thatcher's UK, became free market economics, also referred to as laissez-faire or neo-liberalism. The main thrust was towards 'rolling back the frontiers of the state'. State intervention was to be reduced, nationalised industries were to be sold off to the private sector, private industry was to be given a free reign with the economy. As private industry and its capitalist owners became richer, the rest of us would also benefit, as wealth gained at the top 'trickled down' through the system to the rest of us.
The process by which these ideas were sold to the electorates would make an interesting study in itself, but that's another story:
Under the Thatcher governments since 1979, a vast range of devastating decisions and proposals for cutting public spending have been cynically legitimated by appealing to a small cluster of consensual values, principally efficient use of resources, freedom of individual choice and self-reliance. The Press have had a major rôle in assisting the process of legitimation by citing alleged consensual values.
Fowler (1991) p 51)
Partly because of this new (or very old, depending how you look at it) approach to the economy, most Western European governments began to examine the possibilities of privatisation of state-owned broadcasting and of the deregulation of broadcasting. ('Deregulation' means the partial or total removal or dilution of controls and regulations, very probably moving towards a 'free market' in broadcasting.) Another significant factor was the introduction of new technologies, especially direct broadcasting by satellite. No capitalist country could reasonably try to isolate itself from satellite technology, but, since the 'footprint' of a typical satellite would cover nearly all of Western Europe from the very north to the very south, satellite technology would pose an unavoidable challenge to broadcasting regulations in individual states. What are the likely consequences of deregulation? At the moment, the following transfers of power are taking place:
Blumler (1993)
Blumler considers that these developments are likely to have the following effects on the public service ideal:
|
communication for citizenship: this notion of providing the citizen of a democratic society with information on current debate and issues, which
will allow the citizen to participate fully in her society will suffer because of:
|
|
|
programming for children: this type of programming which is intended to foster the development, curiosity and education of children will suffer
because of:
|
|
|
cultural patronage: tapping the best of a nation's cultural resources in literature, art, drama, science, history etc. will suffer because of:
|
|
|
expression of national and regional cultural identity will suffer because
|
Blumler also emphasizes that advertising always undermines the public service notion, quoting the Peacock Commission: ' broadcasting systems that are most dependent on advertising also schedule the narrowest range of programming.'
The deregulation of broadcasting may be seen as part of a more general process of deregulation, the 'rolling back of the state', allowing 'the market to decide', a process which has had a deleterious effect on, for example, workers' rights and rates of pay, safety in industry and the conservation of the environment. Where we, as students of communication are concerned, the deregulation of broadcasting may be seen as a more general privatization of the public sphere, or what is often referred to as the public commons. Commenting on the sale of the broadcasting spectrum, Jeremy Rifkin comments:
The transformation of the spectrum from public commons - held in trust by government on behalf of its citizenry - to rpivate electronic real estate - controlled by global media giants - fundamentally changes the relationship between people and global commercial enterprises. Without public ownership over the spectrum, the citizenry becomes beholden to a handful of media companies for access to the means of communicating with one another in a highly sophisticated network-based civilization.
Rifkin (2000 : 227)
This is a process which is not limited to the broadcasting spectrum, as we have seen over the last couple of years with what amounts to the increasing 'privatization' of the Internet (more comment can be found in the section on the Internet), the gradual encroachment of commercial enterprises even into our schools, where exercise books advertize companies, exam entry forms advertize Barclays Bank and commercial television on the American model is likely to be provided 'free'. Even the literal public spaces become privatized as shopping malls replace public squares.
In Western Europe at the moment, the countries of particular interest to broadcasters are Germany, where the rate of development is phenomenal, particularly since re-unification, and Luxembourg. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, though it has a population of only 369,000, is of particular importance because an area has been specially designated by the government as a 'media port', with special tax incentives intended to turn the country into a European centre for media development. The Astra satellite is administered from Luxembourg.
The broadcasting systems of these two countries are of interest to Communication Studies students as regards their attitudes to ensuring impartiality in news coverage: the Italians don't bother and the Dutch have a rather complicated system.
Types of broadcasting system
De Fleur's model of the taste-differentiated audience
Public Service broadcasting
European Union legislation
Broadcasting in France
Broadcasting in Germany
Broadcasting in Holland
Broadcasting in Italy
Broadcasting in the UK
Regulation of the media in the UK
|
the increasing intensity of electoral competition