Public service broadcasters are expected to serve the public wholeheartedly, but they could manipulate the phone-in programmings and squander people's trust. The commercial broadcasters like Sky are not expected to be good example in this, but they have been singled out for praised by the regulator Ofcom. As Sky chief excecutive James Murdoch posited, we may not be liked by the establishment, but we earned people's trust.
We seem to live in an age of confusion. How could this happen? Sky, often teased or debased by people for their commercial greed, indeed have been free of the recent phone-in scandle hitting public service broadcasters like BBC. Some people may accuse Sky of offering the lowest common denominator regarding commercial programming, but they also offer many high-brow programs, like arts channel. Sky News also enjoy great reputation for its timeliness and reliablity. Really good stuff!
James said that is because they, genuinely, care about customers. He is right in saying so. But I think there is more reason than that.
UK is blessed with public service tradition, compared with the overcommercialised United States, and UK also benefits from its mixed media system. You got dedicated PSB, commercial PSB, and pay satellite tv like Sky and pay cable tv like Virgin media. In this mix, the overcommercialisation of sky and virgin could be checked and balanced. On the other hand, psb also can't keep paternalistic as what they had done before, trying to educate people about what is good and what is bad. They are under pressure to improve programming, making good popular and making popular good. The mixed media system could most easily lead to healthy competition.
This is the bottom reason why Sky doesnot join the ranks of those US commercial broadcasters, and continue to provide some high quality programs to serve the public interest.
Unfortunately, when trying to attract consumers' attention, the public service broadcaster went too far, and took an audacious gamble on their reputation. It is a disgrace to them, in particular given the good example by Sky.
But in a mixed media system, the PSB is under pressure to correct mistakes, and get better. not only because they are using public money, but also because they don't want Sky to set example for them, which would be a shame to their psb status.
Showing posts with label public service broadcasting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public service broadcasting. Show all posts
Friday, 20 July 2007
Monday, 16 July 2007
BBC:it never rains but pours
The last week was nothing but nightmare for BBC, whose credibility appeared to be put into question. first it was fined 50,000 pounds for faking a winner on Blue Peter Phone-in competition, then was hit by the Crowngate affair, before the Treasury complained about a BBC Newsnight program on new PM Gordon Brown.
It seems that it never rains but pours, and the public service broadcaste is facing its biggest crisis of confidence since a slip of the tongue by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme led to a bitter battle with the government and brought down the BBC's director-general and chairman. But there is still difference between them. BBC won much sympathy and support from both media and society in general in the Gilligan affair, however, on this occassion, BBC could only have themselves to blame.
what is wrong with the editing control of the BBC? The two films on Gordon and Queen
respectively are commissioned to the indepedent producers, like RDF or an indepedent document-maker. They may not be the in-house staff, but for the outsiders, they all represent BBC. Of course, when commissioning the programs from the indepedent producers, BBC has editorial control, which is also stipulated in the Code of Practice of BBC Commissioning. However, the Code of Practice is full of the rules and regulations on programming rights and revenue participation, with only three or four lines devoted to the section of Editorial Control. It could show that what people mainly concern is not the editorial control but the way of dividing commercial benefits between them.
Besides, what I can'tunderstand or accept is the way they, whether BBC or indepedent producers, edit the programs. They could change the sequence of events for dramatic effects, to drive up the viewer ratings. Unfortuantely such kind of mediation is linked with BBC, which could undermine the reputation of the dedicated public service broadcaster. That would be the last thing on the mind of BBC management, since BBC has tried to distinguish itself from other commercial broadcasters or new media by describing it as a reliable and credible source of information in the digital age.
BBC could reduce the pressure by shifting blame to the indepedent producers, but it would be fragile excuse, since they are expected to have editorial control on it. In this case they should focus on themselves and doing some "serious" heartsearching. instead of finding scapegoats. Alastair Campbell's diary revealed that both Blair and him tended to use the term "not serious" to describe those who they disagree with or dislike. In this case, Campbell, who has had a checkered history with BBC, would say that BBC is "not serious" enough.
Damage have been done, although BBC could adopt some damaging-limiting measures. But the most important is to be serious enough, but not panicky, to find out the bottom cause. Does BBC have given too much attention to ratings and commercial rights, instead of editorial content? Does BBC have, inadvertently, been driven by the market and confuse them with other commercial broadcasters? Such questions are really serious questions BBC need to think seriously about.
It seems that it never rains but pours, and the public service broadcaste is facing its biggest crisis of confidence since a slip of the tongue by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme led to a bitter battle with the government and brought down the BBC's director-general and chairman. But there is still difference between them. BBC won much sympathy and support from both media and society in general in the Gilligan affair, however, on this occassion, BBC could only have themselves to blame.
what is wrong with the editing control of the BBC? The two films on Gordon and Queen
respectively are commissioned to the indepedent producers, like RDF or an indepedent document-maker. They may not be the in-house staff, but for the outsiders, they all represent BBC. Of course, when commissioning the programs from the indepedent producers, BBC has editorial control, which is also stipulated in the Code of Practice of BBC Commissioning. However, the Code of Practice is full of the rules and regulations on programming rights and revenue participation, with only three or four lines devoted to the section of Editorial Control. It could show that what people mainly concern is not the editorial control but the way of dividing commercial benefits between them.
Besides, what I can'tunderstand or accept is the way they, whether BBC or indepedent producers, edit the programs. They could change the sequence of events for dramatic effects, to drive up the viewer ratings. Unfortuantely such kind of mediation is linked with BBC, which could undermine the reputation of the dedicated public service broadcaster. That would be the last thing on the mind of BBC management, since BBC has tried to distinguish itself from other commercial broadcasters or new media by describing it as a reliable and credible source of information in the digital age.
BBC could reduce the pressure by shifting blame to the indepedent producers, but it would be fragile excuse, since they are expected to have editorial control on it. In this case they should focus on themselves and doing some "serious" heartsearching. instead of finding scapegoats. Alastair Campbell's diary revealed that both Blair and him tended to use the term "not serious" to describe those who they disagree with or dislike. In this case, Campbell, who has had a checkered history with BBC, would say that BBC is "not serious" enough.
Damage have been done, although BBC could adopt some damaging-limiting measures. But the most important is to be serious enough, but not panicky, to find out the bottom cause. Does BBC have given too much attention to ratings and commercial rights, instead of editorial content? Does BBC have, inadvertently, been driven by the market and confuse them with other commercial broadcasters? Such questions are really serious questions BBC need to think seriously about.
Sunday, 8 July 2007
covert filming and public interest
Teacher-journalist Angela Mason, who was charged with unacceptable professional conduct for taking surreptitious footage in several schools for a Channel Five documentary, has now learned her fate: a one year suspension from teaching (1,2,3,4).
The core of the issue is whether the covert filming of students is in the public interest or not. Judgement on public interest is always a very tricky issue. It is so unambiguous and so controversial, that it has to be put in a specific context and anaylsed on a case-by-case basis.
I think we could borrow the way Lords judged the Reynolds case in which Lord Nicholas came up with the concept "responsible journalism". to be responsible journalism, the Lord remind that editors and reports should ask about ten questions to see if their reports really serve the public interest.
In this case of teacher-journalist, we could ask similar questions to test the ground for public interest:1. does the filming really serving the public interest by truthfully representing the reality?
2. is it really necessary to covertly film the students?
Regarding the first question, the supply teacher, according to the professional conduct hearing, the class chaos was resulting from her incompetency in managing the class although she didnot deliberatedly lead to that disorder. and many teachers did much better in managing students behavior. so in this sense, the class chaos filmed failed to do justice to the reality.
Regarding the second question, the students disorder has not been a secret, as many people have started to discuss the solution to the issue. of course, the filming could lead to more awareness of this issue, but it could not justify its necessity.
so in this case, the public interest test fails to be passed
The core of the issue is whether the covert filming of students is in the public interest or not. Judgement on public interest is always a very tricky issue. It is so unambiguous and so controversial, that it has to be put in a specific context and anaylsed on a case-by-case basis.
I think we could borrow the way Lords judged the Reynolds case in which Lord Nicholas came up with the concept "responsible journalism". to be responsible journalism, the Lord remind that editors and reports should ask about ten questions to see if their reports really serve the public interest.
In this case of teacher-journalist, we could ask similar questions to test the ground for public interest:1. does the filming really serving the public interest by truthfully representing the reality?
2. is it really necessary to covertly film the students?
Regarding the first question, the supply teacher, according to the professional conduct hearing, the class chaos was resulting from her incompetency in managing the class although she didnot deliberatedly lead to that disorder. and many teachers did much better in managing students behavior. so in this sense, the class chaos filmed failed to do justice to the reality.
Regarding the second question, the students disorder has not been a secret, as many people have started to discuss the solution to the issue. of course, the filming could lead to more awareness of this issue, but it could not justify its necessity.
so in this case, the public interest test fails to be passed
Wednesday, 4 July 2007
Two Masters for BBC
In Tuesday's BBC Trust AGM, the Trust chairman Michael Lyons said that one of their aims is to ensure the BBC remains indepent, resisting pressure and influence from any source.
However, the BBC still has two masters to serve. One is the great number of license fee payers. The other is market, where BBC has to compete for audiences with commercial broadcasters and try to drive ratings up to justify the license fee.
Both masters are hard to satisfy. The first master, composed of people from a large variety of background, will have differnt agenda and priority requirement on BBC. It is really an impossible mission for the BBC to satisfy everyone.
The second master is also hard to serve, mainly because it sometimes fights with the obligations of the BBC as a dedicated public service broadcaster. As a PSB, the BBC is expected to provide merit good or high-brow programming which market would fail to provide. But such programming, in most of the time, would fail to secure high ratings. It pose a big question for the BBC: how to make popular good while making good popular.
Are there solutions for BBC? The answer is yes. For the first master in the form of license fee payers, BBC may not be able to satisfy everyone at the same time, but they could manage it at different periods and in different programming. For the second master, as BBC Director General Mark Thompson pointed out, BBC could provide a wide range of high-quality programming to solve the popular-good issue.
However, the BBC still has two masters to serve. One is the great number of license fee payers. The other is market, where BBC has to compete for audiences with commercial broadcasters and try to drive ratings up to justify the license fee.
Both masters are hard to satisfy. The first master, composed of people from a large variety of background, will have differnt agenda and priority requirement on BBC. It is really an impossible mission for the BBC to satisfy everyone.
The second master is also hard to serve, mainly because it sometimes fights with the obligations of the BBC as a dedicated public service broadcaster. As a PSB, the BBC is expected to provide merit good or high-brow programming which market would fail to provide. But such programming, in most of the time, would fail to secure high ratings. It pose a big question for the BBC: how to make popular good while making good popular.
Are there solutions for BBC? The answer is yes. For the first master in the form of license fee payers, BBC may not be able to satisfy everyone at the same time, but they could manage it at different periods and in different programming. For the second master, as BBC Director General Mark Thompson pointed out, BBC could provide a wide range of high-quality programming to solve the popular-good issue.
BBC and Cook
How could I relate broadcaster BBC to cook in the kitchen? It occured to me after attending the BBC Trust AGM at central London on Tuesday.
It was the first meeting with audience for the six-month-old BBC Trust, which replaced the BBC governors under the new Charter early this year. It, however, turned out to be a strongly charged meeting, with some participants coming up with strong criticisms on BBC programmings and its political stand. Quite a few people questioned the impartiality of the BBC, for instance in those reports on middle east conflict and animal research. Some observed that the BBC programming often overlapped with those of the commercial broadcaster ITV. Some complained that the BBC should stop broadcasting programms with too much violence content which is not appropriate for children. Some people from ethnic minority groups such as African Caribeans also complained that BBC should have paid more attention to their life. Some argued that BBC programs should be less on celebrities but more on real people in every day life, less oriented to the world but more on UK news. Some also picked fault with the term BBC used in reporting, like alleged "islam terrorism" and so on.
I could understand why the participants made those critical comments. It is nothing but because they care about BBC. Most of the participants have been at least middled aged and have grown up by listening to or watching the BBC. There is a strong emotional bond with the broadcaster, whether they love or hate.
But it is really an impossible mission for the BBC to satisfy every and each of the license fee payers. Using a metaphor, a cook, skillfully amaizing as he is, can't make a dish which will satisfy the tastes of every customer. British African Caribeans complained that they are ignored by the BBC, but imagine how many ethnic minority groups are there in UK, and how hard it would be for BBC to satisfy every group? People might complain about BBC give too many reports to international events, but that is one of the big obligations for the public service broadcasters.
People may complain about the impartiality of the BBC, but that has a lot to do with which side you stand on. For example, scientists and animals rights activists could both complain that BBC favor the other side in reports on animal research.
So it is really hard for BBC to be a perfect "cook", however, it has no choice but try to be as close as possible to being perfect, after all it is funded by the license fee payers.
It was the first meeting with audience for the six-month-old BBC Trust, which replaced the BBC governors under the new Charter early this year. It, however, turned out to be a strongly charged meeting, with some participants coming up with strong criticisms on BBC programmings and its political stand. Quite a few people questioned the impartiality of the BBC, for instance in those reports on middle east conflict and animal research. Some observed that the BBC programming often overlapped with those of the commercial broadcaster ITV. Some complained that the BBC should stop broadcasting programms with too much violence content which is not appropriate for children. Some people from ethnic minority groups such as African Caribeans also complained that BBC should have paid more attention to their life. Some argued that BBC programs should be less on celebrities but more on real people in every day life, less oriented to the world but more on UK news. Some also picked fault with the term BBC used in reporting, like alleged "islam terrorism" and so on.
I could understand why the participants made those critical comments. It is nothing but because they care about BBC. Most of the participants have been at least middled aged and have grown up by listening to or watching the BBC. There is a strong emotional bond with the broadcaster, whether they love or hate.
But it is really an impossible mission for the BBC to satisfy every and each of the license fee payers. Using a metaphor, a cook, skillfully amaizing as he is, can't make a dish which will satisfy the tastes of every customer. British African Caribeans complained that they are ignored by the BBC, but imagine how many ethnic minority groups are there in UK, and how hard it would be for BBC to satisfy every group? People might complain about BBC give too many reports to international events, but that is one of the big obligations for the public service broadcasters.
People may complain about the impartiality of the BBC, but that has a lot to do with which side you stand on. For example, scientists and animals rights activists could both complain that BBC favor the other side in reports on animal research.
So it is really hard for BBC to be a perfect "cook", however, it has no choice but try to be as close as possible to being perfect, after all it is funded by the license fee payers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
