Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

INFORMATION AND DEMOCRACY
the public, but to selling entertainment, and there has been a decisive shift in
favour of market practices. This means, in effect, an emphasis on programming
paid for either by advertising and sponsorship or by individual subscription. The
consequence of either or both options is a decline of public service broadcasting,
since if the former is adopted we get, on the whole, ideologically restricted and
entertainment-orientated products which appeal to the business paymasters, and
if it is the latter – and this is a longer-term prospect – it necessarily means
exclusion from access of those who cannot afford the subscription fees.
If one seeks to discern the direction in which broadcasting is moving, then
one must surely look to the United States (Barnouw, 1978) because it is, in key
respects, a model that guides government information policies around the world.
In such a milieu, where the ratings largely determine media content, public
service broadcasting must be hard pressed to survive. Michael Tracey (1998) goes
so far as to describe the 1980s as ‘the Passchendaele of public broadcasters’
(p. 192) as they were swept aside by neo-liberal policies. Results are evident
enough (Bourdieu, 1998): television is dominated more than ever by soaps, action
adventure, chat shows, magazine news and quiz competitions. All this is accompanied
by a squeeze on news and current affairs (itself pressured towards
‘soundbites’ and sensationalism), and by burgeoning cable television services
offering infotainment, movies and, above all, sport (especially soccer).
The prospect is for more support for broadcasting coming from private funds,
whether advertising, sponsorship or subscriptions, and for less from the public
purse. With this transfer comes a promotion of commercial criteria in programming,
with the upshot that audience size and/or spending power (with occasional
prestige projects backed by sponsors in search of reflected status) are the primary
concerns. Content is unavoidably influenced by these emphases, with most often
an increase in entertainment-centred shows as opposed to ‘serious’ and/or
‘minority’ concerns such as news and current affairs (though these are likely to
be made more ‘entertaining’) and intellectually challenging drama.
What we are seeing is an undermining of public service broadcasting and,
with it, the weakening of its public sphere roles. While the prospect is for more
emulation of US television’s ‘cultural wasteland’, it is possible that some highquality
programming will be available via perhaps new forms of delivery or even
by subscription. Defenders of change seize on innovative programmes such as
The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives and Six Feet Under to insist that commerce
can and does deliver high-quality content. To which the reply must be in the affirmative,
with the vital proviso that such programmes are the exceptions that prove
the rule that market-driven television tends towards the superficial and slight.
However, it is also the case that either these will be niche markets – tiny aspects
of an informational environment dedicated to escapist adventure series, sport and
films which may, ironically, fail to inform effectively (Schudson, 1991) – or they
will be restricted to those groups with the wherewithal to afford requisite
subscription fees, something which undermines the public-sphere principle of
information being available to everyone irrespective of ability to pay.
Because those who pay the piper generally call the tune, publicly funded
organisations can easily be regarded as tools of government. It is this presumption
174