Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

INFORMATION AND DEMOCRACY
It seems to me that there are three responses to this charge. The first is to
insist that to defend the public service ideal is not to endorse what went on in the
past, or even what happens today. For instance, it is not difficult to recognise that
the BBC of the 1950s and 1960s fell well short of the public sphere’s appeals to
disinterestedness, reliability and rationality. But to acknowledge such shortfalls
ought not blind us to the achievements of public service at these and other times.
We need to retain a sense of proportion, one that helps us understand limits but
also appreciate positive features. The BBC in the 1950s and 1960s, for example,
managed to maintain a quality of output, in a range of programming from drama
through to news and current affairs, against which commercial television, with its
priorities of maximum audience at least cost, compared poorly (Pilkington, 1962).
The second response also resists the accusation that it is advocating a return
to an imagined golden age of public service, this time by urging reform of the
present-day institutions. Thus it does not argue for an unmodified defence of
arrangements that are presumed to have been working well until the onset of commercial
pressures and unsympathetic governments. Instead it urges reform of
institutions that are worth preserving by renewing their reasons for being. James
Curran’s (2002) case is just this, insisting that defence of the BBC needs to be
placed in a context of democratisation of media. Curran’s view is that the familiar
support for the BBC in terms of high cultural standards nowadays lacks credibility,
but one made in terms of increased citizen involvement is compelling. Such a
defence requires greater accountability of the BBC to the general public, emphasis
on citizens’ rights to be informed about matters relating to the public good, and
a widening of representation within the organisation. This reassessment of the
public sphere in terms of extending democracy finds an echo in other writing.
John Keane (1991), for instance, spurns any idea of a return to public service
broadcasting, if by this is meant fully state-supported media that tend to speak in
homogenising terms (on lines of ‘the nation feels’, ‘the British view is’). This is not
feasible in today’s globalised and differentiated world where there is also enormous,
and justified, suspicion of state-organised broadcasting. What Keane (1998)
evokes is the concept of civil society to underline the importance of, and need
for, non-state associations that are plural, complex and dynamic. What is desirable
are ‘networks of public spheres’ (Keane, 1991, p. xii), a multiplicity of ways
in which people may come together to debate, argue and inform one another while
maintaining their autonomy. Not surprisingly, perhaps, this leads Keane to see
potential in the Internet, in chat rooms, bulletin boards, digital television and the
like for extending democracy by increasing the availability of public spheres.
Blumler and Coleman (2001) go still further, urging an ‘electronic commons’ to
be established where the informational needs of highly diverse citizens may be
assured. Keane is not opposed to public service broadcasting per se, but he does
urge an extension and reconceptualisation which would allow us to engage with
changing and changed circumstances, most notably those coming from the end
of collectivism, the renewed significance of markets and the opportunities presented
by new technologies. Whether Keane goes too far in his endorsement of
new media and markets is a moot point, but at least he lets us appreciate that
public service institutions are not uniform across time and space.
200