A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD

CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD
It is striking how core elements of these
revitalised diversity and pluralism norms,
as they link to quality, are already found in
Channel 4’s remit. One discussion point,
then, is whether that remit now contains
core principles that, given their universal
importance and undersupply elsewhere,
might now be applied more widely: notably,
those concerning diversity, and the principle
that quality is intrinsically linked to risktaking,
innovation and experiment in the form
and content of programmes. Should they be
extended to general foundations for the PSM
ecology?
Public service principles in the
digital age
Buoyed by the enormous increase in content,
platforms and services that has emerged
from a less regulated landscape, there has
been a concomitant rise in the use of a
discourse focused overwhelmingly on ‘market
impact’. Such an approach risks elevating
commercial media interests over the public
interests served by PSM. Recent economic
thinking reverses this thinking, arguing that
publicly-funded interventions can enhance
innovation and lead to the creation of new
markets, with the potential to fuel wider
economic growth. 67 We believe that two of
the foundations of PSB in the 20th century,
consequent on the above principles, must be
reinstated and renewed in the light of digital
conditions.
PSM are not synonymous with market failure
This follows clearly from the underlying
relationship between public service media
and universality: both universality of genre
(mixed programming), and social and cultural
universality (i.e. content, events and channels
that draw national audiences). Recent
governments have attempted to disrupt this
relationship by suggesting that public service
broadcasters should focus on the provision
of content in which commercial providers
are likely to under-invest. While it is highly
likely that broadcasting, if unregulated,
would primarily target the most lucrative and
wealthy demographics, public service media
should not be seen simply as vehicles to plug
these gaps but, instead, as institutions that
challenge this fragmentation precisely by
providing common and overlapping spaces
and channels. If PSM are reduced to operating
as cultural ‘ghettoes’ and ‘market failure’
institutions in a situation of digital abundance,
then they are not adequately serving the
public. As David Hesmondhalgh of the
University of Leeds argued in his submission
to us:
[Digitalisation]…intensifies the problem
of cultural fragmentation. A version of
the current ecology of a generously and
universally funded BBC, alongside public
service oriented commercial providers, must
surely remain the prime means by which
such cultural fragmentation is countered,
by providing trusted sources of varied
representations, good explanations, innovative
humour, and so on. 68
For these foundational reasons, popular
programming and entertainment should
remain core elements of PSM as they
continue to diversify taking advantage of new
platforms and new suppliers.
67
See for example Mariana Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State, London: Anthem, 2013.
68
David Hesmondhalgh, submission to the Inquiry.
33