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

CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD
channels run by Vice and YouTube need to be
part of the discussion.
Moreover, in a world of mixed media and
hybrid audiovisual, text and graphics, we
must also address the extent to which
“television” should be extended to include the
wider range of online content found across
the internet, which might include short form
videos and also a range of written material.
Here we believe that a pragmatic approach
should be taken – in some genres (news,
for example), mixed media of this sort are
increasingly an essential part of what we
think of as public service television. It would
be wrong to curtail the expansion of PST
into these areas if they are seen by users as
the preferred means of accessing content. In
other, such as drama, more traditional long
form audiovisual content is likely to remain
the primary focus.
The problem of defining public
service television
While we can arrive at a definition of
television, pinning down what public service
television might mean today is a harder
task. In Chapter 1, we looked at how the
Communications Act, BBC charter, and
the broadcast licences for ITV, Channel 4
and Channel 5 have given some sort of a
definition of public service broadcasting. But
it is not a clear-cut or sufficient definition, and
it predates the recent changes in technology,
the marketplace and consumption habits
that we have outlined. By prioritising
broadcasters and channels over programmes,
it leaves anomalies. How do we define news
and arts programmes on Sky, for example?
What about original, high-quality drama or
documentaries on Netflix or Amazon? What
about video items on the Guardian website,
the National Theatre or the Tate that we
discuss in Chapter 7? Are none of these
examples of public service television? If they
are, do they deserve some form of subsidy
too?
So clearly there is a problem defining
public service television. The public are
likewise not clear about what it is: research
commissioned by Ofcom found serious
gaps in public understanding. According to
Ofcom, spontaneous awareness of public
service broadcasting was low, and the
public service broadcasters were losing
some of their distinctiveness. 117 It also found
that viewers were more likely to distinguish
between good and bad programmes rather
than public service and non-public service
broadcasting. 118 Viewers increasingly think in
terms of programmes, not providers, which
is a problem given our habit of talking about
public service broadcasters rather than public
service programmes. 119 Yet understanding
what public service television is (or is not)
in a digital environment will be key if we are
to enhance the possibilities for its survival
and expansion. In that context, we propose
to enlarge the definition of public service
television to include all those channels,
services and programmes that are subject to
regulatory commitments to serve the public
interest. PST, we wish to emphasise once
more, is not a matter of pure technological
or economic compulsion but a purposeful
intervention designed to embed public
service objectives inside a changing television
environment.
117
An investigation into changing audience needs in a connected world, Ipsos MORI for Ofcom, 2014, p. 7.
118
Ibid., p. 41.
119
Ibid.
49