A Case for Preserving the Principles of Public Service Broadcasting

“It is occasionally indicated to us that we are apparently setting out to give the public what we think they need – and not what they want, but few know what they want, and very few what they need...” (Lord John Reith, Broadcast Over Britain, 1924: 34) 

The overall premise of a publicly funded ecosystem of news, entertainment and other forms of media, which can be widely distributed and universally accepted, is and has been, since the BBC’s formation just over a century ago, a core tenet of British society that should be uphold; yet should the way in which it is funded, currently, evolve to future-proof the BBC – a sentiment shared by the BBC’s Director-General Tim Davie (OFCOM: Small Screen: Big Debate, 2020)?  

The UK TV licence fee has been a subject of a growing debate and further scrutiny in recent years, particularly in the light of the changing and evolving media landscape, driven by technological advancements, the rise of subscription and online services, etc. This essay aims to critically assess the principles of public service broadcasting, using the BBC as the anchoring public service broadcaster and juxtaposing it against the more commercially competitive landscape of the United States’ television service as a case study. Ultimately, a system of a publicly funded service of media production and distribution, one with regulated principles, is one that should be preserved for the future. 

News & Disinformation, “January Sixth”, Commercialisation, Due Impartiality & Regulation 

A key and recent example, highlighting the value of a public service broadcasting framework like that of the UK’s, in light of a serious threat was the notorious “January Sixth" calamity in 2021. Supporters of former president Donald Trump, perturbed by his election defeat and riled by persistent media coverage, amassed and stormed the United States Capitol building in Washington DC, seizing control of it in a shocking act which rippled through the nation. Two years later, its effects remain deeply affecting with the current forty-sixth president of the United States, Joe Biden, referring to what transpired on that fateful day being that in which US democracy had been “attacked;” the likes of something with this magnitude of dissent on US soil had never been witnessed “even during the [American] Civil War” (The White House, 2023). The scale of this event could not have been publicised more across not just US news networks but around the world. Extensive coverage sent tidal flows throughout the globe, revelling in the bewildering surprise of such a monumental event. It also exposed one fundamental notion: the catastrophic failure of news media in the United States.  

Fox News, particularly, was at the centre of attention for the Capitol Riot – not simply by being the news source of its supporters but also an instigator in rallying the mob. A commercial news distributor in the US, Fox News has been notorious for its right-wing, Republican Party favouritism and Democrat Party criticism; so, being part of this calamitous event with its news host Jeanine Pirro promoting baseless allegations on her program that ‘Dominion’ and its competitor ‘Smartmatic’ had conspired to rig the election against Trump only exacerbated their notoriety. Hosts Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo further promoted the allegations on their programs on sister network Fox Business (USA Today, 2023). The integrity of news in the US had been under question for some time, with the likes of such pervading commercial and biased news sources, but these factors which spurred January sixth undoubtedly revealed the hideous potential of allowing free market economy of media to dictate news. Of course, there were other factors at play that led to the event, such as the rise of groups on social media and the spreading of disinformation via said social media; yet, the fact that such a major news outlet, with viewing figures around the time reaching 1.18million annually (Pew Research, 2022), had purchase and platform to brazenly provoke and incite violence in the name of pushing a political agenda. This provocation also contained economic benefit whereby its commercial need for financial growth (reaching $3.1billion that year) typically spurred the production and spreading of such sensationalised pieces of news broadcasting. Ultimately, ‘Dominion’ brought a lawsuit against Fox News and what became known as the Fox deformation case ensued, costing Fox $786million, circa £634million (Debusmann Jr. B., 2023). 

Free market economy, the commercial space in which the freedom of commercial stations is provided for, drives “competition” and thus a better product for the consumer will result as companies vie for dominance and therefore are forced to innovate and improve (Murdoch, R. 1989, Franklin, B., ed. 2005). But this style of commercial competition can often lead to companies cutting corners or playing underhanded tactics to draw in the largest crowd; in this case, stoking hate and outrage. Competition does not guarantee progress, however, which argue that the BBC has not progressed, and the TV licence fee has created complacency; it relies on a monopoly of the market. Yet, the current climate which has also been said to “outdate” the BBC has also spurred it to evolve, expanding heavily on its digital presence and providing value for money, as Tim Davie has vowed to do. 

Furthermore, back to the case of January Sixth, John Sopel (former BBC correspondent), in speaking at the University College London Orwell Festival at a panel in discussion of The Future of Public Service Broadcasting (2023), he raised a salient notion of how there are “no regulatory framework” with what “can be said” and what is “beyond the bounds” and what can’t be said on the news in the US. Now, blatantly, it can be argued that the views of a former BBC employee, and his history with the corporation, skews his judgement on the matter, with a bias for the BBC; he does point out, however, that there are “issues” with the British system of public broadcasting, insinuating that it is not at all a perfect media system. He now has his own podcast which is run independently of the BBC  A dangerous combination of the more laxed regulation and commercial television space, the networks become the “sole source of news” for certain groups and it is rife for creating such ‘echo chambers,’ where people in the US are not watching news to be “informed”, but to be “affirmed” in their beliefs (John Sopel, 2023); too many people have watched the news, especially commercial news, in the US to solidify preconceived notions of their views instead of being provided information and encountering alternative perspectives,  thus producing an almost tribalistic culture forming groups under the banner of their ardently supported news distributor. Democracy is in a fragile state and so a robust system of regulation must be upheld in controlling the quality of, and implications of, content that is produced.  

These regulation and remits upheld in public service broadcasting not only account for commercial, right-wing entities such as Fox News but also for far-left organisations like CNN and MSNBC. Their coverage of former president Donald Trump remained in opposition to Fox News but in some ways, both were as detrimental as each other. Both weaponised and ultimately monetised their coverage; both stoked the flames which lead to the unfortunate events. The remits and Ofcom’s regulation of the British public service broadcasting system allows and promotes a fairness and variety of viewpoints. Ofcom regulates the BBC by how it, “serve[s] all audiences in the UK by providing duly impartial, highquality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.” (How Ofcom regulates the BBC, 2022)  

That is not to mention that there are public service broadcasters in the US, like PBS for example. However, a certain stigma lingers and mars the service as PBS itself was “memorably described by Michael Jackson in 2003 as a ‘pimple’ on the surface of American broadcasting.” (Tmabini, D. & Cowlig, J., 2004: 14-15). It is ergo imperative that the historical reverence which the BBC has cultivated over decades of public service be preserved and not fall foul to stigmatism and besmirching of reputation. However, with the BBC and its licence fee funded operation, has drawn growing criticism and brought about the question of “what’s my licence fee paying for?” Of course, this question has persisted for many years, usually rearing itself in the event of an increase licence fee when the public begin examining more closely how their hard-earned money is being put towards. Yet, Ofcom (having become an independent regulator from 2017) has cited that “...overall, the BBC has delivered its remit. More than 80% of adults use the BBC each week – a higher proportion than for any other broadcaster in the UK. Audience satisfaction with the BBC compares well with other content providers and it remains the most used news source for audiences in the UK” (Ofcom, 2022).  

This is why the preservation of the BBC is important as a great majority of the UK populace uses it, proving its remit of transmitting to everyone, no matter who they are. The need to safeguard a history and upholding the remit and standards of broadcasting is essential in preserving a “centrally organized cultural institutions, might have continuing value as ‘filter’ or guide” (Hendy, D., 2013, p.109-110) in an era heading towards the online echo chambers of unregulated sources. Broadcasting must be held accountable to an independent body like Ofcom which was established in 2003 as part of the Communications Act of the same year, on the cusp of the true internet revolution. 

Obviously, the news on public service broadcasters is not wholly objective; it cannot be, for, despite being a corporation, it is still run and managed by people, human beings, and humans inherently have little propensity for true objectivity. Nonetheless, the regulations and the remit, the endeavour to strive for objectivity, to report and relay information in a factually consistent non-sensationalised manner, what might have appeared to be a contradictory fault, turns out to be its saving grace from the likes of which the US broadcasting service could consume it. 

Having brought up Ofcom’s consensus that the system of public funding is generally approved of in the UK, the next generation have been examined to show concerning signs of distrust. Mistrust of the news among five percent of ‘Generation Z’ are reported to trust the UK press (Majid, A., 2023). They are gathering or being fed information from a much wider variety of sources than any generation has had before, with the internet. This is only compounded by the Edelman Trust Barometer that declares only thirty-seven percent of UK adults hold trust in the UK media (Edelman UK Trust Barometer, 2023). No wonder then there is less trust in what has been established. As markets suggest, in basic economic principle, the more there is of a commodity, the lower its value becomes. Reputable news has been losing its value, muddied with growing disreputable sources. The sheer expansion of broadcasted views could be argued to be democratising the news. In other ways, it is simultaneously obfuscating fact. Even now in the British television network, the advent of GB News and TalkTV has further divided audiences in what sources they receive their information. Inadvertently, it is set that the public broadcasting service will stoop to join those networks to compete, like with the US system, and becoming inevitably more commercialised in the process. Ofcom are even stumbling to catch up and regulate where Sophie Chalk, Policy Advisor at the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, later discusses on the University College London Orwell Festival at a panel in discourse over The Future of Public Service Broadcasting and how Ofcom is struggling to enforce due impartiality (2023). She also describes the “foxification” of news and the growing concern along with that. Chalk later expresses how the world has changed and become more commercial.  

With increased global competition in the form of digital media with the likes of YouTube, etc., and with streaming services like Netflix, this commercialisation and vying of people’s time is of great concern for the more one time one can take from a consumer, the more that consumer could fall victim to the habitual viewing, the likes of which arguably established early television with their scheduled programming, leading back to Sopel’s argument that becoming dependent of a soul source of unregulated information further divides people, entrenching perhaps threatening stances. The rise of competition via digital and obfuscation of information was highlighted by Onora O’Neill back in 2002 where she posited how, “... ‘new information technologies dislocate our ordinary ways of judging one another’s claims and deciding where to place our trust’” (Onora O’Neill (2002) cited by Hendy, D., 2013, p.109-110). A salient and prescient point and one which, from the immense global discussion happening now and my touching upon its effects in this essay, has proven tragically true. 

Public Service Broadcasting: Here to Stay 

In conclusion, I must reiterate that the BBC as a a publicly funded corporation is not infallible, but the virtue that public service broadcasting has brought in its national and international accessibility has been a fundamentally venerated endeavour and one that should be preserved. The licence fee as the primary and mandated source of the organisation’s funding has been a contentious one, despite one of the key advantages of the TV licence fee is its role in providing financial stability to the BBC; it is this stability enables the corporation to produce high-quality content across a diverse range of genres, including news, documentaries, and cultural programming. It ensures that the BBC can pursue projects that may not be commercially viable but hold cultural or informational significance as per the broadcasting code and remit. The US comparison highlights the need for regulation of media, and the importance of upholding standards, robust cross-referencing and fact-checking for the public instead of solely for the purposes of entertainment and satisfying consumer and sponsors. 

Public service broadcasting, facilitated by the TV licence fee, admirably aims to provide quality content that serves the entire population. Despite being an ethos that is difficult to fully achieve in practice (as the old saying goes, “you can’t please everyone”), it is nonetheless one which upholds a more democratic route of public service and holds those in such a position (of power) to more rigorous accountability. It is in this digital age, the relevance of public service broadcasting has been challenged. The proliferation of streaming services and online platforms has led some to question the necessity of a mandatory fee for television ownership. Nevertheless, the BBC has taken steps to adapt to this evolving landscape by offering its content on-demand through platforms like BBC iPlayer, ensuring continued accessibility for a wider audience and value form the licence fee. 

This essay underscores the multi-faceted nature of the debate surrounding public service broadcasting, especially in the UK and how it also compares to its counterpart system in the US. While concerns about changing media consumption habits and growing commercialisation are valid, the enduring value of a dedicated funding source for public service broadcasting cannot be underestimated. Maintaining the TV licence fee is not only justified but essential for upholding the integrity and accessibility of public service broadcasting in the UK. 

Public Service Broadcasting is a staple institution of British society and culture, and institutions take great effort, dedication and time to build and establish; but institutions can often be all too easy to lose. 

Bibliography: 

BBC (2023) BBC Group Annual Report 2022/23. Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/ara-2022-23.pdf [Accessed: 08/11/23] 

Debusmann Jr. B. (2023) Fox News settles Dominion defamation case for $787.5m. BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65318654 

Franklin, B. (ed.) (2005) The James MacTaggart Lectures, in Television Policy: The MacTaggart Lectures. Edinburgh University Press. 

Gorton, K. (2009) “Desperately Seeking the Audience" in Media audiences: television, meaning and emotion. Edinburgh University Press (p.14-29) Available: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.bris.idm.oclc.org/lib/bristol/reader.action?docID=536997&ppg=21 [Accessed: 03/11/23] 

Hendy, D. (2013) Public Service Broadcasting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (p. 106-126) Available: https://content.talisaspire.com/bristol/bundles/6311f13955b80707711ae464 (Accessed: 07/11/23] 

Majid, A. (2023) Survey: only Egypt has lower level of trust in news than the UK. Press Gazette. https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/trust-news-media-uk-egypt/ [Accessed 10/11/23] 

Ofcom (2020) Audience attitudes to programme standards Cross Platform Media Tracker 2020. BVA BDRC. Available: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/227087/audience-attitudes-towards-broadcasting-standards-2020-data-cross-media-tracker.pdf [Accessed: 08/11/23] 

Ofcom (2020). Small Screen: Big Debate: Ofcom. Available: https://www.smallscreenbigdebate.co.uk/2020-event [Accessed: 08/11/23] 

Pew Research. (2022) Trends and Facts on Cable News State of the News Media. Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/cable-news/ [Accessed 09/11/23] 

Tmabini, D. & Cowlig, J. (2004) From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Communications. London: The Institute of Public Policy Research. (p.10-15) https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/From_Public_Service_Broadcasting_to_Publ/tvcrBhXvbeEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isbn:1860302297&printsec=frontcover 

USA Today. (2023) Fox News and three hosts sued for $2.7 billion by voting machine company over election-fraud claims. Associated Press: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/04/fox-news-three-hosts-trump-lawyers-sued-over-election-fraud-claims/4392023001/ [Accessed 09/11/23] 

UK Government (2023) House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/?s=bbc&searchblogs=1&startdate=&enddate= [Accessed: 07/11/23] 

USA Today. (2023) Fox News and three hosts sued for $2.7 billion by voting machine company over election-fraud claims. Associated Press: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/04/fox-news-three-hosts-trump-lawyers-sued-over-election-fraud-claims/4392023001/ [Accessed 09/11/23] 

UCL. (2023) The Future of Public Service Broadcasting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcgJrqV3oVE [Accessed 09/11/23] 

The White House. (2023) Remarks by President Biden at Presentation of the Presidential Citizens Medal. The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/01/06/remarks-by-president-biden-at-presentation-of-the-presidential-citizens-medal/  [Accessed 09/11/23] 

Vernon, H. (2023) BBC faces review of licence fee model with alternative methods considered. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/18/bbc-faces-review-of-licence-fee-model-with-alternative-methods-considered [Accessed: 08/11/23] 

(2016) A Future For Public Service Television. Future of TV. Available: https://futureoftv.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FOTV-Report-Online-SP.pdf [Accessed: 09/11/23] 

2023 Edelman UK Trust Barometer (2023). 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report. Edelman. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2023-03/2023%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report%20FINAL.pdf [Accessed 10/11/23]