Talk:Public broadcasting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
I removed the info on Israel Broadcasting Authority, cleaned it up and expanded it and moved it to that article. I also fixed the link to IBA in the list of public broadcasters. This article isn't really the place for details on every public broadcaster (other than the list), unless the details are illustative of some point about public broadcasting in general (e.g. not just that public broadcasting _exists_ in this or that country as that purpose is satisfied by the list at the end). Blorg 12:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Advantages and Disadvantages: Confusing Phrase
Under "Advantages and Disadvantages" you list certain "cultural biases" of commercial broadcasting including the item: "law presented as if it were truth." This statement appears vague and misleading. Do you mean to say "interpretations or opinions of law presented as if they were truth"? --xerxes_sator@yahoo.com 26 May 2005 23:04 GMT
[edit] Leftist Bias
This article has a very clear leftist bias. That is, a bias in favour of public broadcasting. This is obvious especially when compared with the commercial broadcasting article (which also has a leftist bias). It would be nice to see it fixed without having to declare a NPOV dispute.
To justify this claim, note how the first (introductory and descriptive) paragraph of the commercial broadcasting article already points out a perceived disadvantage, while the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section of this article mentions only one disadvantages and proceeds to basically dismiss it in one paragraph.
I can't agree, that is it's not clear to me. And whether a bias in favour of public broadcasting is present here or not, how would that be "leftist"?
[edit] "Defining Public Broadcasting" section very weak
Actually, I'd go so far as to call it horrible. Presumably the "Broadcasting Research Unit" is some British organization (the article doesn't say and it's a red link), since all the original examples came from there. More recent edits have added more international examples but have succeeded only in making the section flabbier. Only one of the points listed there has anything like the quality of a definition; the rest are at best a wish-list. The term "public service broadcasting" used in the intro also adds confusion. The intro says that the term means something different in the UK, but much of the rest of the article takes the UK as the defining example so it's hard to take it seriously. (From this perspective it's not clear what sort of distinction, if any, is being drawn; all broadcasters in this country are licensed, in the words of the Communications Act of 1934, to "serve the public interest, convenience, or necessity".) The bit about the CBC erroneously suggests that advertising is a recent thing; in fact, not having advertising on radio is the recent development (for values of recent including now 30 years of history)—TV always had advertising, and radio historically did. All in all, the section should be, if not "taken out and shot", at least shrunk by about 75%. 121a0012 16:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually technically it's the other way around about radio advertising. The first time ads were aired it was considered a daring step. What is more recent is the set-aside for a dedicated public spectrum, but public, noncommercial radio is in fact the original form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.206.54 (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is it really dominant?
The article states that public broadcasting is "the dominant form of broadcasting around the world." Is this really the case? Even in most European countries -- traditional strongholds of public broadcasting -- privately-owned, purely commercial television has achieved at least parity (or, in a few cases, near parity) with the older public broadcasting institutions. If one were to add up the audience statistics of the commercial vs. public radio and television services in many European countries, the results would show that public broadcasting is no longer the dominant form of broadcasting, at least according to that definition. The same is true in many Asian countries, even those where PSB has traditionally been strong. Of course, PSB has never been dominant in the Americas.
In other words, the statement may have been true until the worldwide deregulation/liberalization of the 1980s or early 1990s, but it doesn't seem to be accurate nowadays. Therefore, I suggest that the sentence be changed to "public broadcasting... has traditionally been the dominant form of broadcasting around the world" or something similar. Any input would be valuable. WorldWide Update 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CBC history
An anon recently added the following paragraph in the middle of the Europe section:
- (Correction in order here: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation actually emulated CKUA's programming [1], Canada's first public broadcaster created in 1927 on the campus of the University of Alberta and broadcast throughout the province ever since. The BBC was created on December 31, 1926, when the British government decided it would control all broadcasting. [2] CKUA was created within a few short months of this in early 1927. CKUA was also the first Canadian radio station on the internet in February 1996. CKUA was and is known for its superior cultural programming. The CBC copied CKUA, and Frank Mankowitz said he modeled NPR after CBC.)
Regardless of the merits of this claim, it doesn't belong where it was, and I have reverted the edit. I can't find any evidence that "the CBC copied CKUA" in the standard history of the CBC, Knowlton Nash's The Microphone Wars. (Indeed, he only mentions CKUA once, in passing, in early introductory material about the pre-CRBC era.) 121a0012 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History
This article hasn't got anything much on public broadcasting, barring saying that European countries based their model on the BBC. Now, the BBC went PSB in 1927, however Ireland's PSB broadcaster started as such in January 1926. Can't really say its based on them. I presume there were earlier examples elsewhere? --Kiand 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Propaganda
I think the article needs a section talking about how public tv runs programs that imposes certain opinions on children. I am not informed enogh to write this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.99.188 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 December 2006
- Hmmm, I think not. Sounds like a recipe for an article full of poorly sourced or unsourced, hugely generalising and subjective POV rants, resulting in edit wars of the type we see in the beloved "criticsms of ..." sections.
- Pit-yacker 18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I don't believe these are unique niches for PSB in the US anymore
"US public broadcasting is a niche service that provides programming not found elsewhere on the system, such as cultural programs, documentaries, and public affairs shows."
Cultural programs and documentaries are often presented on other commercial channels such as Discovery, TLC, Food Network, National Geographic Channel, etc.
There are also a variety of similar public affairs shows available on various news networks as well.
The presentation of some of these shows is often unique, but I don't think that it's fair to say that PSB in the United States provides programming not found elsewhere, at least not in these categories.
--Hanenkamp 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are the channels you list universally available and non-subscription, i.e. anyone with a television can receive them? If not,congratulations you have found the purpose of public broadcasting :-P Pit-yacker 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] State broadcaster vs Public broadcaster
With reference to:
At the same time, public broadcasting systems have also been used by dictators and totalitarian governments to spread hatred and incite genocide.
I wonder if someone could clarify what the exact difference is between a public broadcaster and a state broadcaster. There seems to be a subtle distinction that is made in certain circles. When looking particularly at third world and former communist states they talk about converting the state broadcaster into a public broadcaster, this is usually together with discussions on introducing licence fees.
The best difference I can appreciate is that broadcasters in states run by totalitarian regimes (generally refered to as "state broadcaster") are usually integral parts of a government department e.g. Ministry of Information, etc. whereas public broadcasters (although usually pubically owned) are generally run at arms length from the government. Pit-yacker 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's certainly what I would infer from the way these terms are used. I think the one-word summary would be "independent": a public broadcaster is independent of the state, even when it is supported by the apparatus of the state; a state broadcaster is part of the government and expected to reflect the views thereof. These are, of course, not the only possibilities. 121a0012 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This ties in nicely with what I wished to ask/suggest - could there be a section in this article discussing the mechanisms that defend the independence of a public broadcaster from government influence? I came to this article looking for references on that subject; this issue was the topic of the 'Viva Zapatero' documentary, but that mostly/only criticized what the author saw as lack of good measures for this in Italy, and didnt discuss better policy much..--89.172.85.70 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NHK commercial-free?
I'm sure I've seen commercials (not promos) on NHK..
[edit] US PubRadio description
I took out the bizarre line about many US stations being "licensed class D", which has nothing to do with programming.
Can't figure out what is intended here:
"NPR produces some of its own programming such as Morning Edition; Weekend Edition; and All Things Considered. PBS and PRI, by contrast, do not create their own content."
--in fact NPR, PRI and PBS ALL produce content; that's why they exist, especially PRI, which exists expressly for that purpose, whereas the other two also run networks. Any ideas what the writer's trying to say there?
Also removed "the second public network" introducing NPR which implies that the previous notation, Pacifica, is a first network. Pacifica is not a network and never has been. It does produce and distribute a few programs but owns only five stations.
