Parliamentary Assembly
Assemblée parlementaire

Public service broadcasting

Doc. 10029 Addendum
21 January 2004

Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Paschal Mooney, Ireland, Liberal, Democratic and Reformer’s Group

Link to the Report

Appendices to the report

I.          The mission of public service broadcasting (selected definitions and documents)

II.         Revenues of selected public service television broadcasters: breakdown by main sources of revenue

III.         Methods of appointment of PSB supervisory and management bodies in post-communist countries

IV.        Audience shares of selected public television stations

V.         Selected data on PSB TV programming in Central and Eastern European countries (2001)

VI.        Recent Council of Europe documents on the role and future of public service broadcasting

VII.       Report of the hearing on public service broadcastingin Europe organised by the Sub-Committee on Media of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Paris, 16 October 2003)

APPENDIX I:

THE MISSION OF PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING (SELECTED DEFINITIONS AND DOCUMENTS)

1.  Broadcasting Research Unit, London (1985)

The Broadcasting Research Unit in a special publication set out to define „those main elements of public service broadcasting as it has evolved in Britain” and came up with the following list:

Universality: Geographic - broadcasting programmes should be available to the whole population;

Universality of Appeal - broadcast programmes should cater for all interests and tastes;

Minorities, especially disadvantaged minorities, should receive particular provision;

Broadcasters should recognize their special relationship to the sense of national identity and community;

Broadcasting should be distanced from all vested interests, and in particular from those of the government of the day;

Universality of Payment - one main instrument of broadcasting should be directly funded by the corpus of users;

Broadcasting should be structured so as to encourage competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers;

The public guidelines for broadcasting should be designed to liberate rather than to restrict the programme makers.

2.  The European Broadcasting Union (1993)

Only public service broadcasting can offer at the same time:

3. 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy, Council of Europe (1994), Resolution No. 1

Participating States agree that public service broadcasters, within the general framework defined for them and without prejudice to more specific public service remits, must have principally the following missions:

(1)   to provide a common reference point for all members of the public and a factor for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, groups and communities ....,

(2)   to provide a forum for public discussion in which as broad a spectrum of possible views and opinions can be expressed,

(3)   to broadcast impartial and independent news, information and comment,

(4)   to develop pluralistic, innovatory and varied programming which meets high ethical and quality standards, and not to sacrifice the pursuit of quality to market forces

(5)   to develop and structure programme schedules and services of interest to a wide public while being attentive to the needs of minority groups,

(6)   to reflect the different philosophical and religious beliefs in society, with the aim of strengthening mutual understanding and promoting community relations in pluriethnic and multicultural societies;

(7)   to contribute actively ... to greater appreciation and dissemination of the diversity of national and European cultural heritage,

(8)   to ensure that the programmes offered contain a significant promoting original audiovisual production, especially feature films, drama and other creative works,

(9)   to extend the choice available to viewers and listeners by also offering programme service not normally provided by commercial broadcasters.

4. European Parliament, “Resolution on the Role of Public Service TelevisioniIn a Multi-Media Society” (1996) (Excerpt)

PSB is a fundamental player in the public sphere with a remit to:

5.  European Union, “Protocol On the System of Public Broadcasting in the Member States (1997) (Excerpt)

The system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism;

6. Independent Television Commission Consultation On Public Service Broadcasting, London (2000)

A current ITC definition of a PSB channel would be one which brings together most or all of the following elements:

APPENDIX II

REVENUES OF SELECTED PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION BROADCSTERS:

BREAKDOWN BY MAIN SOURCES OF REVENUE

 

BBC

2002

ZDF

2001

ARD

2001

FR2

2001

FR3

2001

RTVE

2001

SVT

2002

MTV

2001

HRT

2001

ETV

2003

Public funds

74,6

84,9

82,9

57,6

68,4

8,7

93,0

41,9

58,6

71,4

Broadcasting fee

68,0

-

82,9

57,6

68,4

-

93,0

15,9

51,5

-

Commercial revenue

24,4

15,1

15,7

38,7

31,2

87,0

5,3

5,5

41,4

-

Sale of programme rights

4,6

1,0

-

 

-

11,5

3,1

-

-

-

Merchandising

8,9

-

-

 

-

0,8

-

-

-

-

Pay TV

1,2

-

 

 

-

-

-

-

-

-

Other

9,7

4,7

9,6

4,0

9,5

1,4

1,0

-

6,6

-

Other revenue

0,9

4,7

-

3,7

0,4

4,3

1,7

52,6

 

28,6

Source: Economy of the European Audiovisual Industry (2003). Yearbook, Vol. 1.

Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, except ETV(Estonia). RTVE and HRT (Croatia)

publish only data for the entire organization. MTV – Hungarian Television.

APPENDIX III

METHODS OF APPOINTMENT OF PSB SUPERVISORY AND MANAGEMENT BODIES IN POST-COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

Appointment of Governing/Supervisory Bodies of Public Broadcasters

 

Govern-ment

Parliament

Presi-dent

Regulatory Authority

Other

Possibility of political dismissal

Albania

 

Yes

 

 

 

No

Armenia

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Czech Rep.

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

Hungary

 

Yes

 

 

Yes (civil soc. orgs.)

Yes

Poland

1 member

 

 

8 members

 

No

Romania

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Slovak Rep.

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

 

Yes (7 members)

 

 

Yes (4 members appointed by staff

Yes

Appointment of Top Management of Public Broadcaster

 

Government

Parliament

President

Governing/ Supervisory Body

Possibility of political dismissal

Albania

 

 

 

Yes

No

Armenia

 

 

 

Yes

Yes

Czech Rep.

 

Appoints

 

Nominates

 

Hungary

 

 

 

Yes

Yes

Poland

 

 

 

Yes

No

Romania

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Slovak Rep.

 

Appoints

 

Nominates

 

“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

APPENDIX IV

AUDIENCE SHARES OF SELECTED PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS

Western PSB Television Stations - IDATE

 

2000

2001

Stations

 

%

 

France

42,3

41,7

France Television, ARTE

Germany

43,1

43,3

ARD, 3rd programmes in the Länder, ZDF, ARTE

Italy

47,3

46,9

RAI 1, 2, 3

Japan

16

15

NHK

Spain

49,3

49,6

RTVE + autonomous channels in particular regions

UK

48,5

(BBC – 38)

48

(BBC – 38)

BBC 1+2, Channel 4

USA

3

3

PBS

Audience Share of PSB TV Stations in Selected Post-Communist Countries (2002) - EBU


 APPENDIX V

Selected Data on PSB TV Programming in Central and Eastern European Countries (2001) - %

Channel

Country

Share of culture in air time

Share of education in air time

Programming

Own

(est.)

Acquired

(est.)

TVP1

Poland

12.4

4.6

60

40

TVP 2

5.9

3.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROM

Romania

14.8

3.7

55

45

TVR

6.3

4.7

CT 1

Czech Rep.

11.6

2.4

64

36

CT 2

15.5

4.9

MTV 1

Hungary

19.6

1.9

80

20

MTV 2

22.1

4.9

STV 1

Slovakia

5.5

1.3

75

25

STV 2

10.2

2.7

HRT 1

Croatia

8

4.3

65

35

HRT 2

7

0.5

HRT 3

2.1

-

RTVSLO 1

Slovenia

8.5

7.4

45

55

RTVSLO 2

2.8

0.1

MKRTV 1

“the former Yugoslav  Republic of Macedonia”

4.1

6.1

72

28

MKRTV 2

5.1

6.7

MKRTV 3

4.1

6.1

ETV

Estonia

5.6

1.6

61

39

LTV

Lithuania

 

 

80

20

Source: EBU Members TV Programming. Geneva: EBU, October 2002.

Public television channels: share of own production

Country

Public broadcaster

Share of own production in first-run programming

Share of own production in airtime

 

 

%

CzechRepublic

CT

65.6

32.1

Croatia

HR

66.5

40.8

Estonia

ETV

61.9

36.8

Hungary

MTV

79.2

39.4

Lithuania

LTV

79.6

61.9

“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

MKRT

73.8

41.5

Poland

TVP

61.2

42.9

Romania

TVR

54

31.9

Slovakia

STV

74

38.4

Slovenia

RTVSLO

45.7

26.1

Source: Strategic Information Service, EBU, 2002.

APPENDIX VI

RECENT COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENTS ON THE ROLE AND FUTURE OF       PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING

Declaration on cultural diversity

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 December 2000 at the 733rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Appendix to Recommendation Rec (2003) 9 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on measures to promote the democratic and social contribution of digital broadcasting

Media diversity in Europe

Report prepared by the AP-MD (Advisory Panel to the CDMM on media concentrations, pluralism, and diversity questions), Strasbourg, December 2002

Part C: Public Service Broadcasting: An Essential Element for Media Diversity

Report on Media Pluralism in the Digital Environment

Prepared in 2000 by the Group of Specialists on media pluralism, a subordinate body of CDMM.

Democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Information Society

Contribution by the Council of Europe to the 2nd Preparatory Committee for the

World Summit on the Information Society Geneva, 17-28 February 2003.

IP1 (2002) 27 Strasbourg, 7 December 2002

APPENDIX VII

REPORT OF THE HEARING ON PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING IN EUROPE

organised by the Sub-Committee on Media of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Paris, 16 October 2003

Mr Jarab, Chair of the Council of Europe’s Sub-Committee on the Media, opened the hearing at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Mooney, Rapporteur, welcomed the opportunity presented by the hearing to confirm the “healthy tension” that existed between the political world and the media. The media landscape was undergoing profound changes with the multiplicity of channels provided by digital broadcasting technology, but it was debatable whether more channels meant more information and better quality. This was a crucial issue, especially when it was a question of justifying the use of taxpayers’ money.

In the report to be presented to the Assembly there should be agreement on the definition of public service broadcasting (PSB). In some central and eastern European countries, PSB was still confused with a state-run service that functioned as a propaganda instrument. Political pressures also existed in Western Europe, with recent examples to be seen in Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom. Public service broadcasting should always operate at a comfortable distance from the centres of power.

Being himself a journalist in both the public and private sector, he very much welcomed the contributions by the participants in the hearing.

Mr Jakubowicz, a consultant and advisor to the President of the National Broadcasting Council in Poland, said no week had gone by in the 80 years of public service broadcasting without discussions about its nature taking place. Nevertheless, it was necessary to beware of harmonising definitions at the supranational level. Public service broadcasting remained a product of member states’ media policies and legislation. It had therefore been created by politicians, but, in order to be viable, it had to enjoy public respect, confidence and affection, which meant it had to change with its audiences and in accordance with their needs.

After its introduction, public service broadcasting in Europe had followed different paths in different European countries and would continue to develop as its political, cultural and social environment changed. Its future was only assured if there was a strong political will for it to succeed.

1. What is public service broadcasting?

Mrs Franck, a representative of the European Broadcasting Union, pointed out that the definition of public service broadcasting at the European level had begun to be discussed systematically at the beginning of the 1990s, when these services had had to become part of the dual system consisting in the co-existence of public service and commercial broadcasting.

A declaration defining various criteria had been adopted in 1993 at a conference organised by the EBU. In particular, it stipulated that public service broadcasters had to offer programmes for everyone and provide, inter alia:

The declaration also emphasised that, in order to fulfil their tasks effectively, public service broadcasters had to be politically and financially independent, so it was necessary to establish an appropriate legislative framework.

For its part, the Council of Europe had stated in the Prague Declaration that public service broadcasters had to provide a benchmark. The declaration also stressed the need to establish an appropriate funding framework, define responsibilities and ensure editorial independence.

At the level of the European Union, Carole Tongue’s report adopted in 1996 had highlighted the importance of public service broadcasting in a multimedia society and called for provisions on this to be incorporated into the EC Treaty.

In 1997, the Amsterdam Protocol annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty stated that the system of public service broadcasting in the member states was directly related to their democratic, social and cultural needs. It also recognised that the responsibilities of public service broadcasters and the arrangements for funding the service provided had to be defined at the national level with the aim of reflecting cultural diversity and national traditions. There could not be broad responsibilities at the European level.

The existence of legislation meeting all the criteria set out did not always guarantee the existence of independent public service broadcasters that functioned well. For that to be the case, there had to be political will and public approval. Public service broadcasters had to be responsible both to their audiences and society as a whole, and society had to be able to scrutinise them.

Mr Mooney wondered whether a risk for public service broadcasting arose from the fact that it had to reflect the social and cultural diversity of the society in which it was operating, an obligation not imposed on the commercial sector. If the market was the driving force for everything, why did people have to pay a licence fee for programmes that the majority of the population did not watch or listen to?

Mrs Franck nevertheless thought that public service broadcasting had to reflect the various sectors of society and also be accountable to them.

Mr Seuleanu, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Romanian Broadcasting Corporation, thought the difference lay in the fact that public service broadcasting was aimed at the citizens and not customers and shared common values with them. The Romanian Broadcasting Corporation (comprising national channels and regional stations) possessed a 43% market share. Such a large audience was necessary, not only to sell advertising but also to spread ideas and promote goals. It was necessary to see public service broadcasting as a useful and trustworthy service and it had to have a significant market share.

For Mr Dibie, the representative of France Télévisions, public service broadcasting was a public service by nature since technically it used public resources to transmit its programmes. It was also a public service because at the social level it fulfilled a task in the public interest. The citizen who paid the licence fee was not just a consumer.

Mr Jakubowicz said the commercial broadcasters did not challenge the licence system but objected to public service broadcasting also being financed by advertising. The competition that that created was quite significant since the public service broadcasters had substantial market shares in most member states (according to a survey conducted by a French research institute, the figures for 2001 were Germany 43.3%, France 41.7%, the United Kingdom 48%, Italy 46.9% and Spain 49.6%).

If public service broadcasting were preserved only for its cultural and educational functions, its audience share would inevitably decline and might become as low as that in the United States, where it was only 3%. The question was whether public service broadcasting had to offer a full range of programmes that included entertainment, sport, drama, etc. There could be no public service without a public that used it.

Mrs Franck was in favour of a full range of programmes, with both popular programmes that appealed to a wide audience and others that catered for minorities, but it should not only be left to the market to decide since this would result in only the popular programmes remaining. Similarly, if public service broadcasting were reduced to putting on what the market could not supply it risked no longer having a yardstick to measure itself by.

Mr Dibie referred to the financing of public service broadcasting and the various western European models, which were the responsibility of the national authorities. In the countries without any advertising, the licence fee was more than double that charged in France for example. The decision of France Télévisions some years before to reduce its income from advertising had not stopped the audience figures from rising.

Mr Biggam, the Director General of the Association of Commercial Television in Europe, thought there would be no sense in trying to establish pan-European responsibilities in the area of public service broadcasting. Nor should public service broadcasting end up in the ghetto in which it found itself in the United States. It had to have clear prerogatives and be regulated by a body independent of both governments and operators. The question of independence seemed to be a problem in a number of central and eastern European countries.

If public service broadcasting were going to justify receiving public funds, it had to be distinguishable from the programming offered by the commercial sector, which was not the case in a number of European markets. The easiest way to increase its audience share was to persuade the people who already watched a lot of television to watch a little more, which was why broadcasters in Europe (private and public) sometimes decided just to put on sitcoms or television game shows to increase their audience.

Mr White, the Secretary General of the International Federation of Journalists, stressed that information was not a commercial product but had a social and cultural value, so it was necessary to take a look at the broadcasting scene and consider its ability to provide information based on public service values. The differences between the sectors remained but the real political challenge was to take account of technological developments and find out how to protect the citizen’s rights to have access to quality information.

2. The transition from a state monopoly to a public service operating in a pluralist and competitive environment

Mrs Stosic, the Director General of Macedonian Radio and Television, regretted that in her country (which was not alone in this connection) the political decision-makers thought “public” meant “state” and therefore served the institutions rather than the citizens. Al though the politicians had accepted the principle of depoliticisation of the public service, the pressure still existed.

As a result of the new laws that the parliament was in the process of examining, Macedonia hoped to establish the independence of the broadcasting organisations, the management of Macedonian Radio and Television and all the local public broadcasters. However, the nub of the problem was that independence was impossible without the appropriate funding. Unfortunately, no one had though about the fact that the public broadcaster’s new responsibilities meant new resources were needed. If it was necessary to beg in order to obtain cameras and computers, this would always be to the advantage of the politicians.

As public service broadcasting in Macedonia was subject to the laws governing all public undertakings irrespective of their nature, an entire range of legislation had to be amended. It was, for example, virtually impossible to make staff redundant.

Mr Seuleanu said that broadcasting in Romania had been changed from a state undertaking to a public service, and the issue now was how to ensure its independence. Public service broadcasting was under threat for a number of reasons in the countries of central and eastern Europe, such as bureaucracy, too many staff and the fact that the employment regulations made restructuring difficult. In a continental and global environment, public service broadcasting could no longer remain a national matter. The European Broadcasting Union could play an important role at the European level, for example by encouraging groups of broadcasters to provide a service for a European rather than a national audience. The management of the public service also had to become as efficient as that of the private sector.

The members of the public service governing board should be appointed by civil society and not by the parliament, since it was currently possible for any parliamentary majority to put its own loyal supporters in those positions. The licence fee had to remain earmarked for the public broadcasting service and not be distributed to all operators, as demanded by the private sector. The proportion of the budget deriving from advertising needed to be reduced, but it had to be remembered that without advertising it was hard to sell products on the national market and thus develop the economy. Finally, it was necessary to rely not only on the politicians to regulate the field of broadcasting but also to work with the professional associations.

Mr de Puig, Chair of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, said that in Spain a government was behind every level of public broadcasting (national, regional and local), which gave rise to criticism (from all the political parties) concerning the broadcasters’ dependence on the people in power.

The European Commission had recently called on the Spanish Government to change the system of financing national television because it considered it was too heavily subsidised and was in breach of competition law.

That very day, Spanish television had had to broadcast in its news bulletins a judgment delivered by the Spanish courts against TVE for manipulating the information it had broadcast on the country’s general strike in 2002. This was a very good example of a government using television for political ends instead of as a plural and objective public service.

Mr Oetheimer, of the Council of Europe’s Media Division, detailed the problems his division encountered when helping the new democracies to transform their legislative framework. As far as the definition of public service was concerned, this was more a problem of agreeing on the wording than the content. For example, everyone agreed on including the concept of independence in the definition but the problem was that its meaning varied depending on the political context in which it was used.

In most of the Council of Europe member states, there had been no genuine transformation of state television companies into independent public service broadcasters. The relevant legislative framework, which everyone agreed was essential, was not yet in place since mentalities had not changed. One country’s president was even thinking of setting up a public service to run alongside, and not replace, state television.

Mr Koven, the European representative of the World Press Freedom Committee, was in favour of healthy competition between public service broadcasting and the private sector. Each needed the other. The existence of the private sector prevented public service broadcasting from being elitist and boring, and public service broadcasting forced the private sector to offer information and documentaries that were normally the role of PSB. It was also important for public service operators not to be prevented from broadcasting advertising. This was not only because they needed the funds but also because it forced them to continue to offer popular programmes.

Mr Jakubowicz wondered whether public broadcasting services had truly been established in central and Eastern Europe. In a large number of countries, it was rather a case of a parliamentary broadcasting service or even the “Italianisation” of the media, ie a very close relationship between them and the politicians. There were also problems concerning management, powers and responsibilities, and the self-censorship of journalists, as well as difficulties in obtaining finance in relatively limited markets, so it was not enough to establish a legal framework but also necessary to create the external conditions (political, economic and social) required for public service broadcasting to exist. This was a very lengthy procedure. The example set by the countries of western Europe was crucial since their doubts concerning the necessity for public service broadcasting could very easily persuade the state authorities in central and eastern Europe to support rapid privatisation.

Mr Varela asked Mrs Franck if there was an independent system for monitoring programme content at the European level. It would also be interesting to compare the various supervisory methods employed in Europe.

Mrs Franck replied that Europe had no powers in that area. According to the Amsterdam Protocol, public service broadcasting policy was the member states’ responsibility.

Mr Dibie pointed out that the countries with independent audiovisual supervisory boards could work together, and it was necessary to encourage such initiatives.

Mr Mooney thought the legal framework of public service broadcasting had to guarantee its independence, objectivity, quality and sound financial basis. However, it was particularly important to ensure there were no more political, national or international controls.

One could also ask why politicians in the countries of central and eastern Europe wanted to control media without a significant market share.

3. The dangers facing well-established public broadcasting services

Mr Dibie said that in most countries the definition of public service broadcasting comprised three tasks: to inform, to entertain and to educate. The issue was to establish PSB’s position in the new technological environment.

In the United States, broadcasting was the responsibility of the private sector but it was supervised by the Federal Commission for Communication (FCC), which, among other things, ensured pluralism, respect for the law of persons and the fluidity of the market. Public service television was part of that institutional framework. Created on a limited scale, public service broadcasting was now under threat owing to the wave of deregulation resulting from digital convergence, on the assumption that the abundance of audiovisual services available would enable the market itself to ensure pluralism. The recent attempts to enact legislation in the United States to eliminate any supervision of the public sector had not been accepted by the American judicial, doctrinal and political authorities. Nevertheless, it was necessary to take into account the possible implications of those attempts for Europe, given the fact that the American audiovisual sector was dominated by the country’s content industry (films, television programmes, video games, etc). The revenue generated by royalties was higher than that of all the other sectors of the American economy, which explained why the stances adopted by the American administration within such organisations as the World Intellectual Property Organisation or the WTO were dictated by the market.

The dual system with respect to radio had already existed in Europe before the second world war, with the exception of the totalitarian states. The reason for the television monopolies set up after the war had been the economic and geopolitical situation. They had developed gradually, initially in the direction of greater autonomy vis-à-vis the government, and then given way to public service broadcasting. The dual system had then been established. These developments had gradually made it possible to meet two objectives: to ensure media pluralism and maintain and develop an audiovisual industry.

Public television stations could not meet commercial requirements as they served the community as a whole and all types of audience. As they were financed by the community, they had to have a wide audience and serve the interests of the general public.

While the market shares of the thematic channels were rising regularly, most generalist channels were trying to maintain their position by showing “catch-all” programmes, such as so-called “reality TV”. These were only expedients and had not stemmed the loss of viewers by the big networks in the United States. For its part, France Télévisions had set out to adapt its programming structure by focusing on big television events, such as major drama series, high-quality documentaries and top sporting events, and by adopting on a new approach to the provision of information. In view of globalisation and the practices of the market economy, audiovisual democracy had to be organised in Europe around the dual system adapted to the digital world, thus enabling everyone who was not a pay TV subscriber to access a broad range of high-quality interactive programmes.

Mr Feeney, Head of Public Affairs Policy at the Irish broadcaster RTE, was convinced that the countries of central and eastern Europe should not copy what had been done in western Europe since their history and political culture were very different.

The success of commercial television stations had given public television a wake-up call. There had to be competition with regard to programmes people wanted to see.

Market forces had brought about the internationalisation of television stations – for example, it was often cheaper to buy an American programme. There was a danger that the national culture, especially in the small countries, might be culturally submerged by that of a bigger and more powerful neighbour speaking the same language (as in the case of Austria and Germany or Ireland and the UK). Consequently, public service television stations had to deal with local issues, local problems, local culture, etc. In Ireland, the most successful programmes on the commercial channels were mainly imported from the United States, while the most successful on the public channels were domestic productions.

Public service television had to try to appeal to the public because it generally had a large market share and was financed by licence fees. A good way to achieve this would be for it to be accountable to its viewers and listen to what they had to say, especially their criticism. The question was how it was possible to be responsible for the programmes broadcast without this involving state supervision.

Mr Libicki thought public service broadcasting should be financed solely from public funds because its quality would otherwise be too low.

In certain countries, the government and political parties had too much influence. For example, in the previous year the government parties in Poland had been given five times as much time on public television as the opposition, although that had in the meantime been reduced to just twice as much. He regretted the lack of substance in the Committee of Ministers’ reply to the Assembly’s Recommendation 1589 on freedom of expression in Europe, especially as regards the political pressure the Assembly had recommended exerting in almost twenty countries that had serious problems.

Mr Gallagher, Director of Public Affairs at BSkyB, considered that public service broadcasting could not be defended solely as an institution without taking account of how it accomplished its task. Four years previously, the British government had set up an independent group to consider the future funding of the BBC. For its chairman, Gavin Davis (the current BBC Chairman), the weaknesses of the market should determine the allocation of public resources. He thought public service broadcasting should not only inform, educate and entertain but also do things differently from the way the private sector would do them if it were not regulated.

This position was based on the assumption that the public sector would always be capable of fulfilling its public duties “properly”, while the private sector could not do so. However, the development of technology meant that programmes once considered the exclusive domain of public service broadcasters were now being put out more and more by commercial channels. Sky News, for example, was a quality channel that provided impartial information without receiving any state money.

The questions that needed to be asked were whether public service broadcasting had to exist to correct the shortcomings of the market or whether there were more effective ways of doing this, as well as whether this contributed to an improvement in social well-being. These questions would be asked when the BBC’s Charter came up for review.

Mr White used Mr Gallagher’s contribution to show to what extent it was important to have a strong public service broadcasting culture in order to get the private operators to adopt an approach inspired by its values. Sky News was a very professional channel and made a valuable contribution to the audiovisual scene in the United Kingdom. The fact that it had been set up and had developed alongside strong public service structures distinguished it from such channels as Fox News, whose coverage of the war in Iraq had been condemned as highly flowed and too populist.

Mr Jakubowicz asked why, if the commercial broadcasters found good commercial reasons to provide quality programmes, this could be used as an argument against the existence of a public broadcasting service. On the contrary, public service broadcasting could be seen as a basis for the regulation of the broadcasting sector. The commercial broadcasters would behave differently if there were no strong, high-quality public broadcasting service.

According to the European Parliament’s resolution on the role of public service television in a multimedia society, there had to be a balance between entertainment, culture, shows and education, and there was a natural overlap with the commercial broadcasters in the case of sports programmes, comedies, drama, and information and news broadcasts. If it really did have to differ from the commercial sector, as this sector claimed, who would decide how this was to be done – the commercial competitors or the citizens’ elected representatives?

Mr Gallagher said that BSkyB was not opposed to public service broadcasting or the use of public funds to provide content in which the market was not interested. In the United Kingdom, the BBC was criticised for using public money to broadcast programmes already provided free of charge by the commercial channels.

Mr Dibie said the strategy of France Télévisions was to provide an alternative and complementary service for all types of programme.

Mr Biggam thought that the overlapping of programmes between the two sectors was possible and not inconsistent with the need for public broadcasting to be a service in its own right. It would be absurd, for example, for France 2 to stop broadcasting a television news programme on the ground that TF1 already had one. On the other hand, duplicating what already existed on the market was not a good means of using public resources. Independent assessors should analyse the audiovisual area and decide if the public service was really distinct and if public funding was used correctly.

Mr Jarab said he was a little lost as far as the concept of “distinctive overlapping” was concerned. Public television in the CzechRepublic was trying too much to imitate Nova, its most powerful private competitor, and was becoming less and less appealing as a result. Public service broadcasting should use the resources allocated to it properly because it would otherwise prove its detractors right.

Mr Seuleanu thought that rather than speaking about public service broadcasting overlapping with the private sector it was necessary to recognise that it was in reality the private sector that had initially overlapped with public service broadcasting, for example by transmitting education programmes. That did not bother the public service broadcasters since it benefited society as a whole. It was therefore a good thing if the positive aspects overlapped one another, but not the negative elements. Both sectors were responsible for providing impartial information and quality programmes, so it was strange that the politicians were interested only in public service broadcasting since the private sector also influenced the public sector.

4. The future of public service broadcasting

Mr White regretted the lack of political will to make progress on the European communications scene. In fact, the situation was getting worse and this was having serious consequences as the public had less and less confidence in the quality of the information provided, whether it came from a public or private source. A study published in France had revealed that 70% of the population thought the media were deliberately avoiding dealing with subjects that could harm the people in power and only 30% trusted television and radio to provide full and accurate information. The lack of confidence was even more pronounced in the emerging European democracies.

The journalists working for public service broadcasters faced ever more serious social difficulties. They also had problems because of the guarantee of a type of internal pluralism to preserve editorial independence. Passivity had set in among the professionals, and their confidence with respect to the values of public service broadcasting had to be restored.

With regard to the question of information, it was not enough to say there were now sufficient channels to cover all interests. It was necessary to create a new environment of quality, for which the priority action areas had to be identified. The priority In Europe was in the central and eastern part of the continent, where the transition from a state monopoly to a public broadcasting service had been systematically prevented in the past ten years. It was virtually impossible to have local productions that reflected the political, historical and artistic nature of the country and its people and there was a danger that a collective memory would be eradicated.

It was urgently necessary for the Council of Europe to focus on the problem. EU enlargement would provide the ideal opportunity for the Council to make some proposals directly to the Union and launch a major European debate – perhaps in the form of European conferences – in order to find quick solutions for the countries of central and eastern Europe. Without the political will, there was little hope of persuading civil society to show the necessary commitment.

Mr Hambley, Chairman of the Artsworld Channels Ltd, said his channel was not a public service broadcaster as it received no state funding but it was nevertheless exclusively devoted to the arts, culture and education. To date, the main focus had been on the creation of broad-based institutions that carried out a large number of functions and were controlled by a small number of people appointed by the state or a few owners. With the development of the new technologies, the same programmes could be provided by several different small public or private institutions. After previously only being able to choose from the range of programmes allowed them by the state, the citizens could now select what they wanted to watch and listen to.

The excessive domination of state broadcasting was not in the public interest as it was anti-competitive, diverted private investment away from the public services, led to inefficiency and waste and strengthened control over broadcasting. It was therefore necessary to preserve the various means – public and private – of providing high-quality public services.

Mr de Puig believed that public service broadcasting had to exist for reasons connected with democracy, so that society had to demand that the public service provide high-quality objective information and a range of programmes that did not simply seek to appeal to the public. Above all, it was necessary to focus on the issue of financing, political manipulation and reductions in quality.

Europe certainly had to act, but real supervision of public service broadcasting would take place at the national level, for which there had to be independent bodies, although parliaments would not give up the right to exercise their own supervision.

Mr Dibie stressed the necessity for public service broadcasters to be able to operate in the new competitive environment of digital broadcasting in order to fulfil their duty to serve the community. A public service without an audience made no sense.

Mr Jarab doubted that in the debate on the subject at the Council of Europe it was really necessary to go so far in separating the situation in the countries of central and eastern Europe from the rest of the continent.

Mr White said it was necessary to focus on the crisis in central and eastern Europe, even though the debate had to be conducted in a pan-European context.

Conclusions

Mr Mooney said that participants’ contributions to the hearing would strengthen the report, which would be presented to the Parliamentary Assembly at its January 2004 part-session. The discussion was very important against the background of the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union, especially in view of the Council of Europe’s assistance to the new democracies in establishing a legal framework. The report had to reaffirm the role of the Council as an institution that represented fundamental values. Specific recommendations should be made to the member states and a deadline set, and sanctions should be imposed on those who failed to comply.

Mr Jakubowicz added that the report would not be credible if it only focused on central and eastern Europe.

Mr Jarab closed the hearing at 6 p.m.

List of participants:

Parliamentarians:

Mr Jarab (Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Media) CzechRepublic

Mr Berceanu, Romania

Mr Korobeynikov, Russia

Mr Libicki, Poland

Mr Malgieri, Italy

Mr Mooney, Ireland

Mr Varela i SerRa, Spain

Mr de Puig (Chairman of the Committee on Culture Science and Education), Spain

Consultant expert:

Mr Karol JAKUBOWICZ (Poland), consultant and advisor to the President of the National Broadcasting Council

Others:

Mrs Nicola FRANK, European Broadcasting Union

Mrs Gordana STOSIC (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Director General of Macedonian Radio and Television

Mr Jean-Noel DIBIE (France), France Télévisions

Mr Aidan WHITE, Secretary General, International Federation of Journalists

Mr Dragos SEULEANU (Romania), Chairman and Managing Director of the Romanian Broadcasting Corporation (ROR)

Mrs. Ileana TAROI, Romanian Broadcasting

Mr Emilian BLINDA, Director, Romanian Broadcasting Corporation (ROR)

Mr Dan PREDA, Head of news department and RADOR Press Agency, Romanian Broadcasting Corporation (ROR)

Mr Peter FEENEY (Ireland), Head of Public Affairs Policy, RTE

Mr Ray GALLAGHER, Director of Public Affairs, BSkyB

Mr Ross BIGGAM, Director General of the Association of Commercial Television in Europe

Mr Ronald KOVEN, European Representative, World Press Freedom Committee

Mr John HAMBLEY, Chairman, Artsworld Channels Ltd

Secretariat of the Council of Europe:

Mr. Mario OETHEIMER Media Division, DG II.

Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:

MM       GRAYSON, Head of Secretariat for Culture, Science and Education

ARY, Secretary for the Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Mrs       THEOPHILOVA-PERMAUL, Co-Secretary

Mrs       KSSIS, Assistant