Public Service Broadcasting and Media Systems in Troubled European Democracies

Eva Po?o?ska,Charlie Beckett

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783030027100
• Topic: Langues et linguistique
• Subtopic: Journalisme

This book provides the most recent overview of media systems in Europe. It explores new political, economic and technological environments and the challenges they pose to democracies and informed citizens. It also examines the new illiberal environment that has quickly embraced certain European states and its impact on media systems, considering the sources and possible consequences of these challenges for media industries and media professionals.

Part I examines the evolving role of public service media in a comparative study of Western, Southern and Central Europe, whilst Part II ventures into Europe's periphery, where media continues to be utilised by the state in its quest for power. The book also provides an insight into the role of the European Union in preserving the independence and neutrality of public service media. It will be useful to students and researchers of political communication and international and comparative media, as well as democracy and populism.

Part IPublic Service Media in Troubled Democracies

© The Author(s) 2019

Eva Połońska and Charlie Beckett (eds.)Public Service Broadcasting and Media Systems in Troubled European Democracieshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02710-0_2

Begin Abstract

PSM Contribution to Democracy: News, Editorial Standards and Informed Citizenship

Stephen Cushion¹

(1)

School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK

Stephen Cushion

Email: [email protected]

The chapter has previously been published by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and appears here with their kind permission.

End Abstract

Introduction: Valuing Journalism in a Disposable News Culture

In an increasingly market-driven news environment, public service media (PSM) face growing pressure to justify the value of their journalism. After all, with online and social media, news has become more widely available and disposable, and can often be accessed instantly, at zero expense. Relying solely on advertisements for their funding, some newspapers are simply distributed for free in shopping centres and train stations. Like fast food, news has become a cheap and convenient commodity, accessible 24/7 online and even on the move.

But while news might be more freely available than ever before, the editorial standards of different outlets do not necessarily meet or satisfy people’s expectations of what news should be in a properly functioning democracy. From exposing ‘fake news’ during elections, investigating data breaches at Facebook or reporting corruption, democracies rely on well-resourced newsrooms to inform citizens about what is happening in the world. If journalism as a commodity is being devalued and replaced by a fragmented supply of news and information, it may create an environment where news is cheap to consume but offers little democratic nourishment for advancing an informed or engaged citizenry.

At the same time, an ever-expanding range of media ostensibly serves citizens a menu of news that they can choose from. In a more deregulated media environment, the state no longer exercises the same degree of editorial oversight, allowing broadcasters greater freedom to innovate and set their own news agendas. And since market competition should in theory drive up standards, a more crowded and competitive media marketplace might help produce better quality journalism. So, for example, beyond broadcasting there are commercial print and online niche outlets such as The Guardian, ProPublica, The New York Times or Spiegel Online, which have market goals but fulfil the public service value of informing audiences about politics and public affairs. From that perspective, democracy could be enhanced by a shift from public-service to market-driven media systems.

Focus of the Report: PSM vs Commercial Broadcast News

Against the backdrop of a fast-changing and increasingly commercialised media landscape, PSM face a number of questions about their continued role and relevance. This report will examine the evidence about news produced by PSM and consider the implications for democracy in two ways.

First, it will draw on the latest academic scholarship to examine the evidence about whether PSM produce news that is distinctive from their market-driven rivals. Second, it will consider how informative PSM coverage is compared to their commercial competitors. It will assess the latest research to establish whether public or commercial media systems offer the most effective way of raising public knowledge about politics and public affairs.

The focus throughout is largely on broadcast media, since much of the research in academic literature analyses television news programming, in particular newscasts, which can be compared between PSM and more market-driven organizations, as well as cross-nationally (Cushion 2012). While there are many types of broadcast programme that contribute to a well-informed citizenry, television newscasts continue to be a popular source of information in advanced Western democracies (Cushion 2015; Cushion and Thomas 2018). There are also a number of niche commercial print and online news outlets, as previously acknowledged, which have worked with PSM to expose corruption and which play a vital watchdog role. Comparatively speaking, however, many of these organizations do not have the size or reach of national PSM. In this sense, PSM are not the sole source of important news, but they remain one of the most significant because of the continued influence broadcasters have in most advanced Western democracies (Cushion and Thomas 2018). The findings will be discussed in light of the contribution PSM make in informing the citizenry and enhancing democratic debate. Overall, the following questions will be answered: How can the quality of news between different media systems be assessed? Do PSM newsrooms produce news of higher editorial standards compared with commercial television news? Which media system most effectively raises people’s understanding and knowledge of politics and public affairs? Do PSM help produce a more informed citizenry than commercial outlets?

Understanding Distinctiveness and Comparing News Output

The term ‘distinctiveness’ is used in this report to refer to whether PSM produce news of a higher editorial standard than commercial broadcast media. After all, one of many long-standing principles of PSM is to deliver what the market neglects, since PSM should in theory operate free from commercial pressures and influence. In remaining distinctive, this should not mean PSM cannot strive to be popular or only cover those areas that market-driven organizations fail to address. However, many PSM organizations have the difficult task of ensuring they remain widely supported by the public—who invest financially in the service—while also fulfilling public service obligations in areas such as news programming that may not attract as many viewers as entertainment-based shows.

So how can distinctive news be interpreted? There is a range of widely shared editorial values and standards that many journalists would subscribe to, such as reporting truthfully or accurately, being independent or impartial, and serving the public interest. But measuring how far these standards are met is both conceptually and empirically challenging. So, for example, what interests the public may not represent news in the public interest. As many legal disputes have shown, public-interest journalism is a subject of fierce debate.

In order to empirically compare how distinctive PSM is from commercial media, it is necessary to make value judgements about output that can be measured across media with some degree of precision. Since most news organizations strive to advance people’s understanding of the world, one measure of distinctive news is tracking the agenda of issues routinely pursued. Above all, news aims to empower citizens in a democracy, encouraging them to make informed choices and judgements about social, economic and political issues. From informing voters about their policy options during an election campaign to explaining civic unrest or famine conditions in war-torn countries, the informational fuel supplied by news media is essential to the genesis of an informed citizenry.

Put simply, understanding the democratic value of news—such as tracking the informative agenda of daily news programmes—can help assess the quality of journalism produced by different media systems. As will now be explored, the intrinsic value of news can be measured and compared in a variety of ways. Needless to say, empirical studies of news cannot easily capture and quantify the democratic value of journalism, but the following studies will help paint a quantitative picture of PSM and commercial television news.

Is PSM Distinctive from Commercial Television News?

In The Democratic Value of News: Why Public Service Media Matter (Cushion 2012), I examined over 250 studies that considered whether the editorial standard of PSM news was distinctive from commercial output. Most of the research was about European countries or the US because most English-language academic publications emanate from these parts of the world. Overall, the most conclusive comparative findings related to analysing news agendas in routine periods of time and during election campaigns. In both cases, the weight of evidence showed PSM was far more informative, which was measured by news being more likely to empower citizens in democracy, such as telling people about the policy choices of different political parties, rather than reporting celebrity gossip or crime stories.

Overall, this book established that there tended to be a higher proportion of ‘hard’ news in PSM, which addressed issues such as politics and international affairs, rather than ‘soft’ news, including crime or entertainment news. During election campaigns, PSM were also more likely to report policy issues than market-driven media, which often placed greater emphasis on game or strategy stories.

While studies analysing journalism over time have found news agendas generally shifting from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ reporting, this was more pronounced on market-driven media. In effect, this meant PSM, most of the time, were more likely to supply a harder news agenda, reporting more domestic issues or international affairs, which offer policy or analytical information. Curran et al.’s (2012) study of nine countries broadly found this pattern of coverage across a range of different countries. In other words, a broadly distinctive pattern is that public service bodies tend to supply a higher volume of hard news than market-driven media. While not all PSM produced more hard news than commercial media, overall most did and when they did not in all but two cases hard news accounted for more than 60% of the agenda. Meanwhile, Reinemann et al.’s (2016) analysis of 160 outlets across 16 countries found harder news emanated from PSM than from commercial television networks, broadsheet newspapers and websites.

Is PSM Distinctive from Commercial Television News During Election Campaigns?

Second, during election campaigns—a key point in any democracy—PSM focus more on issues and policy implications than market-driven media. That might involve, for example, scrutinizing the manifesto promises of parties or independently examining how credible they are. Commercial media, by contrast, tended to report more game or strategy-type stories, which centre on who’s up or down in the polls as well as the campaigns and personalities of the electoral contest. PSM also covered low-key campaigns, such as local or European elections, which were often ignored by market-driven media. Political scientists have labelled these ‘second-order’ elections, since they are not necessarily viewed as being as significant as general or presidential elections. But given local and European bodies exercise considerable power, from decisions about the environment and consumer rights to social care and collecting rubbish, reporting their election campaigns and scrutinizing the issues citizens are voting on is vital to the health of a democracy.

As Chart 1 shows, while all UK television news bulletins widely reported the 2015 and 2017 general election campaigns, it was the BBC—a public service broadcaster—that consistently dedicated time to covering both the local and EU election campaigns. So, for example, whereas Channel 5’s 5 p.m. bulletin spent just 1.2% and 1.0% of its total news agenda covering the 2009 and 2013 local and/or EU election campaigns, on the BBC News at Six it accounted for 6.2% and 4.7% respectively. Broadly speaking, most official campaigns lasted approximately six weeks, which is the period of time analysed, including weekends.

Chart 1

Proportion of time spent reporting different types of election campaigns in UK television news bulletins

(Source Adapted from Cushion (2018))

In the UK there are also commercial public service broadcasters, which each operate with different regulatory obligations. Channel 5—the broadcaster subject to the lightest regulations in news programming—produced the fewest stories about the local and EU election campaigns.

Although the quality of news can differ between PSM, the very presence of a well-resourced and regulated PSM within a country can also help elevate the standards of journalism more widely (Cushion et al. 2012). Or, put more succinctly, well-resourced PSM help promote a race to the top in news standards within a mixed media system. So, for example, a market-driven news channel, Sky News, has resisted any pressure to conform to the more US-style of Fox News not just because of the UK’s strict regulatory guidelines but arguably thanks to the professional commitment and culture of journalists who want to report accurately and impartially (Cushion and Lewis 2009). While Fox’s partisan approach to news reporting has proven highly successful and influential in the US, and has been emulated by other US news channels such as MSNBC, the UK’s public service culture and regulatory framework have meant its sister channel, Sky News, has not become ‘Foxifie...