Talk:Public broadcasting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Radio  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

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)




Advantages and Disadvantages: Confusing Phrase[edit]

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

Leftist Bias[edit]

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"?

I can't agree either - I don't see a bias in favor, and I agree that even a favorable bias would not be leftist. It probably depends on the country, in fact, as to how public broadcasting is perceived politically, if at all. Lucylu6 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Defining Public Broadcasting" section very weak[edit]

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)

Is it really dominant?[edit]

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)

all this is obscure bullshit,cant help anyone with your answers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.231.193.26 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

CBC history[edit]

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)

History[edit]

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)

Propaganda[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

I don't believe these are unique niches for PSB in the US anymore[edit]

"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)

State broadcaster vs Public broadcaster[edit]

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)

NHK commercial-free?[edit]

I'm sure I've seen commercials (not promos) on NHK..


US PubRadio description[edit]

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.

This needs a major clean-up[edit]

Undercited, superficial in some respects, misleading in patches. Tony (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Article is over-long; need to separate out articles on Public Television and Public Radio[edit]

This article is over 45,000 bytes and needs to have some info separated out into sub-articles — specifically, Public Television and Public Radio. The two are not the same thing and definitely deserve their own articles, which would also take some of the excess bulk out of this over-long article. I don't often visit this article, so I will let others who do perform that task. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

MediaCorp[edit]

I read somewhere MediaCorp in 1994 (then Singapore Broadcasting Corporation) was privatised by turning into the Television Corporation of Singapore. Is MediaCorp a public broadcaster in the sense as RAI, TVE and ZDF are or is it commercial as I see the corporate name being "MediaCorp Private Limited?" --58.69.182.85 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Countries *without* public broadcasting[edit]

The article uses the words "some" and "most" to describe which countries have public broadcasting. Might it be useful to list countries that don't have public broadcasting networks of any kind? I can't think of any, but I assume others will know. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union, CPB Finances and primary sourced content[edit]

The state media of the Soviet Union are not public broadcasters. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source which lists them as such, there is no reason to include any discussion of the Soviet Union in this article.

The finances of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are discussed in detail in the main article. Including the financial details of one out of dozens of public broadcasters on this page is undue and out of place on this page.

The content sourced to primary source journal articles has been removed as undue as well. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found for these unconventional views, they are undue. aprock (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That was just some of the sourced material you deleted. Please explain the other deletion. Primary sources are no disallowed. The finance material did not discuss CPB but all public radio. Here is a source showing that the Soviet Union had public broadcasting.[3]. Miradre (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You're confusing the phrase "public television broadcasting" with "public broadcasting". State run media is not synonymous with public broadcasting. With respect to primary sources, they are certainly allowed, but misuse of primary sources is not allowed. Presenting two journal articles with unconventional conclusions as encyclopedic without secondary sourcing is misuse. The financing point still stands. Those details are not particularly relevant to the article and are contained in the main Corporation for Public Broadcasting article. aprock (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have given a source, you none regarding Soviet broadcasting. There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY excluding scholarly articles. Obviously the finances of public radio as a whole are interesting. The finances of CPB only should be in the CPB article.Miradre (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't need a source to not include something in wikipedia. The way it works is that if something isn't verifiable, then it doesn't go in. You originally did not have a source characterizing the Soviet owned media as "public broadcasting". And you still do not have such a source. aprock (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect to misuse of primary sources please review WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. If your primary source indicated that these views are shared outside of the respective journal articles? aprock (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of financing of public broadcasting in the US is already in the article. Having time sensitive information is (again) undue here, and is already located in the respective articles. aprock (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Let us accept the UNESCO source and exclude state broadcasting. But you seem to be doing original research with your claimed definition of public broadcasting. Exactly on what page of the UNESCO source can your claimed definition be found? Regarding the scholarly articles, you have presented no evidence for that there exists other views regarding the scholarly articles. The CPB report presents an update summary of sources of financing. If need be some of the unsourced claims can be removed instead.Miradre (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • With respect to UNESCO, here is the relevant excerpt from the first page: "Neither commercial nor State-controlled, public broadcasting’s only raison d’être is public service."
  • With respect to WP:UNDUE, you really should read the entire policy. Here is a further excerpt for you: For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.. The existence, or lack thereof, of "other views" is immaterial.
  • Discussion of sources of funding is already in the article. Time sensitive financial information is not undue here. aprock (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO states "Public broadcasting is defined as a meeting place where all citizens are welcome and considered equals." This is the definition according to UNESCO. Not your text. Regarding UNDUE, you make the claim of the scholarly articles being in a minority, you present the evidence for this. Regarding funding, there is almost no sourced material regarding sources of funding. "Time-sensitive" material is not prohibited. Miradre (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Re:UNESCO. I quoted the first sentence of the first paragraph, and you quoted the first sentence of the second paragraph. I'm not sure what your point is though.
  • The claim I made was that they are undue.
  • Again, the time sensitive financial details are undue.
I appreciate that you don't feel these things are undue for this article. If that's the case, then I suggest you find a broader base of secondary sourcing for this content. aprock (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously what UNESCO states is the definition is the important thing. There is no prohibition against time sensitive information and information regarding overall sources of information are obviously due. You have presented no evidence for that what you claim is undue is undue. Peer-reviewed sources counts for more than the personal opinions of anonymous editors. Miradre (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with using the UNESCO source, which is clear on the matter that public broadcasting is not state controlled. With respect to your undue questions, almost everything is undue. Due content can only be given weight through reliable sourcing. A single journal article does not establish enough weight here. As it appears that we are going around in circles, I'll post and RfC to get outside views. aprock (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, you have defined public broadcasting somewhat differently from what UNESCO states. This should obviously be corrected. Regarding scholarly souces, I quote from WP:UNDUE: "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." Scholarly sources certainly are reliable. Also, you should have followed WP:BRD and not reverted when your removals was restored. Miradre (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition, it is not just one source but several. You have also quite selectively not removed sources supporting your POV. Giving an article violating NPOV by only presenting one side of the debate. Miradre (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears that you've find some unclear parts of WP:UNDUE, I'll post the appropriate noticeboard. If you think there is a POV problem with my edits, I suggest you bring the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You presented a straw man of the above discussion. One point I had already accepted while ignoring all other. Miradre (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see the RfC here. aprock (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
That is just one problem. There is still no justification for excluding the information regarding sources of funding for public radio. Or, to raise another matter, the criticism presented to the US Senate in a hearing. Miradre (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If you're impatient, you're free to bring these issues to the appropriate noticeboard as you see fit. aprock (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You can bring them there if you prefer. I will add an edited text to the article which hopefully should revolve the issues. Please do not revert. You should not have reverted in the first place according to WP:BRD. Miradre (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You are free to edit the article as you see fit. If you introduce undue content, it will be removed in due course. aprock (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO definition[edit]

Huh? I have already stated that I accept the UNESCO source view that state broadcasting is not public broadcasing. That is not an issue. (There are numerous other issues but this is not one of them.) Miradre (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. As I noted above, I was "not sure what your point is though." I take it the UNESCO issue is entirely separate. If that's the case, let's use this separate thread to discuss the issue. Note that the lede is just a summary of the article, and a more complete discussion of what public broadcasting is can be found at Public_broadcasting#Defining_public_broadcasting. I am open to updating the lede to be a more correct summary. aprock (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the lead should contain a correct definition. Your text is not what UNESCO article states as the definition of public broadcasting. Neither does the other section contain this definition. For the other issues, see the section above. Miradre (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Much of that section is sourced to Raboy (1995), pp 6-10, and is generally congruent with the UNESCO source. Expansion of content based on either the Raboy or the UNESCO source is welcome. aprock (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
That source refers to the cited quote that BBC is “probably been the greatest of the instruments of social democracy of the century” Otherwise there are remarkably few citations in the text. Miradre (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, the source looks somewhat dubious. The text is by the "World Radio and Television Council" which is a lobby organization for public broadcasting. At the very least this should be pointed out.Miradre (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The WRTVC describes itself as an NGO. Do you have reliable secondary sources stating it is a lobby organization? aprock (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"created ten years ago to defend public service broadcasting ".[4] Also, very inactive with a very outdated webpage. "Our goal is the early delivery, hopefully by the end of 2003, of internationally recognized standards of public broadcasting." Miradre (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hilarious quote mining. Here is the full quote: "The WRTVC is a non-governmental organization created ten years ago to defend public service broadcasting across the world through civil society." Not sure where you get the lobbying from though. Publication and promotion of standards is hardly lobbying. Please update when you've found reliable secondary sourcing for your lobbying characterization. aprock (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"Defending public service" is not the same as "promotion of standards". Another statement: "A certified broadcaster will benefit from a quality guarantee strengthening its position towards civil society, government and international organizations." Obviously a lobby or special interest organization for public broadcasting. Miradre (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your original research and synthesis. When you get it published in a reliable secondary source, let me know. aprock (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I will just state its stated goal of "defending public service" when rewriting. Miradre (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. aprock (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

List of public broadcasters (Europe)[edit]

For BBC, you can find:

  • BBC — United Kingdom
    • BBC One + BBC Two + BBC Three + (...)
    • BBC Radio 1 + BBC Radio 2 + BBC Radio 3 + BBC Radio 4

but for German ARD and WDR, there is only

  • ARD — working partnership of German public-service broadcasters
    • Westdeutscher Rundfunk — Cologne

In fact, the WDR (Westdeutscher Rundfunk) is a "small" BBC (for North Rhine-Westphalia) with more than 5 full radio programs plus regional radio plus one full TV-program plus contibutions to Das Erste and to other TV-programs, so there could be a long list as for the BBC. And the same applies to the other "GBCs" (“German Broadcasting Corporations”, this term does not exist, but...) --Haigst-Mann (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany: Deutschlandradio: Cold War propaganda?[edit]

Well, in 1994, 3-4 years after unification, it was like the article Deutschlandradio describes it (below). Not

a national radio service with two networks (Deutschlandradio) emerged from the remains of Cold War propaganda stations in 1994.
  • Deutschlandfunk was originally a West German station targeting listeners in East Germany and the rest of the communist block,
  • whereas Deutschlandradio Kultur is the result of a merger of West Berlin's RIAS station and East Berlin's DS Kultur after German reunification.

The Cold War-thing about it was the direction of the radio-broadcasting, but the programme reflected the editorial independence as at, let us say, BBC or CNN. It was no "international service" produced according to governmental specification. --Haigst-Mann (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)