“The concept of needing a license to watch television is probably pretty damn bizarre to anyone outside the UK but it is, unfortunately, a cold hard fact here. The sole purpose of said license is to fund the BBC,… So what do you get for £121.00 a year? Rubbish, that's what. Countless gardening, cooking and DIY programs, and enough God-awful nature shows to turn a die-hard vegan into a ferocious carnivore. Oh sure there are a few decent documentaries, an occasional film that's worth watching and there are some pretty good history programs now and then, but hey, I can see that stuff on the other channels too!".
(Bannister, 2005, pp. 1-2)
This statement of a man named Andy Banister is just one and the simplest of all the critiques on the existence of the Britain Broadcasting Corporation [BBC]. As a lay man, he complained BBC for its high-cultured and unoriginal programs which he thought did not worth the license fee all Britain houses should pay. In fact, the appearance of this sloping statement pragmatically proves that the experts debate on the question “Do public still need Public Service Broadcasting?” deserves more attention.
Public Service Broadcasting [PSB] all over the world tends to appear as government’s responsibility to facilitate the application of public’s freedom of assembly and information. As an appreciation to public’s freedom to assembly, PSB exists as the extension of Habermas’s concept of public sphere as an impartial open arena in which public gather and conduct a dialogue to form a collective understanding among them which then is used as a fundamental principle of internal problem solving as well as the foundation of government’s democratic decision (Hauser, 1998). Here, it can be seen that PSB respect...
... middle of paper ...
...N. (2003). A response to elizabeth jacka's "democracy as defeat". Television & New Media, 4(2), 193-200. doi: 10.1177/1527476402250680
Hartley, J. (1998). Uses of television Retrieved from http://MONASH.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=165712
Hauser, G. A. (1998). Vernacular dialogue and the rhetoricality of public opinion. [Article]. Communication Monographs, 65(2), 83.
Jacka, E. (2003). Democracy as defeat. Television & New Media, 4(2), 177-191. doi: 10.1177/1527476402250675
Karppinen, K. (2007). Against naïve pluralism in media politics: on the implications of the radical-pluralist approach to the public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 29(3), 495-508. doi: 10.1177/0163443707076192
Syvertsen, T. (2003). Challenges to public television in the era of convergence and commercialization. Television & New Media, 4(2), 155-175. doi: 10.1177/1527476402250683
Print Shea, Daniel M. Living Democracy. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. Print. Weglyn, Mich. :.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
Janda, Kenneth. Berry, Jeffrey. Goldman, Jerry (2008). The Challenge of Democracy (9th ed.). Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Janda, K., Berry, J., Golman, J., & Hula, K. (2009). The Challenge of Democracy: American
Public broadcasting was birthed, was to ensure that there is a medium where every voice had a platform. The goal was to ensure that citizens have access to information is essential in balancing the nation. Taras (2001) borrows a quote from Lowe and Juart (2005), who sate that public broadcasting “is to build social capital by “bridging” “bonding” and “witnessing”, but most of all by treating audience members as citizens rather than as consumers” (lowe & jauert, 2005).
Taras examines the commitments and values of CBC with the Canadian government and the citizens. He looked at a particular case of when CBC clashed with the government, and how CBC struggled to keep their TV programs running (Taras, pp.4-5). Next he talked about how the media industry is being taken controlled by powerful corporation and claims that PSB have the responsibility to protect the minorities (Taras, p.6). Subsequently, Taras discussed the ups and downs CBC had gone through until this day. Lastly, Taras explores the complex and intimate relationship between public broadcasters and the government; how they take advantage of each other to accomplish their goals. Ultimately, Taras believes that PSB will continue to have an impact in society despite living in a generation of digital media.
First, the role of the media is to represent the public and intervene between the public and the government. The media is a mirror, which re...
Dye, T. R., Zeigler, H., & Schubert, L. (2012). The Irony of Democracy (15th ed.).
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
“Nowadays in the modern world, society if affected by more things we can think of. Society is affected by movies, TV shows, TV reality shows, magazines, and books. A report was recorded over a six-month period about Television shows and daily news broadcasts. From September 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000; The Grand Rapid Institute recorded and viewed a few programs and at the end of the month the Institute tallied up the number of letters sent after a recorded program and it showed how unfair the programs were and how people became a democracy to let them know” (TV News 1).
... small media reforms (like public journalism) will be enough to reduce the commercial and corporate imperatives driving our existing media systems (Hackett and Zhao, 1998, p. 235). Instead, a fundamental reform of the entire system is needed, together with a wider institutional reform of the very structures the media systems work within, our democracies. This will be a difficult task, due to powerful vested interests benefiting from the status quo, including media, political and economic elites. Reforms will need to be driven by campaigns mobilising public support across the political spectrum, to enable the citizens of the world to have a media system that works to strengthen democratic principles as opposed to undermining them. This task is challenging, but it will become easier once people begin to understand the media’s role in policymaking within our democracies.
Media has always had the power to transform ideas through what it represents. Most of the media we experience today is part of a global message which we absorb into our everyday lives; our customs, cultural coding, religious views and political standings. Due to satellite televesion, nations everywhere are able to tune into the world on a larger scale putting each nation under a single umbrella of opinions and views e...
on television: a call for theory and programmatic research. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 106-123.
The power of the mass media has once become so powerful that its undoubtedly significant role in the world today stays beyond any questions. It is so strong that even politics uses it as a means of governing in any country around the world. The mass media has not only political meaning but also it conveys wide knowledge concerning all possible aspects of human beings’ lives and, what is utterly true, influences on people’s points of view and their attitude to the surrounding environment. It is completely agreeable about what kind of virtues the mass media is supposed to accent. Nevertheless, it is not frequent at all that the media provides societies with such a content, which is doubtful in terms of the role consigned to it. Presenting violence and intolerance as well as shaping and manipulating public are only a few examples of how the role of mass media is misunderstood by those who define themselves as leading media makers.
There are numbered of news channels that have maximum coverage throughout the country. Media contribute a lot to develop public knowledge but even after years of success, media could not alter public’s attitude towards issues. Media should discourage smoothly such attitude of public. Demonstrations and protests are good to increase pressure towards the solution of any problem, but there should be a proper way to express which should result oriented.