Public Media in Europe: Fair and Balanced?

March 19, 2010 | by

Seminars on public service media in Europe are neither rare nor always interesting, but last weekend's get-together in Oxford was well worthwhile for several reasons.

Paolo Mancini, a world expert on this topic, mounted an unexpected defence of Italy’s much-reviled public service broadcaster, RAI. The BBC paradigm of 'impartiality' should not, he warned, be seen as universal or exclusive. Surveys show the British public wanting television news to be impartial, which is a statutory requirement in the UK anyway; but the Italian public expresses no such preference. On the contrary, Mancini said, the Italian public is intensely partial. Accordingly, RAI is right to offer 'a plurality of partialities' on its three terrestrial TV channels.

The trouble with this, as other participants pointed out, is that it leaves no room for impartial information; revealingly, Mancini had no reply to these objections. If a public service broadcaster cannot deliver honest reporting, how can it be justified at all? Tim Gardam conceded that the BBC model of impartiality may lead to grey, consensus-seeking journalism at worst, but it also encourages "a curiosity about the other", where the approach blessed by Mancini fosters the expression of a-priori opinions.

A lecture by RAI president Paolo Garimberti was just as disheartening. While he admitted that RAI had grown dangerously close to power, he also claimed that different news output on three channels amounts to pluralism. The quality of the news is, apparently, irrelevant. When a student asked about the image of women on RAI, clearly referring to the endless beaming ‘hostesses’ with hourglass figures and bleached teeth, Garimberti said simply that those women want to work for RAI.

Auksė Balčytienė, who sits on Lithuania’s national broadcasting council, said that "public service ethos" in her country means national values, purity of language, and the wealth of cultural inheritance. This definition sounds strange and even vaguely threatening beside the usual emphasis on cultural diversity and pluralism. Compare the BBC charter: the first purpose of the BBC is to sustain citizenship and civil society.

But there is no real contradiction. Public service media have always been strongly national. Recently, my namesake at the BBC, director general Mark Thompson, said "People want guaranteed access to a reliable source of trustworthy news; quality … programming in the area of culture and knowledge … which [tells us] what it is to live in this country, to be British. ... The challenge is, what do you have to do now, given the way media is changing, to meet that public expectation?" (See Andy Beckett, “What do we want from the BBC?”, The Guardian, 2 March 2010.)

The Open Society Institute 2008 report Television Across Europe: More Channels, Less Independence found that public service media across Central and Eastern Europe are locked into a crisis that could prove to be terminal. Suffocating under political control, lacking funds, public trust, professional credibility and a vision for the future, it is hard to see how these institutions can be made ‘fit for purpose’ when even well-resourced public media in western Europe struggle to justify their privileged revenue streams, and audiences have access to so many other media platforms.

Over the years, OSI has done as much as any media donor – and, surely, more than any other US-based donor – for the cause of public service media. Yet the costly attempts to convert the old state broadcasters have not succeeded. It is high time for radical thinking on how quality public interest content, which commercial operators won’t provide, can be delivered to European audiences with little if any faith in established public service outlets.

4 Comments to “Public Media in Europe: Fair and Balanced?”

  1. On March 20th, 2010 at 4:40 am, monica said:

    Can someone ask Mr Mancini how he has decided that Italians do not want impartiality? Was the survey done with a 1000 people from the Rai building?
    Italians want impartiality in news like any other country, but we can never get it! That is the truth!
    Maybe it is time Rai did a real survey asking all of his paying subscribers what they really want from their state TV.

    • On March 22nd, 2010 at 6:12 am, Mark Thompson said:

      Hi, Monica - Paolo Mancini has been saying these things for at least a decade. (See his essay "Political complexity and alternative models of journalism: The Italian case", in James Curran, Myung-Jin Park (eds.) De-Westernizing Media Studies (London and New York: Routledge, 2000).) We can easily agree that there should be no single model of public service media. But is there more than one basic model of accurate and impartial reporting? That is a harder question.

  2. On March 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 pm, Francesca said:

    Even the so-called "plurality of partialities" stated by Paolo Mancini could be seriously questioned these days, especially after RAI's Board's recent Resolution to suspend investigative journalism programmes and programmes with political content ahead of the 28-29 March regional elections in Italy. The Resolution has affected in particular programmes broadcast on RAI's third channel (RAI 3), which is notoriously the most critical of the government's activities. Did anyone raise this latest issue with Mancini at the seminar?
    I personally don't believe a plurality of partial information is the best option for public service reporting, but I am not even so sure that this is what the majority of Italian viewers want. It is simply what they have always experienced - and got used to - since PSB was first introduced, thanks to a series of laws that allowed the so-called "lottizzazione" (i.e. "parcelling out") of public channels among political parties.
    But most Italians are definitely NOT happy with their current PSB model and a campaign to abolish the payment of RAI's fee is gaining steady ground, based on the cross-sectorally accepted view that RAI's programming and news reporting are no longer perceived as different from those of the other private broadcasters.

    • On March 24th, 2010 at 3:26 am, theodor said:

      I quite agree, Francesca, and let me take this opportunity to quote, or better paraphrase, Giovanni Floris, anchorman of 'Ballarò' [one of the programmes with political content that were suspended]. When asked whether he had resented the relative lack of indignation over said suspension, he said that there's no need to be heroes, but freedom is something you do not usually lose all of a sudden. You lose it little by little, tiny piece by tiny piece.
      And this time, we lost a tiny piece.
      You, Francesca, wrote [...] but I am not even so sure that this is what the majority of Italian viewers want. It is simply what they have always experienced – and got used to ....
      True, Italian viewers risk not realizing they have been losing freedom tiny piece by tiny piece

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately.
See our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

Search the Blog

Author

Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson is Website and Reports Editor, Media, Media Program, Open Society Foundations.

Follow Mark

Mark's Posts

About this Blog

The Open Society Foundations work to improve the lives of the world's most vulnerable people and to promote human rights, justice, and accountability. This blog aims to bring that work a little closer by giving our experts and grantees a platform to reflect on their issues, sharpen their thinking, and engage in a conversation on how to advance open society values around the globe.

Archives

  • Email Newsletters Stay Informed

Sign up for news from the Open Society Foundations.