Balkinization: A new public media

A new public media

Ellen P. Goodman

For this, my first ever blog post, I wanted to share a few thoughts about the need to radically reform our system of public service media for the digital age. Last week, the GW Law Review hosted a symposium to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Jerome Barron’s important article Access to the Press: A New First Amendment Right. Several of us explored the question of what media regulation might mean in a networked environment, and converged on the idea that traditional broadcast regulation, which assumes content scarcity and captive audiences, is of limited use today in achieving the kinds of democratic values that Barron advanced. I’ve suggested before that noncommercial media subsidies have increasing importance for media policy as the case for regulation weakens. The problem is that the existing funding and organizational structures we have today, which are designed for a broadcast-based media space, are not up to the task.

It happens to be the 40th anniversary of the Public Broadcasting Act this year too. The 1967 law codified what had already emerged as a system of public broadcasting built around local broadcast stations. The Act created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to funnel federal funds to these stations and to PBS -- the national programming aggregator. This system has worked quite well, notwithstanding the periodic controversies about programming choices, objectivity and balance, and the rest. It has worked even though it hasn’t always been clear whether the purpose of public broadcasting has been to give mass audiences programming they want but can’t get from commercial broadcasters (e.g., kids programming), or to give mass audiences programming they don't want but ought to have (e.g., documentaries), or to give niche audiences programming the market won’t provide (e.g., opera). Whatever our take on these questions, the public broadcasting system has served an important function as a non-market participant in the production of mass communications. This has been especially true, I think, in the areas of kids programming and American history.

What now if public television, which is the medium I want to focus on, wanted to remake itself for the digital age? What if the existing players, or some new set of players, wanted to make considerable investments in noncommercial media in broadband, mobile, etc… The BBC is trying to do this, with its emphasis on new media. You can see from BBC Controller Simon Nelson’s recent speech that the BBC’s new slogan is “find, play, share.” You can see too that the BBC recognizes the importance of search and audience participation in the mission of public service media. The British regulator, Ofcom, has issued a very innovative discussion paper on “A new approach to public service content in the digital media age,” considering what institutional arrangements would foster the creation, distribution, and re-use of public media content across digital networks.

Of course PBS and its member stations already use the Internet heavily, often to great effect. But the main work of public TV remains broadcasting and broadcast content. New media platforms amplify and extend content that is by and large designed for traditional media, not for a world of searching, linking, sharing. To return to the question I asked – what if PBS or its member stations or some new entity wanted to change the game? The Public Broadcasting Act would make it difficult because it makes the physical act of broadcasting – the transmission technology – central to the funding and operation of the system. In addition, the copyright laws applicable to public broadcasting are designed around the broadcast transmission of content by local stations. Sections 114(b) and 118 of the Copyright Act allow public broadcasting stations to use sound recordings and certain other content without clearing rights – saving them from a task that might be cost-prohibitive or impossible. The two sections work a little differently, but in general the special dispensation applies only to content transmitted by means of broadcast or by broadcast licensees. So online material and even DVDs have to go through a very different rights clearance process. What was supposed to be a subsidy to public media is now only a subsidy for the subset of public media that is broadcast.

Public broadcasters and their supporters are working to modernize the relevant laws for the digital environment. Is incremental reform enough? There are good reasons to keep our current broadcast-based system for the short-term until broadband penetration increases, but isn’t it time to design a public media policy for the post-broadcast era? Ideas we might consider are: a spectrum play whereby public broadcasting gives up some spectrum (and stations) in return for content and technology funding; new noncommercial ventures (especially those supporting investigative journalism) become eligible for funding; a more thoughtful and systematic linkage between public media policy and copyright policy; a connection between public media policy and spectrum policy; etc… I know a lot of people are thinking along these lines and would benefit from hearing each other. We will not be able to rely on the FCC to play the convening function that Ofcom has played in assembling ideas.

Labels: media policy

Posted 10:56 PM by Ellen P. Goodman [link]

Comments:

Why, with the internet, do we need a "system of public service media"? Isn't that kind of like calling for a system of public service oxygen supply, when we've got the atmosphere?

Why subsidize something when the cost of supplying it is dropping towards zero?

What makes this especially ironic is that you posted this on the internet, without showing the slightest sign of being conscious of the contradiction.

# posted by

Brett : 6:49 AM

The internet is not the complete solution, but it can be a large part of the solution. Many readers have difficulty evaluating and locating content on line; the most visible web news sites are run by big media. Creating a public comment space organized by hyperlink from big media and government web sites would be a great improvement. Last January, a symposium on the same Barron article was held at Hofstra Univ School of Law. I suggested a number of practical partial solutions which Congress could take without tripping over the Supreme Court's pro-big media view of the First Amendment. See "A Listener’s Free Speech, A Reader’s Copyright", available at http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/. Also in the symposium issue of Hofstra Law Review (which may not be out yet).

# posted by

Malla Pollack : 12:21 PM

Why, with the internet, do we need a "system of public service media"? Isn't that kind of like calling for a system of public service oxygen supply, when we've got the atmosphere?

While I'm inclined to agree with you, you might want to re-think your analogy. We might very well want a public service oxygen supply if we thought the atmosphere was so polluted that it wasn't safe to breathe.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:16 PM

The media provides an extended visual means of information.

Let's take a fifteen minute piece on some PBS station. How exactly is this delivered equally online? First off, the number of people who have Internet service is not equivalent to those with t.v. service. PBS btw is free. The 'net generally is not.

Second, even if you have the Internet, having the means to have easily downloaded extended material is another story. It surely is not 'dropping to zero,' even for those who have it. Many don't have the high speed Internet required.

[One day, WiFi will be a public service. It simply isn't at the moment. Nor is computers per se.]

Finally, actually producing such material is not costfree. It is unclear how exactly the costs of let's say a documentary suddenly disappear if you make it available online as compared to a PBS station.

Thus, yes, a need is still there.

# posted by

Joe : 1:12 AM

Likewise, the article discusses various means of reaching "new media," including the Internet, and some of the challenges involved.

e.g. "So online material and even DVDs have to go through a very different rights clearance process."

And, "here are good reasons to keep our current broadcast-based system for the short-term until broadband penetration increases, but isn’t it time to design a public media policy for the post-broadcast era?"

Along with the fact that it is not 'cost free,' the first comment is the one that seems to have missed the point.

# posted by

Joe : 1:18 AM