*BHS*

2.1 Key Contemporary Debates Related to PSB

The future of public broadcasting depends on reconsidering both its purpose and its capacity to adjust to new media trends in the world of personalized media consumption. Indeed, some new trends for PSB identified in the European Broadcasting Union’s Vision 2020 report[4] include the abundance of information and of channels for communication, audience fragmentation, a changed notion of broadcasting, state withdrawal from media, the contested role of PSM in the converged media sector, and insufficiently secure political independence. It is the capacity of PSB to navigate through these challenges that will determine its fate.

 

The contemporary debate about the remit of PSBs revolves around the question of their role and mission in a networked society and how to use digital platforms to reach their audiences and regain trust, while coexisting with private media companies. Digital technology has transformed the way people consume media, with smartphones on the rise and TV and radio generally losing their audience. For PSB, new technological development requires a “clearer definition of such broadcasting”[5] and of its public service ethos. Internally, modern PSBs must make changes to their own programming and ethos in order to underscore their legitimacy and the role they play in society. Retaining universality, the public interest, political independence, and quality programming is related to increasing the trust and reach of audiences. Bardoel and Lowe consider it necessary to “renew the public service ethos and revitalize the public service mission for a multimedia and polymedia environment.”[6]

 

Many make the case for PSB’s continued relevance and sources for its legitimacy, and functioning and stable PSB remains a crucial element in many liberal democracies, especially in the EU. Research has found that PSB news is generally more democratic and critical than private media, that well-funded PSB has led to a rise in the standards of journalism in the media market in general, and that countries with sustainable PSBs have “better informed citizens, with better knowledge of politics and current affairs.”[7] The public goals of public service broadcasting, therefore, remain clear, though how well PSBs adapt to the changing environment determines whether they are able to keep playing a relevant and important public role.

The issue of the ethos of public service feeds into the question of whether serving the public interest should be determined by market requirements or by an independent broadcaster that would cater directly to the public. Along those lines of argument, Donders divides the current approaches to PSB into a ‘market failure approach’ and ‘a social responsibility approach.’[8] The first aims to limit PSB services to those areas or domains that are not provided for in the market by private competitors such as private television stations or cable and IPTV operators – thus PSBs serve to compensate for what the free market fails to deliver to citizens/consumers. The second approach or perspective on the future of PSB is considered social democratic, and heavily relies on Garnham’s (1990) argument that the values promoted by PSB should not be left or determined by the market itself. Instead, PSB ought to have a wider perspective and provide the public access to a variety of information and programming – not merely those missing on the market.[9] Which approach is taken will inevitably have fundamental implications on the very nature of PSB in a given case.

Tied directly to the concept of the public interest is the changing notion of the public and the public sphere itself. The emergence of plural public spheres has replaced the notion of the public as a single and coherent whole. Splichal situates the principle of ‘publicness’ or ‘publicity’ as  a universal good related to early concepts of press freedom, arguing that public service media were always meant to serve a democratizing function, beginning in an era when newspapers had fallen under the control of political and commercial interests.[10] This sense that PSB is a form of direct communication between citizens and the ruling classes is echoed in today’s concepts of the public. Dalgrehn draws on Habermas’ account to define the public sphere as a space that allows “the circulation of information, ideas, debates” and “the formation of political will (i.e., public opinion),”[11] recognizing that the public sphere in modern times consists of plural spaces. The circulation of ideas in the public sphere implies not only a one-way transfer, but communication between citizens and those in power – something which many argue is precisely the function of PSB. Splichal argues that the ideal form of ‘publicness’ has never been realized in PSB, and that the contemporary collapsing of the notions of a public and an audience leads to a “hybrid or pseudo-public sphere, which is a commercialized version of the public sphere.”[12] Modern PSB, however, must take pluralism into account if it is truly to cater to the public in a meaningful way.

The conception of PSB as a proxy ‘town hall’ where democratic debate can take place necessitates the will and effort to foster this sort of dialogue. Katrin Voltmer claims that “objective journalism and unbiased information are crucial for developing a public sphere where different voices can be heard and listened to, and where compromises and shared visions can be forged.[13] Therefore, the existence of a space for democratic debate “that is capable of bringing together different discourses requires political and civic will”[14] and does not emerge naturally, but must consciously be built and fostered.

Digital technology has transformed the way people consume media, leading to audience fragmentation – a series of demographic and social changes which result in diverse audiences and media consumers who are keen for more choice, as well as for mobility and personal control of their media. These ‘digitally empowered’[15] consumers seek a participatory role in media, personalized content, and use multiple platforms and devices to access content. This means a significant shift in the way that PSB relates to its audience, but also provides PSBs with a particular role. The EBU argues that with commercial media increasingly providing individualized content for niche audiences, PSB continues its important role as a universal ‘media for everyone’ – accessible and available – while simultaneously developing innovative ways to plug into an increasingly networked society and communicate with diverse audiences.[16] Some worry that fragmentation may affect the structure of democracy itself or the ‘cohesion of the nation-state’ (Katz 1996) due to the loss of the ‘town square’ dynamic that PSB once offered.[17] This social polarization is particularly threatening for societies with a less well-defined commons, where the state has failed to provide universal rights or good and services, such as those in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in states with pronounced ethnic divisions.[18] 

Along with audience fragmentation, funding is a crucial issue in PSB sustainability, as is its relationship with commercial media. The pattern of abandoning or restructuring the license fee as a model of funding has been seen in the practice of European countries, with taxation becoming preferable due to the greater ease of collecting funding, though it does entail the changing of laws and fine-tuning of tax policy.[19] In the EU, all member states are required to ensure funding for PSBs but “such funding cannot adversely affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest.”[20] The European Union allows state financing of PSBs (through direct taxation or license fees) only if the PSB has a clearly defined legal remit which is monitored at a national level by an independent authority, and if PSB funding is proportionate – meaning that it does not distort competition with private broadcasters.[21] This implies that in the EU, market distortion is considered legitimate “only when it meets objectives greater than the goal of market integration and is based upon an objective observation of market failure,”[22] usually measured by public value tests.[23] However, some argue that commercial broadcasters “want public service media regulated in ways and to an extent that would make them non-competitive, non-developmental, and ultimately insolvent."[24] 

Given technological developments, PSBs, many of which were originally developed as analogue broadcasting media, face several challenges. A 2016 Reuters Institute for Journalism report framed the three key challenges for PSBs as the following. First, adapting organizations to a digital media environment, and using mobile platforms and social media more effectively.[25] Second, convergence involves changing internal cultures of public media institutions, such as the dynamics of production, featuring mixed newsrooms with fewer divisions between TV, radio, and web. Third, digital production, as an advanced step of digitalization as a whole, requires a rethinking of production logics, updated training for employees, and new broadcasting equipment.

 

Digital television introduces technical innovations while the audience benefits in the quality of the signal and choice.  At the same time, digital technology creates a highly competitive environment, and many challenges that each country has to deal with. That is why all public broadcasters had to made serious changes to adjust their programing and approach to the audience to this new technology.  Apart from improving the quality of broadcasting, digital signals offer audiences on-demand viewing, interactive features, the option to consume media online, and increased choice and content in general. In all the countries where the process of digitalization is complete, citizens have access to multichannel TV, whether several dozen channels on digital terrestrial television (DTT) or several hundred on satellite and cable distribution platforms. At the same time, digitalization makes it easy for telecom operators to launch IPTV platforms to offer television services to their subscribers, though this is happening in BiH despite the lack of favorable technological conditions. Due to modern technologies, many households in Europe today have access to a range of nonlinear services such as video on demand (VOD) and over the top (OTT) services, while broadband connections are much improved and the internet offers an enormous selection of content.

New media and digital convergence presents a set of issues to PSB, including the internal culture of PSBs (including mixed newsrooms), digital production, mobile platforms, and the effective use of social media. The concept of the public sphere in a networked society is continually changing, which requires shifts in mindset among not only PSB management but editors as well. Suggested internal conditions for successful PSBs include “a pro-digital culture where new media are seen as opportunities rather than as threats and senior editorial leaders who have clearly and publicly underlined the need to continually change the organization to adapt to a changing media environment.”[26] 

As many reports have suggested, the shift to digital media will entail not only a change in ethos but a restructuring of PSBs’ internal governance to respond to ‘new media ecologies.’ The Council of Europe recommends that these changes in PSB media governance must occur on three levels: structural (the provision of funding, political independence), effective management, and an open and responsive institutional culture.[27] On the level of formal structures, any PSB governing body must first of all secure its independence from the government, without which it cannot “maintain its focus as purely to serve the public interest.” PSBs must also be accountable to the State and other stakeholders through a well-defined accountability framework. Effective management has to do with maximizing efficiency and effectiveness in terms of resources, staff, and technological innovations. As for the internal culture of PSBs, the CoE recommends a set of core values: transparency, openness, responsiveness, and responsibility, which should reflect their own social context but define the principles that the PSB’s future is based on.[28] Michal Glowacki argues that PSBs ought to find ways to include citizen partition in PSB governance, including in decision-making processes.[29] 

 

2.2 PSB Issues Specific to Post-communist and Western Balkan Countries

Former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe have an additional set of issues to cope with when it comes to the creation of sustainable, future-oriented PSB. Politicization of the media is one of the most troubling trends for PSBs in post-communist contexts during the process of transition from state to public service broadcasting. A noted trend in some of these countries in recent years is the rise of authoritarian governments (e.g., Hungary, Macedonia, Serbia) which see the PSB system as one of their main tools in achieving their political objectives. Decreasing media independence corresponds closely with state capture by political parties,[30] where public service media are often largely reduced to a subservient relationship to the governing party.

 

In many post-communist countries in South-Eastern Europe, political parties that gained power after the fall of communism continue to rule through patronage structures. Their dominance over the media is a key aspect of attendant state capture, and weak rule of law.[31] The period of transition from state broadcasting to PSB led to increased political control over the media by political parties once the state had given up direct control.[32] Today, the media in most of the former socialist countries do not play the role of a forum for public debate but are rather tools of political elites and interest groups.[33] Jakubowicz notes that in post-communist countries, political elites’ power over media results in Potemkin institutions designed “to satisfy the requirement of external actors, such as international donors” [34] which function only as de jure organizations that cannot fulfill their goals.[35]

 

State capture by political parties in Central and Eastern Europe is the subject of a good deal of research, offering lessons for the Bosnian context. Berend and Bugarič’s research on post-accession Slovenia, for example, can easily be adapted to the broader Western Balkan context. They describe a situation in which “formal democratic rules and institutions often operate in the shadow of informal networks and practices” where a “myriad of interest groups, political parties and individuals use these networks and practices to extract resources from the state.”[36] In turn, these informal networks and the entanglement of political and business elites resulted in ‘crony capitalism,’[37] defined as an “economic system in which family members and friends of government officials and business leaders are given unfair advantages in the form of jobs, loans, etc.”[38] This context evidently has consequences for the ability of PSBs to act independently from state and political structures and thus fulfil their public role.

 

2.3 Methodology

The methodology used in this study was based on a mix of primary and secondary research, using triangulation and various data sources to verify our findings. Our sample aimed at interviewing those who work for each of the three PSBs on the editorial, managerial, and journalistic levels, independent analysts from each entity, as well as those from relevant institutions such as the Communications Regulatory Agency. Some of our interlocutors were people who were directly involved in the original process of PSB reforms. We contacted potential interlocutors by email and followed up by phone, and the 15 semi-structured interviews we conducted took place in the spring of 2016 in Sarajevo and Banja Luka.[39]

Though the informants were familiar with the questions, their responses were not overly guided, in order to obtain full and unbiased information. With all of them, we tried to investigate the future of public broadcasting in BiH. It proved particularly difficult to schedule interviews with managers and editors from the public broadcasters, who avoided our interview requests or simply declined them.[40] 

The interviews were conducted while the state broadcaster was on the verge of being shut down due to financial difficulties. It was also an election year, which tends to affect the media scene in general. At the same time, the media in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2016 are under the influence of the ruling political parties, and journalism has become a more dangerous profession, with different organizations noticing an increasing number of attacks on them every day. The responses of those we interviewed were largely shaped by this atmosphere.

Data collected from the interviews was entered into a matrix and categorized by question and theme, which gave us insight into which questions had a unanimous response and which garnered fewer consensuses.

Desk research combined analyses of legal documents, available reports, policy papers and academic literature. Particular attention was dedicated to the analysis of media legislation and media reports about the entire process of PSB reforms in the country.