Universality, diversity and independence remain today, like yesterday, essential goals for public broadcasting. To these three principles must be added a fourth, particularly important when the public broadcaster exists side by side with commercial broadcasters: distinctiveness.

1. Universality

Public broadcasting must be accessible to every citizen throughout the country. This is a deeply egalitarian and democratic goal to the extent that it puts all citizens on the same footing, whatever their social status or income. It forces the public broadcaster to address the entire population and seek to be "used" by the largest possible number. This does not mean that public broadcasting should try to optimize its ratings at all times, as commercial broadcasting does, but rather that it should endeavour to make the whole of its programming accessible to the whole population. This does not merely involve technical accessibility, but ensuring that everyone can understand and follow its programming. As well as democratic, public broadcasting programming must be "popular," not in the pejorative sense that some give this term, but in the sense that the public forum it provides should not be restricted to a minority. Thus, public broadcasting, while it should promote culture, should not become a ghetto constantly frequented by the same group of initiates. "The ghettoisation of public service broadcasting is a non-starter" 3, as the 1996 report of the European Parliament Committee of Culture, Youth, Education, Sports and the Media (Tongue Report) clearly states, opposing the notion that public networks should broadcast only the type of programming scorned by the commercial sector.

2. Diversity

The service offered by public broadcasting should be diversified, in at least three ways: in terms of the genres of programs offered, the audiences targeted, and the subjects discussed. Public broadcasting must reflect the diversity of public interests by offering different types of programs, from newscasts to light programs. Some programs may be aimed at only part of the public, whose expectations are varied. In the end, public broadcasting should reach everyone, not through each program, but through all programs and their diversity. Finally, through the diversity of the subjects discussed, public broadcasting can also seek to respond to the varied interests of the public and so reflect the whole range of current issues in society. Diversity and universality are complementary in that producing programs intended sometimes for youth, sometimes for older people and sometimes for other groups ultimately means that public broadcasting appeals to all.

3. Independence

Public broadcasting is a forum where ideas should be expressed freely, where information, opinions and criticisms circulate. This is possible only if the independence-therefore, the freedom-of public broadcasting is maintained against commercial pressures or political influence. Later we will examine specific means for guaranteeing respect for this principle and ensuring the credibility of public broadcasting in the eyes of the public. Indeed, if the information provided by the public broadcaster were influenced by government, people would no longer believe in it. Likewise, if the public broadcaster's programming were designed for commercial ends, people would not understand why they are being asked to finance a service whose programs are not substantially different from the services provided by private broadcasting. This latter example, by the way, leads us to lay down another principle that is particularly important in countries where public broadcasting exists side by side with private commercial services.

4. Distinctiveness

Distinctiveness requires that the service offered by public broadcasting distinguish itself from that of other broadcasting services. In public-service programming-in the quality and particular character of its programs-the public must be able to identify what distinguishes this service from other services. It is not merely a matter of producing the type of programs other services are not interested in, aiming at audiences neglected by others, or dealing with subjects ignored by others. It is a matter of doing things differently, without excluding any genre. This principle must lead public broadcasters to innovate, create new slots, new genres, set the pace in the audiovisual world and pull other broadcasting networks in their wake.

It is also essential that the legislation, the charter or terms of reference defining the public broadcaster's mandate do so in general terms and avoid tying it down to instructions that are too detailed and exacting, so that programmers enjoy all the freedom necessary to their vital independence. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Royal Charter sets out the BBC's objectives, internal organization and type of financing, while the agreement signed by the broadcaster and the minister responsible lays down its missions, in general terms, by emphasizing standards of quality, unbiased information, and diverse programming.

What type of financing should be favoured for public broadcasting? This question is important since the sources of financing may enhance or diminish the public broadcaster's ability to carry out its mandate and missions.

License fees-a tax linked to the ownership of receivers-have been the historical form of financing of public broadcasting. In principle, they create a direct relationship between the broadcaster and its public, the citizens. Consequently, license fees appear as the ideal form of financing. But, as European Audiovisual Observatory economist André Lange4 points out, while license fees remain the most widespread form of financing in Europe, at least, they are far from being the only one; none are levied in many countries, where public funds are instead allotted as subsidies. License fees are less widespread outside of Europe. In Canada and Australia, for instance, public broadcasting is financed out of the State's general funds. Indeed, a cursory examination of the various national situations shows a wide variety of situations; few countries rely on a single source of financing. The BBC and Japan's NHK, financed solely through license fees, are exceptions. We see more and more a mix of public and commercial financing. Thus, these past few years, many public television broadcasters have opened up to advertising or resorted to it more, created new subscriber services or launched wholly commercial activities to finance their main service.

Is reliance on commercial sources of financing acceptable for public broadcasting, considering it owes its existence to the desire to shelter this cultural sector from commercial pressures? The easiest answer perhaps, and also the most realistic, particularly as regards advertising income, is to say that it may be acceptable provided it does not interfere with the public-service obligations incumbent upon public broadcasting. But beyond a certain level, if the need for commercial financing becomes a dominant concern for the public broadcaster and changes the nature of the programming, we should obviously be concerned. Others, to the contrary, warn against advertising phobia. A French Senate report points out that to the younger generation, the absence of advertising would seem suspicious, "a sign of something elitist, therefore boring, even square."5 The report considers that advertising, "used in moderation," prevents public networks from cutting themselves off from the rest of the audiovisual landscape, while showing their difference.

On the other hand, what may be harmful to public broadcasting is to be forced into a very competitive position and have to hustle for advertising revenue to ensure its survival. The temptation then is very strong to stray from public-service obligations and produce the same type of programming as private competitors. A detailed study commissioned by the BBC on the comparative situation of public broadcasters in 20 countries on four continents shows that "the higher the advertising figure as a proportion of total revenues, the less distinctive a public broadcaster is likely to be."6 According to the same study, license fee financing, on the contrary, guarantees the public broadcaster the stable financial base it needs to plan, and also to take certain risks and devise more "distinctive" forms of programming.

The authors of this study have drawn from their research some characteristics that are essential to the financing of public broadcasting, if we want it to play the role intended by its designers:

• Financing must be substantial so that public broadcasting can be a counterweight to commercial services and not be confined to a marginal role.
  
  
• Financing must be independent from both commercial and political pressures; this is where licence fees come into their own; because of their automatic character, financing is not subject to the moods of government or economic fluctuations.
  
  
• Financing must be predictable; its stability and multi-year character must therefore be assured. If no mechanism guarantees the stability of public funding, for example, there is a real danger of seeing financing become a means of influencing or controlling the public broadcaster.
  
  
• Financing, finally, must be growing according to the broadcaster's costs, simple and equitable, in order to avoid political controversy. As the Tongue Report stresses, there is no perfect plan to finance public broadcasting. Nevertheless, we must insure that financing, like the mandate and missions entrusted to the public broadcaster, is in line with the principles underlying the existence of this broadcaster and, above all, guarantees its independence from the political and commercial pressures characteristic of State and commercial broadcasting.