| |
A. Organization of public broadcasting
The first way of ensuring that public broadcasting has enough
autonomy is to distinguish, in its administrative structure, between
two levels of management: day-to-day business, on the one hand,
and general policies and long-term decisions, on the other hand.
The board of directors is usually responsible for general policies.
For example, it approves the budget and policies of the public
broadcaster, and appoints its executive officers. The chief executive
officer is responsible for the management of day-to-day business,
whether it relates to human or material resources or programming
decisions. To avoid political interference with the day-to-day
affairs of public broadcasting, the CEO is accountable only to
the board of directors. The latter usually reports on general
activities to political authorities. In a certain way, the board
of directors and its chairman act as a buffer between the CEO
and the government. In Australia, the Board of Directors of the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) even has an obligation
to preserve the independence and integrity of the public broadcaster.
If the appointments of public broadcasting officials were political,
efforts to distinguish the roles of the chief executive officer
and the board of directors would be pointless. If these appointments
were made according to ideological affinities or as rewards to
political friends, they would undermine the very credibility of
public broadcasting. The managerial staff need to enjoy the utmost
confidence of the public. Experience, broadcasting knowledge and
the ability to act in the public interest are qualities required
to occupy these positions in the public service. In some countries,
mechanisms have been devised to guarantee the public broadcaster's
independence and credibility. In Germany, for example, the boards
of directors of the public broadcasters of the various Länder
or states are appointed by the state's broadcasting council, made
up mainly of non-government representatives of various political,
religious, economic and cultural groups. The state's broadcasting
council also elects the director of public broadcasting. In Great
Britain, the chairman of the BBC and members of the board of directors,
while appointed by the Prime Minister, themselves appoint the
chief executive officer of the public broadcaster, who, for all
practical purposes, manages the operations of the organization
and is accountable only to the board for the day-to-day management
of public broadcasting.
On the other hand, the length of mandates and terms of dismissal
of public broadcasting officials need to be determined so as not
to leave them at the mercy of government changes or the mood swings
of politicians. The grounds for dismissing a board member or the
chief executive officer must be set out very clearly to avoid
any arbitrary dismissal.
All these measures can help public broadcasting maintain a degree
of independence from government. Clearly, however, public broadcasters
must also report to political authorities on their general activities.
To whom and how?
B. Accountability
While it is difficult to conceive an ideal system applicable
everywhere, because of the difference in political culture from
one country to another, there are various means to provide public
broadcasting with a degree of independence from government, while
ensuring that it accounts for its actions. The goal is to make
the relationship between public broadcasting and government as
transparent as possible and discourage any attempt by government
to interfere.
In theory, the public broadcaster should be accountable only
to Parliament, not to the executive branch, at regular-usually
annual-intervals. Public representatives should be able to evaluate,
in the light of the annual report submitted by the public broadcaster,
its general performance and use of public funds over that period.
In practice, we know that in most cases, public broadcasting officials
maintain contact with the executive branch, if only through representatives
of the department responsible to Parliament for the public broadcaster.
However, if these informal contacts become too frequent, they
are contrary to the spirit of "arm's-length management"
and liable to undermine the credibility of public broadcasting.
Many countries also have a body responsible for regulating and
supervising broadcasting activities. Given a mandate by the legislator
to manage and supervise all or part of the broadcasting and telecommunications
system, this body can also be another buffer between government
and the public broadcaster. Indeed, it may be responsible for
evaluating the public broadcaster's fulfilment of its mandate.
Such is the case in Canada, where the regulating body issues the
public broadcaster's licences and peppers its decisions with various
comments on the way the public broadcaster should discharge its
functions. Such is also the case in France, where the Conseil
supérieur de l'audiovisuel evaluates, in its annual report,
how the public networks have fulfilled the obligations incumbent
upon them under the law or their terms of reference.
Some public broadcasters have also innovated these past few years
to try and create closer bonds with their publics. In Canada,
for example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has created
the position of ombudsman. Citizens can thus make their viewpoints
known to the ombudsman and submit their criticisms of the public
broadcaster, in the journalistic field. It is a particularly interesting
means for the public broadcaster to discharge its responsibility
to the public.
A final remark is called for. We must avoid, above all, making
the public broadcaster accountable to too many bodies. This could
become embarrassing-instructions might contradict each other-and
prompt the public broadcaster, in trying to satisfy everyone,
to no longer account for anything.
C. Evaluation
As a rule, any judgment of the overall performance of the public
broadcaster should take two elements into account: the fulfilment
of its mandate and missions, on the one hand, and public satisfaction,
on the other hand.
It goes without saying that the principles of universality, diversity
and, where applicable, distinctiveness must be respected. A public
broadcaster whose service is accessible only to a fraction of
the population or which, over time, abandons certain segments
of the public no longer respects its obligation to act as a public
forum. Are certain audiences neglected by the public broadcaster?
Does it offer all the different types of programs we would like
to see offered by a public broadcaster: newscasts, public affairs
programs, educational programs for youths or documentaries for
the general public, cultural programs, variety shows? Are these
featured in time slots that make it possible to reach the general
public? In short, does the public broadcaster fulfil all its obligations
in its programming?
We must design evaluation mechanisms for the public broadcaster
suited to its obligations, which are not those of commercial broadcasters.
This leads us to question ratings as a means of evaluation. While
they are useful to set the rates to be paid by advertisers on
commercial broadcasting stations, they are ill-suited for measuring
the public broadcaster's success in fulfilling its mandates and
missions. Because the public broadcaster's goal is not to attract
the widest possible audience at all times, we cannot use this
single tool to measure its audience. Ratings do not take into
account, for example, the diversity of the public. Thus, a station
may have high ratings, but attract the same audience at all times.
While we ask public broadcasters to address the entire public,
it is obvious that we cannot expect them to attract a majority
of listeners or viewers for programs that are sometimes deliberately
intended for only part of the public. The reach, that is, the
number of viewers and listeners reached by public broadcasting
in a given period, and the plurality of the audience are much
more useful criteria for judging the public broadcaster's performance.
|
|
