Communications and Media

For very many years public service broadcasting has been central to media both in Britain and many other countries. This system has been the model of radio and television broadcasting not only in Britain, but in many other parts of the world. When broadcasting gained roots after the World War 1, the state had to take full control. It was the role of the government to decide how the media would be organized, financed and regulated. There were three options at the time. The first one was to make broadcasting to be market-led. The second option was to have broadcasting totally controlled by the government. The third option was to have an independent body, but one that would allow the state to control broadcasting. During this period, there was need to establish a state controlled broadcasting system. This is the genesis of some of the television broadcasting channels like the BBC.

Nevertheless, currently there is no broadcaster who focuses on addressing a single national audience or issue. The current media is one that addresses a wide range of audience that represents a range of political, cultural and religious issues. Television has become increasingly competitive with the audience taken as consumers rather than citizens. The public is willing to pay the cost of being served by the media. Public service lost its base a long time ago. It is argued by some scholars like Margaret Thatcher that there is no longer a thing like society, and what are there in its place are individuals. It is against such notions that Rupert Murdoch made a speech during the Edinburgh Television Festival in the year 1989 (Rayner, p 205). He observed that for a long time, the public could not be trusted to choose what to watch. He began his speech with the claim that in every area of economy where there is competition, it is preferable to monopoly. Competition keeps prices low and quality high monopoly does the opposite. Why should television be exempt from these laws of supply and demand (Rayner, p 207). This is a question that Rupert Murdoch as well as some of the established broadcasters tries to address. It is also the focus of this paper.

Competition allows people to select what they want to acquire or consume. Monopoly on the other hand, forces people to consume what is already chosen and delivered to them. Competition makes it necessary for supply to be innovative, failure to which they loose their competitive power. Monopoly on the other hand, gives the sole provider the chance to force outdated products the consumers. This is not the case with television as addressed in the paper. There is an agreement among the established broadcasters that the law of supply and demand cannot apply to television broadcasting. The reason given for this agreement is that clearly free and competitive television will bring to an end the concept of quality television. They have also agreed with the fact that multi-channel choice equals multi-channel drive. The most common phrase that is used in support of this argument is wall-to-wall Dallas. Besides the fact that the BBC is willing to air Dallas during prime time and besides the economic fact that fifteen channels were willing to air Dallas, fourteen out of the fifteen would go be ruined very fast. There is an assumption that exists behind the development of broadcasters case. It has been assumed for a long time that public television is capable of offering quality broadcasting. This is true considering the fact that it is channeled towards some central important issues that are provided in a quality manner unlike in the current competitive environment (Rayner, p 208). 

The definition and taste in broadcasting becomes the problematic issue here. One of the most appropriate definitions of the term public service broadcast is any broadcasting system that offers what is required by the public at a fee that is affordable to the public. Rupert Murdoch claims that quality is subjective. Most of what is claimed to be quality television is prejudices and contents that further the interests of like-minded individuals who control the broadcasting system. This is what television considers operating at its best. Most of the current television, especially the British television is producing what the public regards as the world best-quality television. There have been a lot of televisions that are given to prove this argument and the same are repeated over and over again. Rupert Murdoch suggests that this case is weaker than the public is made to believe. The competition brought about in the market has caused broadcasting to become lower in quality (Rayner, p 209). 

Given the fact that the public has to pay a considerably high price for quality television, what is being offered due to competition is far from being quality. The current television is offering variety, no doubt. There are programs in situational comedies, sports and other popular programs. Apart from the fact that competition has enabled variety of programming, the programs are very far from being quality in international standards. The current broadcasting system has adverse effects on the public. They are offering television that is obsessed with class. This is not the kind of broadcasting that can be claimed to be quality brought about by competition. Television that is dominated by anti-commercial approaches and that tends to hark back to the past is not what is best for the society
There is a claim in the laws of supply and demand that the current system boosts innovative risk-talking. It is argued that a market-driven system cannot be in a position to finance all sorts of quality programming that is currently practiced. The argument is that without public-television, it would not be possible to offer the public the kind of programming that is currently available. This argument is supported from a recent conference organized by the Broadcasting standards Council. The council claimed that without public-service television there would be no Dennis Potter plays on television (Rayner, p 209). The counterargument to this is that television broadcasting cannot and should not be left entirely to the market. The claim here is that television should shift from the present system of public television to social market. The public television is not an entirely bad idea, but it is a move that is capable of offering variety and not quality. This means that there is need to free television (Rayner, p 210). 

The freeing of broadcasting is a key step to the information age. It can be looked at as one of the promises of democratic revolution. Making the television sector a free one, means that the system is getting free of the problem of scarcity. That it will be made free of the narrow suite of cultural values. Making the system free will ensures freedom of entry by any private or public television which is convinced that it has something that the public would love to know. Making the market free and competitive will ensure that both the mass and minority viewers are catered for. This will also ensure that television broad casting is removed from the hands of the minority that controls it, into the hands of those who are meant to control it, the public (Rayner, p 210).

Murdochs argument against the public broadcasting is that it militates against viewers choice. This means that the consumers are not given a chance to choose and are provided with what is considered important to them. He adds that television should be market-led, citing the example of the market-led system in the United States. This kind of system has enable quality and choice of programming. The current programming especially in Britain has been dominated by politicians who believe in value in terms of money only. This means that the money has been central to the control of what people should or should not view. This is what has been caused by the current money-driven television. It is important to protect television and general media by imposing checks and balances against the concentration of television power that has a negative effect in the society (Rayner, p 211).

The stand of this paper is on the fact that competition in television, does not operate in the same way as in the laws of demand and supply. In television, competition lowers the quality of broadcasting. The competitors in television are only concerned with the profits they can get from the viewers, even if it means providing them with low quality programs. This however does not mean that the broadcasting should continue being under the control of the state, where the viewers have no choice on what is given to them. This is a call for the freedom of broadcasting, only with checks and balances that ensures the quality of television (Rayner, p 212).     
 
Conclusion
Despite the fact that broadcasting is moving from the state-controlled monopoly system to a market-driven system, it is important to look at the quality of television. Against the laws of supply and demand, where competition leads to better quality at low prices, while monopoly works in the opposite direction, television does not operate the same way. Competition in television ensures variety but the quality is affected. It is important, even as television moves from public service to market-driven, for there to be rules and regulations that will provide checks and balances. These rules and regulations will ensure standardization of broadcasting and thus quality. Competition in television provides innovative programs that the viewers love to watch. They are not in any way concerned with the quality. As long as they are getting money from what they offer, quality is not a major concern.