Lagging behind are the United States and other countries with policies that initially favored commercial broadcasters:ĭespite the disadvantages that public broadcasters have faced in the United States, there may still be a way to encourage public broadcasting. Unsurprisingly, Britain and similar countries now have the highest current audience share for public broadcasting, followed by the mixed system of Canada, which is present in Australia and Japan as well. Finally, the dominant interests in each country were able to influence government officials as they developed new broadcasting policies. Technical expertise developed within the existing broadcasters, leaving them better able to pioneer new technology, such as television. Listeners grew used to and supported the status quo. In all three countries, the early move created a self-reinforcing system. However, the commercial broadcasters had enough influence to retain their existing frequencies. But when the government regulated the industry in the early 1930s, it moved to counter American cultural influence and to improve service of rural Canada by creating a national broadcaster. Commercial broadcasters dominated the early development of radio. When Congress did finally move to regulate the industry under the Radio Act of 1927, the regulations sharply favored commercial broadcasters and banished public broadcasters to the dusty low-power corners of the spectrum.Ĭanada’s policy found a middle ground. In contrast, the United States declined the opportunity to develop a national public broadcaster and let commercial broadcasters dominate early development, although thriving non-profit and public interest sectors survived into the late 1920s. With a monopoly, the public broadcaster easily dominated early development and gained a massive first-mover advantage in broadcasting. For example, Britain awarded a public national broadcaster a monopoly on the airwaves, which froze out commercial broadcasters from the early development of radio. The bad news is that the time to implement the solution was in 1927.Īs I argue here, the initial conditions under which broadcasting systems formed in the 1920s and 1930s determined how much sway public broadcasters have nearly a century later. The good news is there is a proven way to ensure a long-term influence and a large audience of public broadcasting. However, that happy result leaves the problem that Americans rarely consume public broadcasting. In this case, public broadcasters would actually worsen political inequality – not a catchy slogan for an NPR pledge drive.įortunately, I find that watching public broadcasting reduces knowledge gaps between rich and poor people: causation remain.īut even if public broadcasting increases knowledge, this may be less salutary news if this increase is concentrated among the relatively rich, well-educated people who already are politically knowledgeable. That both studies generated similar results at different points in time, using different data, with different countries and different methods strengthens the argument that public broadcasting increases political knowledge – although questions about correlation vs. conducted their study, I independently found that across 14 western European countries, watching public broadcasting increases correct answers to political knowledge questions by roughly 12 percent, but only in countries that subsidize public broadcasting. But I have a modest proposal that might help.Īs Soroka et al. As a result, public broadcasting in our country has always faced an impossible uphill fight against established commercial networks. However, historical development of national broadcasting systems awarded first-mover advantages to public broadcasters in most European countries and commercial broadcasters in the United States. Watching public broadcasting not only seems to increase political knowledge, but also reduces knowledge gaps between haves and have-nots. My own research concurs with and extends both Soroka and colleagues’ conclusions and Sides’ practical criticism. In his comments, John Sides noted that the problem in the United States is that few people watch public broadcasting, limiting any practical benefits. Last week, The Monkey Cage highlighted new research by Stuart Soroka and colleagues, suggesting that watching public broadcasting increases political knowledge. This is a guest post by Patrick O’Mahen, a fellow at at the University of Michigan’s Weiser Center.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |