Media Power and Plurality
Media Power and Plurality
复制标题
媒体力量和多元化
DOI：
10.1057/9781137522849_4
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Barnett S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barnett S
在关于多元性的讨论（和文献）中比较被忽视的领域之一是公共广播服务的潜在和实际贡献。虽然PSB的支持者认为，它代表了一种必要的干预，对更多元化的媒体生态做出了完全积极的贡献，但批评者（主要来自私营部门的竞争对手）提出了两个相互关联的反对意见：首先，公共服务广播公司的本质是只提供同质的、中央主导的新闻议程；第二，这种公共干预可能或实际上扭曲了媒体市场，因此实际上起到了抑制多样性的作用。此外，有人认为，在一些民主文化不太发达的国家，公共资金更有可能使这些广播公司更容易受到国家或精英的压力，从而进一步缩小了实现更大多元化的潜力。本章探讨了围绕PSB对多元化的贡献的辩论，特别关注英国最近的政策辩论以及BBC的作用和贡献。它首先着眼于当前多元辩论的背景，这些辩论植根于2012年底报道的英国新闻界的文化、道德和实践的莱韦森调查，以及一些私营部门利益如何重新解释政府的沉默和无效反应，从而表明任何补救结构行动都应该集中在“主导”bbc上，而不是过度集中的私营部门。然后，它研究了英国监管机构ofcom最初提出的不合适的衡量过程如何无意中加剧了这种对多元性的刻意重新解释——这表明电视而不是印刷、在线或社交媒体仍然主导着国家政治对话——以及
One of the more neglected areas in discussions (and literature) on plurality is the potential and actual contribution of public service broadcasting (PSB). While supporters of PSB argue that it represents an essential intervention and wholly positive contribution to a more pluralistic media ecology, critics (mostly from private sector competitors) counter with two interlinked objections: first, that by their very nature public service broadcasters offer only a homogeneous and centrally dictated news agenda; and second, that this public intervention either potentially or actually distorts the media market and thus in fact serves to suppress diversity. Moreover, it is argued that in some countries with less developed democratic cultures, public funding is more likely to render such broadcasters more susceptible to state or elite pressure, thereby narrowing the potential for greater pluralism still further. This chapter examines the debate around the contribution of PSB to plurality, focusing specifically on recent policy debates in the UK and the role and contribution of the BBC. It looks first at the background to current plurality debates rooted in the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, ethics, and practice of the UK press, which reported in late 2012, and how muted and ineffectual government responses have in turn been reinterpreted by some private sector interests to suggest that any remedial structural action should be focused on a ‘dominant’BBC rather than an overly concentrated private sector. It then examines how this deliberate reinterpretation of plurality has been unintentionally exacerbated by ill-suited measurement processes originally proposed by the UK regulator Ofcom–suggesting that television rather than print, online or social media still dominates the national political conversation–and