PBS/NPR vs other public broadcasting around the world

[e-dawg]

How would you compare PBS and NPR to other Public Broadcasting around the world? Is it at par with other public broadcasting? Is it more objective and more balance viewpoint than other public broadcasters out there. How would you compare to these public broadcasters like.....?

CBC/Radio-Canada - Canada
BBC - United Kingdom
RTE - Ireland
Radio France/France Television - France
RTVE - Spain
RTP - Portugal
KBS - South Korea
NHK - Japan
ABC/SBS - Australia
NRK - Norway
SVT/SVR - Sweden
DR-TV - Denmark
NOS/NED - The Nederlands
ARD(Regional)/ZDF - Germany
ORF - Austria
RAI - Italy
SSR-SRG - Switzerland
Russia TV, Russia
RTHK - Hong Kong
RTBF/VRT - Belgium
RTM - Malaysia
CT/CR - Czech Republic
TVNZ-RNZ - New Zealand
TVRI - Indonesia

 

[borderblaster]

No real comparison since many of those broadcasters started well before any private commercial broadcasting was allowed, as opposed to the U.S., where broadcasting always was in private hands until public broadcasting came along in the late 60s.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

No real comparison since many of those broadcasters started well before any private commercial broadcasting was allowed, as opposed to the U.S., where broadcasting always was in private hands until public broadcasting came along in the late 60s.

That is an interesting observation about the time-line and development of broadcasting economics. I am at a loss, however, to read into the observation what you may think are the results.

There are some university owned/operated stations here in the states that have a very long, long legacy of operating in a way that seemingly became the pattern... well at least the partial pattern... for the development of NPR.

And if we are going to have any meaningful discussion of these two differing time-lines, we should... in my opinion... keep in mind that some of the early operators and proponents of American broadcasting waded into the establishment of radio stations with community service, civic pride and a certain amount of ego in play: "Look at my nice little radio station. It is an example of who I am and what I want the community, maybe the world, to look like."

We will have to depend on our forum participants with experience in these other nations to tell us whether state operated broadcasting around the world has been the bureaucratic, hum-drum, lack-lustre process that we sometimes accuse them of, and whether people with the political clout also were able to get broadcasting to focus on community service, civic pride, and maybe a certain amount of ego from someone in power.

 

[aaronread]

I think you can't paint any of those outlets with such a broad (and frankly, misleading) brush as to say any one is more "objective" or "balanced" than any other. It's all about context. For example, I've had several UK expats who've told me they find the BBC World Service is excellent at reporting on "foreign news", which includes news about the USA...but it's not terribly good about reporting on UK news. Or UK news in a global context.

I think one could argue that NPR does a better job of domestic government reporting than most other state news agencies precisely because NPR is not a state news agency by any stretch of the imagination. They get so little funding from government sources that they can afford to attack the government, when necessary, with (for the most) impunity.

The downside is that the money's gotta come from somewhere, and part of that somewhere is corporate sponsorships. I think NPR does an excellent job trying to separate funding from editorial but I think it's an impossible task. If you know your paycheck depends on getting corporate money, how can you NOT feel a little more restrained about being known as an "attack dog" against the major corporations? That's where government-funded organizations, like the BBC, can really shine.

OTOH, you can have the worst of both worlds, like Italy, where corporations and government are essentially one and the same, and for years you had one guy who was Prime Minister and controlled over 75% of all broadcast media (IIRC).

 

[TheBigA]

Many of the foreign systems you list are totally government supported. The US system isn't. The money comes from a collection of sources, some federal or state government, some educational institution, some grant money, some corporate funding, and some foundation money. Throw it all in a pot and stir. The federal money is kept separate from the rest by CPB. The CPB money goes to stations, who then pass it to NPR in the way of program fees. The other sources go direct. The idea that federal money is tainted or affects the content at NPR ignores the role CPB plays.

Objectivity at NPR is often a function of the interaction between the reporter and the editorial process. The reporter presents the story to the editors, and they take it apart for facts and bias. No one at NPR has gets their stories on the air unedited. Even commentators must be edited before they go on air. Live two-ways are outlined before they happen. I don't know if foreign broadcasters put their reporters through that kind of process. But it's a process that was developed at the newspaper level, and is still done that way at NPR.

 

[borderblaster]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there was little to no local programming, at least in most of Europe, before private broadcasting was allowed, where in the U.S., we had local stations, even if many of them were carrying network fare. Canada, Australia and others had a mixed system, with for example, the CBC growing right along with private broadcasting

 

[aaronread]

"Local programming" in Europe is a little different when you're talking about entire countries that're smaller than New England. ;D It's a little easier to have national network programming when it only takes a half-dozen transmitters...at most...to cover the entire country. It would take hundreds, maybe thousands, of transmitters to cover the bulk of the US population, never mind the CONUS landmass.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

"Local programming" in Europe is a little different when you're talking about entire countries that're smaller than New England. ;D It's a little easier to have national network programming when it only takes a half-dozen transmitters...at most...to cover the entire country. It would take hundreds, maybe thousands, of transmitters to cover the bulk of the US population, never mind the CONUS landmass.

For comparison, Irish national broadcaster RTE has the equivalent of 7 class B FMs and several dozen translator class facilities (for each of its program services)

I estimate (very roughly) that covering CONUS with 60 dBu would require 1000 class B FMs.

 

[w9wi]

I estimate (very roughly) that covering CONUS with 60 dBu would require 1000 class B FMs.

That estimate looks pretty good from here.

The land area of the continental U.S. is estimated at 7,700,000 km^2.

According to the FCC's online propagation curves, the 60dBu radius of a 50kw/150m full Class B FM extends 52.2km. That makes the 60dBu coverage area 8,559km^2.

Divide the figures & it suggests 900 Class B's would be required to cover the continental U.S.. An additional 250 would be required to cover Alaska and Hawaii.

Of course, that ignores terrain and assumes the country can be covered without overlap or gaps by stations with circular service areas.

 

[Ai4i]

CBC/Radio-Canada - Canada...TVRI - Indonesia

Just want to add my favorite to your list, Radio Netherlands.

Yes, size-wise, many of those national pubcasters are akin to State nets such as MPR and cover fewer listeners than WNYC, but many also have much less private competition, some have more.

 

[Ai4i]

Sorry, I didn't realize you meant their domestic public networks.
RNW, probably in concert with the domestic Dutch service(s) does cooperative programming with EBU members, as well as with NPR, APM, WNYC/WQXR, and WFMT in the United DStates.