Introduction to key terms and definitions
2.4 Introduction to key terms and definitions
We need to start this investigation with a clear definition of the state.
2.4.1 State
The origins of the state go back to the division of labour; this produced a class of administrators who were freed from primary labour. The state can
British public service broadcasting
be seen as the apex of a class structure, having the right to limit citizens’ freedom, and ultimately having the right to imprison them through the judicial system. This chapter will be concerned with the policy making and cultural activities of the state, rather than its repressive role (although some might see these activities as repressive in another way).
2.4.2 Distinction between state and government
There is an important distinction between government (an executive body) and the state (which administers affairs). The state is seen as providing continuity, but government will change (although to some extent this view altered during the 1980s, when senior civil servants changed more frequently). Apart from the policy-making areas of government, the state is more traditionally seen to be composed of the judiciary, the clergy and the military, and sometimes the mass media are included in the definition. Government is advised by the civil service (state), and is therefore heavily dependent on it (see Yes Minister or Yes, Prime Minister! for an exaggerated television representation of this).
The state can be seen as self-sustaining and, although dependent on primary producers (in Marxist terms), separate from society and therefore not directly accountable to it. Broadcasting in the UK has been defined from this perspective – i.e. in a neopluralist model of the media, media producers are considered as a professional elite with a degree of autonomy and independence from the state but working within guidelines, the law and, in the case of terrestrial broadcasters, a charter from the state.
2.4.3 Distinction between nation and state
One definition of nationalism is that each nation should have its own state – i.e. each cultural group, each race etc. This would mean, for example, a Scottish state or a Native American state. We can see, therefore, that nation and state do not necessarily go together (even though we may be moving slightly closer to this in the UK, with a Scottish and Welsh assembly). In his
book Nations and Nationalism 3 , Gellner claims that nationalism is the dominant ideology of the twentieth century; this he attributes to the collapse of imperialism. He suggests language is the key to nationality and identity; a shared language will produce a shared identity.
In Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies 4 , John Hartley adopts
a different approach to the concept of ‘nation’. He suggests that not only is nation not defined by the state (territory in this case), but it is also not
Managing in the Media
defined by race or ethnicity, language or an organic or indigenous culture. It is culture and a manufactured identity that define nation and nationality. Popular culture, particularly film and television, is the key transmitter of this concept of nation.
Terrestrial television, for example, offers a wide range of contrasting representations of the nation, from live coverage of those events concerned with the government and the monarchy (the state opening of Parliament, trooping the colour, the Budget etc.) to international sporting events, where the emphasis of coverage is frequently on England and the United Kingdom described as ‘us’ against a foreign adversary (less commonly, coverage centres on Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland). It is not just factual or news programming that transmits the concept of nation and national identity. There are many examples within television drama, soap opera and situation comedy, such as the contrasting but intrinsically English content of Last of the Summer Wine and Goodness Gracious Me, which immediately highlights differences between a single culture nation and a multicultural society. More properly, we would need to consider the whole breadth of broadcasting content to assess fully the range of representations and therefore, by extrapolation, concepts of national identity which are in circulation.
2.4.4 The nation state
The nation state is a modern, twentieth century form of the state conceived in terms of political sovereignty, not economic sovereignty, because of international capitalism. Multinationals will operate across borders and, to some degree, outside national control. The concept is now in question and hotly debated, particularly in the UK, because membership of the European Union potentially cedes political sovereignty to the EU. This contradiction emerged during the Thatcher government, and led to the ‘twin track’ a approach to the EU (very much a British perspective). Globally, nation states are now merging into larger blocks. For example, in Europe, membership of the EU is set to expand, America has established a free trade zone with Mexico and Canada, and there could be an Islamic trading block in the future.
The concept of the nation state informs the relation of television to the state; public service broadcasting is a national system regulated by a single nation state. However, satellite developments (from the 1980s onwards)
a The ‘twin track’ approach to the EU emerged during the Thatcher years, and has not entirely disappeared. It suggests that the UK will cede legal power to the EU when it is deemed to
be in the UK’s interest, but insists on the second, national track when it does not.
British public service broadcasting
make the concept of ‘national television’, the cornerstone of PSB definitions, less credible.
2.4.5 National identity
The mass media are the principal agencies that create and maintain the concepts of nation, nation state and national identity. Indeed, this is an integral part of the charter that regulates the programming policy of terrestrial broadcasters. One way of conceptualising the transmission of nation and national identity was suggested by Benedict Anderson in his 1983 book, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism 5 . The term ‘imagined communities’ was used to explain the process by which we can ‘experience’ the nation through symbolic representation (signification), since we cannot literally experience it. Even if we travel extensively, we cannot know all the inhabitants of the nation in the way that we could have known all the inhabitants of a pre-industrial village. Television, as the most widely consumed medium, is identified as the primary agency for building ‘imagined communities’.
There are dangers inherent within the concepts of nation and national identity. Gellner, in Nations and Nationalism 6 , also alludes to the inclusivity and exclusivity of the concepts. Clearly, they are frequently used divisively in order to support prejudice, both within a nation and between nations.
2.4.6 Four models for the state
Let us now consider four models for the state.
Functionalist or authoritarian
This states that all parts of a society are integrated; they have a part to play in the whole (closely associated with the work of the philosopher, Hegel). This is an organic conception of society evolving through history to a unified entity. The state prevents society from breaking up, and holds sectional interests and individualism in check.
Hegelian concepts were connected with fascist ideology after the First World War, and thus fell into disrepute b . However, Hegelianism was strongly
b It is important to distinguish between a political philosophy and how it has been applied to a political system. It is possible to conceive of a unified society which would not be
oppressive, for example a religious order, although the events of the twentieth century give us many examples of the appalling consequences of authoritarian regimes.
Managing in the Media
entrenched in Oxford University until 1922, and was a major influence on both John Grierson and John Reith (first Director General of the BBC), who saw broadcasting as the method for holding the nation together – ’the social cement’.
Pluralistic conception of the state
This states that society is composed of a number of forces; the state is not dominant. The constitutions of France and USA were based on this model, which is based on a concept of three estates – the military, the judiciary and the clergy. In this model, the mass media is seen as the ‘fourth estate’, and is therefore able to regulate the power of the state. This is in contrast to the authoritarian model, where it has the right, indeed the duty, to comment on and criticise the workings of the state.
This concept of the state arose from the sixteenth century onwards, and the context to these changes was the rise of capitalism, replacing feudal states, after the agrarian and industrial revolutions. A new class emerged that was capable of challenging the power of the state – e.g. in the repeal of the Corn Laws, a growing industrial bourgeoisie was able to change the law.
In a pluralist state, groups within society cede power to the state, but there are limitations to the power of the state. The concept of individualism emerges, and rights of the individual are stated but checked by the state to ensure that no one group becomes dominant. The state has a regulatory function, but is itself regulated, to ensure that no one estate dominates the others. Therefore, there is a strong role for the state.
O’Leary and Dunleavy’s ‘New Right Theory’ of the state
O’Leary and Dunleavy’s theory is based on the idea of a minimal state within a free market economy, where the state will not limit the activities of successful market capitalists. It derived from the work of economist Adam Smith, although Smith suggested that the state would have to regulate capital in order to maintain the free market.
However, the New Right Theory rejects the concept of regulation except in limiting monopolies to ensure an open market. It takes a more radical position than Adam Smith, suggesting that if market forces are unregulated, this will produce a natural balance or harmony – the ‘hidden hand’ or ‘self- righting process’. The state must not intervene to sustain pluralism, since this
British public service broadcasting
will artificially interfere with the balance of the markets. This philosophy was one of a number that informed Thatcherism and Reaganism in the 1980s and, more importantly for broadcasting, was a key part of the philosophy of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Neopluralist conception of the state
An attempt to adapt classic libertarian ideas to corporatism, neopluralism relates to British broadcasting.
This approach is derived from the notion of society as autocratic and technocratic. The business sector dominates, and pluralism refereed by the state is therefore impossible. This is an admission of the inadequacy of pluralist theory, and therefore an inherent acceptance of dominance by capitalism.
Neopluralism is based on a concept of industrial society being so complex that it needs an equally complex administration to govern it. New structures will emerge – e.g. the EU and social democratic structures. These will be run by professional bureaucrats, who will become an elite, and governments will then have to cede power to these professional elites, who can run a complex society. This overturns the notion of real democracy; popular democracy does not work in this theory.
Broadcasters are one of these groups of professional elites who are granted autonomy from the state in their own professional sphere. This produces a separate professional society and culture. (For a detailed description of the BBC in these terms, see Tom Burn’s The BBC – Public Institution and Private
World 7 .) In this model the state will construct the regulatory framework and have some notional input, but the professionals are able to maintain their autonomy.
For the BBC, the regulatory framework is set by the Charter, and BBC governors are nominated by the government c . Nevertheless, broadcasters are able to run a complex industry with a degree of autonomy; therefore, broadcasting fits neatly into the neopluralist model. (Other elites, such as lawyers, have their own ‘public service’ regulations, which prevent government interference.)
c There is no provision for a democratic approach to the operation of PSB except by the indirect route of an elected government. Many would argue that broadcasting is too
complex and powerful a medium for viewers to elect the BBC governors, the ITC or the Director General of the BBC.
Managing in the Media
2.4.7 Theories of the media
How does the mass media operate within these models of the state?
Authoritarian model
The state controls the media in the interests of society, and the state is seen as the most important society within society. This model refers back to Plato and the theory of a common culture. Underlying this is a notion that individualism is irrational and damaging to society. The mass media is used to unify society, and control can be exerted through patronage, censorship, legal prosecutions or state subsidy. Whilst this model could be seen as outdated, such a system still exists, for example in China.
It can be argued that there is no absolute distinction between an authoritarian and a liberal broadcasting system, since there are always controls extant in any society. Television is rarely unregulated in western societies; it is not allowed to range over a complete spectrum of views within a society. However, in the French and United States constitutions the freedom of the media from state intervention is stated.
Libertarian model or pluralism
This model is based on the notion of social unity being achieved through maximum range of expression. Individuals are able to express their own opinions. State and media are totally separate, and the state will not regulate content. This model emerged from seventeenth and eighteenth century libertarian theory – the individual is rational, an objective view exists. There are a variety of opinions, but only the true opinions will be perceived and survive, whilst others will fall away. Individual citizens are able to make this choice without intervention by the state.
The mass media are not only independent, but can also now become an adversary of the state – the ‘fourth estate’. This was embodied in the American constitution, but in Britain there is no written constitution and therefore no set role for the media. Thus the value of the pluralist model lies in media’s ability to voice dissent against the state or society. However, it does not address the way that power is distributed within society, and therefore the consequent inequality in access to the media. The mass media may be independent of the state, but could be controlled by market forces, reflecting media owners’ opinions rather than the breadth
British public service broadcasting
of views within society. From this position, opinions succeed not because they are objectively true but because they are supported by powerful groups.
Libertarianism was part of the background to the Broadcasting Act 1990 – the ‘competition of ideas’ lies behind the argument to increase cable and satellite channels.
The model does not address ideas of irrationalism (can humans rationally judge?), because the theory pre-dates psychoanalysis and notions of the unconscious.
Social responsibility theory
The basis for this theory is that the state should intervene in the mass media to some extent, to ensure that it serves the breadth of society, and that market forces alone do not produce this. This approach developed alongside the growth of mixed economies, e.g. The New Deal in the USA in the 1930s. After the Wall Street Crash of 1926, unregulated capitalism was seen to be flawed. (NB: Soviet economy was then growing, unaffected by the crash.)
In a social responsibility model, the mass media have obligations to society, and governments have to intervene to ensure that they act responsibly. Hence Stanley Baldwin’s comment on the press that they had ‘power without responsibility’. The media are held to be responsible to:
1 Keep the electorate informed on a wide range of issues
2 Act as a critic of society and government
3 Provide a variety and quality of output. That is, ‘to educate, inform and entertain’, in Reith’s words; this responsibility
is still embodied in the BBC and ITV companies charter. Thus the media have autonomy, but have to comply with regulation. Two
basic rights are involved; first, the media’s right of free expression, and this is qualified by the second, the public’s right to be informed. Free expression is therefore subservient to the public’s right to information.
Broadcasting companies operate within criminal and civil law, bias, impartiality, acceptance of censorship and so on, all of which limit their autonomy. Therefore, the closest comparison for the British public service broadcasting system is to a neopluralist model of the state; professional groups who are autonomous within regulation.
Managing in the Media