From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it really dominant?

The article states that public broadcasting is "the dominant form of broadcasting around the world." Is this really the case? Even in most European countries -- traditional strongholds of public broadcasting -- privately-owned, purely commercial television has achieved at least parity (or, in a few cases, near parity) with the older public broadcasting institutions. If one were to add up the audience statistics of the commercial vs. public radio and television services in many European countries, the results would show that public broadcasting is no longer the dominant form of broadcasting, at least according to that definition. The same is true in many Asian countries, even those where PSB has traditionally been strong. Of course, PSB has never been dominant in the Americas.

In other words, the statement may have been true until the worldwide deregulation/liberalization of the 1980s or early 1990s, but it doesn't seem to be accurate nowadays. Therefore, I suggest that the sentence be changed to "public broadcasting... has traditionally been the dominant form of broadcasting around the world" or something similar. Any input would be valuable. WorldWide Update 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

all this is obscure bullshit,cant help anyone with your answers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.231.193.26 ( talk) 11:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

CBC history

An anon recently added the following paragraph in the middle of the Europe section:

(Correction in order here: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation actually emulated CKUA's programming [1], Canada's first public broadcaster created in 1927 on the campus of the University of Alberta and broadcast throughout the province ever since. The BBC was created on December 31, 1926, when the British government decided it would control all broadcasting. [2] CKUA was created within a few short months of this in early 1927. CKUA was also the first Canadian radio station on the internet in February 1996. CKUA was and is known for its superior cultural programming. The CBC copied CKUA, and Frank Mankowitz said he modeled NPR after CBC.)

Regardless of the merits of this claim, it doesn't belong where it was, and I have reverted the edit. I can't find any evidence that "the CBC copied CKUA" in the standard history of the CBC, Knowlton Nash's The Microphone Wars. (Indeed, he only mentions CKUA once, in passing, in early introductory material about the pre-CRBC era.) 121a0012 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

History

This article hasn't got anything much on public broadcasting, barring saying that European countries based their model on the BBC. Now, the BBC went PSB in 1927, however Ireland's PSB broadcaster started as such in January 1926. Can't really say its based on them. I presume there were earlier examples elsewhere? -- Kiand 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't believe these are unique niches for PSB in the US anymore

"US public broadcasting is a niche service that provides programming not found elsewhere on the system, such as cultural programs, documentaries, and public affairs shows."

Cultural programs and documentaries are often presented on other commercial channels such as Discovery, TLC, Food Network, National Geographic Channel, etc.

There are also a variety of similar public affairs shows available on various news networks as well.

The presentation of some of these shows is often unique, but I don't think that it's fair to say that PSB in the United States provides programming not found elsewhere, at least not in these categories.

-- Hanenkamp 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Are the channels you list universally available and non-subscription, i.e. anyone with a television can receive them? If not,congratulations you have found the purpose of public broadcasting :-P Pit-yacker 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

State broadcaster vs Public broadcaster

With reference to:

At the same time, public broadcasting systems have also been used by dictators and totalitarian governments to spread hatred and incite genocide.

I wonder if someone could clarify what the exact difference is between a public broadcaster and a state broadcaster. There seems to be a subtle distinction that is made in certain circles. When looking particularly at third world and former communist states they talk about converting the state broadcaster into a public broadcaster, this is usually together with discussions on introducing licence fees.

The best difference I can appreciate is that broadcasters in states run by totalitarian regimes (generally refered to as "state broadcaster") are usually integral parts of a government department e.g. Ministry of Information, etc. whereas public broadcasters (although usually pubically owned) are generally run at arms length from the government. Pit-yacker 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

That's certainly what I would infer from the way these terms are used. I think the one-word summary would be "independent": a public broadcaster is independent of the state, even when it is supported by the apparatus of the state; a state broadcaster is part of the government and expected to reflect the views thereof. These are, of course, not the only possibilities. 121a0012 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
What exactly is the evidence these public broadcasters are at "arms length" from the government that is responsible for its funding, employment, distribution, license, and very existence? What would happen to these "independent" broadcasters if they started supporting the enemies of their country and opposing their country's wars, User:121a0012? User:Pit-yacker, what is the difference between a government department running a broadcaster vs. merely funding, licensing and disseminating one? The very term you use, " Ministry of Information", comes from an actual department the UK government had, whose stated purpose was "national propaganda", which directly oversaw and censored the broadcasts of the "arms length" BBC. It's even discussed in the article on the BBC. So why is the BBC only mentioned in the Public broadcasting article and not in the State media article? Is this not the very definition of "state media" advanced in these articles? VolatileChemical ( talk) 09:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I removed some countries where it wasn't clear that they met the definition of public broadcaster with editorial independence and listed the ones with significant text here in case someone can provide references to support the text.
==== Indonesia ====
Main article: Public broadcasting in Indonesia
In Indonesia, there are three types of public broadcaster. The first two are national-scale broadcasters: Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI) and Televisi Republik Indonesia (TVRI). RRI currently operates four radio networks carried by some or all of more than 90 local stations, one of them is a national programming network. TVRI operates three national television channels, plus more than 32 regional stations.
There are also independent local public broadcasters which founded by local government in several cities or regencies. They are obligated to network with either RRI or TVRI, depending on the medium, though they are not owned and operated by the two.
==== Malaysia ====
The public broadcaster in Malaysia is the state-owned Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM) and TV Alhijrah. RTM was previously funded publicly through money obtained from television licensing, however it is currently state-subsidised, as television licences have been abolished.
As of 2021 RTM operates 6 national, 16 state and 11 district radio stations as well as 6 national terrestrial television channels: TV1, TV2, TV Okey, SuKan RTM, Berita RTM and TV6.
==== Pakistan ====
In Pakistan, the public broadcasters are the state-owned Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), also known as Radio Pakistan and Pakistan Television. In the past Radio Pakistan was partly funded through money obtained from License fees. In 1999, the Nawaz Sharif government abolished license fees for Radio Pakistan and also abolished its tax exempt status protected under PBC Act 1973. The license fees for Pakistan Television continued. The license fees collection for PTV was given to WAPDA during Musharraf government. Currently WAPDA collects Rs. 35 per house hold on electricity bills as PTV license fees. Television Broadcasting started in Pakistan with a small pilot TV Station established at Lahore Radio from where transmission was first beamed in black-and-white with effect from 26 November 1964. Television centres were established in Dhaka, Karachi and Rawalpindi/Islamabad in 1967 and in Peshawar and Quetta in 1974. PTV has various channels transmitting throughout the world including PTV National, PTV World, PTV 2, PTV Global, PTV Bolan etc. Radio Pakistan has stations covering all the major cities, it covers 80% of the country serving 95.5 Million listeners. It has world service in eleven languages daily.
==== Philippines ====
The Philippines' primary state television broadcaster is People's Television Network (PTV). Created in 1974 as Government Television (GTV), PTV is no longer state subsidised except for a one-time equity funding for capital outlay in 1992. Aside from PTV, the other public broadcaster is the Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC), which the government has already put up for sale. The government no longer holds a controlling interest in the former state broadcaster, Radio Philippines Network (RPN).
The Philippine Broadcasting Service (PBS) is the country's sole state radio broadcaster. Established in 1933 as KZFM by the US colonial Insular Government, the radio station was passed to the Philippine government after the country became independent in 1946. Currently, PBS broadcasts its flagship network Radyo Pilipinas (formerly Radyo ng Bayan) through its 32 stations and selected affiliates nationwide.
The government is currently planning to propose the creation of a law that will merge and integrate PTV and PBS into a single entity, to be called the People's Broadcasting Corporation (PBC).
==== Singapore ====
Mediacorp is the only public broadcaster in Singapore. citation needed Superb Owl ( talk) 04:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This ties in nicely with what I wished to ask/suggest - could there be a section in this article discussing the mechanisms that defend the independence of a public broadcaster from government influence? I came to this article looking for references on that subject; this issue was the topic of the 'Viva Zapatero' documentary, but that mostly/only criticized what the author saw as lack of good measures for this in Italy, and didnt discuss better policy much..-- 89.172.85.70 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

14 years on, and this point is more salient now than ever. The idea that outfits like Radio Free Europe and the Beeb aren't under "tight editorial control" by their governments (the proposed difference in the lede of State media) is an absolute effing farce. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:39E8:1ABB:9318:E4FE ( talk) 17:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I think Radio Free Europe would be in another category entirely; but, if it had to fall into one of the two categories being discussed here, I think state broadcaster would be more fitting. The difference is, though it's media controlled by a state, it's intended audiences are people in other countries rather than its own citizens. Which...if you think about it, is damn hypocritical. "Our people are too good for state run media, and your own states arent fit to produce state run media, so instead ye shall have state run media provided to you by us." Firejuggler86 ( talk) 09:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia are certainly state media, but perhaps even more directly described as overseas propaganda and intelligence campaigns. Of course there's no mention of that in this article, and no mention of the United States in the State media article. Hmmm... VolatileChemical ( talk) 09:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

US PubRadio description

I took out the bizarre line about many US stations being "licensed class D", which has nothing to do with programming.

Can't figure out what is intended here:

"NPR produces some of its own programming such as Morning Edition; Weekend Edition; and All Things Considered. PBS and PRI, by contrast, do not create their own content."

--in fact NPR, PRI and PBS ALL produce content; that's why they exist, especially PRI, which exists expressly for that purpose, whereas the other two also run networks. Any ideas what the writer's trying to say there?

Also removed "the second public network" introducing NPR which implies that the previous notation, Pacifica, is a first network. Pacifica is not a network and never has been. It does produce and distribute a few programs but owns only five stations.

This needs a major clean-up

Undercited, superficial in some respects, misleading in patches. Tony (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Article is over-long; need to separate out articles on Public Television and Public Radio

This article is over 45,000 bytes and needs to have some info separated out into sub-articles — specifically, Public Television and Public Radio. The two are not the same thing and definitely deserve their own articles, which would also take some of the excess bulk out of this over-long article. I don't often visit this article, so I will let others who do perform that task. Softlavender ( talk) 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Countries *without* public broadcasting

The article uses the words "some" and "most" to describe which countries have public broadcasting. Might it be useful to list countries that don't have public broadcasting networks of any kind? I can't think of any, but I assume others will know. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 22:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Soviet Union, CPB Finances and primary sourced content

The state media of the Soviet Union are not public broadcasters. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source which lists them as such, there is no reason to include any discussion of the Soviet Union in this article.

The finances of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are discussed in detail in the main article. Including the financial details of one out of dozens of public broadcasters on this page is undue and out of place on this page.

The content sourced to primary source journal articles has been removed as undue as well. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found for these unconventional views, they are undue. aprock ( talk) 14:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That was just some of the sourced material you deleted. Please explain the other deletion. Primary sources are no disallowed. The finance material did not discuss CPB but all public radio. Here is a source showing that the Soviet Union had public broadcasting. [3]. Miradre ( talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You're confusing the phrase "public television broadcasting" with "public broadcasting". State run media is not synonymous with public broadcasting. With respect to primary sources, they are certainly allowed, but misuse of primary sources is not allowed. Presenting two journal articles with unconventional conclusions as encyclopedic without secondary sourcing is misuse. The financing point still stands. Those details are not particularly relevant to the article and are contained in the main Corporation for Public Broadcasting article. aprock ( talk) 15:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I have given a source, you none regarding Soviet broadcasting. There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY excluding scholarly articles. Obviously the finances of public radio as a whole are interesting. The finances of CPB only should be in the CPB article. Miradre ( talk) 15:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You don't need a source to not include something in wikipedia. The way it works is that if something isn't verifiable, then it doesn't go in. You originally did not have a source characterizing the Soviet owned media as "public broadcasting". And you still do not have such a source. aprock ( talk) 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
With respect to misuse of primary sources please review WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. If your primary source indicated that these views are shared outside of the respective journal articles? aprock ( talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Discussion of financing of public broadcasting in the US is already in the article. Having time sensitive information is (again) undue here, and is already located in the respective articles. aprock ( talk) 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Let us accept the UNESCO source and exclude state broadcasting. But you seem to be doing original research with your claimed definition of public broadcasting. Exactly on what page of the UNESCO source can your claimed definition be found? Regarding the scholarly articles, you have presented no evidence for that there exists other views regarding the scholarly articles. The CPB report presents an update summary of sources of financing. If need be some of the unsourced claims can be removed instead. Miradre ( talk) 15:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • With respect to UNESCO, here is the relevant excerpt from the first page: "Neither commercial nor State-controlled, public broadcasting’s only raison d’être is public service."
  • With respect to WP:UNDUE, you really should read the entire policy. Here is a further excerpt for you: For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.. The existence, or lack thereof, of "other views" is immaterial.
  • Discussion of sources of funding is already in the article. Time sensitive financial information is not undue here. aprock ( talk) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

UNESCO states "Public broadcasting is defined as a meeting place where all citizens are welcome and considered equals." This is the definition according to UNESCO. Not your text. Regarding UNDUE, you make the claim of the scholarly articles being in a minority, you present the evidence for this. Regarding funding, there is almost no sourced material regarding sources of funding. "Time-sensitive" material is not prohibited. Miradre ( talk) 15:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Re:UNESCO. I quoted the first sentence of the first paragraph, and you quoted the first sentence of the second paragraph. I'm not sure what your point is though.
  • The claim I made was that they are undue.
  • Again, the time sensitive financial details are undue.
I appreciate that you don't feel these things are undue for this article. If that's the case, then I suggest you find a broader base of secondary sourcing for this content. aprock ( talk) 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Obviously what UNESCO states is the definition is the important thing. There is no prohibition against time sensitive information and information regarding overall sources of information are obviously due. You have presented no evidence for that what you claim is undue is undue. Peer-reviewed sources counts for more than the personal opinions of anonymous editors. Miradre ( talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm fine with using the UNESCO source, which is clear on the matter that public broadcasting is not state controlled. With respect to your undue questions, almost everything is undue. Due content can only be given weight through reliable sourcing. A single journal article does not establish enough weight here. As it appears that we are going around in circles, I'll post and RfC to get outside views. aprock ( talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Again, you have defined public broadcasting somewhat differently from what UNESCO states. This should obviously be corrected. Regarding scholarly souces, I quote from WP:UNDUE: "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." Scholarly sources certainly are reliable. Also, you should have followed WP:BRD and not reverted when your removals was restored. Miradre ( talk) 16:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
In addition, it is not just one source but several. You have also quite selectively not removed sources supporting your POV. Giving an article violating NPOV by only presenting one side of the debate. Miradre ( talk) 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
It appears that you've find some unclear parts of WP:UNDUE, I'll post the appropriate noticeboard. If you think there is a POV problem with my edits, I suggest you bring the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You presented a straw man of the above discussion. One point I had already accepted while ignoring all other. Miradre ( talk) 16:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Please see the RfC here. aprock ( talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
That is just one problem. There is still no justification for excluding the information regarding sources of funding for public radio. Or, to raise another matter, the criticism presented to the US Senate in a hearing. Miradre ( talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
If you're impatient, you're free to bring these issues to the appropriate noticeboard as you see fit. aprock ( talk) 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You can bring them there if you prefer. I will add an edited text to the article which hopefully should revolve the issues. Please do not revert. You should not have reverted in the first place according to WP:BRD. Miradre ( talk) 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You are free to edit the article as you see fit. If you introduce undue content, it will be removed in due course. aprock ( talk) 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

UNESCO definition

Huh? I have already stated that I accept the UNESCO source view that state broadcasting is not public broadcasing. That is not an issue. (There are numerous other issues but this is not one of them.) Miradre ( talk) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Thank you for clarifying that. As I noted above, I was "not sure what your point is though." I take it the UNESCO issue is entirely separate. If that's the case, let's use this separate thread to discuss the issue. Note that the lede is just a summary of the article, and a more complete discussion of what public broadcasting is can be found at Public_broadcasting#Defining_public_broadcasting. I am open to updating the lede to be a more correct summary. aprock ( talk) 16:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Obviously the lead should contain a correct definition. Your text is not what UNESCO article states as the definition of public broadcasting. Neither does the other section contain this definition. For the other issues, see the section above. Miradre ( talk) 16:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Much of that section is sourced to Raboy (1995), pp 6-10, and is generally congruent with the UNESCO source. Expansion of content based on either the Raboy or the UNESCO source is welcome. aprock ( talk) 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
That source refers to the cited quote that BBC is “probably been the greatest of the instruments of social democracy of the century” Otherwise there are remarkably few citations in the text. Miradre ( talk) 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Also, the source looks somewhat dubious. The text is by the "World Radio and Television Council" which is a lobby organization for public broadcasting. At the very least this should be pointed out. Miradre ( talk) 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The WRTVC describes itself as an NGO. Do you have reliable secondary sources stating it is a lobby organization? aprock ( talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
"created ten years ago to defend public service broadcasting ". [4] Also, very inactive with a very outdated webpage. "Our goal is the early delivery, hopefully by the end of 2003, of internationally recognized standards of public broadcasting." Miradre ( talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Hilarious quote mining. Here is the full quote: "The WRTVC is a non-governmental organization created ten years ago to defend public service broadcasting across the world through civil society." Not sure where you get the lobbying from though. Publication and promotion of standards is hardly lobbying. Please update when you've found reliable secondary sourcing for your lobbying characterization. aprock ( talk) 17:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
"Defending public service" is not the same as "promotion of standards". Another statement: "A certified broadcaster will benefit from a quality guarantee strengthening its position towards civil society, government and international organizations." Obviously a lobby or special interest organization for public broadcasting. Miradre ( talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your original research and synthesis. When you get it published in a reliable secondary source, let me know. aprock ( talk) 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I will just state its stated goal of "defending public service" when rewriting. Miradre ( talk) 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
That sounds very reasonable. aprock ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

List of public broadcasters (Europe)

For BBC, you can find:

  • BBC — United Kingdom
    • BBC One + BBC Two + BBC Three + (...)
    • BBC Radio 1 + BBC Radio 2 + BBC Radio 3 + BBC Radio 4

but for German ARD and WDR, there is only

  • ARD — working partnership of German public-service broadcasters
    • Westdeutscher Rundfunk — Cologne

In fact, the WDR (Westdeutscher Rundfunk) is a "small" BBC (for North Rhine-Westphalia) with more than 5 full radio programs plus regional radio plus one full TV-program plus contibutions to Das Erste and to other TV-programs, so there could be a long list as for the BBC. And the same applies to the other "GBCs" (“German Broadcasting Corporations”, this term does not exist, but...) -- Haigst-Mann ( talk) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Germany: Deutschlandradio: Cold War propaganda?

Well, in 1994, 3-4 years after unification, it was like the article Deutschlandradio describes it (below). Not

a national radio service with two networks (Deutschlandradio) emerged from the remains of Cold War propaganda stations in 1994.
  • Deutschlandfunk was originally a West German station targeting listeners in East Germany and the rest of the communist block,
  • whereas Deutschlandradio Kultur is the result of a merger of West Berlin's RIAS station and East Berlin's DS Kultur after German reunification.

The Cold War-thing about it was the direction of the radio-broadcasting, but the programme reflected the editorial independence as at, let us say, BBC or CNN. It was no "international service" produced according to governmental specification. -- Haigst-Mann ( talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Map

Please, we need a world map in this article, with countries colored depending on:

  • No public broadcasting
  • Public broadcasting financed by taxes
  • Public broadcasting financed by fees

Something like that.-- 188.195.76.124 ( talk) 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Time for separate article for the situation in the USA

After reading some articles like Association of College and University Broadcasting Stations, National Association of Educational Broadcasters, CPB, PBS and NPR, I felt there should be a main article for all things public broadcasting in the U.S. in a similar way to the Dutch public broadcasting system and Public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom articles. The article would describe the background and history of public broadcasting in the States, how it is operated, and what makes the American system distinctive from other countries. It would need a lengthy article to explain U.S.A.'s public broadcasting overall to non-Americans, rather than a small (?) section of this article which is already too long in length. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 14:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Support. Dartslilly ( talk) 00:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Since this proposal has been unopposed for five years I boldly copied the full section to create the article at the redirect. Editors can now trim the section in this article at will. Dartslilly ( talk) 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Public (service) and public (sector)

I think this article should be split into one about 'public service broadcasting' (broadcasts programmes intended for general public, and also shows something that commercial broadcasters wouldn't touch) and another about 'broadcaster(s) in public sector' (established by law, but independence and fair reporting guaranteed, unlike state broadcaster - directly owned by government without guaranteed independence). Any idea or objection? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 14:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Two issues about "List of public broadcasters" section

Why is the Africa list not subdivided by country like all the others? What is the reason for "Asian legends"? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Public Radio Fan

I am consolidating two talk page discussions, here:


On August 24, 2021, I posted this message on 0mtwb9gd5wx's talk page:

You were bold and added information to an article, dif. I disagreed and reverted, dif. The next step, if you feel like it should belong, is to discuss, not to revert the revert( dif). That's called edit warring. I have reverted your revert, because it was out of process. I will not do so again, as I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. If you feel like this information should belong, I suggest taking it to the talk page ( Talk:Public_broadcasting). -- Darth Mike (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

On August 30, 2021, 0mtwb9gd5w responded on my talk page:

dif dif dif and has not discussed the reason. I feel this information should belong. I would like to read from you, why you think no one should learn about about a free, ad-free, non-profit database of Public broadcasting shows. stations, and networks, on a page named Public broadcasting. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 07:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

To put my reasoning quite simply, there are no independant, reliable sources discussing Public Radio Fan, because it is not notable. If reliable sources are found that give substantial coverage, then, perhaps the information should be added. And to more specifically answer the question of why I think no one should learn about a free, ad-free, non-profit database of Public broadcasting shows.... I don't think that, I just don't think this is the place to do it. -- Darth Mike (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Move towards tax-funded models

Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation has moved to a tax-funded model, so the statement in this article is wrong, but it is correct on the NRK page. I suppose this is something that should be reviewed more generally, I don't know what the other Nordic nations have done in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil Kjernsmo ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

2

🤗 2600:8801:2026:6700:4044:A93:81FC:C709 ( talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Political bias - No clear definition of state media vs PBS

The article is biased as not giving clear distinction between state and public broadcasters.

As an example:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is 1- getting most of it's budget from government 2- constitued as Crown Corporation with government's participation 3- having management appointed by government

This is a perfect example of state broadcaster.

Why it is in the list of public broadcasters and China's or Russia's media having the same structure and financing are not? 216.239.85.38 ( talk) 04:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply


Agreed. The absent definition makes a huge unexplained leap, which is barely explained or justified by the very oversimplified notice at the top of the State media article: "Not to be confused with public broadcasting and public sector media (state-funded), which is funded directly or indirectly by the state or government but over which the state or government does not have editorial control." Not sure what they think would happen if the BBC or CBC started siding with Canada or Britain's enemies. That "no editorial control" would disappear very quickly. This to me needs to be accounted for before such a neat and tidy distinction between "state" and "public" media can be drawn, even without pointing out the myriad ways independent broadcasters like BBC, CBC, NPR or Australia's ABC are intimately tied to their country's state and have always performed state propaganda functions. VolatileChemical ( talk) 08:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Move to "Public media"?

According to the largest industry association of public broadcasters (Public Media Alliance), they refer to the field as "Public service media" since it entails more forms than radio and TV. Should the article be moved to Public media or Public service media? Superb Owl ( talk) 04:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm less interested in how the industry association describes themselves than what the RS are saying. "Public broadcasting" is a well established term; is there any indication this broadening of scope would be supported by sources? —  The Earwig ( talk) 03:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, "Public broadcasting" is a well established term but using the term “media” would be more appropriate in this context. The term “broadcast” typically refers to a transmission of a radio or television program that is intended to be received by anyone with a receiver. On the other hand, “media” is a broader term that includes means and institutions for publishing and broadcasting information. This includes television, radio, and print outlets like newspapers and magazines. So, if you’re referring to television, radio, and the press, “media” would be the correct term to use. 85.193.199.19 ( talk) 02:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
No, in agreement with @ The Earwig Iljhgtn ( talk) 17:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Public_broadcasting&oldid=1208208444"