Talk:Public broadcasting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is it really dominant? 

message: 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 , 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.  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)
thread_title:  CBC history 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I don't believe these are unique niches for PSB in the US anymore 

message: Undercited, superficial in some respects, misleading in patches. Tony (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs a major clean-up 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Countries *without* public broadcasting 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "created ten years ago to defend public service broadcasting ". 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I will just state its stated goal of "defending public service" when rewriting. Miradre (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds very reasonable. aprock (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNESCO definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of public broadcasters (Europe) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Germany: Deutschlandradio: Cold War propaganda? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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)
replies: text: Support.Dartslilly (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for separate article for the situation in the USA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Public (service) and public (sector) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two issues about "List of public broadcasters" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: dif difdif 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)
thread_title:  Public Radio Fan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move towards tax-funded models 

message: 🤗 2600:8801:2026:6700:4044:A93:81FC:C709 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political bias - No clear definition of state media vs PBS 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, in agreement with @The Earwig Iljhgtn (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Public media"?