State-funded broadcasters exist in almost every country in the world. Only some of these, however, conform to the standards commonly associated with public service broadcasting. This section outlines the attributes which have come to be associated with public service broadcasting organisations.

Public service broadcasting organisations are generally associated with a number of features, derived in large part from the guarantee of freedom of expression, as outlined below. In addition, these features flow from the fact that public funds are being spent on broadcasting which engages certain general principles relating to public spending. Eric Barendt notes six key features of public service broadcasting organisations:

1. general geographical availability;


2. concern for national identity and culture;


3. independence from both the State and commercial interests;


4. impartiality of programmes;


5. range and variety of programmes; and


6. substantial financing by a general charge on users (2).

These are largely reiterated in a White Paper on the future of the BBC, produced by the UK government in 1994 (3).

The first feature is a direct consequence of the public nature of the service. It would not be appropriate to offer a public service to only part of the population, for example those living in cities, although different regions will not necessarily receive identical services. It is also a significant justification for public service broadcasting organisations since it serves to ensure that the public’s right to know is satisfied in equal measure throughout the whole territory.

The second feature has been, and indeed remains, closely associated with public service broadcasting organisations, being an explicit obligation in many countries. It reflects the role of these broadcasters in building a sense of national identity, belonging and participation. To this extent, it can been seen as essential to the larger project of promoting a national democratic and rights respecting culture. At the same time, this feature is perhaps more controversial, both because it represents a restriction on editorial freedom and because it might lead to chauvinism. However, it is no longer understood in the narrow sense of promoting the dominant culture and in many States includes the idea of promoting multiculturalism as an aspect of nationhood.

A key goal of public service broadcasting organisations is to provide quality broadcasting which meets the informational, entertainment and educational needs of the population while respecting and promoting diversity. Satisfaction of this goal is impossible if public broadcasters are expected to compete for funds in the same way as commercial broadcasters. Commercial dependency would inevitably lead to public broadcasters subjecting programme production and scheduling decisions to popularity tests rather than making such decisions in the public interest. Although many public service broadcasting organisations now operate on a blend of public and commercial funding, relying entirely on private funding would clearly undermine the ability of such broadcasters to promote pluralism and other goals noted above. As a result, independence from commercial interests has always been an important justification for public service broadcasting organisations.

In many countries, the greatest threat to quality public broadcasting comes from attempts by government to control the state-funded broadcaster to achieve its own ends. State-funded broadcasters have often been accused of being mouthpieces of government, to the detriment of the public interest and the right of citizens to receive a diverse range of information. It seems clear that it is inappropriate for a particular government or branch of the State apparatus to exercise influence over a public service broadcasting organisation, given that the latter is funded through public monies, and this is now well-established as a matter of international and comparative law (see below). It may be noted that there is a tension between these two types of independence as freedom from commercial pressures necessarily leads to dependence on public funding with the attendant risk of State interference.

Impartiality is closely related to independence. If it is inappropriate for the government to use public funds to promote its particular viewpoint, it is equally inappropriate, given its public mandate, for a public service broadcasting organisation to promote a certain position or support a particular political party.

The fifth feature of public service broadcasting organisations is that they should provide a variety of programmes, including shows of an educational and informative nature. In this public service broadcasting organisations may be contrasted with private broadcasters in a number of countries which are increasingly oriented towards low-cost options such as films and game shows. The obligation of diversity in programming derives from the public’s right to know and serves to ensure that the public has access to information about a wide variety of issues and concerns.

Barendt posits a general fund on users as the sixth feature of public service broadcasting organisations. As is clear from the following analysis, not all jurisdictions fund public service broadcasting organisations through a general charge on users or a television license fee. Instead, in many countries the national legislative body, or parliament, directly votes funds for these broadcasters. A license fee has the advantage of being more stable and also less susceptible of government interference, although public bodies ultimately set the rate of the license fee and where relevant apportion it among public broadcasters. At the same time, license fees may be difficult and/or costly to collect and may be difficult to introduce for political reasons, where they are not already in place. In addition, a general charge may lead to the public broadcaster being forced to compete for ratings, in order to justify the general charge, rather than concentrate on quality and diversity.