Liang Wendao: CCTV’s raison d'etre

The only thing should be done by the public broadcasters is to transform the gains into the resources serving to the community.

Many years ago when I worked for a radio station, I began to realize that the hardest part was the programs about culture and art, as well as that provide for the elders and disadvantaged, since they could not make profit. The culture market is too small to be treated with contempt by advertisers, as to elders, how much power of consumption could they have? But the station was committed to do so because the HK government considered the atmospheric radio wave as a rare public resource where the spectrum was limited (at least before the digital radio becomes popular). Then it must carry out commitments to the community once the radio station took up such precious public resources even though it’s a purely commercial organization, such as making some profitless while essential programs. “Social Obligations”, which can be used by the public broadcasters in the world wide as a criterion to judge themselves, prove the foundation of the value of self-existence. From BBC of British, NHK of Japan, RTHK of Hong Kong to CCTV of Mainland China, almost all of the largest and earliest electronic media are publicly-owned. Their existences are absolutely not self-evidence; on the contrary, they should be responsible for the citizen, explaining why they occupy the atmospheric radio wave. Generally speaking, comparing to the private enterprise, the most obvious feature of the public-owned broadcasters is that they cannot put profit-making first, which means the ratings is not the only criterion to access what programs are worth to make while others are not. The culture programs are hard to seek profit, nevertheless, they are crucial to the long-term development of the country even the whole human beings; although popular science programs would not be as welcomed as dramas, they can add to people’s knowledge. If some commercial media are forced to assign a certain time and cost to make them, why dose a public-owned broadcaster refuse such programs?

If the public-owned broadcasters receive public funds, as well as occupying a great number of radio spectrum, then the advertising income should not feather their own nest; even to cost a huge sum of money to build up landmark building by which to show off to the world. The only thing it should do is to transform the profit into resources for the community. “serve the society” sounds very abstract, but actual tasks are concrete, and one of which is to convenient the public to keep abreast of the of current affairs and take part in giving opinion and decision-making. A while ago BBC was criticized seriously by the government and public that refusing an advertisement about humanity supporting Gaza refugees. It is not only for the reason that BBC violated the neutral point of view which therefore had the suspicion of being partial towards Israel; but more importantly, as a public-owned broadcaster, it should scrupulously abided by a higher level of standard trying to bring this world to the audience unbiased. It would be no difference to deprive British people of the right of accessing to the full facts which prevent them from adopting the acts to help the refugees.

ARD is the old-brand television network in German. Its appearance was origin from the explanation of the clause of freedom of expression in the court o Federal Republic of Germany constitution. The judges hold that the freedom of expression should not only be negatively assured, but also positively promoted, making them known the affairs that may impacts the country and at the same time, supervising the government acts. Since the shadow of Nazi is so deeply that they specially pointed out one of the tasks of ARD is giving chances to the public criticizing the government in order to avid being lost in iniquity.

Although ARD inspired awe by upholding justice, at this late hour, it just can’t help being degenerating. Some scholars believed that it had already changed from lobbyists for society facing the government to society for lobbyists, where the reason is the gaining ground of forces of business.

It seems like an overall trend that the public broadcaster becomes commercialized, even yield to pressure from enterprises in order to ingratiate with great merchants and celebrities. As a result, a movement of public broadcasting was initiated in recent 30 years whose idea was giving the leader role back to people. If the conventional public-owned broadcasters often neglect the disadvantaged and lower class, or twist their voice while representing these people; then they should remove the time period or even the channel to support these invisible men by commercial media both through financial and technology, in order to express themselves to the whole society.

Till then they have already been nearby the final purpose under the era of market: let the invisible be seen and the silent be heard. To be sure, comparing to a magnificent building, only a truly and tough voice from lower ranks could make the evidence of public-owned media being great and imposing.