Public service broadcasting is funded by taxpayer money through TV licenses rather than advertisements. This allows them to create programming for wide audiences without commercial pressures. However, taxpayers argue they pay too much and public service broadcasters are not truly independent due to government influence over funding and programming. Media consolidation has seen many mergers and acquisitions lead to just a few large companies controlling most mass media. This can give them power over distribution and content but also more risk if a product is not financially successful.

1. LO1:
PRESENTING A
DEBATE
Public Service Broadcasting VS Private
Ownership
By Ryan Gault

2. PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING
Public service broadcasting is something that many people are familiar with
although they may not know it, the most famous public service broadcaster in
Britain is the BBC. A public service broadcaster is paid for by the public with
the money from buying a TV license which means they do not need funding
in the way that privately owned broadcaster by advertisement, with that money
companies like the BBC creates Programming that must appeal to wide
audiences as that is the brief a public service broadcaster must follow.

3. PRO’S OF PUBLIC SERVICE
BROADCASTING
Public service broadcasters do not show adverts, because they are paid for
with tax payer money they do not need adverts to fund their station
They have shows for all different audiences because they must follow a rule
given to them by the government which means that they must have
programming for all types of people

4. CON’S
Tax payers must pay £145 per year just for the BBC under a TV license and
the full license is £360 per year
Government control – public service broadcasting is funded by the
government, so they have a say on what it shown on their channels meaning
they are nt independant

5. CROSS MEDIA OWNERSHIP
Cross-media ownership: Concentration of media ownership (also known as media
consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer
individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media.
Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many
media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of
firms

6. Date Acquiring firm Acquired firm (New name in Price (US $ billions) Strategic motivation
brackets)
1994 Viacom Paramount communication 8.0 Conglomeration across publishing,
film broadcasting and cable theme
parks.
1994 Viacom Blockbuster 8.5 Distribution control.
1995 Disney Capital cities/ABC 19 Vertical integration and control of
content creation.
1995 Time warner Turner broadcasting 7.4 Vertical integration and
conglomeration/synergy.
1995 Seagram MCA (universal) 5.7 General conglomerate moves into
diversified media
1995 Westinghouse CBS 5.4 General conglomerate moves into
broadcasting.
1999 Carlton* United* 8.0** Merger of European media groups.
1998 Seagram PolyGram 10.6 Recording market share plus
European film interests.
1999 Viacom CBS 22 Media conglomerate consolidates
broadcasting power.
2000 Vivendi Seagram/universal 35 Very diversified European leisure
conglomerate diversifies further.
1998 AT&T* TCI 48** Telecoms and media convergence.
2000 AOL* Time warner 128** Internet service provider merges
with media conglomerate.
2002 Comcast AT&T broadcasting 47.5 Cable company expands via
acquisition.
2003 General electric/ NBC Vivendi universal 5.5 A merging between two media
giants.
2003 Sony BMG Music arms of two majors merge.
2004-5 Sony MGM 4.9 Massive acquisition of back
catalogue.
2006 Disney Pixar 7.4 Studio buys production company
with strong affiliations to it.

7. VERTICAL INTEGRATION
Vertical integration – when a company buys another company is the
distribution chain, for example in “The Golden age of Hollywood” large film
companies such as paramount also owned the film distributors and cinema
outlets in order to distribute their films in a cheap and easy way.

8. HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION
Horizontal Integration – This occurs when a firm is being taken over by or
merging with another firm which is in the same industry and in the same stage
of production as the merged firm. For example a car manufacturer merging
with another car manufacturer. In this case both the companies are in the
same stage of production and also in the same industry. This process is also
known as a "buy out" or "take-over". The goal of horizontal integration is to
consolidate like companies and monopolize an industry.

9. MULTINATIONALS AND
CONGLOMERATES
A conglomerate is a corporation formed by the combination of several diverse
companies under the same ownership. A good example of a conglomerate is
Unilever who own many different companies from Pot Noodle, to lynx body
spray and many more. A conglomerate may or may not be a multinational.
A multinational company operates or has subsidiary companies in multiple
countries. For example Mcdonalds is active in many countries making it a
multinational. A multinational may or may not be a conglomerate.

10. PRODUCT DIVERSITY AND
PROFITABILITY.
“Risk derives from the fact that audiences use cultural commodities in highly
volatile and unpredictable ways, often in order to express that they are
different from each other” - Garnham

11. STATS
Nearly 30,000 albums were released in the USA in 1998, of which fewer than 2 per cent sold
more than 50,000 copies
88 hits in 1999 -0, 03 per cent of releases accounted for a quarter of US record sales.
In publishing it has been said that 80% of the income derives from 20% of published product.
Of the 350 or so films released each year in the USA in 1996, only 10 will be box office hits.
In 1993 Driver and Gillespie reported that one third to one half of UK magazines break even
and only 25% Make a profit.
According to figures cited by Moran about 80% of the 50,000 book titles published in the USA
each year in the mid-1980s were financial failures.

12. EVENTS DOES THE BBC
HAVE A FUTURE AS A
PUBLIC SECTOR
BROADCASTER FUNDED BY
THE LICENSE PAYER, AND
IF SO HOW IS THIS FAIR ON
THOSE DEPENDANT ON
In recent months the BBC have been exposed as covering up Jimmi Saville‟s illegal
activities involving under age children,RATINGS AND
CHASING they have also been accused of hiding other
paedophiles even more recently with allegations against Lord McAlpine which have yet
ADVERTISING?
to be confirmed, these allegations are very damaging to such a huge publicly funded
industry especially as the BBC more or less set the social standards. Although these are
very serious allegation and are being investigated, usually by this time a private
company facing the same accusations would be disintegrated and crippled due to losing
investors and general public attitude would go way down hill leading in boycotts and
eventual administration. I believe due to the importance of the BBC in our society,
these allegations will barely scratch the BBC, people will definitely get fired or even go
to prison but in the long run the BBC itself will be fine. This is unfair for the private
sector companies that rely on view and advertisement because something like covering
up a paedophiles activities would ruin them, they would lose adverts, shareholders and
credibility which would probably lead to going bust where as a huge publicly funded
company like the BBC wouldn‟t be affected.

13. LO3 REGULATORY BODIES

14. LAW

15. THE BROADCASTING ACT 1990
This broadcasting act has to some extent been superseded by the Government's White Paper on
Communications, because anything taken from that paper will be turned into a new Act of
Parliament. However, this Act began the first steps to deregulation in British Broadcasting and
reversed restrictions imposed on ownership of ITV franchises. The main points of the 1990 Act
were:
This act required all ITV franchises to be put up for sale and to be awarded partly on financial
grounds.
New ITV regional franchises mandated to give 25% of their production to independent producers.
ITV network centre established to commission programmes from the franchise holders on to the
national ITV network.
Independent Television Commission set up to regulate all TV services in the UK, with the
exception of the BBC.
For first time Channel4 to sell own advertising and ITV monopoly on advertising sales was lost.
Channel 5 was last conventional terrestrial TV channel to set up in 1997 before digital explosion, to
provide same strand of programming at the same time every day, each week.
TV licence is a tax on all owners of a TV set. Fee set by government and to be renewed by an Act
of Parliament.
Corporation's right to be funded by licence fee renewed, but situation insecure.
BBC set up internal market as Producer Choice, where producers must also be managers and shop
around for cheapest facilities rather than accept those providing by corporation itself.
Discusses different ways of paying for TV viewing as things are changing, ie. pay per view and
subscription.

16. The Broadcasting Act 1990 is a law of the British parliament, often regarded by both its supporters and its critics as
a quintessential example of Thatcherism. The aim of the Act was to reform the entire structure of British
broadcasting; British television, in particular, had earlier been described by Margaret Thatcher as "the last bastion
of restrictive practices". The act come about after the finding from the Peacock Committee.
It led directly to the abolition of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and its replacement with the Independent
Television Commission and Radio Authority (both themselves now replaced by Ofcom), which were given the remit
of regulating with a "lighter touch" and did not have such strong powers as the IBA; some referred to this as
"deregulation". The ITC also began regulating non-terrestrial channels, whereas the IBA had only regulated ITV,
Channel 4 and the ill-fated British Satellite Broadcasting; the ITC thus took over the responsibilities of the Cable
Authority which had regulated the early non-terrestrial channels, which were only available to a very small audience
in the 1980s.
An effect of this Act was that, in the letter of the law, the television or radio companies rather than the regulator
became the broadcasters, as had been the case in the early (1955-1964) era of the Independent Television Authority
when it had fewer regulatory powers than it would later assume.
In television, the Act allowed for the creation of a fifth analogue terrestrial television channel in the UK, which
turned out to be Channel 5, and the growth of multichannel satellite television. It also stipulated that the BBC,
which had previously produced the vast majority of its television programming in -house, was now obliged to source
at least 25% of its output from independent production companies.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 established a new framework for the regulation of independent television and radio
services, and the satellite and cable television under the act, the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and the
Cable Authority were dissolved and replaced by the Independent Television Commission. The Radio Authority was
established in respect of independent radio services. The Broadcasting Standards Council was made a statutory
body and the Act also contains provisions relating to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Besides
reorganising Independent broadcasting, the Act provided for the formation of a separate company with
responsibility for affecting the technical arrangements relating to independent television broadcasting - National
Transcommunications Ltd - as a first step towards the privatisation of the former IBA's transmission functions.

17. FILMS ACT 1985
The Films Act 1985 dissolved the British Film Fund Agency, ending the Eady
levy system established in 1951.
The Act also abolished the Cinematograph Film Council and dissolved the
National Film Finance Corporation, transferring its assets to British Screen
Finance Limited.
The Act repealed the Films Acts 1960-1980 and also repealed certain
provisions of the Finance Acts 1982 and 1984 and substituted new provisions
for determining whether or not a film was 'British' film eligible for capital
allowances.
Under the Finance Acts 1997 (No 2), 1992 (No2) and 1990, these provisions
have been further amended to relax the prohibition on using a foreign studio.
Finding a distinct cultural product.
The Eady Levy was a tax on box office receipts, this pumped excess money
back into the United Kingdoms Film Industry which made it cheaper to
produce films. The film act abolished this
American company's were claiming there film was British and abused the
tax, brought in to protect the British industry

18. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Act of parliament
“give further effect”
It means you can defend your rights in the uk courts and you must treat everyone
equally with fairness, dignity and respect.
Anyone in England and wales can use the human rights act even if they are a child, a
prisoner and are not a British citizen.
Judges must read and give effect to legislation in a way which is compatible rights
Unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible
Human right acts protect
The right to life
Investigates death
No torture or inhuman treatment
Protection against slavery
Liberty and freedom
Right to fair trail and no punishment without law
Innocent until proven guilty.
Respects privacy, family lives and right to marry.
Freedom of thought, religion and belief.

19. LIBEL LAW
There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written
down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to
words spoken. In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory
or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court.
For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be
defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke
that would be. Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence
revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the
case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed. Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the
BBC, so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on
his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note: Dyke has now left the BBC). It is not
for the judge or jury (at the outset) to decide how damaged he is - they just have to confirm that
such accusations are false and damaging. Then the judge and/or jury decide on monetary damages.
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
McLibel case
A long-running legal case in Britain is an example of the application of food libel principles to
existing law. McDonald's Restaurants versus Morris & Steel (also known as the " McLibel case") was
an English lawsuit filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and
David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the company.
The original case lasted ten years, making it the longest-running court action in English history.[9]
A feature-length documentary film, McLibel, was created about the case by filmmaker Franny
Armstrong.

20. Although McDonald's won two hearings of the case in English court, the partial nature of the
victory, the David-vs-Goliath nature of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the
company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000[10] that it was awarded
by the courts. Since then, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the trial
violated Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) because the defendants had been refused legal aid and had
only been represented by volunteer lawyers, and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the
Convention on Human Rights, again because the defendants had been refused legal aid, and
awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government.[11] (McDonald's itself was not a
defendant in this appeal.) On February 15, 2005, the pair's 20-year battle with McDonald's came to
an end with this judgment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case between McDonald's and a former postman &
a gardener from London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). It ran for two and a half years and became
the longest ever English trial. The defendants were denied legal aid and their right to a jury, so the
whole trial was heard by a single Judge, Mr Justice Bell. He delivered his verdict in June 1997.
The verdict was devastating for McDonald's. The judge ruled that they 'exploit children' with their
advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are
'antipathetic' to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. But Helen and Dave failed to prove
all the points and so the Judge ruled that they HAD libelled McDonald's and should pay 60,000
pounds damages. They refused and McDonald's knew better than to pursue it. In March 1999 the
Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees
worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "if one eats enough
McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart
disease."
As a result of the court case, the Anti-McDonald's campaign mushroomed, the press coverage
increased exponentially, this website was born and a feature length documentary was broadcast
round the world.
The legal controversy continued. The McLibel 2 took the British Government to the European
Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticise multinationals, claiming UK libel
laws are oppressive and unfair that they were denied a fair trial. The court ruled in favour of Helen
and Dave: the case had breached their their rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

21. LICENSING ACT 2003 AND LA
They licensing act 2003 and LA have been prepared by the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport in order to assist the reader of the Act. In April 2000
the Government published an act on reforming alcohol and entertainment
licensing set out proposals for modernizing and integrating the alcohol, public
entertainment, theatre, cinema, night café and late night refreshment house
licensing schemes in both England and Wales. Used to reduce crime and
disorder, to encourage tourism, to reduce alcohol misuse; and to encourage self-
sufficient rural communities. Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In
turn, "regulated entertainment" is defined as: A performance of a play, exhibition
of a film, sporting event, live music event, playing of music or performance of
dance.
The Act has four licensing outcomes which must be taken into account when a
local authority carries out functions. They are, preventing crime and disorder;
public safety; public nuisance; protection of children from harm; and in Scotland
there is a fifth licensing agree which is protecting and improvement of public
health

22. The new licences don't have to be renewed regularly; it is important
that in the Act, at any time, they can be called in for a review if
residents or a business nearby make a valid request. If this happens the
matter will go before a Licensing Sub-Committee which can vary,
suspend or revoke the licence. This is an important change to the old
licensing law, which made it much more difficult for residents to force
a review of a licence.
Licensees must now understand that just because they have been given
a licence under the new Act, any permission can be removed or varied.
As licensing authority, the Council will be working closely with the
police to ensure that the Act is enforced fairly and firmly with
everyone.
Under the Act, all local councils must draft, consult on and publish a
„Statement of Licensing Policy‟. It also explains how we plan to deal
with applications made under the Act. Most importantly it explains
how we aim to balance people's desire for entertainment with
residents' right to peace.
The Council's Licensing Policy is reviewed every three years and will
continue to monitor the licensing situation. We believe that the
Licensing Act 2003 can benefit residents, businesses and visitors and
our Statement of Licensing Policy provides the basis for us all.

23. PRIVACY LAW
Privacy in English law is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers in what
situations an individual has a legal right to informational privacy, that is to say the
protection of personal (or private) information from misuse or unauthorized disclosure.
Privacy law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to
protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or
the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognized no general right or
tort of privacy, and was offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach
of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like
harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998
incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1
of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life for the first time
within English law. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the
Convention in developing the common law.
The earliest definition of privacy in English law was given by Judge Cooley who defined
privacy as "the right to be left alone". In 1972 the Younger Committee, an inquiry into
privacy stated that the term could not be defined satisfactorily. Again in 1990 the Calcutt
Committee concluded that: "nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory
definition of privacy".
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords
decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law.

24. Well-known model Naomi Campbell was photographed leaving a rehabilitation
clinic, following public denials that she was a recovering drug addict. The
photographs were published in a publication run by MGN.
Campbell sought damages under the English law through her lawyers
Schillings who engaged Richard Spearman QC to bring a claim for breach of
confidence engaging s. 8 of the Human Rights Act, which required the court
to operate compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. The
desired result was a ruling that the English tort action for breach of
confidence, subject to the ECHR provisions upholding the right to private and
family life, would require the court to recognize the private nature of the
information, and hold that there was a breach of her privacy.
Rather than challenge the disclosure of the fact she was a drug addict - which,
given her previous denials, may be considered merely a rectification of a lie,
she challenged the disclosure of information about the location of her
Narcotics Meetings. The photographs, she argued, formed part of this
information.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/22.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_Mirror_Group_Newspapers_Ltd

25. THE OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
ACT 1959
The term „Pornography‟ is not generally used in UK law. Therefore in the UK
this is called „The Obscene Publications Act 1959‟ This describes an obscene
item as one „tending to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having
regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the material embodied
in it‟. This makes it an offence to publish obscene material or to have such
material in your possession with the intention of publishing it. It is not an
offence if it is for one‟s pleasure.
The Obscene Publications Act has many similarities to the Protection of
Children Act

27. THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1989
The Official Secrets Act is used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, India and Malaysia and
formerly in New Zealand and Canada for legislation that provides for the protection of
state secrets and official information, mainly related to national security. (In short)
People that have worked for the government often need to sign this to insure that
secrets relevant to national security of kept save.
People working with sensitive information are commonly required to sign a statement to
the effect that they agree to abide by the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act. This is
popularly referred to as "signing the Official Secrets Act". Signing this has no effect on
which actions are legal, as the act is a law, not a contract, and individuals are bound by it
whether or not they have signed it. Signing it is intended more as a reminder to the
person that they are under such obligations. To this end, it is common to sign this
statement both before and after a period of employment that involves access to secrets.
Secrets 1 – Security and Intelligence
An offence of disclosing information, documents or other articles relating to security or
intelligence.
Secrets 2 – Defence
An offence of disclosing information, documents or other articles relating to defence.
This section applies only to crown servants and government contractors.
Secrets 3 – International relations

28. THE RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976
The Race Relations Act 1976 was established by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race.
Items that are covered include discrimination on the grounds of race, colour,
nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the
provision of goods and services, education and public functions.
The Act also established the Commission for Racial Equality with a view to
review the legislation, which was put in place to make sure the Act rules were
followed.
The Act incorporates the earlier Race Relations Act 1965 and Race Relations
Act 1968 and was later amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act
2000, notably including a statutory duty on public bodies to promote race
equality, and to demonstrate that procedures to prevent race discrimination are
effective.

29. The Act was repealed by the Equality Act 2010, which supersedes and
consolidates previous discrimination law in the UK.
In 1976, a far tougher Act was passed that made discrimination unlawful in
employment, training, education, and the provision of goods and services.
It extended discrimination to include victimisation, and replaced the
R.R.B. and the C.R.E. with the Commission for Racial Equality, a stronger
body with more powers to prosecute.
Since 1976, further amendments have been made the Act. The police were
specifically excluded from the provisions of the 1968 Act, on the grounds
that they had their own disciplinary codes. Racism within the police force
was not fully recognised until the 1990s after Black teenager Stephen
Lawrence was murdered. The subsequent enquiry into the police‟s
handling of the case found there was „institutional racism‟ within the
Metropolitan Police.

30. VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT 1984
The Video Recordings Act 1984 is an Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom that was passed in 1984
It states that commercial video recordings offered for sale or for hire within the
UK must carry a classification that has been agreed upon by an authority
designated by the Home Office
The British Board of Film Classification, which had been instrumental in the
certification of motion pictures since 1912, was designated as the classifying
authority in 1985
The British Board of Film Classification was designated as the classifying
authority in 1985
Works are classified by the BBFC under an age-rated system, it is an offence under
the Act to supply video works to individuals who are (or appear to be) under the
age of the classification designated.

31. Works that are refused classification cannot, under the Act, be legally
sold or supplied to anyone of any age unless it is educational, or to do
with a sport, religion or music and does not depict violence, sex or
incite a criminal offence. The BBFC may also require cuts to be
made, either to receive a certain age rating, or to be allowed a
classification at all.
In August 2009 it was discovered that the Act was unenforceable as the
European Commission was not notified about it. Until this situation
was rectified, it was legal to sell and supply unclassified videos and
computer games, although many retailers had agreed to observe the
regulations voluntarily. Then pending prosecutions under the Act were
abandoned, but the government has claimed that past convictions
cannot be challenged. In December 2009 the government introduced
new legislation, the Video Recordings Act 2010, which repealed and
immediately revived the Video Recordings Act 1984, after the required
notification was provided to the European Commission in October
2009. This made the legislation enforceable once again, as well as
allowing it to be amended by the Digital Economy Act 2010.