Eeva Mäntymäki
PhD, part-time lecturer, University of Tampere
Radio journalist, YLE
eeva.mantymaki@yle.fi
Consensual PSB Aesthetics as a Double-Edged Sword
The examination of YLE in popular discourses in my doctoral thesis reveals the crucial importance of
aesthetic arguments in debates on legitimacy of psb institutions. In popular discourses balanced and
generally acceptable consensual style is seen as an inseparable part of psb media companies’
respectability and social responsibility. In other words, aesthetics is seen to be closely intertwined with
ethical judgments.
Aesthetic arguments are also closely linked to the concept of quality. Quality discourses, on their part,
are always value-loaded even if this is not generally regocnized. In my study, the traditional quality
discourse identified in popular YLE discourses is deeply rooted in vaguely Habermasian public sphere
values underlining consensual value-neutrality. These values are engaged even when traditional quality
discourse is turned upside down into nostalgic negative quality discourse denying all possibilities to
have quality in commercialized media environment.
Despite the high status of rational and deliberative communicative style in traditional popular YLE
discourses these discourses are themselves based on dichotomies presupposing self-clear differences
e.g. between non-commercial quality and commercial quantity. There is also a clear distinction made
between journalism and culture on the other hand and entertainment on the other — even in such a
way that the quality associated with public service institutions appears as the Other of mass culture. So,
my study confirms through rhetorical discourse analysis that psb companies like YLE are constructed
in these specific traditional quality discourses both in popular discourses and in legitimate media policy
discourses e.g. at the Finnish parliament and in the audiovisual policy statements of the European
Union.
It is exactly this binary construction of the concept of quality which makes quality assesments of psb
double-edged swords — at the same time the strongest arguments pro public service and its most
dangerous threats. The dilemma is also already incorporated in the traditional psb remit to inform,
educate and entertain. However, ‘the brutal force of monopoly’(see e.g. Crisell 1998, 116) kept the
dark side of traditional quality (at least in Finland) more or less beneath the surface until the new
commercialized order turned peaceful media landscape during the last decennies of the 20 th century
into a competitive marketplace. Accordingly, the conceptual association between psb and quality was
at the same time consciously confirmed (e.g. Ang 1991, 131; Rosengren et al. 1996, 12-13) and seen to
turn into a problem.
1
On the backround, there is also the erosion of the previously largely shared national culture with its
taken for granted premises and value hierarchies. In addition to the growing importance of different
ethnical groups and multiculturalism e.g. class- and age-based inner contradictions of national cultures
seem to have become more visible. In connection with differences in media usage and taste formation
this development has more and more problematized the consensual aesthetics of psb organisations. So,
the situation of public service broadcasting seems to be in many way parallel to the situation of welfare
state which is understandable because these institutional and discursive formations share the same
value basis and partly also historical roots (see also e.g. Calabrese 1997, 7-9; Garnham 1997, 26-27).
We can also assume that although the general style and image of psb institutions has always been
middle-brow, previously the style reflecting middle-class values has probably had better status and it
has probably been more generally appreciated — in other words, it has been more legitimate. In
nowadays individualised cultural environment this neutralized psb style is more openly than before
doomed to be dull and elitist — and, accordingly, it can be passed by without any hesitations or
explanations in concrete choosing situations. In the other hand, it seems still to be useful as a means of
differentiation. This means also that the quality image of psb can on its part further the exclusion (from
the national public sphere) of e.g. politically passive groups used to more emotionally loaded and
colorful popular aesthetics. From this point of view, consensual psb aesthetics forms the biggest
obstacle for psb media companies to fulfil their obligation to serve the whole population in the name of
full-scale service. Accordingly, the official-neutral mood of psb can even lead public opinion towards
narrow definitions of psb as a quality brand (only) for rationally-oriented quality people.
To discuss this further we must understand the (national) public sphere not as a principle but as an
imagined symbolic community. For example Morley (2004, 418) writes about public sphere(s)
constructed at imaginal and emotional levels. He notices that discussions about the possibilities to
create or prevail one (nationally uniting) public sphere should take into account feelings and imaginal
questions. Thus, the question is not who are in principle included but who really feel included in the
symbolic national unity.
At the same time we have to keep in mind that talking about quality means inevitably also talking about
values. There is no escape, because quality definitions always refer to certain values. This means that
there is no such thing as value neutrality even though e.g. in popular quality discourses values are
assumed to be shared and taken for granted needing no further explications. But this also means that if
we are giving away consensual neutrality we’ll have to define which values to follow. This is exatly the
practical problem psb organisations are facing now. According to Van Zoonen (2005, 276-277), in
practice public service broadcasters have (at least to some extent) quietly given away traditional
enlightening psb values and adopted the new quality culture which embraces popularity without really
knowing what to do with it. The paradox is that at the imaginative level public service broadcasters still
represent traditional quality and are granted a legitimacy just because of this.
In this paper I propose a solution to these dilemmas by developing a tentative processual psb quality
definition. It is based on clear differentiation between goals and means and a demand of constant
evaluation of psb media companies’ethical performance keeping an eye on developments in cultural
and socio-political environment. In this process also the relationship between ethics and aesthetics
would be constantly re-valuated. That would involve taking aesthetic questions much more seriously
e.g. in news production. According to my view, this implicates inevitably also the importance of
2
preserving distinctive psb media companies with long traditions of taking social responsibility into
account. Following Costera Meijer (2005, 27-53) I’d also like to propose that enjoyment(s) should be
taken seriously in public service organisation and that this doesn’t necessarily mean the abandonment
of traditional ethical quality — or even total neglect of traditional easthetic quality.
Before entering into these questions, I’d like to introduce the way the notion quality is constructed in
popular discourses in the first years of the 21st century’s Finland.
YLE in popular discourses
The focus of my doctoral thesis is to examine by means of rhetorical discourse analysis the
construction of the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) in texts produced by ordinary media users.
Theoretically, the basic assumption of the research is YLE’s dual role in the media market: A public
service broadcasting company is simultaneously a national institution alongside the public libraries and
a media concern alongside other media companies. Because of this, the position of YLE in the Finnish
media landscape and in Finnish media policy cannot be understood without serious consideration of
both roles.
This dual perception leads to an analysis of media users’texts from two perspectives. In the empirical
part of the study the texts used as research materials shed light on the one hand on the discursive field
of citizenship and on the other the field of consumerhood. The main objective in both contexts is to
trace the networks of key concepts and argumentative structures constructing YLE as a national
institution and a media company. Special attention is paid to the ways in which these perspectives are
intertwined as well as to the contradictions in the YLE-discourses. In the background, there is a version
of Foucauldian discourse theory, seeing the analysis of power/knowledge in actual contexts as the main
option for politicising everyday practices.
The empirical research material consists of three textual entities all generated in 2001, which was the
first year of Finnish digital television. The main materials are 1) an Internet discussion (organised by
the Ministry of Transport and Communications) about publicly funded television (March 2001, over
100 participants) and 2) a sample of media diaries collected by the Folklore Archives, audience
research of YLE and the Research Centre for Contemporary Culture at the University of Jyväskylä
(November 2001). This sample consists of 124 media diaries written by men and women aged 30-45
years.
The discursive field of citizenship is examined, above all, through the Internet discussion, when the
media diaries are used to shed light on the field of consumerhood. There is also comparison material
consisting of a parliamentary debate on the 75-year old YLE (November 2001), which confirms the
assumption that there is a continuum between popular and official media policy discourses.
One of the major findings of the study is that in both discursive fields tension is mounting between
individualistic and collectivistic discursive formations. This basic tension seems to divide both fields
into discourses based on totally disparate assumptions about the state and about the consuming subject.
On the other hand, the discourses of citizenship and consumerhood are in many ways intertwining e.g.
around the concept of quality.
3
Quality as an absolute value
It is possible to identify and construct two basically different ways to refer to quality in my research
materials. In absolute quality discourses YLE is associated with universal enlightenment values and
legitimate taste. In these discourses quality is talked about as an absolute value which is the same in all
times and in every situation. In practice, in this — in my research materials in a way constitutive —
discursive formation the notion quality refers to so called serious and analytic journalism and highbrow cultural forms. Accordingly, it is possible to distinguish two differents but intertwined aspects of
traditional absolute quality discourse — the ethic and the aesthetic dimension.
In ethical quality discourse the core value is non-commercialism guaranteed by psb companies public
ownership. The focus is on objectivity, relevance, matter-of-factness and impartiality of the contents.
News and current affairs programmes are archetypical examples of these highly valued programme
types:
I am ready to pay for news with public money but not for all kinds of quiz shows and games. I think
commercial tv can very well take care of that kind of programmes.
[a spectator in the net discussion 5.3.2001]
The demand for rationality so typical to ethical quality discourse doesn’t mean that the discourse itself
could be discribed as truly rational and analytic. On the contrary, the essential feature of traditional
quality discourses is the construction of the notion of quality by clear-cut but usually vaguely defined
dichotomies:
We have got a cable TV with 12 channels. In practice I watch only YLE1 and YLE2. We think there
aren’t any decent programmes on the third channel, only some soap operas and cackling American tv
serials. [a woman aged 36 in her media diary]
In popular as well as in legitimate media policy discourses quality is actually defined as the opposition
to quantity. On the whole, talk about quality seems to be constructed in accordance with taken-forgranted binary oppositions like commercial quantity vs. non-commercial quality. The other basic
dichotomy is a binary opposition between culture and serious journalism on the other hand and
entertainment on the other (see also e.g. Costera Meijer 2001, 189-191). Public service broadcasting
might even be described as the Other of seductive and addictive mass culture, or as the collective
Superego of western cultures (see Elias 1939/1982, 229-250):
I’n not hooked up by any series so my only ‘compulsory’programme is daily news from YLE.
[a woman aged 36 in her media diary]
In the following citation a discussant comments the idea of privatization of YLE in the net discussion:
The idea would lead to rapid levelling-off the quality of tv programmes. The so called stupid majority
would define the conditions for all. We could also talk about the dictatorship of majority. There would
be soap operas and serials everywhere. [chomsky 7.3.2001]
4
As examples above show, in ethical quality discourse the notion of quality is constructed in opposition
to quantity which usually seems to imply ‘light entertainment’or ‘humbug’. In an other version of
traditional quality discourse, in the aesthetic quality discourse, this opposition is constructed more as a
dichotomical relationship between culture and entertainment:
Follow the example of German 3-sat, German-French Arte, French Cinquiem (or why not BBC World).
With public money you are supposed to send information and culture. Humbug can be taken care of
commercially. Blind staring to ratings directs attention to totally wrong direction. If we use percentual
indicators, 3–6 % share could be a good goal. Or why not Radio Yle 1’s 8 %. QUALITY instead of
quantity! [RM 20.3.2001]
During my own research process one of the biggest surprises were the obvious similarities between
popular texts like Internet discussion and the parliamentary debate about YLE. In both materials YLE
was constructed with strikingly similar arguments as a symbol of ethical quality, which confirms the
assumption that there really is more a continuum than a fundamental break between popular and
institutional media policy discourses. At the parliament, just like in popular debates, the value of psb is
usually expressed by the force of binary oppositions:
Before the telly I sometimes wonder if YLE has also resorted to humpugcompetition developed to
attract advertisers and forgotten its public service duties because of the enjoyment and joy created by
good ratings. However, I believe that most of the Finnish audience values more‘colourless’YLE news
than a naked newscaster. [Annika Lapintie, a leftist member of parliament, November 2001]
In aesthetic quality discourse chamber music concerts might be an archetypical example of traditional
quality content. Nevertheless, in the context of psb aesthetic quality standard is also contradictual
because of demand for diversity in public service media. Accordingly, there is a clear tension between
classic middle-class preferences for elevating apollonian and newer diversified interpretations of
quality. As a female discussant remarks in an Internet discussion:
We shouldn’t close down YLE channels. Their programmes are of better quality than in commercial
channels. But I’m amazed to see opinions demanding news, documents, good movies or “classy
entertainment”. Whoever will day after day stare the talking heads of documentaries and follow the
boring panel discussions of all-knowing celebrities or politicians? We have to ease off also, but
whatever could it be? Nobody seems to control the quality of films and there might not be such a thing
as quality entertainment. [Hannele 29.3.2001]
The roots of divergent aesthetic quality definitions can be traced to sociocultural changes in discursive
formations constructing the very notion of public servive broadcasting. In the beginning the ruling
principle was formulated by Reith as to offer ‘the best for everyone’the best implying to e.g. classical
music (e.g. Scannell & Cardiff 1991, 7-9). After the second World War and especially in 1960’s the
demand for cultural diversity intensified and found by and by more and more resonance also in psb
organisations. So, these at least partly contradictory discursive dimensions can be said to represent
divergent historical traits of public service ideology. Anyway, at least in my research materials the
previously described ethic quality discourse appears to be the core discourse of public service value.
Instead, the aesthetic standards can be and also are less absolute:
5
When we come from actual information delivery to culture, sports and entertainment, we arrive at an
area where there aren’t any rights and wrongs, only different tastes. Despite, we still have a strong
tradition that we all know so well what the others should watch and read. [EN 8.3.2001]
It is also possible to construct a negative quality discourse from my research materials. It seems to be
rooted in the very same values expressed in traditional absolute quality discourse, only that they are in
a way turned upside down. As the following example shows, the basic cultural dichotomies are
engaged again:
”Quality program glues you to the tv”, cried another of the two first-page headlines. I saw it before I’d
sat down. I sneered and wondered on which tv-channel there are quality programs these days. There
are only quiz shows and ready-laughed American series.
[a man aged 32 in his media diary]
Therefore, the main difference between negative and traditional quality discourse seems to be the
inclusion/exclusion of psb companies from the non-quality definition. In the traditional quality
discourse psb is seen as an exeption, in the negative quality discourse media in general (including psb)
is argued to be degenerated.
Besides absolute quality discourses described above it is also possible to construct a relative quality
discourse with the presumption that quality is a relation between demand and supply: anything can be
quality in a right time for a right person in a suitable situation (compare e.g. Ala-Fossi 2004). In
another words, quality is not any inherent feature of media content. Popular relative quality discourse
seems to be closely associated with libertarian discourse of citizenship and individualistic presumptions
about sovereignty of a consumer. In the net discussion it is usually identified in arguments against
licence fee which is referred to as an unfair way of taxation compelling citizens as consumers to pay for
programs they don’t want to watch:
Let tv entertainment (news are also entertainment) stay far away from taxpayers’money. It s not
reasonable to pay 700 marks for licence fee and still some more hundreds (YLE’s budget)1 for
programmes only few want to watch. All channels should be pay channels and everybody should decide
for himself what to pay for. Public money is to necessities like education, health care and subsistence.
[televisionääri 6.3.2001]
This example shows that even in arguments sharing the presumptions of relative quality discourse there
seems to be playing with the deeply rooted cultural dichotomies. In this context the dichotomies are,
however, put into different order: in previous citation commercial (quantity) is also good quality
because of its popularity and public (quality) is turned into bad quality because ‘only few are
interested´. However, the opposition between these two still prevails. This and the following example
also show how sharing the same values (democracy) doesn’t mean that you share the same opinions:
You seem to be angry at that commercial channels show what people want to watch. What’s wrong in
it? What is more democratic than 1,5 million people staring at Ally?
[without signature 28.3.2001]
6
Anyway, the rhetorical discourse analysis of popular discourses confirms that in constituted quality
discourses associated with psb the key presumption is that quality is non-commercial. The role of the
state is to guarantee the quality by public ownership and/or public funding. Behind this presumption,
there seem to be in some way rebublican and/or collectivistic political philosophy assuming the benign
state. From this point of view, the discourses surrounding and formulating psb institutions have gone
through several historical changes from paternalist-nationalist interpretations of the first decades
through the welfare state ideology to individualistic quality brand -interpretations of advanced
liberalism.
Nevertheless, all these interpretations have in common the presumption that the state is needed to
guarantee the quality. In the following example even the writer criticising universalistic full service
idea of psb admits the state a role in guaranteeing free information delivery (associated with ethical
quality):
I agree with many supporting publicly owned TV about the need to guarantee information delivery free
from commercial pressures. But for me information is news and documents. And I think also that tv is
not necessarily needed for these. Only one paper free from commercial and political pressures is
needed. Let’s take care that one such newspaper is financed by taxes. But only for information
delivery. If you think that these days a newspaper is too slow a medium for information delivery, let’s
turvata one national radio channel financed by taxes. Only for information delivery. [EN 8.3.2001]
Here we can see also the special importance given to knowledge and information in traditional ethical
quality discourse. In all its variations and forms the value of reason and rational argumentation is taken
for granted in a way which reveals the connections of quality discourse with classic Habermasian ideals
of public sphere and reveals its roots in Enlightenment values.
As the citation above strikingly shows, the common roots of the notion of quality and psb organisations
do not, however, necessarily lead to acceptance of existing psb organisations. On the contrary, the
notion of quality seems to be extremely flexible so that in my research material it can be used to
support both existing full service interpretation of psb and the narrow definition of psb as a national
treasurer and ‘objective’information delivery machine. With another words, as a part of different
discursive formations the traditional quality argument has totally different practical implications
leading to mutually exclusive media policy solutions.
Consensual psb aesthetics
It is not only the content which qualifies a program or a channel as a quality channel. There are also
aesthetic standards like peaceful, restactable and balanced performance and generally acceptable,
consensual style or middle-class style visual luxury which seem to be closely linked with the notion of
public service quality. According to Wheatley (2004, 328-335) e.g. the internationally well-known
BBC production The Blue Planet is generally appreciated as a benchmark of public service quality.
Nevertheless, she remarks that the excellence of Planet is not so much journalistic but aesthetic and
stylistic. Its most striking feature is visual luxury together with carefully considered and expensively
created details.
7
In my research materials the ethical dimension of consensual aesthetics is more visible than purely
aesthetic arguments. In net discussion and in media diaries public service quality is usually described
by referring to respectability of performance and matter-of-factness of content compared to more lighthearted commercial channels:
On TV1 reporters are more pleasant, neutral and decent but there’s more than enough news. On TV3
formulacars, ice hockey and afternoon papers emerge sometimes as the major concerns.[a women aged
39 in her media diary]
Accordingly, I’ve conceptualized the consensual aesthetic standard the aesthetics of social
responsibility. In spite of changes in cultural climate it still is a part of widely recognised serious psb
quality (see also Costera Meijer 2005, 35-37). The demand for decent and respectable style, balance
and matter-of-factness used to be guiding principles of YLE performance up to the least decennies of
20th century (e.g. OTS 1972,1; Salokangas 1996; see also Frith 1983, 101-123)
When we define (national) public sphere as an imagined symbolic community constructed at imaginal
and emotional levels (see Morley 2004, 418) we can see consensual aesthetics as an inseparable part of
creating the national status quo. A drive for consensus could be especially strong in countries like
Finland where the collectivistic Hegelian political filosophy is deeply rooted in people’s minds and
structures of political institutions. When the benign (welfare) state represents common good and shared
interests, it is assumed to guarantee the neutrality and objectivity of the public service broadcasters,
too. So the state is also the ultimate guarantor of the ethical performance of public service broadcasters.
Ethical performance implies also avoidance of scandalous and overtly sexual material or horrifying
violence. Public service broadcasters are also supposed to have room for respect of privacy. The logic
e.g. in the following citation seems to go about this way: they have their money anyway so they need
not to sell every piece of programming by all available (and possibly unethical) means.
After this one thanked YLEs ethical backbone. Only a few days before commercial channels had
created big headlines about family tragedy in Kurikka. YLE dealt with it reasonably and decently
without doing any more harm to people involved. [MS 5.3.2001]
On the other hand, this very same decency and respectability can drive viewers away because they
don’t feel like home in this kind of neutral ‘middle-class’style. According to Morley (2004, 422) there
is no escape from the cultural process of inclusion/exclusion. Programme always signals to some
members of some groups that it is designed for them and invites them to participate to social life — to
some members of some other groups it necessarily signals that it is not for them and that they are not
invited to this particular forum of sociability. In my research materials there weren’t any apparent
expressions of felt exclusion, but sometimes writers described situations when they felt more or less ‘at
home’:
Tv is left on the third channel. The atmosphere there is usually more relaxed than in YLE’s morning
programme. We tend to change channels quite frequently, always when there is something boring on
the other channel. [a woman aged 43 in her media diary]
8
It would be nice if they were sometimes laughing and sneering at some stupidities. I think they don’t
dare, if only somebody could get angry. Must YLE always be so neutral? [a women aged 38 in her
media diary]
So, one might suppose that people who are used to emotionally loaded popular aesthetic forms might
feel estranged when they face controlled expressions and colourless psb style. These differences of
style have also been described as a difference between controlled apollonic tradition and ecstatic
dionysian aesthetics forms (e.g. Hawkins 1998, 176-177). Many scholars have observed, too, that the
tratiotional aesthetic standards are still important in quality assessments of public service companies
(e.g. Hawkins 1998, 178; Curran 1998, 192-194).
However, in debates about commercialization of media changes in aesthetic style have quite frequently
been interpreted as signs of deteriorating journalistic standards. According to Fairclough (e.g. 1995)
emphasis put on private experiences and more and more common chatting mode of address are signs of
marginalisation of analytic and rational journalism. These changes can also be seen as parts of diffusion
of promotional culture into public sphere (see also Eide & Knight 1999, 538). Also e.g. Connell (1998,
12-13) remarks that rationalistic news discourse has turned into sensationalist and descriptive mode of
address has transferred to narrations.
Discussing about tabloidisation Sparks (1998, 5-10) defines it, on the other hand, as a process where
the importance of traditional public subject matters like economics and politics is diminishing in media
content. On the other hand, there are stylistic and aesthetic changes taking personal and private
experiences into the core of mediated culture and fusing traditional boundaries between media genres.
Sparks differentiates between these two divergent dimensions of tabloidisation even though they are
inevitably dimensions of the very same development. He also remarks that newspapers are more and
more diversified into quality papers, on the other hand, and sensational tabloids on the other. We can
ask if electronic media have faced or will face similar diversification at least if public service
broadcasters will accept the idea of concentrating to ‘serious’contents.
McNair (2000, 105-121) on his part, suspects that worrying about falling journalistic standards and
commercialization emerge at least partly from alterations in traditional ‘middle-class’aesthetic
standards. He asks whether the popularisation of style necessarily implies weakening intellectual
standards and growing away from the social and political public sphere. On the contrary, he suggest
that popular aesthetic forms can even enhance interest for societal questions. Similarly e.g. Curran
(1998, 189-194) criticizes BBC for clinging to high culture that indeed prevents the development of the
company to an organisation actually serving the whole population. He points to the dangers inherent in
asthetic quality standards when they are placed into the core of psb quality assumptions. According to
him, it is indeed inevitable that aesthetic and genre-bound quality definitions lead to slow
marginalization of ps media. This danger is apparent when a psb organisation construct itself as a
quality brand. As Van Zoonen (2005, 276-277) and Bourdon (2005, 283-304) put it, the relation to
popular is fatal to public service broadcasters.
McQuail (2000, 105-106), too, observes that the criticism of commercialization and tabloidisation is
difficult to differentiate from criticism of popular cultural forms in general, because commercialization
usually implies popularity and large audiences. That is why Costera Meijer (2005, 33) suggests we
9
shouldn’t talk about commercialization when we actually want to talk about trivialization and levellingoff of quality. In her discussions about quality Costera Meijer (2001, 189-205; 2005, 27-53) remarks
that in the definitions of quality journalism there are implicit cultural dichotomies (like public vs.
commercial, rational vs. emotional etc.) at play. In developing the concept of popular quality she sees
the necessity to overcome these dichotomies. This is particularly important in the context of public
service because of the universal remit of psb organisations to serve the whole country and all its
citizens.
From this point of view the situation of psb seems to be parallel to the situation of the entire
democracy: in policy studies it is suggested that e.g. extreme right-wing political movements have their
supporters because they use more emotionally loaded communicative style when middle-brow political
parties use rationally oriented ways of talking. Mouffe (2000, 10-13) has warned liberal western
intellectuals not to deny real differences between groups in the name of tolerance. According to her, the
utopia of rational and deliberative Habermasian consensus should not be taken as a goal because it
tends to cover real differences instead of dealing with them. Mouffe has developed a theory of
agonistic democracy to take into account of mutually exclusive values and (political) passions. In
agonistic democracy these real antagonisms would be accepted as such but were, nevertheless,
articulated at a common and shared forum.
Quality as a double-edgeg sword
The dichotomies structuring both popular and institutional YLE-discourses (non-commercial vs.
commercial, quality vs. quantity, factual and cultural contents vs. entertainment and sheer nonsense)
are engaged when we discuss about psb quality as a demanding challenge to public service
organisations. From the point of view of universally oriented public service companies the discursive
polarization is problematic because the quality-bounded legitimacy of psb seems to be incompatible
with popularity (see also Costera Meijer 2005, 32-35). This paradox of psb quality is also connected to
the question about the future of psb in a society with degenerating collectivistic tradition and growing
individualism.
When considering the challenge of quality we have to open up two distinct perspectives. The other
concerns the uses of quality as an argument in media policy, the other poses questions about the
relationship between aesthetics and ethic in general and about quality expectations associated with psb
in particular.
In media policy context one of the most interesting results of my study is that the concept of quality
(even in the very same absolute meaning) can be (and also is) used as an argument for very different
and even disparate media policy solutions. In individualistic libertarian context the association
between absolute quality and psb can be accepted as such. However, this acceptance isn’t followed by
acceptance of prevailing conditions and practices of public service broadcasting. On the contrary, in the
name of (absolute and traditional) quality one can demand that public service companies financed by
licence fee (or other tax-like arrangements) are to concentrate on serious quality programmes and to
leave ‘quantity’, e.g. entertainment and sports, to commercial companies.
10
However, many scholars assume that this purist ‘monastery model’(see e.g. Nissen 2005, 317-325;
Jakubowicz 2003, 153-156) will lead to marginalization of psb. As Søndergaard (1999, 21-28) remarks
the idea of division of tasks between commercial and publicly owned media companies seems to be
logical. Still, there is a serious danger for psb organisations to be marginalized precisely because of the
close association between quality and psb. Even if publicly funded channels and services would reach a
good amount of wealthy and well-educated ‘quality people’(see also Frith 2000, 43) this division of
tasks would, nevertheless, endanger the societal and cultural goals of public service broadcasting (e.g.
Scannell 1989, 139; Hujanen 2001, 85–86 and 2005, 78; Harrison & Woods 2001, 477–504). In other
words, this would lead to the crisis of the universalistic principle of psb.
In individualistic context the absolute psb quality discourse can also serve as an argument for
transformation of YLE tv channels to subscribtion channels known as ‘quality brands’. Here the
universalistic mission of psb is totally forgotten but the connection between public ownership and
quality still remains.
Nevertheless, the very same quality argument is suitable also for justifying the existing psb system with
universalistic mission and licence fee financing. In my research material psb quality as an absolute
value is the main pro-YLE argument in discursive formations articulating collectivist political
philosophies. In this context psb quality is referred to as an inherent characteristic of state-owned media
company; the presumption in the Hegelian discourse is that the benign state (and the YLE associated
with the state) represents positive freedom and the common good unlike commercial companies
seeking only the proprietors’own (economic) interests. The emphasis here is on non-commercialism of
public service companies which is assumed to guarantee the quality of all products of the company. In
principle this means that everything produced by publicly funded organisation is intrinsically better
than anything commercially funded channels could offer.
On the whole, analysis of quality discourses from media policy perspective reveals the flexibility of the
notion of quality in political argumentation to the extent that the quality argument seems to lose its
functional power almost altogether. Nevertheless, this kind of rhetorical discourse analysis could help
media policy parties both to understand each others’arguments and to accept the disparateness of their
presuppositions. This in turn should encourage media policy makers to give the questions about public
service their due by dealing them as deeply and thoroughly political questions.
Quality vs. universalism?
On the basis of popular YLE discourses one of the main tensions of public service broadcasting seems
to be mounting between the notion of absolute quality and the universalistic psb principle. This
contradiction in terms is articulated in particular in discourses concerning aesthetic forms assumed to
be typical to psb. The aesthetics of social responsibility is, on the other hand, respected as a crucial
component of psb values. On the other hand, it seems to estrange especially people used to popular
aesthetics with emotionally loaded style of expression.
When considering these problems we have to take into account also the more general debate upon
relationships between ethic and aesthetics. Is it possible to make a difference between form and
11
content? Answers differ greatly from scholar to scholar. An interesting point of view is Deacon’s
(2003, 213) standpoint that it is possible that there can be a discrepancy between aesthetic pleasure and
ethic gratification. Many other scholars writing from different point of view do, however, emphasize
the congruence between content and form. E.g. Fairclough (1995) sees the change in aesthetic forms as
an inherent part of the commercialization of media. Also Street (2000, 27-43) and Hawkins (1998, 173187) believe that aesthetic pleasure always contains also ethic considerations. Writing from the point of
view of southern America Canclini (2001, 118-120), for his part, suggests an analogy between violent
political traditions and in Southern America so popular action genres. According to him, there seems to
be a concgruence, too, between decreasing collective and public cultural activities and political
passivity.
In philosophy of aesthetics the tension mounts between formalism seeking pure aesthetic experiences
and theories emphasizing instrumental value of aesthetic forms. From the point of view of public
service, the former conception seems to be articulated in traditional aesthetic quality discouse that
stresses the intrinsic value of arts and cultural heritage. However, most media theorists of this day seem
to regard aesthetic value as an instrument for something. In spite of this, there remains the question
about the possible congruence between form and content.
Anyway, the core of the implicit contradiction between quality and universalism is to be found in the
dichotomic oppositions organising YLE discourses. As McQuail (2000, 105-106) remarks it is difficult
to make a distinction between the criticism directed towards falling standards of (quality) journalism
and criticism directed towards popular cultural forms in general. In my study one interesting
observation was that in popular discourse quality and quantity are straightforwardly put against each
other, in other words they are openly elitist (or may be rather meritocratic). Instead, in the
parliamentary debate politicians worked seemingly hard to balance their statements as to giving merit
to traditional quality but still praising YLE’s well enough ratings.
The situation becomes even more complicated when we remember that in popular as well as in
legitimate discourses traditional quality is the main argument pro publicly financed public service. In
the core of traditional quality discourse is ethical quality rooted in vaguely Habermasian concept of
rational and deliberative public sphere believing in the power of the best (=most rational) argument.
Also the traditional performative style of public service broadcasters, the aesthetics of social
responsibility, is bound to taken-for-granted appreciation of rationality. All this contructs psb
organisations as the Other of emotionally loaded and potentially addictive mass culture. So, the
paradox is that when all the citizens are in principle invited to participate in rational discussion about
common interests, the consensual and rationally controlled aesthetic forms might in practice estrange
many of them from the public sphere (see also Morley 2004, 418-441; Costera Meijer 2005, 35-37).
The built-in discursive opposition between quality and quantity has sometimes assumed to organise
only discourses of cultural elites (e.g. Nissen 2005, 317-325). My results, however, confirm the
assumption that the cultural dichotomy organises also popular discourses. Accordingly, the sometimes
even fierce opposition to attempts to ‘levell-off’quality by means of sensationalist ‘mass culture’
aesthetics (e.g. Mäntymäki 2004, 116-126) do not come only from cultural and political elites. This
was clearly indicated in discussions concerning YLE’s performance in Finnish presidential elections
this year: The aggressive style of one current affairs program portraying presidential candidates
generated fierce audience reactions and gave rise to a general debate on the ethics of political
12
journalism. So, moving away from consensual decent style is considered not only unpleasant but also
unethical.
From the point of view of citizen’s cultural rights popularized aestehetic forms of psb contents can,
nevertheless, be worthwhile to create. E.g. McNair (2000, 105-121) remarks that access does not only
mean the right to get information and be represented in media. According to him, a crucial aspect of
access is the right to understand given information and knowledge. Scannell (1989, 149), for his part,
sees the representation of all the events and the whole world for everybody in an understandable
language as the main task of public service broadcasting building trust and accumulating social capital
(see Biltereyst 2004, 341-362).
Murdock (1999, 10-16) sees that particularly those cultural forms and genres which are generally
understandable are key factors when cultural rights are included in the multidimensional conception of
citizenship. He reminds that social and political problems can be dealt with also in popular fictional
genres. He also emphasises the right of citizens to gather together into a mediated public sphere to
discuss and debate about general matters feeling comfortable in spite of differing opinions and styles of
expression (see also Gripsrud 1997, 36-37; 1999/2000, 282-286). Garnham (1997, 32-33), for his part,
writes about positive cultural descrimination. According to him access to diverse media content is not
enough to guarantee the cultural equality of citizenry. Besides, the actual possibilities of a citizen to use
them should be taken into account. Nevertheless, the tenacious dichotomy organising quality discourses
can make attempts to popularise aesthetic style of psb both dangerous and — paradoxically — also
unpopular.
Processual quality and public enjoyment
As Costera Meijer (2005, 37) remarks, quality has for a long time been regocnised as the area of media
research needing more attention. In psb organisations different quality projects have been a constant
feature after the upraisal of quality as the sign of distinctiveness of public service in 1980s and 1990s
(see e.g. Ang 1991, 131; Rosengren et al. 1996, 12-13) ). However, the debates surrounding quality
have usually ended up with the conclusion that quality and appealing to large audiences are
imcompatible (Costera Meijer 2005, 32). After having classified five different vocabularies of quality
on the basis of interviews of Dutch media experts and transcipts of policy documents Costera Meijer
indicates that far too often it is the artistic vocabulary of quality that predominates discussions about
quality. She also proposes a solution to surpass the dictotomies implied by it: according to her the other
four vocalubaries of quality (the marketing vocabulary, the artisan vocabulary, the teacher vocabulary
and the moderator vocabulary) should be taken into account when considering quality assumptions. She
also suggests that to get a better grip of quality as experience we should add the role of enjoyer to the
traditional audience roles of citizens and consumers. This raises the question of impact next to the
content as a criterion of quality particularly in the context of psb (Costera Meijer 2005, 47-48).
I do agree with Costera Meijer about the importance of effects in debates about psb quality. If we
adhere to the universalistic mission of psb the questions about effects and impact can’t be dismissed. It
is also obvious that the dichotomies organising quality discourses must be overcome. In my thesis I’ve
suggested the development of democratic aesthetics and processual quality definition for psb
13
companies. The processual definition of quality would differ both from ratings discourse and
oppositional dichotomic quality definition in making a clear difference between means and ends.
From psb organisations point of view, this would require the acceptance of traditional interventionist
remit with clearly expressed goals and values — and in practice the question whether to be
interventionist or not seems to be quite hard to answer. The other prerequisite is that nation (or some
other clearly definable and institutionally confirmed entity) is still accepted as a (for its members)
relevant — even if imagined — community. Accordingly, I’d like to suggest that in spite of all serious
technical and cultural challenges which public service broadcasters have to face (e.g. Harrison & Wood
2001, 477-504) psb companies should keep universalism as a value and actively seek new ways to
realise this goal. The need for communion (see Deacon 2003, 225-226) has not disappeared, the only
question is in what forms it will be realized.
As to the means, there is a problem concerning proper aesthetic forms if consensual psb aesthetics will
exclude remarkable part of citizenry from the national public sphere psb company is supposed to
represent. The position taken by psb organisation in relation to this question is dependend on the goal
the company wants to achieve. If psb companies would be normal business actors, the position as (the
traditional) quality brand were not a problem at all. I do think they could stay well alive even when
forced to sell their quality products to quality people piece by piece.
When we remember the dual role of psb organisations both as media companies and national public
institutions the situation becomes different: there is the social responsibility as the core value to start
with — but then there are disparete expectations concerning the means to turn this value into practice.
Here we have also the question of (social) impact and here is the difference between processual and
relative (audience- or customer-oriented) quality definitions. As e.g. this stydy of mine suggests, the
answers to quality problems of psb are not to be solved by asking audiences or customers ‘out there’
(with ever more sophisticated methods) what they would like to have. Instead, the way to societal
relevance of psb can be found in practice in responsible and enlightened work communities well aware
of the developments in cultural and socio-political environment. Then, all available technical and
aesthetic means can be used to serve the settled societal goals. However, the relationship between
means and ends, ethic and aesthetic, needs constant re-evaluation in accordance with changing
circumstances
Bibliography
Ala-Fossi, Marko (2005) Saleable compromises. Quality cultures in Finnish and US commercial radio.
Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Ang, Ien (1991) Desperately seeking the audience. London: Routledge.
Biltereyst, Daniel (2004) ‘Public service broadcasting, popular entertainment and the construction of
trust’. European Journal of Cultural Studies 7(3): 341–362.
Calabrese, Andrew (1997) ‘Creative destruction? From the welfare state to the global information
society’. Javnost IV[1997]/4: 7-24.
14
Connell, Ian (1998) ’Mistaken identities. Tabloid and broadsheet news discourse’. Javnost V[1998]/3:
11–32.
Costera Meijer, Irene (2001) ’Th e public quality of popular journalism. Developing a normative
framework. Journalism Studies 2(2): 189–205.
Costera Meijer, Irene (2005) ’Impact or Content? Ratings versus Quality in Public Broadcasting’, in
European Journal of Communication 20(1):27-53.
Crisell, Andrew (1998) ’Radio: Public Service, Commercialism and the Paradox of Choice’, s. 114–
126 teoksessa Briggs, Adam & Cobley, Paul (toim.) The media. An introduction. Essex: Longman.
Curran, James (1998) ’Crisis of public communication. A reappraisal’, pp. 175–202 in Curran, James
& Liebes, Tamar (eds.) Media, ritual and identity. London: Routledge.
Deacon, David (2003) ‘Holism, communion and conversion. Integrating media consumption and
production research’. Media, Culture &Society 25(2); 209–231.
Eide, Martin & Knight, Graham (1999) ‘Public/private service: Service journalism and the problems of
everyday life’. European Journal of Communication 14(4): 525–547.
Fairclough, Norman (1995/1997) Miten media puhuu. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Frith, Simon (1983) ‘The pleasures of the hearth’, pp. 101–123 in Formations of pleasure. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Costera Meijer, Irene (2005) ’Impact or Content? Ratings versus Quality in Public Broadcasting’, in
European Journal of Communication 20(1):27-53.
Crisell, Andrew (1998) ’Radio: Public Service, Commercialism and the Paradox of Choice’, s. 114–
126 teoksessa Briggs, Adam & Cobley, Paul (toim.) The media. An introduction. Essex: Longman.
Curran, James (1998) ’Crisis of public communication. A reappraisal’, pp. 175–202 in Curran, James
& Liebes, Tamar (eds.) Media, ritual and identity. London: Routledge.
Deacon, David (2003) ‘Holism, communion and conversion. Integrating media consumption and
production research’. Media, Culture &Society 25(2); 209–231.
Eide, Martin & Knight, Graham (1999) ‘Public/private service: Service journalism and the problems of
everyday life’. European Journal of Communication 14(4): 525–547.
Fairclough, Norman (1995/1997) Miten media puhuu. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Frith, Simon (1983) ‘The pleasures of the hearth’, pp. 101–123 in Formations of pleasure. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
15
Frith, Simon (2000) ’The Black Box. The value of television and the future of television research’.
Screen 41(1): 33–50.
Garnham, Nicholas (1997) ‘Amartya Sen’s ”cababilities”approach to the evaluation of welfare and its
application to communications’. Javnost IV[1997]/4: 25–34.
Gripsrud, Jostein (1999) ’Television and common knowledge. An introduction’, pp.1–4 in Gripsrud,
Jostein (ed.) Television and common knowledge. London: Routledge.
Gripsrud, Jostein (1999) ’Scholars, journalism, television. Notes on some conditions for mediation and
intervention’, pp. 34–52 in Gripsrud, Jostein (ed.) Television and common knowledge. London:
Routledge.
Harrison, J. & Woods, L.M. (2001) ‘Defining European public service broadcasting’. European
Journal of Communication. 16(4): 477–504.
Hawkins, Gay (1998) ’Public service broadcasting in Australia: Value and difference’, pp. 173–187 in
Calabrese, Andrew & Burgelman, Jean-Claude (ed.) Communication, citizenship, and social policy.
Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hujanen, Taisto (2001) ’Ääniradio’{Sound radio], pp. 93–113 in Nordenstreng, Kaarle & Wiio, Osmo
A. (eds.) Suomen mediamaisema. [Finnish media landscape] Helsinki: WSOY.
Hujanen, Taisto (2002) The power of schedule. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Hujanen, Taisto (2005) ‘Implications for Public service broadcasters’, pp. 57–84 in Brown, Allan &
Picard, Robert R. (eds.) Digital terrestrial television in Europe. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jakubowicz, Karol (2003) ’Bringing public service broadcasting to account’, pp. 147–166 in Hujanen,
Taisto & Lowe, Gregory (eds.) Broadcasting & convergence. New articulations of the public service
remit. Göteborg: Nordicom.
McNair, Brian (2000) Journalism and democracy. An evaluation of the political public sphere.
London: Routledge.
McQuail, Denis (2000) McQuail’s mass communication theory (4th ed). London: Sage.
Morley, David (2004) ’Broadcasting and the construction of the national family’, pp. 418-441 in Allen,
Robert C. and Hill, Annette (ed.) The television studies reader. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, Chantal (2000) The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
Murdock, Graham (1999) ‘Rights and representations. Public discourse and cultural citizenship’, pp. 7–
16 in Gripsrud, Jostein (ed.) Television and common knowledge. London: Routledge.
16
Mäntymäki, Eeva (2006) Hyvinvointivaltio eetterissä. Yleisradion rakentuminen populaarien
diskurssien kentillä. (Welfare state on air. The construction of YLE in popular discourses). University
of Tampere, 2006. Media Studies. Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Nissen, Christian S. (2005) ’Epilogue. The public service nun. A subjective tale of fiction and
facts’, pp. 317-325 in Lowe, Gregory Ferrell & Jauert, Per (eds.) Cultural dilemmas in public service
broadcasting. Göteborg: Nordicom.
Rosengren, Karl Erik & Carlsson, Mats & Tågerud, Yael (1996) ’Quality in programming: views from
the North’, s. 3–48 teoksessa Ishikawa, Sakae (toim.) Quality assessment of television. Luton: John
Libbey.
Salokangas, Raimo (1996) Aikansa oloinen. Yleisradion historia 1949–1996. [Contemporary company.
The history of YLE 1949-1996] Helsinki: Yleisradio.
Scannell, Paddy (1989) ‘Public service broadcasting and modern public life’. Media, Culture and
Society 11(2): 135–166.
Scannell, Paddy & Cardiff, David (1991) A social history of British broadcasting. Volume one 1922–
1939. Serving the nation. London: Basil Blackwell.
Sparks, Colin (1998) ‘Introduction’. Javnost V[1998]/3: 5–10.
Street, John (2000) ’Aesthetics, policy and the politics of popular culture’. European Journal of
Cultural Studies 3(1): 27–43.
Søndergaard, Henrik (1999b) ‘Some reflections on public service broadcasting’. Nordicom Review
20(1): 21-28.
Vanhatalo, Juha-Pekka (2004) Radionkuuntelu identiteettivalintana.
Suhde radioon nuorten aikuisten puheessa. [Radio listening as an identity choice. The relation to radio
in discourses of young adults] http://ethesis.helsinki/julkaisut/val/viest/pg/vanhatalo/radionku.pdf
Van Zoonen, Liesbet (2004) ‘Popular qualities in public broadcasting’. European Journal of Cultural
Studies 7(3): 275–282.
Wheatley, Helen (2004) ‘The limits of television? Natural history programming and the transformation
of public service broadcasting’. European Journal of Cultural Studies 7(3): 325–339.
1
The factual information of this comment is not explicitly correct.
17