What according to your opinion are the most important arguments to keep public service TV?
A public service channel shall give a responsibility to the viewer/listener,
immediate information and objective coverage of news without trying to glance on the advertiser just to make them like the offer. Public service TV shall also send more uneven programs with good quality, even if the audience is relatively small.
What according to your opinion is the most important argument to abolish public service TV?
- - -
Are there any essential differences between the program offerings on public service TV and commercial TV?
Yes, to a great extent. SVT is still more essential than the commercial channels in the programs it offers.
(See the answer on question 4.)
Has public service TV become more like commercial TV because of cable and satellite TV?
Yes, when it's about some entertainment program and competition program, public service TV shows a great deal of taking after commercial TV.
The Swedish TV and radio law says:
"The one who sends TV-programs or radio-programs after permission from the
government shall give the program activity so it lays the foundations of the democratic state-layers ideas and the principle about every human having equal value and the individual person's freedom and dignity."
How do program offerings reflect this? Are there any differences between public service TV and commerial TV concerning what the Swedish TV and radio law says?
The most usual example are movies with violent elements. I think you commonly can find proof that shows that commercial TV has more programs with violent elements than public service TV has. On the whole is it for public service TV to think through how democracy, parity and mankind bring programs to the forefront.
Tell us about what you think about public vs. commercial TV in our
public vs. commercial TV bulletin board