The reality is that television still shapes the way we live?

Argues Anthony Lilley of Magic Lantern Productions

Lilly makes an interesting observation in his Guardian article

At Oxford, speaker after speaker including Michiel Bakker of Viacom, Ed Richards of Ofcom and Jon Gisby from Yahoo gave numerous reasons why media policy should move beyond broadcast, not because TV is dead - or dying - but because other media are in rude health. In China, said Gisby, the kind of media consumption behaviours we in the west routinely and lazily associate with young people - downloading, social networks, video on demand - are on their way to becoming normal modes for everyone of every age, often alongside television. This may be because - in the absence of anything much to compare them to - people really like the control they give. What does this tell us about the implicit bias in the way we often look at different media here?

So I can't see why broadcast shapes the way we live. To me it sounds rather weak and Big Brother is an abberation, and perhaps is more a comment on society than good broadcast.

In fact Lilly is working towards something very different in his article and that is the concept of the PSP championed by Ed Richards at OfCom

To me this is all about changing the nature of the media - broadcast plays a role but not as we once knew it.

For example

New forms of drama in which the audience participate in the unfolding narrative have enormous potential for the PSP believes Andrew Chitty, of Illumina Digital. As well as building on the best of television's heritage they will also draw inspiration from contemporary theatre, performance and networked gaming.

Or citizen engagement

Facts are not always absolutes, but often the accepted accounts and explanations that follow from stimulating debates. If a central proposition of the PSP is to proactively enable citizens to better understand their physical, social and political environment, it must do this by supporting and stimulating debate across a whole range of issues. 'Investigation' is a useful metaphor for how the PSP should approach factual content because it is an active process bringing together social interaction, play, experience, experiment and opinion.

Open Democracy

And the role our cultural institutions play in this new networked world must also be addressed

The Disruptive Decade (1995-2005): the impact on museums

A cultural shift is underway - with a growth in cultural production accompanied by a growth in cultural choice. The trajectory of this cultural shift can be mapped through the example of museums and galleries. Museums have evolved dramatically over the last decade. Where once they were focused on objects in their collection, their attention has now turned to the audiences they serve. Where once they were preoccupied with constructing cannons and disseminating facts, they are now as interested in stimulating cultural exchange and debate. Over the last 10 years, museums have become more democratic and more popular. Two key factors have influenced this transformation: the emergence of disruptive technologies to support increased audiences and greater choice, and a political agenda centered on access. The average time spent online and the number of visits to cultural organisations' websites is growing, just as traditional broadcasting and newspaper audiences continue to fragment and decline. The most popular UK online arts site is a museum site, Tate, now attracting one million unique visitors a month and a 63% increase in visitors in 2005.

Lilly also asks the question

The ideas about the PSP which will be published this Wednesday by Ofcom are intended to raise debate by acknowledging that the public service landscape already contains both television and so-called "new media". Ofcom is already reviewing areas like C4, news provision and children's TV and the PSP work is designed mainly to stimulate debate. How might long-standing public service values such as promoting innovation, diversity and plurality play out in the new, participative landscape? Or might they not? As choice, participation and control are becoming more central to many people's engagement with media, might we be putting a valuable part of our media economy and our culture at risk if we don't ask these questions?

So Lilly is in fact assuaging the fears of the UK broadcast industry, but really is outlining the radical agenda for media revolution in this country.

OFCOM and the PSP

A new approach to public service content in the digital media age

Comments

[Anthony Lilley]

Hi Alan - thanks for the critique of my article. As you picked up, I was heading for a much more radical place than the sub-editor's headline! Although I do feel it's important not to over-state the revolutionary case for the time being.
Anthony Lilley

[alan moore]

Dear Anthony,

Thanks for stopping by. And commenting. Ah Sub-editor's

I would be interested in meeting up to discuss this further, were you interested

alan (DOT) smlxl (AT) gmail (DOT) com

Cheers

Alan

[Anthony Lilley]

Hi Alan - yes, I think meeting up would be good - especially as I've just got a copy of your book - which was on my Amazon list anyway (so he accidentally did you out of a royalty there) - from Michael Henderson. Small world, eh? Let me know when you're in London - or I'll give you a shout next time I'm up to see the folks.

anthony

[Alan moore]

Dear Anthony,

It will be the week after next, I am Finland next week. I am based in Cambridge and definitely find myself in London often.

Hope you find the book valuable reading.

Perhaps uou could email me your contact details, I think you have my email address

Alan

[Bill Thompson]

Anthony will be speaking at a conference on public sector procurement in London on March 8th - http://www.working2gether.net/ - and looking at how public/private sector partnerships can work. It's a commercial event but will be blogged on the day, and it will be interesting to see him expand his thinking on public value.