16i1112

BR Bavarian Public Broadcasting Corporation ORF Austrian Broadcasting Corporation PUBLIC NETWORK VALUE THOMAS STEINMAURER CORINNA WENZEL UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION SCIENCE

SUMMARY

Fundamental transformations of digitalization and convergence cause paradigm shifts in media and communication landscapes. The universal paradigm of digital connectivity overcomes the mass media principle of “one-to many� distribution of information and content, profoundly changing the roles of communication actors and media institutions. Traditional roles of the media, such as the role of a gatekeeper, are eroding and changing into gate-watchers.

Consequently, the basic parameters of public service media are changing in an environment of highly pluralized media infrastructure as well as fostering competition among new global players. These players increasingly attract the attention of internet users and lead to fundamental changes.

On the level of digital networks, we observe radically altered forms of usage that are increasingly characterized by mobile, individualized and interconnected information and communication patterns. Additionally, new media repertoires develop in converging communication platforms (Hasebrink/Domeyer 2010), especially among so-called digital natives. Additionally, we observe economic crises of traditional mass media and their marginalized role within the wide spectrum of digital communication infrastructures. Therefore, the question arises, which structures and institutions will safe-guard the quality of communication infrastructures for processes of democratic deliberation in the future. Which potential is to be expected of digital networks, and which qualities are to be developed by public service media to explicitly secure and expand democratic additional value?

Against the background of all these transformations, it is essential to concentrate on future perspectives, which were developed in this study. It is methodologically based on best-practice examples already established on different levels and interviews with European experts in the field of communication science and practice.

The wide range of structural deficits we can detect in digital networks today deriving from uncertain qualities of information, the dominance of global players (such as Facebook or Google), as well as unequal opportunities of access and usage – basically justify the protection of a deepened impact of public service media, especially in online environments (see Trappel 2008, Moe 2008).

Within the range of traditional communication structures and new potentials for connectivity, it is vital to overcome problematic developments as well as existing deficits in online communication. It is equally important to further invest in potentials to strengthen democratic processes in the sphere of new network structures. Therefore, the goal should be to explore and generate new qualities of a “public network value” (Steinmaurer 2013), based on the concept of existing public value.

On the one hand, the development of a new “network value” is oriented towards a concept of “digital commons” (Murdock 2005), that/ which understands platforms of independent communication infrastructure as an essential contribution to the development of public spheres of deliberation.

Concerning the user, this concept addresses individuals actively communicating in networks not only as “users” or “consumers” but also in their role as “citizens”. They should equally be enabled to engage in different spheres of civil society and participation. Furthermore they ought to have the possibility to get involved in discourses and participate in democratic processes in order to fulfil their duties of “democratic citizenship” in digital networks (Coleman/Blumler 2009).

Both concepts – “digital commons” and “democratic citizenship” – are to be examined as relational approaches when we think about new affordances for digital communication processes in democracy.

Within this structural frame, a set of measures needs to be developed, safeguarding democratic value for communication infrastructures of society in the sense of a “public network value.” With regard to the development of such network qualities, this study is adding to already existing suggestions in literature as well as dimensions developed in expert discussions.

An essential attribution for Public Service Media remains the universal access for all members of society, regardless of financial or social barriers (“universal access”). Furthermore, a central goal for public service media should be the establishment of recognizable and visible in digital networks. The term findability is above all to be defined with regards to content. Another important dimension primarily encompasses mechanisms to promote dialogue and forms of “co-production” as well as participation and interaction (“interaction & participation”).

PSM are basically offering valuable contribution when it comes to quality assurance. This becomes particularly important in conjunctions between online media, small weblogs or chat forums and between lay communication and professional forms of journalism. Accordingly, there is a need to better validate and contextualize discourses relevant to democracy (“validation & contextualization”). PSM are the institutions that are able to synchronize different audience groups.

In an environment of converging media and technologies, new forms of cooperation and networking of public-service institutions are to be considered: these collaborations could be established together with other quality media and content providers, cultural organizations, regional and local institutions, and organizations such as universities, museums, or consumer associations (see EBU 2014:25) (“cooperation & networking”).

Another central component of “Public Network Value” should be accessibility and storage capacities. This encompasses establishing dynamic knowledge archives as well as networking with other providers (“cultural memory”).

Moreover, PSM are requested to contribute to the development of digital network literacies, especially for the younger audience. Thereby, they should support citizens to genuinely benefit from network qualities corresponding to democratic or cultural potentials (“media competence”).

In turn, this would also translate into the mission to establish proper efforts in the areas of research and development, to be able to independently develop innovative network offers (“innovation & research”).

Finally, the idea of public network value, also applies to PSM providers to set up competences for network infrastructures (“content provider quality”).

Which of the competences mentioned above will actually be implemented, depends on the country-specific structural regulations as well as their different legal frameworks.

To conclude, the further development of public network value in PSM covers a broad spectrum of dimensions. On the whole it is vital to secure sustainable structures of information and communication in developing digital media environments, in order to safeguard democratic infrastructures for society. New approaches like the “digital commons” may offer new perspectives for this achievement: they function as connected and independent communication platforms in conjunction with concepts of “democratic citizenship.”

This transformation confronts PSM with the necessity to further develop their role as public service providers for society. Additionally, they are required to take their position as a central and trustworthy communication hub for information and communication structures relevant to democracy.

In doing this, PSM could succeed in shaping their role within digital network structures as “public service networks”, continuously rendering their important functions and services to democracy and society.

THOMAS STEINMAURER, University of Salzburg, Department of Communication Science. Research focus: mediatisation research, history and theories of medial and social change, media structure research and media system in Austria, digital networks and society.

CORINNA WENZEL, University of Salzburg, Department of Communication Science. Research focus: media politics, political communication, media quality research, public service broadcasting, media self-regulation.

Table 1 ONE-TO-MANY passive media use

PASSIVE

MANY-TO-MANY interactive communication processes ACTIVE

classical media online media news aggregators social media blogs & chats mobile web 2.0

classical communication structures

new networking potential

public service broadcasting public service media public service networks PUBLIC VALUE

NETWORK VALUE

Table 2 PUBLIC NETWORK VALUE Outer layer Universal access to quality networks Multiplatform Availability PSM as compass in digital networks Visibility of PSM in digital networks PSM as a dialogue forum of “coproduction� & participative interaction Participatory news-production Synchronization of audiences and users Curating aggregators Dynamic knowledge archives & additive information services (Multi) Media libraries Alliances of Innovation with quality media, network initiatives & cultural institutions Quality-hosts Network innovations as enabler of linear & non-linear content Innovation projects with added value for society Communication competences, skills & digital literacies Meta-functions for democratic & digital citizenship Competences of Communication Quality initiatives in Online communication

Inner layer Universal access Findability Interaction & participation Validation & contextualisation Cultural memory Cooperation & networking Innovation & research Media competence Content provider quality

Core PUBLIC VALUE Individual value Social value National value International value Corporate value