Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

PSM organisations across the globe have been disrupted by a generalised switch in media consumption towards online and the rise of big tech platforms. This article argues that because, in the digital environment, the role that PSM plays in underpinning democracy and promoting social cohesion is pretty much essential to the proper functioning of everyday life and national security, PSM now deserves recognition as a critical infrastructural asset. From this starting point, we ask what if any insights PSM organisations might garner through studying the experience, functioning and performance of organisations in other critical sectors such as rail, aviation and healthcare. Our findings, drawing on UK-based multi-case analysis, highlight the importance of themes including interdependence, industry structure and universality, public versus private ownership and resilience. They also highlight how frameworks developed relating to protection of critical infrastructure can usefully be applied to PSM to yield insights about strengthening the resilience of PSM in the digital environment.

Keywords

infrastructure interdependence misinformation public ownership public service media public value resilience universality

Introduction

‘Public Service Media’ (PSM) organisations across the globe have been disrupted by huge changes including a generalised switch in media consumption towards online and the rise of big tech platforms (Boyle, 2019; Donders, 2019; Johnson, 2019; Johnson and Dempsey, 2024; Poell et al., 2022). Many PSM providers are also struggling against funding pressures and challenges in engaging younger audiences (Campos-Freire et al., 2020; D’Arma et al., 2021).

The rise of global subscription video on demand services (SVoDs) such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ has resulted in a ‘paradigmatic’ shift in how audiences are conceptualised, away from traditional notions of national groupings towards a more fluid transnational corpus of algorithmically-directed users (Fisher and Mehozay, 2019; Lotz, 2023). The surging popularity of commercial global streamers has also reshaped industrial conditions and commissioning practices, fuelling greater emphasis on what has been referred to as ‘trans-territory filler work’ (Mahon, 2019) overlaid with ‘international-flavoured seasoning’ (Albornoz and Garcia Leiva, 2022). But, rather than obviating the need for PSM, it can be argued that the growing economic power and prominence of SVoDs underscores the public functions that clearly differentiate them, for example in relation to provision of distinctive locally relevant content and the sustainability of local production (Doyle, 2023).

As is reflected in numerous recent consultations and reviews of PSM across Europe, there is plentiful evidence that the public strongly recognises the ways in which PSM enhances and underpins everyday life, supporting informed public debate and democracy and promoting social and cultural cohesion (FOMC, 2022; Ofcom, 2022). In the UK, the most recent Government inquiry into the future of PSB concluded that, while ‘we are witnessing seismic shifts in the way people are discovering and viewing audiovisual content . . . the need for public service broadcasting remains as strong as ever’ (House of Commons, 2021: 1).

Drawing on original research carried out as part of a major ESRC-funded project (ES/X005690/1) about the purposes of PSM and how it should be financed, this article is broadly concerned with the role and legitimisation of PSM in the digital era. It argues that, as the roster of functions that organisations such as the BBC perform is re-shaped by the digital environment, the role played by PSM in underpinning culture and democracy and in supporting informed public discourse in the face of ever-rising levels of dis and misinformation is such that it now forms an integral part of the infrastructural assets needed to preserve and protect everyday life and national security (Doyle, 2024; FOMC, 2022). Earlier research has highlighted the role of a well-functioning communicative space or public sphere as an aspect of communication infrastructure (Splichal, 2022). At a time of heightened awareness of how communicative space intersects with national security (Schlesinger, 2024), we argue that PSM is playing an increasingly pivotal role in respect of democracy and security. As well as ‘informing, educating and entertaining’ audiences, considerable pressures now bear on PSM to provide locally-relevant content and – of particular pertinence – to provide accurate information and news that acts as a buffer against the rise of ‘fake news’ (EBU, 2018; European Commission, 2018; Poell et al., 2022).

Based on the idea that PSM deserves recognition as an infrastructural asset whose healthy functioning matters greatly to the societies in which it operates, this article asks what if any insights PSM organisations might garner through studying the experience, functioning and performance of organisations in other infrastructure sectors such as rail, energy or healthcare. Infrastructure has tended to receive ‘surprisingly little attention’ from media scholars (Michalis, 2018: 196). But addressing this question allows us to consider how critical infrastructure frameworks (Labaka et al., 2016; Yusta et al., 2011) might usefully be applied in the context of PSM.

In the following sections, empirical evidence drawn from examining a range of alternative critical national infrastructure (CNI) sectors in the UK is presented and analysed in order to ask what if any lessons PSM can learn from studying the forces that shape their conduct and performance. How do transport or healthcare infrastructure providers conceptualise and deliver public value? For other CNI providers, how do issues such as universality, competition and state versus private ownership effect organisational thinking and strategies? To what extent might PSM take lessons from the ways that CNI providers think about organisational awareness and readiness to withstand disruption? Despite how differences in function and circumstance shape sector-specific understandings in ways that, to some extent, limit commensurability, it remains that comparative analysis across a range of CNI sectors provides a valuable means of opening up for examination how the formers’ experience can potentially inform and enhance the functioning of PSM.

To address the above questions, our research involved analysis of organisational mission statements, industry studies and other secondary source material plus a programme of interviews with key decision-makers working across UK critical infrastructure sectors.¹ The sectors we focus on – rail, aviation and healthcare – were selected on the basis of having high potential to offer insights about how an array of differing sorts of infrastructural organisations conceive, deliver and evaluate public value. A multiple case study approach was adopted focussing on (for rail) Network Rail, Scotrail and Transport for Wales; and (for airports) AGS, Highlands and Islands Airports (HIAL), London City Airport and Manchester Airports Group (MAG); and (for healthcare) NHS England and NHS Scotland. All interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis, yielding a rich body of evidence on questions around how public purposes are thought about and how public value is generated in alternative infrastructure sectors.

In the sections which follow, we first outline what infrastructure is and consider how, in a changing media environment, the attributes of PSM conform with notions of critical national infrastructure. We then (in sections from ‘How other CNI Sectors create Public Value’ to ‘Organisational resilience’) present and analyse original findings about how other critical national infrastructure sectors in the UK conceptualise and deliver public value. The potential resonance for PSM provides a central focus for analysis.

PSM as critical infrastructure

Infrastructure such as roads and education has been described as ‘a public good from which we all benefit, to a greater or lesser extent’ (Hall et al., 2016: 3) and also as a ‘system-of-systems’ that ‘have a special foundational role’ in society (Baldwin and Dixon, 2008: 8). Infrastructure that is ‘critical’ means systems or assets that are essential to national life (Yusta et al., 2011). In the UK as elsewhere the Government has identified a number of CNI sectors whose ability to withstand threats is seen as a societal priority (Crick and Bentley, 2020). Critical infrastructure is generally agreed to include communications, involving assets such as fibreoptic cables, transmitters and intangible digital technologies (National Cyber Security Centre, 2023). However, aside from in Scandinavia and more recently Ireland (FOMC, 2022; Doyle, 2024), the idea of media services or PSM content as ‘infrastructure’ has rarely been found in media policy texts or discourses. This article argues that recent transformations can be seen as situating PSM as elements of critical media infrastructure.

How so? The traditional aims and purposes of PSM were encapsulated in John Reith’s pioneering conception that PSB should ‘inform, educate and entertain’ audiences (Nicholas, 2015: 323) – a formulation that, alongside such principles as universality, impartiality in news provision and support for regional and independent production, nowadays continues to guide PSM organisations in the UK and beyond. But the rise of global platforms introduces new and complex challenges (Iosifidis, 2011). Considerable pressures now bear on PSM to compete against the prominence and power of SVoDs and to provide significant amounts of locally-specific content while also serving as champions of the indigenous creative economy (Raats and Jensen, 2021). Increased investment in drama from SVoDs, with attendant inflation in production costs plus heightened reliance on third-party and international sources of funding, have made the use of certain forms of story-telling to reflect national life, in all its diversity, more challenging (Davie, 2024; Ofcom, 2020). Even so, such story-telling, as a vector for sharing, examining or coming to terms with nationally-specific happenings, values and ideas, can be seen as serving an infrastructural function through enabling and enhancing social cohesion and daily living conditions. PSM-originated content continues to make a distinct ongoing contribution to national life and national debate as evidenced, for example in the UK, by such recent drama series as ITV’s Mr Bates vs the Post Office and Breathtaking (Brocklehurst, 2024).

At the same time – importantly – the rise of ‘fake news’ has raised expectations that PSM can and must serve as a buffer against escalating levels of online disinformation (Davie, 2024; EBU, 2018; European Commission, 2018; Freedman, 2019). Despite facing numerous challenges, mainstream news media still occupy a highly significant position (Deacon et al., 2024). The normal functioning of everyday life, national security and democracy, now more than ever before, is dependent on the availability of accurate news that serves as a counterweight to the disinformation which, frequently as part of orchestrated campaigns related to elections, international conflicts or public health campaigns, is an increasingly pervasive feature of the contemporary digital environment. Therefore, transformations currently affecting the role of PSM are, in some cases, not merely about adding new layers to traditional remits. More fundamentally, we would argue, they re-position PSM as elements of national infrastructure alongside other critical sectors such as education, transport or healthcare.

How other CNI sectors create public value

To examine ways in which other CNI providers conceive and seek to deliver public value, our research identified two UK transport industries, aviation and rail, along with the healthcare system, as sectors that could offer instructive insights. These regulated sectors display varying characteristics in terms of funding, public versus private ownership and extent to which governance is through central UK government or devolved to nations and regions. The term ‘public value’ has been characterised as:

‘[a] framework that helps us connect what we believe is valuable . . . and requires public resources, with improved ways of understanding what our ‘publics’ value and how we connect to them.’

(Moore 1995 cited in Williams and Shearer, 2010: 6)

The goal of delivering public value has become an established normative credo of policymakers, decision-makers and commentators across public infrastructure, including transport and healthcare, as well as PSM (HM Treasury, 2019; Lee et al., 2011; Williams and Shearer, 2010). However laudable in concept, in practice public value embraces a number of elements that are not easy to integrate within quantitative frameworks and so measuring the extent to which public value has actually been delivered can be challenging.

The UK Department for Transport (DfT) currently lists the following as transport policy goals: boosting economic growth and opportunity; building a One Nation Britain; improving journeys; safe, secure and sustainable transport (DfT, 2023). This ambitious agenda – to be delivered via the UK’s mixed model of publicly and privately owned transport infrastructure – extends well beyond efficient and dependable transportation networks to such goals as wider economic advancement, security, sustainability, social cohesion and ideas of nationhood.

The National Health Service (NHS), another key CNI sector, displays a very different ownership profile to transport and remains largely in public ownership, funded directly by government. Even so, many of the espoused markers of public value are familiar. NHS Scotland, for example, promotes the pursuit of value-based health and care that ‘. . .delivers better outcomes and experiences for the people we care for through the equitable, sustainable, appropriate and transparent use of available resources’ (NHS Scotland, 2022: 5). As with transport, public value is conceived of as multifaceted, involving diverse elements some of which (e.g. hospital bed occupancy and life expectancy) are much more readily subject to quantification than others (e.g. ‘wellbeing’, ‘human need’ and ‘compassion’).

Many broad themes identified within transport and healthcare, such as reliability and trust, connectivity and universality, have strong resonances with conceptions of value found in discourses around public service media. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU, 2023: 5) identifies five key areas where PSM delivers value:

Economy, creative industries and local production

News trust and democracy

Society, diversity and values

Technology, sustainability and innovation

Culture, education and entertainment

The EBU ‘areas of value’ echo many of the policy papers, mission statements and annual reports of CNI policymakers and operators in rail and aviation sectors. When viewed in the round, these documents reveal that delivering, and being seen to deliver, public value is a unifying central concern for all organisations that operate in these sectors.

Our research set out to examine what if any insights or lessons PSM may glean from studying the experience, functioning and performance of organisations in alternative CNI sectors. The empirical evidence we gathered about rail, aviation and healthcare sectors suggests that key themes that predominate in discussions about delivering public value which have particular resonance for PSM are interdependence, industry structure, public versus private ownership and resilience.

Interdependencies

One important area of consensus which emerged from interviews with senior executives in alternative critical sectors is that, when it comes to thinking about the purposes of infrastructure, it is not assets per se but rather the value that they can deliver to individuals and society that matters. As David Leam, Director of Communications for Network Rail, the state-owned entity that provides rail tracks across the UK, explains:

We’re not building railway just to make beautiful bits of infrastructure and to marvel at its engineering prowess. . . Our services are for people to use to connect to homes and jobs.. to help us get goods around the country.. We don’t see infrastructure just in the abstract.

(Leam, Interview, October 2023)

While conceptions of infrastructure are often rooted in its material or physical form, the view that its value resides in usage aligns with the vision that infrastructure is primarily ‘a platform for human flourishing’ (Schooling et al., 2020: 166) and that its objectives are set by ‘desirable outcomes for society’ (ibid: 167). From the healthcare sector Ben Jupp, Director of Strategy at NHS England argues that the term ‘social infrastructure’ is more attuned to how the NHS conceptualises itself and its societally-focussed agenda of ‘delivering high quality care, improving the health of populations and delivering value for money and sustainability’ (Jupp, Interview, December 2023).

At the same time, infrastructure is increasingly interconnected (Hall et al., 2016) and individual elements very often can only provide value to society when operating in conjunction with other components within a wider system of infrastructural assets. There is close interdependency between, for example, provision of rail tracks (in the UK, by state-owned Network Rail) and rail services (by a range of public and privately owned train operating companies, such as Avanti West Coast or ScotRail, that are awarded franchises). As Jo Lewington, Chief Environment and Sustainability Officer at Network Rail, puts it, ‘what would be the point of having a track if you didn’t have a train to go on it?’ (Lewington, Interview, October 2023). Jo Maguire, Chief Operating Officer of ScotRail corroborates by pointing out that customers faced with any sort of delays or failures with train services are generally unaware of and indifferent to distinctions between the entities responsible for trains versus track (Maguire, Interview, January 2024).

Likewise, interviews with executives in the aviation sector confirm that there is close interdependence between airports, which provide runways, and airlines that bid for and run the routes and rotations between airports. This is because, as Wilma Allan, Chief Financial Officer at London City Airport puts it, ‘the services that [airports] facilitate is actually where the value comes from’ (Allan, Interview, December 2023), a point echoed by Tim Hawkins, Chief of Staff at Manchester Airports Group (MAG) who asks rhetorically ‘what is an airport without the routes that it serves?’ (Hawkins, Interview, December 2023).

From the healthcare sector, John Brown former Chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Chair of the NHS Scotland Global Citizenship Advisory Board, argues that, rather than focussing on isolated components, because of interdependencies an integrated approach is needed in which ‘you have to look at infrastructure in terms of the people, the processes, the technology and the physical infrastructure . . .All of that needs to be pulled together’ (Brown, Interview, March, 2024). Interdependencies are a feature of infrastructure because the organisations and sectors involved often perform their functions in close proximity with other components within a wider system of national infrastructural assets. Earlier research in security studies has considered how interdependencies may be categorised into differing types, for example, physical, cyber, geographic, local and policy and how associated risks may be evaluated (Petit et al., 2015). A key point is that, because of interdependencies, all of the infrastructural assets that are inter-linked need to work properly or else the system as a whole is vulnerable to ‘cascading failure’ (Little, 2002).

This has interesting theoretical and practical implications for how we might think about PSM. Communications infrastructure typically brings to mind data communication cables, antenna masts and other systems of hardware. However, the wider purposes of such infrastructure stem from its ability to provide connectivity. Media and communications are strongly characterised by vertical interdependencies – what good are pipes without content? We have argued that, in an era of industrial scale propagation of fake news across the internet, the accurate information and news content provided by PSM is essential to the proper functioning of everyday life and national security. As the digital era accentuates the complex interdependencies between communications hardware and software, the reliable and trusted content provided by PSM organisations counts as critical infrastructure as much as the cables and antenna masts that convey it.

Because infrastructure is ‘a complex, interconnected system of systems that must deliver continuous service to society’ (Schooling et al., 2020: 166), ensuring that it remains functional and resistant to risks implies a need to think in an ‘integrative’ way about all the pathways that connect infrastructure assets (Grafius et al., 2020).

Monopoly, competition and universality

How infrastructure has developed historically varies from one country to another but in the UK a general shift took place between 1850 and 1960, supported by both public and private investment, from ‘piecemeal and fragmented’ provision to more a centralised and standardised approach (Graham and Marvin, 2001: 40). One of the principles underlying this shift was the ideal of universality – the notion that infrastructure should be available to all citizens and in all circumstances (O’Neill, 2010). Our evidence from rail, aviation and healthcare organisations suggests that, across these sectors, an ideal which is widely upheld is that of ensuring consistency or baseline universality of provision across all areas and segments of the population, including the remote, peripheral, commercially neglected and less well off.

But the goal of universality is impeded, in practice, by inequalities in geography and/or by variations in competitive market structure and other circumstances. Many infrastructure sectors, including rail, exhibit ‘natural monopoly’ tendencies (Braeutigam,1989). Natural monopolies exist because of the presence of high fixed costs which operate as a barrier to entry and because of economies of scale – these conditions make it impractical to have more than once firm supplying the infrastructure, for example for water, gas and electricity. In other words, infrastructure sectors often have ‘monopolising tendencies hard-wired into them’ (Plaiss, 2016). Will Baumol was one of the pioneering theorists in this area and put forward the idea that a natural monopoly is a situation where the most efficient number of suppliers is one (Braeutigam,1989). And monopolising tendencies are increasingly evident within digital media and communications networks because of a combination of high set up costs, scale economies and network effects (Rahman, 2018).

Is it better for infrastructure to be supplied by a monopolist or by multiple suppliers? The structure-conduct-performance (SCP) paradigm in industrial organisation economics argues that market structure is a key determinant of how firms will behave and, in turn, their performance (Bain, 1968), with market structure defined by the number of competitors in the market. In the UK, ideological concerns about monopoly propelled a Conservative Government-led policy in the 1980s and 1990s of fragmenting and privatising a range of public utilities (Jackson and Price, 1994), including railways, in hopes of boosting efficiency. But subsequent empirical studies of the effects of this policy have suggested, at best, mixed results.

As far as rail services are concerned, the splintering of the system run by British Rail into a multiplicity of regional franchises is not regarded as having delivered greater efficiency nor improved quality of service and nor has it reduced the need for public subsidy (Crompton and Jupe, 2003). Indeed, under-performance on the part of rail service operators across the UK is such that, at present, one in five journeys in the UK is provided by the Office of Last Resort (OLR), an entity set up by the DfT to, on behalf of the Government, take ownership of failing railway franchises and provide emergency cover (Blair, 2023). Reflecting on this trend, Richard George, Chair of the OLR and an experienced UK rail manager, observed that, relatively speaking, the service offered by the previously unified operator British Rail was ‘really flying and doing very well’ before a decision was taken to restructure and privatise rail in the mid-1990s (George, Interview, October 2023).

This observation underlines how, when it comes to infrastructure, judgements about the appropriateness or otherwise of monopolistic ownership hinge not only on efficiency but also how best to achieve distributive justice and universality. A common feature across infrastructure systems is that, because these are composed of services and segments whose profitability is uneven, any carving up of the system to promote competition will encourage ‘cherry picking’ of highly profitable services and marginalisation or ‘social dumping’ of less lucrative ones (Graham and Marvin, 1994: 113). Subject to regulation, utilities that are monopolies are, in some respects, well placed to build in, through their internal processes of cost allocation, elements of cross-subsidy, whether across differing regions or differing segments of the population, which result in universal baseline access to services or infrastructure provision for poor or lagging areas as well as prosperous ones (Reid and Allen,1970). By contrast, fragmented systems that promote cherry-picking and social dumping may give rise to an uneven patchwork of provision and standards (Graham and Marvin, 1994).

A key lesson is that, when it comes to delivery of public value as an aspect of national infrastructure, the tensions that exist between promoting market competition and achieving universality of provision need to be weighed carefully. This is significant for PSM because, notwithstanding challenges posed by recent growth of digital platforms, universality remains a key guiding principle for public service media provision in the 21st century (Martin and Johnson, 2023). As Thomass (2020) points out, in the context of PSM, universality has a number of dimensions including, especially, universality of reach or access, that is the idea that ‘everyone should be reached’ plus universality of genres or content, that is provision of diverse output with wide appeal (p. 32). Diversity is better served by a multiplicity of competing suppliers. On the other hand, organisations with significant scale and heft may be better placed to deliver on the aim of reaching and catering to both neglected and uncommercial as well as popular and mainstream segments of the audience.

Public versus private ownership

A closely related issue is that of proprietorship of infrastructure, from full public ownership to privatised provision to a mixture of both. At present PSM in the UK in provided by a unique combination of public (e.g. BBC and C4) and privately owned (e.g. ITV) organisations. Across other infrastructure industries, the presence of natural monopoly tendencies and externalities has historically encouraged public financing and ownership (Glaeser and Poterba, 2020). However in recent years private or private public partnership (PPP) funding has become more commonplace, often reflecting ‘the temptation to use PPPs as a means to circumvent budgetary pressures’ on public funds (Araújo and Sutherland, 2010: 5). Some earlier studies have highlighted the advantages of private investment in terms of, for example, mobilising necessary capital and promoting innovation (Vecchi et al., 2022). Others have pointed towards deficiencies and risks including the inherently profit-driven orientation of private investors and possible lack of accountability or commitment to public goals (Warfield, 2012).

The differing ways that ownership may impact on the ethos, values and objectives of infrastructure organisations was a theme that emerged strongly in interviews. Lorna Jack, Chair of the Board at HIAL, the publicly owned entity which runs several airports in Scotland, while conceding that some private investor owned airports ‘will have a strong sense of corporate and social responsibility as part there mission’, is clear that how airports perceive their mission varies according to ownership:

It varies because some airports that are wholly privately owned might have less of a sense of public obligation on certain parts of what they do. So, will not be prepared to run loss-making routes or loss-making airports. If you look at our 11 airports, almost all of them need public subvention to exist. If they were owned in the private sector where profit motive was strong, I don’t imagine that investors would be content to cross-subsidise in the way that you would see maybe in our set-up.

(Jack, Interview, December 2023)

Within UK healthcare, notwithstanding a gradual shift in policy over time towards greater private sector involvement, public ownership of the NHS has played a major role in forging the ethos of the sector (Waring and Bishop, 2011). As our findings suggest, a commitment to public ownership remains widespread, particularly in Scotland. Paula Spiers, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, NHS Scotland points out that, even at a time when political culture may be polarised, a broad consensus exists across Scottish political parties that a well integrated and publicly owned health service is needed and ‘we can’t just think in our lanes’ (Speirs, Interview, December 2023). Public ownership is inscribed not only in the ethos of the organisation but also of its frontline workers, as John Brown of NHS Scotland explains:

I think there is clearly a public sector ethos .. [And willing] .. engagement by the frontline staff with the customer. . .

[T]o join the NHS the vast majority of people have come with that value set that means that they want to contribute to the public good in some way.

(Brown, Interview, March 2024).

Ownership of rail services across differing parts of the UK has a complex history involving transfers from the public sector to private ownership and, in some cases, back again (Atkins et al., 2017: 9). At ScotRail, where ownership transferred from private player Avanti to the Scottish Government in 2019, Jo Maguire reflects on how public ownership is instrumental in allowing a sustained focus on outcomes that benefit society:

[B]eing a public sector organisation allows you the luxury of not always being focused on the bottom line. Even though we talk every day about our financial sustainability and about reducing our reliance on the taxpayer, we do have the luxury of thinking about the broader social agenda . . . [and] more holistically about our impact on society.

(Maguire, Interview, January 2024)

David Leam of state-owned track provider Network Rail (NR) believes that ownership ‘definitely has an impact on how companies and people see their mission’ but adds that ‘it’s not just about ownership but how that relationship is managed and exercised’ that matters and freedom for arm’s length state-owned entities such as NR to operate independently from the Government is important (Leam, Interview, October 2023). Leam’s point about independence resonates in the context of PSM where, despite ambiguity about what exactly this term means (Karppinen and Moe, 2016), freedom from state interference is a crucial issue. Jo Lewington, also at NR, sees security of funding as a major advantage but acknowledges that, as a state-owned company, ‘we don’t have that bandwidth to just get on and do in the same way that other private sector organisations may’ (Lewington, Interview, October 2023). For example, public sector organisations typically lack the flexibility to offer financial incentives albeit that, according to George at the OLR, deploying these as a management tool is by no means a guarantee of improved efficiency (George, Interview, October 2023).

Where private ownership is preferred, standard solutions to the potential for conflict between profits and the public goals include regulation and contracts (Araújo and Sutherland, 2010). But designing contracts that are effective in alleviating ‘opportunism problems’ is a ‘daunting’ task (Daniels and Trebilcock, 1996: 421). George agrees that ‘how you construct the contract’ is vital but believes that, in practice, poor design within DfT contracts means that opportunities to direct commercial rail franchisees towards suitable and appropriate goals have been lost (George, Interview, October 2023).

While some of our interviewees expressed doubts about how effective government contracting processes and regulation can be in ensuring consistent prioritisation of societal goals on the part of commercial firms, others felt that private ownership is no deterrent to pursuit of a socially responsible mission. For example, John Brown of NHS Scotland takes the view that corporate governance is more influential than ownership (Brown, Interview, March 2024). Tim Hawkins of MAG, an entity jointly owned by public and private investors, feels that ownership is not a significant factor shaping the ethos and objectives of firms involved in managing UK airports (Hawkins, Interview, December 2023). Hawkins’ position resonates with a number of studies over recent years which have highlighted how, increasingly, commercial businesses regard corporate social responsibility and profitability not as oppositional trade-offs but rather as synergistic parts of their agenda (Varenova et al., 2013). In other words, profit-maximising inclinations are tempered by increasing corporate awareness of the interplay between societal responsibilities, reputation and commercial sustainability.

In capital intensive infrastructure industries, investment horizons are another key consideration (Araújo and Sutherland, 2010). Private provision can create ‘troubling incentives for chiseling on asset maintenance’ (Daniels and Trebilcock, 1996: 421). For example, rail service operators to whom stations are leased ‘are not incentivised to invest in their estate’ because the duration of their leases, in line with their franchises, is typically ‘fairly short term’ (Lewington, Interview, October 2023). But the time horizons that guide professional investors who are interested in infrastructure vary from one institution to another (Della Croce and Yermo, 2013). Wilma Allan at LCY points out that, while all private sector investors expect to achieve a positive return sooner or later, some are better attuned than others to the need for longer-term perspective:

there’s different types of [private] infrastructure investors. There’s your classic, private equity ‘buy it, do what you know, get a return, sell it quickly and make a return on that’. . .Our guys tend to pride themselves on being ‘buy and keep’, and they’re careful about what they buy. . .

(Allan, Interview, December 2023)

These findings underline the point – potentially of relevance to PSM at a time when, for example, privatisation of Channel Four has been considered – that, when it comes to infrastructure, policymakers need to evaluate carefully the merits of different ownership arrangements. The pursuit of efficiency gains via private ownership can backfire when, for example, regulatory failings or flawed contracts ‘leave taxpayers and consumers locked into expensive, inflexible’ or other inappropriate arrangements (Atkins et al., 2017: 5). As earlier studies have shown, in weighing up public versus private ownership, close attention needs to be paid to the relationship between ethos and outcomes, contractual terms, incentives, investment horizons and sustaining a stable institutional environment (Araújo and Sutherland, 2010).

Organisational resilience

Resilience is another theme that emerged as significant in how critical infrastructure organisations orientate themselves both operationally and strategically. Resilience of CNI sectors is a national priority (Crick and Bentley, 2020) and, supporting this, the UK National Infrastructure Commission regularly assesses and reports on the state of national infrastructure. For organisations, resilience is defined as the ability ‘to anticipate, prepare for, respond and adapt to incremental change and sudden disruptions in order to survive and prosper’ (Denyer, 2017: 5).

All the infrastructure organisations we spoke with acknowledged that, in the words of David Leam of NR, resilience is ‘something we think about quite a lot’ (Leam, Interview, October 2023) and, in broad alignment with the expected norms for critical sectors (Labaka et al., 2016), all were able to point towards processes and systems used to anticipate crises and to be prepared to respond effectively. The effectiveness of such systems was tested by Covid-19. In the healthcare sector, Paula Spiers of NHS Scotland believes that the pandemic brought an awakening about how fallible the healthcare system is in times of crisis and, also, about vulnerability to interdependencies and the need for ‘close work across different organisations’ (Speirs, Interview, December, 2023). Likewise Ben Jupp at NHS England concedes that the pandemic has prompted some searching critical reflection on the efficacy of existing resilience strategies and a focus on improved testing and planning (Jupp, Interview December, 2024).

For CNI organisations, assessment of risks is not just a periodic event but rather an ongoing activity integrated both within everyday operational procedures and longer-term strategic planning (Crick and Bentley, 2020). For UK rail, aviation and heathcare organisations, this involves systematic and continuous horizon scanning in order to identify and texamine potential future risks, uncertainties and emergent trends. For example, Jo Maguire explains how, at ScotRail:

On a day to day basis [resilience] is very operational and there are twice daily meetings . . . between ourselves and Network Rail where we look at how the network is performing on the day. But we also look at the next 24, 48 and 72 hour horizon.. [W]e have 24/7 weather managers . . . [I]f there is a red weather warning. . . that is monitored every minute of every day operationally.

In terms of longer term . . .we look at our resilience on an annual basis. But we are also looking at how we plan best for years that are coming. . .How do we learn from each year and plan better for the next year?

. . .So, we do everything, from every minute of every day to the five year window, to the 30 year window.

(Maguire, Interview, January 2024)

A related insight concerns the level of importance that, as part and parcel of this, attaches to politics and the policy environment as risk factors. Earlier studies have identified how infrastructure provision – who does it, how much is invested in it, who owns it, what sort of access the public has to it, on what terms etc. – is highly impacted by politics (Benitez et al., 2010). In line with this, our interview findings confirm that the methods of horizon scanning applied by transport and healthcare providers accord significant risk prioritisation to local and national politics and the policy environment. As Tim Hawkins of MAG puts it:

There are a whole range of decisions that governments can and do take and have taken that have a major bearing [on airports] operationally, tactically and strategically.

(Hawkins, Interview, December 2023)

McManus et al have highlighted how the attributes that contribute to organisational resilience include not only situational awareness but also management of vulnerability and adaptive capacity (McManus et al., 2008). Resilience depends on being able to ‘dynamically leverage new knowledge’ (Crick and Bentley, 2020: 434). This was evident across all the sectors we examined with, for example, Alison Addy, Head of External Engagement & Policy at Gatwick Airport explaining that ‘winter resilience planning for the next year [begins] as soon as the winter is finished . . . and it’s constantly learning from whatever challenge has been thrown at us so that we’re then even better prepared’ (Addy, interview, October 2023).

A related attribute is ability to act on lessons learned (Crick and Bentley, 2020). While it might be tempting to think of infrastructural organisations, which typically are sizeable, as monolithic and inflexible, an interesting finding of our research is that one of the hallmark characteristics of resilience which they share widely is adaptability. Adaptability is evident, for example, in how the missions of UK train companies and airports have evolved. For Richard George at the OLR, perceptions of how public value is delivered ‘until very recently tended to be wrapped up very much in terms of thinking of everything as an engineering system’ but they are now much more customer-focussed (George, Interview, October 2023) and, as discussed in Section ‘How other CNI Sectors create Public Value’, routinely embrace a wide array of societal objectives.

Infrastructure organisations are attuned not only to the need for adaptability but also to the importance of refreshing their communications so that stakeholders, internal and external, remain aware of how they are delivering public value. This is evidenced, for example, in successive planning and strategy statements published by UK rail companies and airports. Over time, a shift in emphasis is discernible from enumerators such as passenger volumes and punctuality to a wider set of societal issues including, for example, connecting communities, promoting inclusive economic growth, decarbonising and being good neighbours. As Tim Hawkins of MAG explains, airports need to be careful about how they present themselves:

there’s a need to communicate in a way that makes clear the overall benefit that comes from that activity. If we don’t tell that story and that isn’t seen as part of the equation then there’s a risk that there would be an excessive focus on [concerns about noise, congestion and carbon emissions].

We have to be good at telling that story about the value that comes from air travel. It has a social value, it has a cultural value, it has an economic value and we have to describe that in a way that people can understand.

(Hawkins, Interview, December 2023)

Amongst our interviewees, the importance attached to, at all times, being aware of and ready to withstand disruption both immediate and longer term was striking. At a time when advances in digital distribution have resulted in significant disruption for media, these resilience-building behaviours offer some potentially useful lessons for PSM organisations, for example, about the imperative of rigorous horizon scanning, including unceasing attention to politics and the policy environment as risk factors.

Another insight is that adaptability, which is key to resilience, needs to be to the forefront and – importantly – it extends to messaging as well as operations and strategy. UK infrastructure providers demonstrate a conspicuous ability to define their goals with agility and clarity and in terms that resonate strongly with contemporary societal concerns. Earlier research has usefully highlighted how, for media companies, dynamic capabilities can be a source of competitive advantage (Oliver, 2014). But nonetheless, bearing in mind that, for example, rates of evasion of the TV licence fee that supports the BBC rose from 5.5% in 2012/2013 to 10.3% in 2022/2023 (Zayed, 2024: 4), it seems that PSM organisations might well benefit from enhanced emphasis on adaptability and agility, including in public messaging.

Conclusions

Numerous earlier studies have highlighted challenges posed by changing technology and, against this background, the importance of PSM in enhancing civic engagement and an informed citizenry (Donders, 2019; Iosifidis, 2011). Some have warned of the effects of the internet on the ‘communicatively constructed social space between the state and civil society’ or public sphere which, in turn, may be thought of ‘infrastructure for social integration through public discourse’ (Splichal, 2022: 8). This article takes as its starting point the idea that PSM is, in itself, a critical infrastructural asset (Doyle, 2024). It argues that, as the functions carried out by PSM are reshaped by the digital environment, the role it plays as an aspect of the complex, interdependent systems of communication needed to support democracy and national security is such that PSM is now akin to other infrastructure sectors of national importance including transport, energy or healthcare. Central to its public agenda is accurate news but the infrastructural role of PSM extends beyond this to provision of other forms of content such as drama that – in parallel, for example, with the role of transport infrastructure – contribute in varied but essential ways to nation-building. While earlier theory has highlighted a number of differing dimensions to the role played by PSM (Chivers and Allen, 2022; Mazzucato et al., 2020), conceptualising PSM as a critical infrastructural resource is a new departure and one that allows us to usefully extend associated practical and theoretical knowledge.

Our findings indicate that the functioning and experience of other critical infrastructure sectors serves in various ways as an instructive exemplar for PSM. One lesson is that, on account of the prevalence of complex interdependencies, the resilience of PSM organisations and the content they provide is every bit as important to the proper functioning of everyday life as physical assets such as delivery networks or satellites. Another insight is that, across differing sectors and components of national infrastructure, no single model or approach towards state investment versus privatisation, competitive restructuring and/or regulation exists that can guarantee fulfilment of public objectives, including universality which, despite becoming a ‘battleground’ in the digital era (Martin and Johnson, 2023: 1), remains a core espoused objective for PSM. So, where any reforms of systems of PSM are proposed, then identifying the optimal policy stance calls for comprehensive context-specific analysis of all likely socio-cultural and economic welfare implications, including redistribution effects.

Our findings also highlight how frameworks developed relating to how best to protect critical infrastructure (Labaka et al., 2016; Yusta et al., 2011) can usefully be applied to PSM to yield insights about legitimisation, protection and facilitation of the resilience of PSM in the digital environment. As discussed above, rather than reacting to events, resilience demands a proactive, systematic and integrated approach to risk assessment and a pressing need for adaptability. Thus, at a time when media industries face ongoing disruptive transformation, PSM organisations may potentially garner many helpful lessons from studying how infrastructure providers approach prioritisation of resilience.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The support of the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ES/X005690/1) is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also to all interviewees who kindly participated in the research. The ‘PSM and the Digital Challenge: Purpose, Value and Funding’ project team consists of Professor Gillian Doyle (Principal Investigator), Professor Raymond Boyle (Co-Investigator) and Dr Kenny Barr (Research Associate).

ORCID iD

Gillian Doyle

Notes

References

Albornoz

García Leiva

(2022) Netflix originals in Spain: Challenging diversity. European Journal of Communication 37(1): 63–81.

Araújo

Sutherland

(2010) Public-private partnerships and investment in infrastructure. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No 803, Paris: OECD.

Atkins

Davies

Kidney Bishop

(2017) Public Versus Private: How to Pick The Best Infrastructure Option, London: Institute for Government.

Bain

(1968) Industrial Organization, 2nd ed. London: J. Wiley & Sons.

Baldwin

Dixon

(2008) Infrastructure capital: What is it? Where is it? How much of it is there? Where is it? Canadian Productivity Review Research Paper No. 16. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1507883 (accessed 1 April 2024).

Benitez

Estache

Søreide

(2010) Dealing with politics for money and power in infrastructure (October 1, 2010). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5455, Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1697962

Blair

(2023) A blow for privatisation in the battle for British railways, Railway Technology, 30 May. Accessed at: https://www.railway-technology.com/features/a-blow-for-privatisation-in-the-battle-for-british-railways/?cf-view (accessed 1 April 2024).

Boyle

(2019) The multiplatform industry in the multiplatform environment, Media, Culture & Society 41(7): 919–922.

Braeutigam

(1989) Optimal policies for natural monopolies. In: Schmalensee

Willig

(eds) Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.1289–1346.

10.

Brocklehurst

(2024) There’s still a need for drama with a distinctly UK flavour. Broadcast, 27 October.

11.

Campos-Freire

Rodríguez-Castro

Blasco-Blasco

(2020) PSM’s funding crisis in the face of the digital challenge. Information Technology and Systems 1137: 671–680.

12.

Chivers

Allan

(2022) What is the Public Value of PSB? Exploring Challenges and Opportunities in Evolving Media Contexts. Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre. London: Nesta.

13.

Crick

Bentley

(2020) Becoming a resilient organisation: Integrating people and practice in infrastructure services, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 13: 423–440.

14.

Crompton

Jupe

(2003) ‘Such a silly scheme’: The privatisation of Britain’s railways 1992–2002. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14(6): 617–645.

15.

Daniels

Trebilcock

(1996) Private provision of public infrastructure: An organizational analysis of the next privatization frontier. University of Toronto Law Journal 46(3): 375–426.

16.

D’Arma

Raats

Steemers

(2021) Public service media in the Age of SVoDs: A comparative study of PSM strategic responses in Flanders, Italy and the UK, Media, Culture & Society 43(4): 682–700.

17.

Davie

(2024) A BBC for the future. RTS address by the DG of the BBC, London: BBC Media Centre, 26 March.

18.

Deacon

Smith

Wring

(2024) Why mainstream news media still matter. Media, Culture & Society 46(4): 874–885.

19.

Della Croce

Yermo

(2013) Institutional investors and infrastructure financing. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions, No.36. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development) Publishing.

20.

Department for Transport (2023) About us. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/about#responsibilities (accessed 1 April 2024).

21.

Denyer

(2017) Organizational Resilience: A Summary of Academic Evidence, Business Insights and New Thinking. Cranfield: BSI and Cranfield School of Management.

22.

Donders

(2019) PSM beyond the digital hype: Distribution strategies in a platform era. Media, Culture & Society 41(7): 1011–1028.

23.

Doyle

(2023) SVoDs, new norms and the challenge for public service media, Journal of Digital Media & Policy 14(3): 287–302.

24.

Doyle (2024) Digital Transformation and the Challenge for Ireland’s Public Service Media, Irish Journal of Arts Management and Cultural Management, 10(2): 8–21.

25.

EBU (2018) Fake News’ and the Information Disorder. Position Paper of the EBU. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/publications/fake-news-and-the-information-disorder (accessed 1 April 2024).

26.

EBU (2023) Public Service Media 360º Value, Media Intelligence Service. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/MIS/login_only/psm/EBU-MIS-PSM_360_Value.pdf (accessed 1 April 2024).

27.

European Commission (2018) A multidimensional Approach to Disinformation. Report of the Independent High-Level Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation, Brussels. Belgium: European Union.

28.

FOMC (2022) Report of the Future of Media Commission. Future of Media Commission. Available at: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ccae8-report-of-the-future-of-media-commission/ (accessed 1 April 2024).

29.

Fisher

Mehozay

(2019) How algorithms see their audience: Media epistemes and the changing conception of the individual. Media, Culture & Society 41: 1176–1191.

30.

Freedman

(2019) “Public service” and the journalism crisis: Is the BBC the answer? Television & New Media 20(3): 203–218.

31.

Glaeser

Poterba

(2020) Economic Analysis and Infrastructure Investment. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

32.

Grafius

Varga

Jude

(2020) Infrastructure interdependencies: Opportunities from complexity. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 26(4): 04020036.

33.

Graham

Marvin

(1994) Cherry picking and social dumping: Utilities in the 1990s. Utilities Policy 4(2): 113–119.

34.

Graham

Marvin

(2001) Splintering Urbanism. Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.

35.

Hall

Tran

Hickford

, et al (eds) (2016) The Future of National Infrastructure: A System-of-Systems Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

HM Treasury (2019) The public value framework: With supplementary guidance. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c883c32ed915d50b3195be3/public_value_framework_and_supplementary_guidance_web.pdf (accessed 1 April 2024).

37.

House of Commons (2021) The Future of Public Service Broadcasting: Government’s Response to Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2019-21. HC 273, 15 June. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6313/documents/69452/default/ (accessed 1 April 2024).

38.

Iosifidis

(2011) The public sphere, social networks and public service media. Information Communication and Society 14(5): 619–637.

39.

Jackson

Price

(1994) Privatisation and Regulation: A Review of the Issues. Harlow: Longman.

40.

Johnson

(2019) Online TV. New York: Routledge.

41.

Johnson

Dempsey

(2024) Public service television in the age of subscription video on demand. Media Culture & Society 46(3): 500–517.

42.

Karppinen

Moe

(2016) What we talk about when talk about “media independence”. Javnost - The Public 23(2): 105–119.

43.

Labaka

Hernantes

Sarriegi

(2016) A holistic framework for building critical infrastructure resilience. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 103: 21–33.

44.

Lee

Oakley

Naylor

(2011) ‘The public gets what the public wants’? The uses and abuses of ‘public value’ in contemporary British cultural policy’. International Journal of Cultural Policy 17(3): 289–300.

45.

Little

(2002) Controlling cascading failure: Understanding the vulnerabilities of interconnected infrastructures. Journal of Urban Technology 9(1): 109–123.

46.

Lotz

(2023) Why SVoD commissions matter. In: Lotz

Lobato

(eds) Streaming Video: Storytelling Across Borders. New York: New York University Press, pp.18–36.

47.

Mahon

(2019) Regulation needs to support PSBs to achieve their goals. In: Speech to Royal Television Society. Cambridge.

48.

Martin

Johnson

(2023) Universality: A battleground for UK PSM in the platform age. The Political Quarterly 95(1): 25–34.

49.

Mazzucato

Conway

Mazzoli

, et al (2020) Creating and Measuring Dynamic Public Value at the BBC. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.

50.

Michalis

(2018) Distribution dilemmas for Public Service Media: Evidence from the BBC. In: Lowe

Van den Bulck

Donders

(eds) Public Service Media in the Networked Society: RIPE@2017. Gothenburg, Sweden: Nordicom, pp. 195–210.

51.

McManus

Seville

Vargo

, et al (2008) Facilitated process for improving organizational resilience. Natural Hazards Review 9: 81–90.

52.

National Cyber Security Centre (2023) CNI Criticalities Knowledge Base flyer. Available at: file:///C:/Users/kwb5g/Downloads/criticalities-cni-knowledge-base-industry-flyer-v1.1%20(2).pdf (accessed 1 April 2024).

53.

Nicholas

(2015) The Reithian legacy and contemporary public service ethos. In: Conboy

Steel

(eds) The Routledge Companion to British Media History. London: Routledge, pp.323–333.

54.

NHS Scotland (2022) Delivering Value Based Health & Care: A Vision for Scotland. Scottish Government.

55.

Ofcom (2020) Small Screen: Big Debate - A Five-Year Review of PSB (2014-18), London: Ofcom.

56.

Ofcom (2022) Public Service Media Tracker 2022. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/public-service-media-psm-tracker (accessed 1 April 2024).

57.

Oliver

(2014) Dynamic capabilities and superior firm performance in the UK media industry. Journal of Media Business Studies 11(2): 57–77.

58.

O’Neill

(2010) Infrastructure financing and operation in the contemporary city, Geographical Research 48(1): 3–12.

59.

Petit

Verner

Brannegan

, et al (2015) Analysis of Critical Infrastructure Dependencies and Interdependencies. Oak Ridge, TN: OSTI.

60.

Plaiss

(2016) From natural monopoly to public utility. Technology and Culture 57(4): 806–830.

61.

Poell

Nieborg

Duffy

(2022) Platforms and Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity.

62.

Raats

Jensen

(2021) The role of public service media in sustaining TV drama in small markets. Television & New Media 22(7): 835–855.

63.

Rahman

(2018) The new utilities: Private power, social infrastructure, and the revival of the public utility concept. Cardozo Law Review 39: 1621.

64.

Reid

Allen

(1970) Nationalized Industries. London: Penguin.

65.

Schooling

Enzer

Broo

(2020) Flourishing systems: Re-envisioning infrastructure as a platform for human flourishing. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Smart Infrastructure and Construction 173(1): 166–174.

66.

Schlesinger

(2024) The post-public sphere and neo-regulation of digital platforms. Javnost 31(1): 64–88.

67.

Splichal

(2022) The public sphere in the twilight zone of publicness. European Journal of Communication 37(2): 198–215.

68.

Thomass

(2020) Universalism in history, modern statehood and public service media. In: Savage

Medina

Lowe

(ed.), Universalism in Public Service Media. Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp.25–36.

69.

Varenova

Samy

Combs

(2013) Corporate social responsibility and profitability: Trade-off or synergy: Perceptions of executives of Ftse all-share companies, sustainability accounting. Management and Policy Journal 4(2): 190–215.

70.

Vecchi

Casalini

Cusumano

(2022) Infrastructure as Long-Term Investment: Understanding the Public-Private Boundaries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

71.

Warfield

(2012) Critical infrastructures: IT security and threats from private sector ownership. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective 21(3): 127–136.

72.

Waring

Bishop

(2011) Healthcare identities at the crossroads of service modernisation: The transfer of NHS clinicians to the independent sector? Sociology of Health & Illness 33(5): 661–676.

73.

Williams

Shearer

(2010) Public Value and the English NHS: A Review of the Literature. Coventry: NHS Institute & IGPm.

74.

Yusta

Correa

Lacal-Arántegui

(2011) Methodologies and applications for critical infrastructure protection: State-of-the-art. Energy Policy 39(10): 6100–6119.

75.

Zayed

(2024) TV Licence Fee Statistics. House of Commons Library Research Briefing No 8101. Accessible at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8101/CBP-8101.pdf (accessed 1 April 2024).

Public service media as critical media infrastructure for the digital era

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

PSM as critical infrastructure

How other CNI sectors create public value

Interdependencies

Monopoly, competition and universality

Public versus private ownership

Organisational resilience

Conclusions

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

References