The need for not more,but more socially relevant audience participation in public service media

Abstract

In public service media (PSM) theory and policy, it is argued that more audience participation is needed in the production of PSM programs. However, little research has been done on the actual implementation and evaluation of audience participation in practice. Therefore, we investigate the values and meanings media users attach to participatory opportunities in PSM. We focus on the case of Bel10, a radio project of the Flemish public broadcaster VRT, as audience participation in radio is an under-researched field. First, we look at the literature to provide an overview of the main challenges PSM is dealing with in relation to audience participation. Subsequently, we conduct 24 in-depth interviews with participants in the Bel10 project and 10 focus groups with non-participating listeners. Finally, we conclude that audience participation is especially valued by media users when it contributes to societal objectives, such as being critical of the status quo.

Keywords

audience participation citizens distrust focus groups public service media radio VRT

Introduction

The current political climate in Western Europe is one of increasing distrust in politics and looming extremism. Increased transparency and greater participation from citizens are considered essential in an attempt at turning these trends around (European Movement International, 2017). The role of public service media (PSM) in this is often pointed out. To this end, McNair et al. (2002) have advanced the term ‘public access broadcasting’ to emphasize how audience members participate in political and societal debates through platforms such as TV studio debates or radio phone-in programs. However, the celebration of audience participation in PSM reached its peak with the evolution from public service broadcasting to PSM (Debrett, 2009; Lowe, 2009). The online presence of public broadcasters has not only increased the number of platforms available for expressing opinions, but it has also enhanced the opportunities for users to create and share content themselves. This has led PSM researchers and policymakers to encourage audience participation in the production and distribution of PSM content (Carlsson, 2013; Enli, 2008; Jakubowicz, 2007). However, despite these high expectations from audience participation, little research has been done on the values and meanings media users themselves assign to the participatory opportunities in PSM (Hasebrink, 2012: 60; Vanhaeght and Donders, 2017).

In this research, we investigate how both participating and non-participating media users evaluate audience participation in PSM by looking at a recent participatory political radio project. We chose to focus on a radio program given that audience participation in public service radio is a field that has been largely under-researched, in contrast to audience participation in relation to television or new media (Bonini, 2015). More specifically, we focus on Bel10, one of the flagship projects of Radio1, the news and current affairs radio channel of VRT (Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie), the public broadcaster of Flanders, in the northern part of Belgium.

The radio project Bel10 aims to bridge the gap between politicians and citizens, as it gives listeners the opportunity to present their policy ideas to policymakers on the radio via a structured and guided process. As such, it entails both participation in media – as listeners take part in a radio program, and participation in society – as listeners have the opportunity to engage in public debate (Lowe, 2008: 38). All of this makes Bel10 a very interesting case for this study, which is guided by the following research questions:

How do participating and non-participating media users evaluate the participatory opportunities in Bel10?

What should be the objectives of participation according to media users participating and non-participating in Bel10?

Can audience participation in Bel10 and in PSM help to close the gap between politicians and citizens according to media users?

The article consists of five parts. Before taking an in-depth look at the case of Bel10, we provide an overview of the main challenges PSM is dealing with in relation to audience participation. To fully comprehend these challenges, we also draw inspiration from media participation literature in general. In the second part, we delineate the project of Bel10 and critically scrutinize the policy and strategy documents of VRT in terms of audience participation. Subsequently, the third part describes the methods used during the research, which consists of 24 in-depth interviews with participants of Bel10, 10 focus groups with non-participating listeners, and 4 expert interviews with the producers and project leaders of Bel10. In the fourth part, we explain the findings of our research by discussing the promises and pitfalls of the Bel10 project, and the role these participatory opportunities could play in bridging the gap between politicians and citizens. Finally, in the conclusion, we discuss how audience participation is especially valued by media users when it contributes to societal objectives, such as being critical of the status quo.

Audience participation in PSM: challenges and critical reflections

Alongside the revival of the idea and practice of participation in a political context, public broadcasters started to adopt more participatory logics in the 1960s. Members of the audience were invited to tell their personal stories in radio call-in programs and TV talk shows (Livingstone and Lunt, 1994). Gradually, the idea of providing ordinary citizens with a voice in the public space became one of the central democratic objectives of Western European public broadcasters (Thorsen, 2013).

In the beginning of the new millennium, public broadcasters adopted the technology that allowed them to go beyond mere television and radio broadcasting. They started offering their content online and increasingly engaged in interactive media strategies (Jakubowicz, 2010). This so-called shift from public service broadcasting to PSM was contested by critics who argued that, with an abundance of Internet content, there was no need for the presence of public broadcasters online (Armstrong and Weeds, 2007). Other scholars, like Enli (2008) and Lowe (2009), however, considered the shift an opportunity to increasingly involve ‘the public’ in PSM. As fragmented audiences were now able to create and share opinions across platforms, PSM organizations could involve parts of the public in the production and distribution of content (Horowitz and Napoli, 2014: 310). Hence, interaction, co-creation, and participation became buzzwords in both PSM theory and policy (Lowe, 2009). Some public broadcasters, such as BBC, France Télévisions, and the Dutch public broadcaster NPO (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep), explicitly aimed to give the audience a central role in their organization (Vanhaeght and Donders, 2015; Vieira and Couthino, 2016).

By focusing on responsiveness to and collaboration with the public, these public broadcasters had hoped to regain support for the PSM project that was being questioned in a changing media sector (Just et al., 2017). Accordingly, audience participation was employed to counter critique and prove the relevance of public broadcasters as media organizations that address media users not merely as passive consumers but also as active citizens online (Just et al., 2017). Moreover, in PSM policy and strategy documents, audience participation is often related to different societal objectives, such as fostering diversity, creativity, media literacy, and so on (Lowe, 2009).

However, in actual policy debates, little attention is given to audience participation. Here, the focus still seems to be placed on conversations on the independence and market impact of public broadcasters, as illustrated by the discussions surrounding the 2016 White Paper of BBC (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2016). In addition, the concept of audience participation is often conflated with strategies to personalize the online offer of PSM. Although both have the same goal – to reconnect with the public, personalization strategies seem to be gaining more attention in PSM practice than the development of a clear vision on audience participation (Just et al., 2017: 996). Hence, there seems to be a disconnect between the idea of audience participation in PSM theory, policy, and practice. In this regard, we discuss two main challenges: (1) media users not being addressed as citizens and (2) the missing link with societal objectives.

Media users not being addressed as citizens

In both policy documents and practice, public broadcasters experience difficulties in addressing their audience members as citizens.

The framing of media users as consumers recurs in many strategy papers and annual reports of public broadcasters. Accountability measures focus on audience reach and/or quality, but not on the expectations, values, and meanings users assign to media content as citizens (see, for example, the research of Van den Bulck, 2015; Vanhaeght and Donders, 2017). For example, in the description of British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) (2007) public purposes, assumptions are being made about the increasingly ‘active relationship users have with media that they consume’. In so doing, media users are conceptualized in a rather restrictive way, as consumers selecting the media offers they like (Hasebrink, 2012: 7, 60). In the more recent 2016 White Paper, the license fee payer is addressed as both consumer and citizen (p. 30, 50). Yet, while citizen interests are vaguely defined as ‘services for the country as a whole, beyond the preferences of individuals’ (p. 63), an entire section is dedicated to the maximization of consumer choice (p. 70). So, although the term ‘citizen’ has been added, there is no genuine interest in media users as citizens with their own normative ideals and expectations (Hasebrink, 2012: 70).

Moreover, while interacting with PSM content or taking part in the production process, users are not always granted respect as citizens. Audience participation is usually requested only after the dissemination stage, and, even then, the levels of involving audiences in co-decision are low (Peters and Witschge, 2015; Wardle and Williams, 2008). The broadcasting logic of restricting the control of media production to a specific group of people with expertise and skills, the so-called media professionals, remains dominant (Bennett, 2013; Carpentier, 2011: 68). However, this is not problematic per se. Research has shown that audience members still prefer good quality content made by professionals over higher levels of audience participation (Carpentier, 2009; Vanhaeght and Donders, 2017). However, media users do become frustrated and feel disrespected when there is a discrepancy between the level of participation promised by media companies, and the available participatory opportunities. A lack of transparency and expectation management about the actual use of audience input creates these problems.

Hence, while the idea of addressing media users as citizens and allowing them to participate in the production and organization of PSM is rhetorically employed to legitimize the importance of the PSM project, the actual translation and implementation of this concept into practice needs further deliberation.

The missing link with society

While policy debates seem to focus more on the techno-economic aspects of public broadcasting (see above), PSM theory and policy are gradually shifting their attention to more value and evidence-based arguments, emphasizing public value, impact, and the ‘newer’ ‘contribution to society’ concept (European Broadcasting Union (EBU), 2015; Just et al., 2017: 992). In this regard, the role attributed to audience participation is ambivalent. While often mentioned as a means to attain these contribution to society objectives, the link between audience participation and empowerment, media literacy, creativity, and so on does not always seem well developed. For example, previous research (Enli, 2008; Vanhaeght and Donders, 2015) has demonstrated that audience participation is positioned as a means and an end at the same time in the PSM policy and strategy documents of BBC, France Télévisions, VRT, and the Dutch public broadcaster NPO. This shows that policymakers and public broadcasters are unclear about what they mean with audience participation, and what they would like to achieve through its implementation.

This lack of a clear vision on participation at a policy and strategy level creates a questionable use of participation in practice. As audience participation is very much hyped in policy, public broadcasters sometimes artificially add it to programs simply to be able to tick this particular box in their management contracts. This participation for the sake of participation, without critical deliberation on whether participation actually contributes to the concept and objectives of a program, presents many risks. Given the lack of an integrated vision on participation in policy and strategy, participation is used, in practice, in ways that are most convenient for the PSM producers themselves. For example, it is implemented to reinforce users’ loyalty or to get a better grip on content preferences, rather than used with an eye on achieving societal goals (Garcia-Aviles, 2012: 432). As a result, these initiated participatory practices are often media-centric and not society-centric, that is, ‘they are designed to keep the audiences watching and additionally engaged with media’ (Enli, 2008: 107). They do not aim for more democratic participation in society. In so doing, PSM organizations compromise basic public values, since it is the public broadcaster and not the potential contribution to society that takes center stage (Palokangas and Lowe, 2010). Hence, what is lacking is a clear vision on audience participation within PSM companies and how it can support societal objectives.

In an attempt to reflect on a more integrated vision on participation, it is also interesting to look at some of the critical considerations that have been made about the concept in media and participation literature in general. One of the most discussed problems with participation, which goes along the lines of the critique offered above, is the assumption that ‘adding more participation’ is always better. In the work of Barney et al. (2016: xv) on the participatory condition in the digital age, it is argued that the participatory condition is not ‘one in which the quality, intensity, or efficacy of political experience is significantly greater, or more democratic’. Carpentier (2011: 22), Couldry et al. (2010), and Dahlgren (2009: 13) also argue along this line of reasoning, claiming that more media participation is not necessarily beneficial, especially when there are no sufficient resources to ensure the follow-up of audience input. As previously mentioned, this may lead to feelings of inefficacy and frustration among audience members. For example, in a study about the Have Your Say section on the BBC website, numerous younger users felt they ‘had had their say’ on the site but were in fact disregarded, as the means to follow-up on audience input were insufficient (Couldry et al., 2010).

While these arguments highlight the importance of creating the right conditions for the participatory process, Cayley Sorochan (2016: 21) criticizes the prioritization of procedure over ends, when evaluating participatory initiatives. Although she acknowledges the importance of having a sound participatory process, she argues that it is equally important to look at the objectives of that process. She makes this point by discussing the Occupy Wall Street movement and how its absolutist approach toward the participatory process actually stood in the way of the movements’ democratic goals (Sorochan, 2016). Sorochan concludes that ‘the very ideal of participation itself must be questioned and tempered in relation to other more substantial goals and principles’ (Sorochan, 2016: 38). Similarly, Andrea Cornwall criticizes different typologies of participation evolving from a more active form of participation – participation as means to an end, to a transformative, more genuine, form of participation (Cornwall, 2008). Cornwall points to the ambiguity of categorizing different forms of participation, and stresses the importance of also taking into account the unintended consequences and impact of participation:

Participatory interventions may result in effects that were never envisaged at the outset. The most instrumental variants of participation can provide the spark, in some contexts, that can lead to popular engagement […] Equally, the most transformational intentions can meet a dead end […]. (Cornwall, 2008: 274)

These reflections are interesting with regard to the search for more meaningful audience participation in PSM.

To sum up, there are three important considerations about audience participation in PSM that are often overlooked in current approaches: (1) how to conceptualize and address media users as citizens, (2) how to relate audience participation to societal objectives, and (3) how to balance the process and conditions, as well as the societal goals and impact of audience participation. Reflection on the latter is especially interesting in order to strengthen the link between audience participation in PSM and its democratic role in society. We carefully consider this when analyzing the values and meanings media users attach to the participatory opportunities in PSM. But first, we look at the specific project of Bel10 and how audience participation is incorporated in the policy and strategy texts of VRT.

Case: Radio1 and project Bel10

For the empirical part, we chose a case in radio given that audience participation in public service radio has been largely under-researched in contrast to audience participation in public television (Bonini, 2015). Furthermore, radio is an interesting medium in terms of audience participation, given that radio phone-in debates, although subject to selection procedures, have always been more accessible than TV studio debates (McNair et al., 2002). As such, from its conception as a one-to-one medium, but also during its evolution to a broadcast medium, radio has continually been a ‘social medium’ (Baudouin, 2009).

In particular, we focus on Radio1, the news and current affairs radio channel of VRT. VRT is the public broadcaster of Flanders, in the northern part of Belgium, and can be considered a small public broadcaster. VRT aligns with the democratic–corporatist media model, which means that it is characterized by less politicized media and a dual broadcasting market (Hallin and Mancini, 2012). Similar to other Western-European public broadcasters, VRT had to deal with severe budget cuts recently. As this coincided with questions on the core tasks and distinctiveness of the VRT offer, the rationale of VRT to support the functioning of democracy is explained more elaborately in the newest management contract in comparison with previous ones. By explicitly citing the Amsterdam Protocol, VRT aspires to emphasize its vital role in society and counter political criticism on its questionable distinctiveness from commercial broadcasters (VRT and Vlaamse Regering, 2015: 5). VRT also repeatedly states that it encourages media users to participate in public debate by providing them with impartial, pluralistic, and trustworthy information (p. 6, 17, 18). However, audience participation in the actual production of content and organization of VRT rarely leads to a concrete outcome. To this end, VRT acknowledges a new important role for media users and ‘stimulates audience participation and co-creation’ (p. 29). But what this audience participation exactly entails, or which societal objectives are to be achieved by these, are not further specified.

More than the other radio channels of VRT, Radio1 has the explicit task of fostering participation in public debate. Given its focus on current affairs, Radio1 listeners are mostly over 30 years old, and highly educated (VAR, 2017). But while VRT has an overall high market share in radio (64%), Radio1 constitutes only a small percentage (8.7%) of that (VRT, 2017).

The Bel10 project fits very well within the mission of Radio1. It was initiated in 2015 and was meant to become one of Radio1’s yearly flagship projects. Listeners themselves could come up with innovative policy ideas, of which the best were presented to policymakers on the radio. The second edition of Bel10, held in September 2016, was chosen as the case study for this research.

The Bel10 project consisted of three phases. First, in May 2016, open calls were made on the radio to encourage listeners to submit innovate policy ideas through an online form. Radio1 received 700 ideas, and selected 100 entries they considered to be the best, which they then divided by topic into 10 groups of 10 people. The titles of the groups were quite broad: (1) freedom or safety, (2) education, (3) financial transparency, (4) respect for the elderly, (5) the engaged citizen, (6) work-life balance, (7) reset the Belgian nation, (8) sustainable energy, (9) patient administration, and (10) pro bicycle.

These 100 people were invited to a brainstorm day in the beginning of September, which was held at the Royal Library in Brussels. This was the second phase of Bel10. In the morning, each group received two lectures by experts about their group’s topic and in the afternoon they brainstormed on how to go from 10 individual policy ideas to 3 policy recommendations. Media producers and journalists moderated these discussions. Approximately 2 weeks after the brainstorm day, Bel10 was broadcasted during an entire week on the radio – this represented the third phase of the project. In a temporary Bel10-Café located in the center of Brussels, the participating listeners presented their policy recommendations to policymakers and other stakeholders. Meanwhile, the Bel10-Café offered listeners and passers-by the possibility to listen and comment on the policy recommendations. As such, the format of Bel10 was very promising to forge a stronger link between audience participation and society-centric (and not media-centric) objectives such as participation in public debate and in policy.

Method

In order to investigate which values and meanings media users attach to the participatory opportunities in the Bel10 project, we conducted 24 in-depth interviews with participants of Bel10, 10 focus groups with non-participating listeners, and 4 expert interviews with the producers and project leaders of Bel10. The interviews and focus groups took place between December 2016 and March 2017 and were aimed at answering the following three research questions:

How do participating and non-participating media users evaluate the participatory opportunities in Bel10? How do they evaluate their own participation and the participation of others?

What should be the objectives of participation according to media users participating and non-participating in Bel10?

Can audience participation in Bel10 and in PSM help to close the gap between politicians and citizens, according to media users?

We decided to use in-depth interviews and focus groups given that they are most apt to analyze the more complex values and meanings people attach to their media use (Slocum, 2003: 97). During the 24 in-depth interviews with the Bel10 participants, we managed to speak to a minimum of two participants from each topic group, except for the groups about freedom or safety and sustainable energy, from which we only interviewed one participant. We mainly asked the participants questions about their personal experience with the Bel10 project, the three different phases of Bel10, the outcome and impact of the project, and general participatory initiatives in media. The names of these participants are not anonymized, given that they are easily retraceable on the Radio1 website.

The respondents for the focus groups were recruited through an open call on the Facebook pages of the researchers involved. The most important criteria were that the participants occasionally listened to Radio1, and that they were between the age of 20 and 75. Although we did not strive for representativeness, we tried to differentiate participants in terms of age, gender, and residence, in order to attain richness in data (Slocum, 2003). This resulted in 52 respondents from a diverse age range and from different residential areas in Flanders. There was some selection bias, given that the call on Facebook already attracted the more engaged Radio1 listeners. Indeed, the drop-off revealed that 36 out of the 52 respondents had already participated in a contest, game show, or interview on Radio1. The names of the focus groups respondents have been replaced by pseudonyms.

To know which values the respondents attach to the participatory opportunities in Bel10, and radio in general, we adopted two projective techniques during the focus groups (Baelden et al., 2014). For the first projective technique we divided the focus group (mostly four–six respondents) into two and asked each subgroup to produce a fictional episode of Hautekiet, the daily participatory program of Radio1. In this call-in program, radio presenter Jan Hautekiet discusses with listeners on topics of their concern, while also consulting with experts. Hence, we asked the respondents which topic they would like to discuss during the Hautekiet program, who they would invite to discuss the topic, whether they would change the format of the program, and so on. The second projective technique was about the Bel10 project itself. We played two audio fragments of Bel10 participants presenting their policy recommendations to policymakers. It was not the actual output of these two exercises that mattered the most, but they triggered the respondents to voice their opinion about a difficult concept such as audience participation. Finally, the expert interviews with the producers and project leaders of Bel10 gave us more insight into the strategies and rationales behind the project. The overview tables of the Bel10 participants and the focus groups respondents, as well as the interview and focus group protocols can be found in Appendix 1.

Results

Listeners and participants evaluate participation in terms of societal objectives

Both Radio1 listeners and participants evaluated audience participation in terms of how it could benefit societal objectives, such as hearing a greater diversity of perspectives on the radio and bringing up critical topics often neglected by politicians. While the Radio1 listeners, similar to media producers, mainly advanced the importance of output objectives for participation in terms of radio content, participants attached more value to objectives related to the participatory process itself.

Listeners appreciated participatory opportunities on the radio when they visibly contributed to the diversity, critical quality, and authenticity of radio content. Making radio content more diverse was the most recurring objective, as illustrated by the quotes of Kaat and Lies:

‘I think it is very interesting to hear people with different opinions on the radio’ (Kaat, 32).

‘I like it [listening to opinions of other listeners] to get a new perspective on things’ (Lies, 20).

The ability of listeners to pose critical questions that go beyond current affairs to politicians and radio producers was much appreciated as well. For example, Mike (23) stressed the fact that ‘listeners can bring up critical questions that are not necessarily in the news, but are nevertheless very important’. The output objective of authenticity was the most contested one. Charles and Koen valued audience participation in terms of authenticity:

‘They are real people. They feel better than experts or politicians what is really going on in society’¹ (Charles, 20).

‘I think it is important to listen to politically incorrect opinions, otherwise you give these people the feeling that their opinions do not matter while extremism is around the corner’ (Koen, 53).

Gina (60) and Lore (51) on the other hand disagreed and disliked radio content that was too authentic, as in their opinion listeners often become ‘too personal’ or ‘too emotional’ while stating their point of view. This tension between the rational and the emotional on Radio1 was also mentioned by net manager Filip Pletinckx:

In the past we focused too much on the rational. However, radio has always been social, and it is important to make the news personal and engaging by looking for the stories and emotions behind them. So there always needs to be the combination of the two.

Regarding these three output objectives, Radio1 did not always pass the test. The daily participatory show Hautekiet (for a description see section ‘Method’) was mentioned in this regard. Radio1 listeners evaluated the participation of other listeners in Hautekiet as lacking in critical tone, and not always being very original or innovative. Lore (51), Paul (52), Jonas (21), and Simon (27) were open to having their opinions challenged by those of other listeners, but in their view Hautekiet did not encourage this type of critical reflection. Jonas said: ‘My opinion is not being challenged, the statements are often too cautious’. In a similar way, Simon complained about the lack of novel viewpoints brought up by listeners in these discussions: ‘Their participation brings no added value. I often think this is something I’ve already heard before’. Media users rated the quality of the participation of listeners in vox-pops even more poorly. In these short street interviews, the man in the street is often too overwhelmed by the media figure and does not get any room to think. This frequently results in the formulation of superficial opinions that in no way ‘represent the voice of the public’, according to Bel10 participant Nora (72).

The participants of Bel10 reflected more than the radio listeners on the objectives of the participatory process itself. To this end, they advanced process objectives for participation. The participatory process was appreciated by the participants when it confronted them with diverse viewpoints, when it enabled them to be critical for one’s own and other perspectives, and when their input during the process had some sort of societal impact. According to Joren and Fatma, the Bel10 project succeeded in the first two process objectives.

‘Some of the other Bel10 participants came from a different societal background or some of them where older than me, or had older children, and it was interesting to know how they looked at this problem’ (Joren, 28).

‘During the debate we also confronted and evaluated our own position. For me it was interesting to learn that Flemish people actually experience some of the same problems we, the Turkish community, experience’ (Fatma, 35).

On the other hand, the third process objective for participation, the societal impact of the participatory process, was evaluated negatively by many participants. While participants emphasized the long-term impact of the project and the search for innovative ways to look at policy issues, radio producers mainly wanted to come to concrete recommendations to present to policymakers on the radio: ‘In the beginning we were thinking out-of-the-box and on the long-term, but the moderator emphasized that the recommendations had to be feasible. In the end, the recommendations were not really game-changers’ (Joren, 28)

In the following section, we discuss the tension between the media producers’ difficulty to adopt a genuinely open approach toward the users’ input and the societal objectives of Bel10.

Radio producers hold on to media-centric objectives

The aspiration for the Bel10 project was to bring the innovative ideas of listeners into focus and to present them to policymakers. The participants were invited to the brainstorm day on the basis of their policy idea. However, already the lectures by experts in the morning gave some participants the feeling that the discussion was being led in a certain direction by VRT. In the afternoon, during the actual brainstorm, this feeling became even stronger as the radio producers steered the discussion toward what they believed to be the more feasible policy recommendations. Most of the participants understood that not all of their ideas could be turned into policy recommendations, but some of them were frustrated because their ideas were not even considered or evaluated. The radio producers, on the other hand, were primarily engaged with translating the participatory process into the best possible media output. This mismatch between the expectations of the participants and the objectives of the radio producers becomes apparent in the following quotes of participant Joke and radio producer Annelies:

They steered us in the direction of tangible, feasible, and short-term recommendations, which I partly understood. But most of our ideas were too quickly dismissed or put together with other ideas. As a result, we were not in favour of the final recommendations. (Joke, 27)

‘We, as radio producers, mainly wanted to achieve recommendations that were realistic. Still, some of the recommendations were too vague’ (Annelies, radio producer).

Furthermore, in focusing so much on the output and not on the process and conditions of participation, some of the participants felt that their input, and as a result their presence, was not fully appreciated by the radio producers. According to Anneleen (45), ‘most quotes displayed on the website were those from the experts and the policy makers, not the quotes from us, the listeners’. This observation reflects the challenge with audience participation in PSM of not genuinely valuing media users’ input, and as such approaching them as mere consumers rather than as citizens.

Moreover, focusing on the feasible policy recommendations also meant working toward policy recommendations that were already to some extent set in motion by current policies. This undermined one of the key objectives both listeners and participants had set for participation on Radio1: that is, to be critical of the status quo. Many of the participants, such as Renaat (60), Steven (42), Hilde (61), Patrick (56), and Leo (59) complained about the absence of these more profound critical reflections when evaluating the Bel10 project.

‘They pushed the recommendations that were already favoured by the policy makers. I was disappointed’ (Renaat, 60).

This opinion was shared by the listeners. They also valued the concept of Bel10 in terms of placing critical topics on the policy agenda. Accordingly, we could say that while the producers held on to media-centric objectives, both participating and non-participating media users envisioned more society-centric objectives for the audience participation in Bel10.

Yet, while the participants highly valued the conditions of the participatory process of Bel10, the listeners were not interested in listening to the participatory process on the radio. They preferred to hear the actual outcomes of the process, that is, the policy recommendations. Hence, similar to the producers, the listeners attached more importance to what makes good radio than the participants themselves. For example, listener Agnes suggested not to broadcast the participatory process on the radio, leaving more airtime to critically monitor the progress of the recommendations:

I think it is a very interesting project, but I don’t need to hear all of it on the radio […] They should still do the participatory process beforehand, but leave more room to discuss the results in-depth on the radio.

Radio1 net manager, Filip Pletinckx, and initiator of the Bel10 project, Bob Vermeir, followed this same line of reasoning. They argued that Radio1, and by extension PSM in general, should be able to ‘do more with society without necessarily always using these actual interactions in radio or television content’. Accordingly, this vision on the level of strategy at VRT did not yet seem to be instilled at the operational level of the radio producers.

Politicians and media producers: two sides of the same coin?

The widening gap between politicians and citizens became apparent when discussing the Bel10 project with media users. Both listeners and participants felt that policymakers did not always carefully listen to the policy ideas of participants and seized the opportunity to advance their personal political agendas. Listener John questioned the genuine interest of politicians: ‘I am wondering whether the politicans actually listened to the ideas of the listeners’. Participants Joke and Anneleen, who confronted the policymakers with their ideas on the radio, shared the same sentiment:

‘I had the feeling that he didn’t take the recommendations seriously. I think it was good for his image to participate in Bel10’ (Joke, 27).

‘In a matter of time he started his electoral propaganda. In my opinion, he was not there to listen to us, he was only there for himself. […] personality politics is what I call it’ (Anneleen, 45).

This trend toward personalization and therefore distrust in politics is not surprising given the current global political climate. However, it is problematic that according to some media users this trend also applies to the radio producers of Bel10, which relates to the comments about the lack in the critical nature of the project.

‘The project was promising to pose alternative questions to politicians, but in the end it was the questions of a journalist who also goes to dinner with the politicians after work is over that mattered’ (Steven, 45).

‘Sometimes it seems that the great news stories are concocted by journalists and politicians, which leaves people disinterested’ (Sonja, 43).

As a result, there is a widening gap between media producers and their publics. Specifically in a PSM context, it is problematic when the ideals and values of the producers no longer correspond with those of the citizens. So, rather than increasing trust in politics, audience participation in Bel10 confirmed some of the suspicions of media users about politicians and media makers. This means that greater participation in the production of PSM programs does not necessarily bring politicians, media makers, and citizens closer together (see also later).

Here it is also worth noting that Radio1 listeners are generally higher educated and more engaged than the average media user (see above). In light of the divide between media professionals and their publics, the difficulty of giving all layers of society a voice on the radio was also something the Radio1 listeners reflected upon themselves.

‘These disadvantaged groups may have even less of a tendency to bring their stories on the radio’ (John, 23).

The suggestion listeners made in this regard was that instead of always expecting from the media users to participate in the media, and bringing their stories to the media professionals, it might be interesting for media producers to take up a more active role in searching for diverse stories in society. After expressing a general feeling of distrust in politics and media, the media were thus still considered the ideal means to bring politics closer to the people and to foster political engagement.

The forgotten quest: participation of media producers in society

When discussing the global political climate, many of our participants brought up the election of Donald Trump and the trend toward political radicalism in Western Europe. The opinions on this topic strongly differed,² but as already mentioned above, there was a shared feeling of the widening gap between politicians and citizens. The important role listeners attributed to media in closing this gap became apparent during the projective technique. When we asked listeners to draw up their own radio show, and even before discussing the project of Bel10, most of them included policymakers or politicians in their radio show:

‘And I would include policy makers, people who could actually do something about it’ (Maurice, 52).

‘I would also invite people that can actually influence policy. When there is an actual societal problem it is important that politicians are confronted with the public opinion on this. It might change something’ (Roland, 67).

So despite the increasing distrust in media in going against the status quo, media are still considered the platform for confrontation between politicians and the public. The participants of Bel10 shared this opinion. Adel (23) said in this regard that ‘it is the role of the media to bring those two very separate worlds [i.e. politics and the public] back together’. In a similar way, Joke (27) underscored the role for media in encouraging political participation: ‘First you need the information to become politically engaged and only the media can inform such a broad variety of people’.

Participation in the production of media content was, however, not mentioned as a necessary prerequisite to bridge the divide between politicians and publics or to foster the engagement of people with political topics. Charles (20) even explicitly contested this idea: ‘I don’t think that people necessarily need to participate in media in order to bring this type of media content closer to the people’. Moreover, as discussed above, audience participation in the production of Bel10 sometimes affirmed feelings of distrust. Accordingly, the collaboration between media producers and their publics to place critical topics on the political news agenda was valued over participation in the actual media production process. Or, in the words of Jacques (66), ‘I would become more engaged if they brought up those societal problems that may be less obvious, but that actually matter to me’. The participation of media producers in society, going beyond the mere media-centric interaction with their publics, was considered key by VRT strategist Sven Lardon: ‘We have to abandon this old idea that media producers always know better. Media producers have to step down from the micro and really try to grasp what is going on in society. They have to participate in society’.

Conclusion

Collaboration between media producers and their publics, in order to place critical topics on the policy agenda, was valued over high levels of audience participation in the production of PSM programs. Media users do not always have the urge to participate in media production, but do want to feel included when drafting up the topics on the news agenda. These reflections bring us back to the critical considerations from media participation literature that it is not, per se, the intensity, the process, or the outcomes of audience participation as such that matter the most, but an integrated vision balancing these different elements.

The case study of this research, the participatory radio project Bel10, did not entirely succeed in this balancing act. There was a clear mismatch between the media-centric objectives of media producers wanting to reach clear policy recommendations to communicate on the radio, and the society-centric objectives of both participating and non-participating media users to be critical of the status quo. The latter objective not only better resonates with the added value of audience participation, but also provides the potential link between participation in media and participation in society. Yet, the audience participation in Bel10 did not achieve these society-centric objectives. Both participating and non-participating media users were disappointed by the lack of critical nature in the project. As a result, perceptions of distrust experienced toward politicians were projected to the media producers of Bel10 as well.

Nevertheless, media users still considered media, and Radio1 in particular, the best means to bridge the increasing divide between politicians and citizens. In so doing, they stressed the fact that participation needs to go both ways. That is, instead of always expecting active participation of the media user in the media, they insisted on a stronger participation of media producers in society as well. Strikingly, this vision was shared by VRT employees working at the strategy level. Similar to media users, they encouraged bidirectional participation to stay in touch with society, without necessarily airing this participatory process in the media. Yet, as demonstrated by the case study of Bel10, a strong disconnect on the implementation of public value strategies still exists between the strategy and the production levels of public broadcasters. While this study focuses on Flanders, the critical reflections it makes with regard to audience participation in PSM and the disconnect between PSM policy and practice in general are relevant beyond this specific context. Furthermore, the findings of Bel10 show the importance of not underestimating the critical reflections of media users and addressing them as citizens. Considering that Radio1 listeners are already a higher educated and more engaged group of media users, it would be interesting to complement these findings with further research on a public service radio channel with a more diverse and younger profile of listeners.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements

The focus groups were conducted by bachelor 3 students of communication studies guided by the author: Charlotte De Backer, Lisa Ahenkona, Amber Demuynck, and Lara Sentürk. I want to thank the students for their dedication and excellent work.

Funding

This research was made possible by a research grant from the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – Vlaanderen (FWO).

Notes

ORCID iD

Anne-Sofie Vanhaeght

References

Armstrong

Weeds

(2007) Public Service Broadcasting in the digital world. In: Seabright

von Hagen

(eds) The Economic Regulation of Broadcasting Markets: Evolving Technology and Challenges for Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–149.

Baelden

Jacobs

Claeys

(2014) User & human centred design approaches. Report, Vrije Universiteit Brussel/SMIT, Brussels, 7 November.

Barney

Coleman

Ross

et al . (2016) The participatory condition. An introduction. In: Barney

Coleman

Ross

et al . (eds) The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 21–43.

Baudouin

(2009) Au microphone: Dr. Walter Benjamin: Walter Benjamin et la création radiophonique (1929–1933). Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Bennett

(2013) The challenge of Public Service Broadcasting in a web 2.0 era: broadcast production culture’s view of interactive audiences. In: Guly

Hammer

(eds) PSM in the Digital Age. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 3–20.

Bonini

(2015) Introduction: the listener as producer: the rise of the networked listener. In: Bonini

Monclus

(eds) Radio Audiences and Participation in the Age of Network Society. London: Routledge, pp. 1–37.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2007) BBC public purposes. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/lyfca9u (accessed 25 July 2017).

Carlsson

(2013) Public Service Media from a Nordic Horizon. Politics, Markets, Programming and Users. Göteborg: Nordicom.

Carpentier

(2009) Participation is not enough: the conditions of possibility of mediated participatory practices. European Journal of Communication 24(4): 407–420.

10.

Carpentier

(2011) Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle. Bristol: Intellect.

11.

Cornwall

(2008) Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal 43(3): 269–283.

12.

Couldry

Livingstone

Markham

(2010) Media Consumption and Public Engagement. Beyond the Presumption of Attention. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

13.

Dahlgren

(2009) Media and Political Engagement. Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Debrett

(2009) Riding the wave: public service television in the multi-platform era. Media, Culture & Society 31(5): 807–827.

15.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2016) A BBC for the future: a broadcaster of distinction. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-bbc-for-the-future-a-broadcaster-of-distinction (accessed 20 July 2017).

16.

Enli

(2008) Redefining public service broadcasting: multi-platform participation. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14(1): 337–355.

17.

European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (2015) Public Service Media-contribution to society. Available at: http://www3.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Knowledge/Publication%20Library/EBU-Empowering-Society_EN.pdf (accessed 20 July 2017).

18.

European Movement International (2017) Citizen’s participation and transparency: closing the gap. Available at: http://europeanmovement.eu/citizens-participation-and-transparency-closing-the-gap/ (accessed 19 July 2017).

19.

Garcia-Aviles

(2012) Roles of audience participation in multiplatform television: from fans and consumers, to collaborators and activists. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 9(2): 429–447.

20.

Hallin

Mancini

(2012) Comparing media systems: a response to critics. In: Esser

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research. London: Routledge, pp. 207–220.

21.

Hasebrink

(2012) The role of the audience within media governance: the neglected dimension of media literacy. Media Studies 3(6): 58–73.

22.

Horowitz

Napoli

(2014) Diversity 2.0: a framework for audience participation in assessing media systems. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture 5(3): 309–326.

23.

Jakubowicz

(2007) Public Service Broadcasting in the 21st century: what chance for a new beginning? In: Lowe

(ed.) From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media. Göteborg: Nordicom, pp. 22–49.

24.

Jakubowbicz

(2010) PSB 3.0: Reinventing European PSB. In: Iosofidis

(ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 9–22.

25.

Just

Büchi

Latzer

(2017) A blind spot in public broadcasters’ discovery of the public: how the public values public service. International Journal of Communication 11(20): 992–1011.

26.

Livingstone

Lunt

(1994) Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge.

27.

Lowe

(2008) The role of public service media for widening individual participation in European democracy. Report, November. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

28.

Lowe

(2009) Why public participation in Public Service Media matters. In: Lowe

(ed.) The Public in Public Service Media. Göteborg: Nordicom, pp. 9–37.

29.

McNair

Hibberd

Schlesinger

(2002) Public access broadcasting and democratic participation in the age of mediated politics. Journalism Studies 3(3): 407–422.

30.

Palokangas

Lowe

(2010) Heritage brand management in PSB. In: Iosifidis

(ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication: European Broadcasters and beyond. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 128–141.

31.

Peters

Witschge

(2015) From grand narratives of democracy to small expectations of participation. Journalism Practice 9(1): 19–34.

32.

Slocum

(2003) Participatory methods toolkit. A practitioner’s manual. Report, viWTA/King Baudouin Foundation, Brussels, 1 December.

33.

Sorochan

(2016) Participation as ideology in Occupy Wall Street. In: Barney

Coleman

Ross

et al . (eds) The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 21–43.

34.

Thorsen

(2013) Routinisation of audience participation: BBC news online, citizenship and democratic debate. In: Scullion

Gerodimos

Jackson

et al . (eds) The Media, Political Participation and Empowerment. London: Routledge, pp. 116–130.

35.

Vanhaeght

Donders

(2015) Do interaction, co-creation and participation find their way from PSM literature to PSM policy? A comparative case study analysis of Flanders, the Netherlands, France and the UK. Medijske Studije 6(12): 46–62.

36.

Vanhaeght

Donders

(2017) Do ‘we’ really matter? An analysis of user motivations for online interaction with public service radio. Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media 15(1): 7–25.

37.

Van den Bulck

(2015) Public Service Media accountability in recent decades. A progressive shift from state to market. In: Ibarra

Nowak

Kuhn

(eds) Public Service Media in Europe: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge, pp. 73–88.

38.

VAR (2017) Radio 1. Available at: http://www.var.be/nl/Radio1 (accessed 20 July 2017).

39.

Vieira

Couthino

(2016) Participation and relative autonomy in the EBC’s curator’s council. Comunicação E Sociedade 30(1): 205–221.

40.

VRT (2017) Jaaroverzicht studiedienst 2016. Available at: https://www.vrt.be/nl/over-de-vrt/prestaties/onderzoeksresultaten/jaaroverzicht-studiedienst-20160/ (accessed 26 July 2017).

41.

VRT and Vlaamse Regering (2015) Beheersovereenkomst tussen de VRT en de Vlaamse gemeenschap 2016–2020. Report, VRT and Vlaamse Regering, Brussels, s.d.

42.

Wardle

Williams

(2008) ugc@thebbc: understanding its impact upon contributors, non-contributors and BBC news. Report, Cardiff University and BBC, Cardiff, 16 September.