State broadcaster and public-owned broadcaster

Sometimes, I read some reports which does not distinguish state(-owned) broadcaster and public(-owned and -service) broadcaster (like refering YLE in Finland as a state broadcaster). So, how do you distinguish the state and the public-owned?

For the record, here's how do I think what the two are:
Countries in democracy and with more press freedom has public-owned broadcaster, while those under dictatorship and with zero-to-none press freedom has state broadcaster.
The existence of public-owned broadcaster may be guaranteed by law and government, but it's what it says in the can. State broadcaster is directly owned by government.
Public-owned broadcaster has Board of Directors to oversee their operation, while state broadcaster does not. (Some state broadcasters may have Board of Directors model, but it's meaningless.)
Independence and impartiality are guaranteed for public-owned broadcaster, while the two things are unguaranteed for state broadcaster, which is instead leaned towards their government, with unfair and unbalanced offerings.
Both public-owned and state broadcasters do public service broadcasting duties ( at least , in case of state broadcaster).
In conclusion: State broadcaster is a government mouthpiece, and public-owned broadcaster does anything for the benefit of the general public with guaranteed independence.

Example;
State broadcaster: CCTV China, (North) Korean Central TV, JRT Yugoslavia (former)
Public broadcaster: BBC, RTÉ, post-WWII NHK

I've always thought about it largely along the lines you've laid out here, and I find it hilarious when people who are ideologically opposed to PSB call things like the BBC and PBS "state broadcasters" as an insult. It shows a massive lack of intelligence and foresight.

I think the basic distinction is between government funding and requiring that a service be provided, and government influencing/dictating the content of the service. But it's also something of a spectrum - for example, you could have:
a service where the government doesn't censor or directly prescribe content, but where the editorial direction is nevertheless of a broadly "pro-government" flavour; or
a largely independent media service which, in the middle of some kind of national crisis/emergency, agrees to withhold certain information at the request of the government; or
an independent domestic broadcaster that is funded to provide a separate international service that is commissioned by the government to promote the nation's foreign policy objectives.

I'm simply suggesting that there are often competing objectives which may make it hard for a "public service broadcaster" to retain the purity that term might imply.

I agree with your definitions, except for the detail that both "state" and "public" broadcasters are owned by the state. There is no difference in ownership, just a (major) difference in statutory and/or effective control.



A minor correction: JRT was not a broadcaster, but rather an association of broadcasters. In the former Yugoslavia, which was a fairly decentralized federation, broadcasting was the responsibility of the six republics, the two autonomous provinces, and (in the case of local radio) municipal authorities. There was no broadcasting at the federal level; JRT was merely used to coordinate the activities of its member broadcasters and to represent Yugoslav broadcasting abroad (at the EBU, for instance). One partial exception was the news, which was originally produced by the Belgrade station on behalf of all JRT broadcasters with JRT branding, but even that ended in 1968, and in the years that followed, all of the republics got their own news services.

But, yes, the various Yugoslav broadcasters were "state" services rather than "public" ones (in the Western sense).

I stand corrected about JRT. Perhaps I should have added Gosteleradio in USSR instead.

Note that, especially in the USA, there are private, not-for-profit broadcasting organisations specialised in public service offerings (like APT, PRI, PRX and Pacifica Radio). Of course, those broadcasters (along with state-established PBS and NPR) receive funding from CPB whose budget is granted by USA Congress as well as private donations. (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.)

I think the US is a case apart though, because PBS (and NPR) most definitely are not in the public sector - they are creatures of their member stations, who are mostly in what we would call the community and voluntary sector, though they receive public funding. The CFB is in the public sector, but doesn't do any broadcasting itself.

In most other jurisdictions, the matter of whether something is a public broadcaster or state broadcaster is, I think, a matter of perception. Nearly all the institutions concerned have the form of either a statutory corporation or a company established under the local equivalent of the Companies Act, or in the case of the BBC the Royal Charter (which amounts to state establishment anyway, since its continuation beyond its expiry is effectively at the gift of the Government). Nearly all - including, at present at least, the BBC, who disguise it as a "trust" - have a board appointed by the Government. Nearly all also have some form of state funding, be it a grant from the Exchequer, licence fee funding, or such like. Most also have some commercial funding (the BBC, while not unique, is unusual in being fully publically funded). So whether these institutions be they "public broadcaster" or "state broadcaster" is perhaps a matter of how willing the Government concerned is at interfering and how resistant management are to such. RTE bills itself as a "public broadcaster" - however it's entire board was once dismissed by the Minister. Overall I think it's probably a matter of insistent terminology by people.

True state broadcasters - where the organisation is actually a Govenrment department under the direct management of a Minister - are thin on the ground in western countries, though pre-1960 Radio Eireann was one.