Modern public broadcasting is typically a mixed commercial model. For example, the CBC has always relied on a subsidy from general revenues of the government, and more recently, in the case of the CBC, advertising revenues, making them competitive with commercial broadcasting. Some argue that this dilutes their mandate as truly public broadcasters, who have no commercial bias to distort their presentation of the news. In most countries in Western Europe, state broadcasters are similarly funded through a mix of advertising and public money, either through a licence fee or directly from the government.
In Australia, the ABC is funded entirely through a government grant-in-aid, which has made it vulnerable to cuts in government spending. The multicultural Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), Australia's other public broadcaster, now accepts limited sponsorship and advertising. In New Zealand, the former public broadcaster BCNZ (formerly NZBC) was broken up into separate state-owned corporations, Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand (RNZ). While RNZ remains commercial-free, TVNZ has been heavily commercialised, leading to accusations of 'dumbing down'.
A key advantage of public broadcasting is that it can rely on stable management and policies to attract and develop journalistic talent. This tends to make public broadcasters worldwide particularly trusted for reporting news. Even in the United States where there is far more competition for top news anchors, journalists, hosts and commentators, some of its programs, e.g. the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, were widely respected and could attract important people to comment on the issues of the day. Those guests could in turn count on a commitment to balance, and perhaps also more educated questions, which assured them they would not be turned into a public spectacle for the sake of ratings (always a risk in any TV or radio programme).
Another key advantage of public broadcasting is that a cultural policy (an industrial policy and investment policy for culture) is relatively easy to implement. For instance, the Canadian government commitment to official bilingualism creates stable work at the CBC for translators, journalists who work in French in English regions of Canada, encourages production of cross-cultural material. Some, e.g. Quebec separatists, argue that this is also a policy of cultural imperialism and assimilation. However, this is a criticism of the policy, rather than of the cultural methodology. In the UK, the BBC has also taken a strong stance in favor of multi-culturalism and diversity: many of its on-screen commentators and hosts are of different ethnic origins.
For those who oppose cultural policy on principle, the above arguments are actually arguments against public broadcasting. However, even opponents of government cultural policy (who may state their objection as disagreement with 'culture being shoved down their throat'), rarely object to being exposed to the "cultural policies" of commercial broadcasting: pop culture, law presented as if it were truth, militarism and identification with 'our boys' etc., all manner of culture bias, and consumerism in the form of advertising itself. In public broadcasting, these things can be centrally controlled and limited, or at least openly discussed. Some will say lack of a cultural policy is a policy in itself: commercialism.
An interesting example of this balancing role is the use of the word "terrorism". While commercial broadcasters often use the word as if it were a category one could observe directly, public broadcasters are forced by their very mandate to justify their use of the word - the BBC at one point claimed it would label no one a "terrorist" as they considered it a political term. Throughout the IRA crises, the BBC steadfastly referred to "the IRA", "Republican forces" or to "militants". They avoided the term "terrorist" and even "extremist".
One viewpoint is that some public broadcasting, and also some pirate broadcasting, provides a necessary counterweight to the commercial media. Advocates of deliberative democracy, which requires much 'air-time' and 'feedback' and access to public figures to work, usually consider public broadcasting to be an absolute necessity to the maintenance of a complex modern technological democracy.
Whether one likes it or not, in many nations, public broadcasting is all there is. Where commercial media is allowed at all, it may be seen merely as an avenue for the presentation of commercial products that few in the population can afford and as a cultural policy of foreign 'invasion'. Public broadcasting sometimes serves simply to put voices or languages on the air that may otherwise be completely ignored, and sometimes due to a lack of voice, obliterated. To the degree that rumours and hatred can be dispelled by diligent public broadcasting, it can be seen as a public good. Where it is used to amplify hatred and fear, as dictators have used it, it can even be an instrument to foment genocide.
Accordingly, public broadcasting must probably be managed as carefully as any nation manages its police or military forces. The ability of electronic media to mobilise and motivate the public to a common cause is profound, and its abuse is probably as serious as abuses of force.