Journalists working for public television in many countries are constrained in the scope of what they report. Editorial output is closely monitored by political leaders, and any unfavorable coverage of politicians or political events may result in sacking. Journalists at these stations are mostly mouthpieces of those in political power. Mark Thompson, writing in Media Policy, notes, " As in other countries of central and east Europe, successive governments and parliaments (in Poland) have manipulated the national broadcast network, treating it with a combination of flattering attention and cool contempt, which has severely undermined program standards and public credibility."
Public television is unable to offer timely broadcast of breaking news because of the bureaucracy involved in editorial decision-making. Unlike private television, where programming decisions are made on the spot depending on the need, public television content sometimes has to be approved at the ministry level, or in extreme cases, by the president of the country. Even if a positive decision is made, the freshness of the content is lost.
Public television in most cases acts on the philosophy of "informing the public." In selecting what events to cover, consideration is given to that mandate only and the impact on the ability of content to attract advertising is not given much weight. In contrast, private television packages its news in a manner that will bring more viewers and hence more advertisers. By not attracting enough sponsors, public television is not self-sustaining financially in many countries. Every year, the government has to inject money from the country's budget..
Even when this is not publicly stated, public television presents itself as a mouthpiece of cultural pride. Many public television stations in the developing world air programs that are meant to counter what is perceived as "Western imperialism" by foreign media. In so doing, public television ends up offending the sensibility of some viewers who are forced to watch programs glorifying cultural elements they do not identify with.
In countries that have deep-seated inter-ethnic tensions, public television can easily fuel hatred if editorial discretion is not exercised. Countries such as Rwanda, which witnessed genocide in 1994, have public broadcasting to blame for fanning ethnic hate messages.
As departments of information ministries, public television outlets in many developing countries find themselves mired in unethical conduct such as corruption, nepotism and tribalism in recruitment. Because staff members are often hired on the basis of political patronage, these stations end up with many mediocre journalists who cannot match the skills of those at private television stations.
There are public television stations in the developed world, too. The U.S. has the Public Broadcasting Service and the U.K. has British Broadcasting Corporation. These two stations have gained respect for professionalism and impartiality in reporting. India's public television broadcaster, Doordarshan, which operates 19 channels --one of which is international --is an example of how public television in the developing world can operate professionally.