How public service media are changing in the platform era: A comparative study across four European countries

Abstract

Despite enjoying a series of advantages and privileges, including access to public funding and technical infrastructure, as well as a special regulatory framework allowing them to reach almost the entire population, public service media (PSM) have historically faced a number of challenges. These include opposition from privately held media and various political parties, mounting criticism from audiences, and incessant pressures from state authorities. Some have been more successful than others in defending themselves against these attacks. Some PSM institutions have gained a high level of trust as a result of their ability to maintain a balanced approach to political coverage. Some are recognised for the quality of their news content. However, some other organisations have lost credibility and audience share as a result of various pressures. The platformisation trend has had a particularly disruptive impact on public service media (PSM) organisations. The challenge of adapting to the new digital landscape has been significant, requiring careful navigation to maintain the core values that guide their operations, as defined by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU): universality, independence, excellence, diversity, accountability and innovation. This article employs a recently developed framework for examining PSM and draws upon field research to analyse the transformation of PSM in response to platformisation-related pressures in four European countries: Austria, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Keywords

Public service broadcasting news/information technology policy and law (media systems)public sphere

Introduction: PSM in the era of platformisation

Despite the robust normative framework underpinning the role of public service media (PSM) in the overall media ecology and the compelling evidence of their societal impact, PSM organisations have faced substantial challenges throughout their history (Šimunjak, 2016).

In countries where the government exercises significant control over the operation and editorial coverage of these outlets, they often function as state propaganda machines, prioritising the interests of the authorities over those of the public (Oates, 2016; Yesil, 2014; Zou, 2023).

In countries where policies aim to protect public service media from outside interference, whether from private media actors or political attacks, these media outlets continue to face criticism. Opposition political parties often accuse them of favouring the government (Bajomi-Lázár, 2013; Londo, 2012). Conversely, private media groups persistently lobby against the privileges enjoyed by PSMs (Bardoel and Lowe, 2007; Sjøvaag et al., 2019), in particular their exclusive access to public financial support consisting of state subsidies and dedicated licence fees (Donders, 2013). As a result of these attacks and challenges, PSM organisations are constantly on the defensive, striving to protect their space, privileges and unique operating conditions.

Taken together, these attacks appear to be strategically aimed at destabilising PSM's financial model (Lowe and Berg, 2013) and undermining political and popular support. In many countries, they have proven highly effective, resulting in a significant decline in the reach of independent PSMs worldwide. According to a study published by the Media and Journalism Research Centre in October 2023, approximately 83% of the 592 state-controlled media outlets in 157 countries lack editorial independence (Dragomir and Söderström, 2023). This means that out of all state and public media outlets worldwide, only 99 enjoy editorial independence (Dragomir and Söderström, 2023).

The digitisation of media has significantly complicated the context in which PSM organisations operate. The internet has opened up new avenues for media and journalism, leading to the emergence of numerous journalistic start-ups. At the same time, it has forced traditional media outlets to adapt to the new realities brought about by platformisation, a transformative phenomenon that is revolutionising the creation, distribution, and sharing of content (Helmond, 2015; Nieborg and Poell, 2018, 2019).

Platformisation has been defined as a process by which digital platforms expand their influence across different sectors, including the economy, government and infrastructure, within web and app ecosystems, forcing other players to adopt some of their characteristics in order to compete in the digital market. This phenomenon has significant implications for media industries and production practices (Nieborg and Poell, 2018, 2019). According to Helmond (2015), platformisation represents the rise of platforms as the dominant infrastructural and economic model of the social web. Both definitions highlight the transformative nature of platformisation, leading to the dominance of platforms as the primary infrastructural and economic framework of the web (Willig, 2022).

The rise of platformisation has brought about significant changes in the way news is produced and distributed. This shift from traditional editorial decision-making to algorithm-driven distribution has transformed media consumption. In the platformised ecosystem, content is no longer dictated solely by editorial decisions, but is curated based on algorithms that analyse audience preferences and behaviours (Nieborg and Poell, 2018). This shift towards algorithmic logic (Gillespie, 2014) has reshaped the way news is delivered to consumers, catering to individualised preferences and demand.

As a result, these technological changes have led to the platformisation of news, with significant implications for the editorial and operational independence of news media. In response to platform-driven news trends, such as the use of algorithms to track audience consumption patterns and the implementation of audience engagement mechanisms, media outlets and the journalists working for them have had to adapt. This has led to a shift towards repurposing content for social media networks, where the majority of audiences seek news and information (Poell et al., 2017).

The rise of platformisation has fundamentally reshaped the news industry and the media landscape. It has also prompted PSM organisations to reassess their position in an increasingly crowded marketplace, filled with channels and platforms that offer unique competitive advantages and user experiences (Larsen, 2016).

The challenges that platformisation poses for media organisations are common across the board, but they are particularly daunting for PSMs. Unlike commercial entities driven by profit, PSM organisations are tasked with upholding a clear mandate to serve the public interest through a commitment to six core values: universality, independence, excellence, diversity, accountability and innovation (EBU, 2012). Failure to uphold these values not only undermines the mission of PSMs, but also diminishes their social and political credibility and public trust in the news and information they provide.

Overview of an analysis framework for the study of PSM

Taking stock of the relevant literature, including three comparative research projects led by one of the article's authors over the last two decades (see Methodology), and using a research framework (Dragomir et al., 2024) designed to evaluate PSM within the platform ecosystem, this article seeks to analyse the effectiveness of PSM in the era of platformisation. Its overall aim is to shed light on how the transformation of PSM brought about by platformisation affects the ability of these institutions to uphold the core values on which they are based.

The application of the framework revealed that of the six values that underpin the PSM mission, independence, diversity and excellence are the most vulnerable to the challenges posed by platformisation. Diversity is also the PSM value with the greatest potential for advancement through platformisation (Dragomir et al., 2024).

Using four countries as case studies, Austria, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom (see 3. Analysis), the article focuses on three dimensions of PSM performance:

structural conditions

internal capacity

audience engagement and communication.

Structural conditions

Applying the normative framework established to study PSM in the platform economy mentioned above, funding (Campos-Freire et al., 2020a; Klimkiewicz, 2015) and governance (Ibarra et al., 2015) were found to be the most critical challenges facing PSM organisations in all four areas of study.

One area, funding, is influenced by platformisation. PSM organisations are forced to develop a funding model that is both justifiable and transparent to users, who must be able to understand the value they receive in return for their payments. The other area, governance, is not related to platformisation and is an older challenge. PSM organisations have historically been subject to political pressure and state-controlled manipulation.

This article addresses the former, focusing on the impact of platformisation on PSM. PSM organisations in Europe rely on a combination of state budget allocations and public funds separate from the state budget (EBU, 2023). The government budget is the most widespread source of funding for PSM organisations in Europe, being the primary source of funding in 60% of EBU markets (EBU, 2024). In 40% of countries, PSM organisations depend primarily on licence fees and similar forms of funding outside the state budget (EBU, 2024).

Traditionally seen as a means of achieving financial autonomy by breaking the link with state funding, the licence fee has faced obstacles in recent years due to changing consumption habits driven by technological advances. The rise of video-on-demand (VoD) services has led audiences to gravitate towards a pay-per-use model, which gives them greater autonomy over their spending habits than compulsory fees (D'Arma et al., 2021). At the same time, certain political factions have denigrated the licence fee in an attempt to undermine public support for PSM organisations (Pion, 2024). In addition, commercial entities have denounced the perceived competitive advantage enjoyed by PSM, prompting governments in various countries to switch to a tax-based funding model (Karinkanta, 2016).

Internal capacity

In response to platformisation, PSM organisations across Europe have significantly revised their content strategies and newsroom operations to accommodate the emerging multi-platform approach to content production and distribution (Cañedo et al., 2024).

The restructuring of PSM content production and distribution cannot be seen in isolation from its relationship with governance factors, such as political influence and union pressure, and funding considerations. Recent funding cuts have forced PSM outlets to adopt new technologies, particularly automation, to rationalise costs and improve content quality (Jones and Jones, 2019). This transformation is closely linked to the relationship that PSM organisations have with their audiences. As social media platforms increasingly serve as primary channels for the dissemination of misinformation, PSM organisations have taken on a newfound responsibility in the digital media sphere, investing significant resources in activities such as fact-checking to combat this pressing issue.

Audience engagement and communication

Another area of significant challenge for PSM is audience engagement. PSM institutions are striving to develop a model of communication and public participation that is both different from commercial competitors, sustainable and attractive to users. In the area of professional development, there is a greater balance between threats and opportunities, which is unsurprising given that platformisation offers new venues for all media to flourish and experiment with innovative content models. While certain policies can facilitate improvements, more comprehensive intervention by PSM organisations, particularly their management, is needed to effectively address issues related to audience engagement and professional development.

Despite the widespread expansion of digital platforms, PSM organisations continue to have a significant presence in the media in many European countries. In some countries, they are recognised for their unwavering commitment to providing high quality news and information (Sehl, 2020) and are praised for their ability to cater for politically diverse audiences. In addition, PSM continues to cover niche issues, particularly those that may not be financially lucrative, such as programming tailored to minority communities. The advent of platformisation has further strengthened this role, as new technologies allow PSM outlets to enhance their capacity to engage more effectively with marginalised demographics (D'Arma et al., 2024).

However, in the constantly evolving media landscape, PSM organisations face challenges in maintaining and expanding their audiences amidst increased competition for attention. This has led to a noticeable disconnect between PSM organisations and their publics in some countries, mainly due to a lack of meaningful audience engagement (Glowacki and Jaskiernia, 2017). To bridge this gap, PSM organisations need to increase audience participation in content creation and better communicate their societal mission and the characteristics that distinguish them from private, commercially funded organisations (Vanhaeght and Donders, 2021).

Analysis

Setting aside the older challenges that PSM organisations continue to grapple with, our analysis focused on the platformisation-related factors affecting PSM, seeking to address the following question: RQ1:

In the context of epochal changes in the media ecosystem driven by the platform economy, where are PSM heading in terms of funding, professional development, and audience engagement?

To gain a nuanced insight into the complex changes affecting PSM organisations, we selected four case studies based on a set of criteria and factors outlined below. These are the flagship public service broadcasters in Austria (ORF), Romania (TVR/SRR), Spain (RTVE), and the United Kingdom (BBC).

The following criteria were used:

The current state of journalism: The country selection encompasses a range of media landscapes, from the heavily instrumentalised media environment in Romania, through the polarised pluralist media environment in Spain, to the democratic corporatist media in Austria and the liberal media framework in the United Kingdom (Brüggemann et al., 2014; Hallin and Mancini, 2004).

Geographical diversity: The selected countries represent a range of geographical regions, including southern, eastern, central, and northern Europe.

Country size: The sample consists of a diverse range of countries, from smaller and mid-size nations like Austria (population: nine million) and Romania (population: 19 million) to larger nations such as Spain and the United Kingdom.

Austria

The Austrian PSM system has a long and solid tradition, with the public service broadcaster in the country being renowned for its role in providing independent and diverse audiovisual content. The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (Österreichischer Rundfunk, ORF), the PSM operator, is Austria's largest media group, with four nationwide television channels and 12 radio stations. ORF was established in 1924 and is headquartered in Vienna, with regional studios located in all nine federal provinces of Austria (Österreichischer Rundfunk, 2024).

Our analysis revealed that the most significant challenge facing ORF is funding, which is largely a consequence of platformisation. The broadcaster has been engaged in a lengthy and contentious dispute with VOZ, the organisation representing newspaper publishers in Austria, which has for some time advocated for a ban on ORF offering text news on its website. The publishers argue that the use of public funding to produce content that is similar to that offered by privately owned publishers is unfair, as it prevents newspapers from charging for news (Spudich, 2023). Furthermore, ORF has been the subject of persistent criticism from various political parties that oppose its financing model (Pion, 2024).

In response to the changes in the media landscape brought about by platformisation, the government introduced a new funding mechanism for ORF as of January 2024. The new model replaces the previous financing method, which required households with a TV and/or radio set to pay a licence fee, with a household levy. In accordance with the revised regulations, all households, irrespective of device ownership, are obliged to contribute €15.30 per month towards the operational costs of PSM. The decision to adopt this new funding model was driven by the growing use of smartphones, computers, and tablets to consume content produced by PSM (Pion, 2024).

The new model is projected to increase the number of levy payers by 714,000 and to generate a total revenue of €683 million for ORF (Pion, 2024). This change in the funding model is anticipated to guarantee ORF's financial autonomy and stability. However, the newly introduced model is not without its challenges. Herbert Kickl, leader of the right-wing populist party FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria), has indicated that he may seek to abolish the new budget levy if his party wins the Austrian elections scheduled for autumn 2024 (Pion, 2024).

The experts interviewed for this article¹ emphasise the key role of the funding model in determining the future of ORF. They argue that securing adequate financing is essential for maintaining the company's independence and ensuring the quality of its services. A representative of ORF's management team suggested that supporters of PSM should promote the concept of ORF's funding as ‘an investment in the democratic infrastructure’.² He further stated that PSM should be regarded as a public asset, with society having a responsibility to invest in its long-term viability.

While the proportion of advertising revenue in the ORF budget should be limited, commercial income should not be completely excluded from the funding mix, according to experts interviewed for this article³. They highlighted that in countries where advertising sales are prohibited on PSM (with the exception of the BBC), PSM organisations often become detached from society. At present, ORF is financed through a combination of public funds (levies) and advertising sales, with a ratio of 60% to 40%. This is according to data from the European Audiovisual Observatory (see Annex) and ORF (Österreichischer Rundfunk, 2024).

In terms of content production and audience engagement, despite its central position in the Austrian media market, ORF is constrained in its ability to capitalise on the opportunities presented by platformisation due to resistance from publishers. The distribution of content via apps and social media accounts by ORF has already given rise to a series of controversial debates (Ganter and Sehl, 2018). However, the saturation of the Austrian media market has not resulted in the implementation of media policy instruments that would encourage investment in innovation (Trappel, 2017).

Romania

In Romania, the PSM operates through two companies: Romanian Television (TVR), the country's public service television broadcaster, and the Romanian Radio Company (SRR), also known as Radio Romania, which is the Romanian public service radio network. TVR runs three nationwide channels, an international channel (TVR International), and a channel targeting the neighbouring Republic of Moldova (TVR Moldova), a country where the majority of the population speaks Romanian (Romanian Television, 2024). Radio Romania operates a nationwide network of channels, a network of regional stations, and Radio Romania International, a channel that caters to a global audience and airs in 11 languages. Furthermore, the broadcaster also operates its own news monitoring agency, Rador (Romanian Radio Company, 2024).

PSM organisations in Romania have had to navigate government intervention in their editorial operations for the majority of their history. During the communist era, the state-controlled Romanian Television and Romanian Radio held a monopoly in the audiovisual sector. Following the fall of communism in 1989, attempts were made to transform them into PSM entities, but this transformation has largely failed (Petre, 2021).

TVR has been subject to political influence throughout its post-communist history, with political figures consistently asserting their authority over the broadcaster upon assuming power (Armanca and Gross, 2020).

This influence has predominantly been exerted through the Board of Directors, the broadcaster's principal governing body, which is composed of 13 members appointed by Parliament (Romanian Television, 2024). In 2016, the government further consolidated its control by eliminating the licence fee, a nominal tax of under €2/month that households in the nation were legally required to pay, and replacing it with resources from the state budget (Romanian Television, 2024). Similarly, SRR, the radio broadcaster, has faced significant challenges due to the imposition of political censorship by its leadership (Curentul, 2019). SRR receives the majority of its funding from the state budget, which accounts for 94% of its financial backing (Romanian Television, 2024).

The link between TVR and its audience has been significantly damaged by political meddling and intensified rivalry from privately owned broadcasters. Data from the European Audiovisual Observatory show a significant reduction in TVR's audience share, from over 39% in 1999 to just 4% in 2022 (see Annex). Furthermore, the lack of a coherent digital strategy with a multi-platform approach has contributed to this downward trend (Mitu, 2015).

The difficulties encountered by TVR are largely attributed to its ineffective management practices (Stavre, 2016). With a workforce exceeding 2000 individuals, Romanian Television has long operated as a patronage system, wherein employment opportunities are restricted to a select group of politically connected individuals and families with a long-standing presence within TVR, some of whom trace their roots back to the communist era, according to experts interviewed for this article.⁴

Spain

The Spanish Radio and Television Corporation (Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, RTVE) is Spain's public service broadcasting entity, encompassing the radio chain RNE and Televisión Española (Spanish Television) or TVE. RTVE offers a diverse range of television channels, including La1 (focused on news and current affairs), La2 (dedicated to cultural programming and documentaries), Teledeporte (primarily showcasing sports), 24 h (an all-encompassing news channel), Clan (specialising in children's programming), TVE Internacional, and two channels tailored to the Catalonia region. Additionally, RTVE oversees the radio network RNE, comprising six radio channels (Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, 2024).

In recent decades, RTVE has been subject to significant political pressures and interference. Control of RTVE has also been achieved through the provision of funding. The majority of the corporation's financial resources originate from a state subsidy, which has resulted in a notable dependence on governmental support for the broadcaster (Campos-Freire et al., 2020b). One of the factors that has arguably led to a marked decline in Spanish PSM viewership is the erosion of editorial independence (Ceide et al., 2023; Eguzkitza et al., 2023). Over the past two decades, RTVE has experienced a significant decline in its audience share, dropping from approximately 50% to 23% in 2022, as reported by the European Audiovisual Observatory (see Annex). Furthermore, the company has experienced limited success in its efforts to attract and retain viewers, particularly the younger demographic, through its online platforms and ancillary offerings (Eguzkitza et al., 2023).

In terms of content production, RTVE is a frontrunner among European PSM organisations in terms of embracing cutting-edge technologies to enhance its programme offering. The establishment of RTVE Lab demonstrates the corporation's commitment to fostering innovation, a key objective in its mission to establish itself as a leading public service provider. However, the success of this initiative has been hindered by a lack of alignment between RTVE Lab, the corporation's innovation strategies and other departments (Zaragosa-Fuster and García-Avilés, 2020). However, RTVE differentiates itself through its diverse range of genres. By way of illustration, educational programming is more prominent on RTVE than on commercial broadcasters, which is just one example (Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2022).

United Kingdom

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the world's oldest and largest broadcaster, employs over 21,100 individuals across its global operations. Of these, almost 17,800 are employed by the public service organisation, with the remainder serving in the BBC commercial arm, according to data from the European Audiovisual Observatory (see Annex). The organisation provides a comprehensive range of television services, with BBC One being the most widely viewed channel in the UK, along with the youth-oriented platform BBC Three. In addition to its television offerings, the BBC has a national and regional presence across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Moreover, the corporation has a diverse portfolio of radio networks and a global service tailored to audiences outside the UK (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), 2024).

The BBC is widely recognised as a paragon of independent, effective, and forward-thinking broadcasting, embodying the core principles of public service media (Mazzucato et al., 2020). Governments worldwide have sought to emulate the BBC's approach to reforming their own public media institutions (Debrett, 2010). The BBC's success is built on its financial and operational autonomy, which allows journalists to work independently and focus on delivering high-quality content free from political influence (Barnes and Cain, 2019; Barwise, 2024; Moore, 2016).

The broadcaster is established by a Royal Charter that outlines its core objectives and mission. It is overseen by the BBC Board, which serves as the pinnacle of governance within the organisation (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2024). The Board is composed of members appointed through a complex selection process aimed at protecting the broadcaster from undue political influence. This has been seen as ensuring a balanced and impartial leadership structure (Blumler, 2016). Moreover, the BBC maintains its operations through a funding model based on the licence fee, ensuring its independence from political pressures and avoiding the use of commercial advertisements (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2024).

The BBC's reputation for producing high-quality content and upholding journalistic integrity has strengthened its position as a leading media organisation. The BBC has maintained a stable audience demographic over the past 25 years, establishing itself as the leading public broadcaster in Europe with a weekly reach of 67% of the population, according to data from the European Audiovisual Observatory (see Annex).

In recent years, the BBC has had to adapt to changing media consumption patterns brought about by platformisation. The broadcaster has noted a significant shift in audience behaviour, particularly among younger demographics, towards social media platforms. This trend has also been observed by other traditional media outlets in the UK (Ofcom, 2023).

Concurrently, there has been an increase in scrutiny of the corporation's financial model (Barwise, 2022). This surge of public disapproval has led to renewed criticism of the BBC, with conservative political factions and privately owned publishers among the key detractors (Toynbee, 2022). Some are advocating a transition from the licence fee to a subscription-based financing system, similar to that of Netflix (Mason, 2019).

The experts consulted for this study have identified subscriptions as the least viable option among the proposed funding models. They have also highlighted the potential risks to the BBC's role as a PSM entity.⁵

While there is a consensus that the licence fee is no longer a viable source of revenue in today's platform-oriented ecosystem, the BBC requires ‘some form of household levy that sustains the provision of public service media across all platforms’, according to a media expert who led the drafting of a submission in March 2024 to the BBC Funding Model Review, a public consultation initiated by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.⁶ The BBC's future funding model should be based on a set of fundamental principles, collective public ownership, investment in culture, and the democratisation of cultural access facilitated by public universal funding frameworks.⁷ The development of a new funding model for the BBC should also coincide with a concerted effort to de-commercialise the organisation, according to a media expert who specialises in this area.⁸

The BBC's shift towards commercialisation, initiated through a series of policies in the late 1980s (Chalaby, 2019; D'Arma, 2018), has resulted in a certain degree of disconnection from its audience.⁹ By 2016, the commercialisation strategy had resulted in the outsourcing of a significant portion of the BBC's content to private production studios. The proliferation of commercial content providers has resulted in a loss of audience confidence and a desire for the BBC to revert to its original programming format, which has contributed to a decline in the broadcaster's distinctive identity.¹⁰ Thus, the ongoing debate about the future of the BBC's funding and operational model raises the question of whether it should continue to be a unique product of public investment, preserving British culture, art, social content, and news, or accept its increasing commercialisation and view itself as a commercial operation whose main goal is to support content from private producers.¹¹

In conclusion, the issue of funding represents the most significant challenge currently facing the BBC. This issue is largely a result of the economic pressures brought about by the shift towards platform-based environments. As the licence fee is expected to be phased out by 2027, moving towards subscription or commercial funding could have a significant impact on the BBC's public interest remit and its role within British society.

The evolving media landscape in Britain presents the BBC, a long-standing innovator in the field, with significant challenges. As competition intensifies and the market becomes increasingly saturated with content, the BBC must navigate these evolving dynamics with agility and foresight. While social media platforms offer the potential for heightened visibility for smaller media entities, they concurrently emerge as rivals to the BBC rather than partners.

In light of these developments, a group of experts has proposed that the BBC should refocus its attention from marketisation and market failure towards enhancing its ‘constitutional checks and balances’ through policies that foster greater accountability to citizens (Tambini, 2024).

Conclusions

PSM are vital institutions established to cater to the general public, entrusted with upholding a set of values and carrying out a specific mission. They play a crucial role in the protection and promotion of information as a fundamental public good. In many countries, PSM organisations are prominent entities in the media landscape, employing a significant number of journalists and serving as a primary source of news. These institutions possess a substantial presence in the media market, boasting substantial investments in both technical infrastructure and human capital.

However, despite their considerable size and numerous advantages, particularly their privileged financial regimes, PSM organisations are grappling with a spate of challenges in their attempt to adapt to the platform-based media ecosystem. Bureaucratic hierarchies, internal resistance among their workforce, and a deficit in strategic foresight are only a few of the obstacles PSM institutions face in the process.

The analysis conducted for this article reveals a mixed picture regarding the transformation of PSM organisations across the four European nations in the sample. The response to the phenomenon of platformisation varies significantly between countries.

However, two significant challenges are common to all: a deepening crisis in the funding model for PSM, intensified by the pressures of platformisation; and a heightened level of state control, a long-standing issue for PSM organisations that predates the trends triggered by platformisation.

This article has concentrated on the former subject: funding. PSM entities, particularly those dependent on licence fees or other forms of audience contributions, are facing increased scrutiny with regard to reform. There is a general agreement that, in order to maintain a PSM that remains true to its core mission and values, transitioning to a tax-based funding model is preferable to relying on subscriptions or other forms of payments used by commercial providers. In countries where PSM organisations rely on government funding, such as Romania and Spain, the issue of political influence represents a significant challenge to the autonomy of these institutions.

Financial instability represents a significant challenge to the preservation of diversity and independence, two core values associated with the PSM mission.

In considering the future of PSM, two potential solutions have emerged to ensure the sustainability of PSM as a public value-driven institution. The first is operational, while the second is conceptual.

The first solution emphasises the necessity for a significant transition from a nation-centric funding model to a more comprehensive European framework. A group of PSM experts and advocates interviewed for this research (see Methodology) believe that relying solely on domestic funding mechanisms will become outdated in light of the increasing interconnectivity of the European public sphere. In the absence of a pan-European funding mechanism, numerous PSM entities throughout Europe are at risk of collapse or devolution into instruments of state propaganda. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) could play a leading role in promoting such a model.

The second involves diverging from the conventional discourse that typically dominates discussions on PSM and instead focusing on a more practical analysis of the underlying realities of these organisations. Bridging the divide between normative ideals and the actual operational performance of PSM entities is crucial in identifying and addressing the most pressing challenges they face. This paradigm shift requires a comprehensive reevaluation of the conditions and factors that shape the fundamental values guiding PSM (Cañedo et al., 2022), ultimately enabling them to evolve and flourish within the dynamic and constantly evolving media landscape.

Methodology

In order to gain the necessary insight for this article, a combination of qualitative research methods was employed, including document analysis, interviews conducted over the course of two years (2022–2023), and case studies.

The article also draws on historical data and findings from multi-country research projects that one of the authors designed and led. These include Television Across Europe (covering 20 European countries in phase 1, 2004–2005, and 9 countries in phase 2, 2008–2009); Mapping Digital Media (covered 56 countries, 2009–2014); Media Influence Matrix (covering 41 countries, 2017-ongoing); and State Media Monitor (covering 157 countries, 2020-ongoing). These have been used as the basis for contextualising the recent trends presented in this article.

A total of 21 interviews were conducted between 2022 and 2023 as part of the Valcomm research project at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), via email or in person. The confidentiality and anonymity of interviewees were guaranteed to encourage open discussion of PSM in their respective countries.

The interviews were conducted during research visits to document this topic:

Institute for Comparative Media and Communication Studies at Austrian Academy of Sciences (OAW) (2 February 2023–15 March 2023): 7 interviews: 5 independent media experts and 2 ORF managers

University of Bucharest, Romania (30 November 2022–4 January 2023): 7 interviews: 6 media experts and 1 former TVR manager

Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Center, University of London (1 November 2023–30 November 2023): 7 interviews: 5 media experts and 2 BBC managers

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ejc-10.1177_02673231241290062 - Supplemental material for How public service media are changing in the platform era: A comparative study across four European countries

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ejc-10.1177_02673231241290062 for How public service media are changing in the platform era: A comparative study across four European countries by Marius Dragomir and Miguel Túñez López in European Journal of Communication

Footnotes

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is part of the activities of the research project ‘Public Service Media in the face of the platform ecosystem: public value management and evaluation models relevant for Spain’ (PID2021-122386OB-I00), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, the State Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund.

ORCID iD

Marius Dragomir

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Armanca

Gross

(2020) Searching for a future: mass media and the uncertain construction of democracy in Romania. Journal of Romanian Studies 2(1): 139–162.

Bajomi-Lázár

(2013) The party colonisation of the media: the case of Hungary. East European Politics and Societies: And Cultures 27(1): 69–89.

Bardoel

Lowe

(2007) From public service broadcasting to public service media: the core challenge. In: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media. Göteborg: Nordicom, pp.9–26.

Barnes

Cain

(2019) The BBC. In: Culture, Education and the State. London: Routledge, pp.94–112.

Barwise

(2022) The government’s latest attack on the BBC. Media LSE Blog, 9 February. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2022/02/09/the-governments-latest-attack-on-the-bbc/.

Barwise

(2024) BBC funding: much ado about the cost of a coffee a week. The Political Quarterly 95(1): 70–77.

Blumler

(2016) To be independent or not to be independent, that is the question: BBC-UK government relations, 2016. Publizistik 61(3): 305–320.

British Broadcasting Corporation (2024) State media monitor, 12 August. Available at: https://statemediamonitor.com/2023/09/british-broadcasting-corporation-bbc/.

Brüggemann

Engesser

Büchel

, et al. (2014) Hallin and Mancini revisited: four empirical types of Western media systems. Journal of Communication 64(6): 1037–1065.

10.

Campos-Freire

Rodríguez-Castro

Blasco-Blasco

(2020a) Public service media’s funding crisis in the face of the digital challenge. In: Information technology and systems: proceedings of ICITS 2020, pp.671–680: Springer International Publishing.

11.

Campos-Freire

Rodríguez-Castro

Rodríguez-Vázquez

, et al. (2020b) Funding journalism in media influence matrix: Spain. Budapest: Center for Media, Data and Society. Available at: https://journalismresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/mimspainfunding_0.pdf.

12.

Cañedo

López-Golán

Blasco-Blasco

(2024) Obsolescence as a pattern: an analysis of how public service media managers perceive and cope with resistance to change in the platformisation era. Journal of Media Business Studies: 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/16522354.2024.2359886.

13.

Cañedo

Rodríguez-Castro

López-Cepeda

(2022) Distilling the value of public service media: towards a tenable conceptualisation in the European framework. European Journal of Communication 37(6): 586–605.

14.

Ceide

López

Sousa

(2023) Innovation analysis of national scale public media in the Iberian Peninsula: strategic, technological and youth audience engagement vision in RTVE and RTP. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 81: 353–374.

15.

Chalaby

(2019) Outsourcing in the UK television industry: a global value chain analysis. Communication Theory 29(2): 169–190.

16.

Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (2024) State media monitor, 14 August. Available at: https://statemediamonitor.com/2023/09/corporacion-de-radio-y-television-espanola-rtve/.

17.

Curentul (2019) Cenzură pe banii voștri la Radio România Actualități. PSD-istul Georgică Severin a transformat radioul în oficină de partid (Censorhsip paid by your money at RRA. Georgica Severin of Social Democratic Party turned the radio station into a party office). Curentul, 25 February. Available at: https://www.curentul.info/actualitate/cenzura-pe-banii-vostri-la-radio-romania-actualitati-psd-istul-georgica-severin-a-transformat-radioul-in-oficina-de-partid/.

18.

D’Arma

(2018) The hollowing out of public service media: a constructivist institutionalist analysis of the commercialisation of BBC’s in-house production. Media, Culture & Society 40(3): 432–448.

19.

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.

20.

D’Arma

Steemers

Raats

(2024) Public service media: challenges for delivering universal public service in the platform age. In: De Gruyter Handbook of Media Economics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp.511–525.

21.

Debrett

(2010) Reinventing Public Service Television for the Digital Future. Bristol: Intellect.

22.

Donders

(2013) Fighting a (lost) battle? An analysis of 20 years of private television complaints against the funding of public service broadcasting. In: Private Television in Western Europe: Content, Markets, Policies. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 214–228.

23.

Dragomir

Rodríguez Castro

Campos-Freire

(2024) Public service media and platformization: a multi-factor, value-based assessment of risks and prospects. Preprint.

24.

Dragomir

Söderström

(2023) From puppet to powerhouse: a global study of the independence of state and public media. Tallinn/London: Media and Journalism Research Center.

25.

EBU (2012) Empowering society: a declaration on the core values of public service media. EBU. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/EBU-Empowering-Society_EN.pdf.

26.

EBU (2023) Funding of public service media. Media intelligence service. EBU, April. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/MIS/login_only/funding/EBU-MIS-Funding_of_PSM_2022_Public.pdf.

27.

EBU (2024) Funding of public service media. Media intelligence service. EBU, March. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/MIS/login_only/funding/EBU-MIS-Funding_of_PSM_2023_Public.pdf.

28.

Eguzkitza

Guimerà

JÀ

Casado

MÁ

(2023) Are there any young people out there? Spanish public broadcaster in search of new audiences. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies 15(1): 123–142.

29.

Ganter

Sehl

(2018) Austria: financing and transparency in the case of the ORF. Strong structures, several controversies and a little flexibility. In: Herzog

Hilker

Novy

Torun

(eds) Transparency and Funding of Public Service Media – Die deutsche Debatte im internationalen Kontext. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17997-7_2.

30.

Gillespie

(2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: Gillespie

Boczkowski

Foot

(eds) Media Technologies Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp.167–194.

31.

Glowacki

Jaskiernia

(eds) (2017) Public Service Media Renewal. Adaptation to Digital Networks Challenges. Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang.

32.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Helmond

(2015) The platformization of the web: making web data platform ready. Social Media & Society 1(2): 1–11.

34.

Ibarra

Nowak

Kuhn

(eds) (2015) Public Service Media in Europe: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge.

35.

Jones

(2019) Public service Chatbots: automating conversation with BBC News. Digital Journalism 7(8): 1032–1053.

36.

Karinkanta

MÖ

(2016) Skatt istedenfor TV-lisens: Erfaringer fra Finland. Vox Publica, 16 June. Available at: https://voxpublica.no/2016/06/skatt-istedenfor-tv-lisens-erfaringer-fra-finland/.

37.

Klimkiewicz

(2015) Between autonomy and dependency: funding mechanisms of public service media in selected European countries. In: Public Service Media in Europe: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge, pp.111–125.

38.

Larsen

(2016) The crisis of public service broadcasting reconsidered. In: Performing Legitimacy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31047-3_4.

39.

Londo

(2012) Mapping Digital Media: Albania. London: Open Society Media Program.

40.

Lowe

Berg

(2013) The funding of public service media: a matter of value and values. International Journal on Media Management 15(2): 77–97.

41.

Mason

(2019) Nicky Morgan open to replacing BBC licence fee with Netflix-style subscription. The Guardian, 17 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/16/nicky-morgan-open-minded-about-bbc-licence-fee-future.

42.

Mazzucato

Conway

Mazzoli

, et al. (2020) Creating and measuring dynamic public value at the BBC. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Policy Report (IIPP WP 2020-19) .

43.

Mitu

(2015) Romanian public service television: the pursuit of audience in a multi-platform context. Ecoforum Journal 4: 268–275.

44.

Moore

(2016). Better protecting BBC financial independence: an exploratory report for the BBC trust.

45.

Nieborg

Poell

(2018) The platformization of cultural production: theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society 20(11): 4275–4292.

46.

Nieborg

Poell

(2019) The platformization of making media. In: Prenger

Deuze

(eds) Making Media: Production, Practices, and Professions. Amsterdam: University Press, pp.85–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9789048540150.006.

47.

Oates

(2016) Russian media in the digital age: propaganda rewired. Russian Politics 1(4): 398–417.

48.

Ofcom (2023) Media nations. UK 2023. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/multi-sector/media-nations/2023/media-nations-2023-uk.

49.

Österreichischer Rundfunk (2024) State media monitor, 5 August. Available at: https://statemediamonitor.com/2023/08/osterreichischer-rundfunk-orf/.

50.

Petre

(2021) The Romanian public service media sector and its stakeholders: An overview. Analele Universităţii Ovidius din Constanţa. Seria Filologie 32(2): 509–523.

51.

Pion

(2024) Tough start for ORF’s new house levy funding model. Public Media Alliance, 15 January. Available at: https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/rough-start-for-orfs-new-household-levy-funding-model/.

52.

Poell

Nieborg

Duffy

, et al. (2017) The platformization of cultural production. In: Selected Papers of AOIR 2017, pp.1–19.

53.

Rodríguez-Castro

López-Cepeda

Soengas-Pérez

(2022) La televisión educativa en España: la oferta de Atresmedia, Mediaset y RTVE. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 25(1): 203–221.

54.

Romanian Radio Company (2024) State media monitor, 22 August. Available at: https://statemediamonitor.com/2023/10/romanian-radio-company-srr/.

55.

Romanian Television (2024) State media monitor, 24 August. Available at: https://statemediamonitor.com/2023/10/romanian-television-tvr/.

56.

Sehl

(2020) Public service media in a digital media environment: performance from an audience perspective. Media and Communication 8(3): 359–372.

57.

Šimunjak

(2016) Monitoring political independence of public service media: comparative analysis across 19 European Union Member States. Journal of Media Business Studies 13(3): 153–169.

58.

Sjøvaag

Pedersen

Owren

(2019) Is public service broadcasting a threat to commercial media? Media, Culture & Society 41(6): 808–827.

59.

Spudich

(2023) Austria: serious challenges mounting for public broadcaster ORF. IPI, 29 March. Available at: https://ipi.media/austria-serious-challenges-mounting-for-public-broadcaster-orf/.

60.

Stavre

(2016) The Romanian public television–a new beginning. Proposals and strategies to defeat the crisis. Revista de Management Comparat Internațional 17(5): 446–458.

61.

Tambini

(2024) Constitutionalising the BBC. The Political Quarterly 95(1): 56–63.

62.

Toynbee

(2022) The BBC must defend itself with all its might against this mortal threat. The Guardian, 16 January. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/16/bbc-culture-secretary-funding-licence-fee.

63.

Trappel

(2017) Market structure and innovation policies in Austria. In: van Kranenburg

(ed) Innovation Policies in the European News Media Industry. Media Business and Innovation. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45204-3_2.

64.

Vanhaeght

A-S

Donders

(2021) La participación de la audiencia en los medios de comunicación públicos. De una visión instrumental a una visión propositiva. AdComunica: 45–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6035/2174-0992.2021.21.4.

65.

Willig

(2022) From audiences to data points: the role of media agencies in the platformization of the news media industry. Media, Culture & Society 44(1): 56–71.

66.

Yesil

(2014) Press censorship in Turkey: networks of state power, commercial pressures, and self-censorship. Communication, Culture & Critique 7(2): 154–173.

67.

Zaragosa-Fuster

García-Avilés

(2020) The role of innovation labs in advancing the relevance of public service media: the cases of BBC News Labs and RTVE Lab.

68.

Zou

(2023) Restyling propaganda: popularized party press and the making of soft propaganda in China. Information, Communication & Society 26(1): 201–217.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB