Twitter and politicians combined attack on public media

In April, Elon Musk’s Twitter caused a stir when it labeled several public media organizations, including National Public Radio (NPR) in the US, the BBC in the UK and the CBC in Canada, as “government-linked” or “government-sponsored”. . Publicly funded and editorially independent, these media outlets have responded fiercely by curtailing their activity on the platform — or ending it altogether, like NPR.

Twitter eventually removed these controversial tags, but at the same time they removed similar tags from Russia’s RT and China’s Xinhua, which have never tried to hide their identity as government-run propaganda outlets.

However, what is surprising in Twitter’s case is not the lack of a coherent policy on stamps, but rather the confusion surrounding the mission of public service media. By placing RT and Xinhua alongside Sweden’s Television (SVT), NPR and the BBC, Twitter ignored the characteristic that distinguishes state-controlled media from public media: editorial freedom. Xinhua, for example, was created to disseminate government-approved news on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The BBC, on the other hand, is protected by structures that prevent politicians from interfering in the editorial decision-making process.

Unfortunately, the clear and previously obvious distinctions between state-controlled and publicly owned media have blurred in recent years. This is due to critical reporting and politicians’ incited attacks against private media that have sought to disrupt governance and funding models of public media in many countries.

This has led to calls to reduce the space for independent public media – and in the case of the UK, even campaigns. According to 2022 data collected by State Media Monitor, a research project covering 157 countries, about 84 percent of the world’s 595 state and public media now lack editorial freedom.

Two-thirds of the 102 public service media with editorial freedom are located in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. In the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and large parts of Asia, there has never been an independent public media.

In Europe, 51 percent of all public and state media have editorial freedom—a significantly higher concentration compared to the rest of the world. However, for a continent that prides itself as the birthplace of public media, the proliferation of editorially controlled media is worrying.

With the fall of communism in the 1990s the attempt to transform former state media into independent public media was particularly evident in much of Eastern Europe. However, the extent of the failure can be seen in Bulgaria’s BNT, Hungary’s MTVA, Poland’s TVP and Polski Radio, and Serbia’s RTS, all of which act as mouthpieces for their national governments. Public radio and television in the Czech Republic and the television company LRT in Lithuania are the only exceptions and are truly independent public service organizations in the region.

But even in cases where public media achieve editorial freedom, there are vulnerabilities. For example, RTVSLO, Slovenia’s public broadcaster, has been in a bitter battle with the country’s former populist prime minister, Janes Jansa, against the broadcaster’s governing body. This tactic is often used by political officials in the region — including the likes of Viktor Orbán, whose allies now control Hungary’s media council — to gain control of public media. Thanks to a court ruling last May, RTVSLO’s operations are now jointly mandated by civil society groups and its staff rather than by parliament – ​​a move that maintains the broadcaster’s independence.

Attacks against public media are also becoming more common in Western Europe. In Great Britain, a right-wing movement led a campaign to “bankrupt” the BBC. The UK’s national broadcaster is funded by a license fee payable by all UK households. The current Conservative-led government is considering replacing the license fee-based funding mechanism, but experts across the political spectrum have warned that scrapping the model would destabilize the station and harm its independence.

Similarly, ORF in Austria, which was established as an independent public broadcaster by referendum in the 1960s, is now facing a crisis driven by increased political pressure and financial reform, which will strip the company of its license fee from 2024.

And in Italy, state television company RAI – historically subject to interference by its board – saw its CEO resign as a result of a “political conflict”.

It is true that public service organizations need to adapt their offerings to the times, especially if they want to appeal to a younger audience. And if they are to achieve this, they will need to adapt their financial models and governance structures to give audiences more influence over programming and compete in the digital environment.

However, for such a transition to succeed, it will require political influence along the way and safeguards against volatile markets. While we are only talking about broadcasters maintaining strong editorial guidelines in many countries, an impartial media is well-suited to fight against misinformation and political efforts to worsen the media environment. They undoubtedly need reform, but they also need support. In the age of lies, SVT, NPR, BBC and other independent television channels are an invaluable source of news for millions of citizens. If we fail to recognize and protect their unique status and value to society, our democracy will deteriorate further.