Public Service Broadcasting and Media Systems in Troubled European Democracies

This chapter examines the questions that PSM face about their continued role and relevance against the backdrop of a fast-changing and increasingly commercialised media landscape. It examines the evidence about news produced by PSM and considers the implications for democracy in two ways. First, it draws on the latest academic scholarship to examine the evidence about whether PSM produce news that is distinctive from their market-driven rivals. Second, it considers how informative PSM coverage is compared to their commercial competitors. The chapter assesses the latest research to establish whether public or commercial media systems offer the most effective way of raising public knowledge about politics and public affairs.

The chapter gives an overview of the involvement of the European Union in the domain of public service broadcasting. Carles Llorens argues that although the EU has not challenged PSM in recent years, a new conflict focused on media freedoms and PSM is brewing, especially in the case the EU’s newest members. In these countries, government threats and new laws are endangering the European PSM tradition of independence and neutrality. He argues that the issue of PSM independence is now among Europe’s most pressing issues. The chapter outlines the EU’s fight to preserve media independence in new EU Member States and the new battleground of the EU Commission since 2016. He argues that the fight could be conducted by the EU on two levels. First, exerting political pressure through the threat of applying article 7 of EU Treaty as freedom of information is a fundamental right. Second, preserving the independence of audiovisual regulators, which could be an indirect way to preserve free and independent PSM. He suggests that enacting these principles in the Audiovisual Media Service Directive could be a definitive solution in the long term.

The chapter provides an overview of the long and chequered relationship between the state and public service media in France. Until the 1980s, the state exercised a monopoly in broadcasting that was particularly strongly enforced in the supply of television programming. Following the introduction of commercial channels and the privatisation of TF1 in the 1980s, a more competitive environment was established, with competition between public and private providers for audiences and advertising revenue. Competition has been enhanced in the 2000s with the transition to digital and the entry into the marketplace of new players such as Netflix. The state’s relationship with public service media has evolved over this period, but some areas in which it continues to play an important role include funding (see recent debates about the licence fee and advertising), regulation (via a regulatory authority), appointments (sometimes directly, more frequently indirectly) and objectives (contractual discussions with the Ministry of Culture and Communication). This chapter addresses key aspects of change and continuity in the relationship between the state and public service media since 1945, assessing the extent of both political and economic liberalisation during this period. A second objective of the chapter is to address some contemporary issues involving public service media in the digital age, such as market share, funding, values and structural organisation. Some questions related to public service media (such as their contribution in a varied and extensive media market) are not new in themselves, nor are they confined to the French experience. However, their pertinence has increased in the digital environment, with the result that arguably the most important challenges now facing public service media in France are more economic than political.

The chapter explores the governance and functioning of public broadcasters in Belgium. Belgium is a federal state and as part of the unique structures in place, extensive policy competences rest with the distinct language communities. Among others, cultural and media policies are the autonomous responsibility of the French-, Dutch- and German-speaking communities. Whereas public service broadcasting commenced under the auspices of the Belgian state, its regionalisation became a fact throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The aim of the chapter is to sketch the governance and functioning of public service broadcasting in a divided country where not only policies, but also markets and audiences are very much separate. It pays attention to the importance of public broadcasters as institutions contributing to the cultural awareness of the Flemish (Dutch-speaking) community in particular and, at the same time, the downsides of a separated public service broadcasting regime in an already divided country.

The chapter explores the public service media in Italy. In the comparative literature the Italian RAI is often taken as a paradigmatic case of a highly (party) politicized public service broadcaster. Political interference has arguably been a constant feature of RAI’s sixty-year-long history, although the forms in which this phenomenon has manifested itself have changed considerably over time. After briefly contextualising historically and comparatively the case of public service media in Italy, the chapter sets out to discuss recent developments, including the effects of recent reforms to RAI’s governance and funding regimes. It then places these developments and the current debate over the role and future of RAI against the backdrop of a changing political landscape, the country’s ongoing economic problems and major social and cultural transformations.

The chapter examines the state of public service broadcasting in Greece. While most Southern European public broadcasting systems are to some degree subject to political influence and dependence, in the case of Greece, public broadcaster ERT is, after four decades of deregulation and the break-up of its broadcasting monopoly, still considered by many as ‘state’ rather than a ‘public’ broadcaster. This wide public perception stems from ERT’s one-time role as a mouthpiece of government propaganda. As both radio and TV broadcasting were launched under dictatorships (the late 1930s Metaxas dictatorship and the mid-1960s Colonels rule respectively), they have been regarded as ‘arms of the state.’ Post-dictatorship politics and the restoration of Parliament in 1974 saw the Conservatives (New Democracy) and Socialists (PASOK) dominating the political scene, accusing each other of exercising too much government control over state broadcasting media. Today’s left-wing SYRIZA government also attempts to influence ERT’s output, which is at odds with the digital, deregulated electronic media landscape and consequent abundance of channels. This situation has arisen largely from the political tensions in Greek society since the Second World War. These tensions, combined with the absence of a strong civil society and the market, have made the state an autonomous and dominant factor in Greek society that has to take on additional politico-ideological function. The state plays an active role in the formation of the Greek economy and policy and it is relatively autonomous from society. This makes the system less self-regulatory than countries with developed capitalism, such as northern EU states, Britain or the US. Lack of self-regulation spurs the state to intervene in the politico-ideological sphere and thus diffuse its repressive mechanisms. It is in this context that the chapter explains the rise of power of the media, and the decline of power of journalists and, of course, of ERT itself.

The chapter discusses political instrumentalisation of, and interference in, public service media in Spain. State intervention in the media systems of Southern European democracies has been characterised by a logic of clientelism and instrumentalisation of public service media, as concluded, among other authors, by Hallin and Mancini (2004). With the aim of increasing the autonomy and the independence of PSM in Spain, after more than two decades of complaints and denounciations of political interference, in the mid-2000s the Spanish State and several regional governments, such as the Catalan one, adopted encouraging legislative changes affecting the governance models of their PSM. However, in the context of the economic and social crisis that broke out in 2008 and of the increasing political tensions associated with Catalan nationalism, regulatory counter-reforms were passed in 2012 that enabled parliamentary majorities underpinning the Spanish and the Catalan governments to appoint the members of the PSM governing bodies. The chapter examines these highly politicized editorial appointments and numerous complaints of political manipulation practices present in both cases. It also explores an ongoing debate about the need to prevent the political interference in PSM for them to fulfil their democratic role.

The chapter evaluates the transformation of PSB in the Western Balkans. Being an active part and actor of the ‘third wave of democratization,’ media have been entitled to amore prominent role in the process of democratization. Transforming the former state radio-television systems into public service broadcasters was meant to be among the most significant aspects of democratization in Western Balkan countries, a process that was complementary to the EU accession. Public broadcasters were normatively positioned in these societies as result of ‘westernization’ of media policies and compliance of these countries with Western standards and principles. The basic assumption, hindering the process of PSB transformation, was that free and independent media would be liberated from regime control and economic interest. However, in reality, the processes of social and political transformation have proven very slow and come burdened with the firmly established relations at the local level. This chapter examines the most prominent aspects of PSB transformation in Western Balkan countries, taking into consideration local context, factors influencing the process, and the most salient and contentious aspects and outcomes of PSB transformation, such as their independence, governance, funding model and content quality (including plurality and production excellence).

The chapter gives an overview of the public debate over the role and purpose of the public service media in Poland. The chapter maps the most representative viewpoints and opinions given by political elites, media professionals and academic experts. It draws mainly on the parliamentary debate on public service media legislation that took place at the end of 2015 after the arrival of Law and Justice party (PiS) on the Polish political scene. The public service broadcaster proved to be the crucial element of the new administration whose plans envisaged turning it into ‘national media’, with the sole purpose of serving the government’s agenda for ‘good change.’ Faced with the legislative machinations around the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as public service media, the EU launched the rule of law mechanism against Poland. This chapter explains the context of the debate over the media as well as its outcomes. It argues that alternatives to the government’s proposal of ‘national media’ in the form of citizen broadcasting, although stoutly promoted by the opposition, have never materialised in post-communist Poland.

The chapter examines changes introduced in public service media (PSM) under the PiS government in Poland where PSM is, yet again, struggling to uphold freedom, pluralism and independence. In December 2015, the Polish Parliament passed a new law that entrusted the government with the power to appoint members of the management board of the public service broadcaster. Politicisation of PSM is not new in the region, but the recent changes have radically shaken up the Polish political, social and media spheres. They have also received harsh criticism from the Polish media and the European Commission, as well as representatives of European media associations. This chapter gives an overview of Poland’s current political arrangements and examines the performance of the Polish public service broadcaster, its values, market share and sources of funding under the new PiS government. It examines the legal framework that sets out the principles of, and funding arrangements for, independent PSB, as well evaluating its implementation and associated outcomes. It also assesses the broadcaster’s performance and its relationship with the Polish state, economy and society. The paper adds empirical evidence to the understanding of political, legal and social processes driving the democratic transition. The chapter concludes that Polish populism combined with a large dose of hyper-nationalism have taken the country away from democratic transition towards illiberal democracy.

The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of three decades of media democratic transitions in entire Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Twenty-one post-communist countries in Europe embarked on democratic transformation after the collapse of their respective regimes between 1989 and 1991. Many factors contributed to transformations, such as geographical location, historical experiences and their respective levels of economic and cultural development. Although the concept of CEE emerged from the ruins of European post-communist/post-socialist states, the region is not a monolith with regards to democratic consolidation and European integration. It is quite a varied region with different political standards and levels of economic development. The media systems find themselves operating between a rock and a hard place, or rather between political pressure, leading to politicisation, and economic pressure, leading to commercialisation. These are the two negative tendencies that result in the low quality of the media in CEE countries. Three decades after the collapse of communism, four models of media and politics in the region have emerged in Central Europe: the Hybrid Liberal, the Politicized Media, the Media in Transition and the Authoritarian model.

Gábor Polyák looks at the media and politics in illiberal Hungary. This chapter examines some of the typical methods that illiberal regimes, such as that of Hungary in recent years, employ and combine into a sustainable state censorship system. These systems are neither hold-overs nor re-makes of the preceding totalitarian control systems. Limitations are imposed simultaneously on media pluralism, on freedom of opinion, and on freedom of information, both in the legacy, and in the online, media. In Hungary, Viktor Orban’s second arrival to power in 2010 gave him a constitutional majority in Parliament, which he has used to an extent unprecedented in the EU, although it is will have many familiar aspect to those schooled in the world of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. His establishment of ruling party domination has relied heavily on the use of media laws, coupled with control of the both the regulatory bodies and the media market. The chapter gives and overview of the major objectives of these policies and the means employed to effect the ensuing transformation in the media landscape.

The chapter explores post-communist media and the impact of democratization in Bulgaria and Romania. The twenty-first century has seen dramatic changes affecting media and journalism in third-wave democracies and the former communist states of Bulgaria and Romania are prime examples of the transformation. While the newly emerging democratic media of the late 1980s received extensive credit for aiding revolutions throughout the region, they were soon regarded as part of the new status quo: docile and ready to serve their new political and corporate masters. The arrival of new digital media has further impacted on the conflicting and ambivalent journalistic culture in the societies emerging from repressive communist regimes. Despite some positive developments, the media markets in Romania and Bulgaria have not benefitted from a decade of EU membership. The public continues to be disappointed with the quality of the media and journalism in both countries. This chapter aims to evaluate the impact of democratization on media and journalism in Bulgaria and Romania in the context of continuously deteriorating press freedom and a complex cultural discourse of post-communist journalism that blends professional values and norms from the communist past with those adopted during the process of democratization.

The problems associated with media democratization in the post-communist societies which, like Ukraine, find themselves between democracy and authoritarianism, are often presented in media studies as rooted in their past. It is believed that what hampers media reform in these countries is an (undemocratic) political culture inherited from the communist, and even pre-communist, past. However, as some findings in political science studies of post-communist transformations demonstrate, during the period of transformation, some new obstacles to democratization may arise. These obstacles often lie not in the cultural domain, but in the realm of structures and institutions. Some scholars (Ekiert et al. 2007, pp. 14–15; Ganev 2007; Kudelia 2012), for example, speak about the institutional environment which has been shaped in transformational societies in the process of regime change and which can be more constraining than enabling for the finalization of democratic reforms or for ensuring viability of new democratic regimes. In this chapter, I propose to concentrate not on inherited obstacles to media democratization, but on the environment for media independence, which had already been shaped in ‘in-between’ societies like Ukraine after the fall of previous undemocratic regimes. I pay particular attention to media-related structures and institutions, such as media laws and their associated institutional structures, as well as the structure of media ownership.

The chapter deals with the difficult topic of media and normalised mendacity in Russia. Russia has been instrumental in creating our global post-truth age. The chapter discusses the phenomenon of Russia’s ‘normalisation of lying’ as a political tool that helps it to resolve conflicts and reconcile irreconcilables. The Putin regime has been particularly adept at utilising lies and fake news to silence dissent and destabilise western values. The Ukraine crisis is a case in point: a ‘colour revolution’ prevented from seeping across the border into Russia by inflammatory lies about Ukraine as a fascist, neo-Nazi, bandit state. These methods have not come out of the blue: they have been exercised by Russia’s rulers and ruled for centuries to adjust to autocratic and totalitarian rule. Has Russia succeeded in pushing Trump and other demagogic leaders to copy its methods? Certainly when Kellyanne Conway famously spoke of ‘alternative facts’ we can’t but observe similarities to Orwellian contradictions in Russia’s politics, such as its definition of itself as a ‘managed democracy.’

The chapter explores the erosion of media freedom in Turkey. It examines the severe and systemic restrictions on Turkey’s media. After offering a snapshot of the profession of journalism during the period of military tutelage, the chapter goes on to explain that even after the armed forces were removed from political life press censorship intensified, especially under the rule of the AKP. While the erosion of the military’s political power is a necessary development for democracy in general, the free and open press, another important pillar, was manipulated, co-opted, and, in some cases, it was unmercifully attacked and subdued by the AKP government. This chapter explains the dynamics of how the Turkish government was able to firmly sequester the media by exploiting a system that connects the wider business interests of media owners to both the AKP and President Recip Tayyip Erdogan. Essentially, the corporatisation of the media with its links to big business and the ruling party all but hollowed out the independent press, allowing the government to avoid accountability and degrade a check on power and the freedom of expression, both of which are necessary requirements for a healthy democracy.