In a period of rapid change in news consumption patterns and ongoing debate about the role of public service media (PSM) we wanted to find out what impact people think PSM news – whether on TV, on radio, or online – has on national life. This is just one dimension of how people think about news from public service media organisations, and just one aspect of their remits, but it is important given the prominence that PSM news has in many media systems across the world. The survey question we asked was, ‘Overall do you think that news provided by public service broadcasters has a positive or negative effect on life in your country?’1
We asked this question in 26 markets where PSM play a significant role.2 21 of the markets surveyed are in Europe. We also asked about attitudes in three Asia-Pacific markets (Japan, South Korea, and Australia) as well as in the USA and Canada. In some countries there is a single recognised provider of public service news, while in others there is more of a public service ecosystem. The German data, for example, are likely to reflect a mix of views about ARD, ZDF, and the regional network of German public service entities, and in Australia some people may mainly have been thinking about the ABC while others may have reflected their attitudes about news from SBS.
Across the 26 countries where the question was asked, views are positive overall. On average, 37% of respondents say that public service news has either a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ positive effect on life in their country, compared with 22% who think it has a negative effect – a net positive score of 15 percentage points (pp). A further 35% take a mixed view, indicating that a substantial minority either see little impact or do not hold strong opinions on the broader role of public service news.3
How do attitudes vary between countries?
To help with comparisons of attitudes across different markets we calculated ‘net positivity’ scores for each country. This is simply derived by deducting the total percentage of respondents who say public service news has a negative social effect from the total percentage of those who think the effect is positive. On this basis we can see a wide range of views across countries, from a net positive score of +48 in Norway (58% positive vs. 10% negative) to -23 in Serbia (22% positive vs. 45% negative).
We can identify three groups of markets. In 18 of the 26 countries people express a statistically significant positive attitude towards the impact of public service news on national life (a net positive score of 3pp or more). This group includes all the North American and Asian markets as well as most of the European respondents we polled. Within this group there is also considerable variation, with noticeably high levels of net positivity in Nordic markets and Portugal, while the net positivity was more marginal in South Korea, Spain, and Romania.
There is then a group of three markets where the net national view is mixed (less than 3pp difference): the Czech Republic, Poland, and the UK. And in five markets people overall believe that public service news has a negative effect on national life (a negative score of 3pp or more): Italy, Croatia, France, Slovakia, and Serbia.
How should we think about these marked national variations? One important factor associated with these differences is the level of trust in news in each country. The next chart shows a strong association (R2 = 0.72) between overall trust in news and opinions about the effect of public service news on society. In the group of five countries where people are negative overall about the social impact of PSM, overall trust in news is between 19% and 32%. In the mixed group, trust ranges from 30% to 39%, while in the 18 positive markets it varies more widely, from 23% in Romania to 63% in Finland.
This relationship with trust is not surprising. Positive views of the impact of public service news can be expected to go together with higher levels of trust in news overall, particularly in countries where public service media are widely used. The relationship may also run in the other direction: people who are generally trusting of news are more likely to view public service news positively.
At the individual level, these attitudes are also aligned with trust in news: 57% of people who say they trust news most of the time are positive about the social impact of PSM news while only 10% are negative. Conversely, among those who do not trust news overall, 44% are negative about the impact of PSM news on life in their country while 21% are positive.
What else explains differences in attitudes?
But trust is not the only explanatory factor. Attitudes towards the role of PSM news are not isolated opinions, but part of people’s broader relationship with news – indicators such as higher interest in news overall and also engagement with it are associated with people’s views about the social impact of PSM news. Those who use PSM news are also more positive about its impact on national life. For example, BBC news audiences are more positive than people who do not consume any BBC news about the impact of public service news upon life in the UK: 39% of BBC users are positive, compared to only 14% of people who don’t consume any BBC news (a net difference of +25pp). The same difference in positivity between users and non-users is evident for NHK in Japan (52% vs. 22%) and for NRK in Norway (66% vs. 36%).
Another factor associated with these attitudes is paying for news. Respondents with a positive attitude towards the social impact of public service news are twice as likely as those who are negative to pay for online news (this is perhaps relevant to perennial debate about whether public service news ‘crowds out’ commercial players)4.
These attitudinal differences provide useful context for understanding variations across countries. Recent developments within public service media systems may also be relevant in interpreting these patterns. The United States has experienced one of the most dramatic recent upheavals in public broadcasting: the elimination of roughly $1.1bn in federal funding under the new Trump administration in 2025 led to the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in early 2026, triggering widespread layoffs, output cutbacks, and financial instability across PBS, NPR, and, especially, local public radio and TV stations.5 As we will see shortly, there is a clear dividing line in the USA between those who continue to be positive about the social role of PSM news and those who dislike it.
In Italy, the recent story is more about politicisation. Rai has undergone leadership changes and editorial interventions widely seen as tightening political control, together with broader pressure on journalists and investigative programming. Concerns about independence and governance have intensified.6
In Slovakia, recent changes have been especially controversial. The government abolished the existing public broadcaster (RTVS) and replaced it with a new entity (STVR) under a governance model that critics argue increases political control. This institutional redesign prompted protests domestically as well as international concern.7 While in Serbia, public broadcasting has been caught up in and shaped by ongoing political crisis and public protest. Demonstrations in 2025 directly targeted RTS, accusing it of pro-government bias and inadequate coverage.8 The organisation has become a focal point for wider tensions over press freedom, with declining trust, internal pressures, and ongoing disputes over editorial independence.
These examples of organisational upheaval bring us to one of the most significant factors in understanding differences in attitudes about the social value of public service news: politics and polarisation.
The role of political identity
The history of public service media has its roots in a political decision: intervening in the media market to establish and fund an entity based on an understood shortfall in the provision of certain types of content which are deemed to have wider social benefits. As such, public service media organisations rely on a degree of national consensus about the merits both of their existence and also their day-to-day content. As signs of political polarisation have increased in several of the markets we survey, many public service media outlets find themselves in the crosshairs of increasingly confrontational political debate. Our data illustrate this polarisation of views about the contribution to national life of news from public service media. In all countries, there are differences of opinion in accordance with political leaning, and in several places these differences are very striking.
The easiest way of thinking about this polarisation is to look at the differences in each market in terms of net attitudes towards public service news between people on the left, in the centre, and on the right of the political spectrum (the previous chart is sorted according to the strength of positive sentiment among left-leaning audiences). Even in a market like Finland where there is a high degree of positivity at the national level about the role of public service news, there is a substantial difference between people on the left (63% net positive) and the right (18% net positive). The difference is at its greatest in the market where, as mentioned above, the disruption to public media has been most significant over the past year: the United States. Germany and Spain are two continental European countries where we can also see large differences. In the UK too there is a very significant difference between those on the left who are 18% net positive about the effect of public service news on life in the UK and people on the right who are net 36% negative.
Typically, it is people on the political left who are most positive about the social impact of public service news, followed by those on the centre. The French example is interestingly different. France is the only country where people in the centre of the political spectrum are more positive about the social impact of news from public service media than people on the left, although views on both the left and the centre are only marginally net positive. The net negative view of right-leaning French respondents is relatively straightforward to understand in the context of recent criticism by right-wing French politicians and other groups about the public media system.
Also relatively straightforward to understand given the political dynamics in Italy, respondents there stand out for being the only country where it is people on the left who are much more negative (-20 net) about the effect of public service news on life in Italy than on the right. And in Slovakia the data illustrate very clearly the widespread negativity about recent developments there in the public media landscape. Right across the left-right political spectrum people have a net negative attitude.
What do people like most and least?
To better understand what drives these positive and negative perceptions about social impact, we asked a follow-up question, depending on people’s answer to the main question. If people said they have a positive view of the impact of PSM news on society we then asked them about various positive features of PSM news, to shine more light on what they think these positive aspects are. Conversely, if a respondent said they believe public service news has a negative impact on national life we gave them a range of negative aspects to consider. (There was no follow-up question for people who thought that the impact of public service news was neither positive nor negative.)
In the context of these wide differences of opinion, it is useful to look at the things which people who are positive about the impact of PSM news value the most, as well as the things which those with a negative view find most troublesome.
Of those who are positive about the social impact of PSM, 61% across the 26 markets agreed with the statement that their public service media ensure everyone has access to important national and regional news. A majority (54%) also consider the provision of trustworthy news to be a positive aspect. This positive sentiment about two of the key ingredients of PSM news – trustworthiness and universality – points to ongoing support for these central pillars. About 40% of these positively minded people on average also agreed that PSM news is high quality, supports democracy, represents diverse communities, and is free from commercial or political influence (we will return to this point about influence shortly).
In terms of country variations there are respondents in two groups of countries where those who are positive about the social impact of PSM news appear to be most positive, relatively speaking. One group is the four Nordic countries, plus Germany. The second is made up of the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada. (Interestingly, respondents in the United States were in the top five most enthusiastic countries about each of the six aspects we asked about in the chart above.)
And how about the things which people who are negative dislike about public service news? There is one issue which stands out, namely perceptions of influence by political and other interests, which 71% of those who are negative about the social impact of public service news consider to be a negative aspect. This aligns with the data we report in the Executive summary about perceptions of influence on the news media, especially on the part of actors in the political sphere. To reinforce the sensitivity people have about influence, among those with a positive view of PSM, a majority of respondents agreed that PSM offers news free of commercial or political influence in only three of the 26 markets – Sweden, Australia, and the USA.
Between 36% and 45% of people believe that public service news is out of touch with ordinary people, focuses too much on certain issues, and does not reflect a sufficiently wide range of opinions. This group of attitudes speaks principally to concerns about inclusiveness. Nearly half (47%) of those with a negative view also believe that their PSM fail to provide trustworthy news.
Among people negative about the social impact of public service news, there is relatively little concern about the competitive impact of PSM news on the commercial sector. This remains an issue of intense industry debate in some markets but seems to be something which does not really trouble even the opponents of PSM news.
Finally, it is worth noting five countries where negative respondents are among the most negative and where people who are positive are the most positive: Germany, Sweden, the UK, the US, and Australia. This strength of feeling both in favour of and against the social impact of public service news reflects some of the polarising forces in those countries and speaks again to the challenge threatening the national consensus in support of public service media and the role they play in national life.
Conclusions
It is important to emphasise that analysis in this chapter is focused solely on respondents’ answers to a question about the impact on national life of public service news. A number of other important dimensions of the PSM debate are not addressed here. Asking people for their views on the social impact of PSM news is different from factors such as trust in public service news, or usage of PSM news output – data on these aspects can be found both in the Executive summary and in the individual country profiles elsewhere in this report. In many cases, reach of and trust in PSM news is significantly higher than the findings here about attitudes towards its social impact.
These findings about the social impact of PSM news highlight the challenge public service media organisations can face in connecting with audiences who feel distant from news and are sceptical about its social impact. Negative attitudes about the effect of PSM news on national life are often associated not with highly engaged critics, but with people who are less engaged, less trusting, and less accustomed to consuming news regularly. This raises questions about how news can feel easier and more rewarding to engage with, helping audiences quickly understand what matters to them and why. Making relevance more explicit by connecting reporting to people’s everyday lives, local contexts, and practical concerns may help reinforce the sense that news is useful, plays a worthwhile national role, and is not just important in the abstract. For some people who strongly dislike PSM news, though, do not consume it, and are negative about its social impact, there may be little which public service news providers can do to engage them.
In a more polarised and fragmented media environment, the findings point to a potential role for public service media not only as providers of trusted information, but as facilitators of trust across different – often divided – groups. This could involve developing formats that help audiences understand why perspectives differ, highlighting areas of shared concern, and creating space for informed dialogue without forcing consensus.
Away from the output itself, reinforcing the structure of public service media to minimise the scope for, and defuse speculation about, political influence on news could reassure those who are already supportive, while directly addressing the principal concern of people who are negative about the social impact of PSM news.
Taken together, these considerations suggest that strengthening the position of public service media is less about any single intervention and more about a combination of approaches: demonstrating independence clearly, lowering the barriers to engagement, embedding news in everyday consumption patterns, and helping audiences navigate differences in a way that supports shared understanding.
Footnotes
1 We asked this question in 26 markets. We did not ask about specific organisations but framed the question broadly in terms of ‘public service broadcasters’. In each market we provided an example in the question of one public service entity in case respondents were unsure about the term.
2 The question was asked in: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.
3 We did not ask respondents for their opinions overall about public service media organisations. It is possible that respondents’ broader attitudes about PSM organisations and their content affected the way they answered the question as worded.
4 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323120903688
5 https://theconversation.com/clawback-of-1-1b-for-pbs-and-npr-puts-rural-stations-at-risk-and-threatens-a-vital-source-of-journalism-255826
6 https://www.euractiv.com/news/italian-government-criticised-for-intimidation-of-critical-journalists/
7 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68887663
8 https://www.rferl.org/a/serbia-students-collapse-canopy-vucic-vulin/33385418.html