Fast Forward by the Lounge interactive design

PUBLIC VALUE STUDY

PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA IN EUROPE

FAST FORWARD

DIGITAL INNOVATION & PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA

INDIVIDUAL VALUE TRUST SERVICE ENTERTAINMENT EDUCATION AND SCIENCE RESPONSIBILITY

QUALITY DIMENSIONS

SOCIAL VALUE DIVERSITY ORIENTATION INTEGRATION

RESPONSIVENESS CULTURE

INTERNATIONAL VALUE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

NATION VALUE IDENTITY

ADDED VALUE FEDERALISM

CORPORATE VALUE INNOVATION TRANSPARENCY COMPETENCE

In order to define distinctive media quality Austrian Broadcasting Corporation has created a structure of five Quality Dimensions. Comprehensive media production in TV, radio and online is described along 18 categories to prove how ORF fulfills its Public Service Mission in the context of the current media environment and its challenges. More information, statements and documents you may find on http://zukunft.ORF.at .

PUBLISHED AND PRODUCED BY: : Österreichischer Rundfunk, ORF

Hugo-Portisch-Gasse 1, 1136 Wien

DESIGN:

ORF Marketing & Creation GmbH & Co KG

RESPONSIBLE: ORF-Generaldirektion Public Value

EDITING

Klaus Unterberger, Konrad Mitschka

TRANSLATION

Laura Schnetzer, Michael-Bernhard Zita

– gedruckt nach der Richtlinie „Druckerzeugnisse” des Österreichischen Umweltzeichens, ORF Druckerei, UW 1237

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

That’s what many people believe: Google & co. are too superior, too successful, too powerful. Whether YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X or Amazon: the technologies of the global giants are impressively easy to use, their distribution is established both regionally and globally, their influence reaches into the smallest capillaries of society. A handful of global corporations have disrupted the world of private and public communication and dominate both the economy and usage of social media. At the same time, however, massive negative effects are becoming apparent: filter bubbles, hate speech, online propaganda and uncontrollable algorithmic technologies have created dystopian perspectives of manipulation and surveillance.

Crucial questions arise: Are global giants unstoppable in reach and relevance? Will commercial interest suffocate the common good of society? Facing the enormous impact of social media, will quality journalism prevail? How can Public Service Media react? And most important: Are there any chances to create European alternatives to google&co?

These are challenges addressed by the Public Value Study “Fast Forward”. As a joint project between ARD, SRG, ZDF, ORF and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the research project investigates the quality of digital innovation in Public Service Media. A total of 13 scientists and media experts from Germany, Switzerland, the UK, the Netherlands and Austria are evaluating ongoing projects focusing on artificial intelligence and digital transformation. How can Public Service Media create distinctive quality in the digital age supporting democracy and citizenship? Will they be successful in transforming from audiovisual broadcasters to multimedia digital platforms?

With the support of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the study is launching an ambitious mission: a mapping of relevant projects of digital innovation throughout Europe creating a showroom of best practices highlighting the competence of PSM. ARD, ZDF, SRG and ORF have agreed to evaluate some of their frontrunner-initiatives to identify their Public Value potential.

Facing the enormous dynamics of digital transformation and the massive power and impact of the commercial internet, there is no time to lose. The future will not wait. Neither will Public Service Media.

KLAUS UNTERBERGER, ORF

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

THOMAS STEINMAURER, PARIS LODRON UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG

MICHAEL-BERNHARD ZITA, COUNCIL FOR EUROPEAN PUBLIC SPACE .............................................. S 05

PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA:

DIGITAL INNOVATION AND PUBLIC VALUE

DORIEN VERCKIST, EBU ......................................................................................................... S 07

LEVERAGING DIGITAL INNOVATION TO FOSTER PUBLIC VALUE: AN ANALYSIS OF ‘A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE’

MATTHIJS LEENDERTSE, ERASMUS-UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM ....................................................... S 21

THE PUBLIC SPACES INCUBATOR: TURNING DYSFUNCTIONAL ONLINE SPACES INTO FUNCTIONING PUBLIC ARENAS

KEVIN KOBAN, RINAT MEERSON & JÖRG MATTHES, UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA S 40

THE AIDITOR: PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING IN THE TENSION BETWEEN QUALITY JOURNALISM, HIGH-TECH COMPANY, AND THE PUSH FOR EFFICIENCY

SABINE T. KÖSZEGI, LARA SCHMALZER & LAURA MARIA VIGL, TU VIENNA S 56

ONBOARDING: HOW TO LEAD FEE PAYERS TO PUBLIC BROADCASTING OFFERINGS

MARKUS KAISER, TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE NÜRNBERGG S 75

EASIER AND IICT INNOVATIONS IN THE FIELD OF ACCESSIBILITY AT SRG

KEVIN HOFER S 93

PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA AND AN AI-MEDIATED INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM

DAVID CASWELL, STORYFLOW LTD. & CHRISTINA ELMER, INSTITUT FÜR JOURNALISTIK, TU DORTMUND S 102

ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF GERMAN PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA TO SOCIAL COHESION. RESULTS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY

JAN-HINRIK SCHMIDT, LEIBNIZ-INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA RESEARCH S 117

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

THOMAS STEINMAURER, PARIS LODRON UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG

MICHAEL-BERNHARD ZITA, COUNCIL FOR EUROPEAN PUBLIC SPACE ............................................ S 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4

INTRODUCTION

THOMAS STEINMAURER, PARIS LODRON UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG MICHAEL-BERNHARD ZITA, COUNCIL FOR EUROPEAN PUBLIC SPACE

The development of digital transformations has led to major disruptions in the entire media and communications sector. While the pioneering years of the internet were characterized by euphoric narratives at the beginning of digitalization, the current situation is much more disillusioning. Global platforms currently dominate the system of digital network infrastructures, challenging the established structures of traditional media on many different levels. In particular, new cultures of production, distribution, and usage cultures have emerged in the digital network systems, which oppose the one-to-many architecture of traditional broadcasters with a new paradigm.

Traditional media and thus also providers of public service broadcasting are being forced to follow new paths of innovation in the digital network age. As part of their special mission, they are called upon to create public value for society in many respects that adaptively integrates the current transformations of digital change and responds to the challenges that arise in these new communicative ecosystems. At the same time, it is their duty to counter the current crisis-like phenomena of digitalization - from the growing spread of fake news and the erosion of journalistic information quality in social media to the new challenges of datafication and AI – by offering high standards of information and communication services. This should help to support an informed public discourse which is existentially necessary for a liberal democracy and an open society. Public service broadcasting offering should also not be guided by the fulfillment of economic rationalities, but rather focus on the common good of society and democracy as normative requirements.

The developments mentioned above also play a particularly important role from a broader European perspective. For Europe, too, the question arises as to what response it can find to the assertion of globally active platform players that follow neither an American-style libertarian network economy nor a Chinese-style state-authoritarian paradigm. Even if numerous dynamics and initiatives have developed in the meantimedriven by the idea of developing a European public open space. Europe has not yet been able to offer a satisfactorily competitive and therefore enforceable alternative in relation to global developments. This makes it all the more important to establish a digital infrastructure that builds

on the values of cultural and social diversity and promotes the development of information and communication networks for a European public sphere. In this respect, public service providers have great potential to make an important contribution due to their remit. However, this can only succeed if it is possible to develop digital innovation projects that support the transformation from traditional broadcasters to digital network providers with added social value.

This annual Public Value study presents current digital innovation projects by public service media providers in Europe and highlights the associated potential and challenges on the basis of scientific evaluations and categorizing analyses. In this context, it shows which new technologies are used, which target groups are the focus of innovations, and which quality requirements play a specific role. In addition, the potentials of bilateral and European cooperation were examined, and what contribution they can make to media quality for the common good.

The individual analyses are preceded by a mapping of current projects by the Media Intelligence Service of the European Broadcasting Union, which for the first time not only provides an initial overview of the various innovation projects of public service media providers in the field of digital media, but also an initial classification according to the dimensions of public value. And following the presentation and analysis of selected „frontrunner projects”, the potential future of a strong data- and AI-driven public service media future is shown on the one hand. At the same time, the quality of the special role of public service media in its current and proven form (also in comparison to social media platforms) is worked out. The study concludes with a summarizing overview of current activities of public service media and addresses questions for the future.

Overall, the synopsis of the various projects opens up the possibility of identifying key developments and potentials for further cooperations between the various public service providers. At the same time, a look at the European perspective reveals development horizons that highlight the importance of the contribution of public service providers to the development of a European digital public sphere.

PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA: DIGITAL INNOVATION AND PUBLIC VALUE

DORIEN VERCKIST, EBU

1. Introduction

Public Service Media (PSM) innovate in various areas, depending on the organization‘s needs, resources, and external factors. Indeed, PSM innovation moves in sync with societal change, technological advancements, and strategic priorities. In recent years, focus areas have become Artificial Intelligence, disinformation and fake news, sustainability, and social cohesion, to name just a few.

Whether it is large-scale projects or improvements on a team level, the common theme is the Public Service Media mandate. Public Service Media uphold the right to freedom of expression and information and promote the values of democracy, diversity, and social cohesion (Council of Europe, 2022). The Council of Europe (2022) emphasises innovation as a vital ‘conditio sine qua non’.

Information and content should, for instance, be of high quality, ensuring an innovatory and varied character. Accessibility is also essential, which requires providing content through digital touchpoints and interactive facilities. Establishing access via digital platforms requires different forms of innovation. Moreover, states are encouraged to support PSM for innovation, allowing the development of digital strategies and new services. This also implies the provision of sufficient funding (Council of Europe, 2022).

In other words, the future of Public Service Media is intertwined with the degree of innovation that can be actualized within the organization.

2. Innovation at public service media

Based on desk research and enquiries across PSM organizations, the Media Intelligence Service 1 identified 26 examples of how PSM organizations are continuously innovating to maintain relevance, future-proofness, and sustainability. This list is far from exhaustive, but it is rather a selection to represent the wide variety of areas, topics and ways Public

1 The Media Intelligence Service is the research unit at the European Broadcasting Union. For more information, see https://www.ebu.ch/media-intelligence

Service Media pair innovation and their encompassing goal to assure public value.

Innovation exists in many shapes and forms, of which digital innovation is presumably the fastest-moving and most impactful. The next pages cover examples of how Public Service Media organizations fuse digital innovation and public value. As mentioned before, the cases below are a non-exhaustive selection. Cases are described in alphabetical order.

The map (see below) provides an overview of the PSM organizations included in the paper. What follows is a description of the different cases. The cases are subdivided into the five Public Value quality dimensions identified by ORF.

Map: Public Service Media organizations combining Digital Innovation and Public Value (selected cases)

Source: European Broadcasting Union, Media Intelligence Survey, 2024

Each case is presented following the same structure (whenever possible):

Project description: The project, initiative, or action highlighted by the main characteristics. These include the project‘s timeframe, the target audience and – whenever available – the departments involved.

Core goal/interest of the project: The project’s desired outcome is explained here. If possible, the timeframe is given. In addition, the prospected outcome is listed.

Potential for Public Value: This paragraph explains the explicit or implicit link with Public Value. For each case, the underlying element of Public Value is explained. The main insights are offered whenever results from related research or surveys are available.

More information: Lastly, links to reports or other additional information are provided where available.

2.1. Individual value

BBC (United Kingdom): Personalized Recommendations

Project description: BBC iPlayer uses AI-driven algorithms to deliver personalized content recommendations to viewers, helping them discover shows and programs that match their individual preferences. The system analyses user behaviour and viewing patterns to suggest relevant content, enhancing the overall user experience.

Core goal/interest of the project: The primary goal of BBC iPlayer‘s personalized recommendations is to increase viewer engagement and satisfaction by providing tailored content that resonates with individual interests and viewing habits. This helps retain viewers and encourages them to explore a broader range of BBC content.

Potential for Public Value: Personalized recommendations on BBC iPlayer ensure that users are more likely to find content that they enjoy, thereby enhancing their viewing experience. This can lead to higher user satisfaction and loyalty, supporting the BBC‘s mission to inform, educate, and entertain a diverse audience. By promoting a wide range of content, including educational and culturally enriching programs, the BBC can also foster greater cultural awareness and understanding.

Other PSM with similar recommenders: Yle Areena (Finland), NRK TV (Norway), ZDFmediathek (Germany) (see below), RTVE Play (Spain), VRT MAX (Belgium, Flanders)

More information: https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/inform-educate-entertain-recommend/

NRK (Norway): AI-Generated Summaries for Younger Audiences

Project description: Norway‘s public broadcaster NRK uses AI-generated summaries to create concise and engaging versions of news stories aimed at younger audiences. These summaries leverage natural language processing to distil key information, making news more accessible and appealing to younger viewers who prefer quick, easy-to-digest content.

Core goal/interest of the project: The primary goal of this project is to enhance the consumption of news among younger demographics by providing them with summarized versions of news articles that fit their

fast-paced lifestyles. This initiative seeks to bridge the gap between traditional news formats and the preferences of younger generations, thereby increasing their engagement with current affairs.

Potential for Public Value: This project holds significant public value as it ensures that younger audiences remain informed and engaged with important news events. By tailoring news delivery to the preferences of younger viewers, NRK promotes media literacy and keeps a crucial segment of the population well-informed. This approach also supports the broader mission of public service media to educate and inform all segments of society, fostering a well-rounded and informed citizenry.

More information: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/ how-norways-public-broadcaster-uses-ai-generated-summaries-reachyounger-audiences

RAI (Italy): High Contrast Enhanced Images

Project description: RAI, the Italian public broadcaster, is developing high-contrast enhanced images to improve visual content for individuals with visual impairments. This technology adjusts the contrast and clarity of TV programs to make visual details more discernible for viewers with low vision.

Core goal/interest of the project: increase the accessibility of television content for visually impaired audiences. By enhancing visual clarity, the project ensures that all viewers, regardless of their visual abilities, can fully enjoy and understand the broadcast content.

Potential for Public Value: This initiative has significant potential for public value as it promotes inclusivity and equal access to media content. By making television more accessible to visually impaired individuals, RAI not only fulfils its public service mandate but also fosters a more inclusive society where everyone has the opportunity to engage with and benefit from broadcast media. The project exemplifies RAI‘s commitment to leveraging technology for social good, ensuring that no segment of the audience is left behind.

More information: https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/1686578785141_Rai_Bilancio%20Sostenibilit_DNF_2022_Pubblicato.pdf

RTVÉ (Spain): Hiperia

Project description: Hiperia is a pioneering audiovisual content series created entirely using artificial intelligence, launched by Radio 3 Extra, a platform under RTVE. This innovative project integrates AI with music, offering real-time improvisations and enhanced sound quality to revolutionize the live music experience. Hiperia targets younger audiences. Core goal/interest of the project: explore and showcase the capabilities of artificial intelligence in creating high-quality audiovisual content

and enhancing live music performances. By leveraging AI, RTVE aims to push the boundaries of content creation and deliver unique, engaging experiences to its audience.

Potential for Public Value: Hiperia has significant public value as it demonstrates the potential of AI in creative industries, fostering innovation and encouraging public interest in new technologies. It also enhances the cultural experience for viewers, making advanced technological content accessible and enjoyable to a wider audience. By combining advanced technology, high-quality sound, cultural relevance, and interactive elements, Hiperia offers an attractive package that resonates well with younger audiences, enhancing their engagement and enjoyment of RTVE‘s content.

More information: https://www.rtve.es/radio/20230227/nace-hiperiaprimer-contenido-audiovisual-inteligencia-artificial-radio-3-extra/ 2427987.shtml

VPRO (Netherlands): TypeCast

Project description: VPRO, the Dutch public media organization, is developing a podcast for deaf and hearing-impaired audiences. The project came into existence during a VPRO Medialab hackathon on augmented podcasts. TypeCast presents a transcript of the original podcast.

Core goal/interest of the project: Making podcasts accessible for the hearing-impaired without sacrificing the unique format, dialogue, and atmosphere of storytelling.

Potential for Public Value: Ensuring accessibility for all audiences, empowered by the high level of involvement from deaf audiences and people with auditive disabilities during the development.

More information: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech-i/tech-i-055.pdf

2.2. Social value

BBC (United Kingdom): AI for Fact-Checking

Project description: Full Fact collaborates with the BBC to deploy AI tools for real-time fact-checking during live broadcasts. These AI-driven tools automatically analyse statements made during live news events and verify their accuracy, providing immediate feedback to viewers.

Core goal/interest of the project: The core goal of this project is to enhance the accuracy and credibility of live news broadcasts by swiftly identifying and correcting misinformation. By leveraging AI, the project aims to ensure that audiences receive reliable and factually correct information in real time.

Potential for Public Value: The use of AI for live fact-checking has considerable public value as it promotes transparency and accountability in

media. It helps maintain high journalistic standards by preventing the spread of misinformation, thus building trust between the news provider and its audience. Furthermore, this initiative supports informed public discourse by ensuring that viewers have access to accurate information as events unfold, thereby contributing to a well-informed society.

More information: https://fullfact.org/ai/

RAI (Italy): Accessibility initiatives

Project description: RAI’s initiatives, including Speech2Text, High Contrast Enhanced Images, and Virtual LIS, focus on improving accessibility for individuals with sensory and cognitive disabilities. These projects aim to enhance media access through automatic speech transcription, improved visual content for the visually impaired, and educational resources in Italian Sign Language.

Core goal/interest of the project: The core goal is to support inclusivity and accessibility in media and education by leveraging advanced technologies to cater to the needs of individuals with disabilities.

Potential for Public Value: These initiatives provide significant public value by ensuring equal access to information and cultural experiences, promoting social inclusion, and enhancing the quality of life for people with sensory and cognitive impairments.

More information: https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/1686578785141_Rai_Bilancio%20Sostenibilit_DNF_2022_Pubblicato.pdf (p182-183)

RTVÉ (Spain): IVERES

Project description: IVERES is a collaborative project led by RTVE aimed at developing tools for the identification, verification, and response to disinformation using artificial intelligence. The project involves partnerships with several academic institutions and focuses on enhancing the quality and reliability of information in the media.

Core goal/interest of the project: The core goal of IVERES is to leverage AI technology to combat disinformation and ensure the dissemination of accurate information, thereby supporting democratic values and the integrity of journalism.

Potential for Public Value: The potential public value of IVERES lies in its ability to improve the trustworthiness of news content, providing the public with reliable information and reducing the spread of fake news. This contributes to a more informed society and strengthens democratic processes by ensuring citizens have access to accurate and verified information.

More information: https://www.rtve.es/rtve/20230615/proyecto-iveresinteligencia-artificial-presenta-primeros-resultados-lucha-contra-desinformacion/2449607.shtml and https://iveres.es/

RÚV (Iceland): Cloud-based elections system

Project description: RÚV applies technological innovation in a democratic way, in more than one sense of the word. During the elections, election data was represented in a graphical way, ready to be used by television hosts and the wider public. The data was made available through a cloud-based solution and a public website. In 2023, this highly relevant project was nominated for the EBU T&I Award.

Core goal/interest of the project: Democratise relatively complex data in an insightful, easy-to-understand way. This will ensure that society can make informed decisions with an important understanding of local and national data.

Potential for Public Value: A more informed audience that can feel more empowered when going to vote. In other words, RÙV is directly empowering democracy.

More information: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech-i/tech-i-056.pdf

SR (Sweden): Constructive news for local journalism

Project description: Swedish Radio (SR) has launched a constructive news project focused on local journalism, leveraging constructive journalism principles to enhance the quality and impact of their reporting. This initiative involves using an algorithm to identify and promote solutions-oriented news stories, piloted in three of SR’s local newsrooms. The Constructive News Algorithm has been piloted successfully in three of SR’s local newsrooms, receiving positive feedback. The correlation between human assessments of constructive news and the algorithm‘s results has been highly precise.

Core goal/interest of the project: The main goal of the project is to measure and increase the amount of constructive journalism in SR‘s reporting by testing an algorithm developed through a collaboration with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) under the A European Perspective initiative. This approach aims to provide a more balanced news coverage that not only highlights problems but also potential solutions and positive developments.

Potential for Public Value: The inclusion of more constructive and solutions-based reporting aligns with the mission of public service media (PSM) and SR‘s news strategy. This approach can attract new audiences and combat news fatigue by providing more hopeful and forward-looking content. It encourages public engagement by showcasing effective responses to challenges, thus promoting a more informed and optimistic society.

More information: https://constructiveinstitute.org/constructive-newsmirror/ and https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2020/09/28/this-swedish-radio-algorithm-gets-reporters-out-in-society/

SVT (Sweden): Lilla Aktuellt’s Chat

Project description: Lilla Aktuellt is a news program aimed at children, produced by the Swedish public broadcaster SVT. It includes a chat feature where young viewers can discuss various topics, ask questions, and share their opinions in a moderated and safe online environment.

Core goal/interest of the project: The main goal of the chat feature is to engage young audiences by providing a platform where they can interact with news content, ask questions, and express their views. This helps in making news more accessible and relatable to children.

Potential for Public Value: This initiative fosters media literacy among young viewers by encouraging them to think critically about news and current events. It also provides a safe space for children to express their thoughts, thereby enhancing their engagement with public service media and promoting informed citizenship from a young age.

More information: https://www.svt.se/barnkanalen/barnplay/lilla-aktuellt/

VRT (Belgium): Smartschool integration

Project description: The partnership between VRT and Smartschool integrates VRT‘s educational content into the Smartschool platform, enhancing accessibility for teachers and students in Flanders. This collaboration aims to streamline the delivery of quality educational resources directly into classrooms via digital means.

Core goal/interest of the project: The primary goal is to strengthen the quality of education by making VRT‘s diverse and high-quality educational content more accessible and usable within the Smartschool platform.

Potential for Public Value: This collaboration provides significant public value by enriching the educational experience for both students and teachers, ensuring that valuable, relevant, and current educational content is easily accessible, thereby supporting the educational development of young learners in Flanders.

More information: https://www.vrt.be/nl/over-de-vrt/nieuws/2024/05/ 06/vrt-en-smartschool-slaan-handen-in-elkaar/

WDR (Germany): Klima app

Project description: The WDR Klima App, designed for students aged 13 to 16, uses augmented reality to provide immersive educational experiences about climate change, including interactive stories and games. It aims to enhance classroom learning.

Core goal/interest of the project: Educate young people about climate change through interactive and immersive experiences using augmented reality, enhancing their understanding and engagement with environmental issues.

Potential for Public Value: The WDR Klima App has significant public

value potential by raising awareness and educating young people about climate change in an engaging way, thereby fostering environmental responsibility. Its interactive and immersive approach can enhance understanding, promote behavioural change, and support educational initiatives, ultimately contributing to a more informed and proactive society regarding environmental issues.

More information: https://presse.wdr.de/plounge/wdr/programm/ 2022/08/20220819_klima_app.html

Yle (Finland): Machine-translated news

Project description: Yle, the Finnish public broadcaster, has launched a news service in Ukrainian to provide accurate and timely information to Ukrainian-speaking residents and refugees in Finland. This initiative includes news broadcasts and articles available in Ukrainian on their digital platforms.

Core goal/interest of the project: Support the Ukrainian community in Finland by offering news and information in their native language, helping them stay informed about current events both locally and globally.

Potential for Public Value: The initiative enhances public value by fostering inclusivity and ensuring that Ukrainian speakers have access to reliable information, which is crucial for their integration, well-being, and informed decision-making.

More information: https://yle.fi/a/3-12425501

Multiple: Public Spaces Incubator

Project description: The Public Spaces Incubator is an initiative that aims to develop and test innovative concepts to create healthier digital spaces for public discourse. It involves collaboration with four major public broadcasters to combat online disinformation and promote constructive social interactions.

Core goal/interest of the project: use digital innovation to foster public knowledge and facilitate positive social connections. By leveraging the expertise of public broadcasters and technology, the project seeks to create digital spaces free from disinformation, harassment, and abuse, promoting respectful and fact-based dialogue.

Potential for Public Value: The initiative has the potential to significantly enhance public discourse by providing safe and inclusive online environments. It aims to counteract the negative impacts of social media platforms, such as echo chambers and online abuse, by offering alternatives that encourage diversity of opinion and constructive debate. This aligns with the mission of public service media to inform, educate, and connect communities, thereby strengthening democratic engagement and social cohesion.

Members: CBC/Radio-Canada, ZDF, RTBF, and SRG SSR

More information: https://newpublic.org/psi

2.3. National Value

RTP (Portugal): RTP Arena

Project description: RTP Arena is a platform dedicated to esports and gaming, offering live broadcasts, news, and exclusive content related to competitive gaming events. It covers a wide range of esports titles, including Counter-Strike, League of Legends, and more, providing comprehensive coverage and engaging content for gaming enthusiasts.

Core goal/interest of the project: promote and support the esports community by offering high-quality content, live broadcasts of major tournaments, and engaging commentary. It aims to become a central hub for esports fans in Portugal, enhancing the visibility and professionalism of the esports scene.

Potential for Public Value: RTP Arena fosters community building and supports the growing interest in esports, particularly among younger audiences. By providing free access to esports content and live broadcasts, it enhances public engagement with digital sports, promotes inclusivity, and contributes to the development of the esports industry in Portugal.

More information: https://arena.rtp.pt/

SBS (Australia): Australian Census Explorer

Project description: SBS launched a tool that makes census data available in eight different languages, ensuring accessibility to a large part of the population. It’s the first time the data is available in Arabic, Greek, Italian, Korean, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Core goal/interest of the project: Offer insights into the diversity that characterises Australia. Allow a better understanding of different groups, languages, cultures and regions, including Indigenous peoples. Make data available for all.

Potential for Public Value: A better understanding of different people’s backgrounds, cultures, and demographics can improve social cohesion and counter conflict.

More information: https://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/2022/07/07/sbslaunches-multilingual-australian-census-explorer/

SBS (Australia): SBS Learn English

Project description: SBS launched SBS Learn English in 2022, a free service designed to help 872 000 Australians with limited or no English pro -

ficiency, offering resources in over 18 languages and featuring podcasts, audio mini-pods, and video series. Developed with teaching professionals, it also engages directly with communities, educational institutions, and industry through visits and presentations.

Core goal/interest of the project: First of all, SBS Learn English promotes integration and social cohesion by overcoming language barriers. SBS Learn English also engages directly with industries, communities, and classrooms, reinforcing ties.

Potential for Public Value: Reinforcing social cohesion across communities with over 18 languages, sharing the Australian culture and sense of belonging.

More information: https://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/sbs_annual_report_2023_0.pdf (p. 84)

2.4. International Value

EBU (Switzerland) and others: Trusted European Data Space (TEMS) consortium

Project description: The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and 42 organizations have launched the Trusted European Data Space (TEMS) consortium to create a resilient, data-driven ecosystem in the media sector. Supported by the European Commission’s Digital Europe Programme, TEMS aims to facilitate innovation and collaboration in media services and ensure the upholding of European values and rules.

Core goal/interest of the project: Creating a resilient, data-driven ecosystem in the media sector that facilitates innovation and collaboration while upholding European values and regulations. This initiative, supported by the European Commission’s Digital Europe Programme, aims to enhance media services across Europe.

Potential for Public Value: TEMS aims to foster innovation and collaboration across the European media landscape, ensuring that data-driven technologies are adopted in a way that respects European values and regulations. By enhancing the media industry‘s ability to share verified information and develop new business models, TEMS contributes to a more informed and connected society while supporting the sustainability and growth of local and regional media ecosystems.

More information: https://tems-dataspace.eu/about/ and https:// www.ebu.ch/news/2023/10/ebu-and-42-organizations-launch-trustedeuropean-data-space-tems-consortium

EBU (Switzerland) and others: AI4Media

Project description: AI4Media is a European initiative focused on advancing AI technologies for media, society, and democracy, emphasizing

ethical and trustworthy AI development. It fosters collaboration among AI researchers and media professionals through research, innovation, education, and policy recommendations, aiming to enhance Europe‘s leadership in AI.

Core goal/interest of the project: Advancing AI technologies in a manner that benefits the media, society, and democracy. It aims to foster collaboration between AI researchers and media professionals to develop ethical, transparent, and trustworthy AI solutions, enhancing Europe‘s leadership in AI while addressing societal needs and improving the quality and integrity of media services.

Potential for Public Value: Promoting responsible AI use in media, ensuring transparency and trust, and supporting societal needs by improving the quality and integrity of information and media services.

Members: EBU, France Télévisions, ORF

More information: https://www.ai4media.eu/#

EBU (Switzerland) and others: A European Perspective

Project description: A European Perspective is a digital news initiative that connects Europe through trusted news, providing high-quality journalism translated into multiple languages. It utilizes AI tools for automated translations and content recommendations to make news accessible and relevant to European audiences.

Core goal/interest of the project: The core goal of the project is to create a pan-European networked newsroom that enhances the reach and impact of public service media, fostering a European public sphere rooted in EU values.

Potential for Public Value: The initiative promotes understanding and unity across Europe by offering diverse viewpoints and countering disinformation, thus enhancing the public‘s access to reliable and inclusive news content.

Members: 20 EBU Members across 17 countries

More information: https://www.europeanperspective.net/home

VRT (Belgium): EDUbox

Project description: EDUbox is an educational concept that introduces secondary school students to a specific social topic. EDUbox aims to inform young people and stimulate them to get involved. The topics centre around (world) citizenship, critical thinking, science and technology, …. The learning tool for teachers is free, and helps work towards specific attainment levels and several key competencies. Following its success, a European EDUmake project was launched in partnership with Croatia and the Netherlands. The partners also created an EDUbox focused on European policy in preparation for the European elections in 2024.

Core goal/interest of the project: Combining technology, didactics and storytelling to create a fun and educational learning experience.

Potential for Public Value: Engaging young citizens surrounding key topics for a healthy society, teaching them how to interact and use technology as a tool.

More information: https://edubox.vrtnws.be/edumake-pitch/index. html?page=pitch and https://www.vrtinternational.com/news/vrts-edubox-replicated-in-croatia-and-the-netherlands

2.5. Corporate Value

DR (Denmark): AI Diversity tracker

Project description: Since 2022, the Danish public service broadcaster DR has implemented an advanced AI-powered diversity tracker. This innovative tool automates the tracking of diversity metrics and provides valuable insights for both editorial and diversity teams. Using an AI tracker allows for the processing of more data and loading it into dashboards that are used to track and promote diversity within the organization.

Core goal/interest of the project: Using innovation to increase diversity in content, by increasing efficiency.

Potential for Public Value: Offering more diverse content, representing society more accurately and consequently, resonating with different audiences.

More information: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech-i/tech-i-055.pdf

France TV (France): Open Innovation

Project description: France Télévisions‘ Open Innovation initiative leverages collaborations with startups, academic institutions, and internal teams to foster technological advancements and creative solutions within the media industry. This initiative focuses on addressing operational challenges, creating new sources of value, and accelerating the group‘s transformation in response to evolving media consumption habits.

Core goal/interest of the project: Enhance France Télévisions‘ ability to innovate by integrating cutting-edge technologies and methodologies through collaborations with external and internal partners. This aims to address operational needs, feed staff skills, drive cultural transformation, and position France Télévisions as a leader in the media innovation ecosystem.

Potential for Public Value: Engaging employees in the innovation process fosters a culture of creativity and adaptability within the organization. This cultural shift is crucial for France Télévisions to remain relevant and responsive to changes in media consumption habits and technological advancements. The initiative‘s public value lies in its potential to deliver more engaging, accessible, and diverse media content

to the audience. By fostering innovation in areas such as AI, accessibility, and new media formats, France Télévisions can better serve its public, ensuring inclusivity and high-quality content tailored to modern media consumption patterns.

More information: https://www.francetvlab.fr/en/posts/thanks-to-openinnovation-france-televisions-is-accelerating-its-desire-to-innovate

VRT (Belgium): VR Experience for Media Accessibility

Project description: Flemish broadcaster VRT and start-up Soulmade have collaborated to develop a virtual reality (VR) experience aimed at raising awareness about media accessibility. The VR project allows users to experience the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities when accessing media, highlighting the importance of accessible media content.

Core goal/interest of the project: educate and sensitize the public and media professionals about the accessibility barriers encountered by people with disabilities. By immersing users in a simulated environment, the project aims to foster greater empathy and understanding, ultimately promoting more inclusive media practices.

Potential for Public Value: The VR experience has significant potential for public value as it raises awareness about the necessity of media accessibility, encouraging both media producers and the general public to prioritize inclusivity. This heightened awareness can lead to increased efforts to make media content accessible to all, thereby enhancing the quality of life for individuals with disabilities and promoting social equity.

More information: https://communication.vrt.be/flemish-broadcaster-vrt-and-start-up-soulmade-build-vr-experience-to-raise-awarenessabout-media-accessibility

ZDF (Germany): ZDFmediathek algorithms

Project description: ZDF‘s Public Algorithm initiative explains how recommendation algorithms work within the ZDFmediathek, detailing the types of data used and their role in fulfilling the broadcaster‘s public service mandate. The platform offers transparency about the algorithms behind content recommendations, aiming to ensure diverse and highquality media consumption.

Core goal/interest of the project: provide transparency and understanding of the algorithms used in ZDF‘s media services, ensuring they support the public service mission and promote content diversity.

Potential for Public Value: This initiative enhances public value by fostering trust through transparency, promoting informed media consumption, and ensuring algorithmic recommendations align with public service values and diversity standards.

More information: https://algorithmen.zdf.de/

LEVERAGING DIGITAL INNOVATION TO FOSTER PUBLIC VALUE: AN ANALYSIS OF ‘A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE’

MATTHIJS LEENDERTSE, ERASMUS-UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM

1. Introduction

In our diverse and multilingual continent, news content often does not cross borders between European countries. In cases where news from other countries is shared, the reporting is mainly focused on larger and stronger countries (Segev & Hills, 2014). The limited exchange of news among European nations hampers the development of a European public sphere, where citizens from different countries are well-informed about both issues of common interest and each other’s specific political, social, and cultural contexts.

To address this issue, 20 European public service media (PSM) and other public service organisations (e.g. technology partners) across 17 countries have joined forces in an initiative to change this dynamic. Launched in July of 2021, A European Perspective (AEP)1 is a pan-European digital newsroom where news content is shared among editors working at public service media organisations. AEP leverages technologies such as AI and algorithms to enable editors to translate, determine the relevance of trusted news from participating public service media outlets and publish this information on their owned and non-owned channels. By doing so, AEP aims to share reliable information from trusted PSM between countries, provide comparative perspectives to citizens about relevant topics, contribute to combating misinformation and promote European values to create a European public sphere (Canavilhas, 2022). The initiative is not merely a technological endeavour but also a strategic one, seeking to reinforce and differentiate the role of public service media as a key democratic institution that provides diverse, high-quality and reliable information to the public.

This paper aims to investigate in what ways AEP’s use of digital innovation contributes to public value. We first conceptualise and discuss media innovation. Next, we conceptualise public value in the context of

1 AEP is coordinated by the AISBL EBU-UER (European Broadcasting Union) and partially co-funded by the European Union.

journalism and its societal roles. In the final section, we explore in what ways AEP utilises digital innovation to generate public value, while also addressing potential downsides and challenges associated with these innovations.

By examining the case of AEP, this paper seeks to contribute to the broader discourse on the role of public service media in the digital age and the ways in which they can continue to fulfil their mission of serving the public good amidst evolving technological and societal landscapes.

2. Media Innovation

Media markets are continuously evolving, transitioning from the introduction of the printed press to the emergence of broadcast media, and further to the digitization and dematerialization of media. Within the field of media economics, evolutionary economics is employed to study the impact of these changes on media markets (Cunningham & Flew, 2015; Schumpeter, 1942)). Innovation is a critical driver of evolutionary processes within media markets. Innovation can be understood as the implementation of something new within a specific socio-economic context (Krumsvik et al., 2019). This newness often results from the combination of different existing ideas, technologies, competencies, and resources (Schumpeter, 1942). The integration of artificial intelligence in newsrooms is a good example of innovation, as technology, editorial practices, and resource management converge to innovate the news production process.

Krumsvik et al. (2019) argue that media innovation can be categorised into six distinct types: product innovation, which refers to the development of new media products offered to users, such as novel content formats and interactive features; process innovation, encompassing changes in how these media products are created and delivered, including advancements in production technologies and distribution channels; position innovation, focusing on the framing and branding of media products, involving strategies that redefine market perception and reach new audiences; paradigmatic innovation, involving fundamental changes in mindset, values, and business practices within media organisations, such as adopting new business models and strategic priorities; genre innovation, pertaining to the creation or evolution of media genres, adapting or iterating existing ones to meet audience preferences; and social innovation, emphasising the use of media to address social needs and improve lives, through initiatives like educational programs and awareness campaigns. This comprehensive framework highlights

the multifaceted nature of innovation in the media industry, as innovations often integrate aspects of product development, process improvement, strategic repositioning, cultural shifts, genre evolution, and social impact.

For the purposes of this paper, where the case of AEP is analysed, the focus lies primarily on product, process, and social innovation. By sharing news stories across borders through public service media organisations, a new media product is offered to users. By employing AI, algorithms, and opportunities to embed content easily, new collaborative production and distribution services are being developed. As all media organisations involved are public in nature, their aim is not to generate a profit but to generate public value for users, thus social innovation will also be considered.

3. Public journalism and public value

3.1 Public Service Broadcasting and public value

Innovation in itself can succeed or fail. Within the context of public service media that have a societal mission and a public remit, success is not measured in terms of profits but in terms of value for society. Public value is fundamental to the functioning of a democracy. Citizens trust politicians and public institutions when their activities generate public value. Meynhardt (2009) argues that public value defines the quality of the relationship between the individual and society.

PSM organisations worldwide are adapting to a rapidly changing environment, striving to meet the contemporary public value needs of diverse audiences to justify continued public funding. Addressing these needs and demonstrating public value are crucial for legitimising their existence and funding (Martin & Lowe, 2014; Cunningham & Flew, 2015).

Faulkner and Kaufmann (2016) identify four dimensions of public value. First, public value in terms of outcomes (impact) can be defined as the extent to which PSM, through their media offerings, meet the democratic, social and cultural needs of society (Bardoel & van Cuilenburg, 2002; Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997; McQuail & Deuze, 2020; Donders, 2019). As AEP is a journalistic project, we will mainly focus on the democratic needs of society. Second, the trust and legitimacy of public service media (PSM) also contribute to public value. PSM strive to be recognisable trusted sources of information that create and distribute media content based on public values such as universality, independence, excellence, diversity, accountability, and innovation (EBU, 2014). As a transnational

and innovative project utilising technologies that raise ethical questions, we will explore how AEP contributes to the trust and legitimacy of its offerings. Third, the quality of service delivery by PSM, such as user interfaces, streaming quality, and accessibility of distribution channels, is a significant aspect of public value. However, this dimension falls outside the scope of this paper as it requires a detailed website performance analysis, including user experience testing, technical performance metrics, and accessibility compliance assessments. Fourth, Faulkner and Kaufmann (2016) highlight efficiency, which, in the context of PSM, involves the effective use of public funds (public value for money).

3.2. Public value as impact: democratic contribution of PSM journalism Democracies are characterised by polyarchy, a form of government where power is distributed among multiple people and institutions that openly debate topics, foster high public participation, and promote the sharing of competing ideas and visions (Dahl, 1971; Couldry, 2016). This system requires political interactions between the state and its citizens based on broad, equal, protected, and mutually binding consultation (Tilly, 2007). However, such consultation relies on the widespread circulation of facts, themes, and reference points to inform the issues being discussed (Couldry, 2017). Media, and journalism in particular, play a crucial role in this process by providing citizens and leaders with relevant information that enables them to make informed decisions and form opinions on important topics. This necessitates that the media offer unbiased, comprehensive information and present diverse perspectives, representations, and opinions on these topics. It also requires a common understanding of facts and information.

With the vast amount of information available, tech companies have developed ways to make this content digestible and provide personalised information to users through their interfaces and algorithmic curation. However, this personalisation raises concerns about the sustainability of a shared understanding of facts and information necessary for polyarchy (Couldry, 2017). Another challenge is the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation, which, although long present in societies, now proliferates much faster on social media. This makes early detection crucial, but the dynamic nature of social networks complicates this task (Aïmeur et al., 2023). Adding to the issue are the perverse commercial incentives for clickbait and the viral spread of misinformation, as warned by Tim Berners-Lee, one of the founders of the World Wide Web (Hern, 2019). In this context, the role of public service media as trusted and independent sources of information becomes increasingly vital to counteract misinformation and ensure the public has access to reliable news. By maintai-

ning their commitment to providing accurate and impartial information, they can help counteract the spread of misinformation, ensure that the public has access to reliable news and foster a common understanding of facts and information.

In addition to providing information, journalism also monitors the actions of those in power to ensure accountability and transparency. This watchdog function entails independent scrutiny by journalists of governments, commercial enterprises and public institutions, and documenting, questioning and investigating their activities. The aim of this role is to safeguard the public interest by highlighting issues of concern to both the public and officials (Bennett & Serrin, 2005). The impact of such investigative journalism on society leads to self-regulation within democratic societies. This role helps to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in public and private sectors by exposing wrongdoing and prompting reforms.

Furthermore, the media provide a public space for discussion and debate on various issues, contributing to an informed and engaged citizenry. Habermas (1989) conceptualised the notion of a national public sphere, where mass media (newspapers, broadcasting) were the dominant platforms for public deliberation and the formation of public opinion. However, the mass media brought their own challenges, particularly around passivity of audiences, agenda-setting and accessibility for expressing opinions and sharing information. With the rise of the internet and social media, many argued and hoped that these new platforms would empower citizens and democratise the creation and sharing of information. However, Iosifidis (2011) posits that this technological optimism was exaggerated. He highlights that the open internet can be chaotic, subject to corporate control, and susceptible to new forms of censorship.

According to McQuail and Deuze (2020), the quality of a public sphere depends on the quality of media. They argue that issues such as concentration, commercialization, and a lack of transparency and accountability can harm the public sphere. In recent years, we have seen several of these issues emerging with the rise of social media and streaming audio and video providers. Increased personalization of content, exchanging the public for the personal sphere, and increased directly mediated relationships between leaders and followers, could further endanger the quality of the public sphere (Couldry, 2017; Moffit, 2016). At the heart of these issues lies the growing dominance of platform companies that control not just the distribution of news and information using network effects and algorithms, but are increasingly involved in its production

through their affordances and the offering of AI tools and services for production of content (Simon, 2022). The power of these large corporations might harm the public sphere in European societies by prioritising commercial over public considerations. Iosifidis‘ call for an inclusive public sphere provided by PSM-organisations to enhance public engagement and informed citizenship (Iosifidis, 2011, p. 629) seems therefore all the more relevant in 2024.

3.3. Public value as trust and legitimacy

The perception of public value is closely linked to the trust and legitimacy of democratic institutions, such as public service media (PSM). Therefore, PSM organisations must be transparent and accountable, either directly or indirectly, to the public for their decisions, operations and public value they provide. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) identifies six key values designed to enhance this trust: universality of media, independence from commercial and governmental interests, excellence, diversity, accountability, and innovation (2014). For legitimacy, true independence from political and commercial influence is paramount. The institutional framework surrounding PSMs (public remit, stable financing etc.) should enable them to uphold their values and principles without external interference, thereby maintaining public trust and delivering quality content that serves the public interest (Benson et al., 2017).

In addition to these values, the EBU (2014) has established editorial principles to guide the conduct of PSM journalists and editors. These principles include impartiality, fairness and respect, accuracy and relevance, and being connected and accountable. By adhering to these principles, PSM can maintain transparency in their operations and demonstrate accountability to citizens, thereby reinforcing their role as trustworthy and independent sources of information. This can also aid them to strategically differentiate them in the market from commercial competitors.

3.4. Public value as value for money

Faulkner and Kaufmann (2016) point out that taxpayer funded initiatives must justify their expenditure as there are no market mechanisms to enforce efficiency and relevance. Efficient use of resources and maintaining high standards of financial accountability ensure that the public receives value for their investment. Scandals around waste of public money or high salaries paid for with public money, are detrimental for trust. Collaboration with other organisations could lead to increasing value for money. Examples in (public) broadcasting are co-production of content, sometimes even with commercial parties like Netflix, technology sharing as we have seen with Radioplayer Worldwide, sharing of journalistic re -

sources such as foreign reporters or syndicating and scaling of content.

3.5. Analytical levels

When analysing public value, it is worthwhile to consider who or what this public value is generated for. ORF (2024) offers a valuable framework that examines public value on multiple levels: for the individual, for (specific segments of) society, for the national context, and for the European/international context. In the conclusions, we will reflect on how AEP delivers public value at each of these levels. This multi-level approach ensures a thorough understanding of the public value generated by AEP, considering its diverse audience and the various contexts in which it operates.

4. Case Analysis

4.1. What is innovative about ‘A European Perspective’?

Creating journalistic content is an expensive endeavour, especially in the digital realm where first copy costs are high. Consider the immense effort behind investigative journalism, where a single article might be the result of months or even years of work. However, once created, distributing this content is relatively cheap, and for digital content, nearly negligible (Picard, 2011). This makes digital journalism highly scalable.

The AEP initiative seeks to create scalability for the journalistic content of national public broadcasters by syndicating trusted information from public service media across borders. In response to the dominance of global tech giants and the changing landscape of journalism, this European effort leverages the strengths of EBU members. With over 45,000 journalists working for these members and an annual investment of over €6 billion in public journalism, the AEP initiative has the potential to become the largest digital news exchange in Europe. The primary challenge is ensuring that the quality and trusted journalism provided by AEP’s participants reaches a wider audience beyond their domestic markets. This necessitates making content relevant across borders, overcoming linguistic barriers, and utilising both owned and third-party distribution channels.

To understand what is innovative about the AEP, we can break it down into three parts:

1. Product Innovation: The AEP offers audiences access to journalistic content from public service media (PSM) across various European countries. This content is accessible on the platforms of the national

PSM organisations themselves, through easily embedded content, and on their social media platforms. This cross-border content sharing allows audiences to experience diverse European perspectives and news from trusted sources beyond their own national media. Additionally, it serves as an introductory guide to audiences, helping them identify trusted PSM brands they can rely on for quality and impartiality.

2. Process Innovation: The AEP has developed a digital content exchange system that simplifies the process for journalists to find relevant news stories. This is facilitated by an automated content recommendation tool called PEACH and an AI translation tool developed by the EBU called Eurovox. These tools ensure that AI assists in the process, but journalists remain central to making editorial and curation decisions regarding what content to use and why. The former could be classified as a back end AI project: initiatives that carry a low risk and deliver value to journalists and editors (Caswell, 2023). The translation tool could be classified as a language task AI project, which takes source documents solely for language tasks and does not introduce new information to the source document but for instance rewrites content for social media or translates content (Caswell, 2023).

3. Social Innovation: The AEP aims to create an inclusive decentralised public space by connecting European audiences with news and information about other countries, produced by trusted sources adhering to strict public values such as universality. The goal is to foster a European public sphere rooted in shared European values. The AEP draws inspiration from Arthur Burrows, the first Secretary of the Information Broadcasting Union (predecessor of the EBU), who said, “If nations could see what news for others was, and how others lived, it would engender peace and understanding.” This initiative seeks to promote understanding and harmony among the diverse peoples of Europe through its social innovation.

4.2. Democratic value of ‘A European Perspective’ Providing new perspectives to European citizens

AEP offers additional insights and viewpoints from countries that are often not available in national media. Since its inception in 2021, AEP reports having reached nearly 13 million readers and published over 43,600 stories. These stories are diverse, ranging from informative articles on cultural or social issues to country-specific news pieces. The content is provided to audiences via an embedded widget featuring a selection of articles (see figure 1 below).

1: Example of an embedded AEP widget on the ARTE website

Given the increasing interdependence of European countries and the further economic and political integration among EU member states, this provision of diverse European content and perspectives adds valuable facts, themes, and reference points to inform public debate. AEP is still in development and holds great potential to deliver relevant and diverse content to European citizens, particularly in response to the growing interest from audiences (see figure 1).

Figure 2: Expanding reach of AEP (source: AEP,2023).

Examining the content selection, we can make a distinction between more general news stories that are not country / context specific, and

Figure

stories that provide the national perspective or perspective of a country. Editors seem to often select general news stories that are often relevant for current affairs, but do not necessarily offer a unique perspective. For example, various broadcasters chose to publish other participants’ general news stories about the buildup to the Olympics, which began during the writing of this paper. Although these stories may provide relevance as the Olympics are a popular current topic, the specific national perspective or country of origin of the authoring public service media (PSM) is not prevalent in the articles. Consequently, AEP could sometimes function as a news wire service that shares current affairs stories of trusted PSM between countries, complementing press agencies coverage and could eventually reduce costs for participating PSM organisations.

Figure 3 illustrates this point well: Ireland’s RTÉ selected reports from Sweden’s SVT on the Olympics and from Iceland’s RÚV on ChatGPT’s ability to write stories. Besides these more general stories, RTÉ’s selection also includes a wide range of diverse European perspectives that Irish audiences might not typically access. For instance, an in-depth article from Lithuania’s LRT discusses the government’s war evacuation planning in response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, while an article by France’s AFP reflects on Türkiye’s rich history by highlighting recent excavations (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Content of AEP on RTÉ’s News Site

Figure 4 further illustrates this point, showing Switzerland’s SWI selecting a general article on the Olympics from Belgium’s RTBF, followed by an article on female leadership in the EU from AFP. Additionally, a highly specific article was selected from Lithuania’s LRT, featuring an interview with the editor-in-chief of Russian TV channel TV Rain, which had to relocate its operations to Amsterdam due to the war. Stories from a public broadcaster in a country that was part of the Soviet Union and has

a different experience in dealing with Russia offers a unique perspective for Western European audiences, such as those in Switzerland in this case. This juxtaposition highlights the blend of general news and unique European perspectives that AEP provides and editors seem to select.

Figure 4: Content of AEP on SWI News Site

Currently, likely due to the inception nature of the current version of AEP, the content remains a relatively small and dedicated section on the website. This section is labelled ‘A European Perspective’ and branded as ‘brought to you by Eurovision’, rather than being integrated into the broader structure of the participating news sites. This separation can be confusing, as the content in AEP is relevant to various other categories such as culture, international/European news, innovation, and business. To enhance user experience and further improve content discoverability and click-through rates, it might be worthwhile to explore ways to better integrate AEP content into these existing categories. This integration would allow users to find information more logically within the broader context of the news site, making it easier for them to access and engage with the diverse perspectives AEP offers.

Raising pan-European topics for journalistic investigation

As AEP in its current form is primarily a news exchange, the watchdog function of journalism is not the most prominent public value contribution of AEP yet. However, the relevance of topics AEP addresses from different perspectives and countries might raise questions in other nations as well. For instance, articles reflecting on the history of Eastern European Union countries in relation to the ongoing war in Ukraine can provide valuable lessons for Western European countries and provoke critical questions about why their earlier warnings of Russian aggression were ignored. In the long run, AEP could inspire teams of researchers to

investigate the same issues in each country, transforming the initiative from a news exchange into a journalistic collaboration platform focused on transnational themes. These themes could range from migration issues to agriculture, innovation, and pension systems. The EBU’s Investigative Journalism Network is already an interesting starting point for these types of journalistic collaboration.

This collaborative approach could lead to societal self-regulation, where journalists hold leaders in politics, business, and other sectors accountable across countries. Such cross-national investigative journalism can inspire similar efforts within individual countries, encouraging best practices, highlighting worst practices, and ultimately fostering a culture of accountability and transparency throughout Europe.

First steps towards the Europeanisation of national public spheres

The AEP approach aligns with what Adam (2015) describes as the Europeanisation of national public spheres. According to Adam, this phenomenon involves national public spheres engaging in debates on issues with a European dimension, thereby incorporating voices and positions from European institutions and other European countries (2015, p. 3). Rather than striving to create a singular European public sphere through pan-European media, this decentralised strategy enhances the richness and diversity of discourse in national public spheres. By sharing translated news stories among public service media (PSM) and recommending potentially relevant stories to editors, national public spheres can offer a wider array of news from various European countries. This approach is particularly effective given Europe’s linguistic and cultural diversity, allowing for multiple perspectives on topics of common interest and fostering a more inclusive and representative dialogue across the continent.

A second notable benefit of the AEP is that it represents an early-stage example of a public and decentralised European public sphere. This initiative could serve as a bulwark against the growing dominance of large international tech and media companies that increasingly control European media markets. Historically, large media firms, especially those based in the United States, have excelled at scaling media content across their extensive domestic markets. From network syndication of TV shows to the widespread distribution of newspapers and magazines, these firms have perfected wide-reaching distribution methods. More recently, major tech giants, primarily from the USA and China, have asserted their dominance in distributing digital content. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Spotify, Netflix, and Prime Video have become the new gatekeepers of information due to their scale. Meta (2024) for instance

reported having over 3 billion monthly active users in December 2023. By leveraging advanced data analytics, these firms can personalise user experiences, attracting and retaining a broader audience. This capability not only increases their market share but also creates significant barriers to entry for smaller competitors who lack the resources to develop and implement such sophisticated technologies. This cycle of dominance is perpetuated as these large firms continue to grow, attracting more advertisers and investment, which in turn allows them to reinvest in further technological advancements and content creation. Many local media players are struggling to compete or are very dependent on them. European media, for instance, often produce content tailored to their home markets, as language, culture, and themes don’t always resonate beyond specific regions, and investing in translation technology is too expensive.

In this context, the decentralised and collaborative nature of the AEP and the combined scale of the participating PSM organisations, can help diversify the media landscape, ensuring a richer array of voices and perspectives within Europe. AEP provides valuable lessons as to how European (public) media could respond to commercial market pressures when players collaborate. With a relatively modest budget, AEP already shows that it can improve the availability and reach of reliable, highquality information from different countries, contributing to awareness, deliberation and discussions on relevant topics. See for instance figure 4 to see the added reach of articles using AEP.

Figure 4: Expanding reach of AEP (source: AEP,2023).

By further scaling up, AEP could mark the first steps toward a broader and more collaborative approach to public service journalism in Europe. The strategy of Europeanizing national public spheres appears more effective than attempting to build a truly pan-European public sphere.

4.3. Trust & Legitimacy

Concerns of using automated (AI-enabled) tools

While this analysis does not delve into the specific workings of the automated content recommendation system PEACH for editors, it is crucial to recognise the potential risks posed by these agenda-setting tools. Despite editors retaining ultimate control over what gets published, the use of recommendation engines can result in certain information being prioritised while other content is suppressed, especially when the database of articles becomes larger. The use of algorithms and AI may erode the traditional role of editorial judgement. While AI can assist in selecting and generating stories, it lacks the nuanced understanding and ethical considerations that human journalists bring to their work (Caswell, 2023). The primary advantage of PEACH is that it is built within the framework of PSM and is transparent, accountable and adheres to public values, with a key commitment to keeping journalists and editors in control at all times. However, exercising this control might require additional skills to use these systems optimally. In summary, while AI and recommendation systems like PEACH can enhance efficiency and support editors, there is a need for vigilance to ensure they do not compromise the diversity and integrity of the content provided by AEP and selected by editors.

AEP uses the AI-enabled translation tool Eurovox, created by the EBU for automated translation - but not adaptation - of source documents. The advantage of this tool is that news stories can be translated into multiple languages, providing a quick means to scale content across different regions. However, while AI translation tools expedite content exchange and offer an efficient means of sharing information, they also raise concerns about the potential loss of meaning due to the lack of contextual adaptation for foreign audiences. For example, a Lithuanian PSM typically creates stories for Lithuanian audiences, presupposing contextual knowledge on the part of the audience. Understanding how a news story might be interpreted by audiences in different countries often requires nuanced contextual information. Additionally, explaining how this information is relevant for users in different countries would be beneficial. For instance, framing stories from LRT within the context of the threat posed by Russia to Europe, particularly to the Baltic countries given their history and proximity to Russia, would provide valuable insight. Thus, while the principle of keeping editors and journalists in charge at

all times is commendable, it might require transnational collaboration between broadcasters’ journalism staff to provide the necessary contextual information and indicate relevance to audiences. AI tools could be employed to add such contextual information, but they come with their own ethical challenges. Not least among these is the power of tech firms increasingly involved in news production processes through AI tools and services. Also, AI applications have their own set of biases due to the training data used and can suffer from hallucinations, where completely fabricated information is generated (Caswell, 2023; Simons, 2022).

Unclear branding

AEP offers trusted news from PSM organisations. However, most of these organisations are relatively unknown outside their home countries, with the exception of a few major entities like the BBC and perhaps ARTE. The branding of AEP currently appears as an embedded widget titled “A European Perspective,” indicating it is brought to audiences by Eurovision, accompanied by its logo. Stories feature the flag of the originating country and the name of the authoring PSM, while the main branding remains that of the host broadcaster’s website. This can be confusing for audiences, making it harder to recognize the content as coming from a distinct and trustworthy source.

To enhance clarity and trustworthiness, AEP should consider establishing a clearer brand hierarchy and engage in position innovation to frame and brand AEP’s cross national PSM news stories. Since the initiative takes the approach to Europeanise national public spheres, it would be beneficial to position the national PSM as the primary brand, while including detailed source information within the article pages themselves. By doing so, AEP can leverage the brand recognition and trust that audiences have in their national public broadcasters, while also clearly

Figure 5: Branding elements (red boxes) on AEP widget

communicating its role as a reliable provider of European news of other PSM-organisations. This approach ensures that accountability and transparency ultimately lie with the national broadcasters as curators of AEP content, enhancing the overall credibility and coherence of the initiative. However, this also brings a vulnerability with it for AEP as trust also depends on the national perception of these institutions. For instance, scandals such as those experienced by RTÉ in Ireland, involving undisclosed payments to top presenters, can significantly erode public trust.

Quality of information

AEP uses several mechanisms to ensure that its content is of high-quality and reliable. Participants in the project adhere to the EBU’s public standards such as excellence and independence, suggesting that the information they produce is already of high quality. The project operates with clear editorial guidelines and has an editorial team in Brussels responsible for ensuring legal, editorial, and technical requirements are met. However, it is unclear if there are additional quality checks by the publishing PSM organisations.

While mutual trust between PSM organisations is logical and valuable, quality checks are particularly important as the brand of the publishing party will likely be associated with the content, making them accountable for any inaccuracies or issues in the eyes of the public. However, verifying an intriguing news story relevant to a specific country can be challenging for a journalist who neither speaks the language nor fully understands the context. To maintain and build trust, AEP should highlight its quality control mechanisms and transparent processes to journalists, editors within participating PSM organisations, and the public at large. Additionally, they should enable journalists and editors to assess quality themselves. By doing so, AEP can reinforce confidence in its content and ensure it meets the highest standards of journalistic integrity.

4.4 Value for Money

The AEP provides value for money through its innovative digital news exchange model. By leveraging auto-translation technology, AEP can deliver translated content at a much lower cost than manual translation services. Additionally, using PEACH to provide relevant suggestions to editors and journalists for content saves valuable time, allowing them to focus more on journalistic work. This efficient use of technology not only reduces expenses but also enhances productivity.

The sharing of content among PSM organisations allows for efficient resource utilisation, ensuring that high-quality journalism reaches a broa-

der audience. Scaling digital content across markets significantly lowers the average cost per 1,000 views, making the distribution of high-quality journalism more cost-effective. It could also lead to sharing of resources. For instance, the AEP model can reduce the need for a foreign reporter in each country while still providing comprehensive coverage through an international correspondent network via the participants.

The efficient use of resources and the widespread availability of highquality content could bolster the competitiveness of PSM organisations in the global media landscape. The technology developed through this initiative could serve as a blueprint for further content sharing, not only between PSM organisations but also within individual PSM entities that possess extensive archives. By adopting this blueprint, PSM organisations can optimise the utilisation of their vast content libraries and reduce duplication of effort. Additionally, it enhances their ability to deliver diverse and rich content to a broader audience, thus increasing their relevance and influence in their respective markets.

5. Conclusions

AEP enhances democratic engagement by providing European citizens with diverse perspectives often absent in national media. Since its inception, AEP has reached nearly 13 million readers and published over 43,600 stories, offering valuable content that informs public debate. These efforts reflect the role of the media in enhancing democratic processes by providing diverse and reliable information (McQuail & Deuze, 2020; Dahl, 1979). AEP’s strategy is focused on Europeanising of national public spheres by incorporating European dimensions into national public spheres.

The initiative uses recommendation and translation tools, such as PEACH and Eurovox, to enhance efficiency, though concerns exist about these technologies eroding editorial judgement and losing contextual meaning in translations. AEP adheres to the EBU’s public values to maintain trust, ensuring transparency and accountability. This commitment to public values underscores the necessity of maintaining editorial independence and transparency to uphold trust in public service media, as emphasised by Meynhardt (2016) and the EBU (2014). Some issues around brand hierarchy remain.

AEP also achieves cost-efficiency through its digital news exchange model, using automated translation technology and recommendation engines to scale PSM news content to European audiences. This potentially

increases the reach of high-quality journalism and reduces the cost per view. Additionally, the technology and collaborative model developed by AEP can serve as a blueprint for further content sharing, optimising resource use and reducing duplication of effort. This aligns with the theoretical emphasis on the efficient use of public funds to deliver high public value, as discussed by Faulkner and Kaufmann (2016).

To conclude, AEP exemplifies how digital innovation and cross-country collaboration can strengthen public service media across Europe.

References

Adam, S. (2015). European public sphere. The international encyclopedia of political communication, 3, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc067

Aïmeur, E., Amri, S., & Brassard, G. (2023). Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13, article 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5

Bardoel, J. L. H., & Van Cuilenburg, J. J. (2003). Communicatiebeleid en communicatiemarkt. Over beleid, economie en management voor de communicatiesector. Otto Cramwinckel.

Bennet, W.L. & Serin, W. Overholser, G., & Jamieson, K. H. (Eds.). (2005). The press (Vol. 2). (pp. 169-188). Oxford University Press.

Benson, R., Powers, M., & Neff, T. (2017). Public media autonomy and accountability: Best and worst policy practices in 12 leading democracies. International journal of communication, 11, 1-22. Caswell, D. (2023). Ai and Journalism: what’s next? Reuters Institute. https://reutersinstitute.politics. ox.ac.uk/news/ai-and-journalism-whats-next

Hern, A. (2019). Tim Berners-Lee on 30 years of the world wide web: ‚We can get the web we want‘. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/12/tim-berners-lee-on-30-years-of-theweb-if-we-dream-a-little-we-can-get-the-web-we-want

Canavilhas, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence in journalism: Automatic translation and recommendation system in the project „A European Perspective” (EBU). Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 80, 1-13. https:// www.doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2022-1534 |

Couldry, N. (2016). Reconstructing journalism’s public rationale. In: Peters, C., & Broersma, M. (Eds.). (2016). Rethinking journalism again: Societal role and public relevance in a digital age (pp. 21-34). Taylor & Francis Cunningham, S., & Flew, T. (2015). Reconsidering media economics: From orthodoxies to heterodoxies. Media Industries, 2(1), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mij.15031809.0002.101

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale university press.

Donders, K. (2019). Public service media beyond the digital hype: distribution strategies in a platform era. Media, Culture & Society, 41(7), 1011-1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344371985761

EBU (2014). Public service values, editorial principles and guidelines. EBU EUR-Lex (1997, November 10). Treaty of Amsterdam https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=CELEX:11997D/TXT

Faulkner, N., & Kaufman, S. (2017). Avoiding Theoretical Stagnation: A Systematic Review and Framework for Measuring Public Value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(1), 69–86. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8500.12251

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Polity Press. Iosifidis, P. (2011). The public sphere, social networks and public service media. Information, Communication & Society, 14(5), 619-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.514356

Krumsvik, A. H., Milan, S., Ní Bhroin, N., & Storsul, T. (2019). Making (sense of) media innovations. In M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 193-205). Amsterdam University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcj305r.16

Martin, F., & Lowe, G. F. (2014). The value and values of public service media. In G. F. Lowe & F. Martin (Eds.), The value of public service media: RIPE@2013 (pp. 19-38). Nordicom. McQuail, D., & Deuze, M. (2020). McQuail‘s media and mass communication theory. McQuail‘s Media and Mass Communication Theory. Sage Meta (2024). Meta Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2023 Results. https://investor.fb.com/investor-

news/press-release-details/2024/Meta-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2023-Results-InitiatesQuarterly-Dividend/default.aspx

Meynhardt , T. (2009). Public Value Inside: What Is Public Value Creation? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3): 192–219 https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732632

Moffit, B. (2016). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford University Press.

ORF (2024). Public Value Bericht 2023/24. ORF

Picard, R. G. (2011). Digitization and media business models. Mapping digital media.

Simon, F. M. (2022). Uneasy bedfellows: AI in the news, platform companies and the issue of journalistic autonomy. Digital journalism, 10(10), 1832-1854. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2063150

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper.

Segev, E., & Hills, T. (2014). When news and memory come apart: A cross-national comparison of countries’ mentions. International Communication Gazette, 76(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/174804851350415

Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge University Press.

THE PUBLIC SPACES INCUBATOR: TURNING DYSFUNCTIONAL ONLINE SPACES INTO FUNCTIONING PUBLIC ARENAS

KEVIN KOBAN, RINAT MEERSON & JÖRG MATTHES, UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA

A functioning public sphere, often metaphorically understood as an arena where not only information but also varying realities are exchanged and, perhaps more importantly, discussed and negotiated, is indispensable for maintaining and modernizing democratic societies. While public spheres have arguably always been transforming along both broad societal developments and socio-technological advancements (Habermas, 1962), it has also widely been agreed upon that the emergence of digital platforms has come with great participatory and deliberative potential to further democratize public discourse, for instance, by diversifying access to a wide range of information, facilitating contact amongst like-minded (and also oppositionally minded) individuals, reinforcing active citizen involvement in societal debates across standings, and allowing them to better scrutinize public figures and institutions directly or in coordinated efforts without having to overcome great participatory thresholds (Jungherr & Schroeder, 2021).

Although this potential occasionally shines through (e.g., Friess et al., 2021), it seems also clear that this promise has (yet) to be fully realized on a larger scale across mainstream social media (Esau et al., 2021). Instead, current realities on practically every relevant social media platform are characterized by ever-occurring norm violations and so-called dark participation related, for instance, to (algorithmically intensified) political polarization, the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, gross exaggeration, hostility, and self-righteousness (Bormann et al., 2022; Quandt & Klapproth, 2023). Together, all of this indicates a societally dysfunctional public sphere that is to partially encouraged by platform designs or at least is not effectively regulated against by providers (González-Bailón & Lelkes, 2022).

Given that public service media’s (PSM) remit involves “act[ing] as a medium and factor in the process of the formation of free individual and public opinion [...], thereby serving the democratic, social, and cultural needs of society” (RStV §11 Section 1, 2019), this state of participation and deliberation on social media affords the opportunity for digital innovation projects to develop socio-technological solutions for facilitating normatively valu-

able discourse within their platform infrastructures (which is largely independent of commercial platforms’ sometimes erratic decision-making). The ready answer to this open call is supposed to be the so-called Public Spaces Incubator (PSI), an international project of PSMs from Belgium, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland with the purpose to engage normatively dysfunctional online communication tendencies by introducing digital features and affordances that intend to nudge discourse in a more democratically beneficial direction.

The primary goals of this chapter are (a) to situate the PSI within well-established theoretical frameworks about modern democracy and public spheres and (b) analyze the designs of a selection of their currently most promising prototypes with regard to whether they may be suitable to address critical challenges in providing a “good” space for public deliberation.

Normative Criteria for Digital Public Spheres

Public spheres, both within different kinds of democracies and also outside of them, have been a vital subject of academic debate for many decades, if not centuries. Depending on how democracies are normatively characterized, citizens have been attributed with wildly different intrinsic properties and democratic functions, which come with strongly varying expectations and demands toward them, as well as distinct discursive ideals and goals. In their seminal review, Ferree et al. (2002) differentiate between four traditions of democratic theory that, among other things, differ on what a normatively good public discourse is supposed to look like (see Strömbäck, 2005 for an alternative-yet-overlapping review of similar reputation).

While citizens in the representative liberal tradition are typically considered ill-equipped for any meaningful democratic participation besides in occasional elections and should therefore be all but discouraged from engaging in public discourse that is reserved for political representatives and non-political experts who ideally hold emotionally detached debates involving a free marketplace of ideas, the other traditions presume actively participating citizens while following diverging ideas of how public spheres should function. A short overview over these public-inclusionary democracy models might be useful for determining pivotal norms that may need to be addressed in any functioning public space.

In the participatory (liberal) tradition, continuous citizen mobilization and participation in public decision-making across all kinds of organizations is absolutely essential to empower publics for holding institutionalized political actors accountable for their decisions. To be effective with regard to this primary function, citizens are expected to be politically interested,

cooperation-oriented, highly knowledgeable, and ideally also highly passionate both in tone and substance of their discursive participation. In other words, citizens are to be mobilized in order to make political structures democratic and achieve collective goals.

The discursive tradition expands beyond collective mobilization and public inclusivity by emphasizing deliberate dialogue marked by common basic values, mutual respect, necessary levels of civility and, more importantly, honesty, equality, and a shared will to achieve a robust consensus between both elite and peripheral agents of different ideas. As such, well-informed citizen publics are considered vital for deliberation about the strongest arguments which should lead to the most reasonable decision.

Lastly, the constructionist tradition further questions boundaries between public and private spheres, highlighting that political power can also be institutionalized in established practices and structures outside of the public. Due to this omnipresence of power, normatively good public spheres seek to empower and recognize marginalized people’s unique experiences and narratives to the disadvantage of central actors and sometimes even mutual understanding and deliberative dialogue for the primary purpose of identifying hidden inequalities. In short, democracies are thus supposed to be persistently wary of their exclusionary elements (including in seemingly participatory and deliberative practices) and striving toward further expanding the political community.

Although these three public-inclusionary models of democracy are typically regarded as conceptually competitive within inner-academic discourse, each provides robust arguments for different normative standards that functioning public spheres must maintain—arguably regardless of whether these public spheres may be situated offline or online (or, as it is currently typically the case, as hybrids of both). Broadly, it can be said that the participatory liberal model argues for participation, connection, and mobilization, the discursive model for shared values, mutual respect, and deliberation; and the constructionist model for recognition, empowerment, and (awareness of) privilege. While commercial platforms may certainly decide on focusing on implementing features and affordances to boost one of these normative standards in favor of the others as a means to manifest their unique selling point and therefore win over their competitors, PSM’s societal remit, on the contrary, may all but necessitate sufficient consideration toward all of them.

Drawing from these models, Masullo et al. (2022) recently proposed a normative framework for digital public spaces that may be suitable to serve as a evaluative background for innovative efforts, outlining distinct injunctive norms concerning what social media ought to be in order to increase the likelihood that they end up to be descriptively good. Specifically, they map out four themes (i.e., “Welcome”, “Connect”, “Understand”, and “Act”) under which a total of 14 indicators of public-friendly digital spaces are organized (see Figure 1).

The Welcome theme addresses general conditions to promote users’ participation, especially of those users who are read being from socially marginalized communities. Accordingly, platforms (by means of affordances and features) should ensure everyone’s physical and psychological safety against potentially harmful language, highlight shared humanity above all else and prevent any kinds of dehumanization, and make clear that they comply with contemporary data security standards.

The Connect theme primarily focuses on users’ fundamental need to belong and social connection. For that to be facilitated, digital public spaces should be designed to amplify meaningful contact between users with both weakly and strongly overlapping personal profiles in order to improve cross-attitudinal understanding and readiness of emotional support (also known as bridging and bonding social capital; Putnam, 2001), respectively. However, not only through creating interpersonal networks across and within diverse user bases but also via creating opportunities to enter concrete decision-making processes, platforms should help digital publics with gaining greater societal power.

The Understand theme emphasizes that platforms should create conditions where users are encouraged to agree on some fundamental truths and values. Underneath those fundamentals, they can then engage in productive debates in which differing worldviews are acknowledged without super-elevating one’s own point of view. As such, platforms should make issues of shared importance more visible, highlight transparently which information is (reasonably) reliable, strive toward establishing an ideal deliberative culture of public debate, and promote knowledge on how to (collectively) engage with policymakers.

In the Act theme, all previous themes are meant to culminate into reactive and proactive public action. Digital public spaces should thus both help with organizing and allocating extant resources if they become necessary and identify and support with participatory opportunities that may empower publics to make a societal difference.

Figure 1. Normative Criteria for Digital Public Spaces According to Masullo et al. (2022)

The resulting grid allows not only for situating platform features and affordances but also for a normative evaluation of their potentials to deal with key challenges of public spaces in the digital realm: That is, how to reinforce user engagement both in terms of representativeness of the public with its diverse realities and meaningful contribution to the public arena and how to find the balance between providing safe spaces for users while also allowing them to freely express diverse opinions via implementing, either via design decisions (i.e., nudges) or by means of platform authority (i.e., human and/or AI-driven moderators), top-down content moderation or facilitation of bottom-up bystander intervention.

The Public Spaces Incubator

Initiated during fall 2022 and inspired by shared observations of highly polarized online discussions and one-sided political participation of small groups of entitled users, the PSI project represents an international collaboration involving the Radio-Télévision Belge de la Communauté Française (RTBF), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC/Radio Canada), Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG SSR) as PSM from four different countries and New_ Public, a non-profit research & development lab based in the United States under the leadership of author, political activist, and tech entrepreneur Eli Pariser that is scientifically guided by the Civic Signals research project of the National Conference on Citizenship and the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin (2024; which, of note, is directly related to Masullo et al., 2022).

As its primary goal, the PSI intends to “develop prototypes for digital conversation spaces that offer a healthy forum for connection and increase engagement in civic discourse” (New_ Public, 2024). More specifically,

said prototypes constitute digital features purposely designed to target aforementioned key challenges of digital public spaces. Since the project’s initiation, said collaborators have formulated user archetypes (e.g., the maven, the debater, the wallflower, the hedonist, the connecter, and the guardian), who differ with respect to their primary usage drives (i.e., impact, information, community, safety, conflict, and entertainment), both based on theoretical and empirical insights from expert interviews, user workshops, and group discussion across editorial staff and stakeholders, and subsequently engaged in a user-centered design process through which prototypes were developed and iteratively (re-)specified, (re-)designed, (re-)evaluated—and either continued upon or dropped on the way depending on whether they were seen as promising or not. In other words, prototypes have and, given that the project is starting with the alphatesting phase at the time of this writing, will continue to change over the course of this iterative development process.

In doing so, the project in the first step aims at (a) addressing user needs among key demographic groups that are currently not met by predominantly commercialized digital public spaces, (b) driving democratically constructive conversations among users in the contexts of the involved countries and communities, and (c) strengthening citizen’s trust and engagement with the respective PSM and public broadcasting in general. In the second step, drawing from established open-source principles (e.g., free [re-]distribution, transparent source code, technology neutrality, no discrimination; see Open Source Initiative, 2024), the PSI is meant to be expanded to further integrate additional PSM and could potentially also be used by non- and for-profit organizations from all over the world. Generally, the PSI has been positioned explicitly as being outside of commercial interests (ZDF, 2024). According to the current schedule, code for the minimum viable products (MVPs) will be published in March 2025. Dates for a practical PSM application are not yet fixed.

Prototype Analysis

Within the PSI project, the collaborators have altogether developed and tested more than 100 prototypes (that is, at this stage, basic sketches of ideas meant for executional exploration and for obtaining concrete feedback) intended to normatively benefit digital public spaces. The following key questions guided prototype development:

(a) What is happening (focusing on reception and distribution of experience)?

(b) What do we think about it ( focusing on reception and distribution of opinions)?

After an iterative design process, a total of nine of these prototypes were preliminarily considered promising, leading to their design process being continued in more elaborated formats. These prototypes are provisionally named:

(1) Reaction Types

(2) Video Voting Tool

(3) Comment Slider

(4) Representing Perspectives

(5) Cross-Content Dynamic Prompts

(6) Ask Me Anything

(7) Topic of the Moment

(8) Gandalf

(9) Conversation Helper

In the following, we will briefly describe and theoretically evaluate four selected prototypes based on normative, acceptability, and usability criteria. While the necessity for such a selection was due to space reasons, the concrete selection was done by choosing those prototypes that we considered least overlapping concerning their respective approach and most relevant for a functioning digital public space. Importantly, this evaluation will not be based on empirical data and evidence, but rather on general insights generated by prior research and based on the specific affordances of the current iteration of each selected prototype. Given that our evaluation coincides with the alpha-testing phase of the project, it needs to be noted that later iterations may differ from the analyzed prototype versions.

Reaction Types

Description. The Reaction Types prototype intends to enrich comment sections by offering users with an editorially curated selection of various paralinguistic features beyond the conventional Like- and React-Buttons to express their opinions or feelings about other users’ comments. More specifically, the tool, in its current iteration, allows users to highlight comments with more nuanced sentiments such as “Respect”, “Thank you”, “Learned Something New”, “Made Me Think”, “Support”, “Changed my Mind”, or “Respectfully Disagree,” which are displayed as an aggregated count to the user community.

Additionally, the tool enables users to filter comments based on aggregated reactions with the purpose of helping them to identify content that

may resonate with particular sentiments or perspectives and, thus, facilitating low-effort user engagement. In other words, it is designed so that users who may be reluctant or unable to write detailed comments can still participate meaningfully by selecting an appropriate reaction that others can then use to filter the entire commentary in a personalized way.

Normative Evaluation. The key strength of Reaction Types is that it offers very simple means for users to participate in a conversation. Thus, the Welcome theme is particularly addressed. That is, Reaction Types do not require high efforts, for instance, by having to articulate one’s opinion in a written comment, such that the participatory threshold is low. This may lead to a better and more balanced representation of underrepresented groups. That being said, provided reactions are rather simplistic, and none of the Connect, Understanding, and Act themes are directly touched upon in a meaningful way, although users’ aggregated reactions may shape a sense of community and connection. Reaction Types may be related to socalled “slacktivism,” defined as easy-to-perform participatory actions that give users a subjective impression of having meaningfully participated (Christensen, 2011). Taken together, Reaction Types appears to be a decent tool for fostering low-barrier engagement of users with both content and also other users.

Acceptability Evaluation. Reaction Types provides a simple and straightforward way to engage. Such low-effort engagement forms are generally greatly appreciated by users, given that they can express their personal position without the need to invest any considerable time and effort. Also, such loweffort content interactions may increase how much time users spend with selected content. Reaction Types may thus be perceived as entertaining in its own regard and create a positive sense of reaction community.

Risk Evaluation. While Reaction Types is engaging, the number of possible reactions remains limited at the present time of development. In the current form, only seven reactions are allowed, all of them but one positive. For a real debate to unfold, however, it is not only necessary to express different degrees of approval, but also similarly faceted disagreement. While respectfully disagreeing might appear as the most deliberatively valuable manifestation of disagreement, researchers have also argued in favor of including more passionate, even lightly uncivil expressions in order to enhance participation, particularly among underrepresented groups (Jungherr & Schroeder, 2021; Masullo Chen et al., 2019). The apparent challenge to express a similar granularity when it comes to disagreement reactions may further be perceived as a biased representation of content, favoring certain perspectives over others. Rephrased, users who wish to express

counterviews may therefore feel excluded and perhaps even discriminated against. The six agreeable categories further seem at least partly overlapping (e.g., “support”, ”respect”, and “thank you” may be read as greatly interchangeable), and it is not entirely clear why those reactions were chosen. As such, Reaction Types is unlikely to support debate richness in terms of argumentative breadth nor depth. Lastly, any beneficial implementation may rely on functioning content moderation tools as Reaction Types, similar to mainstream platforms’ paralinguistic features, can easily be misused (i.e., exploited) via idiosyncratic coding in order to simulate support for, for instance, discriminatory speech (see Åkerlund, 2022).

Representing Perspectives

Description. The Representing Perspectives prototype is meant to enhance the visibility and, thus, awareness of diverse viewpoints on the same topic within online discussions. As a first step, this feature is (editorially) fed with several key perspectives that are considered crucial for a well-rounded conversation, which are listed when users decide on commenting for them to publicly self-categorize themselves, that is, to state for other users from which particular perspective their comment may be informed and formulated. In the second step, it provides commentators and passively viewing users with an overview concerning which perspectives are present and which are, thus far, missing from the current conversation. Once each viewpoint is represented, the tool is further supposed to provide a visualization analyzing the diversity of perspectives within the conversation.

This prototype’s declared goal is to encourage a more inclusive dialogue by making visible crucial gaps in representation of relevant viewpoints within a topic’s comment section. Pre-determined perspectives can be based upon various user characteristics such as sociodemographic parameters, geographical locations, and societal roles or professions. Journalists involved in reporting on a certain topic (e.g., reform efforts in higher education) may determine specific perspectives that they regard as most relevant to hear from (e.g., students, parents of students, non-academic staff, academic staff, and professors in an online discussion about). To safeguard against editorial blindspots, users may also at some point be able to suggest further roles. In these ways, the prototype should ensure that relevant viewpoints are included (or visibly missing), fostering a more comprehensive and balanced discussion.

Normative Evaluation. Representing Perspectives makes self-ascribed user characteristics and identities salient, therefore helping to understand who is in favor or opposing a certain opinion or fact. As such, this prototype ar-

guably scores high on the Connect theme. More specifically, Representing Perspectives can connect users by making shared social identities salient. Also, regarding Understanding, this prototype can lead to a better understanding of specific groups, that is, why a particular statement is supported by them. However, in its current iteration, Representing Perspectives only provides very simple source cues, which alone may likely not help to increase deliberative quality beyond providing some kind of interesting background cue. When it comes to Welcome and Act themes, the potential of Representing Perspectives appears limited. Disclosing one’s identity may not be a prime motivation of underrepresented groups to engage in a debate. By contrast, underrepresented groups may prefer not to reveal their identity, because identity cues can lead to anticipation of negativity or even threats (Chaney et al., 2020). Overall, Representing Perspectives can connect user groups, but the potential to increase diversity and argumentative richness appears limited.

Acceptability Evaluation. The acceptability of this prototype is challenging to evaluate in a general manner, because it likely depends highly on content nuances and topic characteristics. Overall, Representing Perspectives appears to be a low-effort activity on the side of the users, making adaptation likely. However, while some users may find it interesting and even fun to learn about other users’ characteristics and identities, many may find it neither necessary nor beneficial to disclose their identity.

Risk Evaluation. Noteworthy risks for Representing Perspectives primarily include maliciously motivated users stating fake (or, if implemented, introducing dubious) characteristics or identity cues, thus intentionally manipulating both the representativeness of a given position and meaningfulness of emphasizing diverse positions (Woolley, 2023). On a related note, the current iteration may likely underestimate what typically can be considered substantial heterogeneity within perspectives, such that it highlights a certain group being sufficiently represented even though said representation could turn out more of an outlier within this particular group. Lastly, as stated above, some social groups may refrain from publicly disclosing their identity in anticipation of negative reactions (e.g., harassment or stereotyping) from other users.

Gandalf

Description. Gandalf is an AI-driven pre-moderation tool that is designed to assist human moderators in managing quality and safety in any kind of conversations, including live chats, by autonomously filtering messages based on their content. In doing this, the tool categorizes content into three distinct groups:

(1) Toxic Messages refer to content that may be considered as harmful and/or inappropriate without reasonable doubt. Such messages are automatically blocked from being published.

(2) Questionable Messages refer to content involving potentially problematic elements that cannot be classified as toxic without reasonable doubt and are therefore merely flagged for further review. Accordingly, this content is forwarded to a human moderator for manual approval (or blocking).

(3) Acceptable Messages refer to content deemed appropriate (i.e., neither toxic nor potentially problematic). These messages are published immediately without further review by human moderators (aside from obligatory checks of the tool’s decision-making in order to adhere to legal requirements).

At all times, human moderators are supposed to have access to the moderation queue where all messages (including banned, flagged, and already accepted and published ones) are presented.

In direct contrast to the Conversation Helper prototype, this tool follows a personalized private pre-moderation strategy. Toxic and questionable messages are only visible to moderators and the respective commenter whose message has been categorized as such. Uninvolved users only see acceptable and questionable messages that have been approved for publication in public chats, not toxic and questionable messages that have been blocked or are under review.

Normative Evaluation. When it comes to the Welcome dimension, Gandalf may promote participation by generating a friendly, humanized, and welcoming conversation atmosphere, potentially also encouraging underrepresented groups to participate. However, since a welcoming and humanized conversation atmosphere is an important yet not sufficient criterion to engage users, this benefit may only be weak or moderate at most. Citizens that generally have no interest in engaging will typically not be persuaded to do so; it is rather that those who are already motivated to participate in a conversation may be less likely pushed back because of hostile language. Along the Connect dimension, Gandalf may help to support social connections among users due to its effect on the conversation tone. Likewise, Understanding is very likely fostering a more deliberative debate, since it supports the exchange of arguments rather than sentiments. Finally, regarding the Act theme, Gandalf does not directly promote public action; however, it may indirectly support mobilization via strengthening dignified discourse. In summary, Gandalf may be particularly beneficial in terms of generating a healthy and con-

structive debate culture. It is nevertheless limited in terms of engaging underrepresented groups.

Acceptability Evaluation. As a pre-moderation tool, the literature suggests that Gandalf may not be accepted by some users (Pradel et al., 2024). The provided definitions of toxic or questionable messages are hotly contested and, as typically with pre-moderation tools, set top-down via somewhat arbitrary community guidelines. For instance, it is not always clear where toxic and merely negatively valenced messages may differ, particularly considering that interpretations depend on someone’s culture. In effect, there is a plausible risk that some users may not accept Gandalf and instead choose to disengage once they realize that some sort of AI-driven moderation is taking place, ultimately leading to unintended disengagement effects (Wang, 2023). What might be worse, users may intentionally or unintentionally confuse content moderation with censorship of selected political positions, especially given the project’s PSM background. Gandalf may therefore be criticized for reducing freedom of expression, potentially generating a debate even in parts of the mainstream public.

Risk Evaluation. Depending on the amount of user activity on a given topic, pre-moderation might be impractical for several reasons. Besides the fact that it is quite labor-intensive requiring significant resources, long delays in publication may lead to frustration and also disengagement (Greis et al., 2014). The delay may also be dysfunctional for real-time conversation or during live events. In addition, frustration is fostered when users perceive AI-driven moderation as unfair, arbitrary, and intransparent, which is especially likely in contested situations (Vaccaro et a., 2020). It can therefore be assumed that Gandalf in its current (and perhaps any) iteration will generate unwanted side-effects. As most pre-moderation tools, it will not be accepted by all users, that is, while debate quality will rise, debate richness in terms of argument breadth may not.

Conversation Helper

Description. The Conversation Helper prototype represents an AI-driven moderation tool designed to provide publicly visible, near real-time information about the deliberative quality of an online discussion as well as suggestions to improve it. Specifically, this tool analyzes the content of comment sections in order to detect whether the discussion is appropriate or not, intervening when conversations appear to be normatively poor due to various reasons, such as disrespectful or offensive speech, sharing of opinions with inadequate or even without an argumentative foundation, off-track comments, comments with little substance, spam, or missing perspectives.

Once it detects a need for action, the tool, automatically but likely with at least some editorial oversight, places a sticky comment at the top of the discussion thread that is visible to all its discussants and viewers, thus targeting the entire thread community without singling out individual users. Said sticky comment is designed to include two main components:

(1) Optimistic Feedback: First, it acknowledges positive aspects of the discussion at hand, such as, for instance, the presence of passionate opinions if overly emotionalized language has been used. This positively valenced opening is meant to maintain a favorable discursive atmosphere in order to prevent user reactance.

(2) Guiding Question: Second, the tool poses a new guiding question with the purpose of redirecting the conversation into a more appropriate and constructive direction. These questions are designed to assist users in focusing more strongly on deliberative criteria within the discussion.

The tool’s non-personalized public post-moderation strategy is intentionally designed to avoid any resemblance of a content moderator as a rule enforcer. Instead of reprimanding users, it offers suggestions (i.e., nudges) that users may individually or collectively adopt for achieving a respectful collaborative environment. If a commenter subsequently follows these suggestions, the tool responds with a personalized thank-you message accompanied by a cookie emoji as a symbolic reward visible only to this particular user, aiming to make them feel appreciated and acknowledged.

Normative Evaluation. Starting with the Welcome dimension, Conversation Helper may support the emergence of a constructive and argumentbased conversation atmosphere. This may be perceived as a safe space in which several different viewpoints can be voiced in contrast to hostile spaces which are typically full of resentment. At the same time, it has to be noted that the guiding questions can be easily ignored by users. Along the Connect dimension, Conversation Helper does not directly accelerate social connections among users, but it may indirectly do so by enabling connections in a safe and constructive environment. Arguably, Understanding is the biggest asset of Conversation Helper, because the prototype helps to exchange arguments in meaningful ways. While the exchange of arguments is an important condition for the Act theme, the Conversation Helper alone may not directly support civic action. In summary, Conversation Helper can be theorized to be particularly beneficial in terms of generating a welcoming, healthy, and constructive conversation among users, but it is limited in terms of directly fostering engagement.

Acceptability Evaluation. The guiding questions can lead to a focused debate in which all sides provide reasons and arguments for their views. In that sense, it touches a core notion of deliberative democracy. At the same time, users with strong intentions to disturb or destroy an argument-based discourse may not be positively receptive toward an AI-driven moderator. In fact, trolls or spammers may still be able to flood forums with disruptive posts, which likely has a disengaging effect on more debate-oriented users. Some users may also disagree with the automated moderation process, wishing to appeal the moderation, potentially leading to frustration. Ultimately, the acceptance of Conversation Helper hinges dramatically upon its perceived accuracy and transparency (Wang & Kim, 2023).

Risk Evaluation. There is a non-trivial risk that disruptive actors are not reached with the current iteration of Conversation Helper alone. Without additional moderation tools like Gandalf, hostile or even merely inappropriate content may still be seen by other users irrespective of the provided nudging, which is likely to have an effect on the conversation in question. Given current technological possibilities, any AI-driven moderation comes with crucial limitations, as contextual specificities and linguistic nuances of human language are not always correctly understood, for instance, when it comes to subtle or coded ways to violate conversation rules (Steen et al., 2023). Also, both false positives and false negatives cannot be fully avoided given that experienced users with hostile intentions may still find ways to bypass the Conversation Helper (Gillett et al., 2023). Thus, if moderation can be circumvented, or if it is not accurate, significant boomerang effects may emerge. However, it has to be noted that the degree of moderation in Conversation Helper is relatively low, which minimizes the otherwise substantial risks.

Overall Evaluation

Based on theory-driven normative criteria as well as consideration concerning acceptability and potential risks, we discussed the current alpha-level iterations of four prototypes from the PSI project. Our evaluation suggests that all four prototypes, even in their current states, might bring significant benefits across normative criteria, albeit that they do so selectively. Conversation Helper and Gandalf may foster understanding amongst users and, thus, have great deliberative qualities; however, they currently appear still rather limited in supporting democratic action as well as securing inclusiveness with respect to underrepresented groups. Reaction Types, by contrast, has strengths in facilitating a welcoming conversation space across user groups, and especially for underrepresented communities. Whether it can improve understanding and action, on the other hand, seems questionable. Finally, Representing Perspectives may be particular-

ly useful for connecting diverse users with unique positions by making their identities salient; yet, Welcome, Understand and Act appear hardly affected by this prototype.

Aside from these varying normative qualities which may have great potential to strengthen functional public spaces, it needs to be highlighted that nothing of it will materialize if a large enough portion of the user base does not accept the prototypes. For all evaluated prototypes, except arguably Reaction Types, crucial acceptability challenges can already be identified for the current iterations. During further prototype development, these challenges have to be sorted out during alpha and, particularly, beta testing in order to make them applicable in the wild where some users may not only boycott them but, worse, malicious users may very likely, given existing sentiments against PSMs, deliberately attempt to disturb and manipulate their performance. Given the present preliminary state of development, however, all prototype designs, together with their underlying technological backbone, may be further improved to minimize negative side effects as well as substantial risks. In other words, none of the design fundamentals appear inherently flawed—that is, dead on arrival. Significant research activities, applied as well as academic in nature, but, most importantly, intense testing conducted outside of the laboratory and within real-world hostile communication environments are necessary to meet said challenges.

Acknowledgement

The authors have received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon Europe program for research and innovation (Grant agreement No. 101055073).

References Åkerlund, M. (2022). Dog whistling far-right code words: The case of ‘culture enricher’ on the Swedish web. Information, Communication & Society, 25(12), 1808–1825. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1889639

Bormann, M., Tranow, U., Vowe, G., & Ziegele, M. (2022). Incivility as a violation of communication norms— A typology based on normative expectations toward political communication. Communication Theory, 32(3), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtab018

Center for Media Engagement (2024). Civic signals. https://mediaengagement.org/civic-signals/ Chaney, K. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Remedios, J. D. (2021). Dual cues: Women of color anticipate both gender and racial bias in the face of a single identity cue. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(7), 1095–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220942844

Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i2.3336

Esau, K., Fleuß, D., & Nienhaus, S. (2021). Different arenas, different deliberative quality? Using a systemic framework to evaluate online deliberation on immigration policy in Germany. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232

Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016284431021

Friess, D., Ziegele, M., & Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective civic moderation for deliberation? Exploring the links between citizens’ organized engagement in comment sections and the deliberative quality of online discussions. Political Communication, 38(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322

Gillett, R., Gray, J. E., & Valdovinos Kaye, D. B. (2023). ‘Just a little hack’: Investigating cultures of content moderation circumvention by Facebook users. New Media & Society, 146144482211476. https://doi. org/10.1177/14614448221147661

González-Bailón, S. & Lelkes, Y. (2023) Do social media undermine social cohesion? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 17, 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12091

Greis, M., Alt, F., Henze, N., & Memarovic, N. (2014). I can wait a minute: Uncovering the optimal delay time for pre-moderated user-generated content on public displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1435–1438. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557186

Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Hermann Luchterhand Verlag.

Jungherr, A., & Schroeder, R. (2021). Disinformation and the structural transformations of the public arena: addressing the actual challenges to democracy. Social Media + Society, 7(1). https://doi. org/10.1177/2056305121988928

Masullo, G. M., Wilner, T., & Stroud, N. J. (2022). What social media could be: Normative frameworks for evaluating digital public spaces. Social Media + Society, 8(4), 205630512211304. https://doi. org/10.1177/20563051221130447

Masullo Chen, G., Muddiman, A., Wilner, T., Pariser, E., & Stroud, N. J. (2019). We should not get rid of incivility online. Social Media + Society, 5(3), 205630511986264. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119862641 New_ Public (2024). Public spaces incubator. https://newpublic.org/psi Open Source Initiative (2024). The open source definition. https://opensource.org/osd Pradel, F., Zilinsky, J., Kosmidis, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2024). Toxic speech and limited demand for content moderation on social media. American Political Science Review, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542300134X Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Quandt, T., & Klapproth, J. (2023). Dark participation: Conception, reception, and extension. In C. Strippel, S. Paasch-Colberg, M. Emmer, & J. Trebbe, Challenges and perspectives of hate speech research (pp. 251–270). Staatsvertrag für Rundfunk und Telemedien (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag - RStV) (2019). https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rechtsgrundlagen/Gesetze_Staatsvertraege/RStV_22_nichtamtliche_Fassung_medienanstalten_final_web.pdf

Steen, E., Yurechko, K., & Klug, D. (2023). You can (not) say what you want: using algospeak to contest and evade algorithmic content moderation on TikTok. Social Media + Society, 9(3), 20563051231194586. https:// doi.org/10.1177/20563051231194586

Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500131950

Vaccaro, K., Sandvig, C., & Karahalios, K. (2020). “At the end of the day Facebook does what it wants”: how users experience contesting algorithmic content moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415238

Wang, S. (2023). Factors related to user perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI)-based content moderation on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, 107971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107971

Wang, S., & Kim, K. J. (2023). Content moderation on social media: Does it matter who and why moderates hate speech? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(7), 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cyber.2022.0158

Woolley, S. (2023). Manufacturing consensus: Understanding propaganda in the era of automation and anonymity. Yale University Press.

ZDF (May 7, 2024). Mehr konstruktiver Diskurs im Netz: ZDF und internationale Partner stellen Prototypen vor. https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/technik-forschungsprojekt-public-spaces-incubator-100.html

THE AIDITOR: PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING IN THE TENSION BETWEEN QUALITY JOURNALISM, HIGH-TECH COMPANY, AND THE PUSH FOR EFFICIENCY

SABINE T. KÖSZEGI, LARA SCHMALZER & LAURA MARIA VIGL, TU VIENNA

1. Introduction

As the fourth pillar of democracy, public service media make an indispensable contribution to our society due to their legal mandate to provide education and information on all important political, social, economic, cultural and sporting issues. With the latest technological advances in artificial intelligence (AI), in particular through generative AI (GenAI), new framework conditions, opportunities and challenges arise for ORF, which will be addressed in this year‘s Public Value Study (2024). Based on selected European best-practice models of digital transformation and their scientific evaluation, this study aims to develop perspectives for further development of the basic model of a public network value and, thus, to develop an adaptive analytical framework for the digital development of public service providers in the internet and to identify prospective European cooperation projects.

The partial study outlined here evaluates the AI tool “AiDitor”, a support tool for editorial work based on GenAI and equipped with a wide range of functions. The sub-study aims to assess the opportunities and challenges arising from the use of the AI tool in the editorial area and to evaluate them in the context of the requirements and professional and ethical standards of public service broadcasting (Public Value) to create guidelines for the future implementation of editorial AI tools.

2. General considerations on generative AI in journalism

The assessment of opportunities and challenges for the use of generative AI in journalism must, in any case, be carried out against the background of journalists‘ high professional ethical standards. They are central to the public‘s trust in the media and are essentially based on the following principles:

1. Accuracy and Truthfulness: Journalists are responsible for providing accurate and reliable information to the public. Fact-checking before reporting is, therefore, essential.

2. Fairness and Objectivity: Journalists provide information to the public in a balanced and fair way, allowing the audience to form their own opinions.

3. Independence and Freedom: Freedom of the press is essential to democracy. Journalists maintain their independence from undue political, commercial or personal influence and thus contribute to a free and democratic society.

4. Transparency and Accountability are crucial to ensure trust in media reporting. Journalists are committed to these principles and are willing to acknowledge and correct errors or misinformation in reporting when necessary.

In Austria, the Code of Ethics for the Austrian Press regulates compliance with journalistic standards. This code was adopted in 1971 and lays down rules for the work of journalists who publish in Austrian print media and non-commercial electronic media. The Austrian Press Council monitors compliance with the rules. Media obliged to follow the rules of the Code of Ethics indicate this with a signet and the words “Committed to the Code of Ethics of the Austrian Press” in the imprint. This code of honour includes, among other things, the accuracy of reporting, the differentiation between factual reports, third-party opinions and commentary, the separation of editorial content and advertising, independence from influence, and the protection of person and privacy. The Code of Ethics also includes considering social and political conditions, weighing up the public interest and ethically sourcing information material. The ORF also developed various internal guidelines (Code of Ethics, editorial statutes, social media guidelines) on ethical issues, which are regularly adapted to new requirements by the ORF Ethics Council. Overall, these comprehensive ethical guidelines are fundamental to maintaining and strengthening the high reputation and credibility of the media in Austria. The use of large language models (LLMs) in the editorial field, such as Open AI‘s ChatGPT, therefore poses a challenge for media professionals to find a way that balances professional, ethical standards on the one hand and the digitisation and resulting changes in offerings on the other hand, without compromising public trust.

Significant automation advancements are expected across industries through GenAI in the coming years. McKinsey Global estimates that by 2030, every third work hour currently done by humans could be automated (see McKinsey Global: The economic potential of Generative AI, 2023). Initial comprehensive empirical studies from the USA show that GenAI can achieve significant efficiency gains in cognitive work processes (Noey et al., 2023; Brynjolfsson et al., 2023). Furthermore, GenAI also compensates to some extent for employees‘ lack of experience and expertise, making them faster, more flexible, and more versatile (Brynjolfsson et al., 2023; Noey et al., 2023).

Therefore, even large media companies must recognise this pressure for automation from GenAI. As a result, the challenges that arise in the job market are enormous (Author 2019, 2020).

At the same time, there are also significant challenges alongside the efficiency advantages: the issues of ChatGPT in terms of violating principles of fairness, data security and privacy, accountability, and transparency are already extensively discussed in public discourse (see Clarke L. 2023). However, it can be assumed that societal and ethical problems resulting from using GenAI go far beyond the already identified problems of individual applications (Capraro V. et al., 2023; Bender et al., 2021; Ferrara, 2024).

The World Economic Forum classifies misinformation and disinformation as the most significant global risk to our society and, therefore, the most significant challenge - even ahead of the climate crisis - that humanity will have to face in the coming years (WEF, Global Risks Report 2024; Marcellino et al., 2023).

The impact of the widespread use of GenAI on the development of new knowledge and the preservation of competencies cannot be reliably estimated at such an early dissemination stage (see Collingridge 1982). However, the initial empirical findings and simulation studies indicate critical consequences, such as societal loss of competence and knowledge and a common dilemma (del Rio-Chanona et al., 2023; Fügener et al., 2021). Furthermore, the environmental impact of energy consumption for model training and the consumption of rare resources is enormous (de Vries, 2023).

A systematic review by Stahl & Eke (2024) examines the ethical challenges of GenAI, using ChatGPT as an example, and compares them to its opportunities and advantages. The methodologically well-founded and extensive analysis draws on established technology assessment methods, particularly for new technologies. The following figure provides an overview of the ethical challenges identified by Stahl and Eke (2024), in which they assess that negative consequences potentially overshadow positive impacts significantly.

Figure 1 Ethical challenges of the significant adverse impact caused by ChatGPT (adapted from Stahl & Eke, 2024)

From the figure, it becomes clear that more than focusing on individual needs and rights is required to identify the risks and dangers of AI in society and take appropriate measures to mitigate them. Many of these challenges are directly related to the public mission of the ORF and should, therefore, be anchored in the awareness of management and users. On the one hand, the educational mission is particularly relevant here, as reporting should focus on opportunities and societal challenges and dangers in suitable, diverse, and accessible formats. On the other hand, the ORF, as a user of GenAI, has a role model function that needs to be fulfilled responsibly.

The following empirical survey on using GenAI in the editorial department at ORF should be seen in this context. With the development and pilot use of the prototype AiDitor, ORF is facing significant challenges. The management, innovation departments, and employees are gaining meaningful experiences and competencies to prepare for future challenges.

3. Opportunities, Challenges, and Risk Assessment from the Perspective of Stakeholders

The ORF AiDitor

The ORF AiDitor is essentially an AI suite that combines various AI tools to support editorial work and is made available to users through an interface. The system also provides an API for further integrations.

Figure 2 The AiDitor Concept (Source: internal documentation ORF)

The AiDitor relies on external services, particularly from Open AI. No custom AI models are trained.

Table 1 Overview of Functions and External Services (Source: Internal Technical Report)

Function Gateway External services

Text generation Next.js

Translation Next.js

Chat Next.js

Social media Next.js

Text to Speech

Transcription

Image generation

AiConnect(/tts

AiConnect(/main)

AiConnect(/image)

OpenAI Azure

Facebook API Supabase Storage

OpenAI Azure AWS Elevenlabs

OpenAI

OpenAI Azure Deepgram

OpenAI

OpenAI Azure

With this concept, the AiDitor becomes a very comprehensive and versatile tool. However, at the same time, it comes with some problems - especially regarding high professional and ethical standards in journalism - as the following presentation of stakeholder perspectives shows.

The Stakeholder Survey

Following a socio-technical analytical framework (see Montague 2021; Weidinger et al., 2023), we obtained various stakeholder perspectives to assess their views on the immediate and indirect opportunities and risks of using GenAI systems in the editorial field. For this purpose, thirteen - on average, half-hour-long interviews - were conducted with individuals from various areas and stakeholder groups of the ORF. The following table provides an overview of the function and group of the interviewees.

The interviews were transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis methods and the MAXQDA software. The following summarises the key points. The results include anonymised direct quotes from the interviews for illustration purposes.

The data collection and presentation of results are divided into three sections. The first section summarises the results from the stakeholder interviews regarding the general opportunities for using GenAI in ORF. The second section discusses the challenges, and the third section presents the risk assessment of AiDitor based on an adapted assessment tool for capturing ethical and social risks from the perspective of developers and users.

Table 2 Overview of ORF Interviewees

Opportunities from a Stakeholder Perspective

The interviews demonstrate the awareness of the high-quality standards expected from public service media organisations and the necessary trust of the audience in ORF. This attitude is summarised in the following representative statement: „I think it is essential that we handle AI in a way that the audience can always trust that they will receive trusted content from us... and that we, in addition, always provide some form of quality control by humans.”

The management outlines the future of ORF as a technology company, in which it will be required to face new challenges: „The ORF and media companies are increasingly becoming technology companies, and we need to be open to innovations in both the editorial and technical areas, which could prove to be a challenge for ORF.”

To meet the new requirements in this competitive environment, it will be necessary in the future to operate multiple platforms and products as efficiently as possible. AI technology is seen as a driver of change and a tool to increase the productivity and quality of journalistic content. With the help of AI tools like AiDitor, they hope to remain competitive, as one interviewee succinctly states: „We are either part of it, or we will experience a significant competitive disadvantage.”

Users mention various areas where they want to use tools like AiDitor: transcribing recordings, automated text correction, translation of texts, or summarising texts and large amounts of information. The interviewees emphasise the ease and increase in productivity they experience with AiDitor in the pilot phase: „For example, if I have a 3-minute radio segment and can generate a text from it in more or less one step, speech-to-text, search for images, generate social media posts, translate the content, and include chat functions, then I have completed tasks in one step that would otherwise be quite time-consuming and do not necessarily require extensive journalistic expertise.”

Another user highlights the potential benefits of GenAI in research work: „...without having to search through various archives for a long time. Honestly, these things are beneficial, and we cannot have enough of these tools...” Hopefully, GenAI will eliminate „tedious work” and „the ten most horrible processes.”

In addition, users also identified the potential to improve the quality of content, such as enhancing audio quality through AI-powered noise reduction in recordings and interviews, as well as the potential for content

personalisation, such as regionalised offerings: „Through the AiDitor itself, in my opinion, we can provide products in different languages, different target groups that we would not do now simply for cost reasons.”

AI tools can contribute significantly to the accessibility of content for diverse users, thus promoting equal opportunities and democratisation. It is important to users that AI tools should never be used as a substitute for journalistic work. The AiDitor offers opportunities to enhance creativity and serves as inspiration, for example, as a starting point for brainstorming or generating alternative headlines. AI tools should enable a „collaborative process” that leverages human and AI capabilities and strengths. In other words, AI should enhance human abilities rather than replace humans.

However, most AiDitor users surveyed during the pilot phase indicated that they currently have minor to moderate trust in the AiDitor‘s output, as it is considered questionable and needs verification, making it more suitable for non-critical decisions. Respondents refer to the well-known issue of „hallucinating” in AI. Therefore, users consistently check and verify the AiDitor‘s output. The following statement reflects the justified scepticism of users regarding AI output: „I have never released content without verification. It simply does not happen.” However, respondents also point out that this control is unnecessary for time-consuming tasks such as transcribing content and summarising significant texts.

Only one respondent expressed high trust in the accuracy and reliability of the output, but based on an incorrect assumption: „So, with the AiDitor, which is an ORF-owned tool, I have relatively high trust because, as far as I know, the AiDitor is trained with our texts and therefore has a good starting point.”

The person later mentions in the interview that it would be challenging to trust the AiDitor‘s output if the data and parameters of the model were unknown and came from external sources.

Overall, users are optimistic that the output of AI tools will become more reliable in the future. They believe that AI will constantly improve and undoubtedly become part of the future journalistic workflow.

Challenges from a stakeholder perspective

In the interviews, stakeholders address several problem areas of GenAI, especially regarding the high ethical standards in journalism. The use of GenAI in the editorial field particularly endangers the principles of accuracy

and truthfulness, fairness and objectivity, and transparency. Users know the problem of spreading misinformation and using AI as a „propaganda machine for systematic disinformation.” They also address systematic biases caused by AI, which can lead to discrimination or prejudice. Users point out the problem that the AiDitor relies on services from OpenAI, and therefore, „there is always the danger that unverified AI-generated content will be published.”

Some interviewees consider GenAI completely unsuitable for information research and acquiring reliable knowledge due to the currently unsolvable problems of hallucinations, lack of transparency, and data distortion in OpenAI services. It is, therefore, essential that quality control is carried out by humans, following the principle of „human in the loop.” One interviewee formulates it: „They do not turn off their brains, still think about whether it can be plausible, check if what is there corresponds to the truth, and use AI as support.”

In any case, journalists‘ „personal touch” should remain present in everything that reaches the public. Implicitly, the concern is visible here and in other parts of the interviews, such as that GenAI could replace journalists. A public service media company should also not participate in the creation of artificial realities, even if this is made visible according to the principle of transparency: „So, if you say, okay, there is now a press release, let us say, from the Chancellor, and because it sounds better, we just let an artificially generated voice of the Chancellor read this text, I consider that unacceptable alternatively if avatars of moderators go on air so that the viewer does not know if it is a real person or an avatar. These invented realities must be prevented.”

In this context, interviewees wish for the development of regulations and guidelines that allow for safe and trustworthy use of GenAI systems and are suitable for training their users in AI literacy: „But alone just this question learning how good are we editors at prompting, what can we assign to the AI.”

Journalists know how much their work and tasks will change through the use of GenAI, which will require developing new skills and competencies: „And I think that is a completely new skill that is being demanded of us. One thing is journalistic research. Thinking, asking the right questions, and critically examining them. However, now it is also checking this, maybe edited, shortened product to see if the meaning of what I have discovered or produced has been captured. I think that is a completely new dimension of our work.”

One interviewee explicitly addresses the potential loss of competence due to the increased use of GenAI, which will need to be addressed in journalist training: „But this also affects a critical area of journalistic work, namely journalistic training. It will change drastically because journalists of my generation and many after, until the invention of AI, learned their craft by doing exactly what the AI now does for us in a quick step.”

Overall, the interviewees are open to using AI in the editorial field. They hope that laborious steps in research and the process of creating various media formats will be eliminated. Although there is an essential awareness of the challenges of using GenAI in journalistic work, there are sometimes significant gaps in the digital literacy of the staff and often incorrect expectations of the AI editor. In the following section, we will address the risk assessment for the AI editor and these aspects in more detail.

AI Editor Risk Assessment

The risk assessment is based on the foundations of a state-of-the-art procedure for assessing trustworthy AI, and the Z-Inspection is based on the assessment criteria for trustworthy AI of the High-Level Expert Group on AI. The following requirements are central to this: (1) Human agency and oversight, (2) Technical robustness and safety, (3) Privacy protection and data quality management, (4) Transparency, (5) Diversity, non-discrimination, and fairness, (6) Societal and environmental well-being, and (7) Accountability.

In the following section, the requirements (from the ethics guidelines of the European Commission) are presented first, followed by the assessments of developers and users.

Priority of human agency and oversight

AI systems should enable humans to make informed decisions and ensure their fundamental rights, including their right to autonomous action. Therefore, AI systems must provide appropriate control mechanisms for humans, which can be achieved through the approaches of „human-incommand,” „human-on-the-loop,” and „human-in-the-loop” concepts. The interviewed developers agree that the AI editor was developed only as a tool to improve human capabilities and not to automate daily routines. They emphasise that the AI editor is designed as a support tool that makes suggestions but does not make decisions: „Yes, so decisions in that sense are always made by the user. For example, when we talk about these social media stories, the AI does not suddenly post things, but it suggests a text that can be checked, and it should be checked.”

Furthermore, they know that humans play a crucial role throughout the process. They refer to the code of ethics for journalists: „Journalists always work according to journalistic principles, which means they have to verify everything.” Instead of the principle of „human-in-the-loop,” they have developed their definition of the degree of automation, namely „AI-in-theloop,” where humans are at the beginning of the process, the AI tool is in the middle, and humans are at the end again. Therefore, design and functionality, in combination with journalistic values, are compatible with the principle of human autonomy.

The statement „…what I can almost exclude is that this will happen in public broadcasting, that we publish things completely automatically…” supports this design principle. However, there seem to be different authorisation models in which various functions, including automated postings, can be enabled: „Or, of course, some people can do things that others cannot, for example, automatically post on Facebook pages.”

The interviewed developers state that the AI editor informs users about the algorithmic, potentially false output before the first use and during all processes. However, the interviews also indicate that users require a certain level of digital literacy: „...I assume, or I think one has to assume. In other words, the user uses an AI tool, and when a user uses an AI tool, they know that they are using an AI tool. Moreover, they are separated from any ongoing processes. So they cannot accidentally generate something with AI; it must be a conscious choice.”

Users also describe the AI editor as a tool that supports handling routine tasks and primarily makes suggestions. Several interviewees emphasise the importance of human journalistic work, which can never be automated.

Technical robustness and safety

AI systems must be secure, accurate, reliable, and reproducible and have a fallback plan in case something goes wrong. This is the only way to ensure that even unintended harm can be minimised or prevented. Due to the early stage of development of the AiDitor, little focus has been placed on technical robustness and security (till now). Additionally, reliance is placed on the organisation‘s technical infrastructure, such as authentication mechanisms, standard encryption mechanisms between services, and firewalls for protection against attacks. AiDitor is neither certified under the Cybersecurity Act in Europe (Act24) nor compliant with any other security standard. While the AI models used are regularly updated by providers to improve performance, they are not updated to address security issues or vulnerabilities.

As AiDitor „only” coordinates various services from external providers, potential vulnerabilities and attack points, such as data manipulation, depend entirely on these providers (primarily OpenAI). There is no standalone emergency plan or process for assessing or mitigating potential risks. In such cases, users must rely on their journalistic skills and manually resume their work.

The risk of potential malicious, abusive, or improper use of AiDitor can be reduced through input and content filters. However, experts point out that standard filters are not applicable, as journalists may need to report on topics such as fatal traffic accidents or knife attacks.

Currently, AiDitor offers a feedback form for users to report their experiences with the system and any errors, inaccuracies, etc. Incorrect system output could only have critical, adverse, or harmful consequences “if the products generated and the texts generated would not be checked, and journalists would not be required to verify everything before publishing.” Most users in the pilot phase have already provided feedback to the developers directly or through the integrated feedback form. User experiences have revealed quality issues such as hallucinated outputs, deviations from the source text, inadequate to unusable translations, etc.

While quality control relies solely on user feedback, introducing a quality control mechanism is planned, including detecting errors in the generated content through the development and deployment of another AI model. As AiDitor currently uses third-party AI technology as a service, measures to ensure that the data used for developing the AI system is current, of high quality, complete, and representative of the environment are not considered relevant: „Yes, since we are not training models ourselves for content generation, I believe this is something that we have not had to consider yet because it simply does not affect us.”

Right to privacy and data quality management

In addition to ensuring unrestricted respect for privacy and data protection, appropriate data governance mechanisms must be in place to ensure the quality and integrity of the data and provide authorised access to the data.

The developers‘ responses must be more consistent regarding data protection in the logging process. On the one hand, data protection is considered in the logging process as user inputs and metadata are logged but anonymised. There is no possibility of tracing the details of AiDitor‘s daily usage to individual users. On the other hand, the logs cannot be anonymised due to the current stage of development, which would make troubleshooting

easier. In any case, the data protection officer has been involved in the development process.

Some users need clarification about using personal or sensitive data by AiDitor and, therefore, avoid entering sensitive and personal data, fearing that it may be stored in a database. Others trust the in-house governance and compliance processes: “But I assume that once we have rolled out this tool, we will have spent much time and worries about whether it complies with compliance because there are huge compliance departments everywhere, and they will have already done it.”

Transparency

Business models for data, AI systems, and algorithms must be transparent. Users of AI systems must be aware of the capabilities and limitations of the system when interacting with it. Decisions made by AI systems must be explainable and appropriate, and user-adapted.

AiDitor logs metadata and user interactions. The developers believe that traceability is ensured mainly through the design and functionality of AiDitor. The requirement for explainability is less critical in public broadcasting because decisions have little impact on people‘s lives or harm society. It is excluded that AiDitor currently or in the future autonomously publishes content. Currently, guidelines regarding labelling requirements for AI-generated journalistic content are being developed within the organisation.

There are no standardised training formats or materials for the AiDitor, but the developers offer direct help and support. This support focuses on demonstrating the tool‘s capabilities rather than pointing out critical aspects of the tool. It is assumed that journalists have this knowledge and already adhere to professional ethical standards.

However, the survey reveals that users are very different in their knowledge about the benefits and limitations of the various applications of AiDitors. This also depends on whether they have taken advantage of the training opportunities: „I actually taught myself. I tried and played around a lot. I just spent much time with it. Of course, colleagues also helped me, especially with transcriptions and such. However, I learned it myself. It is just practice, I would say.” Users are informed about the disclaimer when they first use the tool, but during the interview, they cannot describe what it contains. Other users stated that they had been at least partially informed about the capabilities and limitations of the AiDitor: „About limitations, yes, about risks, no. However, that was an implicit knowledge that was expected.”

Diversity, non-discrimination, and fairness

AI systems must be accessible to all (barrier-free) and free from unfair, discriminatory biases in order to prevent the marginalisation of vulnerable groups and the aggravation of prejudices and discrimination.

The principle of accessibility and universal design is currently being addressed through standard browser mechanisms and the implementation of keyboard operation for the visually impaired. However, the developers assign lower priority to this aspect, as the AiDitor is intended to be used exclusively by organisation employees.

The developers point out that there were no explicit measures taken during the development of the AiDitor to ensure fairness and avoid biases: „As far as I know, there is no process for that, except for the quality control that could, for example, say that this text or statement is not correct in terms of content, which then also could be automatically recognised...”

Here, „quality control” refers to the AI-based fact-checking of the AiDitor output that is currently being developed. Furthermore, the developers also refer to the high professional ethical standards in journalistic work.

Users are aware of the frequent biases caused by AI systems. AI reflects society: „This is not a problem that AI has, but a problem that we have. AI only reflects what we are.”

They also describe their own experiences with bias and distortions in the applications of the AiDitor, such as in the generation of images, and therefore pay attention to avoiding bias and discrimination when using the tool. Social and ecological well-being

AI systems should benefit all people, including future generations. Therefore, it must be ensured that they are sustainable and environmentally friendly. In addition, they should consider the environment, including other living beings, and the AI system’s social and societal impacts should also be carefully examined. The developers address the potential negative impacts of the AI system on the environment: „I do not want to say that I do not care, but it is not part of my work, so to speak.”

Various aspects are mentioned as potential negative impacts on society and democracy: using AI for systematic manipulation, creating and disseminating false and misinformation, and the difficulty distinguishing between AI and human-generated content. The respondents agree that the AiDitor could only negatively impact society or democracy if the human

in the loop does not fulfil their responsibility: „Yes, you can only answer that with yes if the person responsible does not fulfil their responsibility.” Therefore, raising awareness and training users is essential to minimise negative impacts.

Another potentially negative impact of AI implementation is that people could lose their jobs as daily routine tasks could be done more efficiently. Furthermore, AiDitors could lead journalists to rely less on the system and thus lose certain skills. This would require specific training to minimise the risk of carelessness and to acquire new skills.

Accountability

Mechanisms should be established to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes. Verifiability, which allows for evaluating algorithms, data, and design processes, plays a key role, especially in critical applications. Furthermore, it should be ensured that adequate legal remedies are available. The survey of developers shows that they are currently focusing more on the tool‘s functionalities than on risk management.

However, the organisation has established an AI Sounding Board, which, in collaboration with the Ethics Council, deals with risk identification, developing risk mitigation strategies, and creating guidelines. In addition, specific training on potential risks is planned. Furthermore, the ORF plans to collaborate with other European media organisations to exchange experiences.

4. Recommendations for action

It is undisputed that the ORF must fully address the issue of GenAI shortly - and on different levels. The current developments in the field of GenAI offer the possibility of automating cognitive routine tasks, thus creating significant potential for efficiency improvement. The potential for rationalisation should be realised concerning competition with commercial competitors and the use of public funds.

Apart from that, the new technology also offers exciting perspectives for the individualisation and regionalisation of offerings and for increasing accessibility and quality of services. Thus, the ORF continues its already determined path towards becoming a digital technology and media house within the legal possibilities.

These potentials are contrasted with the risks associated with the use of GenAI, which not only require careful risk assessment but also the deve -

lopment of appropriate measures and strategies that arise in the following areas of action:

Field of action Quality vs. Efficiency

On the one hand, there are high-quality standards for the work of journalists, which are currently well safeguarded by professional, ethical standards. The high quality of current journalistic work ensures and justifies society‘s trust in the public media house. GenAI could contribute to expanding a high-quality offering through individualising and regionalising offerings and increasing accessibility. By developing its own GenAI tools, the ORF can seize the opportunity to position itself as a role model for developing and using trustworthy AI.

However, the ORF is not only in competition with commercial media organisations but also owes accountability to the public - especially now with the introduction of a general household fee - for the careful use of the charged fees and public funds. GenAI could contribute to the desired efficiency improvement and competitiveness by automating routine processes. Previous studies have shown efficiency improvements, primarily through the automation of cognitive routine tasks and the compensation of qualifications and experience through AI systems (see, for example, Brynjolfsson & Raymond 2023). Ultimately, this would also allow for personnel savings in terms of both quality (i.e., less experienced and less qualified employees can take on qualified tasks with the help of appropriate AI tools) and quantity (i.e., employees can take on more tasks through the automation of routine tasks).

The central question is whether it can meet both the quality requirements and the desire for increased efficiency with a modern, AI-based support tool for editorial work. A secure AI system that meets high standards requires significant investments in foundation models - without dependence on external providers - ideally developed in collaboration with other European public service media organisations based on an extensive and high-quality database. Here, it is up to the policymakers to cover these strategically important decisions budgetarily. Otherwise, there is a risk that the former will not be sufficiently considered in the trade-off between quality (and independence) and efficiency (automation to increase cost efficiency). The consequences of poor-quality editorial content (bias, data corruption, etc.) or even false information would not only be devastating for trust in the ORF. However, they would also pose a sustained threat to our democracy.

The risk assessment of AiDitor shows the problematic dependence on external providers (OpenAI), which poses significant risks regarding the

quality of the generated content (bias, hallucination, etc.). It is assumed that users (i.e. journalists) will check the quality of the generated AI output, which means that the quality risk lies solely with the users. It is questionable whether the expected potential savings can be realised this way. It is also still being determined whether the current (pilot) version of AiDitor will be compatible with the European AI Regulation after it enters force.

Recommendations for action:

Strategic investment in a certifiable, self-developed AI system in collaboration with other public service media organisations. In particular, training foundation models with their own (European) data, based on which highquality media-specific applications can be developed, would be an essential strategic investment in (data) sovereignty, independence, and quality.

Strategic cooperation at the European level with other public service media organisations, especially within the European Broadcasting Union, offers significant synergies and gives hope to potential support from the European Commission! Developing corresponding risk management could resolve part of the trade-off between quality and automation because more tasks can be delegated to high-quality working AI without extensive post-checks.

Field of action: Professional ethical standards & digital literacy Society‘s trust in public service media organisations is due, among other things, to the high professional ethical norms and standards of journalists. The importance of socialisation in these norms through journalistic education and within media organisations cannot be overestimated regarding self-commitment to journalistic values and norms. In addition to formal normative provisions (laws) and organisational regulations, standards, and guidelines (which also need to be developed), they form THE social and ethical guiding principles of journalistic work.

Recommendations for action:

With the use of GenAI, it will be necessary to develop and, if necessary, establish new standards for dealing with GenAI technology that are consistent with these standards. The involvement of professional associations and training institutions is enormously important (Pavlik, 2023). A broad bottom-up process and adaptation of curricula in digital literacy are necessary to accomplish this transformation process. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with humans (accountability principle, human-in-the-loop principle), and they can only bear it if they have the necessary competencies and their actions are consistent with their principles and values. Furthermore, it will be necessary to mitigate or proactively counteract the potential negative impacts of automation. This includes, in particular, the

problem of automation bias and inattention (Parasuraman et al., 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2019).

Field of action: building trust and educational mission

The trust of society in public service media organisations is crucial for our democratic and free coexistence. As mentioned in the introduction, the significant dangers associated with using GenAI for individuals and society will pose significant challenges for us in the coming years. The ORF plays a vital role in solving these tasks!

Recommendation for action:

Development of a large-scale initiative to strengthen digital literacy in the population through various formats with differing difficulty levels for different population groups. The ORF can set ethical guidelines in dealing with the new technology and thus further strengthen people‘s trust in it as a role model (both as an employer and as a user of GenAI). Transparency (technology transparency, transparency about usage) plays a crucial role. Summary and outlook

GenAI presents new framework conditions, opportunities, and challenges for the ORF, which will be addressed in this year‘s Public Value Study (2024). This study aims to further develop the basic model of a public network value by incorporating the aspect of digital transformation through GenAI and, thus, to design an adaptive analytical framework for the digital development of public service providers on the internet.

The partial study outlined here evaluates the AI tool „AiDitor,” a support tool for editorial work with various functions. Based on stakeholder analysis, we have identified opportunities and risks and derived recommendations for action in three fields of action: (i) the tension between quality and efficiency, (ii) professional, ethical standards and digital literacy, and (iii) building trust and educational mission.

Guidelines are needed for the successful management of a disruptive technology like GenAI! The most important pillars for trustworthy AI use are (i) European regulation, which sets a normative framework for the use and dissemination of this technology; (ii) the development and adherence to European technical standards; and (iii) the extension of professional, ethical standards to include AI use (based on self-regulation and voluntary commitment), which ensure safe and ethical application of GenAI technologies. While the first two pillars already receive relatively much attention, the third - equally important pillar - needs to be addressed. Therefore, the recommendations for action focus mainly on this third pillar.

References

[1] Acemoglu D. and Restrepo P. (2018): The Race between Man and Machine: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares, and Employment, Volume 108, No. 6, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW

[2] Autor D. (2019): Work of the Past, Work of the Future, NBER

[3] Autor D., Hazell J. and Restrepo P. (2020): AI and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies, NBER

[4] Bender E. M., Gebru T., McMillan-Major A. and Shmitchell S. (2021): On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? Association for Computing Machinery

[5] Brynjolfsson E., Li D., and Raymond L. (2023): Generative AI at Work, ArXiv

[6] Capraro V., Lentsch A., Acemoglu D., Akgun S., Akhmedova A., Bilancini E., Bonnefon J.-F., Brañas-Garza P., Butera L., Douglas K. M., Everett J. A.C., Gigerenzer G., Greenhow C., Hashimoto D. A., Holt-Lunstad J., Jetten J., Johnson S., Longoni C., Lunn P., Natale S., Rahwan I., Selwyn N., Singh V., Suri S., Sutcliffe J., Tomlinson J., van der Linden S., Van Lange P. A. M., Wall F., Van Bavel J. J. and Viale R. (2023): The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making, ArXiv

[7] Cheol Choi E. and Ferrara E. (2023): Automated Claim Matching with Large Language Models: Empowering Fact-Checkers in the Fight Against Misinformation, ArXiv

[8] Clarke L. (2023): Call for AI pause highlights potential dangers, Volume 380, Issue 6641, pp. 120-121, American Association for the Advancement of Science

[9] Collingridge, D.(1982): The Social Control of Technology. Pinter u. a., London u. a., ISBN 0-312-73168-X.

[10] Da Silva L., Samhi J. and Khomh F. (2024): ChatGPT vs LLaMA: Impact, Reliability, and Challenges in Stack Overflow Discussions, ArXiv

[11] De Vries A. (2023): The growing energy footprint of artificial intelligence, Joule, 7(10): 2191-2194.

[12] Ellingrud K., Sanghvi S., Dandona G. S., Madgavkar A., Chui M., White O., and Hasebe P. (2023): Generative AI and the future of work in America, McKinsey & Company

[13] Ferrara E. (2024): GenAI against humanity: nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models, J Comput Soc Sc

[14] Fügener A., Grahl J., Gupta A. and Ketter W. (2021): Will Humans-in-the-Loop Become Borgs? Merits and Pitfalls of Working with AI, Vol. 45 No. 3, Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ)

[15] Global Risks Report 2024 19th Edition (2024), World Economic Forum

[16] Marcellino W., Beauchamp-Mustafaga N., Kerrigan A., Navarre Chao L. and Smith J. (2023): The Rise of Generative AI and the Coming Era of Social Media Manipulation 3.0, RAND Corporation

[17] Montague E., Bungum M., Sherman L., Gravenor S., Courtney D. M., Czerniak A., Wolf M., and McCarthy D. (2021): Using a sociotechnical systems analysis to evaluate an intervention to improve opioid prescribing in emergency medicine, Volume 97, Applied Ergonomics

[18] Parasuraman R. and Manzey D. H. (2010): Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 381—410, Human Factors

[19] Pavlik J. V. (2023): Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Journalism and Media Education, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(1), 84-93

[20] Peng S., Kalliamvakou E., Cihon P., and Demirer M. (2023): The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot, ArXiv

[21] Rio-Chanona M. D., Laurentsyeva N., and Wachs J. (2023): Are Large Language Models a Threat to Digital Public Goods? Evidence from Activity on Stack Overflow, ArXiv

[22] Rodriguez S. S., Schaffer J. A., O’Donovan J. and Höllerer T. (2019): Knowledge Compla

[23] Stahl B. C. and Eke D. (2023): The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology, Vol. 74, International Journal of Information Management

[24] Weidinger L., Rauh M., Marchal N., Manzini A., Hendricks L. A., Mateos-Garcia J., Bergman S., Kay J., Griffin C., Bariach B., Gabriel I., Rieser V. and Isaac W. (2023): Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems, ArXiv

[25] Wickens C. D., Clegg B. A., Vieane A. Z, and Sebok A. L. (2015): Complacency and Automation Bias in the Use of Imperfect Automation, Human Factors

ONBOARDING: HOW TO LEAD FEE PAYERS TO PUBLIC BROADCASTING OFFERINGS

MARKUS KAISER, TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE NÜRNBERG

1. Problem statement: What the onboarding process for new fee payers looks like today

The number of radio programs in public broadcasting in Germany is to be reduced. Specialized programs and apps are also being considered for reduction in order to dampen the broadcasting fee, as discussed in the broadcasting commission of the federal states in early summer 2024. In this debate, there is a heated argument about how high the broadcasting fee should be in the future: because several prime ministers do not want to follow a recommendation by the commission for determining the financial needs of the broadcasting institutions (KEF) to increase the fee from 18.36 to 18.94 euros on January 1, 2025 - an unusual occurrence. This shows that public broadcasting is currently under immense pressure to explain what the money is being spent on and what the value is in return for the broadcasting fee.1

Since January 1, 2013, citizens, companies, institutions, and public welfare organizations in Germany have been paying the new broadcasting fee. Unlike before, this fee is independent of existing receiving devices and is now based on the living situation for private individuals. The rule of thumb is: one apartment, one fee. The ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio fee service2 is responsible for collecting the broadcasting fee and managing the accounts. This is regulated in the Broadcasting Fee State Treaty.3

If you visit the website www.rundfunkbeitrag.de of the fee service, you will find a page that deals extensively with the payment of the fee. „Your broadcasting fee - online service quickly and securely” is the claim on the homepage, with tiles, for example, for „apartment registration”, „Change Name, Address, Payment Method”, „Apply for Exemption/Reduction” or „Exempt Secondary Residence”. Only at the bottom of the page, when you expand a tile, is it briefly and abstractly explained what

1 See https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/oeffentlich-rechtliche-legen-sparplaene-vor-laender-wollenradioprogramme-zusammenstreichen-a-811ccacd-59dd-4f8f-a0b9-8a018e40572c, last viewed at 03.08.2024

2 See https://www.daserste.de/service/kontakt-und-service/service-uebersicht/rundfunkbeitrag/ rundfunkbeitrag100.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024

3 See https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de, last viewed at 03.08.2024

makes public broadcasting unique: „Public broadcasting is diverse. Its importance and independence, however, are clear: We need it!” 4 With one click, you can at least access the network family and logos of, among others, 3sat, ARD, ARD alpha, arte, Funk, Phönix & Co. Specific offerings from the broadcasters or even presenters are not mentioned on the simple website of the fee collection service. Currently, this is how young fee payers are officially onboarded into public broadcasting in Germany, along with a letter.

In 2023, the fee service generated revenues of over nine billion euros, with its own expenses amounting to around 182 million euros, which corresponds to 2.03 percent of the total income.5 The website www.rundfunkbeitrag.de is also financed through these funds. According to the fee service, the significance of this online offering has significantly increased in 2023, with approximately 22.4 million visits recorded (compared to around 11.2 million in 2022). Mobile usage has also increased, with nearly two-thirds of users accessing the website through smartphones or tablets. This indicates that the website could play a central role in onboarding young fee payers.

However, the onboarding process currently focuses on administrative and financial procedures, and the website rundfunkbeitrag.de appears technocratic and does not make any promises regarding programming. During their initial contact, citizens do not receive information about what they receive in return for their fee, i.e., their individual value. This article therefore explores how onboarding for public broadcasting could be optimized, including from a technical perspective, and how broadcasters are already addressing this task. The research primarily involved expert interviews conducted between May and September 2024, including with Nikos Seele (Südwestrundfunk), Florian Meyer-Hawranek (Bayerischer Rundfunk), Gert Kauntz and Gerd Rüde (both from Public Value Technologie), and Christian Gärtner (ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio Beitragsservice). Additionally, this work incorporates literature-based research, including the public broadcasting sector‘s own media research. An improved onboarding appears particularly important because the acceptance of public broadcasting is decreasing or barely present in parts of the population and especially in certain political party factions. Therefore, in addition to public value, which is the contribution or benefit to society, it is also important to emphasize individual value for each user of ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandradio and their diverse offerings.

4 https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de, last viewed at 03.08.2024

5 See https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/e175/e8976/Jahresbericht_2023.pdf, last viewed at 03.08.2024

According to a representative survey in 2018, 42 percent of citizens would not voluntarily pay for ARD and ZDF. The appreciation for public broadcasting is even lower among younger people: 49 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds would prefer not to pay a fee, while almost 56 percent of 30 to 39-year-olds feel the same way. In contrast, only 34.6 percent of those over 65 years old share this sentiment.6 In Saxony-Anhalt, 92 percent of respondents in a study presented by the CDU faction opposed an increase.7 In a more recent survey published by t-online in January 2024, 75 percent of respondents believe that the broadcasting fee is too high. 8 These results are consistent with previous surveys and are not solely a result of the change from the Fee Collection Center (GEZ) to the fee service. For example, in 2008, K&A Brand Research asked the double question of whether citizens like to pay GEZ fees and whether they consider the amount to be appropriate. Only ten percent of respondents answered „yes,” while 90 percent answered „no.”9

These sentiments are being picked up by parts of the political sphere. The fact that only eight percent of Saxony-Anhalt residents are willing to accept further increases in fees reinforces the CDU faction‘s clear rejection of further fee increases, according to their media policy spokesperson, Markus Kurze, in an interview.10 In contrast, the Commission for the Determination of the Financial Requirements of Broadcasting Corporations (KEF) recommends increasing the broadcasting fee to €18.94 per month from 2025, an increase of 58 cents.11 However, politicians do not want to make the KEF recommendation an automatic process, as acceptance for the fee increase is decreasing and some state prime ministers do not want to go along with this step.12

The AfD party, which is at the time of writing this not currently involved in the government of any federal state and has been classified as a suspected case of right-wing extremism, even demanded the complete abolition of the broadcasting fee in their election program for the 2021

6 See https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/medien/42-prozent-der-burger-wurden-nicht-freiwillig-fur-ard-und-zdf-zahlen-5521183.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024

7 See https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/sachsen-anhalt-92-prozent-gegen-hoeherenrundfunkbeitrag-19088223.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024 8

8 See https://www.t-online.de/unterhaltung/tv/id_100302396/ard-und-zdf-in-der-krise-umfrage75prozent-finden-rundfunkbeitrag-zu-hoch.html, last viewed at 08.09.2024 9

9 See https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/369/umfrage/akzeptanz-von-gez-gebuehren/, last viewed at 03.08.2024

10 See https://www.bild.de/regional/sachsen-anhalt/sachsen-anhalt-news/neue-umfrage-so-denken-die-buerger-ueber-ard-zdf-mdr-84961580.bild.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024

11 See https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/kef-rundfunkbeitrag-106.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024

12 See https://www.rnd.de/politik/erhoehung-des-rundfunkbeitrags-aufsichtsgremien-fordern-einsicht-von-ministerpraesidenten 63EGRUTXMVI25JOVQPMT7CI2NY.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024

federal election: „Compulsory fees and advertising are eliminated. Financing is done through a fee that technology companies, in particular those that distribute audiovisual content, as well as video streaming services, have to pay.” 13 At the end, there should be a significantly reduced provider, which should have about one-tenth of the previous scope. The AfD referred to this as “basic broadcaster” and its only task would be to provide citizens across the country with neutral content in the areas of information, culture, and education.14 Similarities can be found in Austria and Switzerland: In April 2024, the FPÖ called for the abolition of the so-called „ORF compulsory tax” in the National Council.15 In Switzerland, there was a referendum in 2018 on the abolition of broadcasting fees, but the opponents were not successful. 16

The population and politics form a reinforcing momentum here: In their election program, the AfD specifically refers to the fact that AfD voters, with 61.5 percent, represent the largest clientele of those who do not want to pay for public broadcasting, while Green Party voters, with 24.3 percent, represent the smallest. Green Party and SPD voters would voluntarily pay the highest fees.17 However, this should not obscure the fact that the discussion about broadcasting fees is conducted independently of party preferences: „The dissatisfaction with program and fulfilment of program mandates is great and encompasses a broader part of the population than the declared enemies of ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandradio. This is what makes the ‚criticism‘ of right-wing ideologues, populists, conspiracy theorists, and agitators so successful: they can latch onto something,” writes the newspaper „Augsburger Allgemeine” in February 2020 in a very differentiated comment and concludes: „ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandradio have it in their own hands to show that they are worth their billion fees.”18 The commentator thus sees the public broadcasters as being responsible for actively demonstrating both their public value and their individual value. The perfect momentum for this would be the onboarding of fee payers. This article therefore shows how and in which phases awareness of public broadcasting must be created.

13 See https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210611_AfD_Programm_2021.pdf, last viewed at 03.08.2024

14 See Ebd.

15 See https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2024/pk0375, last viewed 03.08.2024

16 See https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2018-03/schweizer-laut-trendrechnung-gegen-abschaffung-derrundfunkgebuehren, last viewed at 03.08.2024

17 See https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/medien/42-prozent-der-burger-wurden-nicht-freiwillig-fur-ard-und-zdf-zahlen-5521183.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024

18 See https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/Kommentar-Es-geht-nicht-um-die-Hoehedes-Rundfunkbeitrags-id56917566.html, last viewed at 03.08.2024

Those who have already engaged with public broadcasting actually find information: For example, ARD shows in a „Starguide” on ard.de which actors, from Mario Adorf and Ben Affleck to Dieter Hallervorden and Katja Riemann to Bettina Zimmermann and August Zirner, can be seen in the program.19 Detailed information is also available on public and individual value. The ZDF offers an overview of all programs, although they are not sorted by target groups.20 Another alleged problem arises with „funk,” the youth offering from ARD and ZDF: The website (analogous to its own app) does not show in the header of its website, but only in the bottom left corner of the footer, that it is an offering from ARD and ZDF.21 This suggests that even users of public broadcasting offerings do not necessarily know that they are using them.

This contribution to the Public Value Study initially deals with theories and methods of change management in order to learn from this discipline for the onboarding of young fee payers (Chapter 2).

Then, we will look at which contact public broadcasting has to young people and which program offerings it has already made to them. Chapter 3 will focus on media literacy projects and school education, while Chapter 4 will discuss the various existing program offerings (for example through Funk or the „Tagesschau” appearance on TikTok). This will demonstrate the existing contact possibilities with this target group, which can also be used to convey the importance of the broadcasting fee. It will also explain the program content available for young people, in order to later justify the individual value with them. Chapter 5 will explore what technical solutions could look like to demonstrate both the public and individual value during the technocratic process of onboarding for the broadcasting fee. Based on these previous chapters, the concluding chapter will derive recommendations for public broadcasting.

2. Theoretical foundations: Why change-management-methods are helpful

In change projects within companies, as well as socio-economic changes, it is often common to start by providing training or information to employees or the population on how to deal with the change. Knowledge transfer is often seen as the first step. However, this is an inefficient way to motivate people to change their behaviour (Kaiser & Schwertner, 2020, p. 30). Applied to onboarding for the broadcasting fee, this means that the first step should not be to explain what and how citizens should pay

19 See https://programm.ard.de/TV/Programm/Starguide?page=&char=R, last viewed at 03.08.2024

20 See https://www.zdf.de/sendungen-a-z, last viewed at 03.08.2024

21 See https://www.funk.net/, last viewed at 03.08.2024

their fee. After all, it is also a change in a person‘s life when they must pay the broadcasting fee for the first time.

The ADKAR model (Hiatt, 2006) often used in the practical conception of change management measures, developed by the US company Prosci, defines five steps that are important for successfully implementing a change (or in this case, increasing acceptance of the broadcasting fee):

ADKAR (see Figure 1) is an acronym for Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. This means that measures must first be taken to create awareness of the importance of public broadcasting. This primarily falls under the category of public value. It is also necessary to answer the question of what would happen if there was no broadcasting fee. This awareness should be created among young people long before they register for the broadcasting fee. Change management measures can take various forms. They should always be designed from the perspective of the target audience, taking into account their media usage and language. This often involves communication measures, as communication during a change process is crucial for its progress and success (Kaiser & Schwertner, 2020, p. 35). This could be done, for example, through the media literacy projects described in Chapter 3 or through teachers in schools.

1. Create awareness

2. Awaken desire

3. Convey knowledge

4. creating the Ability/Possibility

5. Reinforcement

The second step is to create the desire to use public broadcasting. The central question that needs to be answered here, according to ADKAR developer Jeff Hiatt, is „What‘s in it for me?” - what personal benefits one can gain from it, in other words, showing the individual value. This also needs to be done during adolescence. The answer to „What‘s in it for me?” is primarily provided by the program offerings for 14 to 18-year-olds, including events organized by public broadcasters such as music festivals.

Figure 1: ADKAR model by Prosci

As the third step, knowledge is provided on how to pay the broadcasting fee, how to use the offerings of public broadcasting in linear radio and television programs, as well as in media libraries, apps, and online. This knowledge should be provided at the same time as or shortly before registering for the broadcasting fee. In the ADKAR model, it is crucial that every citizen goes through the steps from top to bottom. Jeff Hiatt calls it a „Barrier Point” when someone gets stuck at one of the five steps. Measures for a later point also become inefficient if the previous steps have not been completed. The fourth step is that one must have the opportunity to use the offerings. Public broadcasters have already made numerous progresses in this regard and have adapted to the changing media usage behaviour of a younger audience through apps and digital content (such as media libraries, but especially on YouTube and social media channels like Instagram). Lastly, the offerings need to be integrated into the audience‘s everyday life. This ADKAR model of Prosci (see Hiatt, 2006) could be taken and applied to the onboarding of a young audience.

The model assumes that one knows where each citizen stands. This can be achieved, for example, through media research. Ultimately, in a system where new people are constantly facing this personal change of having to pay fees in the future, measures for all five ADKAR steps must be implemented parallel to each other. According to the Three-Phase Model by Prosci, it is also important to always assess where future fee payers stand, design and implement measures, and then evaluate those measures. 22

Other models also focus on creating awareness, as behavioural and attitudinal changes, in the case of the broadcasting fee, cannot be successful without it. Harvard professor John P. Kotter (1995, p. 65) developed an eight-step model that starts with „creating a sense of urgency.” From this model, two points can be added to complement the ADKAR model: building a leadership coalition and developing a vision and strategy. This means that for the public broadcasting system, it is important to find allies in society who are also convinced of the public value and stand up for the system publicly, like testimonials. A major success factor for Kotter is to develop a vision and strategy and then communicate it. This addresses the fact that young fee payers also want to understand the idea behind public broadcasting and what can be achieved with it in a democratic society.

In the 7+3 Change Management Model by Kaiser//Schwertner, Nicole Schwertner and Markus Kaiser (the author of this article) address two additional aspects of when changes are successfully accepted: storytelling

See https://www.prosci.com/methodology/3-phase-process, last viewed at 05.08.2024

and emotion (see Figure 2). 23 The best way to communicate a change is by telling a story. A story helps future fee payers to internalize for themselves why the broadcasting fees exists, what goals it pursues, and what vision it is based on. Storytelling, which has a long tradition in journalism, for example in the form of reporting, has also become popular in marketing and corporate communication. In change management, it ensures that the often technocratic-sounding goals can be communicated more vividly. It is recommended to tell the story with a protagonist: this could be a well-known presenter or actor, or a regular contributor, in order to communicate on an equal footing. Additionally, by creating personas beforehand, the target audience should be clearly addressed. (see Kaiser, 2019, p.26) Change management is not only directed at future fee payers; stakeholders also include the approximately 22,000 permanent employees and about 30,000 freelance employees of public broadcasting, who can support onboarding through their professional and private networks, for example through training, workshops, or information on the intranet.

Figure 2: The 7+3 Model Kaiser//Schwertner for Change Management.

Change processes work especially well when people are emotionally engaged and taken along. This naturally corresponds with the vision and storytelling, which must all be aligned. If the change process is explained in a technical or non-engaging way (as is currently the case with the website www.rundfunkbeitrag.de), without telling a story about the necessity of the change and how it all relates, and without emotionally captivating and igniting passion in future fee payers, it will be less accepted.24 In the 7+3 model, implementation follows storytelling and emotions, with the two change managers seeing it as a continuous cycle. Gaining acceptance from citizens for the broadcasting fee is ultimately not a closed process.

23 See https://change-expert.org/73-modell-kaiser-schwertner/, last viewed at 03.08.2024

24 See https://change-expert.org/73-modell-kaiser-schwertner/, last viewed at 03.08.2024

3. Media literacy for students: The first contacts with future fee payers

Awareness for the broadcasting fee should already be created among children and teenagers. Employees of public broadcasting corporations usually have their first personal and professional contacts with future fee payers through media literacy projects. According to the ARD website, classic school radio and school television have been part of educational content regarding the transmission of media knowledge. According to their information, the educational offerings of the ARD on the topic of media literacy have significantly increased: „The Hessischer Rundfunk supports schools in setting up their own school radio with its project ‚school.fm‘. The Westdeutscher Rundfunk offers workshops for teenagers in its media workshop ‚WDR Studio Zwei‘ and shows how to produce professional radio and television productions. These and many other of our media educational offerings are financed by the broadcasting fees and keeping in mind our educational mandate.”25 The Bayerischer Rundfunk has been offering the school radio project TurnOn for 20 years, where teenagers learn how to make their own radio with professionals from BR. 26

In addition, the ARD, the children‘s channel (KiKa), and regional broadcasting corporations organize an „ARD News Day” where teenagers, among other things, are allowed to participate in deciding which topics are covered. „They can experience how news reports, background reports, and live interviews are created for the popular news program from the ARD studios in Germany and around the world during the audience action ‚Mitmischen! bei der tagesschau‘,” explains the ARD. „They discuss the topic selection with the ‚tagesschau‘ team, participate in interactive workshops for example regarding how you can recognize disinformation on social media, and they get insights how an edition of the tagesschau in accessible languages is made.” 27

Nikos Seele from the Department of Contribution Communication at Südwestrundfunk (SWR) sees formats like the „ARD Young Reporters” initiated by BR and RBB and offered nationwide as the best way to create understanding for the work of public broadcasting: „Personal participation and experimentation are most effective and remain the most memorable.” Therefore, media literacy is best conveyed by allowing students

25 https://www.ard.de/die-ard/aufgaben-der-ard/Medienkompetenz-100/, last viewed at 05.08.2024 26

26 See https://www.br.de/medienkompetenzprojekte/inhalt/turnon/turnon-feiert-20-geburtstageinbesonderes-finale-jubilaeum-100.html, last viewed at 05.08.2024

27 https://www.ard.de/die-ard/medienkompetenz/nachrichtentag-100/,%20zuletzt%20abgerufen%20at%2005.08.2024

to try their hand at journalism. „No prior knowledge is required,” explains ARD. „ARD media professionals support young people in their implementation and publish their contributions: audios, videos, or posts on social media. The video contributions from the series can be found bundled in the ARD Mediathek.”28 During the project, young reporters learn how public journalism works and gain an unfiltered insight into the work of the editorial teams: „This creates programming on an equal footing because the perspectives and interests of the younger generation are more strongly included.”29 WDR offers a similar program for students called „Studio Zwei.” 30

During an annual Youth Media Day, students also gain insights into editorial work. Since not all students can be reached through this, public broadcasting institutions also offer programs for teachers who act as multipliers: For example, the Bayerischer Rundfunk offers media education training for teachers of all types of schools under the title „BR macht Schule” (BR does school). These trainings take place both in person and online. The diverse range of topics, which includes „making videos about disinformation” and „where do my news come from?” to „speaking and presenting correctly” and „how does TikTok work?” and „Instagram - a fake world?” but they do not primarily aim to create awareness for public broadcasting and the later payment of the broadcasting fee.31

Awareness for public broadcasting can also be created in school education. This is treated with differing intensity in different types of schools and in different federal states. In Bavarian high schools, the media landscape as a whole is covered in around 14 school hours. Public broadcasting is only a small part of the curriculum, and the financing through broadcasting fees is an even smaller aspect.32 In summary, there are numerous initiatives and projects in Germany to promote media literacy. However, these only partially address creating awareness for the financing of public broadcasting among young people, which seems reasonable since this is about media literacy and not communication about fees. Teachers cannot compensate for this deficit within the curriculum. Most offers are aimed at 12 to 18-year-old adolescents.

28 https://www.ard.de/die-ard/ard-young-reporter-100/, last viewed at 05.08.2024

29 Ebd.

30 See https://www1.wdr.de/unternehmen/der-wdr/medienundschule/wdrstudiozwei100.html, last viewed at 22.09.2024 31

31 See https://www.br.de/medienkompetenzprojekte/inhalt/der-br-macht-schule/br-macht-schule-az-alle-workshops-webworkshops-webtalks-seminare-fortbildungen-100.html, last viewed at 05.08.2024

32 See https://www.lehrplanplus.bayern.de/fachlehrplan/lernbereich/219006, last viewed at 05.08.2024

4. funk, PULS, Tagesschau on TikTok & Co.: Formats for the young target group

An important aspect for the acceptance of the broadcasting fee is that there is a corresponding offer in public broadcasting for the target group who are paying the fee for the first time. After a long debate about what a youth offering could look like, the youth offering „funk” by ARD and ZDF was launched in October 2016. Its mission is to reach 14 to 29-year-olds with its public broadcasting content. The basis for the establishment of „funk” was a decision by the prime ministers in October 2014 for a public broadcasting youth offering on the internet, which ARD and ZDF set up as a decentralized content network, without a traditional linear TV channel as a distribution channel.

According to its own statements, the goal of „funk” is to establish the different formats as part of the users‘ daily reality and to reach them with relevant content where they consume media content, namely on third-party platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat, but also Spotify. This distribution method, adapted to the media usage behaviour of the „funk” target group, is explicitly formulated in the State Treaty on Broadcasting. 33

„funk” relies on a variety of formats with strong individual brands rather than a brand strategy: „This means that the content shapes the brand and not the other way around. ‚funk‘ works with established figures in the web video scene as well as young talents. It is important in the selection of creatives that they have a distinct stance, represent the public broadcasting mission of ‚funk‘ credibly, and network with other ‚funk‘ formats. By linking or featuring protagonists in different ‚funk‘ formats, positive synergies can be generated through the network structure to increase reach.” 34

However, efforts are made to communicate the affiliation in content, for example through credits at SWR, the Maus, or Radio1, stating that this program has only become possible through the broadcasting fee. Florian Meyer-Hawranek, the „funk” representative of the Bayerischer Rundfunk and deputy editor-in-chief of „PULS,” also refers to a study that shows a different picture: „‘funk‘ has surveyed these affiliation assignments in a representative manner, also over time: The values are not that bad. Individual formats perform differently, but brands and channels like STR_F, MrWissen2go, and a format like ‚Die Frage‘ do not have bad values in terms of affiliation with ‚funk‘ and with ARD and ZDF, so to the public broadcasting system.”

33 See https://www.ard-media.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2018/0118_Feierabend_Philippi_Pust-Peters.pdf, last viewed at 15.08.2024

34 Ebd.

The representative awareness study for the „funk” target group as an online survey commissioned by SWR and ZDF Media Research in 2023 also shows that 72 percent of the „funk” target group have already used the offerings on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, or Spotify. 34 percent of 14- to 29-year-olds use „funk” formats online at least once a week. Overall, „funk” and the individual formats still have a high level of awareness of 86 percent in the target group. According to „funk,” this high value shows that the content network has been able to build a sustainable and strong connection to its target group since its founding in 2016. 60 percent of those who are familiar with the umbrella brand „funk” know, according to this survey, that the offer belongs to ARD and ZDF. 35

„In recent years, the brand ‚PULS‘ has also been getting closer to the BR,” explains Florian Meyer-Hawranek. „When ‚PULS‘ started more than ten years ago, it was fashionable to go outside with its own brand, especially to specifically target audiences that the BR as an umbrella brand had not reached. With a young brand like ‚PULS,‘ they should be offered their own home - one that they found emotionally appealing as well.” With increasing reach, the broadcaster behind „PULS” also moved more to the forefront - so that all users clearly know that the BR stands behind the young brand.

Public broadcasters also offer news services specifically for a younger audience. The BR, for example, has the „News-WG,” a format that was launched on Instagram in 2018 and clearly bears the addition „by BR24.” „funk” reports on federal politics in „die.da.oben” on Instagram, especially showing quotes from politicians and highlighting „how much fire there is in the Bundestag.”36

Even ARD aktuell, the editorial team behind Tagesschau, which has an average viewer age of over 63 for its main news broadcast at 8 pm, has developed its own format for a young audience. Patrick Weinhold, Head of Social Media at Tagesschau, explains, „For younger people, the 8 pm chime is no longer the element that structures their evening. To provide these groups with the relevant political and social information, we have also gone online and into social networks, accompanied by media research.” (Kaiser,2023, p.198-200)

According to Weinhold, this is the real success. The news program not only stands for serious news but also for a modern presentation, including younger presenters (ebd.): „Our core is classic news with a selection of to-

35 See https://presseportal.zdf.de/pressemitteilung/konstant-hohe-bekanntheit-von-funk, last viewed at 15.9.2024

36 https://www.instagram.com/die.da.oben, last viewed at 15.08.2024

pics that suits the respective user group. Contributions on diversity, climate, and equality also find ample space here.” Weinhold described the next step as binding these target groups more strongly to their own platforms. However, for now, the focus is on making the Tagesschau brand known to the target group that is not or not yet reached through existing channels. Therefore, the social media editorial team initially relies on an offsite strategy rather than primarily redirecting to their own pages (ebd.).

In summary, there is a diverse range of offerings for a young audience on various external channels provided by public broadcasters. However, it is not always apparent that these are formats from ARD or ZDF, as different brand strategies are being pursued. This means that these offerings only partially contribute to creating awareness of the broadcasting fee.

5. Overview and access to all existing offerings: What a technical solution could look like

The Public Value Technologies GmbH (pub) in Munich, the digital subsidiary of BR and SWR, has developed a prototype for desktop, tablet, and smartphone that shows fee payers what program offerings they receive for their broadcasting fee. Users can access the relevant and interesting offerings through the entry page. Technically possible, for example, after submitting the data - or even better, before - when registering on www. rundfunkbeitrag.de, a pop-up window (Figure 3) could open and link to the development of pub, explained Managing Director Gert Kauntz. „Then fee payers would immediately be confronted with the added value they receive, and the broadcasting fee would be perceived less as an obligation.” In other words, they would be shown their individual value.

Figure 3: Screenshot of the prototype

According to Christian Gärtner from ARD ZDF Deutschlandradio fee service, from a legal perspective, data protection must be considered: The personal data collected by the fee service may only be used for the collection of the broadcasting fee. Due to this purpose limitation, it is not possible, for example, to offer region-specific content based on the previously entered postal code. Furthermore, ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandradio would have to agree on the content and presentation of the website. A final legal evaluation of the prototype has not yet been conducted.

Users can also indicate their age so that appropriate recommendations can be provided. They can also select categories that specifically interest them, such as politics, entertainment, culture, knowledge, sports, music, locality, children & family, or movies & series (Figure 4). The app could illustrate what the fee payer can expect, particularly through selected protagonists of the broadcasters, such as presenters and actors. A list shows all the apps launched by ARD. The diverse events of the public broadcasters, including comedy & cabaret, concerts & parties, and sports & health, are also presented, as they are also financed by broadcasting fees.

„So far, there is no such meta-offering,” explains Kauntz, adding that the content could also be curated by an editorial team. This would allow subscribers to receive offers from broadcasters in states where they do not live, but that are thematically relevant to their interests. „Personalization, in this case, is understood as filtering based on metadata, which is a subset of the dataset, and later on, also through a recommendation

Figure 4: Screenshot of the prototype

algorithm.” It would also be possible to filter for offers available on specific devices such as smartphones or voice assistant systems like Alexa (Figure 5).

5: Prototype screenshot

Through the content of this app, not only the descriptively described Public Value becomes visible, but also the Individual Value for each individual contributor. In addition, it is made clear what is possible with the help of the user through the broadcasting fee, without it being directly visible:

„With your help, we can...

• report directly on site from a nationwide network of regional studios

• broadcast live from 30 foreign studios around the world

• uncover misconduct through investigative research

• support festivals and culture through media partnerships

• provide over 200,000 videos in the ARD media library

• combat fake news with the ARD fact checker

• offer high-quality and non-commercial children‘s programming

• expand barrier-free offerings.”

Gert Kauntz and his team would also like to prominently place a contact form at the end of the one-pager or the app to engage in dialogue with the fee payers: „Your channel to us. Send us your suggestions for improvement and help shape the offering!”

The prototype of the pub app was created as part of a „20 time project”: employees were allowed to pitch ideas and work on a project for almost two months, dedicating 20 percent of their work time to it. The prototype

Figure

was further developed based on user studies, so that feedback has already been incorporated here.

6. Recommendations and Conclusion

The public broadcasting system in Germany has a diverse range of offerings for younger target groups, as shown in this public value study. In addition, there are numerous media literacy projects by different broadcasting institutions that target both students and teachers in their role as multipliers. However, not all projects contribute to creating an awareness of the necessity of a broadcasting fee. In fact, individual program offerings often remain unknown as formats of public broadcasting.

1. The broadcasting institutions are reconsidering their brand strategy and, as already implemented in the ARD Audiothek, aim to present themselves under a unified brand name. While it was initially important for platforms like „funk” to establish their own identity and avoid being associated with the perceived staleness of public broadcasting, it seems appropriate from an onboarding perspective to clearly indicate the source of the offering. A good example is ARD aktuell, whose editorial team also operates under the well-known brand name „Tagesschau” on social media platforms like TikTok.

2. The offerings of public broadcasting are being launched on an increasing number of platforms, including their own websites, apps, linear broadcasting, as well as third-party platforms like social media channels, YouTube, Twitch, etc. This is a sensible and contemporary approach, as it is important to provide content where potential users already spend their time, from a cross-media perspective. However, this also necessitates the need to consolidate the diverse offerings. A technical solution could be the website or app of Public Value Technologies GmbH, as presented in Chapter 5, and the Program-O-Mat of SWR, if they were prominently embedded on the websites of the broadcasting fee service and ard. de. Such a solution would allow users to easily and clearly see what offerings are available to them from public broadcasters, without having to conduct extensive research themselves. Furthermore, this solution would enable topic-centered recommendations to be made, without only presenting individual media formats such as text, audio, or video. Creating this or a similar platform is urgently needed, when keeping in mind the recommendation marketing used by streaming services like Netflix.

3. The onboarding of future fee payers must be understood as an actively managed task. Models from the field of change management

are suitable for this purpose. It appears crucial to develop measures that contribute to creating an awareness of the necessity of the broadcasting fee. It also requires storytelling to move away from a purely technocratic explanation for the public value. In addition, the individual value, tailored to the respective age and other sociodemographic factors, needs to be emphasized more strongly.

4. The future of search engines is being heavily discussed due to the increasing popularity of chat systems based on artificial intelligence technologies with large language models. If ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Perplexity, or other comparable tools become more important and answer engines replace search engines, search engine optimization (SEO) for public broadcasters will look different, for example, to redirect Google News users to their own channels. This change could lead to a significant shift in traffic in favour of AI websites, which is why the trend also needs to be closely monitored and accompanied from the perspective of the brand perception of public broadcasters.37

5. The final recommendation is addressed to the ministries of education of the federal states and education policymakers: A media world that is still undergoing transformation and facing further radical changes due to artificial intelligence should be accompanied by a mandatory subject of media studies at all types of schools and in all grades. When teaching media competence, it is not primarily about acquiring programming skills or using devices such as tablets, but about media literacy. In this subject, in addition to the structure of the media system, the importance of intermediaries such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Google, and the role of journalism in a democracy, it should also be shown how sources can be verified and how fake news and deep fakes can be recognized, as well as why independent fact-checking portals such as the ARD-Faktenfinder or the BR-Faktenfuchs are so significant. This can also contribute to the acceptance of the broadcasting fee that students will have to pay later on.

As quoted in the introduction, the „Augsburger Allgemeine” is of the opinion that ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandradio have the opportunity to show that they are worth their billions in fees. In fact, as this article has shown, there still seem to be untapped possibilities for the public broadcasting sector to present and communicate its diverse offerings even better to its fee payers. Promising ideas for this purpose are already on the table.

37 See https://www.blog-cj.de/2024/07/07/ki-statt-googeln/, last viewed at 29.8.2024

References

Hiatt, J. (2006): ADKAR: a model for change in business, government and our community. Fort Collins/USA: Prosci Research.

Kaiser, M. (2019): Vom Newsroom bis zu digitalen Geschäftsmodellen. Change-Prozesse in Medienunternehmen und Kommunikationsabteilungen. In: Kaiser, M., Rückert, T. & Schwertner, N. (Hrsg.). Change in der Medien- und Kommunikationsbranche. Ein Leitfaden für Veränderungsprozesse und die digitale Zukunft, München: Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung.

Kaiser, M./Schwertner, N. (2020). Change Management in der Kommunikationsbranche, Wiesbaden: SpringerVS. Kaiser, M. (2023): Social Media. In: Wiske, J./Kaiser, M.: Journalismus und PR. Arbeitsweisen, Spannungsfelder, Chancen, Köln: Herbert-von-Halem-Verlag.

Kotter, J. (1995): Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. In: Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

EASIER AND IICT INNOVATIONS IN THE FIELD OF ACCESSIBILITY AT SRG

KEVIN HOFER

Deaf people encounter various challenges in their lives, according to deaf individual Martina: „I manage well in my everyday life. It‘s more unexpected events that pose challenges for me. For example, in an emergency when I need to contact emergency services.” She also finds it frustrating that the latest news is not always available in her native language, sign language.

On television, this is only the case for certain formats. However, there has been some progress in this area. The Swiss Radio and Television Corporation (SRG) has committed themselves at the end of 2022 to bringing more programs in sign language and subtitling all programs by 2027. While this is positive for deaf individuals, it poses a significant challenge for the SRG. Therefore, the corporation is involved in several projects with various partners.

1. Background

People with disabilities have a right to inclusion. Their social participation is also a political mandate according to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – and thus a requirement for publicly funded broadcasters. However, these broadcasters are increasingly under pressure as they receive less and less government funding. Subtitling, sign language interpretation, or audio description cost money, especially for live broadcasts.

There is great potential to reduce the costs of these services through automation using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Significant progress has been made in this field in recent years. The SRG, including its subsidiary SwissTXT, has been involved in several research projects in this area. Two of them extensively deal with accessibility and the inclusion of people with disabilities: Easier and Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies (IICT). The latter takes a holistic approach, while the former focuses exclusively on sign language.

2. Automating Sign Language

Easier aims to bring automated translations in sign language closer to reality. However, this is not an easy task, as almost every country has its

own sign language with local variations in the form of dialects, just like spoken languages.

People who are born completely deaf primarily communicate using sign language. For them, the surrounding spoken language is a foreign language. In order for them to participate in society according to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, information needs to be provided in their language. Currently, this is mostly done by having a person translate news broadcasts into sign language. However, this is a costly process. With limited financial resources, it is simply not possible to translate every news program on television. This is where Easier comes in.

Ambitious goals with Easier

Easier was part of the Horizon2020 research and innovation program of the European Union. Giacomo Inches coordinated the project on behalf of his employer, Martel Innovate. He explains, „The project proposal was very ambitious. The goal was to develop an app for real-time translation of sign language.”

However, it was also important to involve the deaf community in the project. „At Easier I as the project-coordinator was in constant communication with various deaf organizations such as the Swiss Federation of the Deaf (SGB-FSS) or the European Union of the Deaf.”, explains Giacomo Inches. In doing so he received feedback mainly regarding ethical concerns about data usage and how sign language is represented.

Easier has greatly benefited from technological advancements, especially in the field of AI. A software can now recognize signs in videos, whereas in the past, special cameras and sensors were required. Inches explains, „In the final part of the automatic sign language translation, we use Large Language Models.” Large Language Models, short LLMs, are a type of AI that can recognize and produce language. The most wellknown example is OpenAI‘s ChatGPT.

The recognition process works as follows: To transfer a person‘s sign language from the screen to a computer, data needs to be extracted. First, a camera captures the image of a signing person. Then, a machine learning algorithm is used to extract key points from the image. These points are fed into the algorithm, which parameterizes the signs. „With these values, we create a database. The values correspond to a specific text. This way, the algorithm recognizes that this text can be reduced to the image with the defined parameters,” explains Inches. The algorithm al-

ways searches for corresponding matches, whether it‘s text for a sign or text for spoken language. The recognition of hand poses is particularly challenging, as it needs to overcome issues such as poor image quality, occlusions, motion blur, or hand interactions. Therefore, the estimation of hand and body posture is done separately.

Many challenges and data scarcity

„But it‘s not only the recognition of poses that was challenging for us, but also their output,” says Giacomo Inches, referring to how the translation from spoken language to sign language for the deaf is presented. „We also experimented with stick figures for this purpose. However, the deaf community did not respond well to them. This is not surprising, as the position of the hands is not easily recognizable in such a simplified representation.”

Thanks to technological progress, working with so-called deepfake videos is now possible. These are videos generated by AI that are almost indistinguishable from real recordings. In deepfakes, the person performing the signs appears to be real, even though they are digitally created.

However, hand poses were only one part of a larger, more fundamental problem - data scarcity. „The mentioned algorithms that recognize signs work well to obtain an approximate result. To achieve an exact result, they require a lot of training,” says Inches. Training in this case means having data, data, and more data. Without sufficient data, the AI produces poor results. In comparison, there is a hundredfold more data available for spoken language translation than for sign language. That‘s why translations in spoken language are relatively reliable compared to sign language.

Other factors, such as different sentence structures, also play a role. Not every sentence follows the subject-verb-object pattern. Inches concludes, „We are aware that we won‘t obtain perfect sentences or that errors may occur.”

In any case, algorithms would not pay attention to the order „subject - verb - object”, but to the input examples. In addition, sign language is structured differently than spoken language. „That‘s why we give the algorithm complete sentences in sign language, each corresponding to a section of a video. This way, the algorithm learns not only from individual words or sentence parts, but from a larger selection of expressions,” explains Inches.

According to the project leader, algorithms capture the structure of sign language better than spoken language, which is why they also reproduce

it better: „This makes translation easier for us. As for errors, the algorithm learns from examples and provides an approximation in the end.” The algorithm compares signs with the captured data. Then it outputs which data most closely matches the signs. The reliability of the translation decreases when the examples bear little resemblance to the captured data. This can happen, for example, when a person does not fully master sign language.

Currently, translation is mainly an approximation. It is still a long way to go until it delivers reliable results. „In sign language translation, we are now where we were over 30 years ago in spoken language translation,” says Giacomo Inches.

No app, but many new insights.

The goal of creating an app for fully automatic sign language translation was not achieved. It was simply too ambitious for the Easier project, which was completed in late 2023. „Nevertheless, we have made important technological progress,” says Inches. Equally important as these are the societal effects of the project, according to Inches: „Thanks to constant exchange, we have strengthened acceptance of the technologies in the deaf communities. Despite the lack of an app, I consider the project a great success.”

However, more research and innovation in the field are needed in order to implement automatic sign language translation in everyday life. Therefore, Inches concludes: „Creating an app will require many more years of work and, above all, financial support for further projects.”

3.

Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies (IICT)

Easier was just one of several accessibility projects that SwissTXT and therefore SRG are involved in. Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies (IICT) is another program. This is part of the flagship initiative of the Swiss Agency for Innovation Promotion Innosuisse.

IICT has economic and social goals (https://www.iict.uzh.ch/en.html). On the economic side, accessibility services should be made more efficient. On the social side, more information and communication for people with disabilities are aimed for. In addition, additional types of communication and information should be made accessible to them. To achieve this, research and implementation partners work together. The idea behind it: The research should be implemented in practice by the implementation partners. Any practice partners can be responsible for

integration, not just from the business sector. Non-profit organizations also work with IICT.

IICT includes five sub-projects:

• Automatic text simplification

• Audio description

• Spoken subtitles

• Sign language verification

• Sign language translation

Among other things, AI-based approaches are pursued in all sub-projects. „Currently, there is a lot going on in the field of AI. And the development is progressing very quickly. Here we must react quickly and adapt,” says program manager Sarah Ebling from the University of Zurich. The projects rely on a participatory approach, according to the program manager: „It is important to us that we work with the target groups on all projects.”

The coordination between the projects, the target groups, and partners is a major challenge, as the following statement shows: „The parties involved partly have different needs. But so far we have always found each other.”

At first glance, the sub-projects only seem loosely connected - they all deal with accessibility. However, the program is more than the sum of its parts, says Sarah Ebling: „We constantly create synergies. For example, by using common AI approaches.”

According to the program director, the various models for generating images, text, and audio have converged in recent years. In the past, different approaches were pursued. Today, they are similar in structure, leading to more synergies and avoiding duplications.

A closer look at the sub-projects „audio description,” „spoken subtitles,” and „sign language translation” reveals their similarities.

Audio description and spoken subtitles

Audio description (AD) enables visually impaired people to access visual content. Relevant actions and features of films, series, or documentaries, including the text displayed in the video, are described acoustically. The focus of the IICT sub-project is on pre-produced audio descriptions. The current process is mainly characterized by human work. First, the broadcast material is needed, the video with timecodes, and, if available, a dialogue list or script. Based on this material, an AD script is crea-

ted. „There are conventions on how audio descriptions should be structured. This includes not patronizing people with visual impairments,” says Sarah Ebling. The script is recorded in the studio in the presence of a blind person to ensure that they can imagine what is being said. Then, the AD is mixed and finalized.

That‘s the current process. The goal for the IICT project is to introduce an automation level and the use of advanced speech synthesis. This means that the AD scripts should be created semi-automatically through visual scene recognition and text generation, with the help of AI. The whole process is semi-automatic because the scripts are still revised by a trained person. „Currently, the systems are not good enough for the AD to be created solely by machines. The goal is to increase efficiency with the help of the machine,” explains Ebling. In sign language, an AI is fed with data for this purpose and from productions that already have an AD the image-text pair is put into the system. Independence is also of great value in this process, according to Ebling: „We mainly use our own models and not commercial ones like GPT-4. Our partners want to be independent of the big companies and are therefore interested in their own models.”

Creating AD for AI models is complex because it is difficult to extract visually relevant features from the image. Furthermore, the resulting descriptions need to be inserted during the pauses in the source material. „Speech pause detection now works relatively well, which is a great relief for those creating AD,” says Sarah Ebling. So, there is already some level of editorial support through the progress made in the project. However, the automatic creation of AD scripts is still in the research stage.

The AD script is then either spoken by a person or generated by speech synthesis, which is an artificially created voice. However, the latter is only occasionally used in audio descriptions.

The spoken subtitles are also aimed at people with visual impairments. Foreign subtitles are translated and generated in the respective native language using speech synthesis. This is a relatively simple use case for AI models because it primarily involves translating text and using speech synthesis, both of which are already well developed. „The challenge here is to ensure that the speech synthesis also conveys emotions effectively,” says Ebling. This is currently the focus of research. However, researchers are also working on code switching, which involves pronouncing French terms in French even when translated into German. For example, „Bellevue” would be pronounced as „bel · wüh” and not „belle · wue.”

Sign language translation

The IICT subproject on sign language translation overlaps with the Easier project to some extent. However, IICT distinguishes between two types: semi-automatic and fully automatic translation. The difference between interpreting and translation is also important. The former happens live, while the latter is done with a time delay.

„With semi-automatic translation, we want to support deaf translators in working faster,” says Ebling. Currently, the process works as follows: a deaf person receives the program in spoken language with subtitles. Based on these subtitles, the person creates a script in sign language and performs it in front of the camera. This process is very time-consuming, which is why efficiency improvement is sought. In the future, the script will be created by an AI, and the deaf person will only need to make adjustments.

The researchers at IICT are currently approaching fully automatic translation in two areas: a restricted one and an open one - analogous to the Easier project: „We only achieve reasonably good results when the domain being translated is very limited in semantics and syntax,” which applies to alarm messages from „Alert Swiss,” for example. On the information platform of the Federal Office for Civil Protection, all relevant information on preparedness and behaviour in disasters and emergencies in Switzerland is gathered.

„These messages are standardized and modular in such a way that a good quality of translation can be guaranteed,” Sarah Ebling points out. In this case, the researchers do not rely on AI. Instead, the provided sign language building blocks are assigned one-to-one to the messages.

In another area of fully automatic translation, IICT continues the research work from the Easier project. „This is still in its infancy. We are still far from a usable solution - even in areas with limited semantics and syntax,” says Ebling. On a difficulty scale, the weather report would be at the lower end, while the news would be at the upper end. „It‘s about making progress step by step. Unfortunately, little has been invested in research so far.”

The data is still missing to train automatic sign language translation end-to-end, meaning directly from spoken language to sign language. Therefore, the researchers also consider translating into a sign language writing. This is not used in the everyday life of deaf people, but mainly in research. In a so-called low-resource setting, when there is little data

available, translation works better with this intermediate step. The actual translation is separated from the recognition of signs or spoken language and is done in several steps. For example, from a sign language video to a text in sign language script and finally to a spoken language text. However, according to Sarah Ebling, the ultimate goal remains the end-to-end translation from spoken language to sign language and vice versa.

Even if automatic sign language translation works in a way that provides usable results, AI has not yet finished learning. Language changes and AI needs to be continuously fed with more data. It is an ongoing process, and new data cannot be added at fixed time points, it must happen continuously. This also improves reliability.

Midway through IICT

The IICT research program lasts from 2022 to 2026. Even though it is broad with its five sub-projects, Sarah Ebling does not consider it too large: „It‘s always good to have loose ends for future projects.”

For the professor at the University of Zurich, it is particularly important that deaf people and other users of sign language are actively involved in the research: „We are constantly seeking exchange. This is especially important for sign language. Technologies have been developed for years without involving the deaf community, which has led to dissatisfaction and fears. Our motto is: Wherever human translation can be used; we do not want to replace it with our technology. We want to use it where translation by humans is not possible. Therefore, what we are doing is an addition.” But even in automatic translation, the human aspect should not be forgotten, and those affected should be involved in its development. Martina, who is deaf, sees it similarly: „In recent years, there have been enormous technological advances. In emergencies, I can now contact emergency services through an app. On one hand, this is positive because technology helps me. On the other hand, I would also like to know in which direction technology is developing.”

Sarah Ebling says: „IICT is a matter close to my heart. My hope is that it will provide a boost in the accessibility field.” In 2024, the ten-year anniversary of the implementation of the Disability Equality Act in Switzerland will be celebrated. There is a lot happening in this area socially because it is being discussed, according to Ebling: „With rapid progress like with LLM, there is also a lot happening in the technological field. But it is also important in this process to ensure that people with disabilities are not disadvantaged.”

4. Fewer barriers, but new challenges

The projects Easier and IICT go beyond broadcasting. They provide benefits not only to the SRG but to society as a whole. Accessibility is making important progress thanks to the research. However, it should not be forgotten that the SRG‘s involvement in research was paradoxically initiated by the pressure to save money. The use of AI can increase efficiency and reduce the cost of human labour, which is a major cost driver. So, even in the accessibility projects, it‘s about money. This was strongly expressed in the Easier research project, which was expected to deliver a marketable product.

Easier and the other projects show that accessibility is a process that will never be completed. It shares this characteristic with learning - both by humans and artificial intelligence. The latter can only learn from us; it cannot (yet) have its own insights and experiences. Despite all technological progress, it will also be important in the future not to forget the human aspect. Because research shows: It only works together. Designing solutions is a process that requires the participation of all those affected.

PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA AND AN AI-MEDIATED INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM

DAVID CASWELL, STORYFLOW LTD. & CHRISTINA ELMER, INSTITUT FÜR JOURNALISTIK, TU DORTMUND

Even within a constantly changing world some changes are vastly more consequential than others, because they fundamentally remake the societies in which they occur. These pivotal changes are often driven by technological innovations, and especially by ‘general-purpose’ innovations: the printing press; combustion engines; electricity; radio and television; the computer; the internet. Each of these general-purpose technologies caused a cascade of change that left societies very different than they were before the innovation emerged. We are now in the early years of a new general-purpose innovation with the potential to render our societies unrecognizable within just a few decades.

AI, in the form of deep learning neural networks, began its transition from a fringe research topic into a useful technology about a decade ago. By the late 2010’s the abilities of AI were already so dramatic that they surprised even those at the frontier of the field, and the public release of powerful AI models in 2021 and 2022 left no doubt that unprecedented automation of cognitive labor and expertise was on the horizon. Behind this rapid acceleration of AI’s capabilities lies a critical observation – that larger and larger models, trained with more and more data using more and more computation, produce exponentially better results. These so-called ‘scaling laws’ mean that progress in the raw capabilities of AI is inexorably and rigorously predictable, almost in the sense of a natural law. That predictability has drawn vast investment, now exceeding a trillion euro, into new AI models and new applications of those models by start-ups, platforms, and governments. Much of this is hype, of course, as was much of the early investment in the internet, but the underlying potential of this technology is apparent to anyone who spends an hour with ‘ChatGPT’. We are entering a new era.

Most Public Service Media (PSM) organizations in Europe originated in response to an earlier general-purpose technological innovation. Like AI, radio was a technology that deeply disrupted one of the foundations of a cohesive society – the flow of information. Governments and public advocates quickly saw that this new capability brought both risks and opportunities, and they acted to ensure that radio would become a net benefit for society. Beginning with the BBC in 1922, new entrepreneurial organizations were set up across Europe to engage with the emerging

technology, to learn how to use it to deliver new public value, and to demonstrate a socially beneficial alternative to purely commercial or political applications. They developed a broad interpretation of their mandate, and used the new medium to inform, educate and entertain their audiences. This interpretation was successful, and it was successfully extended to television in the 1940’s and 50’s, and then to the internet. As we enter the era of AI, therefore, this legacy of public service provides a precedent, or even a template, for how to adapt and direct fundamentally disruptive technological innovation for the public good.

For Public Service Media, AI is essentially a new medium, like radio or the internet. Although this is not technically true, and although AI is also a tool that can be applied to many tasks within legacy media production, the capabilities and opportunities available from AI are so significant that it may be useful to consider it as a fundamentally new medium – perhaps as the first content production ‘medium’ rather than as another content distribution medium. Consider the possibilities of this new medium: personalized and adaptive consumption experiences that are deeply relevant and truly accessible to every consumer; conversational interfaces and persistent AI personas that resemble trusted human relationships; newsgathering agents that can read, listen to and synthesize every word communicated in the public domain; expert analysis and guidance available to everyone, at any moment; unprecedented creativity as millions of people use AI tools to express themselves in new ways. These possibilities highlight a special responsibility for PSM in the AI era. As AI transforms our experience of information we will need socially beneficial alternatives to commercial or political applications, and demonstrations of new public value – public services that will be as important for AI as they were for radio.

For today’s PSM providers, this will be challenging. Unlike the founders of their organizations, who began with a clean slate, today’s managers and editors of PSM providers must transition into the AI era from a legacy situation in which they remain responsible for delivering traditional audio, video, and digital content and products to audiences with traditional media consumption habits. AI’s ‘general-purpose’ nature will be an advantage here because it offers a pragmatic path to a transformed future that begins with augmenting and automating familiar tasks within existing workflows to deliver traditional products. Sooner or later, however, the weight of AI-induced change will likely lead to a new AI-mediated information ecosystem, as AI-augmented competition grows, platforms and start-ups launch new AI media products and audience expectations change. Starting small while thinking big is therefore essential for navigating this transition.

This article examines options available to PSM providers for following this pragmatic path. We will begin with a review of AI applications and products that have already been deployed by both legacy media providers and by new entrants into the media space. We will then look at the current and coming challenges facing PSM and review opportunities for practical responses to these using AI. Turning to the coming transformation of the information ecosystem, we will consider three broad options: Listening as a service; Access as a service; and Data as a service and show how early practical steps might contribute to each of these strategies. We will then conclude with a vision of what societally beneficial and sustainable PSM might look like within an AI-mediated information ecosystem.

AI in current media practice

Innovation in media has accelerated dramatically since 2021, when the first useful and accessible large language model (LLM) became widely available. Innovation projects, prototypes and products that had previously been attempted by only a handful of well-resourced publishers and broadcasters are now routinely undertaken by a wide range of media participants, including small publishers and even individuals. These projects can be grouped into two over-lapping categories: AI-assisted media production workflows and AI-enabled audience experiences. In each of these categories, current use in newsrooms appears to be broad but shallow. Many newsrooms are experimenting, prototyping, and even implementing AI solutions but are doing so only on a small percentage of their operational tasks or to reach a small percentage of their traffic. Both categories are also primarily focused on ‘language tasks’, in which AI is used only to do language operations on an original source text, and far less commonly on ‘knowledge tasks’, in which knowledge contained within the AI model or in a connected database is used to produce the content.

AI-assisted workflows: A common approach to augmenting media production workflows using AI is to build a single tool or framework that can support many kinds of specific AI-assisted tasks, both in the present and into the future. One example is the ‘AI Toolbox’ built by Schibsted’s Verdens Gang (VG) – a premium news publisher in Norway – which provides a single interface with access to a wide range of assistive functions, including summarization, chart creation, story follow-up, transcription, headline suggestions and data extraction for data journalism. This toolbox is not merely a simple ‘prompt wrapper’ that simplifies access to ‘ChatGPT’ but also utilizes advanced techniques such as AI agents and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) to produce more accurate drafts. A more

advanced example is the MAGNA framework developed by JP/Politikens Hus in Denmark and first used in their leading digital publication ‘Ekstra Bladet’. The MAGNA framework not only provides much of the functionality of VG’s AI Toolbox, but also incorporates advanced feedback loops in which journalist edits are systematically collected and used to fine tune AI models for better and better results. Similar tools have been built by many other publishers, including Ippen Digital in Munich and even by small regional newsrooms like ‘Ostfriesen Zeitung’ in Northwestern Germany. These tools are also a relatively common product of AI start-ups targeting media markets, including Symbolic.ai, LedeAI and Nota.

A contrasting approach to supporting AI-augmented workflows is to provide journalists and media producers with facilitated access directly to an underlying AI language model. This approach enables far more personal agency and creativity in its users, while requiring them to learn how to prompt models and critically evaluate the results within a moderated user interface. Examples of this approach in PSM include YLE in Finland and SVT in Sweden, and it is also currently in use at news agencies such as Reuters. An interesting characteristic of the interfaces at YLE and SVT (termed ‘YLE GPT’ and ‘SVT GPT’ respectively) is the decision to make prompts and results visible to all users, thereby enabling collective learning across the organization while also encouraging high quality through social judgment.

Several other approaches to implementing AI in media workflows are also present in the current ecosystem. The default approach is to leave decisions about the use of AI entirely to individual employees, either lightly guided by general principles at best or entirely uncontrolled and unmonitored by the organization at worst. Another approach is to build an entirely technical and often fully automated AI-powered workflow around relatively low-risk or non-editorial tasks, such as tagging, SEO metadata or analytics tasks. Some newsrooms have also built specialized AI-centered workflows around a single newsroom objective or product. AI-enabled audience experiences: Approaches to AI-enabled audience experiences are similarly varied and most are, by design, relatively familiar to traditional audiences. A common approach is to use AI and AI-enabled workflows to produce discrete elements of content that are ancillary to an underlying article or script, such as headlines, sub-headlines, captions, context boxes, short summaries, graphs, charts, illustrations, etc. Generation of these supportive elements can increase the value of the underlying content to audiences or enable new audiences to access the essence of the material. A more ambitious approach uses AI to either substantially re-write original material, or to produce original

drafts of articles or scripts from underlying source material – for example the re-writing of articles into scripts that are then read by synthetic voices to produce audio experiences, implemented by Aftenposten in Norway, or the production of descriptive draft articles from simple templated text at scale, implemented by NewsQuest in the UK. Some legacy media organizations have launched new audience experiences that have no equivalent in the legacy media ecosystem, such as chatbots that allow users to ask questions of a publisher’s archive and receive succinct and well-referenced responses.

Innovation by non-legacy players: These different approaches taken by publishers and broadcasters to AI-assisted workflows and AI-enabled audience experiences are relatively incremental. They generally modify and improve the status quo rather than replace it and are therefore unlikely to cause dramatic changes in either the societal relevance of the media producer or in the empowerment of the media consumer. The most potentially transformative AI-driven innovation in media, with the most investment and most technically skilled staff, is occurring elsewhere – in platforms, start-ups and even in the devices of consumers.

Platforms: The most obvious example of AI-driven transformational innovation in media occurring at platforms is generative search, such as Google’s ‘Search Generative Experience’ or ‘Perplexity.AI’, and in conversational interfaces like ‘ChatGPT’. These products are essentially two variants of a single theme – ‘lean forward’ or ‘pull’ interactive access to information obtained from across multiple source documents and videos, using a RAG architecture. It is yet uncertain whether media consumers will engage with ‘pull’ sources of information at scale, but if they do then these platforms might essentially capture the information consumption experience from the underlying publisher or broadcaster. Consumer experience of ‘pull’ forms of media might also become quite different from just asking questions and receiving replies and could plausibly resemble human relationships like tutors or advisors more than traditional search or ‘Q & A’.

A very different and potentially more transformative AI media product has been developed and launched by X (previously Twitter) and its sister company X.ai. Called ‘X Stories’, this is essentially a complete endto-end news workflow that operates automatically at vast scale, entirely without human oversight. ‘X Stories’ continually ‘reads’ the firehose of posts on X, detects and extracts narratives from across multiple posts, and then presents those narratives to consumers as short machine-written articles. ‘X Stories’ is fundamentally different from generative search

or conversational interfaces because it is a ‘lean back’ or ‘push’ news product rather than a ‘pull’ news product, and therefore does not require any question or input from consumers to generate an experience. The stories it produces are highly customized to the consumer based on their consumption behavior on X, and the effect at the moment of consumption is therefore very much like having a personal newsroom for each consumer.

Start-ups: Similar innovation is occurring within an increasing cohort of media-related start-ups. Many of these start-ups have identified opportunities for products or workflows that are similar to the approach pursued by X. One example is AppliedXL, a company founded by a former research lead at the Wall Street Journal and focused on ‘Journalistic AI’. AppliedXL’s business model is to initially focus on niche profit-generating news domains such as pharmaceutical trials and regulatory filings, but their ambition extends to most journalistic domains. Their workflow is essentially to use AI for systematic newsgathering at enormous scale, identify relevant stories within that information, and produce valuable experiences of those stories. Other startups, such as Symbolic.AI, are pursuing similar agendas, often as a long-term vision for an initial product offering focused on more immediately practical tools.

A more common and less ethical category of start-up aggressively applying generative AI to media is the ‘AI aggregator’. These are typically small, technology-only organizations, without any editorial involvement, who scrape content from publishers and use AI to paraphrase it into articles and videos that fit the demands of search and social media consumption. NewsGuard, a company that monitors the information ecosystem, has identified almost 1000 of these websites, and many (like NewsGPT. AI) are blatantly exploitive. Some, like TheNewsroom.AI, seek to add value by providing additional AI-driven analysis, but few do direct newsgathering or provide additional analysis beyond that available from AI. Consumers: It is becoming increasingly clear that AI is providing a diverse set of tools and products that will enable consumers to become much more powerful within the information ecosystem. Some of this new consumer power comes from a more competitive media ecosystem, but some will result from new opportunities for media consumers to directly control their own consumption experiences. Generative AI is increasingly being built into apps (Yahoo! News), browsers (the Arc Browser), operating systems (Copilot+ PC and Apple Intelligence) and even hardware (Google Pixel), allowing consumers to choose how they will consume content and therefore enabling them to ignore the linguistic, stylistic and cultural choices of authors, editors and producers. If direct consu-

mer control of the consumption experience becomes common behavior, then media producers may face fundamental questions about what they should produce – their market may become the machines that build custom experiences for consumers.

AI will also empower consumers as producers of media – so-called ‘prosumers’ who both consume and produce media and who are already common in the TikTok era. The traditional PSM assumption of a mass audience receiving the output of a ‘top-down’ media production process might struggle to compete for attention with AI-empowered prosumers.

Opportunities and challenges for Public Service Media in the short term The developments described above, and the pace at which they are occurring, could present enormous challenges to PSM providers. They would also not face these new challenges from a stable and secure position within the information ecosystem, because they have not yet successfully adapted to the democratization of content distribution enabled by the internet and social media. This failure to adapt manifests itself in many ways: The difficulty in building consumption habits in digital natives and the resulting aging of the legacy PSM audience; The inexorable loss of share of attention amid overwhelming competition; The resulting loss of cultural relevance as PSMs play a lesser and lesser role in the lives of audiences; and the inevitable increasing pressure on funding models – license fees, government support, and even advertising – as relevance dwindles and differentiation from commercial media becomes more difficult.

This decline now threatens to accelerate under the influence of AI on the media ecosystem. New competition and new categories of competition loom, loss of control to AI-first media producers and AI-empowered consumers is a real possibility, and even continued access to essential distribution channels like search are in question. Meanwhile, there is uncertainty about the fundamental shape of the emerging AI-mediated information ecosystem, and even the public service needs of societies in a world of ubiquitous AI are unclear. There are valid reasons for pessimism about the future of Public Service Media.

But there are also valid reasons for optimism. The emergence of AI presents an opportunity for PSM providers to fundamentally reset their role in society in ways that restore the relevance they enjoyed in the pre-digital era. AI offers PSM providers and the societies they serve the opportunity for a ‘new deal’ centered on public service information – a new, necessary and permanent purpose in a digital world.

Even the lowest levels of ambition are ripe with opportunity. Using AI to merely execute existing strategies with greater efficiency is a straightforward place to start. This could be interpreted as crude cost-cutting but would be better viewed as a way of delivering more value for audiences: automating routine tasks; optimizing workflows; improving or expanding existing products with AI-assisted text, audio or video components; making better use of existing advantages, such as special access or local and regional representation; expanding existing high-value niche products, such as data journalism and monitoring; or providing new access to output or archives using interfaces like chatbots. This level of opportunity requires approaching AI merely as a tool to be applied to ‘business as usual’ rather than as an entirely new medium.

More ambitious opportunities exist in using AI to increase the scale, or broaden the range, of existing products and services in ways that would be impossible to do manually. These opportunities are answers to the question “what would you do with more resources?”. They don’t require reimagining of purpose or products but instead just do more of activities that the organization already believes are worth doing. For example, what would public service newsgathering look like if every word of written or spoken language could be interpreted, analyzed, synthesed and summarized? What if reporting beats were covered systematically and completely? What if local or regional reporting, or extreme niche reporting, could be conducted with many times the current available resources? What if every piece of content, no matter how insignificant, could be produced in 10 different ways, or 30?

Significant opportunities are even available from the core values and obligations of PSM. Providing universal access to national narratives or cultural experiences has become more difficult in a networked media ecosystem in which audiences fragment and diverse consumption behaviors emerge but becomes much easier when each of those audiences or consumption behaviors can be accommodated automatically. Ensuring political impartiality is challenging when editorial decisions must be made about newsworthiness and language, but becomes easier when coverage is automatic and systematic, and the basis of reporting is in underlying semantic information rather than in language or style. Differentiating PSM from commercial media is complicated by intense competition within a narrow range of legacy subject matter and ‘one-size-fits-all’ products, but may become easier when unprofitable topics, products and services delivering ‘long-tail’ public value become possible from AIpowered customization. Earning the trust of audiences becomes harder when social media magnifies doubt and offers alternative interpretations

but becomes easier when reporting and editing can be interactively explained, or when the provenance of each fact, image or video can be certified and communicated in an ecosystem filled with ‘deepfakes’ – an approach pioneered by initiatives like BBC Verify and SVT Verify.

Each of these opportunities are available within the existing conception of Public Service Media, extended to accommodate the new possibilities provided by AI. Implementing them would not be easy but would not violate or substantially challenge existing assumptions about what PSM should be. If, however, AI substantially restructures the information ecosystem – a very likely possibility over the next decade – then more structural adaption would be necessary, requiring a fundamental reimagining of what public service information should be in the AI era. But even now, at this early stage in society’s AI transition, there are multiple clear opportunities for reinventing PSM institutions. Before examining these, however, it is worthwhile to consider some regulations that might present barriers to such reinvention.

Regulatory challenges

PSM providers have a privileged position in the market due to their public funding, entailing great responsibilities and restrictions to prevent a dominant market position. While such precautions are useful to protect a pluralistic media ecosystem, especially at the regional and local level, they are designed for pre-AI and even pre-digital circumstances. As we transition to an information ecosystem in which AI generates and transforms information it may be necessary to subject the regulatory frameworks of public service broadcasting to a fundamental reassessment. The following five regulatory principles seem particularly relevant for such an evaluation:

Linearity is still seen as an essential feature of broadcasting in Germanspeaking countries. Emphasis is on traditional scheduled programs, intended to be consumed as they are transmitted, while other offerings are typically designed to complement those programs. These priorities have recently been made more flexible in Germany, allowing certain specialinterest programs to be broadcast online only or first. But a shift to digital as the main distribution channel, as the BBC is preparing to undertake for example, is still a long way off. A strategic refocus towards non-linear media in German-speaking countries would be advisable as an AI-mediated ecosystem develops, but for this to happen broadcasters would need more regulatory freedom.

Text formats have always been part of public service broadcasting, whether in teletext, transcripts, or online articles, however their scope is strictly limited to avoid competition with the digital offerings of press services. German regulation, for example, only allows text in secondary and supporting roles, while Austria’s ORF law sets clear limits on the number of text elements on web pages. Such an unequal treatment of media formats will be redundant in an AI-mediated information ecosystem in which AI agents deal with content in a format-agnostic way, transforming it as required according to user needs. Text data will play a particularly important role in the developing AI ecosystem, for example as grounding ‘data’ for RAG systems, and public service broadcasters should prepare for this by loosening restrictions on text.

A program reference remains a mandatory requirement for Public Service Media in German-speaking countries for providing textual information digitally. This regulation refers to specific programs defined by broadcast time and content – the legacy of a linear consumption environment that is disappearing from the media habits and everyday lives of most people. If broadcasters are to fulfil their mandate to provide a comprehensive portfolio of content within an AI-mediated ecosystem, it seems necessary to rethink this restriction. This would allow broadcasters to include AI-enabled content in their digital coverage regardless of its suitability for audiovisual expression, thereby enabling better coverage of visually limited topics and complex systemic issues.

Local reporting is an exception to the universal service mandate that is highly relevant for public broadcasters in German-speaking countries. Comprehensive local reporting is not permitted to protect local newspapers and local radio stations from competition. This makes sense as support for a pluralistic media landscape but may need to be redefined in view of an increasingly data-centered and AI-mediated information ecosystem. Maintaining the universal service mandate, with comprehensive coverage relevant to the real lives of audiences, must include the possibility of personalization and regionalization, including geographically granular data. Finding ways to do this in partnership with local publishers and broadcasters, and adjusting regulation accordingly, will probably be required for a successful transition to an AI-mediated ecosystem. Finally, depublication – placing an expiry date on digital content from public broadcasters – is also a principle that may have to be redefined for an AI-mediated information ecosystem. Depublication requirements have recently been eased in both Germany and Austria, with longer access for some categories of content and indefinite access for some specific content items. Restriction of digital access to journalism financed by

public license fees is increasingly questioned, however, and it is difficult to prevent the creation of private archives. Moreover, as AI enables combination, contextualization and re-versioning of media experiences, unhindered access to the knowledge bases of PSM providers will be of great importance for the completeness and usability of these services. Even if a public service AI could be forced to forget certain facts, why would doing that be in the public interest?

Options for transforming Public Service Media in the long-term

Over the longer term, as we have seen, it is very likely that AI will fundamentally reshape how information is gathered, produced, distributed and consumed. Adapting Public Service Media to a radically different information ecosystem dominated by ubiquitous AI will therefore require more than just optimizing the status quo. Instead, it will demand a complete re-imagining of the role of public service as a valued, permanent component of a healthy AI-mediated information ecosystem. Setting aside potential regulatory barriers for the moment, let us consider three generalized options for how a re-imagined public service information function might look.

Listening as a service

AI will make it easier to extract information from sources at great scale and to produce highly personalized consumption experiences of that information. In a media environment in which essentially anything can be accessed and produced, knowing what to specifically access and produce for a particular audience or individual will therefore become essential. In such an environment the central value-adding function of media organizations might therefore switch from gathering and producing information to systematically listening to, appreciating and understanding audiences. Using data and, especially, deep and visceral human attention, organizations that truly understand the needs, wants, values and lived reality of their audiences may be best placed to deliver value within an information environment in which AI can produce almost any conceivable media experience.

Public Service Media organizations may be relatively well suited to providing this service to audiences: They possess extensive and long-standing networks of local and regional representation, and often employ journalists with a personal and visceral understanding of those audiences; Many are skilled in understanding audiences using data, using their own digital analytics as well as public data; They are experienced with public outreach, and are well-placed to use AI to listen to audiences at scale via

chat, monitoring and semi-automated facilitation of conversations; They have opportunities to empower communities to self-report, perhaps using existing educational activities as a basis and perhaps using AI to improve the articulation and insight of community-led self-expression; and, perhaps most importantly, they have brands that might enable them to become trusted holders of delicate consumption information – an approach that the BBC has pioneered with their ‘BBC Box’ personal data stewardship project, enabling consumers to own their own consumption data and to control its use for content personalisation.

Pursuing a ‘listening as a service’ approach would require PSM organizations to essentially become ‘reverse broadcasters’ – to focus on gathering and receiving information from the populations they serve rather than primarily transmitting to them. In this scenario the PSM organization then becomes the means by which communities, from the local to the national, deeply and authentically understand themselves and each other.

Access as a service

As AI makes it easier to source information and to produce personalized consumption experiences it may become much more important to use AI to provide better access to societally beneficial information. This is especially true if commercially and politically motivated media producers optimize towards their own objectives using AI media tools, while non-commercial and societally beneficial information and experiences remain accessible only via pre-AI approaches. This opportunity is not merely about ‘keeping up’ with other media producers, however. AI provides a very real possibility of expanding the scope and scale of information effortlessly available to ordinary people in everyday situations by many orders of magnitude.

Providing genuinely relevant access to information as a public service requires a definition of relevance that privileges the individual audience member – essentially acting as their personal information service in a manner similar to how ‘X Stories’ personalizes access to stories from X. In this scenario any public information that is relevant to any audience member becomes easily accessible to them – information about politics, processes, people, events, services, outcomes, social conditions, cultural activities, health and wellness opportunities, employment and education, investment, etc. Any public information that is relevant to any audience becomes accessible, whether local, regional, sectoral, or behavioral. Access is systematic and complete, not chosen by editors, and provided via formats, media and styles that are customized for the needs of each audience member. Early examples of this approach are already

emerging in the UK, including the investment by Gov.UK in chatbots and the early use of AI by the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) to make government and census information more accessible.

Pursuing an ‘access as a service’ approach would require PSM organizations to become aggregators of public information at unprecedented scale – becoming networks between information sources and audiences. It would require a commitment to personalized experiences in ways that match the consumption behaviors and communication expectations of individuals – including the interpretation of situational needs to provide access to information at ‘point-of-use’.

Data as a service

In an AI environment in which the experience of media becomes more fluid and ephemeral, gathered as-needed from diverse sources and assembled in-the-moment for the individual, and in which traditional units of media like articles, videos, etc. become less important and less visible to consumers, societies may need a new foundation for media. PSM organizations may be uniquely well-placed to provide this foundation. This opportunity is not merely about ‘data’ in the traditional sense – structured information held within a schema in a database – but about all forms of information, in any medium, format or style. The capabilities available from AI enable this very broad definition of ‘data’, removing the distinction between structured and unstructured, or raw and processed information.

This approach fulfills the need for permanence in the information ecosystem – not merely as archive but as a basis for context and as an enabler of narratives extending longer than the immediate cycles of social media, current events and AI-assisted ‘hot takes’ – a buttress against the ‘memory hole’ built on a foundation of truthful, verified information about society. In more technical terms this is essentially PSM as a provider and maintainer of grounding data for Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). Such a service has obvious value as a canonical record of news, public statements, etc., but might also be applied in education (relating to sources, for example) or even to entertainment, as a record of characters or story worlds. We see early examples of such a service in the early deals between publishers and foundation model companies, in the use of AI to publish government information directly to consumers and even in systems that track the decades-long storylines of the ‘Dr. Who’ television series.

Pursuing a ‘data as a service’ approach might require PSM organizations to become more like ‘business-to-business’ providers rather than ‘busi-

ness-to-consumer’ providers. It might require them to offer their service primarily via technical APIs rather than as content suitable for direct consumption. Even as a ‘B2B API’ provider it is the values, brand, authority and ultimately trust of PSM providers that would be at the heart of this approach. By effectively becoming the memory of society within an ecosystem dominated by ephemeral, transitory AI-assembled experiences this form of public service would essentially be a counterweight to services like ‘X Stories’, which have no permanent expression of the information that they assemble or the experiences they produce.

These three options for a potential long-term role for PSM within a fastdeveloping AI-mediated information ecosystem are not exhaustive. Other options exist, including options that retain some of the current offerings of existing organizations. They demonstrate, however, the degree to which PSM can, and likely must, be reimagined for the AI age. Like the pioneering of public service broadcasting at the dawn of radio, they show that using the new ‘medium’ of AI can provide new value that benefits societies in new ways, providing alternatives to commercial or political interpretations.

Public Service Media in an AI-mediated Information Ecosystem

What might Public Service Media look like in an information ecosystem dominated by AI? It is clearly not a continuation of the status quo, and it would obviously focus on audiences and service rather than on the needs of legacy organizations and their employees. It would not maintain ‘broadcasting’ as a central concept. Its key objectives would be confidence in information and knowledge, and it would be deeply relevant in the real lives of its consumers. It would anchor and orient a positive broader media ecosystem within society.

Let’s imagine a speculative yet plausible scenario for a future PSM covering regional elections. Like today, editors investigate and craft reports, interviews and opinion pieces on the outcome, but these items are not stand-alone. They are integrated with systematic production of other information, much of it based on deep understanding of users: granular election details; datasets of manifestos and relevant facts; assessments of likely impact of policies; candidate biographies and political relationships; validated quotes and verified multimedia content – all labelled with standardized metadata, linked with external trusted sources of information, and usable in any context. This extensive pool of verified content is published via API interfaces and permanently archived in the PSM’s own knowledge management systems.

This election coverage reaches the broader public via AI-empowered intermediaries who use these API interfaces. AI personalities use it in conversations with their users. Search providers incorporate it into responses on their generative results pages when answering election-related questions. Educational institutions incorporate it into their lesson materials. Through personalization, this content is tailored specifically to the consumption situation: One consumer listens to a half-hour election day summary while in the bathroom in the morning. Another watches a video with important interviews during their lunch break. Another reads a long report with multimedia elements and interactive graphics after work. AI agents generate these (and many more) media experiences autonomously by translating, summarizing, combining and transforming content for any consumer, in any situation, on any device. These possibilities are enabled, in part, by Public Service Media providing journalism in an atomized, format-agnostic way.

Conclusion

Public Service Media must be fundamentally reimagined for an AI-mediated information ecosystem. In the coming years societies will desperately need information, interpretation and communication motivated unambiguously for the public good, and it is unlikely that wholly new institutions will be formed to provide that service in an AI context. Existing PSM organizations must therefore step up and adapt, regardless of how painful this might be.

Societies will need reimagined PSM institutions to deliver unique value from AI that can’t be achieved from the commercial marketplace, to provide trustworthy and dependable interpretations of society and events, to provide guidance untainted by hidden or conflicting motives, to provide leadership by demonstrating responsible use of these immensely powerful tools and to catalyze a positive and beneficial information ecosystem. These reimagined institutions must accept the obligation of enabling societies and individuals to succeed in the AI era – to inform, educate and entertain, and to lead, just as their predecessors did in the era of radio.

The difference between what public service media has been and what it must become is so great that we require a new vocabulary, perhaps “Public Service Knowledge” or “Public Service Intelligence”. Whatever this new interpretation of public service media is called, societies will need it urgently in the years ahead. We must begin the task of building it now.

ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF GERMAN PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA TO SOCIAL COHESION. RESULTS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY

JAN-HINRIK SCHMIDT, LEIBNIZ-INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA RESEARCH

1. Introduction

We are currently witnessing a profound transformation of the media landscape, driven by several intertwined technological innovations and societal changes. The establishment and ongoing development of the internet has been at the core of this transformation since the 1990s. Digital and networked technologies have not only broken the long-standing dominance of broadcast and print-based mass media, but also permeate all other societal spheres. From the economy to education, healthcare, and even everyday interpersonal and group communication, we are living in times of „deep mediatization” (Hepp, 2020).

In recent years, social media in particular have driven this transformation by lowering the barriers for sharing information of all kinds and making it easier to maintain social relationships. Their media logic is fundamentally different from mass communication (Schmidt, 2019): information no longer reaches its audience as „editions” or „broadcasts”, i.e. as editorially curated bundles with distinct temporal rhythms, but rather as a continuously updated „stream” or „feed” of content that is personalized by users’ actions and algorithmic filtering alike. Additionally, the formerly separate communication modes of publication and conversation, that were distributed across different media channels, are converging on social media - as exemplified by the comment sections on Facebook posts by Zeit im Bild or Tagesschau. Lastly, social media host various forms of automated communication, such as algorithmic content recommendation and moderation. A relatively recent development in this field is „generative AI” that helps generate texts, images, or audiovisual content based on vast training data and machine learning techniques, and feeds them into communication streams (Hepp et al., 2022).

These developments form the broader context in which public service media develop and operate their own innovation projects. The diverse technological innovations that allowed for the developments described above act as a „reservoir” from which public-service media organizations can draw. Even though some areas of technical infrastructure are

developed and partially guarded as trade secrets in the „closed shops” of commercial companies, a lot of progress is still made in open development environments and based on open, i.e. freely usable, modifiable and expandable software. Public-service media have already taken many steps to join and support these open technical ecosystems and should do so even more in the future (Dobusch, 2024).

In addition, the user experiences that people have with social media shape expectations which they also apply to public service media – for example, in terms of mobile availability, commentability, or personalization options, but also in terms of the content and its formal presentation. Such expectations are not evenly distributed; while some audience segments appreciate, for example, that public-service news programs also prepare their content for Facebook or TikTok, others specifically desire an alternative to the „news snacks” (Molyneux, 2018) that circulate on social media and are often shared by actors who do not adhere to journalistic quality standards.

Public-service media are therefore challenged to find their own way to respond to the transformation of public communication. Their public service orientation is both a unique selling point and a guiding principle – the former because the logic and business models of dominant commercial platforms and the corporations behind them do not have a sense of „public value” (van Dijck et al., 2018). The latter because the orientation toward a common good, specified by the various elements of the public service remit and conceptually expanded as „public network value” (Steinmaurer & Wenzel, 2015), provides the normative framework for digital innovations. Public service algorithmic recommendation systems, for example, must fulfill diversity requirements and cannot reproduce models of personalization that only recommends things to people that are similar to previously consumed content. There is much to suggest that public service media should address their audience not only as consumers but primarily as citizens. In that case, „diverse recommendations” would be in demand, giving people the opportunity to participate in public affairs beyond their individual preferences (Schmidt et al., 2018).

Another element of the public service remit in Germany is to contribute to social cohesion. In communication science, this task has long been discussed as the „integration function” of mass media (Jarren, 2000; Vlasic, 2004; with reference Mahrt, 2019). Essential mechanisms through which media - and thus also public service media - can contribute to social integration and cohesion are:

1. Representing the diversity of possible opinions and viewpoints in society. This mechanism contributes to cohesion because different societal interests have the chance to be heard and to influence individual opinion and decision-making processes.

2. Reflecting the personal lifestyles of citizens. This mechanism is relevant for cohesion because it gives people the feeling that their individual way of life is visible and represented as part of a diverse society.

3. Addressing relevant topics and information. This mechanism can contribute to social integration by ensuring shared knowledge and the synchronization of relevance through media in terms of agenda setting.

The extent to which media outlets provide these services can be examined in various ways, e.g. content analyses of particular programmes (Hasebrink et al., 2021; Maurer et al., 2023). This article, in contrast, approaches the contribution of media to social cohesion from the perspective of media audiences. Specifically, it addresses two interconnected questions:

1. How do the German population perceive different media with regard to their contribution to social cohesion?

2. Do people see differences between public service media and social media, especially when grouped by their sociodemographic characteristics, their media repertoire, and their assessment of social cohesion?

The following sections introduce a study that provides empirical data on the two questions (Section 2), present selected findings (Section 3) and draw a summarizing conclusion (Section 4).

2. Study Design

The findings are based on a telephone survey conducted by the Hamburg branch of the „Research Institute for Social Cohesion” (fgz-risc.de) in November 2021. The n=1,001 respondents were representative for the adult German population aged 18 and older, weighted by age, gender, educational level, and place of residence. In addition to the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, the questionnaire addressed various aspects of media use, expectations towards media and journalism, as well as general attitudes regarding social cohesion. The focus of this article is on three blocks of questions:

1. To assess media use for news, respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they use eight types of broadcast and print media (including both legacy and digital forms) as well as three online-only media types for „information about current events in Germany.” The three types of media that this article focuses on were queried as follows:

• Public service television programmes, whether on television, online or via apps, e.g., from Das Erste, ZDF, or a regional programme of ARD.

• Public service radio stations, such as Deutschlandfunk, MDR Kultur, NDR Info, or dlf.de or ndrinfo.de.

• Social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or TikTok.

The response scale ranged from „multiple times a day” to „once a day,” „multiple times a week,” „less often,” to „never.” Responses were dichotomized into „ at least multiple times a week” (yes/no). Table 1 shows the distribution among all respondents. Frequent use of public service television correlates significantly with frequent use of public service radio (Pearson‘s r=.218, p<.01), while it correlates negatively with the use of social media (Pearson‘s r=-.124, p<.01). There is no significant relationship between the use of public broadcasting radio programs and social media.

Tab. 1: Nutzung von Mediengattungen für Informationen über das aktuelle Geschehen in Deutschland (zumindest mehrfach pro Woche; in %)

These three variables can be used to construct a simple repertoire indicator with four types (see Table 2). Almost half of the respondents (48.6%) regularly use public service broadcasters (either TV or radio or both), but not social media, to stay informed about current events in Germany. Another third of the respondents (31.3%) regularly use both public service broadcasters and social media for informational purposes. Ten percent of the respondents use only social media frequently, while another ten percent do use neither regularly.

Table 2: Combinations of regular use of different media types for information about current events in Germany (in %)

2. In order to assess general perceptions of social cohesion, the questionnaire included two items from a panel survey conducted by the FGZRISC (Teichler et al., 2023) in which respondents were asked to assess two statements:

• „Social cohesion in Germany is at risk.”

(Perception of threat to cohesion)

• „Our society is increasingly falling apart.”

(Perception of fragmentation)

The response options range from 1 („strongly disagree”) to 5 („strongly agree”). For the analysis, a dichotomous variable was created, which condensed responses 1 to 3 into „(rather) low perception” and responses 4 to 5 into „(rather) high perception”. As Table 3 shows, the ratio of high to low agreement is about 60-40 for both items, but the response patterns vary: Almost half of the respondents (47.3%) perceive both social fragmentation and a threat to social cohesion. Slightly more than a quarter (27.2%) observe rather low social fragmentation and low threat to social cohesion. About 13 percent each perceive either low fragmentation but a high threat to social cohesion, or high fragmentation with low threat to social cohesion.

Table 3: Combinations of perceptions of fragmentation and threat to cohesion (in %)

3. Finally, the evaluation of media contributions to social cohesion took into account the considerations mentioned above regarding the three mechanisms through which media can contribute to social cohesion. They were supplemented with a fourth, more general question about the contribution to societal cohesion in general. For each media outlet they use at least rarely, respondents were asked to assess how well this type of media succeeds in:

• ... representing the diversity of possible opinions, viewpoints, and ways of life in our society;

• ... reflecting their own personal lifestyle;

• ... addressing relevant topics and information;

• ... contributing to social cohesion.

The response scale ranged from „very good” to „rather good” and „rather not good” to „not good at all.” The response category „don‘t know” was excluded from the following analyses which focus on the comparison of mean scores on the scale.

3. Findings

This section proceeds as follows: After a brief overview of the assessment of all media types, the focus is on a comparison of public service broadcast media (TV on one hand, radio on the other) and social media by socio-demographic groups (Section 3.1), by regular use of the respective media outlets (Section 3.2), and by perception of social fragmentation and threats to social cohesion (Section 3.3).

Table 4 shows how respondents on average assess the contribution to social cohesion for each of the 11 media types. As a reminder: Individuals answered these questions only for those media types they use at least rarely. The assessments do not vary significantly and all lie in the range between 2 and 3, i.e., between „rather good” and „rather not good”. No media type receives a very good assessment from its users (on average), but also none receives a very poor one. Therefore, many differences are nuances: For example, public service television and radio as well as weekly and daily newspapers (regional and national) are generally assessed slightly better in terms of representing societal diversity, addressing important topics and information, and contributing to social cohesion compared to other types. Only in terms of representing personal lifestyles do private radio stations and online streaming services receive similarly good assessment. Tabloid newspapers, on the other hand, are consistently receiving the worst evaluations, although even here the mean never falls below 3 („rather not good”). When comparing the various mechanisms, the different media types tend to do better in representing social diversity and addressing relevant topics and information than they do in reflecting personal lifestyles and contributing to social cohesion.

Table 4: Assessment of media performances (mean values).

Scale: 1 = very good, 2 = rather good, 3 = rather not good, 4 = not good at all. Mean scores calculated without „don‘t know” and „does not use media type”.

The following remarks focus on three of these types, namely public service television, public service radio, and social media.

3.1 Assessment of media performance by socio-demographic groups

In general, we find only small differences in the evaluation of media performances between public service media and social media. Gender has no significant influence, meaning that men and women do not at all or only to a very small extent in their assessments. Age partially affects the evaluation of social media (see Table 5): younger people (under 50 years) are significantly more likely than older people to believe that social media represent societal diversity and reflect their own personal lifestyle. They also believe more strongly that social media address relevant topics and information, while older respondents tend to attribute this ability more to public-service television. Overall, the ratings for social media are generally lower than for public service media for almost all assessed performances.

Table 5: Assessment of media performance by age (mean values)

Scale: 1 = very good, 2 = rather good, 3 = rather not good, 4 = not good at all. Mean scores calculated without „don‘t know” and „does not use media type”. Marked differences are statistically significant: * p<0.05 ** p<0.01

Slightly different tendencies come to light when comparing people with and without high school diploma (see Table 6): Respondents with higher formal education perceive more strongly that public broadcasting reflects their personal lifestyle and contributes to social cohesion. However, they rate the contribution of social media to social unity significantly lower than people with lower formal education.

Table 6: Assessment of media performance by formal education (mean values)

3.2 Assessment of media performance based on informational media use

After comparing socio-demographic groups, this section analyzes whether the perception of media services differs when comparing people with different media repertoires, i.e. different patterns of combining media ty-

pes (see Table 7): People who have public service media (TV and/or radio) in their repertoire to stay informed about current events also consistently rate these media more positively - regardless of whether they also use social media for informational purposes or not. An interesting finding emerges for the group that regularly uses social media, but not public service media, to stay informed: Not only do they rate social media performances across all four variables more positively than other groups - they also assess social media more positively than public service radio and television. On the other hand, those who do use neither public service offerings nor social media for news consistently give the lowest ratings to social media.

Table 7: Assessment of media performance by media repertoires (mean values)

Addressing relevant topics and

3.3 Assessment of media performance based on fragmentation and threat perception

Finally, we examine whether there are differences in the assessments of media performance when comparing individuals with different levels of threat or fragmentation perception (table 8). The most positive assessments come from individuals who express a (relatively) low perception

of threatened social cohesion and fragmentation, while the worst assessments come from individuals who perceive both fragmentation and threat to social cohesion. For public service radio and social media, the differences are smaller and only statistically significant in some cases. It is noteworthy that the contribution of social media to social cohesion is seen most positively by individuals who have a (relatively) high perception of fragmentation but perceive a (relatively) low threat to social cohesion.

Table 8: Assessment of media performance by threat and fragmentation perception (mean values)

social diversity

Reflecting personal lifestyles

relevant topics and information

Contributing to social cohesion

4. Conclusion

Innovations by public-service media happen in the context of a fundamental transformation of the public sphere, to which social media contribute significantly. Therefore, comparing the performance of public service media and social media is important as it provides insight into the assessments and expectations that such innovations can build upon (or not). This paper presented findings from a representative survey in

Germany that documents different assessments of media performance between public service TV and radio on one hand, and social media on the other. While the differences are often rather gradual, the German population generally rates public service media better in terms of representing social diversity and reflecting personal lifestyles, addressing relevant topics and information, and making a contribution to social cohesion.

The picture becomes sharper when comparing different subgroups. Socio-demographics play a minor role in this regard, since gender, age, or formal education only led in a few combinations to significantly different assessments. Whether a person believes that social fragmentation is increasing and/or social cohesion is at risk makes a bigger difference: people who reject both diagnoses tend to rate the performance of public service television significantly more positive than those who perceive fragmentation or social cohesion at risk.

Not surprisingly, the strongest influence is media use: those who use a given media regularly, i.e., multiple times per week for news-related purposes, also have a more positive perception of its performance compared to those who use it less frequently. An interesting finding emerges among those that use social media but not public service media regularly for news: not only do they rate social media more positively across the board compared to the other groups, but they also attribute more positive performance to social media compared to radio and television. This tendency only becomes apparent in the repertoire perspective; in all other comparisons, i.e., based on various socio-demographic characteristics or fragmentation and risk perceptions, public service media receive, on average, a better assessment. This illustrates that a repertoire perspective, which takes into account the specific combination of media types instead of focusing on individual types, is well-suited to make nuanced differences visible.

The level of detail in the findings is not fine enough to examine particular programmes, content, or presentation styles. Nevertheless, they provide a glimpse into the current transformation of public communication, which began with the spread of the internet and gained additional momentum with the establishment of social media. Obviously, many people still value public service radio and TV more positively in terms of their performance than social media, which is more focused on personalization and communication ranging from the public to the personal. But providing a public value by addressing their remits as well as introducing innovation remains an ongoing task for public-service media.

References

Dobusch, L. (2024). Von Sendern zum offenen Ökosystem: Zur Reform und Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks. Journalistik, 7, 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1453/2569-152X-12024-13936-de Hasebrink, U., Beaufort, M. & Oehmer-Pedrazzi, F. (2021). Qualität von Nachrichtenmedien im Dreiländervergleich: Zusammenhänge nutzungs- und angebotsbezogener Kriterien. Media Perspektiven(9), 450–460. https://www.ard-media.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2021/2109_Hasebrink_Beaufort_Oehmer-Pedrazzi.pdf

Hepp, A. (2020). Deep mediatization. Key ideas in media and cultural studies. Routledge. Hepp, A., Loosen, W., Dreyer, S., Jarke, J., Kannengießer, S., Katzenbach, C., Malaka, R., Pfadenhauer, M., Puschmann, C. & Schulz, W. (2022). Von der Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion zur kommunikativen KI. Publizistik, 67(4), 449–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-022-00758-4

Jarren, O. (2000). Gesellschaftliche Integration durch Medien? Zur Begründung normativer Anforderungen an Medien. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 48(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615634x-2000-1-22

Mahrt, M. (2019). Beyond Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The Integrative Potenzial of the Internet. Digital Communication Research: Bd. 5. https://doi.org/10.17174/dcr.v5.0

Maurer, T., Bilke, L. & Weiß, H.-J. (2023). Integrationsleistungen öffentlich-rechtlicher und privater Fernsehvollprogramme im ersten Jahr des Ukrainekriegs: Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Programmanalyse 2022. Media Perspektiven(9), 1–23. https://www.ard-media.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2023/ MP_9_2023_Programmanalyse_-_Informationsleistung_oe.-r._und_privater_Fernsehvollprogramme.pdf Schmidt, J.-H. (2019). Soziale Medien als Innovation. In B. Blättel-Mink, I. Schulz-Schaeffer & A. Windeler (Hrsg.), Handbuch Innovationsforschung (797-810). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3658-17671-6_52-1

Schmidt, J.-H., Sørensen, J. K., Dreyer, S. & Hasebrink, U. (2018). Wie können Empfehlungssysteme zur Vielfalt von Medieninhalten beitragen? Perspektiven für öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunkanstalten. Media Perspektiven(11), 522–531. Steinmaurer, T. & Wenzel, C. (2015). Public Network Value: Public Value-Studie des ORF in Kooperation mit dem Bayerischen Rundfunk. ORF. https://zukunft.orf.at/rte/upload/download/15i0005.pdf Teichler, N., Gerlitz, J.-Y., Cornesse, C., Dilger, C., Groh-Samberg, O., Lengfeld, H., Nissen, E., Reinecke, J., Skolarski, S., Traunmüller, R. & Verneuer-Emre, L. M. (2023). Entkoppelte Lebenswelten? Soziale Beziehungen und gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt in Deutschland - Erster Zusammenhaltsbericht des FGZ. Forschungsinstitut Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt. https://doi.org/10.26092/elib/2517 van Dijck, J., Poell, T. & Waal, M. de. (2018). The Platform Society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. Vlasic, A. (2004). Die Integrationsfunktion der Massenmedien. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80546-1

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

THOMAS STEINMAURER, PARIS LODRON UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG MICHAEL-BERNHARD ZITA, COUNCIL FOR EUROPEAN PUBLIC SPACE

1. Research Interest

This study has the set objective of providing an overview of current digital innovation projects by public broadcasters in Europe and classifying these projects on the basis of scientific evaluations. In this context, the potential of public service innovations and their specific benefit for society were examined, with a particular focus on a European dimension. Following an introductory mapping of the current innovation landscape in the public service media sector in Europe, the analyses of the digital „frontrunner projects” paid particular attention to the question of which dimensions of public value are supported on the level of digital innovations. In addition, the evaluations also assessed potentials and challenges and thus provided a qualitative classification that can be valuable for further developments. With no doubt transformations of traditional public service media providers into the world of digital network realities offer great potentials for developments. But they also need to be rethought conceptually in terms of further developments of the societal mission of public service media - also taking a European perspective into account.

2. Historical genesis and technological transformations

The emergence of public service media is closely linked to the development of democratic societies and the need for an informed public sphere. The origins of public service broadcasting can be traced back to the founding of the BBC in 1922. The BBC was focused on the mission of producing highquality programs that were accessible to all citizens, regardless of their social status or place of residence. It was intended to make an inclusive contribution to education, information, and entertainment in order to promote social cohesion and encourage debate on issues of public interest. After the Second World War, the establishment of public broadcasters was finally promoted throughout Europe in response to the political misuse of broadcasting for propaganda purposes under the Nazi Regime. In Austria and Germany, it was not without reason that public broadcasters were established after the Second World War with the aim to create an independent and pluralistic medium for the purpose of promoting democracy and social integration. Public broadcasters were commissioned to provide information, education, and entertainment for all. To summarize the central reasons for the creation of public service media in general: Ensuring a diverse, independent, and high-quality program, promoting political

education and cultural identity and diversity. These aspects contribute to the fact that public broadcasters are seen as indispensable players in the media spectrum and generate significant public value for society.

Facing future developments of the media sector, new technological innovations ultimately lead to a diversification of the entire sector. The dualization of the market resulted in a multiplication and change in the range of media content, and on the audience side, media usage habits changed - also driven by new technologies. In the context of digitalization traditional media are confronted with new challenges and new dynamics increase the pressure of transformation enormously. New global platform providers are now dominating the market, changing the structure of public social communication and, therefore, also having an impact on the quality of democratic communication cultures. Against the backdrop of the well-known and now intensifying dysfunctional developments in the field of digital networks, questions of economic survival of traditional media is no longer the only one that arises, but much more urgently the fundamental question how it is possible to create infrastructures that also aim to provide social added value and promote democracy in a network society. Especially in the context of globally developing platform providers, which can only be partially tied back to regulations of national or transnational governance principles and create new exploitation paradigms with data-driven business models more fundamental considerations are needed. The question is which communication infrastructures for plural democracies should be secured, promoted or further developed in order to create sustainable structures for socially beneficial information and communication conditions.

Along with these intensifying structural changes and against the background of the historical contexts mentioned earlier, it can be concluded that public service media providers have a decisive role to play in the digital transformation. The current framework conditions, therefore, not only indicate a need for technological innovation to master transformation steps, but also a democratic policy mandate that provides for an adaptation of the „public service” to the rationalities of digital network conditions. There are currently a number of different approaches what such a transformation could look like - from the development of a “Public Open Space” with digital means to the proposal of a “Display Europe” - supported by community and non-commercial media.

3. On the way to public network value

As pointed out in a 2015 study on the conception of a „public network value” (Steinmaurer/Wenzel, 2015), the structural deficits of digital net-

works, caused by the dominance of global players or the increasing toxification of public discourse, suggest a justification for securing a farreaching presence of public service media providers in the digital space. Therefore, it is not only important to compensate for problematic developments or deficits in online communication, but also to leverage the democratic potential of digital networks. Building on the foundations of public value, further developments should therefore focus on new qualities of „public network value” to master the challenges in digital networks.

The quality dimensions of a „public network value” is primarily based on the concept of the „digital commons” (Murdock, 2005), a model that understands platforms as an independent communication infrastructure with a central contribution to the maintenance and development of deliberately organized public spheres. On the user side, the concept addresses individuals communicating in digital networks not as users or consumers, but as citizens. In this context, they should also be actively encouraged to participate in public discourse and be given opportunities to get involved in civil society. In the long term, this would also be linked to the promotion of „democratic citizenship” (Coleman/Blumler, 2009). In their mutual reference to each other, both concepts represent important cornerstones for the development of a „public network value” in order to enable public service providers to create sustainable democratic added value for society in digital networks.

Public service media have the task to innovate their function as a qualitydriven information and communication provider for the digital society. They could become a network hub for democracy-relevant information and communication services that establish and offer quality-driven network services not only nationally, but also on a European scale. It is, therefore, also important to transform the core qualities of public value for the requirements of digital network realities. To this end, it becomes crucial that PSM also receive a corresponding public mandate for such developments in order to be able to develop the corresponding qualities for the challenges of digitalization.

4. European innovation projects in the digital space

Since the first draft (Steinmaurer/Wenzel, 2015) for a „public network value”, quite a number of new initiatives - supported by various public service media providers in Europe - have developed, which were presented and scientifically evaluated in this study. A mapping of European initiatives provided by Dorien Verckist (MIS EBU) shows a broad field of

innovation characterized by a wide variety of different approaches. The different examples draw attention to production innovations in the news sector, forms of technology-driven content quality management, educational projects, and innovations in the area of accessibility. However, this spectrum also includes innovative formats in the entertainment and gaming sectors, which play an important integrative role in the digital development.

Matthijs Leendertse (Erasmus University Rotterdam) dedicated his analysis to the project „A European Perspective”, building the result of a consortium of 20 European public service media as well as other public service organizations. The aim of this project is to develop a pan-European digital newsroom for Europe that uses AI technologies and algorithms to jointly create news content, make it available and share it with other European broadcasters in order to support comparative perspectives on European issues for citizens. A key quality feature of this large-scale project is to provide a strong input for the Europeanization of national public spheres. In addition to the risks of technology dependency, challenges can be found at the level of the journalistic validation to classify and contextualize reports that are adopted from other countries. Overall, however, the project presents itself as a central innovation effort of public service media that focuses on the development of a European public sphere.

The „Public Spaces Incubator” project, initiated in the fall 2022 and run by various public media (Belgium, Canada, Germany, Switzerland) in cooperation with the non-profit American research and development lab “New_ Public” (led by Eli Pariser), was analyzed and evaluated by Jörg Matthes, Kevin Koban and Rinat Meerson (from the Department of Communication Science at the University of Vienna). The main aim of the project is to develop „prototypes for digital conversation spaces” that promote „engagement in civil society discourse”. In this context, user needs of important social groups are addressed that are hardly reached by commercial providers. In addition to that, new forms of democratically constructive communication between users should be encoureged as well as trust in public service media. The assessment of selected prototypes showed that they provide „significant advantages” in regard to the fulfillment of normative criteria, but presumably fulfill these tasks only selectively. According to the assessment, it will also depend on the extent to which corresponding offers for achieving deliberative qualities in digital networks are actually accepted by users. In particular, the authors recommend a further development of corresponding prototypes outside of protected laboratory conditions „in real hostile communication environments”.

Sabine T. Köszegi and her team at TU Wien (Labor Science and Organization) are evaluating the AI application „AiDitor” developed by ORF, which has recently won the EBU‘s „2024 Technology & Innovation Award”. This technological tool includes a wide range of functions to make editorial work more efficient for journalists. It combines features for transcribing recordings, options for generating content specifically for use in social media, translation functions and text-to-speech, among other things, under one interface. The opportunities are clearly increasing different modes of productivity but show extensive challenges in the field of ensuring ultimate human responsibility. The article ends with clear recommendations for action in the trade-off between journalistic quality and technically possible efficiency and points to the need to acquire digital literacy both at the level of journalists and the audience. According to the assessment, the ORF could become a „role model” in terms of an ethically compliant use of AI, which could not only strengthen trust in the institution, but also in the general use of generative AI.

Markus Kaiser (TH Nürnberg) also addresses the keyword trust, by evaluating the onboarding process for new contributors to German public service media. This process can be understood as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen support for public service media. To this end, it presents a technical prototype developed by the digital project groups of BR and SWR. The concluding recommendations for action address the area of standardizing the brand strategy, the bundled presentation of public service offerings - which is also necessary in addition to diversificationand identifies the aforementioned „onboarding” as a steering measure to increase the acceptance of public service media and, in particular, to emphasize „individual value”. The article ends with a clear commitment to the need for comprehensive promotion of media literacy in education.

On behalf of SRG, Kevin Hofer focuses on an often invisible area that addresses the need to prepare and translate media content into sign language. In this context, the research projects „Easier” and „IICT” are presented, which aim to subtitle all SRG programs by 2027 with the help of AI technologies and to accompany selected programs in sign language. The article comprehensively demonstrates the complex translation required for this, as sign language follows different rules to spoken or written language. Even for the training of AI models, there is often simply not enough data available; instead, these projects take partial steps in order to fulfill the necessary translation work more efficient and reduce the high costs using specialized tools. The article shows that the accessibility factor is relevant in many areas of life and that AI technologies can make a specific contribution.

The Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation (Bayerischer Rundfunk) contributed an analysis of the transformation through AI and the resulting opportunities and risks for Public Service Media. David Caswell (StoryFlow Ltd.) and Christina Elmer (Professor at TU Dortmund) show us how media and other general-purpose innovations have radically changed society. They pose the question of how AI should be viewed as a medium and how this will fundamentally change information and news behavior. They take examples of the use of AI in the media sector and differentiate between the assistance of workflows and the AI-supported audience experience. They also make it clear that innovation is also happening among non-established media players: platforms, start-ups and, last but not least, the users themselves. This leads to major challenges for public service media and can also be used as an opportunity if certain regulatory restrictions are overcome. Referring to this, they outline new roles and tasks for public service media in an AI-mediated information ecosystem, namely listening as a service, access as a service, and data as a service. This would possibly entail a far-reaching departure from the concept of public service media, so that these institutions might then have to be called „public service intelligence” or „public service knowledge”.

The final article is dedicated to the question of how audiences rate public service media in comparison to social media in terms of their contribution to social cohesion. Jan-Hinrick Schmidt from the Leibniz Institute for Media Research in Hamburg interviewed 1,001 people on this topic via a telephone survey in November 2021. The focus was on analyzing differences in the perception of how endangered cohesion in German society is perceived to be. Public service media are rated better by their users than by users who only obtain information via social media - the same applies to the general assessment of the dangers of disintegration in society.

Overall, the following focal points can be identified on the basis of the contributions collected in this study, which together form the focal points of current innovations as undertaken by European public service media providers. These are closely interlinked with the social mission of public service providers and further develop the mission values and the range of functions for society and democracy for the challenges of a digital network world.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The following current priorities can be identified as general guidelines that are being pursued in the various projects:

• „Strengthening strengths” through innovations in the news area using new digital tools

• Overcoming access barriers and active onboarding measures

• Use of innovative technologies such as AI in program and content production

• Proactively combating dysfunctional tendencies in digital networks

• Innovations in the accessibility of databases and the creation of transparency at the level of algorithms

• The improved implementation of educational offerings and the need to increase media literacy

Against the background of this overview and the associated fields of innovation currently being developed by public service providers, the following recommendations for the further development of PSM can be derived:

• The sustainable transformation of broadcasting providers into digital networks with added social value.

• Implementation of proactive innovations with new technologies on the basis of ethically responsible and technologically transparent instruments.

• Promotion of cooperation between European initiatives to establish a network of networks as an alternative to globally dominant platform providers.

• Further development of public value at the level of digital network innovations, with the aim of using them specifically to promote the common good of society and democracy.

• Commitment to sufficient financial security for a development perspective under public law, which can be understood as an investment by society in securing a democracy-oriented, diversity-based and quality-driven infrastructure in the digital space.

• The next step will be to derive general guidelines for the further development of public network value from the analysis of this innovation map and to develop a model that conceptualizes the transformation of public broadcasters into public network values providers. In this context, it is important to ensure that the central values of public value are translated into the digital sphere and that ways of proactive further development are identified.

References Coleman, S./Blumler, J. (2009): The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murdock, G. (2005): Building the digital commons. Public Broadcasting in the Age of the Internet. In: Lowe, G. F./Jauert, P. (Hrsg): Cultural Dilemmas in Public. Service Broadcasting, Göteborg: Nordicom 213-230 Steinmaurer, Th./Wenzel, C. (2015): Public Network Value. Wien: ORF.

PUBLIC VALUE STUDIE

Die Rolle öffentlich-rechtlicher Medien im Internet

Victor Mayer-Schönberger (Oxford University)

Die volkswirtschaftlichen Effekte des ORFFernsehens

Matthias Firgo, Oliver Fritz (WIFO), Gerhard Streicher (Joanneum Research)

Unterhaltung als öffentlich-rechtlicher Auftrag

Gabriele Siegert, M. Bjorn von Rimscha, Christoph Sommer (Universität Zürich)

Public Network Value

Thomas Steinmaurer, Corinna Wenzel (Universität Salzburg)

Generation What

Mag. Daniel Schönherr, SORA

Public Social Value

u. a. Univ.-Prof. in Dr. in Sonja Kretzschmar (Universität München)

Prof. Graham Murdock (Loughborough University)

Univ.Prof. Dr. Jens Lucht, Univ.Prof. Dr. Mark Eisenegger (Universität Zürich)

Der Auftrag: Bildung im digitalen Zeitalter

u. a. Prof. Dr. Hartmut Rosa, Universität Jena

Dr. in Maren Beaufort, ÖAW

Univ.-Prof. in Dr.in Katharine Sarikakis, Universität Wien

Prof. Dr. Bernhard Pörksen, Universität Tübingen

Der Auftrag: Demokratie

u. a. von Prof. Dr. Bernd Holznagel (Universität Münster)

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Christian Fuchs (University of Westminster)

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephen Cushion (Cardiff University)

PUBLIC VALUE DOKUMENTE

PUBLIC VALUE TEXTE

Quelle vertrauenswürdiger Informationen

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dieter Segert, Texte 1

Medien-Unterhaltung als Service Public

Univ.-Prof. em. Dr. Louis Bosshart, Texte 12

Das Naserümpfen der Eliten

Mag. a Dr. in Karin Pühringer, Texte 11

Die komplexe Welt erklären

Dir. Uwe Kammann, Texte 4

Kultur im Fernsehen

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Hannes Haas, Texte 10

Nur was wirkt, hat Wert

Dir. Prof. Dr. Helmut Scherer, Texte 5

Österreichwert oder mehr Wert

Dr. Georg Spitaler, Texte 11

Welche Diversität für welchen Public Value?

Mag. a Dr. in Petra Herczeg, Texte 7

Zum Systemrisiko der Demokratie

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Kurt Imhof, Texte 3

Zwischen Auftrag und Kommerzialisierung

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Minas Dimitriou, Texte 11

Identität und Medien

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Karl Vocelka, Texte 3

Public Value

DDr. in Julia Wippersberg, Texte 2

Public Value als Wertschöpfungsbegriff?

Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Matthias Karmasin, Texte 6

Channelling diversity

Univ.-Prof. in Dr. in Gunilla Hultén, Texte 13

Crisis or dismantlement?

Univ.-Prof. in Dr. in Isabel Fernández-Alonso und Dr. Marc Espin, Texte 13

Den öffentlichen Rundfunk entfesseln

Dr. Vinzenz Wyss, Texte 13

Eurovision and the „new” Europe

Univ.-Prof. in Dr. in Karen Fricker, Texte 14

Pluralism and public service media

Petros Iosifidis, Texte 13

The four horsemen of the post-broadcast era

Univ.-Prof. Dr.Marko Ala-Fossi, Texte 13

We are all Greeks

Univ.-Prof. in Dr. in Katharine Sarikakis, Texte 9

Auf dem Weg zum Publikum

Dr. Florian Oberhuber, Texte 8

Die Zukunft des Fernsehens

Dr. Alexander Wrabetz, Texte 8