Viewers today can choose from hundreds of commercial channels and online streaming platforms, which has led some people to question whether public broadcasters still need government money. I disagree with this view, as publicly funded media provide services that the commercial market has little incentive to offer.
The first reason is that public broadcasters produce content that is valuable but not always profitable. Commercial channels depend on advertising or subscriptions, so they naturally favour programmes that attract the largest audiences, such as popular dramas and reality shows. Public broadcasters, by contrast, can invest in in-depth documentaries, educational programmes for children and broadcasting in minority languages. A programme about local history or a science series for schools may never attract a mass audience, yet it enriches society in a way that pure entertainment cannot.
Secondly, public broadcasters play an important role in providing reliable news. At a time when misinformation spreads rapidly online, a well-regulated news service with a duty to remain impartial gives citizens a trusted source of information. This is especially important during emergencies, such as floods or health crises, when accurate public announcements must reach everyone, including elderly people who may not use the internet. Streaming services, which focus mainly on entertainment, do not perform this function.
Admittedly, critics argue that taxpayers should not pay for content they may never watch, and that some public broadcasters are inefficient. These are fair concerns, but they point to a need for reform and greater accountability rather than an end to funding altogether.
In conclusion, although commercial media offer a wider choice than ever before, they cannot replace the educational, cultural and informational role of public broadcasting. Governments should therefore continue to fund it, while ensuring that the money is spent efficiently and transparently.