The value of public service media: What does the public expect?

Perspectives on legitimacy of PSM

The survival of PSM depends on the maintenance of its legitimacy, which is defined as the ‘perceived extent to which its activities are desirable, right or appropriate within a socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’ (Suchman, 1995: 574). However, until now, the prevailing conception of legitimacy has been that of a process driven by the active communication of values by PSM organisations towards the public (Fehlmann, 2023). The guiding principles of PSM and the public value it should bring to society have thus been largely formulated through top-down theorising by scholars, PSM organisations and policy-makers and subsequently communicated to the public (Fehlmann, 2023).

Specifically, based on document analysis of legislation and grey literature authored by PSM in 17 Western democracies and coupled with focus groups with experts, Cañedo et al. (2022) identified 12 components of PSM’s public value. First, the essential components of public value include excellence in terms of the content and behaviour of the presenters and journalists; the independence of external agents; and diversity in the production sources, programming and audiences. Second, the important components include innovation in relation to creative practices and technology; social justice and the defence of human rights; social engagement and the satisfaction of audience needs; citizen participation in the process of the creation and broadcasting of content; accountability in the sense of transparency and economic efficiency; and the universality of access and content. And, third, the components they label as interesting include territorial cohesion and non-discrimination; international cooperation; and media literacy (Cañedo et al., 2022: 598–599). In contrast to legitimacy-as-process, Fehlmann (2023: 40) suggests to reconceptualise legitimacy as a form of perception and ‘as something co-constitutive by individual perception and meaning structures’. However, the perspective of the public was until recently largely overlooked by both PSM and researchers (Campos-Rueda and Goyanes, 2022; Donders, 2021; Just et al., 2017). Studies that explore the audience expectations of PSM are generally rare and, with few exceptions (Goyanes et al., 2021), participants have only been allowed to assess the extent to which normative expectations are being fulfilled by PSM (Campos-Rueda, 2023; Sehl, 2020). This perspective persists even though, according to public value theory (Moore, 1995), public value should be identified in dialogue with the public sphere and with the active participation of citizens, rather than just communicated from above (Moore, 1995).

We argue that PSM legitimacy is not something that can be imposed upon the public through top-down explanations; it must be established through an active dialogue with the public, whose expectations and needs the PSM is intended to meet. This does not mean that the mission of PSM must be reduced to the sum of the individual expectations. Instead, we join the calls to give the public a more active voice. Paying closer attention to audiences allows us to examine the extent to which the values articulated from above are perceived as desirable from the public perspective and explore how PSM can maintain legitimacy in the future (Fehlmann, 2023). Thus, this study explores citizens’ expectations of PSM with a qualitative approach that does not employ predefined elements of public value but instead allows participants to express their expectations in their own words, providing an in-depth understanding of how participants interpret key normative concepts.

Exploring public expectations of PSM

To examine legitimacy-as-perception, it is essential to understand what the public considers desirable and meaningful about PSM. In this regard, the concept of public expectations is particularly useful. Expectations can be defined as ‘subject-held or broadcast utterances that express a modal response about the characteristics of the object’s persons’ (Biddle, 1979: 132). According to Biddle (1979), expectations can take three basic forms: prescriptive, cathectic and descriptive. Prescriptive expectations refer to statements of approval or requests for a given characteristic (e.g. in the case of PSM, ‘the news content of PSM should be objective’). Cathectic expectations are based on individual evaluations of the characteristics the individual likes or dislikes about a given object (Biddle, 1979). This type of expectation necessarily involves an affective response that is based on prior experience with the object’s performance. In the context of PSM, cathectic expectations are related to the criteria the public uses to evaluate its performance, encompassing both criticisms and appreciations (e.g. ‘I don’t like when PSM does not refer to relevant sources in its coverage’). Third, the core of descriptive expectations are objective descriptions of a given characteristic, or beliefs about the characteristics of an object according to the criterion of subjective probability (Biddle, 1979). In the context of PSM, this can be, for example, the description of the media practices of a given audience member (e.g. ‘I like to watch documentaries on public service television’).

Traditionally, public expectations of the media have been examined largely in terms of prescriptive expectations. Thus, studies only examine what the audience thinks the media should do, mostly in the context of the journalistic role conceptions defined by the journalists themselves and by media scholarship (Banjac, 2022; Fawzi and Motthes, 2020; Hanitzsch and Vos, 2017).

However, examining only prescriptive expectations from the media may overlook the influence of the audiences’ lived experiences with media performance and the beliefs that they hold about the media. At the same time, these evaluations can help individuals define themselves against the status quo, allowing them to express their expectations in unique ways. Thus, unlike previous research (Campos-Rueda, 2023; Fawzi and Motthes, 2020), this study does not explicitly separate audience expectations and evaluations, but we understand evaluations to be certain manifestations of expectations, because they reveal the criteria that people use and, therefore, what is important to them when it comes to PSM.

Existing studies have explored the public expectations of PSM primarily in relation to news content, mainly using quantitative surveys (Campos-Rueda, 2023; Sehl, 2020). Specifically, these studies conclude that the public expects high-quality journalism, credible information and the provision of sufficient background information (Sehl, 2020). Conversely, the public is least likely to expect that PSM will provide a public forum or analysis (Campos-Rueda, 2023). According to Campos-Rueda and Goyanes (2022), the public positively assesses the empathy with which PSM approaches the coverage of topics, the support of community involvement and democratic institutions (i.e. mobilisation function) and the way it provides information. On the contrary, citizens are least positive about the degree of PSM independence. In terms of PSM’s non-news content, the public mainly expects the provision of access to (national) culture and the production of quality entertainment content for children and adults (Campos-Rueda, 2023). However, to the best of our knowledge, no research has yet comprehensively explored the public value that PSM should provide from the standpoint of the public.

Thus, building on previous research, this study aims to address the following research questions:

PSM in the Czech Republic

This study uses the Czech Republic as a case study to explore the public expectations of PSM in the understudied CEE region. The Czech PSM organisations (Czech Television and Czech Radio) were established in 1992 as successors to the state broadcast media of the communist era. Both Czech Television and Czech Radio are leaders in their respective media markets and they are the two most trusted news sources in the Czech media landscape. These media are financed through license fees, which currently amount to about EUR 7 per month paid by each household that owns a radio or television.

Czech PSM are established by law to provide comprehensive, impartial and verified information and create cultural, entertaining and educational programmes for diverse demographic groups, including minorities (Act on Czech Television, 1992; Act on Czech Radio, 1992). Their activities are monitored by supervisory boards (the Czech Television Council and the Czech Radio Council) and the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting. Members of the Czech Parliament elect the members of these bodies. This mechanism is sometimes viewed as problematic because it can result in the appointment of individuals who are politically aligned with the ruling parties. Such attempts occurred, for example, during the tenure of former Prime Minister Andrej Babiš (Štětka, 2022).

Both Czech Television and Czech Radio hold a strong position in the Czech media landscape and are perceived by the public as the most trusted news source (Štětka, 2023). Still, this does not mean that their popularity is universal. In recent years, Czech PSM has faced attacks from populist and extremist politicians, who accuse them of a lack of objectivity and credibility, alleged bias, failure to fulfil their roles, inefficiency, misuse of taxpayers’ money and being part of a corrupt elite that does not serve the public interest (Dragomir and Aslama Horowitz, 2021; Kluknavská, 2024; Urbániková and Smejkal, 2023).

However, unlike in some other CEE countries (e.g. Hungary, Poland and Slovakia), the Czech PSM has managed to maintain its independence. This is mainly due to a strong culture of independence among its staff and strong popular support (Dragomir and Aslama Horowitz, 2021). The most serious case of political pressure – and successful resistance to it – known as the ‘Czech Television Crisis’ occurred at the turn of 2000 and 2001 (BBC, 2001; Gosling, 2020). This crisis arose from an attempt to compromise the independence of Czech Television through the selection of a director general. In response, journalists occupied the TV studios, and the public held mass demonstrations in support of Czech Television. Since then, likely influenced by this experience and the fear of backlash from journalists and the public, Czech politicians have remained relatively cautious and have refrained from outright pressure on PSM.

Method and data

This study is based on two waves of focus group discussions with the general public in the Czech Republic (10 focus groups with 60 participants in total), which were part of a broader project that aimed to explore the expectations and evaluations of PSM in the country.

In terms of focus group composition, we used both heterogeneous and homogeneous approaches (Morgan, 2019), with the participants’ political preferences as the main organising principle. This combination allowed us to simultaneously uncover diverging views and tensions among individuals with different political preferences, as well as reveal synergies and consensus among those with similar political preferences (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996).

The composition of the first six focus groups was based on both the participants’ political preferences and their age, as these characteristics have been previously identified as key factors in relation to trust in PSM (Smejkal et al., 2024). Two focus groups comprised of participants who voted for parties that could be described as populist in the preceding election; two focus groups consisted of people who voted for non-populist parties; and the remaining two groups were made up of non-voters. In each pair of focus groups, one group consisted of individuals under 40, the other consisted of individuals over 40. All six focus group discussions took place in Brno, the second largest city of the Czech Republic, in a rented conference room. They were moderated by one of the authors of the study.

For the remaining four focus groups, we adopted a maximum diversity sampling strategy. The participants roughly replicated the structure of the Czech population in terms of gender, age, education, region, the size of residence and internet use (in addition, one of the questions asked in the recruitment process was about political preferences). Three focus group discussions were conducted online (via a video conferencing platform) and one in person (in the capital city of Prague due to its relatively easy accessibility from other regions); the latter was exclusively attended by those who indicated during recruitment that they use the internet less than once a month.

In both waves, the participants were recruited by a professional market research agency and every discussion lasted around 90 minutes. More detailed information about the sample composition can be found in Supplemental Table 1. The participants were informed in advance of the research topic, their informed consent was obtained prior to the discussion and they were financially rewarded for their participation.

Each focus group discussion was recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were analysed in Atlas.ti software. An iterative process of reading and open coding was used. The authors first inductively coded the discussions independently of each other, then compared and discussed the codes. In the second step, the inductively developed codes were clustered into more general categories and then the relationships were sought between categories. This approach, using the principles of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022), allowed us to identify wider themes present in the data. In the analysis section, quoted participants are identified by a code (P1 to P21); their list, including their basic socio-demographic characteristics and political preferences, can be found in Supplemental Table 2.

Results: Public expectations for PSM

Ten focus group discussions unveiled a multitude of specific expectations that the public holds for PSM. As summarised in Figure 1, these expectations encompass four main dimensions: (1) the expected roles and functions that PSM is intended to perform (i.e. why PSM exists); (2) the general characteristics of PSM content (i.e. what PSM content should generally be like); (3) the principles of PSM operation (i.e. how PSM should function) and (4) the specific requirements for both news and non-news PSM content, shaped by the public’s perspective on the three preceding dimensions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Expectations of the Czech public for public service media.

Discussion

Despite PSM being a relatively recent concept in the Czech Republic compared to Western countries, focus group discussions suggest that, over the past three decades, the Czech public has developed clear and detailed expectations regarding PSM and its services. Furthermore, this understanding broadly aligns with the traditional normative conception of PSM’s mission, roles and tasks, as known from the Western countries (e.g. Cañedo et al., 2022; Council of Europe, 1994).

Another important message is that the participants mostly expressed their satisfaction with Czech PSM and strongly favoured its continued operation. Thus, this study does not support the notion that, at least in the Czech case, the different history and legacy of PSM in CEE would lead to greater skepticism and less social consensus on its value, as suggested by Just et al. (2017). Also, voices advocating for limiting the mandate of PSM (e.g. to news, programmes for minorities and high culture), or even abolishing it, were rare. In general, the discussions suggest that the Czech public views the mission of PSM broadly, and their shared perception of PSM corresponds with a holistic, democracy-centric perspective, rather than the market-failure perspective (Donders, 2021).

The alignment between the traditional normative conception of PSM’s mission and public expectations suggests a strong, lasting society-wide consensus on the foundational pillars of PSM. At the same time, it may also be a product of the status quo: Czech PSM programming has long followed the democracy-centric perspective rather than the market-failure perspective, which could have shaped public expectations over time. Thus, this alignment may be part of a self-reinforcing cycle, where the content of Czech PSM both reflects and reinforces public expectations.

Although participants have a clear understanding of what to expect from PSM, they were often not entirely familiar with how it operates. For example, a few participants mentioned that Czech PSM is a state medium and it is tax-funded (‘. . .commercial television can do whatever it wants, but Czech Television is a state broadcaster, funded by our taxes’ – P13). This observation coincides with the findings of an Austrian study, which discovered that young people’s knowledge about legal requirements for PSM is shallow (Reiter et al., 2018). It is therefore evident that Czech PSM should communicate more intensively not only the value it brings to individuals and society but also the principles of its operation.

In the realm of PSM news content, this study affirms earlier research that indicated that the public’s expectations for good journalism closely align with those held by journalists and experts (Gil de Zúñiga and Hinsley, 2013; Karlsson and Clerwall, 2019; Van Der Wurff and Schoenbach, 2014). In particular, it underscores the significance of the expectation of PSM independence and the objectivity of PSM news content. This is not surprising, given that previous research has shown that perceived objectivity, impartiality, non-partisanship and neutrality are key expectations from journalists and serve as a basis for their perceived trustworthiness (Karlsson and Clerwall, 2019; Ojala, 2021).

Another point worthy of note is the value participants placed on quality entertainment content. While scholars, policymakers, media regulators and even PSM journalists (Urbániková, 2023), sometimes tend to think of PSM in a narrow way, focussing mainly on news and current affairs programmes as the founding pillar, the discussions reveal that high-quality, diverse non-news content is vital for PSM’s popularity and its strong position within the national media landscape. This also means that reducing the PSM remit to news and minority genres, in the spirit of the market-failure perspective (Donders, 2021), would very likely lead to audience dissatisfaction and perhaps even jeopardise the willingness to pay the license fee.

While there was a broad consensus for the expectations of PSM, participants differed significantly in their actual assessments of the extent to which PSM meets these expectations. Interestingly, unlike previous research (Campos-Rueda, 2023; Smejkal et al., 2024) we observed no discernible patterns of difference in the assessment (satisfaction or criticism) of PSM performance among participants who support populist and non-populist parties, and non-voters. However, it is important to note that this may be attributed to the qualitative nature of this study, which serves as a research probe without making any claims to representativity.

Conclusion

Unlike most academic literature, which focusses on the normative and legal perspectives of the public value and societal contribution of PSM, this study addresses the call for an ‘audience turn’ (Swart et al., 2022) and for examining PSM’s ‘legitimacy-as-perception’ (Fehlmann, 2023) by adopting the perspective of the public. The 10 focus group discussions with the Czech public revealed that these expectations encompass four main dimensions: (1) the expected roles and functions that PSM is intended to perform (i.e. why PSM exists); (2) the general characteristics of PSM content (i.e. what PSM content should generally be like); (3) the principles of PSM operations (i.e. how PSM should operate); and (4) the specific requirements for both news and non-news PSM content.

Drawing on the conceptual framework of Biddle (1979) and Banjac et al. (2024), this study takes a comprehensive approach to the exploration of the public expectations of PSM, considering not only prescriptive expectations but also cathectic and descriptive expectations. We contend that cathectic expectations, which are expressed through individual evaluations of PSM performance, and descriptive expectations, which are rooted in audience practices and experiences, are both equally important because they reveal what individuals lack or value, their deeper wishes and needs and how they construct their criteria to evaluate PSM performance. Our study shows that the prescriptive, cathectic and descriptive expectations of the Czech audience share common ground – PSM should be, above all, independent, trustworthy, staffed by highly professional personnel and provide objective, serious and relevant information as well as entertainment.

At the same time, there are also notable differences. On the one hand, cathectic and descriptive expectations are more tied to audience experience. In this respect, the expectations for varied and engaging content, cultural and educational programmes, programmes for children and the elderly and rich original and innovative programming were much more pronounced than in the case of prescriptive expectations. On the other hand, prescriptive expectations mostly echoed standard normative criteria: PSM should primarily provide truthful and verified information, not follow the commercial market logic by subordinating content to the highest possible audience figures, and it should promote and help develop national culture and traditions. We argue that focussing on prescriptive expectations alone cannot fully capture what audiences expect from PSM, because questions like ‘What are your expectations of PSM? What should PSM be like?’ often elicit predictable textbook answers.

How do public expectations, broadly understood, differ from existing normative conceptualisations of PSM’s public value (Cañedo et al., 2022; Mazzucato et al., 2020)? Our study shows that, using the terminology of Mazzucato et al. (2020), the public focusses mostly on individual value and, to a limited extent, on societal value, while entirely neglecting industry value. More concretely, of the 12 elements of public value identified by Cañedo et al. (2022), the expectations of Czech participants partially overlap with seven of them: independence (i.e. trustworthiness, political distance, neutral reporting); diversity (i.e. programming, sources, audiences, identities and languages); social engagement (i.e. information, education, entertainment, but not democratic values); excellence (i.e. quality and professionalism, but not leadership and surveillance); universality (i.e. reach and audiences, but not accessibility and integration); innovation (i.e. creativity, but not interaction and digital transformation); and accountability (i.e. transparency and economic efficiency, but not sustainability). Conversely, the expectations expressed by the participants fully omitted five elements of the public values identified by Cañedo, et al. (2022): social justice, citizen participation, media literacy, territorial cohesion and cooperation.

In addition to the existing normative conceptualisations of PSM’s public value, our study shows that, rather than referring to abstract concepts, citizens’ expectations revolve around more concrete roles, functions and tasks, with distinctiveness as the common denominator. First, citizens expect PSM to bring added value as an alternative to commercial media. Participants frequently highlighted that they expect PSM to provide content and services without advertisements and emphasis on achieving high ratings. This expectation applies to both news content – where participants seek quality journalism, including watchdog roles, analysis, explanations and advice to citizens – and non-news content, such as the provision and promotion of art and culture. Second, citizens expect PSM to provide added value as a national alternative to multinational VOD platforms that offer globalised content. They want PSM to champion and preserve national traditions and culture, including language, and deliver rich, original national programming (although they did not frame it in terms of diversity, social cohesion or integration). Third, citizens expect PSM to be subject to stricter control mechanisms to ensure higher quality in both news and non-news content. These three elements distinguish PSM from the other media offerings available on the market in the eyes of the public, thereby constituting an essential aspect of its legitimacy.

The fact that public expectations rarely include abstract and theoretical arguments about PSM value beyond the individual level has two implications. First, the legitimacy of PSM hinges on providing content and services that appeal to as wide a range of individual citizens as possible. Citizens are unlikely to support PSM based solely on abstract and intangible arguments about its contributions to society, industry or democracy, especially in a highly competitive media environment. Second, while the societal and industry values of PSM are clearly important and set it apart from commercial media, PSM needs to invest more effort in effectively communicating these values. The fact that Czech participants mostly omitted these values in their expectations could stem from the shorter tradition of PSM in CEE compared to Western countries and with the limited efforts of both Czech Television and Czech Radio in actively promoting their broader contributions to society.

Besides exploring audience expectations, future research should look deeper into the expectations and evaluations of PSM from the perspective of other stakeholders, particularly political actors (i.e. those who set the institutional framework for PSM), and PSM managers and journalists (i.e. those who interpret the concept of public service in practice). As suggested by Urbániková (2023), there may be, even among PSM managers and journalists, different understandings of the role of PSM, as well as varying interpretations of key normative standards, such as objectivity and independence. These differences can lead to conflicts that have the potential to weaken the legitimacy of PSM in the eyes of the public. While diverse opinions, attitudes and expectations are natural in open societies, the stability and legitimacy of PSM largely depend on a society-wide consensus about their expected roles and functions, and, of course, on the extent to which the media succeeds in meeting those expectations.

Supplemental Material