International public media face uncertain future in democracies
More and more Western governments are paring down their funding for international public media, even as authoritarian regimes beef theirs up. Yet these platforms can be instrumental in the information war, some experts say.
Donald Trump wants to silence the voice of the United States in the world. In mid-March, the US president decided to cut off funding for the US Agency for Global MediaExternal link, which includes Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia.
A legal challenge is now underway to prevent these platforms from being dismantled, but it’s far from being over. In recent days, a federal judge ordered the re-instatement of some of these international public media services. At the end of March, another judge had suspended the decision to end several of the services.
“Geopolitically speaking, this is a huge mistake. The United States is doing itself out of an important tool of global influence for defending freedom of expression,” warns Tristan Mattelart, a professor of international communications at Paris Panthéon-Assas University. These platforms play an essential role, the expert stresses, in countries where information is controlled by authoritarian regimes.
Western countries whittle back public investment
International news services are under pressure not only in the US, but in other Western countries as well. “In recent years, several liberal democracies have reconsidered or reduced funding to public service media, in particular foreign-facing media,” says Colin Porlezza, director of the Institute of Media and Journalism at the Università della Svizzera italiana.
In the United Kingdom, the BBC World Service has undergone numerous budget cuts over the past 15 years. It has now announced plans to slash 130 jobsExternal link in a scheme to save around £6 million (CHF6.5 million). “The BBC World Service is under significant budgetary pressure, despite its historical role as a cornerstone of British soft power,” the Lugano-based specialist says.
In France, too, the resources allocated to foreign broadcasting have dwindled by several million eurosExternal link in recent years. “International public media have also been the object of austerity measures in Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Slovenia,” says Porlezza.
Switzerland is not immune to this trend. As part of a savings package currently under discussion, the government wants to end its contribution of CHF19 millionExternal link ($External link23 million) to the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation’s foreign mandate. This covers SWI swissinfo.ch, the Italian-language website tvsvizzera.it, and cooperation with the international television channels TV5MONDE and 3sat.
Meanwhile, Deutsche Welle stands out in the Western world. The German government allocated an additional €15 millionExternal link (CHF14 million) to its international broadcasting service in its 2025 budget. “This is the exception rather than the rule. Elsewhere, political pressure is growing,” Porlezza says.
Authoritarian regimes bolster their international media
In authoritarian countries, by contrast, the opposite trend is at play. “Since the early 2000s, Russia, China and Iran have been strengthening their audiovisual broadcasting platforms, particularly in Africa and Latin America,” the Paris academic Mattelart points out.
He cites, in particular, the creation of the Russian propaganda channels RT and Sputnik, as well as the establishment of international television channels by China, thanks to investments worth several billions of Swiss francs. “There is a stark contrast between the tough budgetary negotiations faced by international public broadcasting services in the United States and Western Europe and the substantial funding received by Russian and Chinese international state media,” he says.
However, as Porlezza explains, this expansion of their international media footprint is “leading to forms of media capture, where public service media do not function independently, but are controlled by vested interests”.
No longer deemed useful
Budgetary discipline, Mattelart says, has been the main factor weighing on international public media in Western countries for several decades. In the US, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe have had to cut costs since the end of the Cold War. Then, “after the shock of the September 11, 2001 attacks, funding was available for new media services aimed at the Arab world,” he says.
Beyond the financial questions, though, the usefulness of these platforms is also being called into question. “Throughout the 20th century, they were seen as important instruments of soft power by states, particularly during the Second World War and the Cold War,” says Andrew Robotham, a researcher and lecturer at the Academy of Journalism and Media at the University of Neuchâtel.
Most international news services started out in the 1930s as short-wave radio stations. At the time, short wave was the only technology that could broadcast to the other side of the world.
The Swiss Short-Wave Service or SWS (later Swiss Radio International, and ultimately SWI swissinfo.ch) was set up in 1938. Its aim was to respond to the propaganda of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, historian Raphaëlle Ruppen Coutaz explains in her book The Voice of Switzerland Abroad.
As Switzerland was not involved in the war, coverage from SWS was widely followed. “It gained international respect for its neutral reporting and became a rare ‘free voice’ in a Europe dominated by authoritarian regimes,” says Porlezza.
States turn to other channels
In Robotham’s view, however, the golden age of these international news services is now over. Governments are favouring other channels to make their voices heard abroad. “States are increasingly relying on social networks and institutional communication. This means they can do without journalists, which are expensive as well as critical.”
In Switzerland, the federal government uses Presence SwitzerlandExternal link to promote its image abroad. “The advantage of this kind of communication, from the government’s point of view, is that it is tailor-made,” says Robotham.
The current context, he adds, is unfavourable to these broadcasting platforms: “On the one hand, public-service funding in general is under attack almost everywhere. On the other hand, there is a climate of mistrust towards traditional media and journalists.”
The researcher is worried about the future of international public media in Western democracies. “It’s already hard to maintain funding for public service media,” he says, “so I really can’t see how services aimed at foreign audiences are going to survive in their current form, despite their excellent quality.” He nonetheless sees a glimmer of hope: “Perhaps the situation in the United States will serve as a wake-up call as to the importance of public service and international broadcasting.”
Mattelart is optimistic overall. “In times of heightened tension, these platforms prove their worth in ensuring media pluralism in certain authoritarian contexts,” he says. They could thus play an important role in the information war pitting democratic countries against authoritarian regimes. “As long as there are authoritarian regimes, these services will have their work cut out for them,” the academic concludes.
Edited by Pauline Turuban. Adapted from French by Julia Bassam/gw.
In compliance with the JTI standards
More: SWI swissinfo.ch certified by the Journalism Trust Initiative
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.