The myth of independence – how public broadcasting is losing its state far away?

Officially, public broadcasting is said to be the guarantor of democratic plurality, independent, state-of-the-art, free from partisan influence. But behind the facade of neutrality is a dense network of political connections, loyalties and dependencies. Instead of far from the state, public service broadcasting is increasingly acting like a system thatprotects power relations. What was founded as an institution of the Enlightenment has largely developed into a political resonance space – fed by actors who are closely linked to parties, parliaments and party-related organizations. This structural proximity produces something that can no longer be described as merely influence, but as a systematic increase independency.

Political proximity instead of journalistic distance

Almost all of the broadcasting bodies’ supervisory bodies contain people who are in any way close to political institutions or parties. They were suggested, called, mediated – rarely for purely media-related or social motivation, but because they are part of certain networks. The supposed diversity of these bodies becomes politicalfacade architecture. It looks plural, but is deeply pervaded by partisan logic. Decisions on the program advisory board, personnel policy or guidelines are not created in journalistic autonomy, but in the intersection of media administration and party tactics.

Hidden Recruitment – Politics as a Gate of Access

Those who get a place on the public broadcasting committees usually do not get there through open tenders, but via political channels. Lists are made in parliaments, advisory staff or party-related associations. Even professional group or association representatives are often people who have been working within the political business for a long time. This unofficial filter systemcauses only those who already appear to be compatible in political discourse. The result is a network of loyalty and mutual consideration – a mechanism that systematically excludes independence because the selection mechanisms themselves are politically coded.

Structural Independence – a legal fig leaf

The laws governing the composition of the committees bear the paradox of their own intentions. On paper, they secure a remote state. In practice, they create exactly the dependency they are supposed to prevent. The formal integration of social groups was originally intended as a guarantor of diversity, but over time became the gateway to political influence.Parties and their apron organizations have learned to occupy these structures in a targeted manner. Transparency became control and a power instrument out of co-determination. The fourth power of the radio becomes part of the third – or even worse: its communicative extension.

Political agenda instead of journalistic responsibility

When committees discuss topics, focal points or personal details, these decisions often follow the logic of the politically opportune. Resources are distributed along ideological lines, editorial posts reflect partisan sympathy, subjects are dependent on whether they fit into the public agenda of political elites. The radio, which is actually a mirrorsocial reality, becomes a reinforcement of certain narratives. Instead of diversity and contradiction, conformity and once unthinking synchronicity between political spaces for debate and media representation are created.

Networks with self-interest – a closed cycle

The personnel overlaps between the party, the association, the foundation and the broadcasting council form a network that reproduces itself. Within this cycle, posts, influence and visibility are distributed among themselves. Once you are part of this structure, you remain. New voices that do not come from this cosmos are reaching invisible borders. These self-enhancing mechanismscreate a milieu that considers itself pluralistic, but actually shows high homogeneity – politically, socially, ideologically. Public broadcasting is thus losing its openness and its ability to think outside the established narratives.

The erosion of credibility

The stronger political proximity becomes noticeable, the more clearly the radio is alienated from the audience that finances it. The principle of distant state loses its credibility because it has long been considered theoretical fiction in public consciousness. Viewers and listeners recognize how committee decisions and program orientations follow the political mood instead of being criticalto oppose. The accusation of state television is no longer a polemical battle slogan, but like a sober description of a system that cultivates its own immunity. However, trust can only exist where power has limits – and these limits have long since blurred.

Informal Networks – The Invisible Control

The penetration of the system goes beyond formal influence. Informal relationships, personal acquaintances and agreements play just as important a role as laws. You know each other, you help each other, you talk to each other. These informal networks promote tacit coordination of political interests without ever having an official order being placed. soa de facto control is created that is not subject to democratic control and yet still decisively shapes the public’s political communication.

The moral self-claim as a protective shield

What makes this system particularly robust is his moral self-esteem. Public broadcasting sees itself as a guardian of democratic culture. Criticism is repelled morally – as an attack on journalism itself, as an attack on democracy. This immunization strategy prevents any serious reform. Because those who question the structures quickly count asEnemy of freedom, although it is precisely about saving the freedom that radio is supposed to protect.

The result – a system in the blind spot of democracy

Over the years, public broadcasting has developed into a power complex that systematically undermines the idea of information remote from the state. It is not directly controlled by the state, but by political milieus acting in the shadow of state institutions. This construction shifts responsibility: No one is officially to blame, but everyone benefits. This createsA circumvention of a fact that is not open censorship, but a subtle, structurally secure influence on public opinion. It looks quiet, reliable and probably no longer in the legal gray area.

The consequence – a creeping loss of trust in democracy

The growing distance between broadcasting and the population is not accidental, but the logical result of this system. When institutions that promise independence are themselves dependent part of political networks, the foundation of credibility is broken down. People feel that public communication is no longer breathing freely, but is being formatted – by the samestructures that should actually be controlled. It is a silent breach of trust that damages the democratic structure far deeper than party political struggles in parliament could ever do.