In a spirited discussion hosted by this year’s Monte Carlo TV Festival (14-16 June) and held on Saturday 14 June at the Grimaldi Forum’s Salle Genevoix, the “Public Service Broadcasting: Its Future in the Evolving Landscape” session brought together a diverse panel of professionals grappling with the changing role and survival of public service broadcasters (PSBs). Moderated by Graham Benson, chairman of GCB International Media Consultants, the panel included Toma De Matteis (France Télévisions), Matthew Deaner (Screen Producers Australia), Jinhyun Park (EBS) and Vance Van Petten (Chapman University), each offering perspectives shaped by the political and media environments of their respective countries.

Benson opened the conversation by thanking the festival for providing what he called “the only TV forum left on the globe where you can discuss essential issues for PSBs”, noting that elsewhere, the focus has shifted to marketing and more peripheral concerns.

First, Park painted a sobering picture of South Korea’s media landscape, where young audiences have largely abandoned public broadcasters in favour of YouTube and Netflix. In such a fast-evolving market, he explained, EBS has had to develop new strategies to remain relevant – chiefly by producing content aimed at younger generations and distributing it through digital platforms. “We are trying to justify our budget by adapting,” he said, describing the need to maintain societal value amid fierce commercial competition.

Van Petten, drawing on his experience in the USA, highlighted the particular vulnerability of rural communities. With over 300 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) stations serving small and often isolated populations, public broadcasting remains a vital source of trustworthy news and children’s programming. Yet he warned of growing political attacks on PBS, citing the misconception that the service serves only liberal audiences. “Try finding political leanings in a seven-year-old,” he quipped, stressing that a significant part of the PBS audience is made up of young children aged 5-8. In rural America, public financing can account for as much as 50% of station budgets, and cuts threaten to silence these essential voices.

Deaner provided a different view from Australia, where, despite more moderate political polarisation, public broadcasters may still face budget cuts from conservative governments — even as those same officials rely heavily on PSBs. Deaner noted that Australia’s PSBs play a key role in promoting multicultural content, including programming dedicated to indigenous communities. He also referred to an ongoing campaign for increased funding under the country’s current left-leaning government, likening the situation to that of Canada.

The conversation turned to the tensions between PSBs and commercial broadcasters. De Matteis defended the neutrality and value of public programming. He lamented that private competitors often accuse public broadcasters of being left-leaning, while simultaneously benefiting from the ecosystem that public investment creates. In his words, “We’re under attack. These people spend a lot of time and money telling the public we’re doing wrong.” He illustrated this with a concrete example: a VFX company and studio he helped build for a public project later became a resource for private producers – effectively a case of public money seeding growth.

Benson agreed that this tension is felt globally. He raised the question of whether PSBs should cooperate with commercial streamers or remain distinct. Deaner cited the view of a new chairperson in the Australian industry, who argued that PSBs “shouldn’t attempt to replicate commercial media, but rather carve out their own space”. Van Petten added that many PBS programmes now appear on commercial streaming services — a double-edged sword. While this increases access and visibility, he voiced concerns about potential overreach from commercial partners, especially if they begin to influence original content.

Park echoed the challenges of funding and co-production in Korea, where partnerships with other Asian PSBs are rare owing to limited resources. De Matteis argued that PSBs globally do not collaborate enough and warned of the vulnerabilities introduced when funding is controlled directly by governments and not bound to a licence fee. “If the system is stable and democratic enough, funding can work,” he noted. “But that can change, as we’re seeing now in the USA.”

Van Petten stressed how little is actually being asked of the public – just $1.16 (€1) per person annually in the USA – to support services that are consistently rated highly across age groups. “It’s a joke,” he said, arguing that PSBs should not be apologetic about their value. “France Télévisions spends over €400 million to make fiction and documentary – the entire system relies on that. This generates economic growth; we’re not doing a favour to somebody,” added De Matteis. “A bit of money placed in the right place is beneficial for all, including private players.”

The session closed on a note of cautious optimism. While the threats are real — from misinformation to budget cuts and political interference — the speakers agreed that PSBs still have a vital role to play. “Yes, PBS has a future,” said Benson in conclusion. “And it’s an important one. But it needs to be protected and defended.” Encouraging smarter partnerships, maintaining independence and not being afraid to celebrate success were highlighted as key to survival.

As media ecosystems continue to evolve, the conversation made it clear that public broadcasters — far from being obsolete — remain pillars of democratic discourse, social cohesion and cultural diversity. But their future will depend on both public backing and political will.