{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023492560689115115, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023492560689115116, 'mean_word_length': 5.834224598930481, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Defining public service beyond broadcasting: the legitimacy of different approaches

The development of public broadcasters’ Internet services has compelled practitioners and researchers alike to ponder public service beyond broadcasting. Yet, for public service as a key cultural policy tool, rethinking is also needed on the level of regulatory definitions. Are we witnessing a policy transformation into a media‐neutral public service concept? If so, what are the implications for the legitimacy of public service beyond broadcasting? Relating the current situation to a wider policy context, this article scrutinizes different regulatory approaches, tentatively characterized by (1) extending broadcasting, (2) adding to broadcasting and (3) demoting broadcasting. The approaches are illustrated with three cases: Norway, Germany and the UK. Assessing the different approaches, I discuss advantages and pitfalls, and the implications for the legitimacy of public service freed from broadcasting rationales. As policy actors strive to create stable conditions in an unstable situation, I argue, they should keep in mind both the risks of succumbing to details or pursuing exhaustive lists in basic definitions, and the linguistic and cultural characteristics of each polity.