ANALYSIS

What ‘critical infrastructure’ means for public media

6 February 2026
Amid a tense geopolitical environment and more severe environmental catastrophes, the debate over whether public service media should be – officially or unofficially – regarded as ‘critical infrastructure’ is escalating. What does such a designation mean for public service media? And are there risks to their operations, and their independence? 
Tower in the sunset
Kyiv, Ukraine dark silhouette of television tower antenna in Podil district with colorful vibrant orange yellow sunset. Credit: Andriy Blokhin / Shutterstock.com

– By Charlotte Pion, Journalist & Researcher

In January 2026, two executives from Swedish Radio (SR) headed to Kyiv for meetings with Ukraine’s public service broadcaster, Suspilne. “We travel here to better understand what it is like to work in journalism under the most extreme circumstances, and what conclusions can be drawn regarding the ability to develop preparedness and continuity,” said SR’s CEO, Cilla Benkö.

While in Ukraine, Benkö and Chief of Staff Gabriel Byström, met with those in the technical department, the newsroom, risk management, and compliance, as well as with the executive management of Suspilne.

It was the third time in just two years that they had made this trip, to learn from Suspilne and see what lessons they could take back home to Sweden.

Suspilne’s experience, in a full-blown conflict, of providing dependable and accurate fact-based news and information, and retaining public trust, is of great interest to public media worldwide in what is an increasingly tense and unpredictable geopolitical environment. Swedish Radio’s visit was an indication of the narrative that has been quickly gaining traction – of public service media as critical infrastructure in times of crisis.

“Crises can be overcome if you prepare for them systematically, assess risks, and build clear processes. It is important for us to share our own experience of working during the war, in particular with partners from Swedish Radio, while also receiving feedback,” said Valeriia Bezpala, Suspilne’s Director of the International Cooperation Department.

Public media in times of crisis

The last five years have been turbulent: the outbreak of war in Ukraine, rising geopolitical tensions, and more frequent climate catastrophes due to climate change. Amid broader phenomena – like the expansion of generative AI and vast swathes of disinformation – one of the consequences of this epoch has been a re-assessment of how public media can be defined.

Public broadcasters are on the frontline in the information war and considered as key actors in democratic resilience and national security. Their ability to provide real-time, verified, accurate and fact-based news and information makes their services essential and life-saving, in any range of scenarios, from natural disasters to conflicts.

Read more: Public Service Media as Critical Infrastructure (Statement)

But their role in times of crisis is not solely limited to broadcasting emergency information.

The United Nations Office for Disaster and Risk Reduction (UNDRR)’s Sendai Framework, views the media as active actors in raising public awareness and understanding of disaster risks. Through its role in sharing accurate, accessible information, supporting early warning systems and protective measures, the media sector can foster a culture of prevention through strong community engagement and public education.

In a recent statement, the Global Task Force for public media, a grouping of nine leaders of major public service media organisations worldwide, said that public service media “through their universal reach and core values of editorial and organisational independence, are best positioned to deliver the news and current affairs content people need when it matters most.” As such, they “should be recognised as critical infrastructure, underpinning civil society, democratic resilience, and social cohesion.”

There is an argument to suggest that defining public media as ‘critical infrastructure’ – by providing public media organisations with sufficient and sustainable funding, and by protecting their independence – can only strengthen their part in building resilient democratic societies.

However, such a designation does entail real risks and challenges. As Maksym Sijer, an information security specialist for INFO OPS Foundation, told PMA, the role of a critical infrastructure depends on the political model and the system of governance of a state. As such, national media organisations operating in non-democratic systems play a very different role than the ones in totalitarian countries or democratic states. In this context, the role played by public broadcasters in periods of instability cannot be universalised as it depends very much on the political, institutional and cultural condition of each state.

What does it mean for public broadcasters to be a part of critical infrastructure?

‘Critical infrastructure’ is defined by the UNDRR as “the physical structures, facilities, networks and other assets which provide services that are essential to the social and economic functioning of a community or society.” Sectors typically included within this definition include emergency services, energy, and transportation.

The communications sector is also often included in state-approved definitions of critical infrastructure, but this can refer more to the telecommunications infrastructure and is regarded as an enabling sector for others, rather than media institutions specifically, through the prism of information integrity and resilience.

With that said, some public service media organisations like RNZ or NHK, are officially designated as critical infrastructure.

For others, however, even if they don’t have a statutory responsibility, that doesn’t stop how they regard themselves, and the role of public media in crisis isn’t always about having a mandatory obligation. Instead, it’s a logical continuation of their universal mandate to provide independent and impartial fact-based news and information.

Prescribing public service media (PSM) as critical infrastructure, according to Sijer, means being considered by the state as a public communication system, responsible for broadcasting state-to-citizen communication in times of conflict, natural disaster, or in the face of hybrid threats and large-scale disinformation warfare. As such, their role is to disseminate critical information on governmental decisions, instructions and warnings and to support social coordination. Evidence from the Covid-19 pandemic to wildfires in Australia have shown that PSM remain one of the first sources of news and information that people turn to in times of environmental and societal turbulence, and as such, play an essential role in social cohesion and stability.

“You [PSM] offer clarity when confusion spreads. You offer credibility when mis and disinformation circulate and you offer calm when rumours are creating panic in society”  – Lieutenant General Carl-Johan Edström, Swedish Defence forces 

Radio Taiwan International (Rti) told PMA that their designation as critical infrastructure means they are mandated to maintain their operations during emergencies and ensuring the transmission of accurate information nationally and to their global audience is not disrupted.

Ensuring the continuation of these services requires Rti to have a robust safety system for their equipment, and the facilities to withstand any forms of attack and interference – digital and physical.

For Jean-Paul Philippot, CEO of the RTBF, even if they are not designated as critical infrastructure by the state, their mission as a PSM drives them to take on this function. “We consider that resilience is part of our remit,” he told PMA. “We regard ourselves as a critical infrastructure.” In case of a hybrid war – when various military and non-military tactics are used to target political institutions, influence public opinion and undermine a nation’s security such as the dissemination of propaganda and disinformation – they are equipped to provide accurate information to the majority of the population.

A radio studio in Rti's Taipei headquarters. Credit: Harry Lock
Why should PSM be part of critical infrastructures?

In the words of Lieutenant General Carl-Johan Edström from the Swedish Defence forces, who addressed the CEOs of European public broadcasters at a summit of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) last year, “You [PSM] offer clarity when confusion spreads. You offer credibility when mis and disinformation circulate and you offer calm when rumours are creating panic in society”.

Public media’s essential role in maintaining a reliable and trusted communication link between the state and the public requires robust and secure technical and technological infrastructure. Recognising PSM as part of the critical infrastructure system can motivate the strengthening of their technical protection and give them priority for security resources.

“The organisation maintains an “Arm’s-length Principle” with government authorities to ensure that resources provided for critical infrastructure are used to strengthen media function rather than increase political control” – Chris Liu, Vice President of Radio Taiwan International (Rti)

However, this status can also put a target on their back. Sijer warned that this position increases the exposure of PSM to threats and can intensify the incentives for both state and non-state actors to interfere or disrupt their operations. He also said that in countries where public media are highly politicised, this designation “may be perceived as an attempt to “entrench” political influence and editorial direction”, deepening public scepticism towards the media.

The security measures surrounding critical infrastructures can also become a challenge. Being part of the crisis system requires public media to be protected from physical and cyber threats, including additional security protocols to access buildings. Sijer warns that extended security measures could have a slowdown effect on public media’s reporting if strong mechanisms are not put in place.

LISTEN: How public broadcasters are dealing with cyber security threats

Additionally, it involves extensive investment to bring the organisation up to the security standards of critical infrastructure. As Philippot said, the whole chain of the broadcasting process must be secured: from the transmitters to the building, computer systems and the installation of generators, every link in the chain must be inspected and protected, which demands considerable work and funds. The question at a time of austerity for public media across the world, who is responsible for funding it? If public media are expected to finance the upgrade themselves, this status may become a heavy burden.

For Sijer, the inclusion of public media within critical infrastructure should not be limited to periods of crisis but instead should begin with the construction of a coherent strategic communication system (STRATCOM). According to him, such a system “should encompass both internal communication directed at citizens and external communication aimed at the international public sphere.” In which case public media play an essential role but are not the only component of a broader STRATCOM. Because both critical infrastructure protection and strategic communication require long‑term and non‑partisan commitment, the reality of politics can make their effective implementation particularly challenging.

The importance of independence

The major challenge of the designation as critical infrastructure comes from the way it defines the relationship between state and independent public service media. Balancing public broadcasters’ public service remit with the responsibilities tied to national security is vital, not only to safeguard its editorial independence but also the public’s trust.

Lieutenant General Edström said that PSM are critical actors of national resilience, but “this only works if [PSM’s] editorial independence is protected. Without independence, PSM will be seen as an extension of government communication and trust will disappear”.

Reyers tower in Brussels, RTBF & VRT - Credits: Charlotte Pion
Reyers tower in Brussels, RTBF & VRT - Credits: Charlotte Pion

A strong mechanism separating editorial independence and infrastructure protection is necessary to leave no space for pressures to limit transparency or influencing the editorial line. He also emphasised that even though PSM and the military should be partners when it comes to creating a resilient society, public broadcasters should retain total independence to hold the power and military accountable, even in time of turmoil.

This is an essential aspect that Rti considered in the way the organisation is built.  “The organisation maintains an “Arm’s-length Principle” with government authorities to ensure that resources provided for critical infrastructure are used to strengthen media function rather than increase political control” said Chris Liu, the Vice President of Rti. Rti’s independence is guaranteed by their internal editorial charter. The broadcaster also received the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) certification, an international standard that promotes transparency, independence, and compliance with journalistic ethics.

Belgium is looking at other ways of separating the public service remit from the critical infrastructure responsibilities. The RTBF is currently testing a scenario to ensure its channels would remain editorially independent in times of crisis. This scenario entails the creation of a crisis radio channel, of which the RTBF could be the technical operators. The creation of such a channel would clarify the distinction between government communication and the editorially-independent channels of the public broadcaster.

Lieutenant General Edström highlighted the importance of the relation of trust between public media and the population, calling it the “strongest pillar of defence”. But he also warned that “trust cannot be built on the day the crisis begins. It must be continuously built in normal times”.

More Analysis
Related Posts