José Manuel Pérez Tornero, chief of the public broadcasting network, speaks for the first time about the fresh Audiovisual Law and its consequences for the status of public media in Spain and across Europe. The reform will touch the organization’s financial framework, yet it is anticipated to be less drastic than in many other European nations.
There was a perception that the digital revolution in the European Union could wipe out public television. The sentiment was a bet against a public service model facing rapid technological change and market liberalization.
That shift had its bright side.
European directives cast public television as a commercial service rather than a public one.
It felt like a scare. Digital progress suggested anyone could challenge anyone else. The reality is not all favorable. On information overload, there has been a loud surge of information, a proliferation of misinformation, a trend that alarms from a democratic perspective and from a technological leadership standpoint. There is also concern that Europe finds itself dependent on others for key technologies, with China and the United States dominating many digital players. In this setting, leaders in the European Commission, Parliament, and member states emphasize that collective action in digital development, high tech, artificial intelligence, and audiovisual rights is necessary. Without that unity, Europe risks losing the essence of its future potential.
A certain disdain for the public servant character has appeared.
There is change underway. In Cannes recently, heads of major public broadcasters met with the so-called Big Five and argued that European cinema is financed and supported by European television channels, not merely by independent funding. This support includes guidance, distribution, and promotion without which European cinema would not reach its current stature. The comparison to a league where Europe would lose its best players if private channels prevail illustrates how pivotal this dynamic is for cinema as a whole.
However, critics observe that while those messages are embraced by many, policy adoption sometimes tilts in favor of private broadcasters, particularly when the Spanish audiovisual law under discussion acknowledges Radiotelevisión Española as a platform that can back independent or mixed production that fits with other channels. The reality is more intricate than rhetoric, and such provisions must be weighed against the public broadcaster’s commitments to independent production, cinema, and programming that respect rights and promote diversity.
Spain has real opportunities to shape a positive path. The law notes that Radiotelevisión Española can support independent or co-produced projects aligned with other channels, yet the broadcaster remains deeply committed to investing in Spanish cinema and domestic audiovisual creativity. Hours of programming will be allocated with a clear priority for national content, and the organization will strive to support both large and small production companies to ensure a plural, broad cultural representation. Linguistic diversity and regional storytelling are seen as core values, and significant support for language variety will continue regardless of lobbying or concessions. TVE’s role is central, signaling a firm devotion to creative capital and not just financial capital. A meeting with producers and the film world is proposed to demonstrate that resolve in a concrete, collaborative way.
Some observers question whether there is enough political backing in Congress for robust public television. Pérez Tornero notes that the government has committed to reasonable funding, including Next Generation funds to modernize infrastructure. He highlights that even among opposition parties there is a willingness to engage with a public network, because abandoning it would leave large swaths of the broadcast landscape under private control. He stresses that transparency in budgeting and decision making is improving, a hallmark of broader accountability in both public and private media. He points to the public consultation, the surveys and qualitative interviews, as evidence of a demand for a modern, well-run public broadcaster that can present informed analysis on major events, including the war in Ukraine. He suggests that this broader, public-facing approach is a key part of the audiovisual strategy going forward.
He was asked whether there are confidential files or sources within journalism that should be guarded. He answered that editorial independence remains a cornerstone. The broadcaster operates under a statute that allows staff to resist any information that could threaten professional independence. The company provides robust editorial guidelines to ensure that the newsroom remains impartial, neutral in its political posture, and socially committed. The aim is to defend a trusted newsroom that remains transparent and credible, with ongoing regular engagements in Parliament to keep decision-making open and observable. This steady, constructive dialogue is expected to continue as the public broadcaster navigates a period of rapid change.
When asked about risks in the public arena, he acknowledged them but stressed that an open door policy exists in the presidency. He invites those who want to understand his viewpoint or exchange ideas to engage in dialogue. He speaks of responsibility that rests on everyone in the organization and of patience as the institution steers through a long, historical arc that requires steady, calculated moves to strengthen independence and public trust.
Critics have also pointed to perceived instability within the management team. He contends that leadership turnover in private firms tends to be higher, while the public broadcaster maintains essential stability even as changes occur. He notes that about 140 leaders might rotate through the organization over time, with most appointments made through public competition rather than personal choice. A comprehensive replacement plan and job security for staff underpin a stable workforce.
The legislative adjustment is a response to a turbulent period, and Pérez Tornero is explicit about ongoing reforms. He believes that public contest processes are progress, and that broad support for public broadcasting is a public good. A two-thirds majority in elections remains a meaningful benchmark for ensuring durable governance. The experience has yielded lessons that can help improve the process in the future. The aspiration is clear: move forward with confidence, deepen institutional independence, and ensure that the public broadcaster remains a trustworthy, essential pillar of national life while engaging in a global, digital era.