26i0085 by the Lounge interactive design

PUBLIC VALUE

STUDY S PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA IN EUROPE

MEDIA LITERACY

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

QUALITY DIMENSIONS INDIVIDUAL VALUE

SOCIAL VALUE

NATION VALUE

TEST SERVICE ENTERTAINMENT EDUCATION AND SCIENCE RESPONSIBILITY

DIVERSITY ORIENTATION INTEGRATION CULTURE

IDENTITY ADDED VALUE FEDERALISM

INTERNATIONALER WERT

UNTERNEHMENSWERT

EUROPEAN INTEGRATION GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

INNOVATION TRANSPARENCY COMPETENCE

In order to define distinctive media quality Austrian Broadcasting Corporation has created a structure of five Quality Dimensions. Comprehensive media production in TV, radio and online is described along 18 categories to prove how ORF fulfills its Public Service Mission in the context of the current media environment and its challenges. More information, statements and documents you may find zukunft.ORF.at.

PUBLISHED AND PRODUCED BY: Österreichischer Rundfunk, ORF, Hugo-Portisch-Gasse 1, 1136 Wien DESIGN: ORF Marketing & Creation GmbH & Co KG RESPONSIBLE: ORF-Generaldirektion Public Value

– gedruckt nach der Richtlinie „Druckerzeugnisse” des Österreichischen Umweltzeichens, UW 1237 Druck: Druckwerkstatt Handels GmbH 1. Auflage, © ORF 2026 Reaktionen, Hinweise und Kritik bitte an: zukunft@ORF.at

M EDIA LITER AC Y

MEDIA LITERACY IS DEMOCRACY EDUCATION Every day, AI-generated content, fake news, hate speech, and bot messages flood the online world. How can we distinguish truth from falsehood, human communication from algorithmic messages, and reputable sources from malicious ones? In the information age, skills like these are becoming just as important as reading, writing, and math skills. Without media literacy, democracy risks erosion. And while policymakers grapple with regulations — and even at least partial bans — on various media, established educational institutions such as schools and universities are sometimes, if not overwhelmed, at least severely challenged by the issue. What can media outlets — especially public broadcasters — do to address this issue? How — and by whom — can and should the fundamentals of media literacy be taught? What is the current state of affairs in various public media organizations across Europe? This year, the Public Value Study by Austria’s Public Service Media, ORF, is dedicated to precisely this topic and thus to a key aspect of the category called “Education” within the public value framework. As in previous years, this is being done in cooperation with international public service media: This time, ARD, VRT, MDR, and the European Broadcasting Union are participating and have commissioned studies that address various best practices and general issues related to media literacy. We would like to thank all those involved and the international experts, in particular the study director and scientific editor, Mag. Dr. Dimitri Prandner of Johannes Kepler University Linz, who also prepared the Austrian contribution—a study of the ORF’s performance. His conclusions and recommendations based on the various contributions can be found on page 158. Numerous other academic articles on public service quality, as well as the Puc Value studies by Austrian public broadcasting, such as those on digital innovation, public value platforms, or the ORF’s democratic mandate, are published on zukunft.ORF.at. KLAUS UNTERBERGER UND KONRAD MITSCHKA ORF PUBLIC VALUE

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

MEDIA LITERACY AS A PUBLIC VALUE OF PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUME MAG. DR. DIMITRI PRANDNER – UNIVERSITÄT LINZ �� 5

THE ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA IN MEDIA LITERACY: A FRAMEWORK AND OVERVIEW OF EBU MEMBER ACTIVITIES FRANCESCA CIMINO – EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION �� 11

BETWEEN ALGORITHM AND MISSION: PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND THE POLITICAL MEDIA EDUCATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE POST-DIGITAL AGE PROF. IN DR. IN SONJA GANGUIN – UNIVERSITÄT LEIPZIG AND DR. JOHANNES GEMKOW – FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT GESELLSCHAFTLICHER ZUSAMMENHALT �� 30

PERCEIVED RESPONSIBILITIES: THE CONTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SERIE MEDIA TO MEDIA LITERACY – A PUBLIC VALUE ANALYSIS USING THE ORF AS AN EXAMPLE MAG. DR. DIMITRI PRANDNER AND BSC TANJA MAYR – UNIVERSITÄT LINZ �� 52

FROM DESIGN TO CLASSROOM: HOW VRT’S EDUBOXES TACKLE DIGITAL MEDIA LITERACY FOR FLEMISH YOUNG PEOPLE MA JANA VEREECKE, PROF. IN LAURA VANDENBOSCH, PROF. IN KATHLEEN BEULLENS, PROF. STEVEN EGGERMONT UND PROF. IN LARA SCHREURS – MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY LAB, KU LEUVEN ......... 87

THE “CREATOR ROOM” – A LEARNING AND EXPERIENTIAL SPACE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE MEDIA LITERACY DR. IN NATALIE GROBSHÄUSER, PD DR. IN CARMEN KÖHLER, DR. IN FRANZISKA BAIER-MOSCH UND PROF.DR. JOHANNES HARTI – LEIBNIZ-INSTITUT FÜR BILDUNGSFORSCHUNG UND BILDUNGSINFORMATION �� 121

MEDIA LITERACY NOW! WHAT PUBLIC BROADCASTING CONTRIBUTES TO THE PUBLIC VALUE OF MEDIA LITERACY – AND WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO NEXT DR. IN MAYA GÖTZ – INTERNATIONALES ZENTRALINSTITUT FÜR JUGEND- UND BILDUNGSMEDIEN �� 137

MEDIA LITERACY AS A KEY COMPETENCY? CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MAG. DR. DIMITRI PRANDNER, UNIVERSITÄT LINZ ��158

M EDIA LITER AC Y

MEDIA LITERACY AS A PUBLIC VALUE OF PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUME MAG. DR. DIMITRI PRANDNER, UNIVERSITÄT LINZ

THIS IS A AI TRANSLATED TEXT, THIS TRANSLATION WAS APPROVED BY A THE AUTHOR

Media literacy and the public sphere in the age of digital platforms

Media literacy is a well-established concept in debates on media education, communication studies and education policy. However, in the context of digital public spheres, it has acquired a new urgency that is directly connected to the tasks and duties of public service media. From a normative perspective, public service media are understood in European discussions not only as providers of reliable information, but also as institutions that should facilitate democratic opinion formation, cultural participation and social orientation (Bardoel & Lowe, 2007; Donders, 2021; European Broadcasting Union, 2026). Accordingly, media literacy is a central component of the public value of public service media, which create social value through a wide range of activities — not only by providing information, but also by helping people to assess information, sources, platform logics and the conditions under which media are produced. This is precisely why media literacy must be considered in the context of public service media. This idea provides the starting point for the six contributions in this volume, which examine the role of public service media in the field of media literacy in Europe, particularly in Belgium, Germany and Austria, as well as the initiatives already in place and their potential. The volume demonstrates how media literacy can be taught and how public service media can themselves become infrastructures for social orientation. The fact that media literacy is approached from a variety of angles reflects the nature of the topic and its broad relevance. The media education tradition, in the German discourse oftn argued to be shaped by Baacke, does not view media literacy as mere technical proficiency. Rather, it is understood as the ability to critically, knowledgeably,

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

productively and socially responsibly incorporate media into one’s communicative and practical repertoire (Baacke, 1996, 1997). This perspective has been further developed and elaborated upon in international concepts such as Media and Information Literacy. These concepts identify specific dimensions, such as information seeking, source evaluation, verification, participation and social inclusion (Grizzle et al., 2021; Hobbs, 2010; UNESCO, 2024). This creates a link to research on news use and information literacy, which emphasises the need for people to be able to distinguish between journalistic quality and media selection processes and to recognise forms of strategic deception (Maksl et al., 2015; Vraga et al., 2015). In response to the intensification of social challenges posed by disinformation, recent research has sought to demonstrate that media literacy should not be misconstrued as a general lack of trust in media content (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026). Media literacy does not mean distrusting everything, but rather being able to develop justified trust in sources, processes and evidence that can be scrutinised (Bennett & Livingston, 2018; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). This discussion has gained further relevance because automated systems, algorithmic visibility and AI-generated content are changing the conditions under which information is produced, distributed and evaluated. Accordingly, concepts such as AI and algorithmic literacy take up central aspects of media literacy and extend them to include the ability to critically assess algorithmic selection processes, synthetic content and automated decision-making systems (Almatrafi et al., 2024; Cox, 2024; Tiernan et al., 2023). Considering this context, media literacy is not only an educational objective, but also a vital tool for navigating digital societies. It must be further developed because the media environment has fundamentally changed since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Digital platforms are not merely supplementary channels to traditional media. They structure the public sphere by organising visibility, reach, and opportunities for interaction according to their own technical and economic logics (Gillespie, 2018; van Dijck et al., 2018). Content is longer primarily situated within editorially organised programmes or publications, but in personalised feeds, search environments, recommendations, comment sections, messaging groups and short-form video formats. News, entertainment, advertising, political communication, influencer communication, disinformation and increasingly AI-generated content all appear within the same interfaces and spaces. This digital space does not exist alongside ‚analogue‘ public spheres;

M EDIA LITER AC Y

rather, it has become an infrastructural condition of the public sphere and public communication (Cramer, 2014; Stalder, 2017). Consequently, the public sphere has become more platformised, fragmented, personalised and dependent on privately organised infrastructures. This requires a change in the focus of media literacy. It is no longer sufficient to verify the accuracy of individual pieces of content or to understand how to use digital applications. Instead, people need to understand the conditions under which content is created, made visible, circulated and perceived as credible. This is particularly relevant for children and young people, for whom digital media are not only a source of information, but also a space for socialisation, forming relationships, and developing their identity. At the same time, the contributions in this volume demonstrate that media literacy should not be confined to children and young people or schools alone. Formal education remains important because it provides structured learning environments and systematically reaches specific target groups. However, it is ineffective in addressing the challenges of the digital public sphere in everyday media use, such as scrolling through short videos, sharing news in group chats, assessing search results, engaging with influencer communication, recognising AI-generated content, and encountering political communication on social media. This brings the debate back to the remit of public service media. If we understand media literacy as a social resource for orientation, then public service media are not merely potential partners for schools or providers of individual teaching materials. They also create spaces for public orientation through accountable journalism, visible sourcing, transparent research, explanatory formats, age-appropriate offerings, critical engagement with platforms, AI education and a considered presence in digital public spheres. The following six contributions address this issue directly. Using a variety of empirical, conceptual and comparative approaches, the authors and researchers demonstrate how public service media address media literacy, the tensions that arise and the role they could play in an increasingly digital, platformbased and automated public sphere. 2.

From Educational Resources and Media Content to Public Structures for Orientation

As mentioned earlier in this introduction, this volume features contributions from six author teams examining the work and relevance of public service media in the field of media literacy.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

The first contribution is by Francesca Cimino, who discusses media literacy in the context of European public service media. Focusing on the role of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), it shows that media literacy in public service broadcasting is understood as both a national educational task and part of a European public service agenda. The article examines how public service media respond to fragmented public spheres, disinformation, platform dependencies and changing patterns of media use. It also considers the role of cooperation, shared standards and European dialogue processes in this context. Media literacy thus emerges as an institutional responsibility, extending beyond individual formats or projects to encompass how public service media fulfil their democratic mandate in the digital era. Sonja Ganguin and Johannes Gemkow‘s contribution takes a perspective situated between media education and social theory. They consider how media literacy can be understood in the post-digital era, when digital media are inextricably interwoven with everyday practices, educational processes, political communication and social relationships, rather than existing as a distinct entity alongside social reality. This contribution clarifies the conceptual framework that is also fundamental to the other studies in this collection. Media literacy is not defined as a skill to be acquired, but rather realized as an ongoing, developing process. Engagement with media, technologies, public spheres and social participation on an ongoing basis is relevant to media literacy. This provides a theoretical foundation for the subsequent contributions, which focus more closely on institutions, programmes and specific educational practices. Dimitri Prandner and Tanja Mayr‘s contribution based on a study on the ORF brings these considerations into the Austrian context. It connects a social science perspective on media literacy with the question of how public service media can function as institutions that provide orientation. A variety of approaches are brought together, including empirical findings on digital skills and knowledge about disinformation in Austria, expert interviews within relevant ORF staff and a programme analysis of formats such as ‚ZiB erklärt‘. Therefore, the contribution asks not only which offerings explicitly address media literacy, but also how media literacy can be seen in journalistic practice itself, for example through transparent sourcing, providing explanatory context and reflecting on the conditions of media production. It also considers how to provide knowledge that helps people find their bearings in digital public spheres.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Jana Vereecke, Laura Vandenbosch, Kathleen Beullens, Steven Eggermont and Lara Schreurs then turn to a specific public service educational offering from Belgium in their contribution on the VRT EDUboxes. The article examines how the Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) can develop learning materials to support formal and informal education, while ensuring that media literacy is not reduced to classroom materials. The EDUboxes demonstrate how public service media can translate their journalistic, educational and social expertise into structured learning resources. However, the contribution also highlights a key challenge: such offerings must be relevant to educational institutions while responding to a media landscape that extends far beyond the classroom. Media literacy emerges as an issue at the intersection of broadcasting, the education system, young people, teachers, and the digital public sphere. The contribution by Natalie Grobshäuser, Carmen Köhler, Franziska Baier-Mosch and Johannes Hartig on the CREATOR ROOM shifts the focus more strongly towards participation, production and young people‘s media practices. Using the media literacy studio of Hessischer Rundfunk (hr) as an example, they demonstrate that media literacy encompasses not only the understanding and evaluation of media content, but also the active engagement with media production, platform logics and public visibility. It is particularly important for younger audiences to not only consume media, but also to create, share, and comment on content, and to be embedded in platformised communication spaces. This contribution clarifies that public service media can create spaces where young people can experience and reflect on media production practices. Here, media literacy is understood as a productive, social and reflective practice. Finally the text by Maja Götz‘s focuses on children and young people, their media worlds, and the requirements for contemporary media literacy education. From the perspective of the International Central Institute for Youth and Educational Television (IZI) at Bayerischer Rundfunk, it is evident that media literacy education must engage with the practical realities of young people‘s lives, including social media, big tech companies, usage times, popular platforms, worldviews, interests, and the role of teachers and other influential figures. Thus, the contribution traces a line from the evolving media landscape and the everyday experiences of younger audiences to the practical implications of public value in the context of media literacy. It complements

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

the institutional and programme-related perspectives in the volume with an audience-centred, developmental approach. Taken together, the six contributions demonstrate that media literacy in the context of public service media cannot be reduced to individual educational offerings, target groups or formats. Rather, it is a social challenge, an institutional responsibility, a journalistic practice and an educational task. Returning to the point made at the outset, it is also a necessary contribution to social orientation. Public service media cannot create media literacy alone, but they possess unique resources to foster orientation, trust, transparency, and participation in digital public spheres. This volume addresses precisely this intersection by asking how public service media can promote, demonstrate and develop media literacy as part of their public value. REFERENCES Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Lee, H. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy conceptualization, constructs, and implementation and assessment efforts (2019–2023). Computers and Education Open, 6, Article 100173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100173 Baacke, D. (1996). Medienkompetenz – Begrifflichkeit und sozialer Wandel. In A. von Rein (Ed.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff (p. 112–124). Klinkhardt. Baacke, D. (1997). Medienpädagogik. Niemeyer. Bardoel, J., & Lowe, G. F. (2007). From public service broadcasting to public service media: The core challenge. In G. F. Lowe & J. Bardoel (Eds.), From public service broadcasting to public service media (pp. 9–26). Nordicom. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi. org/10.1177/0267323118760317 Cox, A. (2024). Algorithmic literacy, AI literacy and responsible generative AI literacy. Journal of Web Librarianship, 18(3), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2024.2395341 Cramer, F. (2014). What is ‘post-digital’? A Peer-Reviewed Journal About, 3(1), 10–24. https://doi. org/10.7146/aprja.v3i1.116068 Donders, K. (2021). Public service media in Europe: Law, theory and practice. Routledge. European Broadcasting Union. (2026). Advancing media literacy through public service media. European Broadcasting Union. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. Grizzle, A., Wilson, C., Tuazon, R., Cheung, C. K., Lau, J., Fischer, R., Gordon, D., Akyempong, K., Singh, J., Carr, P. R., Stewart, K., Tayie, S., Suraj, O., Jaakkola, M., Thésée, G., & Gulston, C. (Eds.). (2021). Media and information literate citizens: Think critically, click wisely! UNESCO. Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute. Maksl, A., Ashley, S., & Craft, S. (2015). Measuring news media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(3), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-6-3-3 Stalder, F. (2017). Kultur der Digitalität. Suhrkamp. Tiernan, P., Costello, E., Donlon, E., Parysz, M., & Scriney, M. (2023). Information and media literacy in the age of AI: Options for the future. Education Sciences, 13(9), Article 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci13090906 UNESCO (2024). Media and information literacy curriculum for teachers and learners. UNESCO. https:// www.unesco.org/en/articles/media-and-information-literacy-curriculum-teachers van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. Vraga, E. K., Tully, M., Kotcher, J. E., Smithson, A. B., & Broeckelman-Post, M. (2015). A multi-dimensional approach to measuring news media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 7(3), 41–53. https://doi. org/10.23860/jmle-7-3-4 Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disordertoward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html

M EDIA LITER AC Y

THE ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA IN MEDIA LITERACY: A FRAMEWORK AND OVERVIEW OF EBU MEMBER ACTIVITIES FRANCESCA CIMINO, EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION (EBU)

Introduction

Media and information literacy are essential for empowering citizens to participate fully in civil society and make informed decisions. Public Service Media (PSM) organizations are well placed to advance this goal: as trusted providers of unbiased information and diverse political perspectives, informing citizens is central to their public remit. Beyond their role as information providers, PSM organizations are also uniquely positioned as educational partners, helping citizens develop the media literacy skills needed to engage with society‘s creative, cultural, and democratic life. PSM organizations play a vital role in promoting the audiences‘ ability to access and consume their content. They recognize the need to continuously work to ensure all citizens have the core digital media literacy and AI literacy skills needed to deal with the impact of transforming technology on everyday activities, which are essential for citizens to benefit from the full PSM offer. They recognize that this work cannot be done in isolation: advancing media literacy requires sustained collaboration across a wide range of partners and institutions, from international bodies to national, regional, and local organizations. This collaborative approach is a defining characteristic of how PSM organizations design and deliver their media and information literacy activities. 2.

Research background and ad hoc PSM survey

This paper is based on the EBU 2026 report Advancing Media Literacy Through Public Service Media. The report combines data from desk re-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

search and EBU Members via a dedicated ad hoc PSM Media Literacy Survey. The background information and context from desk research, covers a wide variety of sources from the media industry, academic literature and European institutions, to explain and illustrate the need and state of play of media literacy in Europe, and proving the context in which EBU PSM organizations are delivering their media literacy initiatives in 2026. The ad hoc EBU PSM Media Literacy Survey, which was jointly developed by the EBU Media Intelligence Service, EBU Media, and EBU News units, provides a full, detailed view of PSM media literacy work and initiatives, covering all aspects, including organizational and content. The survey was first conducted in 2023 and rerun among EBU Members in 2026 allowing for an assessment of how PSM media literacy activities have developed over the past three years. This ad hoc survey was completed by 30 EBU PSM organizations between September and October 2023 and by 32 organizations across February to April 2026. 3.

State of play of media literacy skills in Europe

Based on EU assessments, many European citizens today continue to need support to fully participate in modern digital society. Media literacy is needed now more than ever and requires an ongoing effort to ensure that all citizens and future generations are equipped and empowered to participate in democratic society. The Eurostat Digital Skills composite indicator based on the Digital Competence framework is used to assess EU project targets, including the Digital Compass 2030 target of at least 80% of citizens aged 16-74 to have basic digital skills (European Commission, 2021). The latest data from the Digital Skills Composite Indicator which measures if European citizens can perform certain activities to assess if they can actually use, navigate and participate safely in the digital world, put the EU 27 markets average at 60% of European citizens aged 16-74 with the required level of digital skills in 2025, up from 54% in 2021, this is far behind EU Digital Compass 2030 target. In addition, the latest data from 2025 show there is a significant disparity between age and education level, as shown in Figure 1, indicating that older citizens and those with the least formal education risk to be excluded from digital society (Eurostat, 2025).

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Figure 1: Age and education disparity in % of citizens with basic or above basic digital skills

Source: EBU based on Eurostat Digital Skills Composite Indicator, EU 27 average, 2025, Individuals with basic or above basic overall digital skills (all five component indicators are at basic or above basic level).

The dataset also shows that in 2025, 86% of markets remain below the EU Digital Compass 2030 target. Just 5 European markets reached the 80% target set by the EU Digital Compass in 2025. As shown in Figure 2, these markets are the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland. This was up from just one market (Iceland) in 2021, when the 2030 Digital Compass target was set, and tracking of the Digital Skills Composite Indicator score began. Between 2021 and 2025, a third of markets (11 out of 34 markets) did not see any notable improvement in their score. In addition, it should be noted that the 6 markets with the lowest proportion of people with at least basic digital skills remain the same in both years. The average percentage of people with at least basic digital skills among this group of markets is just 33% in 2025, up from 30% in 2021 (Eurostat, 2025, 2021). This illustrates that there are still significant efforts required in many markets.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Figure 2: Digital skills of European citizens in 2025

Source: EBU based on Eurostat Digital Skills Composite Indicator, EU 27 average, 2025, Iceland and Albania based on 2021, no new figures available. Individuals with basic or above basic overall digital skills (all five component indicators are at basic or above basic level) .

Defining media and information literacy

The definition of media and information literacy in practice has many variations; however, the principles of its existence can be summarized around the critical role it plays in society. Media literacy is “Whatever we need to know to participate as agents and citizens in a digital society” (Livingstone, 2022). Media literacy empowers individuals and enables them to participate more fully in a democratic society, which is increasingly reliant on digital media and emerging technologies. The rapid development of AI and technological change brings a host of challenges to citizens’ daily lives, and therefore, media literacy is often focused on addressing digital media literacy skills. The European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO) distinguishes four main groups of initiatives related to media literacy: 1. Civic participation and empowerment, 2. Risk reduction and protection from harmful content, 3. Informed decision-making and consumer protection, and 4. Bridging the digital divide. They state that initiatives fitting across these four groups

M EDIA LITER AC Y

work to empower citizens to fully engage in a modern technological society, in all aspects, from political to social and cultural participation. This ability to engage fully also works towards halting or reducing the creation of new divisions in society or the exacerbation of existing ones (EAO 2016). A core skill addressed across the four areas of media and information literacy initiatives identified by the EAO study is critical thinking defined as “understanding how the media industry works and how media messages are constructed; questioning the motivations of content producers in order to make informed choices about content selection and use; recognizing different types of media content and evaluating content for truthfulness, reliability and value for money; recognizing and managing online security and safety risks” (EAO 2016). This skill is fundamental in modern digital society and required now more than ever with past years advancements of Generative AI. Without critical thinking skills citizens are at risk of being misled and misinformed in their everyday lives. 5.

Impact of AI on media literacy

In recent years, the use of Generative AI has become ubiquitous in people‘s lives; it touches many daily activities, both media and nonmedia related. The rapid adoption and dissemination of this technology has its benefits but also brings with it significant concerns to European Citizens. 85% of European adults aged 15+ agree that “digital skills are necessary to be able to use Generative AI tools safely and responsibly” (Eurobarometer, 2025), and 64% of internet users aged 16-64 agree that “AI tools are developing at an alarming rate” (GWI zeitgeist, 2025). However, the sense of urgency to develop AI skills varies across Europe, 63% of EU citizens agree with the statement “in 2030, everyone will need to be AI-literate”, meaning that they know how to use and work with AI. The level of concern to be AI-literate is highest in markets with lower proportions of citizens with at least basic digital skills, as assessed by the Eurostat Digital Skills Composite Indicator. Romania had the highest level of agreement with this statement, “in 2030, everyone will need to be AI-literate”, at 79%, in this market, just 32% of people have adequate digital skills. While Czechia had the lowest level of agreement with this statement at 49%, in this market, 70% of people have adequate digital skills. Indicating that citizens in markets with lower digital skills levels have a greater sense of being left behind in the deve-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

lopment of AI, versus markets where there are already greater digital skills and understanding of AI (Eurobarometer, 2025, Eurostat, 2025). A Eurobarometer study into the Future needs in digital education found that 81% of EU citizens aged 15+ agree that “all teachers should be equipped with the skills to use and understand AI, including generative AI” and 89% of EU citizens agree that “all teachers should be equipped with the skills to help students in recognizing various forms of disinformation online” (i.e. fake online content, AI-generated false text/videos/images) (Eurobarometer, 2025). In fact, the main concern among AI users regarding media consumption is around news and the spread of misinformation, with 79% of online EU citizens aged 18+ concerned, at least slightly, about the use of AI for journalistic content, and more than half are concerned or very concerned (European Commission, 2024). The convergence of these findings reveals a paradox at the heart of AI adoption in Europe: the populations most exposed to the risks of AI-generated misinformation are often those with the least capacity to identify it. Addressing this gap requires not only better digital education but a rethinking of who delivers it and how. Public service media, with their reach, public trust, and editorial expertise, are uniquely positioned to bridge this divide - both as providers of reliable, AI-literate content and as partners to schools and civil society in building the critical thinking skills that democratic participation increasingly demands. 6.

Media literacy as a tool to nurture children’s futures and wellbeing

Media activities are a central part of children’s daily lives and become increasingly important as they mature and reach young adulthood. Allowing children to enjoy the full advantages of the digital world while ensuring their safety is clearly not an easy task, but equally limiting their online experiences will not prepare them for the future. In the past year, the debate around children’s access and exposure to AI tools and social media is at the forefront of the minds of parents, educators and politicians alike. The Education Monitor survey found that 39% of European adults, believe that the use of AI tools such as Chat GPT should be banned in schools, and a clear majority, 64% of European adults believe it would

M EDIA LITER AC Y

be beneficial to ban the use of social media for under-14-year-olds both inside and outside of school (IPSOS, 2024). Academics are more sceptical of bans, for example, leading academic expert Sonia Livingstone advocates for the child’s rights approach, while still acknowledging the importance of regulation. She states that “Society must provide multiple strategies to ensure children’s beneficial engagement with the digital environment, including education for digital literacy, regulation of digital providers, and positive forms of parental mediation and support.” (Livingstone, 2023). The digital world touches all aspects of children’s lives, both developmental and emotional. Striking a balance and helping children to prepare for the future is critical for their future success. The Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World report 2024 in the United Kingdom found that digital wellbeing for children is improving. 75% of children aged 9-16 years old view technology and the internet as important to their independence, which grew by 6 percentage points from 69% in the previous year. The increase was even more pronounced among girls aged 15-16 years old, where the share who describe it as important jumped from 71% to 80%. The report tracks the importance of time spent online against several self-development and social development statements, and all saw a similar level of positive evolution year on year, as can be seen in Figure 3 (Internet Matters, 2024).

Figure 3: Statements about children’s time spent online

Source: EBU based on Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World, United Kingdom, 2024, % ‘mostly’ or ‘definitely’, Children aged 9-16.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

The positives of the digital world need to be balanced against the risks for children, indeed in the same report, 67% of children aged 9-16 years old reported experiencing some form of harmful online content or interaction. However, the findings of the report highlighted a disconnection between parents’ fears and the most common online harm experienced by children. False information is the most common harm children claim to experience online, at 43% of children aged 9-16 years old selecting the statement “seeing things you think aren’t true”. The related statement, asked to parents “exposure to fake news or misinformation”, received the lowest concern score of all the statements asked, with just 26% of parents worrying about their children experiencing false information (Internet Matters, 2024). These findings illustrate that media and information literacy skills are required from a young age. Academic research demonstrates positive links between media literacy education and wellbeing: a study in Ireland uncovered statistically significant findings and confirms that 4 lessons of a media literacy teaching intervention can positively impact children’s wellbeing. The study also notes that media literacy education interventions should start at a younger age than 8 years old and that the inclusion in the already busy school curriculum remains to be addressed (O’Rourk, 2023). This last statement is echoed by the Education Monitor survey, as shown in Figure 4. This data illustrates that while adults overall believe that new technologies and basic skills (reading, writing, arithmetic) are well covered in curriculums, they believe that core media literacy skills, such as encouraging critical thinking and curiosity, as well as developing students’ creativity skills, could be given more space in school curriculums (IPSOS, 2024). Figure 4. Statements on school curriculums

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Source: EBU based on IPSOS Education Monitor 2024, % of adults under 75 years old, worldwide 30 countries. Question: Do you think the school curriculum in your country gives too much, too little, or just enough space to each of the following?

Taken together, these findings point to a clear imperative: media literacy must be treated not as a supplementary skill but as a foundational one, embedded in education from an early age and supported by coherent policy frameworks. The gap between parental concern and children‘s actual online experiences - particularly around misinformation - underscores why equipping children with critical thinking tools matters as much as protective regulation. As children themselves increasingly recognize the internet as central to their independence and development, the responsibility falls on educators, policymakers, and public institutions to ensure that engagement with the digital world is not merely safe but genuinely empowering. 7.

The EBU view of PSM media literacy

Public service media occupy a distinctive and strategically important position within the broader media literacy landscape. The EBU‘s 2026 survey of member organizations demonstrates that PSM engagement with media literacy is both extensive and deepening, reflecting a growing institutional recognition that advancing citizens‘ critical media skills is a natural extension of the PSM public service mission. The alignment between PSM‘s core remit and the need that media literacy addresses is not coincidental. PSM organizations are founded on obligations to keep citizens informed, to support democratic participation, and to provide education for all. These obligations map directly into three principal functions that media literacy serves; 1. Keeping citizens informed - PSM organizations recognize the important role that strong news and information literacy play in fighting disinformation. 2. Championing a democratic society - Civic participation requires citizens to have specific media skills to navigate the abundance of information, especially during election times. PSM can excel by not only providing campaign information but also the tools to help citizens understand them and build an informed opinion.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

3. Education for all - Media literacy promotes continuous learning for all. With ever-increasing technological developments, sources and platforms, PSM organizations can play a vital role in providing citizens of all ages and backgrounds with relevant and reliable educational resources. Strong digital media and information literacy skills enable citizens to make informed decisions, meaning they must be adequately equipped to find and understand the information they seek. PSM organizations core remit is informing citizens and therefore are “well-positioned gatekeepers” to ensure a well-informed and digital media literate society. 8.

EBU PSM organizations’ engagement with media literacy

The scale of PSM engagement with media and information literacy across Europe is substantial. Based on the EBU 2026 ad hoc PSM Media Literacy Survey and supplementary desk research, at least 61 EBU PSM organizations across 37 markets are actively working on media literacy, representing 86% of EBU European PSM organizations. PSM organizations‘ internal assessments of media literacy‘s importance reflect a strong upward trajectory. While 75% of organizations surveyed in 2026 rated media literacy as extremely or somewhat important to their organization currently, when looking ahead the picture is unequivocal: 100% of responding PSM organizations rated media literacy as extremely or somewhat important to their work over the next five years. This suggests that any current gaps between aspiration and delivery are understood as resource or capacity constraints rather than a lack of strategic commitment. Reinforcing this, 63% of surveyed PSM organizations already have a formal media literacy strategy, with 45% embedding it within the organization‘s overarching corporate strategy and a further 18% maintaining a separate, dedicated media literacy plan. Based on the responses from those that elaborated on their answer choice, there are some different interpretations of the formal strategy. For some, this take shape as a formalized internal workplan of specific areas of the organizations, such as News or Educational services, detailing the activities and content to be delivered. For others, it is linked to their charter obligations or media bill, or sometimes both. 8.1.

Media literacy topics and areas addressed by PSM

Combining the information collected across the 2023 and 2026 ad hoc EBU Media Literacy surveys with desk research, over 180 distinct PSM media literacy activities have been identified. They cover a wide range of to-

M EDIA LITER AC Y

pic areas, formats, and target audiences, as shown in Figure 5. Media educational events, which include workshops and public open days that bring PSM professionals and citizens together directly, account for 40% of all identified activities. News-related media literacy activities, including content designed to improve citizens‘ understanding of disinformation mechanisms, fact-checking services, and content verification tools, constitute approximately a third of the total activity identified. Figure 5. PSM media literacy activities identified by topline groupings

Source: EBU, all activities identified to date from the ad hoc EBU PSM Media Literacy Surveys in 2023 and 2026, plus desk research until April 2026.

In the survey, EBU PSM organizations were also asked to select from a list which media literacy topics they currently cover or are planning to work on, as shown in Figure 6. This question in the survey confirmed that almost all PSM organizations working on media literacy remain committed to news literacy, including fake news, disinformation, and fact-checking, working to ensure citizens have the relevant resources at hand. Matching the proportion working on understanding how media works, both topics were addressed by 94% of responding PSM organizations. Online safety was covered by 85% of organizations, followed by cyberbullying and online harassment, at 76%, democratic participation, including political and civil education, also at 76%, and general digital skills and participation, at 67%. It can be noted in Figure 5 that there was less identification of individual media literacy activities re-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

lated to these areas, but this survey question confirms these areas are also strongly covered by PSM organizations, as can be seen in Figure 6 which show all the topics covered by PSM. One reason for less identification of individuals media literacy activities for these topics, is that they often form part of existing PSM content works flows in news and educational content, and less as standalone dedicated media literacy activities. Figure 6. Media literacy topics covered by PSM organizations

Source: EBU, 2026, In % and number of responses to EBU PSM Media Literacy Survey. Based on 33 responses to the question: Which of the following media literacy topics does your organization engage in?

In addition to these well-established media literacy topics, advanced digital skills, including generative AI and recommendation algorithms, are becoming an increasingly important topic. 48% of PSM organizations answering the 2026 survey said they are currently engaging in the topic, with a further 39% indicating this is planned for the near future, making it the area of fastest anticipated growth. The breadth of PSM organizations’ media literacy work is both broad in scope and strategically responsive to emerging challenges. Illustrating that PSM organizations are coherent in their public service purpose and continuously adapt their work to meet citizens‘ evolving needs.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

8.2. Target groups served by PSM media literacy activities The audiences that PSM media literacy activities aim to reach are equally diverse. PSM media literacy activities in 2026 serve more target groups than in 2023, with 84% of organizations selecting 3 or more target groups in 2026 versus just 71% of organizations in 2023. In 2026, both the general population and schools and teachers were the most selected target groups, each cited by 88% of PSM organizations. Children were targeted by 78% of organizations, while parents were explicitly addressed by 56% of PSM organizations, reflecting a growing recognition that effective media literacy for children depends in part on building parental awareness and capability. Activities targeting older citizens, however, declined from 46% of organizations in 2023 to 38% in 2026, which is worth noting by PSM organizations, given the low average proportion of EU older citizens with at least basic digital skills identified by the Digital Skills Composite Indicator and shown in Figure 1. and therefore, the high vulnerability of older adults to online misinformation and digital exclusion. In addition, around a third of PSM organizations indicated that their media literacy activities also address specific groups of citizens, including people with disabilities, people with lower educational or socio-economic status, and non-native speakers. The overall picture is one of expanding reach and growing recognition that media literacy is a universal need of citizens. PSM organizations are increasingly serving multiple target groups simultaneously, reflecting a commitment to whole-of-society provision that aligns with their broader public service mandate to inform, educate, and engage all citizens regardless of age, background, or digital capability. 8.3. PSM media literacy collaborations and outreach actions Collaboration is a defining feature of PSM media literacy provision. Partnerships with schools are near-universal, cited by 94% of PSM organizations taking part in the 2026 survey, while collaboration with national and regional organizations and universities is also extensive, at 88% and 78% respectively. In practice, these partnerships take varied forms: embedding media professionals in classrooms, hosting school groups at broadcaster facilities, developing curriculum-aligned educational resources, and co-producing content with educational authorities and civil society

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

actors. The prevalence of national and local partnerships reflects both the community-oriented character of the PSM mandate and the logistical imperative of scaling media literacy initiatives effectively across diverse populations. Reaching citizens with media literacy content presents a distinct challenge, requiring PSM organizations to invest not only in the production of materials but also in their effective dissemination. Data from the 2026 survey indicate that across the 31 responding PSM organizations, 68% employed three or more distinct outreach mechanisms, suggesting a broadly multi-channel approach to public engagement. The dissemination of educational materials for students and teachers was the most frequently selected outreach type in both the 2023 and 2026 survey editions, underscoring PSM organizations’ established role in supporting classroom and online learning environments. Comparing responses in 2023 and 2026, there has been a notable increase in engagement through awareness days, as well as the number of organizations conducting roadshows doubling, from just five PSM organizations in 2023 to eleven in 2026, pointing to a growing interest in direct, community-level engagement as a complement to digital and school-based dissemination. 9.

Examples of PSM media literacy collaborations and activities

In the EBU ad hoc PSM Media Literacy Survey, many examples of PSM organizations’ media literacy actions were collected; this section of the paper provides a selection of cases to illustrate how PSM across Europe work on media literacy. 9.1.

PSM organizations’ collaborations with national and regional institutions

PSM organizations work with a wide range of national organizations, ranging from government and regulatory bodies to dedicated media literacy alliances. There is also a wide variety in the types of regional level collaborations among PSM organizations. From collaborations with regional media partners to very local community partnerships with libraries and cultural institutions such as museums. Some also work with local associations, for example, for adult education. Here are some examples of those collaborations: National government bodies and regulators: In Italy, Rai collaborates

M EDIA LITER AC Y

with the Ministry of Education and Merit and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In Lithuania, LRT has collaborated with the Ministry of Digital Transformation. In Germany, ARD has collaborated with Landesmedienanstalten, the state media authority. National and regional education bodies: In France, France Télévisions collaborates with rectorats, the education authority, responsible for bridging schools on a regional level with the national government. In Belgium, RTBF, the public broadcaster for the French-speaking region, has collaborated with the Conseil supérieur de l‘éducation aux medias (CSEM), the Higher Council for Media Education, which is responsible for promoting media literacy through advising governments on policies, as well as developing initiatives for the implementation and integration of these policies, into school curricula and lifelong learning. Local collaborations: Both DR in Denmark and the Swedish educational broadcaster UR have dedicated programs with libraries across their counties to disseminate media literacy education. In Germany, ARD collaborate with Volkshochschulen, a network of 250 adult education centres across the country, to disseminate media literacy programs. In Switzerland, the public broadcaster SRG SSR, has collaborated with the Swiss Museum of Transport on a media literacy exhibition about how disinformation works, entitled „Really?! - Fact, fake or opinion? Find out”. It shows in a playful, interactive way how fake news can be recognized and why media literacy is so important for everyone. 9.2. PSM organizations’ collaborations, and materials for schools and teachers PSM organizations work closely with networks of schools to develop educational material and resources used by schools, all made available through their own educational websites and portals. They provide multimedia content, including lesson plan packages, video content, interactive content and games. They work with both lower and upper-level schools, reaching school children of all ages. The content is age specific, catering to the needs and educational level and abilities of all children; content on PSM websites and portals are often split by grade/classroom level. In addition, PSM collaborations with schools include both sending media professionals into the classroom and bringing children and teachers into the broadcaster’s headquarters and studios.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Here are some examples of educational materials and collaborations: In Austria, ORF makes all its educational materials available on ORF bildung (ORF Education) website, which includes interactive workshops and tools for use in the classroom. ORF also supports teachers. In 2025, as part of Media Literacy Day on 11 November, they ran a special one-day teacher training event, delivering practical training for 100 teachers (secondary levels 1 and 2). In cooperation with Der Standard daily newspaper, journalists from both media houses provide insights into their work, throughout lectures and workshops, with special focus on news verification and fact-checking. The event was recorded by ORF and made available on demand on ORF bildung. Another notable collaboration is with their partner organizations Lie Detectors and Digitaler Kompass, with whom ORF organize visits to school classes across Austria running two-hour workshops. In addition, every Friday, one school class visits the ORF to take part in a workshop held at their headquarters. In Belgium Flemish speaking region, VRT NWS, the news service of the public broadcaster, has developed the education resource concept EDUbox, which aims to inform young people on all aspects on media skills. Designed for use in the classroom, it is a box filled with cards; available both physically and digitally, and in an interactive format. The cards contain pieces of theory, practical exercises, and assignments, combined with an extensive digital component featuring audiovisual material. The series includes themes on social media, exploring how these platforms work and how they influence behaviour, opinions, and relationships. Encouraging young people to reflect on their media use and find a healthy balance between online and offline life, as well as to help them understand digital behaviour and responsible participation in the media landscape. In France, Lumni educational website of France Télévisions provides students and teachers with media literacy-related material split by school grade. In addition to this, as part of the Tour de France académique de l’EM (Tour of Media and Information Literacy), France Télévisions produced training days exclusively dedicated to teachers, with the aim of strengthening their practices in a media environment profoundly transformed by the rise of artificial intelligence and social networks. In Italy, Rai created a series of four online webinars on media literacy issues for upper secondary schools, children aged 14-19 years old. The series entitled “Mind the web -connettersi, pensare, agire” (Mind the

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Web - connect, think, act), covers the critical use of digital media and AI, with the aim of stimulating reflection and providing tools for safe and informed navigation. Created in collaboration with several other partners, including the Italian Digital Media Observatory (IDMO). 9.3. Media literacy content for children on disinformation and fake news: Media literacy content produced for children by public broadcasters frequently forms part of the broader children‘s news offer, addressing the mechanisms of disinformation and fake news in age-appropriate formats. Such content is typically distributed across multiple platforms, including broadcast on main channels and on-demand access via PSM video platforms or dedicated children‘s websites or digital platforms. Here are some examples of PSM content that addresses themes of disinformation and fake news for children: In Denmark, DR Nyheder, the news service created an interactive news show for school students aged 14-17 years old, entitled “I Sandhedens Tjeneste” (In the Service of Truth), where students work with news reporting, ethics, and source criticism, and they get a behind-the-scenes look at how DR selects, produces, and presents the news. In Sweden, SVT and the educational broadcaster UR together create “Mediesnacket” (Talking about media), a special weekly show aimed at children aged 10-12 years old, covering a variety of media literacy topics, including how to evaluate news, satire, and censorship, social media, and political elections. It also offers behindthe-scenes insights into the work of a journalist. In addition to this, UR has a dedicated series of informative programmes on source criticism (Källkritik), teaching young citizens the skills needed to source check the information they find. In Switzerland, SRF the German speaking regional broadcaster of SRG SSR have developed News Check, an interactive online game which allows users to strengthen media literacy skills by slipping into the role of journalists. They check images and videos for authenticity, analyze reports, and learn what constitutes balanced reporting.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

10.

Conclusions

Taken together, these findings confirm that PSM organizations are a central pillar of Europe‘s media literacy ecosystem. With 86% of EBU European PSM organizations actively working on media literacy and 100% of survey respondents affirming its importance over the next five years, the commitment across the sector is unambiguous. Rooted in their public remit, public trust, and established relationships with schools and civil society, PSM organizations are uniquely positioned to reach citizens across all ages, platforms, and levels of digital fluency in ways that few other institutions can replicate. The breadth of PSM media literacy provision is both wide-ranging and responsive to emerging challenges. Near-universal commitment to news literacy and online safety sits alongside rapidly growing investment in AI literacy, reflecting PSM organizations’ awareness that the information environment is changing and that citizens‘ needs are evolving with it. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that collaboration is a structural feature of PSM media literacy work rather than a supplementary one. Partnerships with schools, national organizations, and universities position PSM organizations as system-level contributors to national media literacy ecosystems. As the information environment continues to be shaped by artificial intelligence and platform change, the public service values underpinning this work become more, not less, relevant. Continued investment, supported by robust measurement and cross-sector collaboration, will be essential if PSM organizations are to fulfill their role as well-positioned gatekeepers for a well-informed, media-literate society.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

REFERENCES Eurobarometer. (2025, December). Flash Eurobarometer 564. Future needs in digital education. https:// europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3352 European Audiovisual Observatory. (2016). EAO Mapping of media literacy practices and actions 2016. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0a387a0a-3e5f-11ea-ba6e-01aa75ed71a1 European Broadcasting Union. (2026). EBU Advancing Media Literacy Through Public Service media. https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/Intelligence/login_only/psm/EBU-Intelligence_ Media_Literacy_Report_2026-Public.pdf European Commission. (2021). EC 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade 2021. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0118 European Commission. (2024). EC Study On Audiences, Consumer Behaviour And Preferences Relating To The Consumption Of Media Content. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3e5dda128937-11f0-9af8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en Eurostat. (2025). Skills for the digital age. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index. php?title=Skills_for_the_digital_age O’Rourke, V., & Miller, S. (2022). Improving children’s wellbeing through media literacy education: An Irish study. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2022-14-1-7Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14 (1), 94-107 Livingstone, S. (2022). European Digital Media Observatory. (2022, July 5). EDMO The vital role of measuring impact in media literacy initiatives https://edmo.eu/edmo-news/the-vital-role-of-measuringimpact-in-media-literacy-initiatives/ Livingstone, S. (2023). European Parliament, European Science-Media Hub. (2023, February 22). EP A scientist’s opinion: interview with Sonia Livingstone on children’s safety online. https://sciencemediahub. eu/2023/02/22/a-scientists-opinion-interview-with-sonia-livingstone-on-childrens-safety-online/ WEBSITES RELATED TO PSM CASES Austria, ORF, ORF bildung. \\san2.gva.ebu.ch\mis\MIS\PROJECTS\MEDIA LITERACY\Media Literacy 2026\bildung.orf.at Belgium, VRT, EDUbox. https://www.vrt.be/nl/edubox Denmark, DR, In service of truth. https://www.dr.dk/skole/dansk/tema/i-sandhedens-tjeneste-med-drnyheder France, France Télévisions, Lumni: https://www.lumni.fr/toutes-les-videos?matiere=education-auxmedias-et-a-l-information France, France Télévisions, Tour de France académique de l’EM: https://ftvpro.francetv.fr/contenu-depresse/74632999 Italy, RAI, Mind the web webinars: https://www.idmo.it/2025/03/07/mind-the-web-connettersi-pensareagire/ Sweden, SVT & UR, Talking about media. https://urplay.se/serie/218819-mediesnacket Sweden, UR, Source criticism. https://urplay.se/bladdra/kallkritik Switzerland, SRG SSR SRF, NewsCheck. https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/school/medien-und-informatik/ erkennst-du-die-fake-news-interaktives-game-news-check

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

BETWEEN ALGORITHM AND MISSION: PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND THE POLITICAL MEDIA EDUCATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE POST-DIGITAL AGE PROF. IN DR. IN SONJA GANGUIN – UNIVERSITÄT LEIPIZIG AND DR. JOHANNES GEMKOW – FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT GESELLSCHAFTLICHER ZUSAMMENHALT

Post-Digitality and a New Focus in Media Education

Digitality is not a distinct social sphere in its own right, but rather permeates social, cultural, and political processes. It intervenes in many ways in the fundamental structures of our society and changes the way we communicate, organize ourselves, work, and learn. Digitality also helps shape the processes of political opinion formation – or, more fundamentally, the manifestation of what defines a political subject today. The concept of post-digitality does not usher in an era following digitality, but rather marks a shift from viewing digital media as novel and unusual to recognizing their integration into everyday life. Post-digitality refers to the normalization, pervasiveness, and the now common invisibility of digital technologies in everyday life – and to the associated transformations of perception, communication, and the public sphere (Stalder, 2017). The digital realm can no longer be experienced as a separate, definable space (“online”), but rather structures hybrid lifeworlds in which material, social, and media dimensions are inextricably intertwined (Cramer, 2014). This simultaneously reveals a new focus in media education: away from the mere use of digital media and toward the underlying infrastructures; away from a narrow understanding of competence and toward a more comprehensive understanding of education. Post-digitality can be interpreted as a reaction to the early phase of digital euphoria, which conceived of the Internet as a democratizing counter-public sphere or as a genuinely new space for communication. Post-digitality challenges this dichotomy between “analog” and “digital” and shifts the focus from technological innovations to their social

M EDIA LITER AC Y

embeddedness. Digital infrastructures – from platforms to algorithmic recommendation systems to data-driven business models – now form the fundamental structure within which the public sphere is produced, distributed, and received. The public sphere has not disappeared, but has instead become platformized, fragmented, and personalized. Platformization is the central characteristic of post-digital public spheres. These public spheres are increasingly emerging within privately organized infrastructures whose business models are based on data extraction and the attention economy. Platforms structure communication processes through algorithmic curation, metric comparability, and personalized content delivery (van Dijck et al., 2018). Traditional editorial gatekeepers are being replaced by dynamic, data-driven selection mechanisms that create individualized information environments and fragment political discourses. This changes not only the distribution of content but also its form, dramaturgy, and affective structure. In the post-digital space, political communication is often conveyed through emotionalization, personalization, and visual condensation. This blurs the line between information, entertainment, and political mobilization. Information flows no longer appear linear or under clear editorial control, but rather as the result of complex, opaque selection mechanisms. These mechanisms significantly shape the visibility, reach, and relevance of political content. This also affects how young people form political opinions. This process can no longer be separated from media use and media practices; rather, it is generated, stabilized, and symbolically charged by them (Gemkow & Ganguin, 2023). For young people who engage with political issues primarily through social networks, video platforms, or messaging services, this means that the political public sphere is increasingly experienced as a personalized feed. Public discourse is transforming into a multitude of personalized public spheres that, while they overlap, do not necessarily share the same frame of reference (Gemkow, 2026). The concept of the post-digital is central to a theory of political media education because it makes clear that media literacy can no longer aim exclusively at the confident use of individual technologies. Rather, post-digital media literacy requires a structural understanding of the infrastructures, power relations, and economic conditions of digital publics. Under post-digital conditions, political judgment requires the ability to reflect on algorithmic selection mechanisms, contextualize sources, and critically examine one’s own positioning within personalized information environments.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

The “post-digital” thus refers to a constellation in which the digital no longer appears as an addition to or alternative to the “actual” public sphere, but rather as its constitutive condition. Young people’s political opinion-forming takes place within this framework of platform logics, hybrid public spheres, and affective dynamics. Contemporary political media education must not only take this post-digital structure into account but also analytically uncover it. In this article, political media education is understood as the ability to critically analyze political information, actors, and communication processes in digital public spheres, to reflect on their infrastructural and economic conditions, and to consciously and responsibly negotiate one’s own political positions. Political media education thus combines media education perspectives on media literacy with democratic theory’s requirements for political judgment and agency. In this way, it can empower young people to position themselves as active agents within a fragmented, data-driven, and algorithmically structured public sphere. Against this background, this article examines the significance of political media education for young people in the context of post-digital public spheres and the role that public media can play in promoting it. The article first develops a theoretical perspective on the formation of political opinions among young people in the context of social media, then discusses political media education as a task of media education, and finally derives requirements for public broadcasting as an agent of democratic orientation. 2.

Youth and Political Opinion Formation

In political socialization research, adolescence is regarded as a central phase of identity and judgment formation, during which fundamental orientations toward political institutions, norms, and lines of conflict are developed. Political opinion formation should not be understood as a one-time act of rational decision-making, but rather as a process-oriented engagement with societal interpretations, social expectations, and media-mediated constructions of reality. It takes place through the interplay of family, peer groups, school, and the media – with media environments playing an increasingly structuring role in the post-digital context.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

2.1. On the Transformation of Political Information Acquisition through Social Media The shift in how young people acquire political information via social media marks a profound transformation in the processes of political socialization. In terms of media use, previous generations primarily acquired political information through traditional mass media such as television, radio, and print. Current media usage among young people, however, shows that social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube are the most important sources of political information (Behre et al., 2025). The diversity in young people’s media usage remains significant and can be demonstrated based on age, educational level, and attitudes toward journalistic sources (Hasebrink et al., 2021). However, when considering the information landscape of social media, certain generalizable trends can be identified. These primarily concern the increasing flexibility in how information is consumed, which can be broken down into temporal, content-related, and sociotechnical dimensions. On the one hand, temporal flexibility refers to young people’s increased use of non-linear content, which is spread out over the entire day (Oehsen, 2025). Compared to adults, this means a more spontaneous, rather cursory use of news (so-called “snack news”), for which platforms that are updated daily, continuously curated, and readily available are suitable. On the other hand, communication on social media is visible to everyone, and topics – or interpretations of them – develop within and through these platforms, suddenly appearing to hold equal standing alongside other publicly discussed issues. This leads to increased visibility even for positions that deviate from the norm or are socially marginalized. This flexibility in content refers to the use of multiple sources across different channels. Even though young people make extensive use of traditional journalistic sources on social media, influencers, alternative media, politicians, and private individuals also form part of their information repertoire (Behre et al., 2025). Young people also differentiate between various platforms. For example, an initial encounter with a piece of information in a news feed may lead a user to search for additional sources on Instagram and ultimately seek more in-depth information on YouTube (Materna & Brüggen, 2024). These forms of content engagement are closely linked to practices of self-presentation

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

and social recognition. Political stances are often established performatively, as users make their views visible and embed them in social networks. This is evident, for example, in the public expression of political stances through hashtags, profile pictures, story posts, or participation in digital campaigns. Political communication is thus not organized exclusively in a deliberative manner, but is also part of social identity work. Especially for young people who are in a phase of identity development, social media can therefore become important spaces for political self-positioning. Socio-technical flexibilization describes the growing influence of socio-technical constellations on information acquisition. This includes comment sections on social media, which – alongside likes and shares – have a major influence on how news is perceived. Likewise, platform-specific formats for presenting political information play a significant role. At the same time, these communication spaces are shaped by specific structural conditions. Platform architectures organize visibility through algorithmic selection mechanisms and interaction metrics such as likes, shares, or comments. These attention-based logics influence which political topics gain reach and which forms of presentation become particularly visible. The shift in how political information is engaged with thus signifies not only a change in information channels but also in the logics by which political content is produced, disseminated, and received. Young people no longer encounter politics primarily as structured news but as part of a personalized, emotionally charged, and often fragmented flow of information that is algorithmically controlled. Political orientation thus arises less through targeted information-seeking and more through incidental exposure in the context of everyday media use. This form of engaging with political content is more dialogic, situational, and identity-driven – it shifts the focus from rational information processing to a performative and social engagement with politics, in which belonging and visibility play a central role. The decline in stable party loyalty can also be interpreted in the context of post-digital political opinion formation. The sharp rise in the importance of issue-based debates and situational mobilizations reflects a fluid, unpredictable, and issue-focused online political culture (Tufekci, 2017). This finding corresponds with the concept of the “actualizing citizen,” which describes a more individualized, expressive,

M EDIA LITER AC Y

and project-based form of political participation (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). For young people, this means that political opinion-forming takes place within a tension between new opportunities for participation and structural platform logics. On the one hand, social media opens up spaces for independent information practices, political mobilization, and civil society networking. On the other hand, algorithmic filters, economic platform interests, and affective dynamics shape the conditions of political visibility. Political action on social media is therefore both an expression of individual agency and the result of infrastructural frameworks. This changes not only the way young people receive political information but also the structure of the political public sphere itself. Political communication increasingly takes place within privately organized platforms whose visibility logics are not democratically legitimized but are economically motivated. Young people’s political opinionforming thus occurs in communication spaces whose rules are only partially transparent and subject to societal control. Political media literacy must therefore not only enable the evaluation of individual content but also make the conditions of its visibility the subject of critical reflection. 2.2.

Platform Logics of Social Media

Young people’s use of political sources and content on social media is characterized by a high degree of diversity and selectivity. Instead of traditional news formats, young users are increasingly consuming political content produced by influencers, activists, or within topicspecific micro-communities. These content producers often present political topics in a narrative, visually appealing, and emotional format, thereby simplifying and personalizing complex issues. At the same time, there is a tendency to decontextualize information sources: official news portals appear alongside memes, short videos, or comments that present political positions in a simplified or ironic manner. The respective technical and design logics of the platform significantly shape the forms in which political content is presented. One example of this is the so-called “High Density Multi-Clips” (Constine, 2020) on TikTok. In these clips, the entertainment value of a post is determined by how many moments of surprise are featured within it. The emphasis on entertainment value is a deliberate, practical interpretation of the specific TikTok interface, where posts compete primarily on the basis of content rather than through high-reach networks, as is the

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

case on other platforms. Within this relational context, posts often begin with a punchline, an audiovisual effect, or a central idea; they are subsequently varied in their design (e.g., through layered storytelling) and consist of many individual elements that seamlessly transition into the loop (in the sense of an endless loop). The options for engagement on the platform focus on receptive use and individualized entertainment. Features such as endless loops, autoplay, and intuitive “mobile content creation” support a continuous, highly personalized consumption experience. The technical design favors media use that is strongly oriented toward reception, while social interactions such as comments or duets are possible but secondary. In this context, young people act not only as consumers but also as active producers of political meaning by liking, sharing, or commenting on content, thereby contributing to the circulation of political discourses. This hybrid usage practice leads to a pluralization of the political information landscape but simultaneously carries risks of disinformation and the formation of echo chambers, as algorithmic filter bubbles can limit the diversity of perspectives. Even though social media offers opportunities for participation, its use remains largely receptive. Fewer than five percent of young people create their own content – whether comments, posts, or videos (Külling-Knecht et al., 2024, p. 54). 3.

Political Socialization of Young People in Post-Digital Lifestyles

To provide a deeper theoretical understanding of the pedagogical task of post-digital, political media education, this chapter first examines the profound digital transformation of the “political”. It analyzes how technological, economic, and power-related platform structures shift the visibility and negotiation of political issues. Building on this, the second part examines the political subject formation of young people on social media. Contrary to traditional, institution-centered approaches, it is argued that political socialization today takes place primarily through everyday, informal media practices – such as sharing, liking, or commenting – as well as through aesthetic forms of expression like memes. In these everyday negotiations and relational constructions of reality, young people develop independent patterns of political interpretation and subject positions.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

3.1.

The “Political” in the Context of Digital Transformation

The concept of transformation generally describes a profound break with the status quo. Terms such as climate change, progress, or the crisis of democracy are frequently used without their meaning being systematically reflected upon. The concept of transformation, on the other hand, makes it possible to analytically grasp such developments as profound changes in social orders; it is sometimes understood as an emphasis on a radically different (Kloten, 1991, p. 6; Merritt, 1980, p. 14). Admittedly, the differences must also be noted here – differences that lead some to interpret the concept as more “evolutionary” (Kollmorgen et al., 2015, p. 14) or to link it to “cultural processes of a sectoral nature” (Böhme, 2001, p. 27). Across disciplines, however, it should come as no surprise that the consensual concept of transformation emphasizes a profound change in institutional to systemic and/or social to societal orders (Castles et al.; Polanyi, 2001). Given the diverse heuristics, approaches, and methods of transformation research, the aforementioned discourses on change, belief, or decline are far more tangible from a social science perspective than their ubiquitous use would suggest. This is certainly true for political science approaches, given their historical connection (1989/1990) to transformation research (Kornai, 2006; Sandschneider, 1995). Media education offers another approach here that can be defined even more clearly. In the interplay between interpretations from media studies and youth sociology, a dual claim to transformation emerges. On the one hand, this is quite evident in the descriptive finding of one – or rather, several – political media-savvy youth groups. Young people grow up in a communication landscape in which political perception, opinion formation, and participation are largely mediated by the media. Political issues are not only received through traditional information sources but are also continuously negotiated on social networks, platforms, and in everyday digital practices. Youth thus appear not merely as a target group for political communication but as a generation whose political subjectification takes place in mediatized public spheres. Qualitative findings, in which young people’s self-affirmation comes to the fore, support the view of media use as an intergenerational distinction. This is because there are “patterns in the construction of young people’s ‘own’ (political) identity through the affirmation of digital communication possibilities, while simultaneously distancing themselves from established forms of communication and information about politics and political issues that are associated with older generations” (Kruse, 2022, p. 246).

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

However, the transformative potential of digitalization is not limited to patterns of media use or the reflective interpretation and meaning-making of these patterns by media users. On the other hand, the media transformation described above exerts its influence where systemic or social ruptures become visible. Stalder’s “Culture of Digitality” (2017) focuses on the overlap between digital and non-digital practices, as well as their interdependencies. Building on this, it is argued that digitality creates a space “that is ‘overflowing,’ plural, and in a state of constant change, and that transcends the structural model of a universally valid culture (Reckwitz, 2020, p. 243), leading to the conclusion that “the digital transformation of our society requires new cultural techniques” (Jörissen et al., 2019, p. 7). All of this reads like a call for media education research and practice to identify necessary competencies – or at least standards (see Soßdorf, 2023; Trueltzsch-Wijnen, 2020). However, before media education once again abstracts competencies across all media with a universalist claim – and thereby necessarily generalizes – the role of media specificity should be specifically reflected upon. By “media specificity,” we mean the transformed productive forces – that is, the “political-economic-technical […] constellation” (Stalder, 2017, p. 209) under which new relations of production develop in the form of role distributions, laws, and media practices. Such a constellation is “political” in the sense of conflictual power relations, collective negotiations, and processes of institutionalization. Crucially, however, the field of what is perceived as “political” is itself changing. With the shared acceptance of a transformative diagnosis of our times, very different perspectives have emerged, each with their own connotative topoi, which manifest, among other things, in the form of platformization (Poell et al., 2019), surveillance (Zuboff, 2019), affect-oriented approaches (Papacharissi, 2014), or polarization (Kumkar, 2025) – which have been increasingly discussed and debated in recent years and are currently shaping new political orders. These perspectives, which mostly draw on macro-sociological arguments, do not indicate a shift of the political into the digital realm, but rather a shift in what is even visible and accessible as political (Papathanassopoulos & Giannouli, 2025; Ritzi, 2023). At times, traditional disciplinary approaches still emerge, attempting to capture the digital realm using revised terminology and concepts from the era of mass media. Political communication studies examines new constellations of actors (Donges & Jarren, 2022) within a hybrid media system (Chadwick, 2013). Political science approaches focus specifically on power architectures and examine, for example, platform governance (Gorwa, 2019; Katzenbach, 2022), algorithmic control (Carrillo, 2026), and institutional reorganization (Fountain, 2012;

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Sipos, 2025). However, these disciplinary approaches are also becoming increasingly hybridized, since – to take one example – the transformation of the public sphere (Habermas) cannot be understood without considering changing power structures (Fuchs, 2017; Staab & Thiel, 2022), and dynamics in institutional trust rely on algorithmic curation (Helbig, 2018). This interplay vividly illustrates the development of computational social science, in which digital behavioral data becomes both a data source for political phenomena and the subject of analysis (Barberá & Steinert-Threlkeld, 2020). Less obvious, yet all the more striking, are sociocultural analyses that focus on a general transformation of political culture, drawing on arguments and data from both political science and communication studies. Anton Jäger’s „Hyperpolitik“ (2023) provides the conceptual framework for the thesis of a political reordering through a historical perspective on the de-institutionalization of politics. Within this framework, digital forms of the political are examined and then interpreted from a sociocultural perspective as singularity (Reckwitz, 2020), acceleration (Rosa, 2024), new aesthetics (Shifman, 2014), or as the culturalization of the political (Nachtwey, 2023). In the context of this development, it should come as no surprise that young people’s deeply mediatized view of politics today is entirely different and must therefore be studied and addressed differently. 3.2.

Youth as Political Subjects on Social Media

Drawing on concepts of deliberative public sphere (Habermas, 1990) and communication studies theories of democracy, young people’s political interest is often measured by the extent to which they participate in institutionalized forms of political communication, participation, or opinionforming. This institution-centered understanding of politics can be found both in classic works on political socialization (Greenstein, 1968; Verba et al., 1995), in various empirical operationalizations (Albert et al., 2024; Tormos & Verge, 2022), as well as in public discourse (Calmbach et al., 2024, p. 74; Hurrelmann & Albrecht, 2014, p. 121). However, this approach not only accepts the notion of imparting an institutional understanding of politics to young people but also narrows the entire scope of political socialization by systematically ignoring young people’s interpretations of meaning, aesthetic forms of expression, and informal practices. In contrast, a youth-cultural perspective on political media socialization focuses on two central points. First, it is important to conceive of youth-cultural forms of expression and practices as potentially political, even if they are not explicitly articulated in activist or institutional terms. Political meanings can also be expressed through subtle, aesthetic, or ironic practices – such as memes, fashion,

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

music, gaming, or everyday online interactions – whose symbolic content only becomes visible in the context of young people’s lived worlds (Dahmen et al., 2024). Political socialization here does not take place exclusively through explicit political communication, but rather through practices of differentiation, positioning, and the construction of belonging. The traditional assumption in political socialization and education research conceives of political learning – understood as the cognitive acquisition of political knowledge, political values, or democratic norms – as the starting point for political positioning (Greenstein, 1968, p. 551; Hopf & Hopf, 1997, pp. 12–13). Such an understanding implies a linear sequence of learning, attitude formation, and political positioning, and underestimates the significance of everyday practice, media experience, and situational negotiation for the constitution of political subjectivity. In contrast, young people’s political orientations appear to be shaped through their everyday media practices, in which political meanings are not merely reflected upon retrospectively but are generated in the very act of engagement (Kruse, 2022, pp. 78–134). In media (micro)practices – such as commenting, sharing, liking, ironic distancing, or affective positioning – political subject positions emerge without necessarily being tied to explicit political learning settings or institutionalized educational processes (Griese et al., 2020, p. 23; Sauer, 2001, p. 184). Political subjectivity thus takes shape in a practical, often implicit process of situating oneself and others within social discourses. Second, political constructions of reality are part of young people’s everyday experiences and are not limited to explicit political references. Politics is experienced, interpreted, and evaluated in everyday life – for example, in conflicts portrayed in the media, in issues of social inequality, in struggles for recognition, or in the perception of societal crises (Dahlgren, 2003; Dörner, 2000). On this basis, young people develop their own ideas about what is considered politically relevant, who is perceived as a political actor, and what role the media plays in this context. In this sense, political media socialization should be understood less as an introduction to existing political orders and more as a process in which young people imagine politics and the media in relation to one another and imbue them with meaning through practical action. The development of a political identity is less the result of prior political learning processes and takes place, rather, through everyday negotiations of social contexts. This makes it clear that political media

M EDIA LITER AC Y

socialization is not primarily aimed at the internalization of normative political models, but rather at the development of independent patterns of political interpretation in young people’s everyday lives. For the analysis of political media socialization, the interpretive perspective thus makes it possible to systematically examine the subjective attributions of meaning made by young people. It complements the media practice perspective by revealing not only practical actions but also the interpretive and evaluative processes at work within them, while simultaneously forming a central link to the positioning perspective, in which these interpretations are translated into concrete forms of political self-positioning. For political media education, this means that its focus is shifting. The emphasis is no longer exclusively on imparting political knowledge, but rather on reflecting on the digital infrastructures, cultural practices, and power relations within which political reality becomes visible and tangible to young people in the first place. 4.

Implications for Media Education in the Post-Digital Era

In the post-digital age, media education faces the task of expanding its self-conception both normatively and structurally. While media literacy has long been conceived primarily as the ability to use media appropriately, autonomously, and creatively, new challenges to political socialization are emerging under the conditions of platform-based public spheres. Dieter Baacke’s influential competency model (1996) – with its dimensions of media criticism, media studies, media use, and media design – continues to serve as a central frame of reference in this regard. However, the dimension of media criticism in particular (Ganguin & Sander, 2022) must be expanded in the context of algorithmically structured communication spaces: criticism is no longer directed solely at content, but also at infrastructures, data economies, and selection mechanisms. The transformation of young people’s political opinion-forming takes place in a mediatized society in which digital platforms serve as central arenas of political communication. The platformization of the public sphere (van Dijck et al., 2018) alters not only distribution channels but also structures of perception. Political content is personalized through algorithmic curation processes and presented in emotionally charged communication formats. For young people, this means that political orientation develops within personalized information environments whose selection logic often remains opaque. Political socialization is thus increasingly tied to private-sector infrastructures.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Against this backdrop, critical and reflective media education – which addresses structural power and control dynamics in digital environments (Bachmair, 2010) – is becoming increasingly important. Political media education must not be limited to a preventive approach – such as protection against disinformation – but must aim to develop analytical skills and critical judgment. Drawing on democratic theory regarding the deliberative public sphere (Habermas, 2022), the formation of political opinion should be understood as a discursive process based on argumentative engagement and the adoption of different perspectives. Under post-digital conditions, however, these discursive processes are shaped by attention economies, acceleration, and emotionalization. At the same time, recent concepts of political participation emphasize that forms of engagement are becoming more individualized and increasingly project- and issue-oriented (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). Media education must therefore recognize that young people’s political articulation often takes a performative and network-based form – for example, through sharing, commenting, or symbolic positioning on social media. These practices are neither superficial per se nor automatically deliberative; they require pedagogical reflection and embedding within normative concepts of democratic public sphere. It is undisputed that, in the age of post-digitality, there are overlaps between media education and political education. However, how these overlaps are to be concretized remains largely open. Political media education often encompasses aspects of information literacy (e.g., researching political content), media criticism (e.g., evaluating political content), or participatory literacy (political activism using and through digital media). However, when the focus is on political education, aspects of digitality – including its technical, legal, and economic dimensions, as well as its creative, socio-communicative, and aesthetic manifestations – can easily be overlooked. This raises the question of to what extent political socialization and education can be understood and analyzed without reference to the technical and highly mediated spaces in which they occur. One possible answer lies in a transdisciplinary expansion of the boundaries of political media education which ultimately emphasizes a post-digital political media education. Another answer lies in a stronger normative interpretation of political education in the sense of promoting democracy. This gives rise to (post-)digital democratic competence. In this context, concepts such as social learning, values education, service learning, and intercultural education would be incorporated on an interdisciplinary basis alongside elements of political education and media education.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Media education as political media education therefore means systematically intertwining analytical, reflective, and creative competencies. It addresses not only the ability to evaluate information, but also an understanding of the infrastructural framework of digital communication and the experience of democratic self-efficacy. Political media education thus becomes a cross-cutting task that views political socialization not as an incidental side effect of media use, but as a central focus of educational responsibility in the post-digital age. 5.

Public Broadcasting as a Facilitator of Political Media Literacy

From a public value perspective, the special legitimacy of public media stems not only from the provision of high-quality information but also from their contribution to a society’s democratic infrastructure. Political media education can be understood as an independent public value service because it creates the conditions for informed opinion-forming, social participation, and democratic judgment. 5.1.

Public Service Broadcasting in the Age of Social Media: Strategies for Adapting to Young People’s Digital Lives

Public broadcasting has traditionally played a central role in the German media system for the democratic public sphere. Its mandate encompasses not only information, education, and entertainment, but is also normatively bound to ensuring pluralistic opinion-forming. The case law of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE, 1986) has recognized broadcasting as a central component of the democratic communication order, intended to guarantee the conditions for the free formation of individual and public opinion. This applies also and in particular to its function as a counterweight to commercial social media platforms (BVerfGE, 2021). This foundation in democratic theory makes public broadcasting a potentially important actor in political media literacy. However, in the context of a post-digital public sphere, the communicative environment in which this mandate must be fulfilled is changing. Digital platforms and social media have fundamentally transformed the structures of public communication. Political information increasingly circulates in fragmented, algorithmically curated information spaces, where journalistic content competes alongside a multitude of other content. For young users, traditional linear broadcasting services play a significantly smaller role than platform-based communication spaces. Public broadcasting therefore faces the challenge of

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

fulfilling its educational and informational mandate in a media environment shaped by platform logic, attention economies, and personalized information flows. In the context of young media users, a fundamental trust in the quality of public media content (Kleer & Abendschön, 2025, pp. 356–358) as well as in its function (Schmidt & Storll, 2026) can be identified. While a clear generational divide still exists regarding the use of linear content via television, the sources of political information on social media do not differ significantly across generations. Among young adults, a broader spectrum of news sources is evident, which includes ordinary people, influencers, politicians, and alternative journalism. However, traditional journalism is cited as the primary source (Behre et al., 2025, p. 37). These findings suggest that public broadcasting has so far successfully adapted to the digital transformation. This is due, in part, to its platformization strategy. The channels and content are available where young users encounter political information. The concept of trying to draw young people to their own media libraries is still evident, but it is not the primary strategy. This is evidenced, on the one hand, by content developed specifically for the logic and mobile usage habits of platforms (Stollfuß, 2021), as well as by the “TikTokization” of their own websites. This refers not merely to a presence on TikTok as a distribution platform, but to a deeper adaptation to its logic of attention and reception. The term thus describes a structural shift in journalistic forms of presentation under the conditions of a platform-based public sphere. Specifically, aesthetic, functional, and communicative logics of platform-based short-video public spheres can be found on public broadcasting online offerings. The success of the youth service “funk” can be directly attributed to the fact that it does not resist the radically changed media consumption habits of young people, but rather consistently incorporates them into its own strategy. Rather than simply repurposing television content, it develops original, platform-native formats that feature personalities, are interactive, and adapt the visual language and fast pace of social media. The success lies in this balancing act: “funk” can be understood as a public service intervention within commercial platform economies. The service leverages the reach and visibility structures of social platforms to bring journalistic quality standards and public service values into communication spaces that are otherwise primarily shaped by commercial logic. Through entertaining and interactive

M EDIA LITER AC Y

formats, it succeeds in reaching a young audience and giving them the opportunity to present themselves (Weiss, 2023). At the same time, it conveys journalistically verified information, scholarly analysis, and a diversity of perspectives (Lichtenstein et al., 2021). 5.2.

Infrastructure and Content Reorientation: Public Broadcasting as a Shaper of Digital Third Places

In addition to structural and organizational aspects, the context of political media education calls for a focus, above all, on the infrastructural and content-related orientations of public broadcasting. From an infrastructural perspective, current developments raise questions about the role of public media in a platform-based media system. When journalistic content circulates within private-sector platform infrastructures, public broadcasters find themselves caught between their normative educational mandate and the logic of digital platform economies. Political media literacy through public media cannot therefore be understood solely as the dissemination of political content. Rather, it also encompasses the task of creating transparency regarding the conditions of media production and distribution, thereby contributing to reflection on digital public spheres. Against this backdrop, public broadcasting can be understood as part of a democratic infrastructure for political media education. Its particular legitimacy lies in the fact that it does not primarily pursue commercial interests but is guided by principles such as journalistic quality, pluralism, and social responsibility. Particularly in the post-digital context, where political information appears increasingly fragmented and algorithmically curated, public broadcasting can thus play an important role as a source of guidance. Political media literacy thereby becomes an integral part of its social mission, which goes beyond the mere dissemination of information and aims to strengthen a reflective, democratic public sphere. This requires a fundamental reorientation that goes beyond merely providing content on new channels. At the core of this task is the creation of a digital public sphere oriented toward the common good, which serves as a counterweight to the commercially and algorithmically driven ecosystems of global platforms (Dogruel et al., 2025, p. 40; Zukunftsrat, 2024, p. 10). Specifically, this entails a two-pronged strategy: On the one hand, public broadcasters are expanding their own platforms (media libraries) into autonomous, dialogue-oriented, and technologically leading services that rely on public-value algorithms and data minimization (Dogruel et al.,

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

2025, p. 14). On the other hand, they act as cooperative “enablers” who, by providing open content and software, strengthen an entire network of public-interest actors and thus contribute to the diversity and quality of the entire digital media system. This transformation is not only a technical but also a cultural challenge, which obligates public broadcasting to evolve from a mere broadcaster into a “dialogue institution” that facilitates participation and thereby ensures its legitimacy and relevance for all generations (Zukunftsrat, 2024, p. 12). In this understanding, the role of public media is not limited to the distribution of content but encompasses the creation of communicative spaces in which democratic negotiation processes can take place. Public broadcasting is thus transforming its role from that of a “broadcaster” to that of an enabler and facilitator of “digital third places.” Third places are informal spaces outside of family/home (first place) and school/ work (second place), where casual social interaction, identity formation, and community develop. In terms of content, it is conceivable that public media could increasingly develop formats that focus on the structural conditions of the digital public sphere itself. This includes offerings that make the attention economies, algorithmic selection mechanisms, and reach-driven logic of digital platforms transparent. Under post-digital conditions, political media literacy means not only conveying political content, but also reflecting on the infrastructural conditions under which political visibility arises. It also seems necessary to analyze the communication strategies of political actors more critically. Public broadcasting formats could help shed light on the mechanisms of political staging, emotional manipulation, and strategic public relations, thereby promoting reflective approaches to political communication. Particularly in digital public spheres, where political communication is often personalized, emotionally charged, and organized around conflict, the ability to critically assess political communication strategies is becoming increasingly important. This includes addressing more explicitly the dynamics of social polarization and how digital public spheres amplify it. Polarization should not be understood exclusively as a consequence of individual differences of opinion, but rather as a phenomenon structurally shaped by media visibility logics, attention economies, and affective forms of communication (Gemkow, 2023; Kumkar & Schimank, 2025; Mau, 2022). Public media could contribute here by creating spaces for nuanced discourse and by not portraying social conflicts exclusively through polarized, antagonistic patterns of communication.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Finally, it seems sensible to design content frameworks in a way that is more closely oriented toward people’s lived experiences. This concept, which originates in social pedagogy, emphasizes that topics and interventions must connect to people’s daily experiences and realities in order to be relevant (Grunwald & Thiersch, 2009). Accordingly, political content is presented in a way that directly addresses the subjective experiences of young people. Closely linked to this is the approach of constructive journalism. This goes beyond merely describing problems and brings solutions, opportunities, and perspectives to the forefront (McIntyre & Gyldensted, 2018, p. 22). Instead of focusing on conflicts, questions are asked such as: “Who worked together?” or “What was achieved?” This approach aims to promote individual and societal well-being and to engage the audience by highlighting positive emotions and potential solutions, rather than overwhelming them with negative news and leaving them with a sense of helplessness. 6.

Conclusion: Political Media Literacy as a Public Value

This article has shown that, under post-digital conditions, political media literacy cannot be understood as a supplementary educational task but rather becomes a central prerequisite for a democratic public sphere. Today, the political socialization of young people takes place primarily in platform-based communication spaces characterized by algorithmic curation, attention economies, and private-sector infrastructure logics. Political opinion-forming no longer arises exclusively through the conscious reception of political information, but rather in the context of everyday media practices, in which political orientation, social belonging, and identity formation are closely interwoven. Against this backdrop, the focus of political media education is also shifting. It cannot be limited to promoting the critical evaluation of individual content or the identification of disinformation. Rather, it must empower young people to understand and critically reflect on the infrastructural, economic, and cultural conditions of digital public spheres. Political media education thus combines democracy education with a critical analysis of infrastructure: it strengthens the ability not only to consume political communication but also to recognize and contextualize its underlying conditions, power structures, and systems of visibility. This places a special responsibility on public broadcasting. In the future, its social value will lie not only in providing reliable information, but increasingly in imparting the knowledge needed to navigate the

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

conditions of the digital public sphere itself. Public media can help make algorithmic selection mechanisms, platform logics, forms of political staging, and the dynamics of social polarization transparent, thereby opening up reflective approaches to political communication. Overall, three central conclusions can be drawn from the analysis: First: The political socialization of young people today takes place primarily in platform-based public spheres. Second: Political media education must therefore combine democracy education with a critical examination of digital infrastructures. Third: Public broadcasting should not only convey political content but also make the conditions of the digital public sphere itself the subject of public education. The central challenge of the post-digital age thus lies not solely in the digitization of democratic processes, but in the democratization of digitality. In this sense, political media education itself becomes a form of public service value: It creates the conditions for young people not only to use digital public spheres, but also to understand them, reflect critically on them, and actively help shape them as democratic spaces.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY Albert, M., Quenzel, G., & de Moll, F. (Eds.). (2024). Shell Youth Study: 19 (2024). Youth 2024: Pragmatically Navigating Between Apathy and Lived Diversity (1st ed.). Beltz. https://content-select.com/index. php?id=bib_view&ean=9783407832351 Baacke, D. (1996). Media Literacy – Concepts and Social Change. In A. v. Rein (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Adult Education. Media Literacy as a Key Concept (pp. 112–124). Klinkhardt. Bachmair, B. (Ed.). (2010). Media Education in New Cultural Contexts: The German-Speaking and British Discussions (1st ed.). VS Verl. für Sozialwiss. Barberá, P. & Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C. (2020). How to Use Social Media Data for Political Science Research. In L. Curini & R. Franzese (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations (pp. 404–423). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387.n26 Behre, J., Hölig, S., Stöwing, E., & Möller, J. (2025). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025: Results for Germany. https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.102887 Bennett, W. L. & Iyengar, S. (2008). A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. Journal of Communication, 58 (4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14602466.2008.00410.x Böhme, H. (2001). An Invitation to Transformation. In H. Böhme, L. Bergemann, M. Dönike, A. Schirrmeister, G. Toepfer, M. Walter & J. Weitbrecht (Eds.), Transformation: A Concept for Researching Cultural Change (pp. 7–38). Fink. BVerfGE. (1986). 4th Broadcasting Decision (Vol. 73). BVerfGE. (2021). State Treaty on Broadcasting Financing (Vol. 158). Calmbach, M., Flaig, B. B., Gaber, R., Gensheimer, T., Möller-Slawinski, H., Schleer, C., & Wisniewski, N. (2024). What Makes Teens Tick? 2024: The Lives of Teens Aged 14 to 17 in Germany. Series / Federal Agency for Civic Education: Vol. 11133. Federal Agency for Civic Education. https://www.bpb.de/system/ files/dokument_pdf/u18_SINUS-Jugendstudie_Wie-ticken-Jugendliche_2024_Print_24-06-07_Sperrfrist_12.06.24_12.00.pdf Carrillo, F. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Big Data in Global Politics: How AI and ML Influence Power, Governance, Democracy, International Relations, Misinformation, and Polarization? Social Science Chronicle, 6 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2026.004 Castles, S., Cubas, Magdalena Arias, Kim, C., Koleth, E., Ozkul, D., & Williamson, R. (Eds.). Karl Polanyi’s Great Transformation as a Framework for Understanding Neoliberal Globalization [Special Issue]. Working Paper, 2011(1). Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Constine, J. (August 31, 2020). Content density: Why TikToks trounce Stories. Constine‘s Newsletter. https://constine.substack.com/p/content-density-why-tiktoks-trounce Cramer, F. (2014). What Is ‘Post-Digital’? A Peer-Reviewed Journal About, 3 (1), 10–24. https://doi. org/10.7146/aprja.v3i1.116068 Dahlgren, P. (2003). Reconfiguring Civic Culture in the New Media Milieu. In J. Corner & D. Pels (Eds.), Media and the Restyling of Politics: Consumerism, Celebrity, and Cynicism (pp. 151–170). Sage. Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy (1st ed.). Communication, Society, and Politics. Cambridge University Press. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0834/2008012059-b.html Dahmen, S., Demir, Z., Ertuğrul, B., Kloss, D., & Ritter, B. (2024). The Politicization of Youth – An Introduction to the Volume. In S. Dahmen, Z. Fuchs, B. Ertuğrul, D. Kloss, & B. Ritter (Eds.), Youth Research. The Politicization of Youth (1st ed., pp. 11–22). Beltz Juventa. Dogruel, L., La Durantaye, K. de, Elmer, C., Gostomzyk, T., & Lobigs, F. (2025). Perspectives on Digital Public Value at ZDF. Donges, P., & Jarren, O. (2022). Political Communication in the Media Society. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37079-4 Dörner, A. (2000). *Political Culture and Media Entertainment: On the Staging of Political Identities in the American Film and Television World. Also published by the University of Magdeburg, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Education, as a habilitation thesis in 1999 under the title: Dörner, Andreas: Political Culture and Media Entertainment – Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Analyses. Analysis and Research in the Social Sciences. UVK University Press, Konstanz. Fountain, J. E. (2012). On the Effects of e-Government on Political Institutions. In *Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203101827.CH27 Fuchs, C. (2017). The Critique of the Political Economy of Media/Communication: A Highly Topical Approach. Publizistik, 62 (3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11616-017-0341-9 Ganguin, S. & Sander, U. (2022). Critical-Emancipatory Media Education. In U. Sander, F. von Gross & K.-U. Hugger (Eds.), Handbook of Media Education (pp. 61–65). Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-531-91158-8_6 Gemkow, J. (2023). Polarization through or on social media? In Institute for Democracy and Society (Ed.), Knowledge Creates Democracy. Special Focus: Network Cultures and Platform Politics (pp. 44–57). Gemkow, J. (2026). Young People and Social Cohesion. In J. Groshek & T. Hallaq (Eds.), e-Book Collection. Modern Media Literacy: Generative AI, Social Media, and the News (pp. 89–126). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-0872-2.ch004 Gemkow, J. & Ganguin, S. (2023). Populism on Social Media – A Praxeological Approach. In B. Ertugrul & U. Bauer (Eds.), Socialization and Social Cohesion: Growing Up in Crises and Conflicts (pp. 61–90).

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Campus Verlag. Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22 (6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914 Greenstein, F. I. (1968). Political Socialization. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (pp. 551–555). Macmillan and Free Press. Griese, H., Brüggen, N., Materna, G., & Müller, E. (2020). “Political Opinion Formation Among Youth on Social Media: Approaches, Selected Findings, and Current Insights into an Interdisciplinary Field of Research.” https://www.jff.de/fileadmin/user_upload/jff/veroeffentlichungen/2020/jff_muenchen_2020_veroeffentlichungen_politische_meinungsbildung.pdf Grunwald, K. & Thiersch, H. (2009). The concept of the ‘lifeworld orientation’ for social work and social care. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23 (2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530902923643 Habermas, J. (1990). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: Studies on a Category of Bourgeois Society: with a foreword to the 1990 new edition (unaltered reprint of the edition SuhrkampTaschenbuch Wissenschaft: Vol. 891. Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (2022). A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics (1st edition). Suhrkamp. Hasebrink, U., Hölig, S., & Wunderlich, L. (2021). #UseTheNews: A Study on the News Literacy of Adolescents and Young Adults in the Digital Media World. https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.72822 Helbig, K. (2018). The Influence of Algorithms on Democratic Deliberation. In R. Mohabbat-Kar (Ed.), (Un) predictable? Algorithms and Automation in Government and Society (1st ed., pp. 339–363). Competence Center for Public IT. Hopf, C.-M. & Hopf, W. (1997). Family, Personality, Politics: An Introduction to Political Socialization. Basic Texts in Sociology. Beltz. http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:31-epflicht-1127968 Hurrelmann, K. & Albrecht, E. (2014). The Secret Revolutionaries: How Generation Y Is Changing Our World. Beltz. http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:31-epflicht-1120906 Jäger, A. (2023). Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization Without Political Consequences (1st ed.). Suhrkamp Verlag. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=7390697 Jörissen, B., Kröner, S., & Unterberg, L. (2019). Introduction: Research on Digitalization in Cultural Education. In B. Jörissen, S. Kröner, & L. Unterberg (Eds.), Research on Digitalization in Cultural Education (pp. 7–10). kopaed. Katzenbach, C. (2022). The “Algorithmic Turn” in Platform Governance. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 74 (S1), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-022-00837-4 Kleer, P. & Abendschön, S. (2025). Between TikTok and ARD? Political Information Behavior and Media Trust Among Young Citizens. Journal of Political Science, 35 (2), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41358-025-00418-9 Kloten, N. (1991). The Transformation of Economic Systems: Theoretical, Phenotypic, and Political Aspects. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Die-Transformation-von-Wirtschaftsordnungen-%3Aund-Kloten/e8b0f0149e7bed14bf8d423e339aed0783e92d30 Kollmorgen, R., Merkel, W., & Wagener, H.-J. (2015). Transformation and Transformation Research: An Introduction. In R. Kollmorgen, W. Merkel, & H.-J. Wagener (Eds.), Handbook of Transformation Research (pp. 11–46). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Kornai, J. (2006). The Great Transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. Economics of Transition, 14 (2), 207–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0351.2006.00252.x Kruse, M.-M. (2022). Politics, Media, and Youth. Dissertation. Critical Studies in Media and Communication: Vol. 27 [454 pages]. transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839461471 Külling-Knecht, C., Waller, G., Willemse, I., Deda-Bröchin, S., Suter, L., Streule, P., Settegrana, N., Jochim, M., Bernath, J., & Süss, D. (2024). JAMES: Youth, Activities, Media – Swiss Survey (ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences). ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences. https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/ items/5cd2cb6c-7663-4c5a-8571-8cbd72254c9e https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-32019 Kumkar, N. C. (2025). Polarization: On the Order of Politics. Suhrkamp Verlag. https://ebookcentral. proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=32263819 Kumkar, N. C. & Schimank, U. (2025). Social Polarizations and Sociological Positionings: Theoretical Reflections on Enlightening Controversy. Sociology(1), 7–33. Lichtenstein, D., Herbers, M. R., & Bause, H. (2021). Journalistic YouTubers and Their Role Orientations, Strategies, and Professionalization Tendencies. Journalism Studies, 22 (9), 1103–1122. https://doi.org/10.1 080/1461670X.2021.1922302 Materna, G. & Brüggen, N. (2024). The Information Spaces and Information Practices of Young People and Their Approach to Disinformation. A Media Education Study of Mediatized Social Spaces. Mau, S. (2022). Camel or Dromedary? On the Diagnosis of Social Polarization. Merkur, 76(874), 5–18. McIntyre, K. & Gyldensted, C. (2018). Constructive Journalism: An Introduction and Practical Guide for Applying Positive Psychology Techniques to News Production. The Journal of Media Innovations, 4 (2), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.5617/JOMI.V4I2.2403 Merritt, R. L. (1980). On the Transformation of Systems. nternational Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 1 (1), 13–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1600738 Nachtwey, O. (2023). The Society of Decline: On Rebellion in Regressive Modernity (9th edition, original edition). edition suhrkamp: Vol. 2682. Suhrkamp. https://portal.dnb.de/opac/mvb/ cover?isbn=978-3-518-12682-0 Oehsen, D. von (2025). Media Use Among 14- to 29-Year-Olds: On-Demand Well Established, Growth Limited. Findings from the 2025 ARD/ZDF Media Study. Media Perspektiven (28), 1–12. https://www. media-perspektiven.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2025/MP_29_2025_ARD_ZDFMedienstudie_Zunehmend_digital_Zur_Mediennutzung_des_Publikums_ab_50_Jahren.pdf

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o so/9780199999736.001.0001 Papathanassopoulos, S. & Giannouli, I. (2025). Political Communication in the Age of Platforms. Encyclopedia, 5 (2), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020077 Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformization. Internet Policy Review, 8 (4). https://doi. org/10.14763/2019.4.1425 Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (2. Beacon Paperback ed. [reprinted]. Beacon Press. Reckwitz, A. (2020). The Society of Singularities: On the Structural Transformation of Modernity (2. nd ed.). Suhrkamp. Ritzi, C. (2023). “Balancing the Digital Universe: Power and Patterns in the New Public Sphere.”Philosophy & Social Criticism, 50 (1), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537231203540 Rosa, H. (2024). Acceleration: The Transformation of Time Structures in Modernity (13th ed., original edition). Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft: Vol. 1760. Suhrkamp. Sandschneider, E. (1995). Stability and Transformation of Political Systems: Current Status and Perspectives of Political Science Research on Transformation (1st ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften GmbH. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=31036692 Sauer, B. (2001). The Ashes of the Sovereign [Also published as: Vienna, Univ., Habilitation Thesis, 2000, Campus-Verl, Frankfurt/Main, New York]. German National Library. Schmidt, J.-H. & Storll, D. (2026). The Contribution of Public Media to Social Cohesion in Germany: Public Expectations and Perceptions from the ARD/ZDF/Deutschlandradio Cohesion Study 2025. Media Perspektiven(13), 1–18. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes: Art, Culture, and Politics in the Digital Age (1st ed.). Suhrkamp Verlag. https:// ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=5776597 Sipos, D. (2025). The role of digital platforms in the transformation of political parties. Foreign Affairs, 35 (5), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/5.2025.39 Soßdorf, A. (2023). Competencies in a Culture of Digitality. MedienPädagogik: Journal of Theory and Practice in Media Education, 257–280. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/jb19/2023.03.10.X Staab, P. & Thiel, T. (2022). Social Media and the Digital Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39 (4), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221103527 Stalder, F. (2017). Kultur der Digitalität (3rd ed.). edition suhrkamp: Vol. 2679. Suhrkamp. Stollfuß, S. (2021). The platformization of public service broadcasting in Germany: The network “funk” and the case of Druck/Skam Germany. Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies, 16 (2), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749602021996536 Tormos, R. & Verge, T. (2022). Challenging the Gender Gap in Political Interest. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86 (1), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab070 Trueltzsch-Wijnen, C. (2020). Media Practice Between Competence, Performance, and Literacy. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29534-9 Tufekci, Z. (2017). *Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press. https://mediarep.org/entities/book/979905e2-3940-4132-be87-4ce184e45e8c https://doi. org/10.25969/mediarep/14848 van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. ((2018).The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db =nlabk&AN=1901418 Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics [Reprint]. Harvard Univ. Press. Weiss, A. (2023). Participation and democracy in German public service broadcasting. Soundings, 82 (82), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.3898/soun.82.06.2022 Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (Paperback edition). Profile Books. Council for the Future. (2024). Report of the Council for the Future Development of Public Broadcasting: Report commissioned by the Broadcasting Commission of the German States.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Media Literacy as a Challenge for Digital Public Spheres

Digital public spheres can be characterized via information overload: journalistic reporting, political communication, scientific findings, personal opinions, commercial content, and, increasingly, AI-generated content coexist side by side(Gerbaudo, 2026; Hajli et al., 2022; Helberger et al., 2018). Questions regarding access to information take a back seat, while aspects such as selection, evaluation, and contextualization take center stage. This situation is largely characterized by digital platforms that algorithmically structure the visibility and reach of information, while relativizing or even diminishing the impact of journalistic selection and classification processes (Gillespie, 2018; van Dijck et al., 2018) . This results in new challenges: For example, international comparative surveys such as the Digital News Report by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism show that large segments of the population – not just younger people – are increasingly getting their news from platforms and social media (Newman, 2025), while editorially curated information spaces no longer reach society as a whole (Kalogeropoulos et al., 2019; Prandner, 2022; Schwaiger et al., 2022). In this context, the topic of disinformation – which has seen intensive discussions in the last decade, but at least since the COVID-19 pandemic – is also gaining significance, as is the imprecise and politically instrumentalized term “fake news” (Kern & Prandner, 2026, p. 6). Since disinformation ties into the same logic of attention and interaction that also structures the visibility of content on algorithmic social media platforms the topic highly relevant today to media literacy overall.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Disinformation is not problematic solely because of the deliberate dissemination of false or manipulative content. It also actively contributes to the growing societal uncertainty about what kind of information can be trusted and by what criteria credibility can be assessed (Bennett & Livingston, 2018; Kalogeropoulos et al., 2019; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). The rapid developments in the field of generative artificial intelligence further exacerbate this problem, as authentic-looking texts, images, and videos can be generated with minimal effort, thereby making it more difficult to verify media content (UNESCO, 2023; European Commission, 2024). Against this backdrop, media literacy is becoming an essential prerequisite for social orientation and the sustainable functioning of democratic societies. 1.1.

Media Literacy as a Prerequisite for Social Participation

Under these conditions, media literacy must be defined in terms of several aspects. It is not merely the ability to use media, but encompasses the capacity to reflect on information, evaluate sources, understand the conditions under which media content is produced and disseminated, and ultimately form comprehensive judgments based on these individual aspects (UNESCO, 2023; Vissenberg et al., 2022). Those who cannot contextualize public communication can only understand or evaluate social debates and political decision-making processes to a limited extent. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that international studies in this context show that media and information-related competencies improve the ability to recognize disinformation and distinguish journalistic content from manipulative information sources – regardless of the subject area (Guess et al., 2020; Jones-Jang et al., 2021; Pérez-Escolar et al., 2023). However, media literacy is distributed unequally across society and is linked to trust, political orientations, and societal worldviews just as much as to education or digital usage experience( Vraga & Tully, 2021). Media literacy is therefore more than an individual skill; it is a prerequisite for democratic public spheres(Mihailidis, 2018). Furthermore, it is evident that, under the conditions of the digital public sphere, media literacy cannot be acquired as a permanent skill. Rather it is a skillset that must be continuously updated and adapted to new media environments, platform architectures, journalistic practices, and forms of digital manipulation (Livingstone, 2004; von Hippel & Freide, 2018, p. 977) .

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

In Austria, this is documented by the study Digital Skills Austria IV, published in 2026. It makes it clear that media-related competencies involve not only technical proficiency but also the critical evaluation of digital information, the assessment of credibility, and the reflective use of sources (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026a; Kern & Prandner, 2026). 1.2.

Public Media as Actors in the Promotion of Media Literacy

If media literacy is understood as a constantly evolving skillset for orientation and participation, the question arises as to which institutions can promote the development of the skillset – both at the societal and individual levels. Accordingly, educational institutions play a crucial role because they create structured learning environments, facilitate curriculum-based instruction, and, in particular, reach children and adolescents during formative stages of their lives (Thomann, 2015). Nevertheless, it must be taken into account that many of the current challenges originate in everyday media use rather than in formal educational contexts: in news outlets, social media, search engines, messaging services, video platforms, and AI-supported information environments. This is precisely why the promotion of media literacy cannot be limited to formal educational programs. This brings media organizations into focus as key actors: they provide content and shape how information is presented, categorized, and assessed for credibility. Public service media occupy a special position in this regard, as outlined by the European Broadcasting Union (2026). It describes media and information literacy as domain where public service media needs to be active, as they are positioned to act not only as providers of information but also as partners in media literacy. Public service media are expected to support citizens in understanding digital information environments, contextualizing media content, and participating in social, cultural, and democratic communication (European Broadcasting Union, 2026). At the same time, the promotion of media literacy is described as a collaborative effort that requires cooperation among media organizations, educational institutions, academia, and civil society (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2017; European Broadcasting Union, 2026). Nevertheless, relatively little research has been conducted to date on how public service media understand the concept of media literacy and its promotion, how this understanding is institutionally embedded, and how it is reflected in specific journalistic offerings. This is particularly true when it comes to determining whether the promotion

M EDIA LITER AC Y

of media literacy is primarily understood as an educational offering for specific target groups or whether it appears to be an integral part of public service media practice. This article addresses this research gap with three research questions. First: How is the ability to recognize disinformation distributed among the Austrian online population? Second: How do selected ORF stakeholders understand media literacy, and what role do they assign to it within the context of the public broadcasting mandate? Third: How is this understanding exemplified in the YouTube format “ZiB erklärt”? Media literacy is thus examined as an interplay of societal needs, institutional responsibility, and programmatic implementation. To this end, Section 2 develops the theoretical and conceptual framework of this paper. Section 3 describes the data set and the methodological approach. Section 4 presents the population analysis based on the Digital Skills Austria study. Section 5 reconstructs the understanding of media literacy at ORF based on qualitative interviews. Section 6 analyzes its programmatic implementation using the example of “ZiB erklärt”. Finally, Section 7 summarizes the results and discusses the role of public media in promoting media literacy. 2.

Media Literacy Between Orientation and Public Broadcasting Practice

Building on the problem statement outlined in the introduction, this paper understands media literacy as a multidimensional resource for orientation. First, it encompasses the ability to classify information according to its source, credibility, intent, and specific context. Second, it concerns an understanding of the conditions under which media are produced and disseminated, particularly journalistic practices, platform logics, and forms of digital manipulation. Third, it refers to the ability to form independent judgments on this basis and to participate in public communication. Media literacy is thus not reduced to technical proficiency but is understood as a prerequisite for social agency (Baacke, 1996; Livingstone, 2004; UNESCO, 2023; Vissenberg et al., 2022). This working definition builds on concepts of media and information literacy that combine media criticism, information seeking, source evaluation, verification, and social participation (Hobbs, 2010; Potter, 2019; UNESCO, 2023). This paper follows the assumption presented in Section 1.1 that media literacy is not a skill that can be acquired once but represents a skillset which develop over time and is part of a process – both

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

when it comes to individuals and when it comes to the maintenance of social infrastructures. This perspective is particularly relevant because digital public spheres bring together journalistic content, political communication, personal opinions, advertising, platform content, and AI-generated media offerings within the same communication spaces. The evaluation of information therefore depends just as much on users’ ability to contextualize the conditions of its creation, the logic of its dissemination, and the communicative interests involved as it does on the individual content itself (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026b). Media literacy thus becomes the ability not only doubt with good reason, but also trust with good reason and to distinguish between reliable and problematic sources in complex information environments (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026b; Törnberg & Chueri, 2026; Vosoughi et al., 2018). 2.1.

Disinformation as a Litmus Test for Media Literacy

The social significance of media literacy becomes particularly evident in situations where it is difficult to navigate. Disinformation – understood as the intentional dissemination of false or misleading content with the strategic intent to deceive – serves as an important litmus test in this regard (Amriza et al., 2025; Zimmermann & Kohring, 2018). It represents a broader disruption of public communication that goes beyond the mere appearance of individual false claims. Furthermore, disinformation is closely linked to the operational logic of platform-based public spheres. It often exploits the very mechanisms that structure the visibility of content on social media: emotionalization, sensationalization, conflict orientation, interaction, and shareability. As a result, disinformation is problematic not only because of its lack of or limited truthfulness, but also because of its alignment with digital attention economies. In this context, Wardle and Derakhshan(2017) also refer to “information disorder” and distinguish between various forms of problematic information, including deliberately false content, misleading framing, manipulated representations, and information taken out of context. On the one hand, such content leads people to believe misinformation; on the other hand, it creates uncertainty regarding the credibility of information, the reliability of sources, and trust in institutions. Bennett and Livingston(2018) describe disinformation accordingly as part of a communication order in which journalistic mediators, scientific authority, and political institutions can come under pressure. For media literacy, this means that evaluating information must go

M EDIA LITER AC Y

beyond recognizing individual false reports and must also include the ability to assess sources, processes, and contexts in a way that allows for well-founded trust. In this context, empirical studies show that relevant media- and information-related competencies can help people better recognize disinformation and distinguish journalistic content from manipulative content (Guess et al., 2020; Jones-Jang et al., 2021; Moore & Hancock, 2022). Moore and Hancock(2022) make it clear that strategies such as “lateral reading” – that is, verifying a claim using additional sources – as well as reverse image search for examining visual content can help distinguish between true and false news more reliably. It is crucial that the development and acquisition of such skills do not lead to general mistrust. The two authors use the term “discriminant trust” to describe this concept, which links media literacy to the ability to distinguish reliable information from problematic content (Moore & Hancock, 2022). Figure 1 summarizes this understanding. According to this framework, media literacy combines the examination of individual pieces of content with source evaluation, contextualization, verification practices, and reflective trust. Figure 1: Media Literacy as the Foundation for Competent Handling of Disinformation

Note: Author’s own illustration based on Grünangerl and Prandner (2026a), Hobbs (2010), and UNESCO (2023).

This is particularly important for this chapter, as media literacy does not mean distrusting all information as a matter of principle. Such blanket skepticism would weaken journalism’s role in guiding society. If media literacy is understood merely as a call to “question

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

everything,” it can unintentionally reinforce the very mistrust that actors spreading disinformation strategically exploit (Hobbs, 2010; Potter, 2019). What is therefore relevant is a reflective capacity for judgment that combines skepticism toward problematic content with well-founded trust in transparent sources, journalistic practices, and verifiable evidence(Vraga & Tully, 2021). This is precisely where the significance of media literacy in democratic theory lies. Dealing with disinformation therefore serves as a suitable empirical indicator for studying media literacy. The ability to recognize problematic information sources reveal how media literacy is distributed across society and where support is needed for its development and maintenance. 2.2.

Public Media as an Institutional Context

If disinformation is understood as a litmus test of media literacy, the next question is who – or which institutions – can contribute to strengthening this competency. Educational opportunities remain central to this: Studies show that longer educational pathways – particularly at the tertiary level – are associated with higher levels of media literacy (for Austria, see, e.g., Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026b, p. 57). Schools, colleges, adult education institutions, and media education initiatives create structured learning environments and facilitate pedagogically guided engagement. Especially when dealing with disinformation, platform logic, and AI-generated content, they can impart important foundational skills: critical evaluation of sources, verification strategies, knowledge of journalistic practices, and the ability to contextualize information within broader societal frameworks. However, many challenges of the digital public sphere arise outside formal educational contexts – for example, in news outlets, social media, messaging services, search engines, video platforms, and AI-supported information environments. Media literacy must therefore also be strengthened where public communication actually takes place (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026c). This brings media organizations themselves into focus as key players in promoting media literacy. They not only provide information but also shape how social reality becomes visible, understandable, and assessable. Journalistic media, in particular, can help make criteria such as credibility, research, source verification, and contextualization transparent. In addition to explicit educational programs, me-

M EDIA LITER AC Y

dia literacy promotion also takes place through journalistic practice itself: through transparent research, contextualization, explanatory formats, visible correction processes, verification work, and reflection on editorial decisions. Public service media, in particular, hold a special position due to their public mandate: they are expected to provide reliable information, support democratic opinion-forming, highlight cultural diversity, and enable social participation (Bardoel & Lowe, 2007; Donders, 2021; Syvertsen et al., 2014). In the digital environment, this role also encompasses providing guidance and ensuring the transparency of journalistic processes. In terms of public value, this makes it clear how content is created, how sources are verified, and how well-founded trust is fostered. For the ORF, media literacy thus combines individual competencies, organizational responsibility, and programmatic education. 3.

Data Set and Methodological Approach

This paper combines three empirical approaches. The first part is a population analysis based on the fourth wave of the Digital Skills Austria survey, which examines the recognition and evaluation of disinformation among the Austrian online population. The institutional perspective in the second part is based on guided expert interviews with four ORF stakeholders from various journalistic and organizational contexts. The programmatic level is examined through a qualitative case study of the YouTube format “ZiB erklärt”. This constitutes the third approach. The research design does not aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of all of ORF’s media literacy activities; rather, it combines three complementary perspectives to trace how media literacy is understood at ORF and how it can be reflected in a specific journalistic offering. 3.1.

Population Analysis: Digital Skills Austria IV

The first empirical part of this chapter study is based on the fourth wave of the Digital Skills Austria study series. The survey was conducted in July and August 2025 by the market research institute Marketagent and includes 2,307 individuals who, based on age, gender, and education quotas, are structurally representative of the Austrian online population aged 14 and older (Prandner et al., 2023 ; Grünan-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

gerl & Prandner, 2026b). For the purposes of this article, we draw on the portion of the study that deals with the recognition and evaluation of disinformation and misinformation. Accordingly, media literacy is operationalized in this analysis, for illustrative purposes, through the ability to correctly classify true and false news content. Respondents were presented with seven short news statements selected at random from a pool of fourteen statements. These statements were based either on verifiable misinformation or disinformation or on accurate news content. In each case, respondents were asked to assess whether they considered the information to be true or false (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026b, pp. 29–32). The analysis thus focuses on the ability to recognize problematic information sources and to distinguish true statements from false or misleading ones. In addition, sociodemographic characteristics and media-related orientations are taken into account, including information-seeking behavior, attributions of credibility, reflective practices, and trust. The analysis is descriptive and serves to reveal patterns in the distribution of media literacy among the Austrian online population. Causal statements regarding the impact of individual characteristics are not possible on this basis. IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 29, was used for the analysis. 3.2.

Expert Interviews at ORF

The second empirical basis consists of four guided expert interviews. The interviews were conducted in April 2026 with individuals at ORF who work in various organizational and journalistic areas dealing with media literacy, news dissemination, educational offerings, or digital formats. The goal was not to conduct a representative organizational analysis of the ORF. Rather, the aim was to reconstruct different professional perspectives on media literacy within the organization (see, e.g., Lamnek, 1989; Merten, 1995; Muckel, 2011). The selection of interviewees followed the qualitative logic of targeted case selection. The goal was to incorporate various organizational perspectives: editorial responsibility, journalistic communication, format development, and the organization of media literacy programs. The interviews addressed the understanding of media literacy, current challenges posed by disinformation and platformization, specific ORF programs, collaborations, and the role of transparency and trust. The conversations are accordingly understood as expert interviews that do not primarily reveal individual attitudes but rather provide access to

M EDIA LITER AC Y

professional experience and interpretive knowledge (Gläser & Laudel, 2009) . The interviews lasted between 45 and 75 minutes and were fully transcribed for analysis. The LLM-based, GDPR-compliant academic tool Academic AI was used in part to assist with transcription (ACOmarket, 2026). Due to the limited number of interviews, the analysis was conducted using Microsoft Word and Excel and did not utilize any specific software. The evaluation was based on Mayring’s (2020) structured qualitative content analysis, with a focus on identifying recurring patterns of interpretation. In a first step, the interviews were pre-structured according to the guiding questions. Subsequently, key passages were condensed, thematic similarities and differences were identified, and analytical categories were inductively derived from them. The categories were interpreted through discussion between the two authors to ensure the transparency of the classifications and the consistency of the interpretations. For this LLM-translated version of the text all quotes were also translated from German to English for a consistant reading experience. The original quotes can be found in the original German version of the text. 3.3.

Program Analysis: ZiB erklärt

The third empirical basis consists of a qualitative case study of the YouTube format “ZiB erklärt”. The format was selected because it lies at the intersection of journalistic explanation, digital platform public sphere, and the promotion of media literacy. It is aimed at an audience that increasingly consumes information via digital platforms and combines journalistic analysis with platform-appropriate presentation. Specifically, nine selected episodes of the format from the period between September 2024 and May 2026 were used for the analysis, with a focus on videos that explicitly address media literacy, disinformation, journalistic transparency, or social orientation. The analysis included pieces that (a) directly address disinformation, manipulation, platform logic, or digital information environments; (b) provide social orientation through background knowledge and contextualization; and (c) make journalistic practices, editorial decisions, or institutional processes transparent.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Examples of these pieces include videos like “Wie man Falschnachrichten auf Social Media erkennen kann (How to Spot Fake News on Social Media)” (September 2024), “Abzocke mit Fake-Videos (Scams Using Fake Videos)” (September 2024), “Wir haben eine Bot-Armee aufgedeckt (We’ve Uncovered a Bot Army)” (March 2026), “Backstage im Newsroom: So arbeitet die ZiB (Behind the Scenes in the Newsroom: How ZiB Works)” (December 2024), “ZiB2-Moderator Armin Wolf: So führt er seine Interviews (ZiB2 Anchor Armin Wolf: How He Conducts His Interviews)” (October 2024), and “Was ist los im ORF? (What’s Going On at ORF?)” (April 2026), which are analytically relevant cases. They represent different forms of public service media’s promotion of media literacy: addressing disinformation, explaining social contexts, ensuring transparency in journalistic practices, and reflecting on the organization itself. For the program analysis, “ZiB erklärt” segments were not selected based on quantitative usage metrics such as views or likes. Instead, a targeted selection of cases was made according to the principle of maximum variation or heterogeneity. The goal was to use videos with as diverse content as possible to highlight the range of ways in which media literacy is addressed within the format – for example, through debunking disinformation, providing social context, ensuring journalistic transparency, and engaging in organizational self-reflection (Kelle & Kluge, 2010). The analysis is not designed as an impact assessment but rather examines how the promotion of media literacy is structured programmatically: through topic selection, explanatory logic, contextualization, journalistic transparency, and platform-specific communication. The contributions were first structured along these dimensions and then evaluated comparatively. The categories were developed inductively and agreed upon among the authors. Accordingly, the dimensions derived from the interview analysis served as conceptual frameworks for the program analysis; at the same time, the evaluation remained open to other aspects emerging from the material.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

3.4. Limitations of the Design These three empirical approaches serve different functions. The population analysis highlights the societal relevance of promoting media literacy. The interviews reconstruct how media literacy is understood and legitimized within the ORF. The program analysis demonstrates how this understanding is reflected in a specific journalistic offering. At the same time, the limitations of the research design must be taken into account. The population analysis operationalizes media literacy – specifically through the ability to recognize disinformation – and thus does not capture all dimensions of the concept. The expert interviews provide insight into professional interpretations and institutional self-conceptions, but do not allow for a comprehensive assessment of all organizational units within the ORF. The analysis of “ZiB erklärt” is a selected case study and cannot be generalized to the entire ORF programming portfolio. Furthermore, the program analysis is not a measure of audience reception or impact. The strength of the study design thus lies more in the combination of three levels than in a comprehensive survey. This paper demonstrates that media literacy can be understood as a resource for social orientation that links individual skills, journalistic professionalism, and public service responsibility. 4.

Media Literacy Among the General Public: Results of the Disinformation Knowledge Test

The disinformation knowledge test from the fourth Digital Skills Austria study assesses how reliably respondents can classify true, false, and misleading news content from the fields of politics, society, health, and the environment (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026b, pp. 29–31). On average, respondents correctly assessed about four of the seven statements presented (Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026b, p. 62). For the purposes of this article, this test reflects a specific yet essential aspect of media literacy: the ability to recognize problematic information sources and to distinguish true statements from false or misleading ones. The analysis thus builds on the understanding of media literacy developed in the preceding sections. Media literacy is demonstrated as the ability to evaluate, categorize, and verify information.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

4.1. Education, Age, and Recognition Performance When the results are first examined by education level and age, a nuanced picture emerges (see Figure 2). First, there is a clear difference based on educational attainment: respondents with a college degree are significantly more likely to achieve high or very high recognition scores on the disinformation knowledge test. While 20.3% of all respondents were able to correctly classify six or seven statements, this proportion rises to 32.3% among those with a tertiary education. The proportion of low test scores is correspondingly lower in this group. This can be interpreted as an indication that, in particular, longterm engagement with complex bodies of knowledge, abstract information, and institutionalized knowledge production is associated with a better ability to evaluate news content. The data does not allow for causal conclusions regarding whether tertiary education itself fosters this ability or whether individuals with the relevant competencies are more likely to pursue tertiary education. However, a clear correlation between tertiary education and higher recognition performance is evident. This finding is relevant to this article because it demonstrates that media literacy cannot be considered independently of educational and knowledge resources. Second, there is no clear advantage for younger age groups when it comes to age. The highest proportions of very good recognition performance (correctly classifying 6 or 7 statements) are not found among those under 30, but among individuals aged 66 and older. While 16.0% of the youngest group were able to correctly classify six or seven statements, this proportion rises to 26.2% among those aged 66 and older. The group of 46- to 65-year-olds also exceeds the rate of younger age groups, at 21.8%. This finding is crucial because it illustrates that media literacy cannot be equated with everyday digital experience or technical media use. Although younger people often navigate digital media environments with ease (see Grünangerl & Prandner, 2026a), this does not automatically translate into a higher ability to recognize disinformation. Conversely, older individuals within the Austrian online population demonstrate a higher ability to recognize disinformation.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Figure 2: Results of the Disinformation Knowledge Test by Education Level and Age

Note: Data source: Digital Skills Austria IV; own calculations.

4.2. Information Behavior, Reflection, and Credibility Criteria The theoretical significance of the disinformation knowledge test becomes even clearer when considering information behavior, reflective practices, and credibility criteria (see Figure 3). Several patterns emerge that align with the previously developed understanding of media literacy as orientation and trust competence and reveal the ability to distinguish between reliable and problematic information sources. First, actively seeking out information is associated with slightly better results than passively expecting automatic (algorithmic) news recommendations. Respondents who actively search for information on current events or topics more frequently achieve high scores on the disinformation knowledge test than those who expect relevant news to be displayed to them automatically. This difference highlights the importance of active orientation in digital information environments. Where news consumption is left more to the logic of algorithmic allocation, the ability to recognize disinformation is lower.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Figure 3: Results of the disinformation knowledge test according to media literacy-related orientation criteria

Note. Data source: Digital Skills Austria IV; own calculations; coding: Active use of public service offerings = occasional to very frequent use (self-assessment); information behavior, reflection, and contextualization = sometimes or often; credibility criteria = “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree.”

Furthermore, reflective approaches to handling information are associated with better results. Respondents who contextualize news within their existing understanding of the world are more likely to achieve high scores on the test. The same applies to individuals who read news articles in their entirety, even when the articles present a substantive or normative position that the respondents themselves do not share. These findings support the understanding of media literacy as an orientation skill. Media literacy, therefore, is demonstrated not only by the ability to identify individual false statements, but also by the ability to link information to existing knowledge, to recognize different perspectives, and to evaluate content in terms of its source, context, plausibility, and societal embeddedness.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

These differences are particularly evident when it comes to credibility criteria. Among those who consider information credible only if it is supported by a majority of the scientific community (scientific consensus), 29.1% achieved the highest performance category (6 or 7 correct answers) on the test. Among those who use news broadcasts from public media as a credibility anchor, this proportion is even slightly higher at 31.9%. Both figures are significantly above the overall result. This suggests that relying on institutionalized and verifiable bodies of knowledge is associated with higher performance in identifying disinformation in the knowledge test. In contrast, individuals achieve weaker results when they consider information credible based on platform indicators or because it deviates from mainstream societal views. Only 11.8% of respondents who rely on a high number of “shares” on social media as an indicator of credibility achieve the highest performance category in the disinformation knowledge test. The proportion is similarly low among those who view it as a sign of credibility when an individual is “brave enough” to oppose the majority opinion. These findings are relevant to the discussion on disinformation because they show that credibility is not derived solely from the content of a piece of information; it also rests on social, institutional, and communicative patterns of interpretation. 4.3. Contextualizing the Findings within the Public Value Framework The survey results presented in the previous section are descriptive in nature and do not allow for causal conclusions about the effects of individual characteristics. Nevertheless, they reveal a consistent pattern. In the context of public value, this finding is relevant in two respects. First, it shows that media literacy should not be understood as blanket distrust. Individuals with higher critical evaluation skills do not assume that all information must be questioned as a matter of principle, but rather rely on criteria that enable well-founded trust: scientific evidence, journalistic standards, contextualization, and verifiable sources. Media literacy therefore consists of the ability to develop trust in a nuanced and well-founded manner. It also becomes apparent that public media can play a relevant role as part of such orientation structures. The correlation between the credibility of public news programs and high discernment ability should not be interpreted as an indication of uncritical trust. It is more plausible to interpret this as an indication that trust in journalistic practices, editorial standards, and institu-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

tionalized quality control can be part of media-literate orientation. It is precisely this combination of critical thinking and well-founded trust that is fundamental if media literacy is not to devolve into a culture of blanket skepticism. At the same time, the findings make it clear that everyday digital experience alone is not a sufficient foundation for media literacy. Younger age groups do not automatically perform better on the disinformation knowledge test, even though they are often more active in digital media environments. Media literacy must therefore be understood as a navigational skill that goes beyond technical use and is linked to education, information-seeking behavior, reflection, and relationships of trust. This provides a relevant point of reference for public service media. Their role is not limited to providing information. They can also make it clear how journalistic content is created, verified, and contextualized. It is precisely this connection between information, transparency, and orientation that is reconstructed in the following sections based on the ORF interviews and the “ZiB erklärt” format. 5.

Media Literacy as a Public Broadcasting Practice: An Analytical Reconstruction

The analysis of the four expert interviews shows that the ORF employees surveyed confirms that they do not view media literacy as a narrow technical concept. This finding is crucial because, according to the interviewees, media literacy related programs and initiatives are distributed across various departments of the ORF, such as in offerings like bildung. ORF.at, journalistic formats, collaborations with external initiatives, or the ORF Public Value Competence Center. Nevertheless, the interviews reveal a high degree of alignment among the professional perspectives of the respondents. Thus, at ORF, media literacy education does not appear as the content of isolated educational programs, but rather as a cross-cutting task that links journalistic practice, educational work, fact-checking, transparency, and the public service mandate. This assessment also aligns with recent ORF initiatives to promote media literacy. For example, an ORF.at article (ORF.at, 2025) dated October 2, 2025, on this topic refers to the expansion of offerings for schools, fact-checking formats, workshops, and collaborations. Such initiatives form the institutional backdrop for the following interview findings; however, they are not evaluated here as a comprehensive or-

M EDIA LITER AC Y

ganizational analysis. Rather, the analysis reconstructs how key ORF stakeholders understand and legitimize media literacy. 5.1.

Media Literacy as the Ability to Navigate Complex Information Environments

The first finding from the interviews shows that media literacy is consistently described as a resource for orientation. The interviewees describe an information environment characterized by a high density of information, a multitude of different actors, and increasing complexity. Against this backdrop, they argue in alignment with the existing literature that media literacy is the ability of individuals to navigate these information environments of contemporary society without resorting to uncritical acceptance or blanket rejection. Interviewee D, who currently serves as one of the editors-in-chief at the ORF newsroom, articulates this particularly clearly. In the interview, he describes media literacy as “an essential skill for navigating the media world – and by extension, the world and life in general – and for meaningfully participating in political life and processes” (Interviewee D, 00:31–00:49). Interviewee B, who is involved in media literacy training and journalism education in various roles at ORF, also describes media literacy as a resource for navigating everyday life. From his perspective, it is about “conveying knowledge on how to navigate our everyday media lives safely” (Interviewee B, 00:10–00:17). A key aspect of his definition of media literacy is its process-oriented nature, “because the media are fundamentally changing [and therefore] it is a constant process of change. And that’s why media literacy [development] is so important to me – it’s never complete […]” (Interviewee B, 00:24–00:39). His assessment thus ties in with the understanding of media literacy developed in Section 2 as a dynamic competency that must be continuously updated. Interviewee A, who works as a moderator and host for various “Zeit im Bild” programs, particularly emphasizes the reflective dimension. For her, media literacy means: I think it’s primarily about taking a brief step back when you read, see, or hear something in an online environment and asking yourself, “Who published this?” Why did this person or organization publish it? What are they trying to elicit in me – are they trying to inform me, convince me of a certain opinion, or get me to buy something? So it’s simply about

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

taking that brief step back and thinking about what this actually is and how it relates to me.” (Interviewee A, 01:44–02:20) This statement captures the essence of the concept: The ability to contextualize information does not arise from the mere reception of content, but rather from reflecting on the conditions under which it was created, the interests involved, and the communication goals. Similarly, Interviewee C, who is responsible for organizing media literacy training programs through the ORF, describes media literacy as an active process of engaging with information. The goal, she says, is to empower people “not to take information at face value” (Interviewee C, 00:44–00:45) and to learn tools “for how I can verify things, where I can look them up. “In other words, simply taking the initiative yourself – actively engaging with media rather than just passively letting it influence you” (Interviewee C, 01:00–01:03). Media literacy is thus conceived as a transition from passive reception to active information processing. These statements reveal an understanding of media literacy that goes well beyond technical proficiency. The interviewees describe media literacy as the ability to navigate condensed, platform-based, and sometimes manipulative information environments. From the interviewees’ perspective, it thus constitutes a prerequisite for individual agency, social orientation, and democratic participation. 5.2. Media Literacy Between Skepticism and Trust Another insight from the interviews concerns the relationship between skepticism and trust. On the one hand, the interviewees emphasize that media literacy should foster critical reflection: information should be questioned, sources verified, and communicative interests identified. On the other hand, they caution against interpreting media literacy as a blanket call for mistrust. This finding aligns with the population analysis: Better results on the disinformation knowledge test were more likely to be reported when nuanced orientation criteria were applied, rather than when blanke skepticism prevailed. This tension is shaped by attitudes toward social institutions and the media. Interviewee A explicitly addresses this: If media literacy education is framed too strongly as a call to question everything, “the end result could be that people might stop trusting anyone at all –

M EDIA LITER AC Y

including us” (Interviewee A, 03:57–04:03). She is thus referring to a possible side effect of undifferentiated media literacy education and the problem of “discriminant trust” as described by Moore and Hancock (2022): If criticism is not conveyed in a nuanced way, it can turn into general distrust of journalistic institutions. Interviewee C makes a similar argument. She also points out that the assumption that one should approach social institutions and journalistic media as a whole with an undifferentiated critical stance can be problematic: “I find it really difficult to say that you have to question a lot or everything, because that then leads precisely to this phenomenon [of questioning media systems and media content]” (Interviewee C, 03:46–03:50). A corresponding proposed solution is addressed in the interview by Interviewee B, who does not emphasize the questioning of media content. Media literacy means being able to reflect on content to the extent that one can “navigate my everyday life with greater confidence and autonomy” (Interviewee B, 32:00–32:02). Accordingly, educational programs and initiatives should teach specific methods and tools for verifying and evaluating information. It is important to note that the interviewees do not exempt the ORF itself from this reflection. Interviewee A emphasizes that media literacy should not mean automatically trusting the ORF or journalistic media. Rather, what is crucial is that people can understand how a report was produced, what sources it is based on, and whether different perspectives have been highlighted. The goal is not for people to say, “The ORF is great; I can believe everything it says,” but rather for trust to be based on transparent journalistic standards (Interviewee A, 04:48–05:15). Trust should be grounded in transparent journalistic quality standards and practices and not rely solely on institutional authority. From an analytical perspective, this finding can be understood as the concept of “reflective trust.” In the interviews, media literacy is understood less as a culture of distrust or skepticism and more as the ability to place trust in a well-founded manner. Critical thinking and trust appear here as complementary processes rather than opposites. Media literacy means critically examining problematic content while simultaneously recognizing transparent sources, journalistic practices, and verifiable evidence as the basis for reliable guidance. Thus, the interview analysis aligns with concepts of Media and Information Literacy as well as Critical Media Literacy, which view critical thinking not as an end in itself but as the foundation for evidence-based judgment (Hobbs, 2010; Potter, 2019; Vraga & Tully, 2021).

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

5.3.

Media Literacy as an Institutional Practice at ORF

A third interpretive pattern concerns the institutional expansion of the concept of media literacy. The interviewees also describe media literacy as an integral part of journalistic professionalism and organizational practice, rather than exclusively as a characteristic of the audience. The promotion of media literacy is thus conceived of as both an external and an internal endeavor. Externally, it is directed at the audience, students, teachers, and other target groups, for example through workshops, partnerships, digital educational offerings, or journalistic explanatory formats. Among other things, the interviews mention workshops for students and teachers, partnerships with media providers such as the *Wiener Zeitung* or *Der Standard*, and collaboration with initiatives such as *Lie Detectors* and *Digitaler Kompass*. In addition, offerings on bildung.ORF.at and formats such as “ZiB erklärt” are highlighted. These examples represent different forms of explicit and implicit media literacy promotion: ranging from media education training to journalistic contextualization within the programming. Internally, media literacy is described as part of journalistic quality assurance. Interview participant D puts it this way with regard to disinformation, manipulated content, and AI-generated media offerings: Dealing with these competently is “now part of the journalistic craft” (Interview participant D, 04:16–04:19). Media literacy thus concerns not only the audience but also journalists themselves. It is a prerequisite for verifying content, checking sources, and professionally assessing new forms of digital manipulation. Interviewee B also emphasizes that media literacy remains an ongoing learning process even for professional journalists. The acquisition of new skills “is also an ongoing process, simply because the medium – no matter which one you work in – is constantly evolving” (Interviewee B, 00:40–00:50). Media literacy appears here as an integral part of organizational learning. The transformation of media technologies and forms of communication requires not only educational programs for the audience but also continuous professional development within journalistic organizations. These assessments point to an important expansion of the concept. Media literacy is not only audience literacy but also production and organizational literacy. Public media do not merely promote media lit-

M EDIA LITER AC Y

eracy – – when they provide educational programs. They also practice media literacy when they further develop journalistic methods, professionalize verification, ensure transparency, and organize internal learning processes. Accordingly, the ORF emerges in the interviews as an institution that conveys media literacy to the outside world, requires it in day-to-day editorial work, and must continuously develop it organizationally. As Figure 4 summarizes, the promotion of media literacy at ORF thus encompasses external educational programs for various target groups, journalistic outreach formats within its programming, and internal awareness of the need for continuous professional development and ongoing reflection on journalistic practice. The figure illustrates that the promotion of media literacy is implemented both externally (toward the audience) and internally (in the sense of journalistic professionalization and organizational learning). The journalistic explanatory format “ZiB erklärt,” cited as an exemplary case study in Section 6, occupies a special position within this structure, as media literacy is directly integrated into editorial content here.

Figure 4: Promoting Media Literacy at ORF (own illustration) 5.4.

Media Literacy as a Fundamental Prerequisite for Democratic Infrastructures

Beyond the various facets of media literacy promotion, all interviews share a fundamental normative assumption: media literacy is understood as a prerequisite for democratic participation. The interviewees describe media literacy not merely as an educational goal, but as a societal resource necessary for the functioning of a democratic public sphere. It is intended

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

to empower people to critically assess information, evaluate its credibility, and, on this basis, form well-founded opinions and make social and political decisions. Media literacy is thus understood as a prerequisite for an informed public that enables navigation through complex digital information environments and supports democratic opinion-forming processes. This becomes particularly clear in the statements of interviewee D, who directly links media literacy to political participation. He argues that “media literacy is an essential skill for navigating the media world – and by extension, the world and life in general – and for meaningfully participating in political life and processes” (Interviewee D, 00:29–00:49). Democratic participation is thus directly linked to the ability to navigate complex information environments. This normative framework is also evident in the aforementioned educational and collaborative initiatives. For example, interviewee C refers to a “media literacy day for teachers – for 100 teachers – held at ORF, which was also co-organized by the Verifikation team in cooperation with Der Standard” (Interviewee C, 15:45–15:52). According to interviewee D, the number of participants was deliberately limited to 100 teachers in order to initially implement the event within a professional setting. Furthermore, they aim to “extend the successful collaboration with *Der Standard* to other Austrian media outlets” (Interviewee D, 52:03–52:08). The teacher workshops are to be further developed in collaboration with various media organizations in order to build a broader alliance of multiplicators for promoting media literacy and to expand the initiative to a larger target audience in the long term. In the interviews, such offerings are not described as mere supplementary services, but rather as part of a broader understanding of public service responsibility. Promoting media literacy is thus seen as a contribution to strengthening an informed public. At the same time, it is important to note analytically that these are professional self-descriptions. The interviews provide insight into how the promotion of media literacy is understood and legitimized within the ORF contexts surveyed. They do not demonstrate the extent to which these claims are implemented throughout the entire organization or perceived by the audience. This limitation should be emphasized because this study does not constitute a comprehensive survey or an impact assessment. Nevertheless, the interviews reveal a consistent pattern of interpretation: media literacy is understood as a “ ” democratic resource, the promotion of which is closely linked to the public service mandate.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

5.5.

Synthesis: The ORF’s Framing of Media Literacy

The interview analysis shows that a largely shared understanding of media literacy can be reconstructed across the four interviews. It is based on six interrelated dimensions, which are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Interpretive Patterns of Media Literacy at ORF Based on Expert Interviews (author’s own presentation)

The interviews reveal a common interpretive pattern: media literacy connects individual, journalistic, and organizational levels. It is understood as a resource for social orientation, as the foundation for well-founded trust, and as an organization-wide cross-functional task. The ORF thus appears as an information provider and additionally as an agent of social orientation. How this understanding is reflected in programming is examined in the following section using the example of ZiB.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Media Literacy as Programming Practice: The Case of “ZiB erklärt”

The interview analysis showed that media literacy is understood at ORF as a resource for social orientation. Building on this, Section 6 turns its attention to the program level and examines, using the YouTube format “ZiB erklärt” as an example, how this understanding manifests itself in a specific journalistic offering. The focus here is not so much on whether individual segments explicitly address media literacy. Rather, the analytical focus is on how the program treats media literacy as a concept: through topic selection, explanation of social contexts, visualization of journalistic practices, reflection on digital information environments, and the presentation of public service content within a commercial platform. ZiB is thus not understood as an isolated media education offering, but as an example of promoting media literacy through journalistic programming practices. 6.1.

Media Literacy as a Guide in Complex Information Environments

When examining the channel’s content at the first level of media literacy promotion, one finds numerous segments that directly address digital information environments, disinformation, manipulation, and platform logic. Examples include videos such as “Wie man Falschnachrichten auf Social Media erkennen kann (How to Spot Fake News on Social Media)” (September 2024), “Abzocke mit Fake-Videos (Scams Using Fake Videos)” (September 2024), “So funktioniert die Online-Radikalisierung (How Online Radicalization Works)” (September 2024), “Top Secret: So werden Emojis zu rechtsextremen Codes (Top Secret: How Emojis Become Far-Right Codes)” (February 2025), and “ Wir haben eine Bot-Armee aufgedeckt (We’ve Uncovered a Bot Army)” (March 2026). These articles address the dimensions of the understanding of media literacy reconstructed in Section 5. The focus is on source evaluation, verification, contextualization, and critical reflection on digital communication processes. They are designed to help users avoid viewing content in isolation and instead classify it according to its origin, credibility, intent, and dissemination logic. In this way, the format fulfills a function closely aligned with concepts of media and information literacy: It imparts knowledge about digital information environments and highlights methods for identifying and evaluating problematic content (Potter, 2019; UNESCO, 2023).

M EDIA LITER AC Y

In addition to these explanatory posts, the channel features political, social, economic, and scientific topics, such as international conflicts, European developments, economic challenges, migration, health policy, and artificial intelligence (see Figure 5). These posts can equally be understood as part of media literacy promotion because they provide background knowledge, context, and interpretive frameworks. The goal is to exemplify the foundational knowledge necessary to contextualize current news and evaluate societal developments. In this way, media literacy is addressed in two ways within the format: explicitly, when topics such as digital manipulation, disinformation, or platform logic are discussed; and implicitly, when complex societal developments are explained through journalism and placed within broader contexts. It is precisely this connection that is crucial to the public value argument. Here, media literacy is promoted not only through teaching materials or workshops, but also through an ongoing journalistic offering that provides guidance in everyday media use. Figure 5: Examples of media literacy-related segments on the YouTube channel “ZiB erklärt”

Note: Compiled by the author based on screenshots from the YouTube channel “ZiB erklärt.” Shown are the videos “Abzocke mit Fake-Videos (Scams with Fake Videos)” from September 9, 2024, and “Eskalation im Iran (Escalation in Iran)” from January 22, 2026.

6.2. Media Literacy Through Transparency in Journalistic Practice A second level of media literacy promotion is evident in those segments that explicitly address journalistic working methods and the conditions of professional reporting. Examples include videos such as “So arbeitet die ZiB (This Is How ZiB Works)” (December 2024), “ZiB2-Moderator Armin Wolf: So führt er seine Interviews (ZiB2 Anchor Armin Wolf: How He Conducts His Interviews)” (October 2024), “Zwischen Pressefreiheit und Privatsphäre (Between Freedom of the Press and Privacy)” (April 2026), and “Was ist los im ORF? (What’s Going On at ORF?)” (April 2026).

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Unlike traditional news reports, the focus here is not on external events, but on journalistic practice itself. The format reveals how news is produced, what criteria play a role in selecting topics, and what professional standards shape journalistic work. This transparency can be understood as a form of media literacy education. Users gain insight into research processes, source verification, interview techniques, newsworthiness decisions, and editorial considerations. This makes the conditions under which journalistic content is created transparent. Media literacy is addressed here not through often-abstract instruction, but through the public explanation of journalistic procedures. What is particularly noteworthy here is the connection between criticism and trust. The interviews have shown that media literacy at ORF is not understood as blanket distrust of the media, but rather as the ability to exercise reflective trust. It is precisely this logic that is found in reports that make journalistic practices transparent. On the one hand, they demonstrate that public service journalism follows certain standards; on the other hand, they make these standards the subject of public explanation (see the illustrative example in Figure 6).

Figure 6: Transparency in journalistic work as a means of promoting media literacy, illustrated using the example of ZiB (own depiction)

M EDIA LITER AC Y

6.3.

Media Literacy as a Recursive Practice

The connection between interview findings and program offerings becomes particularly clear when the format turns its attention to the organization itself. Reports such as “Was ist los im ORF? (What’s Going On at ORF?)” (April 2026) make ORF itself the subject of journalistic reflection. Internal organizational developments are not dealt with exclusively internally but are publicly explained and contextualized. In this specific segment, the background of a recent leadership crisis at ORF is explained: Starting with the resignation of the Director General, the segment explains the role of the Foundation Board, the potential for political influence on public broadcasting, and the significance of the upcoming appointment of new leadership. The report goes beyond mere coverage of an event and provides a clear explanation of institutional structures and decision-making processes. This creates transparency regarding the organization itself and gives the audience insight into how the ORF functions, its power dynamics, and the challenges it faces. This observation points to an aspect that had already become apparent in the interviews. The promotion of media literacy does not appear to be a one-sided transfer of knowledge from journalists to their audience; rather, it has a recursive dimension. Several interviewees described media literacy as a skill that is equally relevant for the audience as it is for journalists themselves. The growing importance of AI-generated content, digital manipulation techniques, and new information channels require continuous reflection on journalistic routines, professional standards, and organizational processes. Accordingly, journalistic organizations must continually refine their verification and quality assurance procedures. The analysis of “ZiB erklärt” suggests that these processes of reflection themselves become part of public communication. Media literacy thus appears as a learning process in which both the audience and media organizations are involved. By making journalistic self-reflection visible, the format can help the audience better distinguish and contextualize the working methods and quality standards of media organizations.

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

6.4. Public Service Media Literacy Promotion in Platform-Based Public Spheres At the same time, the analysis points to a tension that appears characteristic of public service media literacy promotion in digital societies. Numerous segments on the channel address platform logic, disinformation, algorithmic visibility, and forms of digital manipulation. At the same time, this content is delivered via a platform whose very functioning is the subject of the analysis. “ZiB erklärt” is primarily distributed via YouTube and thus operates within a platform economy characterized by algorithmic selection, data-driven personalization, and competition for attention (Gillespie, 2018; van Dijck et al., 2018) . The teaching of media literacy thus takes place within those very digital environments whose underlying logics are supposed to be critically examined. The analysis suggests that the ORF does not view this tension as a fundamental contradiction. A presence on platforms is regarded as a necessary prerequisite for promoting media literacy in line with the times. A review of the interviews confirms this perspective. Several interviewees argue that media literacy must be taught where people actually consume, discuss, and share information. Interviewee A explains, “What defines our work is not the outlet through which it is viewed or the platform on which it is available, but rather the content itself. Whether that’s on TV-Thek, via terrestrial broadcast, or on YouTube – the main thing is that people watch it” (Interviewee A, 41:41–41:58). Interviewee D reaches a similar conclusion: “We have to put ORF content on YouTube because [people] might see us there, but otherwise they don’t see ORF content anywhere else” (Interviewee D, 24:24–24:33). Accordingly, a presence on social media platforms is seen as an opportunity to bring public broadcasting content and high journalistic standards into digital information spaces. At the same time, this is a normative assumption that is by no means uncontroversial in academic discourse. The platformization of public communication is often described as the very cause of the challenges to which media literacy initiatives must currently respond. Algorithmic visibility logics frequently prioritize emotional, conflict-oriented, or attention-grabbing content, while personalization mechanisms promote the fragmentation of public spheres and make it more difficult to establish a shared information foundation (Napoli, 2019; Poell et al., 2022).

M EDIA LITER AC Y

In this case, approaches to promoting media literacy are intertwined with reach strategies. This is not problematic in and of itself, but it should be taken into account in the analysis. Public media offerings on platforms cannot operate outside of platform-specific attention logics. This is evident at ORF, for example, in the design of YouTube thumbnails (see Figures 7 and 8), which draw on classic social media logics. Interviewee A understands this to mean that “there are thumbnails that are very important. And we now know that there are certain criteria that make a thumbnail more or less appealing to click on, such as bright colors, emotion, and people depicted in the thumbnail” (Interviewee A, 43:31–43:46). Accordingly, content with educational and informational value must be designed in such a way that it becomes visible in the first place. The crucial question, therefore, is not whether public media should use platforms, but rather how they can maintain a presence there without undermining their own commitment to quality, transparency, and providing guidance.

Figure 7: Examples of media literacy-relevant content in the YouTube format “ZiB erklärt” Note: Compiled by the author based on screenshots from the YouTube channel “ZiB erklärt.” Shown is the segment “Zwischen Pressefreiheit und Privatspähre (Between Freedom of the Press and Privacy)” from April 24, 2026 .

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Figure 8: Examples of media literacy-relevant videos in the YouTube format “ZiB erklärt” Note: Compiled by the author based on screenshots from the YouTube channel “ZiB erklärt.” The video shown is “Wir haben eine Bot-Armee aufgedeckt (We’ve Uncovered a Bot Army)” from March 25, 2026.

6.5.

Synthesis: “ZiB erklärt” as a program based implementation of the understanding of media literacy at ORF

The analysis of “ZiB erklärt” shows that the understanding of media literacy reconstructed in Section 5 is reflected at the program level. In this format, media literacy is not reduced to the presentation of individual facts about disinformation or to media education tips. Rather, it appears as a cross-cutting principle of journalistic information dissemination. For example, the program addresses media literacy through segments that explicitly explain disinformation, manipulation, platform dynamics, and digital information environments. It also provides background knowledge to help viewers navigate society. In addition, this work makes journalistic working methods visible, thereby laying the groundwork for reflective trust. Furthermore, it discusses its own organization and makes public broadcasting structures understandable. At the same time, however, the format also highlights the ambivalence of public broadcasting’s promotion of media literacy in platform-based public spheres: It uses YouTube to reach target audiences and must therefore be positioned within commercial attention-seeking dynamics.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

“ZiB erklärt” can thus be understood as an example of media literacy promotion outside of formal education or workshops. The format addresses media literacy in everyday media use and combines news reporting with explanation, contextualization, and journalistic transparency. Public value arises not only through the provision of information, but also by making its creation, evaluation, and classification transparent. . 7. Conclusion The findings presented in this article suggest that, in the context of digital public spheres, media literacy can no longer be understood merely as the ability to use media. Rather, what is crucial is whether people can assess information in terms of its source, credibility, intent, and context. Platform logic, disinformation, and generative artificial intelligence exacerbate this challenge because they make it more difficult to verify media content while simultaneously creating uncertainty about which information can be trusted. Media literacy thus emerges as a competency in orientation and trust that is fundamental to social participation and democratic opinion-forming. An analysis of the population data from the fourth wave of the Digital Skills Austria study – which serves as the empirical starting point – makes it clear that this ability to orient oneself was unevenly distributed in Austria at the time of the survey. Better results on the disinformation knowledge test are found primarily among individuals who rely on verifiable bodies of knowledge when evaluating information, such as scientific consensus or news from public service media. Reflexive practices such as contextualization, active information seeking, and engaging with different perspectives are also associated with better results. The findings thus contradict an understanding of media literacy based on blanket skepticism. Rather, acting with media literacy means being able to distinguish reliable information sources from problematic ones and to establish trust based on transparent criteria. This is essential in the context of public value: Public media can provide information while simultaneously making visible the criteria by which information can be evaluated and trust established. The expert interviews expand this individual perspective to include a journalistic and organizational dimension. The ORF stakeholders interviewed view media literacy both as a skill of the audience and as an integral part of journalistic professionalism, as well as an organiza-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

tional cross-functional task. The promotion of media literacy is linked to educational work, verification, transparency, continuous professional development, and democratic accountability. The analysis of “ZiB erklärt” illustrates how this understanding is applied at the program level: through the explanation of disinformation and platform dynamics, the contextualization of societal developments, and the transparency of journalistic processes. In this way, media literacy transcends the subject matter of individual segments to become a potential guiding principle in the journalistic dissemination of knowledge. The combination of these three levels of analysis yields the chapter’s central added value: promoting media literacy is more than just an additional educational offering; it can be conceived as an integral part of public media practice. From this perspective, the public value of public service media lies not only in the provision of reliable information. It is also evident in guidance services, in the transparent communication of journalistic quality criteria, and in the creation of conditions for well-founded trust. Finally, two further points should be emphasised. First, the research design has several limitations. The population-level analysis identifies associations but does not permit causal conclusions; the expert interviews reconstruct the professional self-understanding of selected ORF representatives; and the examination of ZiB erklärt constitutes a qualitative case study without any assessment of audience reception or effects. Whether and how the initiatives and thematic areas examined affect the media literacy of different audience groups must therefore be investigated in future studies. Second, public service media can neither address the diverse demands of media literacy promotion on their own nor do they bear sole responsibility for doing so. Promoting media literacy is a societal task that requires structured and continuous cooperation among media organisations, educational institutions, policymakers, academia, and civil society. Nevertheless, the interviews and the analysed content show that the ORF is already assuming responsibility in this area. As their statements and the activities described illustrate, the interviewees are aware of public service broadcasting’s responsibility to promote media literacy. At the organisational level, the ORF also pursues a wide range of activities and partnerships intended to strengthen media literacy (see, among others, Cimino’s contribution to this volume); these efforts are also reflected in content such as the format ZiB erklärt examined here.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

REFERENCES ACOmarket (2026). Academic AI. https://www.acomarket.at/de/portfolio/projekte/academic-ai Amriza, R. N. S., Chou, T., & Ratnasari, W. (2025). Understanding the shifting nature of fake news research: Consumption, dissemination, and detection. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 76(6), 896–916. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.24980 Baacke, D. (1996). Medienkompetenz - Begrifflichkeit und sozialer Wandel. In A. von Rein (Eds.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff (pp. 112–124). Klinkhardt. https://www.e-teaching.org/materialien/literatur/baacke-1996-1 Bardoel, J., & Lowe, G. F. (2007). From public service broadcasting to public service media: The core challenge. In G. F. Lowe & J. Bardoel (Eds.), From public service broadcasting to public service media (S. 9–26). Nordicom. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317 Donders, K. (2021). Public service media in Europe: Law, theory and practice (1. Ed.). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781351105569 European Audiovisual Observatory (2017, March 28). Mapping of media literacy practices and actions in EU-28. European Audiovisual Observatory. https://www.obs.coe.int/en/web/observatoire/-/mapping-of-media-literacy-practices-and-actions-in-eu-1 European Broadcasting Union (2026, April 28). Advancing media literacy through public service media. https://www.ebu.ch/ research/membersonly/report/public-service-media-advancing-media-literacy [Document was provided to Dimitri Prandner by Francesca Cimino] European Commission (2024, May 8). Boosting awareness-raising of the risks of disinformation and information manipulation. European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/boosting-awareness-raising-risks-disinformation-and-information-manipulation-2024-05-08_en Gerbaudo, P. (2026). TikTok and the algorithmic transformation of social media publics: From social networks to social interest clusters. New Media & Society, 28(3), 1019–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241304106 Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029 Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2009). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (3., revised Ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Grünangerl, M., & Prandner, D. (2026a). Digital Skills Austria IV: Resilienz gegenüber Desinformation und Falschinformation als Herausforderung demokratischer Öffentlichkeiten. RTR – Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH. https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.20001497 Grünangerl, M., & Prandner, D. (2026b). Digital Skills Austria IV | Methodik der Digital Skills Austria Studie. RTR – Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20026581 Grünangerl, M., & Prandner, D. (2026c). Moving forward: Why digital competency-centered education needs a broader focus. In 12th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’26). Valencia, 15 –18 June 2026. https://doi.org/10.4995/ HEAd26.2026.21756 Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N. (2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15536–15545. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117 Hajli, N., Saeed, U., Tajvidi, M., & Shirazi, F. (2022). Social Bots and the Spread of Disinformation in Social Media: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence. British Journal of Management, 33(3), 1238–1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12554 Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913 Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action: A white paper on the digital and media literacy recommendations of the Knight Commission on the information needs of communities in a democracy. Aspen Institute. Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T., & Liu, J. (2021). Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 371–388. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002764219869406 Kalogeropoulos, A., Suiter, J., Udris, L., & Eisenegger, M. (2019). News media trust and news consumption: Factors related to trust in news in 35 countries. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3672–3693. https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-175863 Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung (2., revised Ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kern, J. C., & Prandner, D. (2026). Ideologie oder Kompetenzen? Eine Analyse der Falschinformationsanfälligkeit: Wie digitale Fähigkeiten und politische Identität die Bewertung von Falschinformation formen. journal.kommunikation.medien, 18, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.25598/JKM/2026-18.15 Lamnek, S. (1989). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Band 2: Methoden und Techniken. Beltz. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420490280152 Mayring, P. (2020). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 495–511). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26887-9_52 Merten, K. (1995). Inhaltsanalyse: Einführung in Theorie, Methode und Praxis (2. Ed.). Westdeutscher Verlag. Mihailidis, P. (2018). Civic media literacies: Re-imagining engagement for civic intentionality. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1428623 Moore, R. C., & Hancock, J. T. (2022). A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 6008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08437-0 Muckel, P. (2011). Die Entwicklung von Kategorien mit der Methode der Grounded Theory. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded Theory Reader (pp. 333–352). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93318-4_15 Napoli, P. (2019). Social media and the public interest: Media regulation in the disinformation age. Columbia University

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/napo18454 Newman, N. (2025). Executive summary and key findings. In N. Newman, A. Ross Arguedas, C. T. Robertson, R. K. Nielsen, & R. Fletcher (Eds.), Reuters Institute digital news report 2025 (pp. 9–35). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://doi.org/10.60625/RISJ-8QQF-JT36 ORF.at (2025, October 2). Medienkompetenz: ORF startet Initiative für Schulen. https://orf.at/stories/3407182/ Pérez-Escolar, M., Lilleker, D., & Tapia-Frade, A. (2023). A systematic literature review of the phenomenon of disinformation and misinformation. Media and Communication, 11(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6453 Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2022). Platforms and cultural production. Polity Press. Potter, W. J. (2019). Major theories of media effects. Peter Lang US. https://doi.org/10.3726/b15812 Prandner, D. (2022). Informationsverhalten und Glaubwürdigkeit von Medien in der Krise. In W. Aschauer, C. Glatz, & D. Prandner (Eds.), Die österreichische Gesellschaft während der Corona-Pandemie (pp. 89–119). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34491-7_4 Prandner, D., Seymer, A., & Weichbold, M. (2023). The new normal of online survey research. In R. Sooryamoorthy & V. Ojong (Eds.), Researching the ‘New Normal’ Social World (1. Aufl., pp. 29–49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003386087-3 Schwaiger, L., Vogler, D., & Eisenegger, M. (2022). Change in news access, change in expectations? How young social media users in Switzerland evaluate the functions and quality of news. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211072787 Syvertsen, T., Mjøs, O., Moe, H., & Enli, G. (2014). The media welfare state: Nordic media in the digital era. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/nmw.12367206.0001.001 Thomann, M. (2015). Medienkompetenz oder Medienbildung? Zur Frage nach dem Zielwert medienpädagogischer Praxis. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/00/2015.02.23.X Törnberg, P., & Chueri, J. (2026). When Do Parties Lie? Misinformation and Radical-Right Populism Across 26 Countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 31(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612241311886 UNESCO (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? (1. Ed.). UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501 van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society (1. Aufl.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oso/9780190889760.001.0001 Vissenberg, J., d’Haenens, L., & Livingstone, S. (2022). Digital literacy and online resilience as facilitators of young people’s well-being? A systematic review. European Psychologist, 27(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000478 von Hippel, A., & Freide, S. (2018). Erwachsenenbildung und Medien. In R. Tippelt & A. von Hippel (Eds.), Handbuch Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung (pp. 973–999). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-53119979-5_48 Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aap9559 Vraga, E. K., & Tully, M. (2021). News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637445 Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017, September 27). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html Zimmermann, F., & Kohring, M. (2018). „Fake News“ als aktuelle Desinformation. Systematische Bestimmung eines heterogenen Begriffs. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 66(4), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2018-4-526

M EDIA LITER AC Y

FROM DESIGN TO CLASSROOM: HOW VRT’S EDUBOXES TACKLE DIGITAL MEDIA LITERACY FOR FLEMISH YOUNG PEOPLE MA JANA VEREECKE, PROF. IN DR. IN LAURA VANDENBOSCH, PROF. IN DR. IN KATHLEEN BEULLENS, PROF. DR. STEVEN EGGERMONT & PROF. IN DR. IN LARA SCHREURS – MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY LAB, KU LEUVEN

Introduction

The effects of digital media use on adolescents’ development are at the center of ongoing debates in Europe (Gui et al., 2023), including Belgium. Digital media offer important opportunities for adolescents, including identity exploration, self-presentation, social connection and access to information (Drake et al., 2023). However, risks may arise from the nature of online content and interactions, such as exposure to harmful or distressing material, unwanted contact and problematic behaviors (Drake et al., 2023). This duality raises a key question: How can adolescents maximize the benefits of digital media use while minimizing its potential harms? Addressing this challenge is central to digital media literacy (DML). DML has been defined in various ways (e.g., Helsper & Smahel, 2020; Livingstone, 2008; Rozendaal et al., 2011), and taken together, these definitions converge on three main dimensions. These include knowledge (e.g., cognitive understanding of how digital media platforms operate, including algorithms and data practices such as collecting, tracking and monetization), attitudes (i.e., keeping a critical mindset and being motivated to apply this knowledge) and skills (i.e., the ability to use digital media safely, creatively and responsibly). Adolescents are frequently assumed, as so-called “digital natives”, to acquire DML spontaneously, without the need for formal instruction. Yet, this assumption is increasingly challenged. Research on the digital divide demonstrates that adolescents differ substantially in their ability to develop DML, with some groups requiring more support than others (Helsper, 2020). Schools therefore play a crucial role as an accessible and inclusive setting for fostering adolescents’ DML and empowering them to navigate their online environments (Gui et al., 2023). This role is reflected in educational policy frameworks and aligns with parental expectations (Throuvala et al., 2021). Yet, in practice, schools often struggle to implement media literacy education in a structured and sustainable manner (Gui et al., 2023). For instance in Flanders (Belgium), media literacy is not a separate school subject, but is woven into broader learning goals across different subjects (Agentschap voor Hoger Onderwijs, Volwassenenonderwijs, Kwalificaties

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

en Studietoelagen, 2025). Schools are expected to work on it, but are not required to show that students have actually reached a certain level. In practice, it therefore often remains unclear which teachers are responsible and how these goals should be put into practice, making it difficult for schools to approach DML in a structured way (Gui et al., 2023). To address these challenges, educational tools have been developed to support teachers in fostering DML in the classroom. One such initiative is the series of EDUboxes, developed by the Flemish public broadcaster VRT. Among these, three EDUboxes focus respectively on social media, artificial intelligence and sexting; these form the central focus of this chapter. While other EDUboxes also contribute to DML (e.g., cyberbullying, cybersecurity, fake news), the chosen topics each capture distinct types of digital challenges that adolescents face today. Together, they illustrate how DML is required across different contexts of digital media use. First, social media platforms, now central to adolescents’ social worlds, are not neutral communication tools. DML in this area is built on understanding commercial logics that maximize engagement through algorithmic curation, personalization and persuasive design. Adolescents who do not understand how these systems work could be more vulnerable to passive manipulation and misinformation (Castillo et al., 2026; Gagrčin et al., 2024). Second, generative AI (genAI) is increasingly present in adolescents’ everyday lives, yet most young people use these tools without understanding how outputs are generated, where errors or biases arise or what the broader ethical implications are. AI literacy is therefore an emerging and urgent dimension of DML (Ghani et al., 2024). It entails an understanding of how AI generates and influences content, the critical evaluation of reliability, bias and societal impact, and the responsible use of AI tools in everyday contexts (Almatrafi et al., 2024; Biagini, 2025; Tiernan et al., 2023). Third, sexting has become part of adolescents’ relational lives. While it can form part of healthy sexual development, it also carries significant risks when it involves coercion, pressure or non-consensual image sharing, with consequences including bullying, anxiety and reputational damage (Doyle et al., 2021; Mori et al., 2019). DML in this context does not only involve warning adolescents about the risks of sexting, but also helping them understand consent, rights and how to respond safely when things go wrong (Albury et al., 2016; Barrense-Dias et al., 2017; Döring 2014; Doyle et al., 2021).

M EDIA LITER AC Y

This chapter examines how these three EDUboxes are designed to create change in DML. The chapter explores the educational logic behind them: Which problems they respond to, what assumptions they make about adolescents’ needs, how they attempt to stimulate reflection and learning, and which outcomes they hope to achieve. To do this, we combined a Theory of Change (ToC) mapping of each EDUbox with in-depth interviews with EDUbox developers. We then explored how this aligns with broader scientific and grey literature (i.e., reports, guidelines and policy documents that are not published in academic journals; Schöpfel & Farace, 2010) principles. 2.

Methods

This study used a qualitative design to reconstruct the educational logic of three VRT EDUboxes: One related to sexting, one to social media and one to artificial intelligence. The central research question guiding this study is: ‘How are the VRT EDUboxes designed to foster DML among adolescents in their social media, AI and sexting practices?’. In doing so, this paper examines to what extent these approaches align with established academic insights, drawing in particular on social marketing and educational literature. 2.1

Theory of change mapping

Theory of Change (ToC) is a framework for understanding how an intervention is expected to lead to change, by mapping the activities, underlying assumptions, mechanisms and intended outcomes (Breuer et al., 2016; Ghate, 2018). ToC mappings were developed by systematically working through each EDUbox (including its exercises, videos, simulations etc.) and interpreting the educational logic these activities embody. The mappings should therefore be understood as interpretative reconstructions of intended educational logic rather than actual evaluations of intervention effectiveness. We investigated the EDUboxes and reconstructed the ideas about learning and behavior change that seemed to be embedded within them. We then also compared this with insights from academic research. Each mapping was structured around five elements: (1) the societal or educational problems the EDUbox responds to, (2) the needs and assumptions that underlie the intervention, (3) the pedagogical activities and formats used, (4) the mechanisms through which these activities are expected to produce change, and (5) the intended outcomes. The-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

se sections were interpreted and structured drawing on prior theory of change intervention research (e.g., Breuer et al., 2016; Ghate, 2018; McDougall, 2025). 2.2

Developer interviews

To complement the ToC mappings, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with EDUbox developers. A total of 15 interviews were held with both overarching EDUbox coordinators within VRT and external developers. Three interviews focused on the broader EDUbox initiative, four on the sexting EDUbox, five on the AI EDUbox and four on the social media EDUbox. As one participant contributed to both the AI and social media EDUboxes, this individual is counted in both categories. The sample consisted of 9 women and 6 men (25-48 years old). The interviews were held in Dutch, recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded by the lead researcher and a trained research assistant. Having two people involved helped reduce the influence of individual interpretations (i.e., interviewer bias). The transcripts were analyzed using the qualitative data analysis program NVivo. The analysis was conducted following reflexive thematic analysis, a qualitative approach in which themes are developed through close, iterative engagement with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Thematic saturation was reached when no new themes emerged. Developer interviews served to validate and deepen the ToC mappings, clarifying developers’ intended goals, their assumptions about what adolescents need in terms of DML and how they expected the EDUboxes to function in classroom practice. 3.

Findings

The findings are presented in two connected layers. The first layer consists of the ToC mappings: Reconstructions of the educational logic built into each EDUbox, based on systematically working through the materials and activities. This reconstruction is then positioned against relevant principles from scientific and grey literature. The second layer consists of the developer interviews. These interviews are used to validate and deepen this picture, showing how developers describe these same principles in their own words. Where interviews provided additional insights beyond the initial mapping, these were incorporated into the final mappings presented in the Appendices.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

The findings are organized along six dimensions: (1) the development process, (2) the targeted problem each EDUbox responds to, (3) the targeted audience it is designed for, (4) the methodological approach used to pursue change, (5) the targeted outcomes each EDUbox aims to achieve, and (6) implementation conditions. 3.1

Development process of the EDUboxes: A bottom-up, practice-driven process

Three main findings emerged about how the EDUboxes were created: (1) they were developed by combining different types of knowledge, (2) VRT played an important role as a trusted public platform and (3) there was limited participation of young people and limited diversity in the development process. The first finding emerged from both the ToC mappings and the interviews, whereas the second and third findings emerged primarily from the interviews. First, the mappings and interviews showed that the EDUboxes combined multiple sources of knowledge for their development, including professional experience from practitioners, input from academic experts and testings in classrooms. Overall, it seemed that the EDUboxes were developed in a bottom-up manner from practical needs by creative producers without an explicit academic framework, the EDUboxes thus offer a practice-based approach to DML. Second, several developers noted that many educational tools developed in research projects simply disappear because they lack a reliable distribution channel. As a public broadcaster, VRT was assigned an important role in making the EDUboxes widely accessible. As Respondent 10 stated, trust and visibility are key: Respondent 10 (M, 39y): “What I like so much about the VRT EDUboxes is that in many research projects, lots of apps and tools are developed and then disappear somewhere. But this is the VRT platform. And the VRT platform has the advantage of being a trusted brand, of being a hub where lots of people go looking for information. And that is still the greatest potential, I think, for change: bringing reliable information to people on a platform of a trusted media brand that has extensive access to teachers and users.” A third finding emerged primarily from the interviews and concerns challenges related to the development process. First, young people themselves had almost no input into which topics are chosen or how

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

they are framed. Although the EDUboxes address issues from their daily lives, that decision happens at the level of VRT and its partner organizations. Adolescents are only involved at the very end, when a finished version is tested in classrooms. Some developers suggested that earlier involvement of young people would make the EDUboxes better connected to what actually concerns them. Respondent 7 (F, 37y): “Young people aren’t involved. That’s purely the testing phase. It’s often also in a later phase that we start testing, where we then actually see: does this work, or doesn’t it? And try to tweak small things. But actually, it would be more interesting if they might involve young people sooner […] to connect a little more with young people’s lives, I think it’s interesting to consider, for every topic, whether these issues keep them up at night or not. […] It could help us get a better sense of their perspective.” Existing research shows that the topics covered in these EDUboxes are indeed relevant to Flemish adolescents, with young people reporting concerns about AI (e.g., trust, manipulation), social media (e.g., fake news, privacy, information overload) and digital risks (e.g., sextortion) (Vanwynsberghe et al., 2026). However, evidence from UNESCO’s youth report also suggests that a central concern among adolescents is not only the topics themselves, but their lack of influence over how these topics are addressed in educational initiatives (UNESCO, 2026). Moreover, while the variety in expertise within the teams was generally considered sufficient, most developers openly admitted that development teams lacked diversity, for instance in terms of age and ethnic background. Respondent 6 (F, 31y): “That’s not a diverse team. They’re all people from a similar social education, white, highly educated… There’s little diversity in terms of culture, background and religion. There isn’t much diversity in terms of age either; in my experience, they’re usually in their mid-20s to 40s. As for gender diversity, it’s also predominantly female.” 3.2

Targeted problems of the EDUboxes

Although the three EDUboxes cover different topics, the ToC mappings reveal a similar underlying pattern: Adolescents are using digital tools without the knowledge, skills or critical awareness to navigate them

M EDIA LITER AC Y

safely. Developers often broadly described adolescents as simultaneously aware and vulnerable; familiar with digital tools, but without the deeper understanding needed to recognize risks or think critically about the systems they use. Respondent 14 (F, 36y): “Young people are very digitally literate. […] They pick up on everything digital incredibly quickly, but I do think we sometimes underestimate them a bit. However, just because you’re quick with it doesn’t mean you fully understand it. […] So, I think it’s also a matter of seeing that these young people actually understand what they’re doing and aren’t just digitally savvy.” What differs across the three EDUboxes is the specific problems each one targets. These targeted problems can be identified from the EDUboxes themselves, for instance from the exercises chosen, the questions asked and the framing used, and are confirmed and elaborated by the developers in the interviews. 3.2.1 Sexting EDUbox The ToC mapping of the Sexting EDUbox reveals a harm-reduction approach in the materials themselves. Elements such as the PICKASOLL safe-space rules, the peer-comparison quiz, the legal section, the victim impact section and the chatting simulation all focus on helping adolescents navigate sexting situations more safely, rather than framing sexting itself as something to be avoided entirely (Appendix 1). The targeted problem, as reconstructed from the materials, is therefore not sexting per se but problematic sexting situations: Those defined by coercion, pressure or non-consensual image sharing. This problem framing is consistent with the scientific literature. Sexting is increasingly recognized as a relatively common part of adolescent digital and romantic development, meaning that prevention of sexting as such is not realistic as a targeted outcome. Instead, the literature identifies harm reduction, equipping young people with the knowledge, skills, rights and awareness to respond safely when situations become problematic, as a more effective approach (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017; Dully et al., 2023; Doyle et al., 2021). Rather than promoting prevention of involvement in sexting and abstinence-based messages, which risks stigmatizing young people, fueling victim-blaming dynamics and failing to reach those who are already involved (Albury et al., 2016; Döring, 2014; Maes et al., 2023), the EDUbox aims for prevention of developing involvement in problematic sexting situations. It should be noted, however, that

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

the harm-reduction framing is more clearly supported by grey literature than from a scientific developmental standpoint (Willems et al., 2025). Developer interviews confirm that the harm-reduction approach was a deliberate design choice. Respondent 3 (M, 27y): “I think a big part of what the EDUbox is about is: It’s okay to do it. If you do, here are some tips on how to do it safely.” 3.2.2 Social Media EDUbox The ToC mapping of the Social Media EDUbox reveals a strong knowledge-building approach in the materials themselves. Activities such as the true-or-false quiz on social media myths, the brain-hack exercises and the platform design simulation all focus on helping adolescents understand the mechanisms underlying social media platforms (Appendix 2). The targeted problem, as derived from the materials, is therefore adolescents’ limited understanding of how these platforms work. This problem framing is consistent with the scientific literature. Most adolescents use social media every day but see it as a neutral tool, without realizing that platforms are designed with a commercial and persuasive logic. They do not recognize how algorithms, engagement features and data collection are designed to capture attention and influence behavior (e.g., Boima & Oyedemi, 2024; Castillo et al., 2026; Gagrčin et al., 2024). From this perspective, the EDUbox tries to fill a knowledge gap by strengthening adolescents’ understanding of how social media platforms function. This is a good starting point. Since social media change so quickly, it makes more sense to teach young people the basic principles behind how these platforms operate, rather than focusing on specific apps or features that may look completely different in a few years. This reflects what Carr and Hayes (2015) describe as the moving-target problem: The idea that digital media is constantly shifting, making it difficult to keep up. Developers confirmed this problem framing, mainly stressing the importance of filling a knowledge gap and helping young people understand what lies behind the platforms they use every day. Respondent 8 (F, 25y): “The goal was really just to get young people to think about how social media is fun and they can get a lot out of it, but that it’s also a business and all that. The commercial purpose behind social media.”

M EDIA LITER AC Y

3.2.3 Artificial Intelligence EDUbox The ToC mapping of the AI EDUbox also reveals a strong knowledgebuilding approach, focused on helping adolescents understand how AI systems work. Activities such as distinguishing AI-generated from real images, the zombie-versus-human card exercise and hands-on experimentation with generative AI-tools all aim to make otherwise invisible AI processes more tangible and understandable (Appendix 3). The targeted problem, as reconstructed from the materials, is therefore adolescents’ limited understanding of how AI systems function, how these systems can make mistakes and what their broader ethical or societal implications may be. This problem framing is consistent with the emerging scientific literature on AI literacy. Research shows that many young people are already using AI tools in their daily lives, while possessing only limited understanding of concepts such as machine learning, bias and training data (Almatrafi et al., 2024; Biagini, 2025; Cox, 2024; Tiernan et al., 2023). From this perspective, the EDUbox tries to fill a knowledge gap and help adolescents’ deeper understanding of how these systems function. Similar to the Social Media EDUbox, the focus is on lasting, fundamental concepts rather than the ins and outs of specific tools, because AI is evolving so fast that today’s tools may look completely different in just a few years (Carr & Hayes, 2015). Developers described this design logic and also pointed to the rapid pace of technological change and the resulting challenge for young people (and schools) to keep up with and make sense of these developments. Respondent 4 (M, 38): “Because generative AI, ChatGPT, and so on, suddenly started playing a huge role in everyone’s lives, we naturally began to focus specifically on that. [..] Simply because we felt: Okay, but this is… Well, here we need to offer or provide both schools and students something they can actually work with, just to understand the basics: What is generative AI? What does it do? What role can it play? What guidelines could you establish for its use in the classroom?” 3.3

Targeted audience

Two recurring findings emerged from the developer interviews regarding the targeted audience of the EDUboxes. First, the EDUboxes were developed not necessarily only for students, but also, maybe even pri-

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

marily, for teachers. Second, although the EDUboxes were intended for all secondary school students, developers described a mismatch between this ambition and how the materials function in practice. 3.3.1 A dual audience: Teachers and students All three EDUboxes were primarily developed for secondary school students in Flanders. Each EDUbox follows the same basic format: A two-hour, teacher-led classroom session combining, among other things, short videos, interactive exercises, group work and reflection tasks. Developers consistently described the EDUboxes as a response to two connected needs: The growing importance of digital and societal topics in young people’s lives and the lack of accessible teaching materials to discuss these topics in schools. While the mappings might suggest a direct focus on adolescent learning, developers emphasized that EDUboxes are essentially ready-to-use teaching packages, mainly designed to facilitate instruction for teachers on more complex digital topics. Respondent 2 (M, 41y): “What we’re primarily trying to achieve with EDUbox is: How can we present a current, contemporary theme or topic to students in an engaging, accessible way, one that teachers can put to use right away? So, we want to offer a ready-to-use lesson plan package on themes for which teachers often don’t have any materials yet.” Respondent 4 (M, 38y): “We create materials for students, but as the creators of EDUboxes, our target audience is, of course, the teachers. Because we want them to be the ones using our kits in the classroom.” This indicates that EDUboxes function as teacher-mediated interventions, in which teachers play a central role in translating complex digital topics into classroom practice. Relatedly, some developers pointed to limited parental guidance around digital topics. Schools, they argued, are often the only place where young people receive any real guidance on digital topics. This observation broadly aligns with Flemish research showing that, although about 63% of teenagers and young adults actually do talk about media at home, they generally learn about these topics more often in school than they discuss them at home (Vanwynsberghe et al., 2026). Respondent 1 (F, 42y): “I can’t really think of another context where a topic like that… Well, I hope that things like that would be discussed at the dinner table with parents, but I think that’s completely unrealistic.

M EDIA LITER AC Y

[…] So, a conversation with the parents or something like that, I think that, unfortunately, it’s unlikely to come up in a lot of families.” This thus reinforces the importance of schools as a key context for digital guidance, which helps explain the strong focus on teachers as the primary audience for EDUboxes. 3.3.2 The stated versus the implicit student audience The EDUboxes were designed with the ambition of being accessible to all secondary school students within a specific age group assigned to that EDUbox, regardless of educational track. However, developers consistently described a gap between this stated ambition and how the materials function in practice. They often described an implicit ‘ideal student’ embedded in the materials: Someone who is motivated, comfortable with reading and language, able to work independently within a group and willing to reflect openly, which matches more, but also not completely, the profile of students in general secondary education. Several developers acknowledged that the materials are relatively language-heavy and therefore more difficult to use in vocational and professional-technical tracks or with students who struggle with reading comprehension. Some respondents state that they would prefer to see more attention paid to this throughout the entire process. Respondent 1 (F, 42 y): “EDUboxes, as they are currently designed and written, are officially intended for all grade levels and all learning outcomes, but in reality, this is often not feasible for all grade levels and all learning outcomes. At least not in the current setup, […] as for the concept as we see it: two class periods, groups of three, letting them work on it for two class periods… for that, it’s often just too difficult, too much and too long. […] we tend to think of the language as... accessible. But sometimes, when I see those young people reading, I think: their language skills are often so limited that reading alone can be such a challenge.” Respondent 13 (F, 27y): “Something is made that, as I said, is quite language-intensive, that, for me, is mainly aimed at third grade and in the best case, actually, at general education. And then it is looked at: who else could manage this? […] For example, I don’t think the whole EDUbox is doable with a second-grade vocational track student. It’s too difficult. Too much text. Sometimes very abstract.[…] It is being considered, but I think more attention should be paid to it throughout the entire process.”

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

It is not unexpected that an EDUbox may not work equally well for all students. Social marketing literature emphasizes that interventions should be tailored to the specific needs, experiences and contexts of different audience segments (Slater, 1995). From this perspective, students outside general education may not simply require a simplified version of the same EDUbox with less text, as some developers suggest, but rather a fundamentally different approach from the outset that takes into account their distinct starting points and needs. This implies that the current expectation, that a single EDUbox can effectively reach all students within a given age group, regardless of educational track, may be somewhat unrealistic. 3.4

Methodological approach of the EDUboxes in creating change

Across the three EDUboxes, two recurring mechanisms emerged from the ToC mappings and interviews that could show how the EDUboxes try to create change. First, all EDUboxes follow a similar learning structure, referred to by developers as the four C’s: Connect, Concept, Concrete and Conclusion. Second, developers consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining engagement through variety, interaction and surprise. The ToC mappings revealed this shared pedagogical structure across all three EDUboxes. The interviews subsequently clarified how developers themselves conceptualize this structure as the four C’s. 3.4.1 The 4C-structure Although the topics differ, the ToC mappings show that all three EDUboxes seem to follow the same pedagogical sequence. Students first connect the topic to their own experiences (i.e., Connect), then build understanding (i.e., Concept), apply what they have learned (i.e., Concrete) and finally reflect on the key takeaways (i.e., Conclusion). The interviews confirmed this as a consciously designed format: Respondent 2 (M, 41y): “I call them the four Cs: Connect, concept, concrete, conclusion. And then the fifth is “continuous,” but that’s just about “learning more.” […] Actually, we think Part 3 is the most important. That’s a truly concrete assignment. They have to learn to apply what they learned in Parts 1 and 2. Because, yes, I still believe that learning by doing plays a really important role in hopefully making something stick and helping you truly understand what it means. […] Our EDUbox is actually already structured that way. An EDUbox is a format. You need certain ingredients to call it an EDUbox.”

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Although the four C’s seem to primarily appear in practitioner and grey literature contexts, the interviews and mappings show that its different components closely align with established learning theories. Connect: Making the topic personally relevant The first phase hooks students by connecting the topic to something they already know, recognize or have experienced. This is often done through quizzes, polls, short videos or questions about students’ own experiences. Such strategies can help open up a more responsive and meaningful relation to the topic (i.e., creating resonance), as students are unlikely to engage with information they perceive as irrelevant (Rosa, 2021). This was also often confirmed by developers as an important starting point. Respondent 4 (M, 38y): “Because young people, and everyone else, for that matter, can only learn something or apply new insights if they can see how it relates to their own lives.” This aligns with social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), which highlights that individuals are more likely to engage with information when it is meaningful within their own context. It also reflects selfdetermination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which shows that people are more motivated when they find something relevant to themselves. Concept: Building understanding In the second phase, students are introduced to the key concepts through, among other things, videos, text, discussions and short exercises. This phase is primarily oriented toward knowledge construction, where the aim is to help them understand how a particular issue works, whether this concerns consent in sexting, the business model behind social media or the functioning of AI systems. A key mechanism in this phase is observational learning (Bandura, 1977). Rather than learning through direct experience, students learn by observing examples, realistic situations, visuals and role models. Concrete: Learning by doing The third phase asks students to actually apply what they’ve learned through hands-on tasks, which differ per EDUbox. This activity is directly observable in the EDUbox materials and often positioned towards the

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

end. In the Sexting EDUbox, this is the role-play simulator: Students first watch a video of a problematic sexting scenario involving the main characters, then use an interactive tool to replay the conversations and make different choices. In the Social Media EDUbox, it is the platform design simulation, where students take on the role of platform owners and decide which engagement-maximizing features to implement. In the AI EDUbox, it concerns the six hands-on genAI tasks, where students actively experiment with real tools and discover limitations for themselves. Developers consistently identified this phase as the most important, emphasizing that engagement, interaction and participatory learning is what makes the EDUboxes work. This emphasis on active participation aligns with the principles of experiential learning (Kolb, 1981), which argue that learning is more effective when learners actively engage with new ideas, reflect on their experiences and apply what they have learned. Respondent 4 (M, 38y): “It’s also just a hands-on component. So it’s not just about explaining everything, but also asking: Now go ahead and do that yourself, using what you’ve just learned. Get to work on it. Do it actively, interactively. And I think that definitely works, that’s certainly a very important element in that process of giving them that insight.” Moreover, by doing the simulator exercises, students not only think about possible choices, but also actively try them out. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) suggests that people partly form their attitudes and beliefs by observing their own behavior. In other words, what they do can shape how they see themselves. For instance, by practicing respectful and assertive responses in a simulated sexting situation, students may strengthen the idea that these are actions they themselves would take in real life. Conclusion: Reflecting on the key takeaways The final phase focuses on helping students consolidate and reflect upon the insights gained throughout the EDUbox. The ToC mappings show that all three EDUboxes end with a short reflective component in which students revisit key messages (e.g., the 5 ultimate tips in the sexting EDUbox), discuss what they have learned (e.g., collective reflection on proposed social media rules) or co-construct shared conclusions and agreements (e.g., develop an AI classroom charter). Although this phase is generally shorter than the previous ones, developers described it as a moment to bring together what students have learned, often presented in a positive and future-oriented way.

100

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Respondent 2 (M, 41y): “We conclude with a summary. We often try to look toward the future in a positive light, so to speak, to instill a sense of hope. It can also serve as a moment for reflection or a final discussion in the classroom.” Ending with a summary, reflection or the active formulation of conclusions could help retain what people have learned, process the material more deeply and integrate it into their existing knowledge (Gagné & Briggs, 1992; Wittrock, 1990). This further connects to Flavell’s (1979) concept of metacognition, wherein learners improve by reflecting on their own understanding, a process that strengthens both awareness and retention. 3.4.2 Flow, variety and surprise Beyond the 4C-structure, developers described pedagogical effectiveness in terms of flow, variety and surprise. They also noted that particular formats tended to be used for specific topics. In the case of sexting, for example, sensitive themes were often framed in a lighthearted format. For social media and AI, a playful format was more often used to convey complex concepts. They agreed that a two-hour session needs to keep switching between formats (e.g., video, group discussion, individual reflection, interactive exercises) and should include moments that genuinely catch students off guard. Developer 2 referred to this as ‘cognitive ecstasy’: Respondent 2 (M, 41y): “But for me, it really comes down to that variety. Especially… I’m talking about that sense of suspense, that flow. How do we tell that story? It needs to include plenty of “aha” moments. Or: “I didn’t know that.” An example that sparks the imagination. And yes, that’s crucial. My colleague talks about cognitive ecstasy. You need that. Every now and then, you just have to surprise those young people […] Those “aha” moments are important. And I think we can even improve on that.” Respondent 5 (M, 43y): “I know we’re always looking for variety in formats. I think the variety does work […]There are a few things that do come up repeatedly: At the beginning, there’s often a little quiz or a poll, mainly to help them relate it to their own lives and make it more relatable for them and to increase their engagement with the topic. Whereas at the very end, we tend to include simulation exercises where you put them in the situation and let them do their own thing […] I think the variety makes it easier to digest and leads to greater engagement among the target audience.”

101

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

At the same time, developers were consistently aware of a tension that runs through all three EDUboxes. There is a constant pull between being thorough and accurate on the one hand, and staying accessible and attention-holding on the other. Respondent 2 described it as follows: Respondent 2 (M, 41y): “The trick is indeed in the editing. Maybe it’s not about telling the whole story, but making sure the message sticks. Making sure you’ve got them hooked on the story. And that’s a balancing act, I’ll readily admit that. Between completeness, accuracy and maybe making it a little shorter, or a little funnier, just to really grab their attention.” This emphasis on surprise and “aha” moments aligns with research on situational interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2020), which demonstrates that novelty and unexpected elements can trigger curiosity and, when embedded in task design to trigger an interest in the topic, enhance engagement and sustained attention. 3.5 Targeted outcomes of the EDUboxes Three recurring findings emerged regarding the intended outcomes of the EDUboxes. First, the EDUboxes primarily aim to increase knowledge, awareness and critical reflection rather than directly change behavior. Second, lasting behavior change requires repeated reinforcement beyond a single EDUbox session. Third, targeted outcomes are not always explicitly defined at the start of the development process. 3.5.1 Knowledge, awareness and reflection as primary outcomes The EDUboxes mainly seem to be oriented toward increasing knowledge, awareness and critical reflection. This is shown in the ToC mappings and is visible in the materials themselves, which focus on explaining concepts, correcting misconceptions and encouraging reflection. Importantly, these outcomes follow directly from the problems each EDUbox addresses (see Section 3.2). The Sexting EDUbox responds to the risk of problematic sexting situations and therefore focuses on prevention through awareness, knowledge and skills. The Social Media and AI EDUboxes address knowledge gaps about how digital platforms and (AI) technologies work, so understanding the issue here is a necessary first step before behavior can realistically change. The interviews strongly confirmed this interpretation. Almost every developer described awareness, insight and critical reflection as the main and most realistic goals. Behavior change was mentioned as something worth

102

M EDIA LITER AC Y

hoping for, but far off: It requires repetition, reinforcement and support that a two-hour session cannot provide on its own. A successful EDUbox, in developers’ own words, is one where students learn something new, start to see a topic differently or feel more able to talk about it afterwards. EDUboxes were described as ‘a first step’, ‘an introduction’, ‘a two-hour immersion’ or ‘planting a seed’. In doing so, the developers repeatedly contrasted the EDUboxes with traditional school materials. Respondent 2 (M, 41y): “We don’t intend to create a complete curriculum or write a comprehensive textbook. Publishing companies are good at that; they’re the ones who do it. But what we’re really trying to do is introduce a theme, plant a seed.[…] And hopefully we can spark the students’ interest in that theme. And then we hope that teachers can build on that.” Respondent 1 (F, 42y): “For me, I think it would be a success if, after using an EDUbox, students were to mention something about it to someone else, whether that be family, friends, or parents. […] For me, that’s… that would mean a lot. Or if it’s about a topic that someone can join in on the conversation or might say: “Oh yeah, but I’ve seen something about that” or “What you’re saying isn’t right” or something like that. I think that’s more what it’s about for me than changing behavior. I also don’t think that’s really our goal, to change behavior, I don’t think so.” These findings are consistent with insights from the stages of change model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Slater, 1999). According to this model, people typically move through several stages before behavioral change can occur. Individuals first need to become aware that an issue exists and consider whether change is necessary before they can prepare for, initiate and maintain new behaviors. From this perspective, the EDUboxes primarily target these early stages by increasing awareness, understanding and reflection. 3.5.2 Why sustained behavior change requires more than a single session Developers consistently emphasized that a single EDUbox session is unlikely to produce lasting behavioral change on its own. Respondents 9 and 13 explain it as follows: Respondent 9 (F, 48y): “The Sexting EDUbox is just the beginning. You start with it. But I always make clear: Just because you’ve gone through the EDUbox with young people doesn’t mean your prevention work is done. […] EDUbox is one part of that, but it can’t be the only

103

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

thing you do. Those two hours or that one Edubox session are absolutely not enough. And you shouldn’t just keep repeating your EDUbox over and over either. You have to do different things. And the more initiatives you implement at different levels, the more it will stick.” Respondent 13 (F, 27y): “Change is already challenging, isn’t it? That’s a big expectation. I hope that after the EDUbox they have gained some insight into strategies. […] That somewhere a bell goes off in their head when they see one of the strategies and methods they learned about. […] I think it’s important that as a teacher or as other responsible adults in these young people’s lives, you revisit this topic at various points. In the long term, multiple opportunities need to be created, and that EDUbox can certainly be one very valuable moment among them. In the long term, I think more is needed.” This aligns with the scientific literature as well. First, people interpret and remember new information through the lens of what they already know and believe or, in other words, through existing mental frameworks or schemas. These schemas are built and strengthened through repeated experiences and opportunities to revisit information (Bartlett & Burt, 1933; Ghosh & Gilboa, 2013; Moscovitch et al., 2023; Piaget, 1952). As a result, a single EDUbox session may introduce new ideas, but repeated exposure and reinforcement are often needed for these ideas to become integrated into students’ existing understanding and behavior. Furthermore, recently learned information is generally easier to recall than information encountered longer ago, also called the recency effect (Ebbinghaus, 2013). Without opportunities to revisit or apply new knowledge, what students learn during an EDUbox session may gradually become less accessible over time. For an EDUbox to actually shape how a student responds to a difficult situation weeks or months later, the knowledge and skills introduced in the session need to be reactivated. This is where situational cues and nudges also become relevant. Situational cues refer to signals in the environment that draw attention to particular behaviors or remind people of previously learned information. These cues can help people apply knowledge at the moment it becomes relevant (Mischel & Schoda, 1995). Nudging (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) similarly indicates that behavior can be influenced by how choices and environments are organized. Rather than relying solely on education, small reminders in everyday life, such as a school policy on sexting or a poster in the hallway, can help students remember and apply what they learned.

104

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Together, these perspectives suggest that awareness raised during an EDUbox is more likely to translate into behavior when the topic is revisited and reinforced through broader school practices and conversations. The ToC mappings reflect this logic through a stepped progression of outcomes (see Appendices 1-3). In the sexting EDUbox, for instance, it goes from knowledge and awareness of consent, boundaries and legal risks, to critical reflection on peer pressure and bystander responsibility, to skills, confidence and preparedness to recognize and respond to harmful situations, with behavioral change as a longer-term aim dependent on broader reinforcement. 3.5.3 Outcome goal-setting One finding emerged exclusively from the interviews and adds an extra layer to this picture. When asked about what success would look like, a few developers admitted that the targeted outcomes of the EDUboxes are not always clearly defined before the development process begins. This is a meaningful observation: If goals are left implicit, assumed rather than specified, the gap between awareness and behavioral change is not just a practical limitation of a short intervention, but may also reflect a lack of explicit goal-setting from the start. Respondent 7 (F, 37 y): “Oh oops, I don’t know if we think about that when we start, like when exactly it’s a success.” 3.6

Implementation conditions

The materials themselves give some indications about the conditions under which the EDUboxes are meant to work. The PICKASOLL-rules in the Sexting EDUbox, the guidance document for teachers and the group work format across all three EDUboxes suggest that context matters. However, the materials present these as practical instructions rather than critical conditions that can make or break an EDUbox. The interviews provide the richest picture of implementation conditions and constraints. Three aspects stood out here: 1) teacher facilitation, 2) device access and 3) opportunities and risks related to open class discussion. 3.6.1 Teacher facilitation as a key condition Developers emphasized that the teacher is the single most important factor in whether an EDUbox succeeds. Teachers decide whether the EDUbox is used, set the classroom climate and guide discussions. This was considered particularly important for the Sexting EDUbox,

105

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

where discussions can quickly become personal or uncomfortable. Several developers stressed that teachers need preparation to create a safe classroom climate and respond appropriately when students disclose personal experiences. The PICKASOLL safe-space rules included in the Sexting EDUbox, for example, were designed to support this process. These rules ask students to respect privacy, speak from their own experience, recognize the role of culture, choose what they share, participate actively, respect diversity and listen without mocking. This is deliberately included in the design, but it still depends on the teacher to make it work. Although developed in practice-oriented contexts, these PICKASOLL rules align with broader research showing that psychological safety is an important condition for discussing sensitive topics in educational settings (e.g., Modderkolk et al., 2025). Respondent 3 (M, 27 y): “As a teacher, you really need to be prepared. I think it’s important to briefly familiarize yourself with the topic so that you can guide the conversation in a safe way. Of course, you’re also dealing with a very sensitive topic. So I think creating a safe classroom environment and establishing clear ground rules is also, especially here, something very important to implement. […] I think that’s also important; as a teacher, you have to know “Who’s in front of me, will this work with my students?” and “How do I present this to my students?”, that goes hand in hand with it.” A related implementation challenge concerns how teachers use the EDUboxes in practice. Several developers noted that teachers often adapt the materials, skip activities or select only those parts that they find fit for their classroom. Such flexibility is understandable and may even be necessary, since every classroom is different. Research on implementation shows that effective use of educational interventions is not simply about following every step exactly as designed, but about preserving the core elements that make the intervention work (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Harn et al., 2013). In other words, adaptation is not necessarily a problem, but the challenge is ensuring that key learning components remain present. For the EDUboxes, developers repeatedly identified the hands-on application activities as one of these central elements. If these activities are omitted, some of the intended learning processes may be less likely to occur. Respondent 13 (F, 27y): “I think it’s very dependent on the teacher whether you come into contact with the EDUbox or not. And also again

106

M EDIA LITER AC Y

very dependent on how your teacher presents the EDUbox. You can go through it from A to Z as it was designed, in small groups or as a class. I think I personally, as a teacher, would first go through it myself and pull out certain parts. But yes, I think you only come into contact with it if the teacher decides: we’re going to talk about this. And that is then very dependent on how your lesson is structured, whether you create a kind of connection to the topic. Responsibility of the teacher. Unfortunately.” 3.6.2 Practical classroom conditions: Device access A practical constraint raised by several developers is the growing trend of smartphone bans in Flemish secondary schools. Some EDUbox activities, particularly individual reflection exercises, were originally designed for personal digital devices. For example in the Sexting EDUbox, a personal digital device was needed to allow students to respond to sensitive questions without public exposure. However, the key requirement here is not smartphone access itself, but private individual access to a device. In most Flemish secondary schools, laptops remain available even when smartphones are prohibited. The challenge is therefore less about the smartphone ban itself and more about ensuring that students can engage with sensitive reflection exercises in a sufficiently private way. 3.6.3 Open discussion: Opportunities and risks Several developers reflected on the opportunities and risks of open discussion in the EDUboxes. Making a difficult or societally relevant topic open for classroom discussion is one of the EDUbox’s central purposes. At the same time, this openness could also create risks: Students might share personal experiences the teacher is not prepared to handle, discussions could inadvertently normalize rather than prevent harmful behavior or the content could trigger distress or conflict. Developers generally did not think these outcomes were likely, but they did acknowledge them as possibilities that teachers need to be aware of. Respondent 9 (F, 48y): “I can imagine that it might be triggering for some young people if they’ve been victims of abuse and they see something that resembles their own story, that could certainly be triggering. I think another negative effect could be that, if you’re not sure or don’t expect it, you might end up having a very polarizing conversation in class […] But otherwise, no, I don’t really think so. Or young people who might take some messages too literally, like […] the EDUbox promotes sexting.”

107

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

The scientific literature reflects a similar tension. Research suggests that peer discussions can encourage critical thinking about media and risky behavior, but discussions do not automatically develop in constructive ways and may sometimes reinforce problematic norms or interpretations (Sadza et al., 2024). An example of this was reported by Rousseau et al. (2016), who found that a sexting intervention was associated with increased intentions to forward sexts without consent. These findings do not imply that open discussion should be avoided. Rather, they highlight that discussion itself is not automatically beneficial. Its educational value appears to depend not only on what is discussed, but also on how the discussion is facilitated. This further underscores the importance of teacher preparation and guidance when implementing the EDUboxes. 4.

Conclusion

This chapter examined how three VRT EDUboxes on sexting, social media and artificial intelligence are designed to foster DML among Flemish adolescents. By combining a step-by-step analysis of each EDUbox in ToC mappings with developer interviews, we reconstructed the thinking behind these tools and compared it with existing scientific and grey literature. Although the topics differ, all three EDUboxes respond to the same underlying problem: Young people use digital technologies every day without always understanding how these technologies really work, what risks they bring or how to respond to them critically and responsibly. To address this, the EDUboxes follow a clear 4C structure: Connect, concept, concrete and conclusion. Many of these educational choices align with what research tells us about effective learning, including the importance of personal relevance, observational learning and active participation (Bandura, 1986; Bem, 1972; Kolb, 1984; Rosa, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The EDUboxes are primarily designed to build knowledge, awareness and critical thinking, rather than to directly change behavior. Developers frequently describe them as ‘a first step’ or as ‘planting a seed’, which reflects their intended role. Before individuals can modify their behavior, they must first understand what is happening and why it matters (Norcross et al., 2010; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). In this sense, the EDUboxes mainly target the knowledge component of

108

M EDIA LITER AC Y

DML, such as understanding how platforms operate, as well as the attitudinal component, by fostering a critical and reflective mindset. The development of concrete skills (e.g., the ability to act safely, creatively, and responsibly in digital environments) is addressed more indirectly and to a lesser extent. Moreover, lasting change requires more sustained effort. A two-hour session cannot achieve everything; instead, it serves to initiate awareness, understanding and reflection, an essential foundation for further development (Norcross et al., 2010; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). Both developers and researchers emphasize that enduring change depends on continued reinforcement over time, with repeated engagement across different moments and contexts (Bartlett & Burt, 1933; Ghosh & Gilboa, 2013; Moscovitch et al., 2023; Piaget, 1952). Four key challenges emerged. First, the intended goals were not always clearly defined prior to the start of the development. Second, success depends heavily on the teacher, who ultimately decides whether to use the EDUbox, shapes the classroom climate and facilitates potentially sensitive discussions (Modderkolk et al., 2025; Rousseau et al., 2016; Sadza et al., 2024). This also suggests that teachers should be considered as co-developers: The EDUboxes do not function independently of them and need to fit within the realities of classroom practice and school contexts. Third, although the EDUboxes are designed for all secondary school students, they are likely to be more effective for some groups than others. The materials appear to align better with students in general secondary education than with those in vocational tracks, even though the issues addressed may be most salient for those students for whom the materials are more difficult to use. Fourth, young people currently have limited input in the development process. Involving them earlier, not only as testers but as co-designers, could enhance the relevance of the EDUboxes and strengthen their connection to young people’s lived experiences (Suliman et al., 2025; UNESCO, 2026). This is particularly important given that young people themselves express a desire for greater involvement in how digital topics are addressed (UNESCO, 2026). However, meaningful participation goes beyond mere inclusion; it also depends on the extent to which they feel their input has a genuine influence on outcomes (Madsen et al., 2025).

109

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Taken together, the findings paint a nuanced picture. The EDUboxes offer a promising, well-grounded way of bringing complex digital topics into the classroom, especially in a context where DML often has no clear place in the curriculum (Gui et al., 2023). Their greatest strength may not be changing behavior directly, but making difficult topics easier to talk about, understand and act on, for both teachers and students. At the same time, how much impact they have depends on things that go beyond the EDUbox itself: How well teachers are prepared, whether the topic is revisited over time and broader school policies. In short, the EDUboxes are not a complete solution to the complex challenges young people face online, nor are they meant to be. They are a starting point: A way of opening conversations, building basic understanding and encouraging critical thinking. Whether that starting point leads to real and lasting change depends largely on what happens after the session ends.

Appendix The mappings are visual representations of the findings presented in this paper. Each mapping displays five main elements in dark blue: Overarching parameters (i.e., the broader context of the EDUbox), causes, needs and resources (i.e., the problems the EDUbox responds to, the assumptions about what the target population needs, and the resources required for it to work, alongside potential risks and challenges), activities (i.e., the formats and exercises used in the EDUbox), mechanisms of change (i.e., how the activities in the EDUbox are expected to produce change) and outcomes (i.e., the intended results of the EDUbox). These are arranged schematically to show how these connect and build on one another.

Where interview insights introduce additions to existing elements in the mappings, these are highlighted in orange and underlined in the mapping figures included in the Appendices. Where interviews merely emphasize elements that are already present in the mappings, these are highlighted in orange without underlining.

110

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Appendix 1. Theory of Change Mapping – Sexting EDUbox

111

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

112

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Anppendix 2. Theory of Change Mapping – AI EDUbox

113

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

114

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Appendix 3. Theory of Change Mapping – Social Media EDUbox

115

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

116

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Acknowledgments We sincerely thank all the VRT EDUbox developers for their essential contribution to this project. We are also grateful to VRT for their collaboration and support throughout the study. Disclosure Statement The authors report collaboration with VRT in the context of this research project. VRT also provided financial support. However, it was explicitly agreed that the researchers maintained full academic independence, and that the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of the results were conducted without influence from the funder. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest. Funding This project was funded by VRT. We thankfully acknowledge their support.

117

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

REFERENCES Agentschap voor Hoger Onderwijs, Volwassenenonderwijs, Kwalificaties en Studietoelagen. (2025). Onderwijsdoelen. Vlaanderen.be. https://onderwijsdoelen.be/ Albury, K., Hasinoff, A. A., & Senft, T. (2016). From Media Abstinence to Media Production: Sexting, Young People and Education. In Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (pp. 527–545). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40033-8_26 Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Lee, H. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy conceptualization, constructs, and implementation and assessment efforts (2019–2023). Computers And Education Open, 6, 100173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100173 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. Barrense-Dias, Y., Berchtold, A., Surís, J., & Akre, C. (2017). Sexting and the Definition Issue. Journal Of Adolescent Health, 61(5), 544–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.05.009 Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–62). https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0065-2601(08)60024-6 Biagini, G. (2025). Towards an AI-Literate Future: A Systematic Literature Review Exploring Education, Ethics, and Applications. International Journal Of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(4), 2616–2666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00466-w Boima, A., & Oyedemi, T. (2024). Youth Awareness of Facebook Users’ Data Commodification and its Business Model. Communicare Journal For Communication Studies in Africa, 43(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v43i1.2658 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. SAGE. Breuer, E., Lee, L., De Silva, M., & Lund, C. (2015). Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 11(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0422-6 Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining. Atlantic Journal Of Communication, 23(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282 Castillo, N. E. R., Carrera, J. E. M., Andrade-Vásquez, M. M., & Acosta-Barreno, K. (2026). Media Literacy Education and Misinformation in Social Media Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journalism And Media, 7(2), 71. https:// doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7020071 Cox, A. (2024). Algorithmic Literacy, AI Literacy and Responsible Generative AI Literacy. Journal Of Web Librarianship, 18(3), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2024.2395341 Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology Journal Of Psychosocial Research On Cyberspace, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2014-1-9 Doyle, C., Douglas, E., & O’Reilly, G. (2021). The outcomes of sexting for children and adolescents: A systematic review of the literature. Journal Of Adolescence, 92(1), 86–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.08.009 Drake, A. P., Masur, P. K., Bazarova, N. N., Zou, W., & Whitlock, J. (2023). The youth social media literacy inventory: Development and validation using item response theory in the US. Journal Of Children And Media, 17(4), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 7482798.2023.2230493 Dully, J., Walsh, K., Doyle, C., & O’Reilly, G. (2023). Adolescent experiences of sexting: A systematic review of the qualitative literature, and recommendations for practice. Journal Of Adolescence, 95(6), 1077–1105. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12181 Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation. American Journal Of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 Ebbinghaus, H. (2013). Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Annals Of Neurosciences, 20(4), 155–156. https:// doi.org/10.5214/ans.0972.7531.200408 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of Instructional Design. http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=005917830&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Gagrčin, E., Naab, T. K., & Grub, M. F. (2024). Algorithmic media use and algorithm literacy: An integrative literature review. New Media & Society, 28(1), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241291137 Ghani, M. M., Mustafa, W. A., Bakhtiar, D. L. S., & Khairudin, M. (2024). A Comprehensive Study: AI Literacy as a Component of Media Literacy. Journal Of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences And Engineering Technology, 53(2), 112–121. https://doi. org/10.37934/araset.53.2.112121 Ghate, D. (2018). Developing theories of change for social programmes: co-producing evidence-supported quality improvement. Palgrave Communications, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0139-z Ghosh, V. E., & Gilboa, A. (2013). What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia, 53, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.010 Gui, M., Gerosa, T., Argentin, G., & Losi, L. (2023). Mobile media education as a tool to reduce problematic smartphone use: Results of a randomised impact evaluation. Computers & Education, 194, 104705. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104705 Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing Fidelity with Flexibility and Fit: What Do We Really Know about Fidelity of Implementation in Schools? Exceptional Children, 79(3), 181–193. https://doi. org/10.1177/001440291307900204 Helsper, E. J. (2020). Digital inequalities amongst digital natives. In The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children (pp. 435–448). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351004107-41 Helsper, E. J., & Smahel, D. (2019). Excessive internet use by young Europeans: psychological vulnerability and digital literacy? Information Communication & Society, 23(9), 1255–1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/136911 8x.2018.1563203

118

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2020). On educating, curiosity, and interest development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.08.002 Kolb, D. A. (1981). Experiential Learning Theory and The Learning Style Inventory: A Reply to Freedman and Stumpf. Academy Of Management Review, 6(2), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4287844 Livingstone, S. (2008). Engaging With Media—A Matter of Literacy? Communication Culture And Critique, 1(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2007.00006.x Madsen, L., Dalgas, B. W., & Pawlowski, C. S. (2025). Understanding co-creation processes with adolescents in YoPA Denmark. International Journal Of Adolescence And Youth, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.202 5.2608769 Maes, C., Van Ouytsel, J., & Vandenbosch, L. (2023). Victim Blaming and Non-Consensual Forwarding of Sexts Among Late Adolescents and Young Adults. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 52(4), 1767–1783. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10508-023-02537-2 McDougall, J., Fowler-Watt, K., Rega, I., Wright, S., Weiss, J., & Zajzon, N. (2025). Evaluating media literacy with a theory of change. In Bournemouth University. https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/projects/evaluating-media-literacy-theory-change Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246 Modderkolk, L., Van Den Hurk, L., & Oertelt-Prigione, S. (2025). Comfort and challenge in the classroom: exploring the role of safety in sex- and gender-sensitive medicine education. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 2222. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23444-2 Mori, C., Temple, J. R., Browne, D., & Madigan, S. (2019). Association of Sexting With Sexual Behaviors and Mental Health Among Adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(8), 770. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1658 Moscovitch, D. A., Moscovitch, M., & Sheldon, S. (2023). Neurocognitive Model of Schema-Congruent and -Incongruent Learning in Clinical Disorders: Application to Social Anxiety and Beyond. Perspectives On Psychological Science, 18(6), 1412–1435. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221141351 Norcross, J. C., Krebs, P. M., & Prochaska, J. O. (2010). Stages of change. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20758 Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. In W W Norton & Co eBooks. https://doi. org/10.1037/11494-000 Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-006x.51.3.390 Rosa, H. (2021). Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World. Polity. Rousseau, A., Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2016). Jongeren en sexting: een verkennend onderzoek naar risico- en protectieve factoren. Wetenschappelijk Congres Seksuele Gezondheid - SENSOA, Brussel, België. Rozendaal, E., Lapierre, M. A., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Reconsidering Advertising Literacy as a Defense Against Advertising Effects. Media Psychology, 14(4), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213 269.2011.620540 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 Sadza, A., Rozendaal, E., Daalmans, S., & Buijzen, M. (2025). Let’s get critical! The effects of facilitated peer discussions on Dutch adolescents’ perceptions of risk behavior in entertainment media and real life. Journal Of Children And Media, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2025.2589389 Schreurs, L., & Vandenbosch, L. (2021). Introducing the Social Media Literacy (SMILE) model with the case of the positivity bias on social media. Journal Of Children And Media, 15(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/174 82798.2020.1809481 Schreurs, L., & Vandenbosch, L. (2025). Enhancing adolescents’ emotion regulation in the social media context: a cluster randomized controlled trial of the Vibe Check social media literacy intervention. Educational Psychology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2593545 Schöpfel, J., & Farace, D. (2010). Grey literature. In Marcia J. Bates MNM (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed., pp. 2029–2039). CRC Press. Slater, M. D. (1995). Choosing Audience: Segmentation strategies and methods for health communication. In Designing Health Messages: Approaches from Communication Theory and Public Health Practice (pp. 186–198). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233451.n10 Slater, M. D. (1999). Integrating Application of Media Effects, Persuasion, and Behavior Change Theories to Communication Campaigns: A Stages-of-Change Framework. Health Communication, 11(4), 335–354. https:// doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1104_2 Suliman, S., Iqbal, M. Z., Bishawi, A. H., Allen, M., & Könings, K. D. (2025). Fueling Inner Resources Through Co-Creation: A Scoping Review on the Impact of Co-Creation of Education on Learners’ Well-Being. Perspectives On Medical Education, 14(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1726 Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Throuvala, M. A., Griffiths, M. D., Rennoldson, M., & Kuss, D. J. (2021). Policy Recommendations for Preventing Problematic Internet Use in Schools: A Qualitative Study of Parental Perspectives. International Journal Of

119

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Environmental Research And Public Health, 18(9), 4522. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094522 Tiernan, P., Costello, E., Donlon, E., Parysz, M., & Scriney, M. (2023). Information and Media Literacy in the Age of AI: Options for the Future. Education Sciences, 13(9), 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090906 UNESCO. (2026). Youth Report: Lead with youth. Global Education Monitoring Report. https://www.unesco. org/gem-report/en/publication/2026youthreport Vanwynsberghe, H., Peeters, H., Denecker, F., Muls, S., De Wolf, R., Van Damme, K., Martens, M., Vanden Abeele, M., Ponnet, K., Van Leeuwen, C., Van Der Leene, A., Decraene, A., & Schreuer, C. (2026). Onderzoeksrapport Apenstaartjaren: De digitale leefwereld van kinderen en jongeren. Mediaraven en Mediawijs. Willems, T., Vanhoffelen, G., Maes, C., & Vandenbosch, L. (2025). An intercultural study on adolescents’ consensual and non-consensual sexting practices and their body image and sexuality. [Paper presentation]. International Communication Association, Denver, Verenigde Staten. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative Processes of Comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2

120

M EDIA LITER AC Y

THE “CREATOR ROOM” – A LEARNING AND EXPERIENTIAL SPACE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE MEDIA LITERACY DR. IN NATALIE GROBSHÄUSER, PD DR. IN CARMEN KÖHLER, DR. IN FRANZISKA BAIER-MOSCH & PROF. DR. JOHANNES HARTIG – LEIBNIZ-INSTITUT FÜR BILDUNGSFORSCHUNG UND BILDUNGSINFORMATION

Introduction

Young people in Germany spend an average of nearly four hours a day on their smartphones, and the proportion of those who encounter fake news online – two-thirds – has risen in recent years (mpfs, 2025). At the same time, fake news and disinformation are perceived as a growing challenge both to individual judgment and to democratic society (Hohlfeld, 2020). To critically evaluate information from the internet and identify false news, knowledge and skills are necessary that fall under the concept of media literacy. Media literacy is a multifaceted concept that can be examined from various academic perspectives. This article first presents concepts from media education that address competent behavior in media contexts in general. It then examines the perspective of civic education, which concentrates on political information. The concept of news literacy then focuses this knowledge and these skills specifically on the field of news. Overlaps in the concepts become apparent when it comes to the importance of a fundamental understanding of how the media system works and how media content is produced, as well as the skills needed to critically analyze and evaluate media content and the contexts in which it is produced. Promoting this knowledge and these skills is not solely the responsibility of schools and classrooms – public broadcasting also plays an important role in this regard. Hessischer Rundfunk, the public broadcaster for the state of Hesse, offers the learning and experience space “CREATOR ROOM – Your Studio – Your Coach – Your Content” (Fig. 1) to promote media literacy among students in eighth grade and above. Here, students work in small teams and, under the guidance of coaches, create their own social media posts according to journalistic standards, learn about the dangers of disinformation, and discover how to recognize fake news. The accompanying evaluation – excerpts of which are presented in this article – aims to assess the extent to which the workshop provides a high-quality educational experience and can strengthen the participants’ media literacy.

121

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Fig. 1: Creator Room Logo

Theoretical Background

2.1

“Fake News” as Disinformation

The term “fake news” is controversial because it is used not only to describe pseudo-journalistic misinformation, but also as a strategically deployed label to discredit established media outlets. The latter has been particularly prevalent since Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016 and, much like the German term “Lügenpresse” (“lying press”), has since been used primarily by (right-wing) populist movements to delegitimize traditional news media. For the deliberate creation and dissemination of false or misleading information presented in the style of news, the term “disinformation” is therefore recommended (Kohring & Zimmermann, 2020). Disinformation always involves a factual claim that asserts a claim to truth or validity but cannot fulfill this claim because it is empirically false. Satire and opinion pieces, for example, do not make this claim to truth and therefore do not fall under the category of disinformation. Furthermore, disinformation is characterized by untruthfulness in that the author knows it is false and disseminates it nonetheless – or precisely because of this. However, dissemination can also occur under the belief that the information is true. The criterion of untruthfulness distinguishes disinformation from misinformation, which arises unintentionally, for example, due to editorial errors. Just like (true) news, disinformation exhibits a degree of timeliness – that is, it has news value. As a form of public communication, disinformation is further distinguished from lying as a form of private communication. Furthermore, it is worth considering whether there is an intent to deceive. An intent to deceive is often linked to political goals, such as influencing public opinion. There is no intent to deceive, for example, in clickbaiting, where false information presented in a sensationalist style is used to generate clicks and thus advertising revenue (Kohring & Zimmermann, 2020).

122

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Disinformation is certainly not a new phenomenon that emerged solely as a result of the internet (Kohring & Zimmermann, 2020). Nevertheless, it is emerging in a new form due to changes in public communication driven by digitalization—changes discussed under the term “digital structural transformation of the public sphere” (Thiel, 2022). Since virtually anyone can post content online and thus become a news creator, journalism is increasingly losing its role as a gatekeeper in filtering information for the public. In its place are platforms that filter information using algorithms. While journalistic selection is guided by criteria determined by an event’s newsworthiness, algorithmic logic is primarily based on interactions and individual relevance (Schneiders, 2021). The latter fosters the emergence of subpublics within filter bubbles and echo chambers – closed spaces of information and communication where people come into contact only with information that aligns with their individual interests and opinions. Even if the actual extent of filter bubbles and echo chambers is questionable (Stark et al., 2021), they nonetheless pose the risk that disinformation can circulate there unchallenged (Welzenbach-Vogel, 2021). Finally, content can spread quickly and on a massive scale via digital platforms (Schneiders, 2021). People are thus more frequently exposed to disinformation on the internet. This is especially true for young people, who spend a lot of time on social media, whose structures and mechanisms can facilitate the spread of disinformation (Aïmeur et al., 2023). The potential dangers of disinformation lie in its ability to undermine the fact-based process of forming opinions and making decisions. This applies at both the individual and societal levels. For example, individual misjudgments based on false or misleading information can have serious consequences in health (Ball & Maxmen, 2020). For democratic societies, the main concerns are the fragmentation and polarization of public discourse and the loss of trust in democratic institutions, the media, and science (Hohlfeld, 2020). Considering these potential dangers, raising awareness about disinformation is essential. The ability to critically evaluate information and recognize disinformation are therefore important skills that should be promoted through media education. The following section first presents various concepts of media literacy and then discusses ways to promote them.

123

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

2.2 Concepts of Media Literacy The discussion of media literacy in education can be traced back to Dieter Baacke, who introduced the term in the 1970s. He defined media literacy as the ability to actively and constructively utilize all types of media as part of people’s repertoire of communication and action (translated; Baacke, 1996, p. 119). In contrast to “protective pedagogy,” this view holds that people are not at the mercy of the media and do not need to be protected from them but are instead capable of using media actively and autonomously. According to Baacke, media literacy is a media-related practical competence that focuses on communicative action and relates this to communication mediated by media (Baacke, 1997, p. 54). Baacke (1996) developed a model of media literacy comprising four dimensions – media criticism, media studies, media use, and media design – which, despite having been developed in the analog era, remains groundbreaking today. The first dimension, media criticism, refers to the evaluation of media and media content and includes analytical, reflective, and ethical components. Through analysis, one should be able to adequately grasp problematic social processes. This analysis should also be applied in a reflective manner to oneself and one’s own actions. Ultimately, analysis and reflection should be conducted in an ethical, responsible, and socially acceptable manner. The second dimension of media studies encompasses knowledge about media and the media system, which is understood, on the one hand, in an informative sense as traditional bodies of knowledge – such as how journalism works and functions – and, on the other hand, in an instrumental and skill-based sense as the ability to handle media technologies. The third dimension, media use, concerns both the receptive consumption of media and the production and interactive sharing of media content by users themselves. Media design, as the fourth dimension, refers, on the one hand, to the creative and aesthetic design of media and, on the other hand, to innovative changes and further developments in the media system and media offerings. While media studies and media criticism are thus conceived as theoretical dimensions of education, in which knowledge and reflection take center stage, media use and media design, as practical dimensions, are oriented toward concrete action in media contexts (Iske & Barberi, 2022). Baacke’s differentiation of media literacy consequently gives rise to criticism. Tulodziecki (2024), for example, argues that this allows media action to be viewed in isolation from knowledge

124

M EDIA LITER AC Y

and reflection. By positioning media criticism as a separate dimension alongside media studies and media action, this could foster a predominantly functional understanding of media literacy (translated; Tulodziecki, 2024., p. 25), even though this is not in line with the original concept. Tulodziecki himself brings the discussion on media education closer to the competency-based approach in school education by defining media literacy as a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for appropriate behavior in media contexts (translated; 2024, p. 22) and makes it amenable to empirical testing in models for standards in school-based media education (Moser, 2019). The Paderborn Competency Standard Model (Tulodziecki et al., 2021) describes levels of media literacy for the end of elementary school, the sixth grade, and lower secondary school, respectively, across five task or competency areas: 1) Selecting and using media offerings, 2) Creating and disseminating one’s own media content, 3) Understanding and evaluating media productions, 4) Recognizing and processing media influences, 5) Understanding and assessing the conditions of media production and distribution. Following the critique of Baacke’s differentiation of media literacy into four dimensions, analysis, criticism, and influence are combined in an action-oriented manner within each task area. The critical component of media literacy emphasizes the political dimension of media engagement (Peissl & Sedlaczek, 2022) and thus forms a link to civic education. Here, media literacy is regarded as a traditional objective and encompasses both knowledge of media and skills in analysis and media use (Oberle, 2022). For example, in the model of political competence (Detjen et al., 2012), media are addressed as knowledge under the technical concept of “mass media”. The focus is on an understanding of the functions of (mass) media in democracy and the relationship between media and politics (Weißeno et al., 2010). Equally important are skills for the critical analysis and evaluation of media, as well as for using media to obtain information or engage in political participation. Oberle (2022) further emphasizes the importance of the ability to participate in the regulation of the media system. The concept of news (media) literacy shows significant overlap with the civic education perspective; it applies the skills and knowledge of media literacy to the subject of news and highlights their contribution to participation in democratic society (Vraga et al., 2015). Compared

125

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

to media literacy, news (media) literacy is thus a narrower concept that encompasses the skills, knowledge, and motivational aspects necessary to engage with news in complex information environments (Maksl et al., 2015; Schneiders, 2021). Here, too, emphasis is placed on adopting a critical stance when consuming news and on the ability to critically assess and evaluate information in terms of its source and credibility (Maksl et al., 2015). This requires a basic understanding of news and journalism. From a communication studies perspective, knowledge about news can be broken down into six dimensions: source, content, style, channel, production, and function. The source includes everyone who produces and disseminates news. Content is distinguished between factual and fictional, as well as by subject matter. News style can vary in terms of subjectivity and emotional appeal. The channel refers to the technical means by which a news item is disseminated. Production refers to the working methods of journalism and the criteria for selecting news stories, while function ultimately refers to the role of news (Schneiders, 2021). In this context, the importance of journalism as a central source of information for fact-based public discourse in democratic societies is emphasized (Vraga et al., 2015). These dimensions are becoming increasingly blurred in the wake of the digital structural transformation of the public sphere. As a result, even non-journalistic actors can become news creators. Digital platforms that use algorithmic filtering are gaining importance as distribution channels. This is also changing the content and style of news – facts are becoming less important, while sensational and emotionally charged content is on the rise. As a result, it is becoming more difficult to identify news and distinguish it from other forms of public communication (Schneiders, 2021). Last but not least, news literacy also involves motivational aspects and attitudes toward news: Key prerequisites for competent media engagement include, on the one hand, a positive assessment of one’s own ability to handle news and the conviction that one can thereby control the influence of the media on oneself, and, on the other hand, trust in news media or journalism and an appreciation of its function (Vraga et al., 2015). It is important to note that there is a tension between a critical attitude toward news media and content and the trust placed in these outlets and in journalism. For example, an overly critical attitude can lead to a situation where nothing conveyed by the media is believed at all. When promoting media and news literacy, this tension must therefore be taken into account.

126

M EDIA LITER AC Y

To clarify the terminology, it should be noted in conclusion that the article was originally written in German and used the German term “Medienkompetenz”, which translates to “media literacy”, even though the two terms are not always used with exactly the same meaning (Ganguin et al., 2020). The terms “digital literacy” and “information and communication technology (ICT) literacy,” on the other hand, focus on digital media and technologies, with an emphasis on the practical skills required to use digital technologies (Senkbeil et al., 2021). In a comprehensive framework, UNESCO attempts to integrate the various literacy concepts into Media and Information Literacy (MIL) (Grizzle et al., 2021). 2.3 Promoting Media Literacy Media literacy takes shape in the everyday lives of children and adolescents. Approaches to promoting media literacy should therefore always be grounded in their lived experiences and tailored to the specific target group (Baacke, 1997; Iske & Barberi, 2022). Since media literacy is conceptualized as competent engagement with media, approaches to promoting it should focus on active engagement with media content rather than mere consumption. According to Baacke (1997), project-based work in which students create their own media products is recommended for this purpose. At the same time, it is important to address media criticism and media studies alongside media use and creation. In this way, learning can become experiential for learners as a connection between production and product, between reflection and reflexivity, and as a process of creation and presentation (translated; Iske & Barberi, 2022, p. 25). Project-based work is particularly rooted in out-of-school education and has its origins there in the promotion of media literacy – though it can and is also used in school settings. According to Tulodziecki (2024), other approaches to promoting media literacy should not be overlooked alongside project-based work. Theme-centered media education should be based on media-related problems, decision-making scenarios, and design and evaluation tasks (translated; Tulodziecki, p. 32). This allows media education to be more firmly anchored in the classroom. Specifically with regard to disinformation, the so-called “prebunking” approach relies on targeted awareness-raising based on the theory of inoculation (Anderson & McGuire, 1965). This theory posits that people can be “inoculated” against disinformation – or become

127

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

resilient to it – through small doses of it. Prebunking approaches in an educational context either expose learners to examples of disinformation or allow them to experience, in a playful way, how it is created and disseminated (Roozenbeek et al., 2020). In addition to strategies for raising awareness, strategies for verifying the credibility of information can also be practiced. In “lateral reading”, information is not only examined within a single source but also verified through parallel research in other sources (Wineburg et al., 2022). Examining and contextualizing the source of information also provides clues about the information’s credibility (Marten & Stadtler, 2025) – provided that students have the foundational knowledge to assess credible sources, which in turn underscores the importance of media studies and an understanding of journalistic practices. The importance of promoting media literacy in schools is also evident in various educational policy proposals. Media education – defined as learning with and about media – is already included in the Conference of Ministers of Education’s (KMK) recommendation “Media Education in Schools” (KMK, 2012) as part of the school’s educational mandate and is identified as an important cultural skill alongside reading, arithmetic, and writing. In light of advancing digitalization, this was supplemented in 2017 by the KMK strategy “Education in the Digital World” (KMK, 2017), which establishes a framework model with six cross-curricular competency areas that students need starting in elementary school for active and self-determined participation in the digital world. Public broadcasting also plays a significant role in media education. Under the State Media Treaty (MStV), it is obligated to fulfill an educational mandate: Public broadcasting services must serve the purposes of culture, education, information, and guidance (translated; Section 26(1) MStV). The promotion of media literacy in collaboration with educational institutions is explicitly addressed: Public broadcasters shall make their educational offerings easy to use and find. They shall seek partnerships, particularly with educational and cultural institutions, to strengthen the range and provision of educational content, especially that aimed at promoting media literacy (translated; Section 26(4) MStV). By offering the “CREATOR ROOM” workshop for secondary schools in Hesse, Hessischer Rundfunk fulfills this mandate. The following section describes how the program is structured and how effective it is.

128

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Hessischer Rundfunk’s “CREATOR ROOM”

3.1

Workshop Concept

The “CREATOR ROOM” is a learning and experiential space run by Hessischer Rundfunk (Fig. 2), where a four-hour workshop designed to promote media literacy is offered to school classes from all types of schools, starting in the eighth grade1. The workshop aims to raise students’ awareness of disinformation, encourage them to engage critically with online information, and foster an understanding of journalistic practices. To this end, students learn, on the one hand, to recognize disinformation and understand how it spreads and its potential dangers. On the other hand, they learn how news is produced according to journalistic standards by professionally creating social media content themselves.

Fig. 2: Creator Room Render

The workshop proceeds in four phases: The first phase engages students with the topic by asking about their own experiences and prior knowledge regarding social media and disinformation. A “living statistic” is used as a method, in which students position themselves in the room based on their agreement with a question (e.g., “How well do you feel informed about current news on social media?”). This is followed by a quiz in which students evaluate various news stories and images as “fact or fake.” Together, they develop and summarize criteria for this evaluation. Finally, the potential impacts of disinformation are discussed. 1

The workshop takes place Monday through Thursday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and Wednesday and Thursday from

2 p.m. to 6 p.m. You can register at https://www.hr.de/bildungsbox.

129

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

The second phase focuses on the role of journalism and the production of news according to journalistic standards. In an interactive presentation, the characteristics of news and trustworthy sources are contrasted with those of disinformation. Afterward, working in small groups and using provided tablets, students create their own disinformation pieces based on the characteristics they learned earlier. This is followed by a discussion in which the students reflect on the process. The students then learn about digital tools for identifying disinformation, such as reverse image search. The third and most extensive phase involves producing their own social media post according to journalistic standards. To do this, the students first have one hour to conduct research in small groups and create a storyboard. The groups can then choose from various formats (Reels, Stories, Insta-Videos, photo posts) and produce their post under professional conditions. The coaches provide support throughout the production process. In the fourth and final phase, the individual posts are presented to the entire group. The groups provide each other with feedback based on established criteria. In a closing session, the participants reflect on what they’ve learned from the workshop – particularly with regard to their future behavior on social media and their approach to online information. Overall, the workshop’s design incorporates several approaches to promoting media literacy. First and foremost, the connection to real life is central: by addressing disinformation on social media, the workshop starts where young people primarily spend their time when they are online. The participants’ concrete experiences are incorporated time and again. This connection to real life not only encourages active engagement with the subject matter but also demonstrates the immediate relevance of the topic to young people. It is also significant that participants create their own media products. In doing so – from research and selection to design and production – they experience what journalistic work entails and simultaneously learn to use information technologies competently. Combined with the subsequent reflection on the process and results, media literacy is thus comprehensively fostered across its four dimensions. Last but not least, prebunking approaches are also implemented – passively through playful engagement with examples of disinformation in

130

M EDIA LITER AC Y

a quiz format, and actively through the participants’ own creation of disinformation. The use of reverse image search tools also addresses strategies for verifying online reports. However, these could be incorporated even more effectively by practicing additional strategies such as “lateral reading.” Thus, the workshop’s design promises to promote the participants’ media literacy. The extent to which this was achieved is discussed below. Before reporting the results of the evaluation, the data basis and evaluation instruments are presented. 3.2

Workshop Evaluation

At the end of the workshop, students are asked to take five minutes to complete an online survey about the workshop. The first data collection period for the survey took place between October and December 2025. Another data collection phase began in March 2026 and is still ongoing. The results presented in this article are based on all data collected through mid-May 2026. A total of 30 classes from Hesse participated in the survey. Of the 373 completed surveys, 44.4% of the students reported attending a college-preparatory or vocational secondary school (“Gymnasium” or “Fachoberschule”), 37.3% attended an (integrated) comprehensive school (“Gesamtschule”), 6.5% attended an intermediate secondary school (“Realschule”), and 11.7% attended another type of school (vocational school, vocational school/technical college, vocational school for transition to apprenticeship, or a vocational preparation course). Most participating students were in the 8th grade (34.0%), closely followed by the 9th grade (28.9%). 10.2% of the participants were in the 10th grade, 12.6% in the 11th grade, and only 3.7% in the 12th grade. No students from13th grade participated in the workshop. The online questionnaire includes questions on prior knowledge, self-assessed skill acquisition, and motivational-affective experiences. Using three items developed by the authors themselves, the students indicated whether they had already dealt with fake news, online information research, and the creation of a journalistic social media post in class. Eight items were used to assess self-reported skill acquisition through the workshop. The authors developed these items themselves to ensure the best possible alignment with the workshop’s learning objectives. They assess knowledge acquisition and/or self-efficacy expectations regarding the activities of

131

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Hessischer Rundfunk, the importance of journalism, the dangers of and how to recognize fake news, the students’ own media use, and the creation of their own journalistic post. An example item reads: “Thanks to the workshop, I better understand why fake news is dangerous.” Four items were also used to assess the students’ future behavior regarding the critical evaluation of online information. The items were adapted from Kastorff et al. (2025). An example item is: “Thanks to the workshop, I will compare different sources more often in the future when searching for information online.” To assess the students’ enjoyment of the workshop retrospectively, an item based on Deci and Ryan (2003) was used: “Engaging with the workshop topic was fun.” All items were rated by the students on a four-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Finally, the students evaluated the workshop overall using the item “Overall, I would give the workshop the following grade” on a scale from 1 (A) to 6 (F). The participating students predominantly reported that the workshop’s topic had already been covered in school: 75.6% of the students somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement “I have already dealt with the topic of fake news in my classes.” The statement “I have learned in class how to research information on the Internet” also received agreement from 74.8% of the students. In the final overall evaluation on a school grading scale, students rated the workshop on average as good to satisfactory (average grade: 2.4; 20.6% grade 1, 44.6% grade 2, 23.8% grade 3, 4.9% grade 4, 1.2% grade 5, 4.9% grade 6) – so the results were quite mixed. The statement “Engaging with the workshop topic was fun,” on the other hand, received a very positive response: 76.7% agreed somewhat or completely. Encouraging results were also evident in other specific areas. For example, the knowledge gained through the workshop was rated very positively. 78.5% and 82.8% of the students, respectively, agreed with the statements “Thanks to the workshop, I know more about the importance of journalism for shaping public opinion and democracy” and “Thanks to the workshop, I have a better understanding of how professional journalists work.” Self-efficacy expectations regarding the detection of fake news are also very positive (Fig. 3): The students overwhelmingly agree that, thanks to the workshop, they better understand why fake news is dangerous (80.5% somewhat or complete-

132

M EDIA LITER AC Y

ly agree with this statement), now tend to reflect more on their own media use (66.2% somewhat or completely agree with this statement), and feel confident in using tools to identify fake news (76.3% somewhat or completely agree with this statement). The workshop’s impact on the students’ future behavior is also viewed positively: The students indicate that they intend to compare different sources more often in the future when searching for information online (72.5% somewhat or completely agree with this statement). In addition, they intend to check more often in the future whether online information is accurate before sharing it on social media (73.9% somewhat or completely agree with this statement). In summary, the results indicate that the workshop had a positive impact on the participating students. Although the topic had already been covered in class, the positive responses to the evaluation questions show improvements in various areas. According to the participants, the workshop led to noticeable increases in knowledge, greater self-efficacy in dealing with fake news, and changes in their own behavior regarding media consumption. The workshop thus comprehensively fosters the participants’ media literacy across its four dimensions, as defined by Baacke (1996). In addition, it strengthens key dimensions of news literacy by emphasizing the importance of journalism in a democracy and by enhancing self-efficacy as a motivational component.

Figure 3: Self-efficacy expectations in recognizing fake news

133

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Conclusion

The “CREATOR ROOM” is a valuable contribution to strengthening young people’s media literacy. The evaluation shows that the students rate the program positively overall and report subjective learning gains. This applies both to their understanding of journalistic work and to their confidence that, because of the workshop, they will be able to deal with disinformation more competently and thoughtfully in the future. Limitations to consider are that the evaluation is based on participants’ self-assessments, was conducted without a control group, and took place only after participation in the workshop. Although further research on the effectiveness of media education programs is necessary, this study provides insight into what is possible within a comparatively short intervention. Future educational programs should focus in particular on AI-generated content, as fears that platforms particularly popular among young people will be flooded with “AI slop” are not unfounded (Stanusch et al., 2025). Given that people generally find it difficult to detect deepfakes (Allen et al., 2023) and tend to overestimate their ability to do so (Köbis et al., 2021), the development of effective strategies for confidently navigating this issue is urgently needed. Finally, it should be noted that media literacy must be promoted across the board and more firmly integrated into the classroom. Civics are well-suited for topics such as disinformation, social media, and journalism – including AI-generated content containing disinformation. For teachers to foster the relevant knowledge and skills in their students, they themselves must be appropriately trained. In fields subject to rapid technological change, ongoing professional development is also necessary. Collaboration with public broadcasters offers a promising avenue in this regard.

134

M EDIA LITER AC Y

REFERENCES Aïmeur, E., Amri, S. & Brassard, G. (2023). Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5 Allen, C., Payne, B., Abegaz, T. & Robertson, C. (2023). What You See Is Not What You Know: Studying Deception in Deepfake Video Manipulation. Journal of Cybersecurity Education Research and Practice, 2024(1). https://doi.org/10.32727/8.2023.25 Anderson, L. R. & McGuire, W. J. (1965). Prior reassurance of group consensus as a factor in producing resistance to persuasion. Sociometry, 28(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786084 Baacke, D. (1997). Medienpädagogik . Niemeyer. Baacke, D. (1996). Medienkompetenz – Begrifflichkeit und sozialer Wandel. In A. v. Rhein (Hrsg.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff (pp 112–124). Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung. Ball, P., & Maxmen, A. (2020). The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories. Nature 581 (7809), 371–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01452-z Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2003). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http:// www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins.html Detjen, J., Massing, P., Richter, D., & Weißeno, G. (2012). Politikkompetenz – ein Modell. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00785-0 Ganguin, S., Gemkow, J., & Haubold, R. (2020). Medienkritik zwischen Medienkompetenz und Media Literacy: Medien- und subjektspezifische Einflüsse auf die medienkritische Decodierfähigkeit. MedienPädagogik 37, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/37/2020.07.03.X Grizzle, A. et al. (2021). Think critically, click wisely! Media and information literate citizens. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377068 Hohlfeld, R. (2020). Die Post-Truth-Ära: Kommunikation im Zeitalter von gefühlten Wahrheiten und Alternativen Fakten. In R. Hohlfeld, M. Harnischmacher, E. Heinke, L. Lehner, & M. Sengl (Eds.), Fake News und Desinformation: Herausforderungen für die vernetzte Gesellschaft und die empirische Forschung (pp. 43–60). Nomos. Iske, S. & Barberi, A. (2022). Medienkompetenz – ein Beipackzettel. MedienPädagogik 50, 21–46. https:// doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/50/2022.12.02.X Kastorff, T., Müller, M., Selva, C., Greiff, S., & Moser, S. (2025). Fake News oder Fakten? Wie Jugendliche ihre digitale Informationskompetenz einschätzen und welche Rolle Schulen und Lehrkräfte dabei spielen. Erkenntnisse aus PISA 2022. Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:33288 Köbis, N. C., Doležalová, B., & Soraperra, I. (2021). Fooled twice: People cannot detect deepfakes but think they can. iScience, 24(11), 103364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103364 Kohring, M. & Zimmermann, F. (2020). “Fake News”: Aktuelle Desinformation. Eine Begriffsexplikation. In K. Marx, H. Lobin & A. Schmidt (Eds.), .), Deutsch in Sozialen Medien. Interaktiv – multimodal – vielfältig (pp. 147–162). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110679885-008 Kultusministerkonferenz [Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs] (KMK) (2012). Medienbildung in der Schule. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2012/2012_03_08_Medienbildung.pdf Kultusministerkonferenz [Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs] (KMK) (2017). Bildung in der digitalen Welt. Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/ Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2016/2016_12_08-Bildung-in-der-digitalen-Welt.pdf Maksl, A., Ashley, S., & Craft, S. (2015). Measuring News Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education 6(3), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-6-3-3 Marten, P. L. & Stadtler, M. (2025). Building resilience against online misinformation: A teacher-led training promoting evaluation strategies among lower secondary students. Computers in Human Behavior, 165, 108548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108548 Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest (mpfs) (2025). JIM 2025: Jugend, Information, Medien. Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger in Deutschland. Available online at https:// mpfs.de/studie/jim-studie-2025/ Moser, H. (2019). Einführung in die Medienpädagogik: Aufwachsen im digitalen Zeitalter. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23208-5 Oberle, M. (2022). Medienkompetenz als Herausforderung für Demokratie und politische Bildung. In G. Marci-Boehncke, M. Rath, M. Delere, & H. Höfer (Eds.), Medien - Demokratie - Bildung. Normative Vermittlungsprozesse und Diversität in mediatisier-ten Gesellschaften (pp. 117–133). Springer VS. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36446-5_8 Peissl, H., & Sedlaczek, A. (2022). Kritische Medienkompetenz vor dem Hintergrund der Digitalisierung: Media and Information Literacy (MIL) und Critical Media Literacy (CML) im Vergleich. Magazin erwachsenenbildung.at 44/45, 11 pp. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:24474 Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., & Nygren, T. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on the psychological theory of “inoculation” can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008 Schneiders, P. (2021). Nachrichtenverständnis als elementare Nachrichtenkompetenz. In G. Keel & W. Weber (Eds.), Media Literacy (pp. 37–56). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748920656 Senkbeil, M., Ihme, J. M., & Wittwer, J. (2021). The NEPS ICT Literacy Framework and Item Examples. Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi). https://www.neps-data.de/Portals/0/NEPS/Datenzentrum/Forschungsdaten/Kompetenzen/com_ic_2021.pdf Stanusch, N., Degeling, M., Romano, S., Çetin, R. B., Schüler, M., & Semezin, S. (2025). AI-Generated

135

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Algorithmic Virality. ArXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.01042 Stark, B., Magin, M., & Jürgens, P. (2021). Maßlos überschätzt: Ein Überblick über theoretische Annahmen und empirische Befunde zu Filterblasen und Echokammern. In M. Eisenegger, M. Prinzing, P. Ettinger, & R. Blum (Eds.), Digitaler Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Historische Verortung, Modelle und Konsequenzen (pp. 303–321). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32133-8_17 Thiel, T. (2022). Der digitale Strukturwandel von Öffentlichkeit: Demokratietheoretische Anmerkungen. In I. Spiecker gen. Döhmann, M. Westland, & R. Campos (Eds.), Demokratie und Öffentlichkeit im 21. Jahrhundert – zur Macht des Digitalen (pp. 41–56). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748932741-41 Tulodziecki, G. (2024). Medienhandeln, Medienkompetenz und Medienbildung aus handlungstheoretischer Sicht. In S. Aßmann, S. Grafe, A. Martin, & B. Herzig (Eds.), Medien – Bildung – Forschung. Integrative und interdisziplinäre Perspektiven (pp. 21–35). Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:31901 Tulodziecki, G., Herzig, B., & Grafe, S. (2021). Medienbildung in Schule und Unterricht: Grundlagen und Beispiele. Klinkhardt. Vraga, E., Tully, M., Kottcher, J. E., Smithson, A.-B., & Broeckelman-Post, M. (2015). A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Measuring News Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education 7(3) 41-53. https://doi. org/10.23860/jmle-7-3-4 Weißeno, G., Detjen, J., Juchler, I., Massing, P., & Richter, D. (2010). Konzepte der Politik – ein Kompetenzmodell. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:12009 Welzenbach-Vogel, I. C. (2021). Gefilterte Ansichten – Zur Rolle von Filterblasen und Echokammern bei der Nutzung, Verarbeitung und Aneignung von Fake News und Verschwörungstheorien. In M. C. Bauer & L. Deinzer (Eds.), Zwischen Wahn und Wahrheit: Wie Verschwörungstheorien und Fake News die Gesellschaft spalten (pp. 185–209). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-63641-1_8 Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M. D., & Ortega, T. (2022). Lateral reading on the open Internet: A district-wide field study in high school government classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 893–909. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000740

136

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Media as Part of Everyday Life

“TikTok is my life”, says Emilia (15). Silas (17) describes how TikTok is part of his morning routine when he wakes up; in the afternoon, it’s more Instagram and the videos his friends send him; and then, before falling asleep, “a little TikTok”. Today, children usually grow up surrounded by media from the very beginning. They see smartphones in the hands of adults; their parents take pictures of them and sometimes get absorbed in their phones. Children between the ages of two and five use digital media for an average of 2.4 hours a day (mpfs, 2023a); for school-age children, this figure rises to over four hours of digital media use (mpfs, 2024); and for adolescents, it exceeds nine hours a day (mpfs, 2025). Since the mid-2000s, time spent online has at least tripled among children (KIM Longitudinal Study, mpfs’ own calculations) and at least doubled among adolescents (JIM Longitudinal Study, mpfs’ own calculations; OECD, 2025). Daily screen time on smartphones accounts for the largest share of this time among adolescents, at nearly four hours (mpfs, 2025). The smartphone has become the central medium and constant companion of preteens and adolescents. It is the first thing they see in the morning, the device they reach for as soon as they feel bored or insecure, and the one they use during the last hour of the day. It is their primary source of information and plays a profound role in their identity formation and worldview (Holler & Götz, 2025). A fundamental public value of public broadcasting is to provide children and young people with a comprehensive, age-appropriate lineup of programming that fosters healthy identity development and establishes a shared framework of prosocial and pro-democratic values. While children’s and youth media often achieve this implicitly and in an entertaining way through informational programs and stories, educational programs impart explicit knowledge and support schools and other educational institutions in teaching through broadcasts and materials. One of the

137

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

major challenges for young people – given the amount of time children and adolescents spend with media – is learning to use it proficiently. Media literacy is cultural literacy. This has been the case since the very beginning of media use, when media were not yet electronic or digital. Using media, critically examining them, understanding what they mean for oneself and for society, and employing them for communication and political participation is a necessary part of socialization – today more than ever. Yet, given the changing media landscape, today’s adolescents face challenges that previous generations have not yet encountered. 1.1.

Growing Up in the Age of Social Media, Big Tech Companies, and the AI Revolution

Media serve as agents of socialization and shape the identity development and worldview of children and adolescents (e.g., Hoffmann, 2018). The media-related challenges adolescents face today differ significantly from those of previous generations. Depending on the political system in which they grew up or to which they immigrated, the audiovisual media landscape of “our” childhood and youth was shaped by the dual broadcasting system or by state-run media (Götz, 2023). Critical engagement was an important part of basic political education, and even in the 1990s, the range of programs aimed at children and young people seemed almost overwhelming (Erlinger, 2001). What the media platforms that adolescents used had in common, however, was that they featured editorial content created by people with professional training who adhered to journalistic and educational quality standards. In the mid-2000s, with the rise of YouTube and internationally successful social media apps, virtually everyone gained the opportunity to create and publish their own content (e.g., Nieborg & Poell, 2018). This opened up new aesthetic forms and areas of professionalization, but also created a space for unfiltered expressions of opinion, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and propaganda (Wirtz, 2022). The digital market is dominated by a handful of U.S.-based Big Tech companies, often abbreviated as “GAFAM” (Google/Alphabet, Apple, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Microsoft). They secure their digital sovereignty and expand their market position geopolitically with the support of U.S. diplomacy (e.g., Nocetti, 2026). In the realm of social media apps, the Chinese company ByteDance (TikTok) is also a major player (e.g., Perdana & Bhara-

138

M EDIA LITER AC Y

thi, 2023): These companies generate billions in revenue through, among other things, highly targeted advertising that is auctioned off to the highest bidder. The Big Tech companies act as marketplaces and retailers, as well as network providers and broadcasters, all at the same time. Yet they are not subject to the regulations governing traditional broadcasters, are not liable for the content, and are not required to meet journalistic standards of care or adhere to advertising caps (e.g., Botero & Griffin, 2023). An unregulated monopoly has emerged, with lasting effects such as “data feudalism” (Saura García, 2024). Existing law has simply been overrun by technical innovations, must now be painstakingly revised, and is simultaneously confronted with an increasingly financially and politically powerful market monopoly (Andree, 2025). The content posted on social media is not guided by journalistic, educational, or democratic standards, but rather by the attention economy. The goal is not education, identity building, or promoting the health of young people, but rather keeping them on the apps for as long as possible in order to monetize their attention, among other things (e.g., Giraldo-Luque et al., 2020). In addition to the risks for adolescents themselves, this attention economy creates another problem: recommendation algorithms favor content that evokes strong emotions such as outrage, anger, or fear. Emotions generate more clicks, comments, and shares. Consequently, politically charged, simplistic “us versus them” messages receive disproportionate visibility, which primarily benefits populist parties and politicians (e.g., Yilmaz et al., 2026). On some platforms, such as X or TikTok, there is also evidence of targeted political influence in favor of conservative to far-right content (e.g., Schnabel & Berendsen, 2024). The result: Extreme or highly polarizing positions receive disproportionate media coverage relative to their actual support among the general population. If users spend even a fraction of a second longer engaging with this content, the algorithms deliver similar content, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers (e.g., Ahmmad et al., 2025). This drives young people toward extremist actors (e.g., Lim & Guerra, 2023) and fuels the real-world polarization of societies (e.g., Metzler & Garcia, 2024). Artificial intelligence multiplies these individual phenomena and interconnections. On the one hand, however, current AI models originate in the United States, and compliance with EU law cannot currently be guaranteed in this context either (Graux et al., 2025). As a result, the number of videos containing disinformation is multiplying, new opportunities for bot farms and cybercrime are emerging (e.g., Hulok, 2026), and new, barely traceable gatekeeper functions are arising, for example, in the search for reliable information and sources (Simon, 2025). Young people face particu-

139

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

lar challenges in the realm of social media, where – without the necessary media literacy – they can navigate the platform only to a limited extent in a way that is self-determined and conducive to identity formation. 1.2.

How Social Media Clips Shape Young People’s Worldviews

The study series “Social Networks, Gender Images, and Values” examined the significance that social media content can have for young people and their worldview. Based on 16 case studies, a broad, standardized survey was conducted among a panel selected to be representative of Germany (n=705) . It becomes clear that the majority of young people use social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram daily – and, for the most part, multiple times a day. They do so to find distraction in their daily lives, to see something funny, or to find inspiration. For many, it’s also about staying informed about friends and topics that matter to them, and reading comments to see how others argue their points. Two-thirds of young people who use Instagram and/or TikTok use the apps to stay informed about political issues and “what’s going on in the world” (Holler & Götz, 2025). An EU study reaches a very similar conclusion, showing that in 2025, social media is the primary source of information for young people (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2025). The 16 case studies in this series clearly demonstrated how varied young people’s understanding of information and their use of information sources on social media can be. Jonas (15 years old) “doesn’t look at political stuff on Instagram or TikTok (...), I tend to watch it on YouTube.” At the same time, he has subscribed to the Tagesschau news program on TikTok and uses the posts. Jonas (15), for example, watches various informative YouTube videos, uses the Tagesschau app, and when he doesn’t have enough time “to watch the Tagesschau in the evening (…), [he listens to] the 100-second summary.” He doesn’t get his political news from social media at all, “because I always think there’s just a lot of misinformation out there.” His friend Max (16) particularly likes weekly summaries on political topics and spends more time on Instagram than on TikTok. He explains this by pointing out that TikTok is a Chinese platform but isn’t even allowed in China itself, whereas Meta is at least a U.S.-based company that has to comply with EU law. It’s a completely different story for Silas (17), for whom TikTok is “the biggest source of information I have,” or Emilia (15), who says of herself, “TikTok is my life.” They aren’t interested in traditional journalistic content. While browsing through Emilia’s For You-page (TikTok) together, a video

140

M EDIA LITER AC Y

of AfD chairwoman Alice Weidel pops up – something they would normally watch “sometimes.” Here, as in other cases, it becomes clear: Young people do not necessarily actively seek out information about politics, but when it is presented to them, they watch it, often without realizing that it is political content. The case studies also show how young people integrate these posts into their worldviews and political attitudes. Logical inconsistencies or misinformation become particularly evident among young people who identify as politically right-wing. Nabil (17), for example, explains that the climate crisis used to be an issue for him: “Yes, it used to be important to me, but that was mainly because TikTok used propaganda.” He learned this from TikTok clips. Now he knows that the climate crisis doesn’t exist. For him, this is a relief, because now he no longer has to worry that his children will suffer from it in 70 years. Silas (17 years old) considers it statistically proven that “it’s simply foreigners who commit crimes like rape.” The media trail leads, among other things, to videos by Alice Weidel (Götz, 2025). Silas himself has an Iranian immigrant background (second generation) and doesn’t like it when others “pigeonhole him for what other people of the same origin may have done.” He says that, because of all the stabbings committed by foreigners, he’s now afraid to walk the streets and positions himself, so to speak, as a “good immigrant.” Svenja (15) is the daughter of a German-Russian father and a Chinese mother. Svenja would vote for the AfD because she sees “immigration as the main cause of social and security problems” and the AfD wants to prevent these in the future. She knows this, among other things, from related TikTok clips. The AfD wants, in particular, “strict border controls,” a “reform of the asylum system,” and a “fundamental overhaul of residency rights [she means the right to stay] and a reduction in social benefits for migrants.” She thinks that sounds really good. Svenja senses her mother’s clear fears of possible deportation, but considers herself an expert on the matter, because “Alice Weidel is really only talking about people who immigrate illegally,” as she quotes from a TikTok clip. These young people do not perceive the contradictions in their own worldviews. When asked about the topic in an interview or when discussing the issues based on a prompt video, they recite arguments similar to those found in some right-wing and left-wing populist videos. In doing so, they

141

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

repeatedly use the same lines of reasoning, even when logical inconsistencies actually arise. Words like “migration,” “foreigners,” “gender issues,” or “climate change” are trigger points (Mau et al., 2023) that cause them to fall into nearly self-contained chains of reasoning. Disinformation and populist arguments are thus incorporated into the worldviews of some young people. What is evident here at the level of individual case studies is also reflected in terms of content within the representatively selected panel. Identifying politically as right-wing correlates with skepticism toward or denial of climate change, higher levels of hostility toward the LGBTQ+ community, and a view of gender according to which men are entitled to more rights than women and non-binary individuals. All of this is usually combined with dissatisfaction with democracy as it exists in Germany (Götz, Wenzel & Mendel, 2026). This certainly also takes place within the context of a worldview driven, among other things, by the United States, and a public discourse – evident in Germany as well – through which statements that would have been labeled anti-democratic just a few years ago have been normalized (Zick et al., 2023). Do these young people not realize that they are giving credence to disinformation and populist – even propagandistic – distortions of reality? When the young people in the case studies casually mention in conversation what they consider to be the key criteria for credibility, it becomes clear: For many, it comes down to whether something is presented “with seriousness and concern” and “comes across as credible.” If they are ever truly unsure whether something is true, they check the comments to see if anyone has disputed it. There is a lack of media literacy here – including in the areas of information search and source verification – as part of everyday routines for social media use (Holler & Götz, 2025). Media literacy is not merely cultural literacy; in today’s media landscape, it forms the foundation for a pro-democratic worldview and thus for safeguarding democracy. As such, it should actually be an integral part of the school curriculum. Is this the case? 2.

Media Literacy as a Subject in Schools

In the German educational landscape, media literacy is not viewed as a standalone subject but primarily as a cross-disciplinary or interdisciplinary component of school education. Whether this approach is tenable, given its great significance for the present and future of young people, re-

142

M EDIA LITER AC Y

mains open to debate. What is indisputable, however, is that children and adolescents need targeted support that addresses the specific challenges of today’s media landscape and enables them to acquire media literacy within a pedagogically sound and professional framework. The IZI (BR) 2026 examined which topics are currently particularly necessary in its study series “Media Literacy as a Topic in Schools”. 2.1.

The Topics of Media Literacy

As a first step, professionally developed units designed to promote media literacy were analyzed. In addition to offerings from public broadcasters (e.g., ARD Media Literacy, “so geht MEDIEN”), these include resources from Klicksafe, Internet-ABC, Medienführerschein Bayern, fragFINN, and others. Among the 130 units, 20 recurring thematic areas emerged that were deemed particularly relevant for fostering media literacy through classroom instruction. 2.2.

What concerns Children and Adolescents

Building on the 20 thematic areas identified, n=1,024 children and adolescents between the ages of 8 and 17 from a representative sample were subsequently interviewed in face-to-face interviews. The media literacy topics were described in a way that was as age-appropriate as possible. The adolescents were then asked whether they had dealt with these topics themselves or been affected by them during the past school year. The responses show that 15 of the topic areas directly affected at least two out of five children and adolescents, with the other topics following closely behind. Age-related trends are evident here. In elementary school, about one-third of the children report not (yet) being affected by the topics mentioned. For the two-thirds who were affected by or had dealt with at least one of the topics, the main concerns were how to find reliable information online, how to behave in group chats, how to edit photos and videos, and how to avoid spending too much time on media. Starting in middle school, nearly all respondents are affected by the media literacy topics surveyed. Over the past year, they were most frequently concerned with the topic of AI and how to use it properly, as well as with finding reliable information and online safety. For students in grades 7 through 10, the issue of cyberbullying comes to the forefront, along with AI, deepfakes, extremism, and hate speech. In grades 11 through 13, the

143

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

topics are the same, though AI becomes significantly more relevant, and students have engaged even more frequently with the issue of fake news. These are topics that directly affect preteens and teenagers, making them not only ideal but also essential starting points for intrinsically motivated learning in the classroom. But is that happening there? 2.3.

Media Literacy Topics in School Classes

In the third step of the study series, therefore, participants were asked to what extent the 20 topics were covered in class. The results show that only just under a quarter (23%) addressed the topic of cyberbullying and the question of how to find reliable information online. A good fifth (21%) reported covering group chats, online safety, and extremism, and one in five had addressed the topic of hate speech. It is clear that media literacy topics have made their way into schools – at least in some of them. In elementary school, up to 21% of students, in comprehensive schools up to 24%, and in high schools, secondary schools, and junior high schools around 30% of students report having covered specific topics in class. In elementary school, the most frequently discussed topics were “finding reliable information on the internet” (21%) and “appropriate behavior in group chats” (19%); in comprehensive schools, the topic of information search (21%) was also the most common, but here it was followed by cyberbullying (24%). In secondary schools, the most common topics were group chats (32%) and cyberbullying (30%); in middle schools, cyberbullying (31%) and information search (30%); and in high schools, extremism (29%) and hate speech (27%). As encouraging as it is that topics related to media literacy are being addressed, these figures conversely indicate that at least seven out of ten children and adolescents did not cover these media literacy topics in class. When students were specifically affected by individual media literacy topics, these were addressed in class by no more than half of them. The greatest discrepancies between the extent to which students were affected by these topics and the extent to which they were addressed in class were observed for deepfakes, the creation of photos, videos, and podcasts, AI, media addiction, and what to do if one feels unwell after consuming media (see Figure 1). There is no sign here of adequate prevention or preparation for the challenges ahead in a world where digital media permeates both daily life and learning.

144

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Media Literacy Topics Comparison of Awareness vs. Coverage in the Classroom Finding Reliab le Information Online AI Cyberbullyin g

23% 18%

Deepfakes Internet Safety

14%

Extr emism Hate sp eech Fake News Media Add iction Creatin g ph otos, videos , and p odcasts Posting Online Group chat How Profess ional Media Is Created Propaganda and Advertising Influ encers When media makes you feel bad Cos t tr aps Cop yr ight Filter bubbles Cybergrooming

23%

45% 45% 43% 43% 42% 42% 42% 42% 42% 42% This is 41% something that 40% has been on my 40% mind or has 40% affected me We’ve covered 40% this in class 39%

21% 21% 20% 19% 16% 14% 19% 21% 18% 17% 15% 14% 15% 17% 12% 16%

37% 35% 35% 34%

20%

40%

60%

Figure 1: Comparison of topics that affected or concerned children and adolescents during the last school year, and whether the topic was covered in class (n=1,024, ages 8 to 17)

2.4. How do students rate their teachers’ competence in the area of media literacy? Most children and adolescents would like to see more media education content in schools. Eight out of ten elementary school students and nearly all 14- to 17-year-olds (97%) would like to have at least one hour of media literacy instruction per week (Wedel et al., 2025). To assess teachers’ competence in media literacy, the study series “Media Literacy as a Topic in School” surveyed n=534 students (ages 8 to 17) from a representative panel about their preconceptions regarding teachers’ competence as well as their expectations for media literacy lessons. The results show that a large proportion of the children and adolescents surveyed (77%) feel that teachers primarily want to lecture them on these topics. At the same time, slightly more than one-third (35%) believe that teachers want to spoil their fun. However, only slightly more than half of the German children and adolescents surveyed (55%; see Figure 2) can imagine that media literacy units could be fun. The biggest challenge, however, is that very few students consider their teachers to be knowledgeable and competent in the field of media. 85%

145

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

agree with the statement: “Teachers often don’t know as much about media as we do.” The older the students get, the higher the level of agreement. These are not ideal conditions for lessons in which adolescents can engage confidently and critically with the current challenges posed by the media for their own identity development and social cohesion. Media Literacy Topics in School Classes from the Students' Perspective Teachers often don’t know as much about media as we do.

85%

Wh en media is covered in class, teachers mainly just want to lecture us.

77%

I can’t imagine that lessons on media literacy are fun.

45%

Wh en media is the topic in class, teachers try to spoil our fun.

35%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Totally agree / Somewhat agree

Figure 2 Me Media literacy topics in school instruction from the students’ perspective (n=534 students, ages 8 to 17)

2.5.

The current situation regarding media literacy in schools

In summary, the situation can be described as follows: Digital media already occupy a large part of children’s and adolescents’ lives, simply in terms of the time spent using them (more than four hours for children and more than nine hours for adolescents). Compared to previous generations, the content and forms of presentation have changed fundamentally – shifting from editorial media to offerings that are largely unregulated, highly individualized, commercialized, and geared toward the profit interests of a handful of U.S. and Chinese tech conglomerates. In addition to a wealth of creative and special-interest content, this has opened the door to disinformation, propaganda, political influence, cybercrime, and the like, and allows providers to use algorithms to find ways to keep adolescents on their smartphones for as long as possible. Platform logic favors certain types of content – specifically, emotionally charged content from populist providers – which facilitates political influence and permits disinformation and propaganda. For some young people, this fosters worldviews characterized by hierarchical gender roles, as well as skepticism toward

146

M EDIA LITER AC Y

democracy and climate change. Efforts to protect young people from harmful media content are underway, but currently cannot reliably ensure that children and adolescents are not exposed to content that impairs their development. With the widespread use of generative AI, problematic content and opportunities for cybercrime are multiplying. Algorithms are taking on fundamental gatekeeper functions at various levels, without us currently being able to foresee the consequences. In this situation, media literacy is not only cultural literacy but also a means of promoting health and preventing crime, and it serves as the foundation for safeguarding our democracies. Children and adolescents are directly affected by certain issues. However, these relevant topics are only covered in class for a small proportion of students. Children and adolescents want media literacy units in their classes. At the same time, they question their teachers’ subject-matter expertise, particularly regarding their knowledge of current phenomena, as well as their ability to present this material in an engaging way. There is therefore an urgent need to find ways to incorporate current media literacy topics into the classroom in an engaging manner. Public media have expertise and a legal mandate precisely in this area to offer programs and materials, thereby providing public value for society at the intersection of media and education. How do they do this? 3.

Media Literacy Initiatives by Public Broadcasting in Germany

It is the explicit mandate of public broadcasting in Germany to strengthen the development and provision of educational content to promote media literacy. The offerings from ARD, ZDF, KiKA, and Deutschlandradio are diverse and can be broadly divided into the categories of programs, educational portals, interactive formats with students, and teacher training. 3.1.

Programs on the Topic of Media Literacy

There are programs for children and preteens that focus specifically on media literacy. These include Team Timster, a media magazine produced by KiKA, rbb, and NDR, in which each episode explores, explains, and reflects on apps, games, social media trends, and other digital topics to help children engage with media in an informed and critically aware manner. In handy_crush (KiKA/funk), an explanatory series for TikTok, preteens and teens learn in an entertaining way about cell phone hacks, social media mechanisms, and data protection.

147

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

In addition to these media literacy programs, well-established educational shows feature individual episodes on key media literacy topics. In “The Fake News Check,” Checker Tobi (BR/KiKA) explains the background of disinformation and shares interesting facts in an entertaining way within these areas of media literacy. In Die Sendung mit der Maus, the special episode “Digital Life” shows how information becomes data, how digital networking works, and what new forms of digital media – such as 360° videos – exist. On the “Artificial Intelligence” topic page of Die Sendung mit der Maus, explanatory videos – ranging from “What is AI?” to questions like “How does AI write a fairy tale?” – make the workings of AI easy to understand. For children in elementary school and older, individual episodes of neuneinhalb (WDR) also address key media literacy topics, such as “Life Without a Cell Phone – The Smartphone Experiment,” in which students go without their smartphones for a week and reflect on their experiences. And in the episode “Phone Off – Fun On?!,” science reporter Eric from PUR+ (ZDF/KiKA) investigates how much time we actually spend gaming, chatting, or scrolling, and shows how teenagers feel when they drastically reduce their screen time. In programs aimed at young people, investigative journalism shows like STRG_F (NDR/funk) – which covers topics such as online crime, scams, and exploitation on OnlyFans – or VOLLBILD (SWR) – which features episodes relevant to media literacy, such as “Healthy Thanks to Influencers?” or “A Caliphate in School?” on hate preachers and radicalization through social media – provide important background information. Podcasts such as Die OpenAI Story (Deutschlandfunk) or Der KI Podcast (BR) serve as valuable resources for exploring the background of media power and its significance for individuals and society. Youth-oriented educational programs such as RESPEKT (BR/ARD alpha) explain topics including online hate, digital violence, and freedom of speech. In addition to a series of programs, educational games and interactive tools have also been developed to promote media literacy. In SWR’s Fakefinder, for example, adolescents use a newsfeed simulation to learn how to distinguish credible news from fake news and satire. These are just a few examples from the extensive offerings of public broadcasters. 3.2.

Educational and School Portals (Resources, Series, Modules)

Programs designed to promote media literacy and interactive resources are available to schools through various ministry platforms, among other

148

M EDIA LITER AC Y

channels, and can be accessed via media literacy platforms specifically designed for this purpose by public broadcasters. For example, so geht MEDIEN, Planet Schule, Medien & Schule, or einfach.Medien offer resource packages with explanatory videos, teaching materials, and interactive activities. 3.3.

Engaging with Students

In addition to broadcasts and educational materials, the program offers interactive formats that allow students to engage directly with professional media production. At WDR STUDIO ZWEI, for example, students in grades 6 through 13 produce their own radio shows or video magazines in a studio designed specifically for this purpose, gaining insights into journalistic work, team roles, and technical processes. Another form of this interactive format involves coordinated action days, such as the ARD Youth Media Day or Press Freedom Day, during which hands-on workshops are offered in newsrooms and studios. In a third approach, journalists visit classrooms to talk about their work and collaborate with students on media topics (e.g., social media, fake news). Some of these interactive programs are offered as live online events, such as BR macht Schule, where journalists discuss their work or specific topics in Webtalks, among other activities. 3.4. Teacher Training In addition to materials and broadcasts, public broadcasting also offers targeted media education training programs for teachers. Under the BR macht Schule label, Bayerischer Rundfunk provides a program consisting of in-person seminars, online sessions, and specialized events such as the BR Media Literacy Day. As part of MEDIENTRIXX (SWR), professional development modules for teachers are implemented at elementary schools in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden-Württemberg in cooperation with media education partners from. NDR supplements its einfach.Medien portal with teacher workshops, and WDR also offers training programs for teachers through its Medien & Schule initiative. In addition, ARD, ZDF, KiKA, and Deutschlandradio present their and media literacy offerings at trade fairs such as didacta, where they offer workshops and counseling and connect school stakeholders with the broadcasters’ media education initiatives. So the range of programs and teaching materials is certainly available.

149

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Do public broadcasters’ offerings cover current areas of media literacy?

A detailed analysis conducted as part of the study series “Media Literacy as a Topic in Schools” – in which the content of the available programs was compared with the 20 current areas of media literacy – shows that all topics are covered by explanatory videos, and in multiple variations. In addition, there are various humorous segments and in-depth analyses for teenagers, as well as “Knowledge Reporters” for children and preteens. Recent developments, such as the growing importance of AI in the daily lives of children and preteens, are specifically incorporated into program development across all age groups. In Die Sendung mit dem Elefanten (WDR/KiKA), the groundwork is laid for preschoolers to begin understanding AI, and in “Der KI-Check”, Checker Tobi (BR/KiKA) explores the background, opportunities, and risks of AI; both programs were scientifically supported and evaluated by the IZI (BR). So much for the programming – but do these shows actually promote media literacy? 4.1.

A reception study on the unit “so geht MEDIEN – Grundschule mit Team Timster“

Elementary school children are usually unable to identify false information on the internet as such (Dumitru, 2020; Pilgrim et al., 2019). Yet disinformation is part of the media landscape, and accordingly, children and adolescents should develop a basic understanding as early as possible that not all information corresponds to reality. For children, this can represent a break with their previous understanding of the world, since they are normally expected to trust the information provided to them by adults and the media. It therefore requires critical thinking to recognize that someone – who may even address them as an authority figure – is not telling the truth. This is where the lesson unit “Fake News – Is There Such a Thing as Fabricated News?” from so geht MEDIEN – Elementary School with Team Timster comes in. As always with so geht MEDIEN, the central element is a media education video. It is hosted by Tim, one of the two hosts of the media magazine Team Timster (KiKA). Through a mix of narration and dramatized segments, he explains what fake news actually is. The program begins with Tim announcing the news that scientists have discovered that spaghetti ice cream helps with learning Italian. This builds on the elementary school students’ existing knowledge and allows them to figure out for themselves that this news can’t be true. With a touch of

150

M EDIA LITER AC Y

humor, the show then announces that gummy bears are now the new currency. By the time Tim presents the absurd follow-up segment, it becomes clear: This can’t be true. The term “fake news” is then explained in an ageappropriate way. Tim then explains why people spread fake news in video calls with three characters: Mr. Joke-Monkey spreads fake news “for fun” at the expense of others; Mr. Money-Shark lures people in with fabricated sensational news to generate clicks and thus advertising revenue; and Mr. Poop-Pile represents a character who, out of conviction, badmouths everything, seeks to stir up fear, and accepts only his own viewpoint as the truth (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 During the phone call, Mr. Kackhaufen explains that, out of conviction, he badmouths everything, seeks to stir up fear, and accepts only his own viewpoint as the truth Note: Screenshot from Team Timster © KiKA

A second focus of the video is on the consequences of thoughtlessly sharing false reports: “Do we really fall for fake news that easily?” Using an example – a story claiming the moon is made of pancakes (see Figure 4) – the video shows how a fabricated report spreads rapidly through chat rooms and family groups. Host Tim then adopts a serious tone as he explains that fake news becomes dangerous when, for example, it spreads lies about certain groups, reinforces prejudices, disparages people, and, in the worst case, contributes to anger and violence. At the end, the host offers three tips for everyday life: 1) trust your gut and, if in doubt, don’t

151

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

forward a message; 2) ask about the source of a message and seek an adult’s opinion; and 3) check whether the information also appears in other sources, such as child-friendly, reliable resources like children’s search engines or children’s news sites.

Figure 4 “The Moon Is Made of Pancakes”: This example illustrates how a fabricated story spreads rapidly through chats and family groups Note: Screenshot from Team Timster © KiKA

The film is designed as a starting point for a media education lesson. Key scenes and characters (Mr. Scherzaffe, Mr. Geldhai, Mr. Kackhaufen) are discussed in class; playful activities are then used to reinforce the knowledge gained and expand it through “source checks.” Through the guessing game “Share or Don’t Share,” in which students in small groups decide whether or not they would forward various fictional messages from a class chat, what they’ve learned is applied to concrete actions. Determining whether a TV program and a lesson really promote media literacy is anything but easy to investigate. Both the way adolescents engage with television programs and their significance for adolescents’ daily lives, as well as education in media literacy, are highly complex processes (e.g., Bachmair, 1996). To gain at least an initial insight and capture part of this process, the acquired knowledge can be assessed in a pre-post test within the context of a reception study. This is a method that the IZI (BR) regularly uses in the evaluation of television programs, including in the evaluation of the program “Fake News – Is There Such a Thing as Fake News?”. In the study conducted by Andrea Holler (IZI/BR), n=139 elementary school students in grades 3 and 4 (average age: 9.3 years) participated.

152

M EDIA LITER AC Y

All elementary school students intuitively rated the lesson as “really good” or “good,” and what they liked best was “the film about fake news.” Learning gains were evident across all topics covered and tested. Onethird of the children, who had never heard of “fake news” before, were able to grasp the very basics – such as Lovis (age 10), who described it this way: “I didn’t know any of the things we learned before, and I thought fake news was hacking.” The before-and-after test shows that after the lesson, 86% of the children can freely describe what fake news is; before the lesson, about half could explain the term (increase in knowledge: +32 percentage points). The percentage of children who agree with the statement “Fake news can be dangerous” rises from 80% to 100% (see Figure 5). For the statement “You can make money online with fake news,” this figure rose from 40% to 93%. At the same time, significantly more children rejected the idea that they could forward news from friends “without hesitation” after the session (+26 percentage points in rejection). The children learn that fake news is not only false or fabricated content, but can also be dangerous and used to make money. In addition to theoretical knowledge, the children also take away very practical guidelines for action. After the unit, nine out of ten children can write down at least one tip on how they themselves deal with fake news, and they are made aware that they should not forward reports and messages from friends without hesitation (Holler, 2026). This is a successful example of how media literacy can be specifically promoted through media and integrated into school instruction.

Figure 5: Assessment of specific statements about fake news in a before-and-after comparison (figures in percent)

153

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Another example is the so geht Medien unit on the topic of “Extremism and Social Media,” which focuses on recognizing and categorizing the strategies of extremist actors on social networks and, if possible, taking action against them. Here, too, the focus is on a video that explains extremism in a humorous way, highlights strategies for establishing contact, explains the “filter bubble” phenomenon, and describes the path to radicalization as told by a former extremist. In the lesson, students use their cell phones or computers to research what extremism is and where to find lists of extremist organizations. In the evaluation involving n=140 students in grades 9 and 10, participants particularly appreciated that they were “educated” on this important topic. The video clips, in particular, were highlighted as effective and informative. The students also found the independent research and completion of assignments appealing. The pre-post test shows that while only one in ten students could recognize before the unit that, for example, a social media post on the topic of “nature” originated from extremist actors in the background, eight out of ten students could do so after the unit. They have learned to recognize and identify the sources of such content. In addition, the students learned about covert strategies that extremists use to attract young people to their cause, and after the lesson, over 90% of the students knew of several ways they could respond when encountering extremist posts or pages on social media (Holler, 2018). These two examples show that professionally produced videos – especially when integrated into a lesson – can very effectively promote media literacy. 5.

Where Opportunities Remain Untapped

Public broadcasting already offers a wide variety of programs on media literacy. Most are structured as explanatory videos in which a youthfullooking adult explains interesting facts about media literacy – sometimes seriously, sometimes with a touch of humor. In addition, there are journalistic formats in which knowledge reporters research topics, interview experts, and summarize the connections in the form of a report. An analysis of the world’s most innovative children’s and youth programs at the PRIX JEUNESSE INTERNATIONAL reveals where untapped opportunities still lie. The 2026 theme: “Media Literacy in Times of Polarization.” An audience reception study of the five most outstanding programs highlights where local productions still have untapped potential for promoting media literacy through media (Götz & Holler, 2026).

154

M EDIA LITER AC Y

In fictional works such as the Danish series Becoming Kaiser (Danish Broadcasting Corporation/HighWire), winner of the Children’s Jury award at the PRIX JEUNESSE INTERNATIONAL, self-presentation created with AI, deep fakes, and music play a central role. The IZI reception study found that children and preteens become emotionally invested in the plot, empathize with the protagonists, laugh at the humorous moments, and recognize potential problems that can arise from the use of AI. What they develop as a re – are fundamental reflections such as: “That in our time, AI still needs very precise instructions.” (Kai, age 10) or “AI can be convinced of something that’s wrong.” (Lotta, age 10). The specific reflections the program inspires are much freer and more self-directed here than in educational segments, but they are also deeper and more fundamental. The Dutch program Sanne Doesn’t Exist – Stop it Now (NTR/Every Media) takes a much more emotional approach. In 12 minutes, it conveys the experience of cybergrooming from the perspective of a 12-year-old in an emotionally compelling way. This opens up the opportunity to address experiences with cybercrime and to have a lasting preventive effect. There are also international examples in the non-fiction sector that are still lacking in the German-speaking world. In Techbitch (VPRO, Netherlands), host Stephanie aims to develop the most successful social media platform possible. To do so, she seeks advice from experts in Silicon Valley, psychologists, and young people. The irreverent, anti-pedagogical format is complemented by fictional segments in which Techbitch Stephanie tempts young people to spend more time on social media. The show’s ironic premise is unfamiliar to students in Germany, but the potential of this approach – using anti-pedagogy to uncover the mechanisms of tech corporations – is exceptionally high. Particularly promising is the Canadian production Media Stamped (Sinking Ship Entertainment), winner of the PRIZE JEUNESSE INTERNATIONAL Theme Prize for “Media Literacy.” Host Nicole collaborates with preteens and teens joining via video link to explore topics such as framing and to examine the significance of word choice. These spaces for co-creation – cleverly designed from both a didactic and methodological perspective – repeatedly spark small “aha” moments, and the theoretical framework positions media literacy as a form of communication competence. Here, students not only gain basic knowledge about media language use but, according to, also “take away a lot for life” (Lucia, 15 years old) – and that is precisely what schools, and media literacy units in particular, should be about (Götz & Holler, 2026). The next step – to capitalize on these insights from public broadcasters in various countries and avoid problem areas – will be discussed at the 2026 IZI Annual Conference on the topic of media literacy.

155

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

Summary and Conclusion

Today, children and adolescents are growing up in an extremely challenging media landscape in which they must navigate their way, avoid harm, develop a prosocial and pro-democratic worldview, view media as an enriching part of their daily lives, stimulate learning processes, and use media to participate in society. To do this, they absolutely need media literacy, and this should be an integral part of the school curriculum. In their everyday (school) lives, they encounter topics that require media literacy, but only a small fraction of these are covered in classroom instruction. The reasons for this are certainly varied. Children and adolescents also do not necessarily believe that teachers are knowledgeable about current media phenomena. Here, public broadcasting can not only offer expertise but also fulfill its legal mandate to provide programs and materials. This takes place through various programs, interactive games, and dialogues with professionals. The core areas of media literacy are already covered in these offerings, and current developments are incorporated into the programming. These developments are, in part, scientifically monitored, and their effectiveness and opportunities for improvement are assessed through audience reception studies. The public value of these efforts is hard to overlook. It is reflected in the programs that impart knowledge, in the media literacy platforms that provide all necessary materials, and in the educational and dialog-based offerings, all of which promote media literacy. Public value is also provided by research institutions. The IZI (BR) is one such example; it identifies current trends in the media landscape and their significance for children and adolescents, thereby informing public discourse and supporting media professionals in program development. Another example is SWR’s participation in the Media Education Research Network Southwest (mpfs), which conducts reliable baseline studies – consistently focused on current topics – regarding how children and adolescents in Germany engage with media. The next step requires close collaboration across society as a whole, ensuring that programs and materials designed to promote media literacy are widely implemented in all schools. Media literacy is of central importance for healthy development and the formation of prosocial and pro-democratic worldviews. This is where the true public value of the topic lies: for without media literacy, there will be no more self-determined lives and no more democracy.

156

M EDIA LITER AC Y

REFERENCES Ahmmad, M., Shahzad, K., Iqbal, A., & Latif, M. (2025). Trap of social media algorithms: a systematic review of research on filter bubbles, echo chambers, and their impact on youth. Societies, 15(11), 301. Andree, M. (2025). Digital Monopolies – The Extent of Monopolization in Germany and the Implications for Media Freedom and Democracy. Social Sciences, 14(5), 303. Bachmair, B. (1996). Fernsehkultur.: Subjektivität in einer Welt bewegter Bilder. Westdeutscher Verlag. Botero Arcila, B., & Griffin, R. (2023). Social media platforms and challenges for democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights. European Parliament: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies. European Parliament. Dumitru, E. A. (2020). Testing children and adolescents’ ability to identify fake news: A combined design of quasiexperiment and group discussions. Societies, 10(3), 71. Erlinger, H. D. (2001). Notizen zum goldenen Zeitalter des Angebotsfernsehens für Kinder. TelevIZIon, 14(2). Verfügbar unter: https://izi.br.de/text/erlinger14_2.htm [6.7.26] European Parliamentary Research Service. (2025). Youth and social media. European Parliament. Verfügbar unter: https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2025)779235 [6.7.26] Giraldo-Luque, S., Aldana Afanador, P. N., & Fernández-Rovira, C. (2020). The struggle for human attention: Between the abuse of social media and digital wellbeing. Healthcare,8(4), 497. Götz, M. (2025). I hear your voice. Detailanalyse eines TikTok-Clips von Alice Weidel. TelevIZIon, 38(2), 23-24. Götz, M., Wenzel, L., & Mendel, C. (2026). Geschlechterbilder und Werte bei Jugendlichen. TelevIZIon, 39(1), 11-16. Götz, M. (2023). From the center of public discussion to niche programing: Children’s television in the two Germanies made one. In Y. Gozansky (Hrsg.), Histories of children’s television around the world (S. 111-130). Peter Lang. Götz, M. & Holler, A. (2026). Media literacy through television programmes? TelevIZIon, 39(E), 41-54. Graux, H., Garstka, K., Murali, N., Cave, J., Botterman, M., & Pellegrin, J. (2025). Interplay between the AI Act and the EU digital legislative framework. European Parliament. Herzig, B. (2020). Medienkompetenz. Modellierung, Messung und Bedeutung in Zeiten der Coronapandemie. TelevIZIon, 33(2), 15-20. Hoffmann, D. (2018). Kinder, Jugend und Medien. In A. Lange, H. Reiter, S. Schutter & C. Steiner (Hrsg.), Handbuch Kindheits- und Jugendsoziologie (S. 1-12). Springer VS. Holler, A. (2026). “That I check whether it’s true before I share it”. Fake News as a topic in primary school. TelevIZIon, 39(E), 29-32. Holler, A. (2018). Extremismus im Netz erkennen. TelevIZIon, 31(2), 64-65. Holler A., & Götz, M. (2025). „TikTok ist die größte Informationsquelle, die ich habe“. TelevIZIon, 38(2), 12-17. Hulok, M. (2025). The EU model of AI governance: regulating artificial intelligence through law and policy. ERA Forum 26, 527–547. Lim, Y. J., & Guerra, L. (2023). The dangerous but efficacious potency of the social media behemoth TikTok on U.S. politics with Gen Z: Conceptualizing mis-, disinformation and propaganda on TikTok. In L. Pérez Rastrilla, P. Sapag & A. Recio García (Hrsg.), Fast Politics. The Language of Politics. Springer. Mau, S., Lux, T., & Westheuser, L. (2023). Triggerpunkte: Konsens und Konflikt in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft. Warum Gendersternchen und Lastenfahrräder so viele Menschen triggern. Suhrkamp. Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024). Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(5), 735-748. mpfs (2023). miniKIM-Studie 2023. Kleinkinder und Medien. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. mpfs (2024). KIM-Studie 2024. Kindheit, Internet, Medien. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. mpfs (2025). JIM-Studie 2025. Jugend, Information, Medien. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). „The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity“. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275-4292. Nocetti, J. (2026). ‘Almighty giants’: assessing the rise of GAFAM as geopolitical actors. In The Elgar Companion to the Geopolitics of Digital Sovereignty (S. 27-35). Edward Elgar. OECD (2025). How‘s Life for Children in the Digital Age? OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-enVerfügbar unter: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/how-s-life-for-children-in-the-digital-age_0854b900-en.html [29.7.26] Perdana, A., & Bharathi, S. V. (2023). „Bytedance’s global rise: An example of strategic adaptability and digital innovation in a global context“. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 16(1). Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., Bledsoe, C., & Martinez, E. (2019). Critical thinking is critical: Octopuses, online sources, and reliability reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 73(1), 85-93. Schnabel, D., & Berendsen, E. (2024). „Das TikTok-Universum der (extremen) Rechten. Trends, Strategien und Ästhetik in der Social-Media-Kommunikation«. Bildungsstätte Anne Frank. 2024. Verfügbar unter: https://www.bs-anne-frank.de/ fileadmin/content/Publikationen/Weiteres_P%C3%A4dagogisches_Material/Das_TikTok_Universum_der_extremen_ Rechten_Report_RechteJugend_2.pdf [6.7.26] Saura García, C. (2024). Datafeudalism: The domination of modern societies by big tech companies. Philosophy & Technology, 37(3), 90. Simon, F. M. (2025). Rationalisation of the news: How AI reshapes and retools the gatekeeping processes of news organisations in the United Kingdom, United States and Germany. New Media & Society. Wedel, K., Freundl, V., Pfaehler, F., & Wöößmann, L. (2025). Zwischen Likes und Lernen: Was Jugendliche und Erwachsene über Social Media denken. Ergebnisse des ifo Bildungsbarometers 2025. Verfügbar unter: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/ sd-2025-09-wedel-etal-ifo-bildungsbarometer-2025.pdf [12.5.26] Wirtz, B. W. (2022). Soziale Medien und digitale Desinformation. In E-Government: Strategie–Organisation–Technologie (S. 271-319). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Yilmaz, I., Biluc, A., & Barnett, D. (2026). Populism in the age of social media: A systematic review of recent digital populism research. New Media & Society. E-Publikation vor der Druckausgabe (In Druck). https://doi. org/10.1177/14614448261420218 [6.7.26] Zick, A., Küpper, B., Mokros, N., Schröter, F., & Achour, S. (2023). Die distanzierte Mitte: rechtsextreme und demokratiegefährdende Einstellungen in Deutschland 2022/23. Dietz.

157

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

MEDIA LITERACY AS A KEY COMPETENCY? CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MAG. DR. DIMITRI PRANDNER – UNIVERSITÄT LINZ

The articles in this volume consistently demonstrate that media literacy is a central prerequisite for social and democratic participation. Promoting it therefore constitutes an essential infrastructure service of liberal democracies (Baacke, 1996; Grizzle et al., 2021; Hobbs, 2010). Ganguin and Gemkow succinctly summarize the associated challenge when they write that “the central challenge of the post-digital age lies not solely in the digitization of democratic processes, but in the democratization of digitality itself” (Ganguin & Gemkow, in this volume). Digital public spheres must not only be accessible but also designed in such a way that people can contextualize information and its sources, understand platform logic, comprehend journalistic practices, reflect on AI-generated content, and participate in the formation of public opinion (Gillespie, 2018; van Dijck et al., 2018). Public service media play a special role in this regard because they combine journalistic standards, an educational mandate, broad reach, and public responsibility (see Cimino, in this volume). Consequently, this gives rise to diverse yet interconnected tasks for public media such as the ORF, as well as for policymakers. In the short term, five concrete recommendations for action can be derived from this for the ORF. 1.

Short-Term Recommendations in the Context of Public Service Media and, in Particular, the ORF

1.1.

Consolidate existing offerings into a clearly identified hub:

The existing media literacy offerings, which are currently spread across e.g. bildung.orf.at and ORF ON, should be consolidated into a central hub and made more visible. This hub should include freely accessible educational materials, information on (continuing) education offerings, and editorial formats. 1.2.

Address target audiences based on attitudes and relevance:

Target audiences should not be defined primarily by age, gender, or formal education. These characteristics are too narrow, as even people with

158

M EDIA LITER AC Y

similar demographic backgrounds develop different media practices, interests, worldviews, and trust relationships. Offers should therefore focus more strongly on topics relevant to people’s everyday lives, information needs, and usage patterns (see the contributions by Götz and Prandner & Mayr in this volume). 1.3.

Systematically explain digitalization, and currently AI in particular:

ORF should (continue to) provide broad coverage of the societal challenges posed by digitalization. These include platform logic, algorithmic recommendation systems, disinformation, data protection, deepfakes, synthetic images, chatbots, and AI-generated content. These topics are challenging, heavily shaped by technological changes, and require not only broad media literacy but also AI literacy and algorithmic literacy (Cox, 2024; Tiernan et al., 2023). Accordingly, they should be regularly addressed in news, educational, children, and youth programming. 1.4.

Making journalistic work transparent:

ORF should clearly explain how sources are verified, topics are selected, reports are produced, errors are corrected, and AI tools are used. Reports, for example in “ZiB erklärt,” could address questions such as “How is a ZiB report created?” or “Why is ORF reporting on this topic?” This would make editorial decisions transparent to the audience. At the same time, such content could contribute to the development of well-founded trust (Bennett & Livingston, 2018; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017; see also Prandner & Mayr in this volume). 1.5.

Monitor and evaluate initiatives; foster sustainable cooperation:

Media literacy programs should be systematically documented, evaluated, and further developed based on feedback. In doing so, the focus should be less on the reach of the initiatives and more on their accessibility (e.g., in terms of accessibility and multilingualism), user experiences, and learning outcomes. Short surveys, usability tests, and audience feedback are suitable for this type of evaluation. In terms of content, such activities can be strengthened through ongoing collaboration with partners in the education and media sectors who address specific topics and take on tasks that cannot be handled—or can only be handled to a limited extent—within the ORF (see also the articles on the VRT’s EDUboxes and the hr’s CREA-

159

P U B L I C VA L U E S T U DY

TOR ROOM by Vereecke et al. and Grobshäuser et al., respectively, in this volume). These measures, which can be implemented in the short term, would provide an important foundation for strengthening media literacy; however, they must be supplemented by long-term organizational and infrastructural integration. 2.

Long-Term Structural Recommendations

2.1.

Embed media literacy as a cross-functional organizational priority:

Media literacy affects the entire organization. Accordingly, clear responsibilities, shared goals, and a long-term, organization-wide strategy are needed. Journalists and other staff should receive regular training on new technologies, platforms, forms of disinformation, fact-checking, and journalistic transparency. This not only strengthens employees’ media literacy and their ability to teach it, but also raises awareness that media literacy is understood not only as a skill of the audience but also as an institutional responsibility and an integral part of journalistic professionalism (see Cimino, Ganguin & Gemkow, as well as Prandner & Mayr in this volume). 2.2. Define and expand digital spaces oriented toward the common good: A presence on YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms is important for reaching diverse audience groups. At the same time, however, there is a need for digital spaces that prioritize orientation, context, transparency, and accessibility over maximum dwell time and algorithmic attention-grabbing and selection mechanisms. Services such as ORF ON, as well as ORF SOUND, could be used as starting points for building such spaces (for more on the underlying tension, see Cimino, Ganguin & Gemkow, as well as Prandner & Mayr in this volume). 2.3.

Integrating media literacy into various formats:

Media literacy should not be taught solely through news and educational programs. Disinformation, AI, platform pressure, and journalistic work can also be addressed in a realistic manner in series, podcasts, entertainment formats, and content for children and youth (see Götz; Grobshäuser et al., Prandner & Mayr, and Vereecke et al. in this volume).

160

M EDIA LITER AC Y

Political and Institutional Framework

However, implementing these recommendations would require a reliable political and legal framework as well as sustainable funding. This includes the continuous and collaborative development of at least a national media literacy strategy, the sustainable funding of media literacy measures, and politically independent evaluations of relevant initiatives. Such a strategy should extend beyond individual media genres and organizations, educational institutions and levels of education, and political spheres of responsibility, and should bring together public and private media, schools, colleges, adult education and academic institutions, as well as civil society organizations. This is particularly relevant because media literacy not only promotes the competent use of media but also constitutes a central prerequisite for social and democratic participation. Furthermore, a legal and regulatory framework would need to be established for the ORF that enables it to provide media literacy-related content and information services on its own digital platforms over the long term. Educational and orientation resources realize their full value not only at the time of their broadcast, but especially when they are permanently accessible, thematically organized, and reusable in various educational and usage contexts.

REFERENCES Baacke, D. (1996). Medienkompetenz – Begrifflichkeit und sozialer Wandel. In A. von Rein (Hrsg.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff (S. 112–124). Klinkhardt. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi. org/10.1177/0267323118760317 Cox, A. (2024). Algorithmic literacy, AI literacy and responsible generative AI literacy. Journal of Web Librarianship, 18(3), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2024.2395341 Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. Grizzle, A., Wilson, C., Tuazon, R., Cheung, C. K., Lau, J., Fischer, R., Gordon, D., Akyempong, K., Singh, J., Carr, P. R., Stewart, K., Tayie, S., Suraj, O., Jaakkola, M., Thésée, G., & Gulston, C. (2021). Media and information literate citizens: Think critically, click wisely! UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000377068 Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute. Tiernan, P., Costello, E., Donlon, E., Parysz, M., & Scriney, M. (2023). Information and media literacy in the age of AI: Options for the future. Education Sciences, 13(9), Article 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci13090906 van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disordertoward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html

161

TEXTE, DOKUMENTE UND STUDIEN ZUM ÖFFENTLICH-RECHTLICHEN QUALITÄTSDISKURS (U.A.):

PUBLIC VALUE STUDIE Die Rolle öffentlich-rechtlicher Medien im Internet

Public Social Value u. a. Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Sonja Kretzschmar (Universität München) Prof. Graham Murdock (Loughborough University) Univ.Prof. Dr. Jens Lucht, Univ.Prof. Dr. Mark Eisenegger (Universität Zürich)

Victor Mayer-Schönberger (Oxford University)

Die volkswirtschaftlichen Effekte des ORFFernsehens

Der Auftrag: Bildung im digitalen Zeitalter

Matthias Firgo, Oliver Fritz (WIFO), Gerhard Streicher (Joanneum Research)

Unterhaltung als öffentlich-rechtlicher Auftrag Gabriele Siegert, M. Bjorn von Rimscha, Christoph Sommer (Universität Zürich)

Der Auftrag: Demokratie

Public Network Value Thomas Steinmaurer, Corinna Wenzel (Universität Salzburg)

Wie willst du leben?

u. a. Prof. Dr. Hartmut Rosa, Universität Jena Dr.in Maren Beaufort, ÖAW Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Katharine Sarikakis, Universität Wien Prof. Dr. Bernhard Pörksen, Universität Tübingen

u. a. von Prof. Dr. Bernd Holznagel (Universität Münster) Univ.-Prof. Dr. Christian Fuchs (University of Westminster) Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephen Cushion (Cardiff University)

Ergebnisse der Ö3-Jugendstudie 2025

PUBLIC VALUE TEXTE Quelle vertrauenswürdiger Informationen

Public Value als Wertschöpfungsbegriff?

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dieter Segert, Texte 1

Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Matthias Karmasin, Texte 6

Medien-Unterhaltung als Service Public Univ.-Prof. em. Dr. Louis Bosshart, Texte 12

Das Naserümpfen der Eliten Mag.a Dr.in Karin Pühringer, Texte 11

Die komplexe Welt erklären Dir. Uwe Kammann, Texte 4

Kultur im Fernsehen Univ.-Prof. Dr. Hannes Haas, Texte 10

Nur was wirkt, hat Wert

Channelling diversity Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Gunilla Hultén, Texte 13

Crisis or dismantlement? Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Isabel Fernández-Alonso und Dr. Marc Espin, Texte 13

Den öffentlichen Rundfunk entfesseln Dr. Vinzenz Wyss, Texte 13

Eurovision and the „new” Europe

Dir. Prof. Dr. Helmut Scherer, Texte 5

Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Karen Fricker, Texte 14

Österreichwert oder mehr Wert

Pluralism and public service media

Dr. Georg Spitaler, Texte 11

Petros Iosifidis, Texte 13

Welche Diversität für welchen Public Value? Mag.a Dr.in Petra Herczeg, Texte 7

Populismus und Öffentlichkeit – Der Kampf um den guten Menschenverstand

Zum Systemrisiko der Demokratie

Gábor Polyák, Eötvös Lorand Universität Budapest, Texte 29

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Kurt Imhof, Texte 3

Zwischen Auftrag und Kommerzialisierung Univ.-Prof. Dr. Minas Dimitriou, Texte 11

Identität und Medien Univ.-Prof. Dr. Karl Vocelka, Texte 3

We are all Greeks Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Katharine Sarikakis, Texte 9

Auf dem Weg zum Publikum Dr. Florian Oberhuber, Texte 8

Public Value

Die Zukunft des Fernsehens

DDr.in Julia Wippersberg, Texte 2

Dr. Alexander Wrabetz, Texte 8

zukunft.ORF.at