Strategy ’26-’30: a new course
There are periods when the contours of the familiar slowly fade away, without the new being visible yet. Historians have a word for this: interregnum. An interim period. We are living right in the middle of it.
These are years in which old certainties are losing their taken-for-granted nature. The institutions that provided stability for decades—from parliaments to newspapers, from public broadcasters to courts—are under pressure. Not because they no longer function, but because the world in which they operate has fundamentally changed. Because, as a society, we are still searching for the language, the structures, and the imagination to deal with this.
The InvisibleLoss
Digital transformation is often discussed in terms of progress: faster, smarter, greater reach. And rightly so—the benefits are real. But just as it took decades after the Industrial Revolution for us to recognize its side effects—such as child labor, environmental damage, and urban poverty—we are only now slowly beginning to see the unforeseen cost of digitization.
The internet changes everything it touches. It changes how we communicate and share information, how we connect, build trust, and make decisions. It has transformed our public sphere into an arena of attention, driven by algorithms designed not to inform, but to keep us hooked. What grabs our attention trumps what’s true.
The consequences are insidious but far-reaching. A sense of community is eroding. Trust in shared facts is declining. The boundaries between journalism and entertainment, between fact and fiction, and between news and opinion are systematically blurring. Now that generative AI is making its debut, every citizen is potentially an audience of one: trapped in a reality that is tailor-made but has not been verified by anyone.
The lifeline under pressure
The media are the lifeblood of a democracy. Reliable journalism questions those in power, makes societal issues visible, and enables citizens to inform themselves and exchange views with one another. Without this function, democratic opinion formation is impossible.
The Netherlands still has a strong and diverse media landscape. According to the National Voter Survey, the majority of Dutch people consult four different online news sources each month. That is not a given, and it requires maintenance.
Because the pressure is mounting. More than 80 percent of digital advertising spending in the Netherlands goes to a handful of international tech companies: Alphabet, Meta, and TikTok. These companies take no responsibility for the quality of their information and are hardly held accountable for the effects of their actions. And this is happening even as they play an increasingly large role in providing information to Dutch citizens.
National media companies are thus operating in a playing field that structurally works against them: they depend on platforms for visibility, but lose their revenue to those same platforms. Whether that means the traditional media company will disappear entirely within a few years remains to be seen. But it’s clear which direction things are heading.
The question that arises is more fundamental than a purely business-related one. It’s not just about the survival of media companies; it’s also about what kind of digital infrastructure will ultimately shape our public sphere: algorithms from tech giants over which no one has any control, or a media landscape grounded in democratic values.
More Than Just Journalism
In discussions about the role of the media in democracy, the emphasis is often placed on journalism. This is understandable, since journalism is the most visible link. But “media for democracy” is a broader concept. Documentaries, podcasts, cultural media, literary magazines, and local broadcasters: they all shed light on social issues in diverse ways and make them open to discussion. They resonate with the lived experiences of a broad audience and contribute to an informed society.
That is precisely why the increasing pressure on Dutch public broadcasting is so concerning. Budget cuts and internal conflicts of interest are making it vulnerable. They limit the scope for vision, innovation, and experimentation—precisely the qualities needed to maintain relevance and public trust.
At the same time, the entire sector must ask itself some difficult questions. How does journalism still distinguish itself from other forms of content, now that information is available everywhere? What is its specific added value? How does it remain relevant, reliable, and visible to a broad audience? The days when “if it’s in the newspaper, it must be true” was the rule are long behind us.
Democracy as an Independent Project
Thisinterim period is not limited to the media landscape. Liberal democracy, which has been the ideological foundation of the West since World War II, is also losing its persuasive power.
Not because its principles are no longer sound. Human dignity, universal rights, individual fulfillment, democratic decision-making: these are values worth protecting. But democracy is grappling with internal contradictions and vulnerabilities. It has been put to the test by financial crises, the climate crisis, the pandemic, and shifting geopolitical dynamics. And it is increasingly sending defenders into the fray who are primarily focused on preserving the status quo, rather than envisioning a future that inspires.
That’s a problem: malicious, undemocratic parties understand the new media reality better than many democrats. They know how the attention economy works, and strategically use (mis)information to sow confusion, divide people, and undermine trust. The response from democratic leaders to this is often conservative and technocratic—a message that barely resonates with citizens.
The real danger is that the democratic project will wither away into a defensive stance, while autocratic leaders monopolize the public imagination. That danger need not become a reality, but it will require a different approach. Not defending what was, but articulating what could be. Democratic renewal as an active project, not as a nostalgic longing.
How can citizens regain confidence in a free, democratic future? How do we promote democratic values in a way that is appropriate for the digital age? How can citizens have a greater say in the democratic process? These are the questions that must be answered now. Because citizens will have to claim our democracy for themselves; it does not belong solely to administrators and politicians.
The question of who will take this on
There are other groups addressing these issues. Scientists and journalists, activists, professional organizations and regulatory agencies, think tanks and government ministries—each drawing on its own expertise and pursuing its own interests.
So the question isn’t whether someone will take this on. The question is who will bring these parties together—in an independent way, without self-interest, without shareholders, and with enough clout to stand firm where others must bow.
The Democracy and Media Foundation is in a unique position to fulfill that role, as an active force at the center of the playing field. Rooted in the history of the underground resistance newspaper *Het Parool* and equipped with the independence and financial resources that enable it to take decisive action. With a broad network in media, journalism, government, and research institutions.
From fund to driving force
That is not a position that can be taken for granted. It is a choice—and one that marks a significant development. Since its founding in 1944, SDM has been undergoing a transition: from a nonprofit media owner, through a shareholder and grant-making fund, to an organization that is increasingly taking the initiative, setting the agenda, and facilitating change.
In the coming years, SDM will take the next step in this development. It will no longer be primarily a fund that provides financial support for others’ initiatives—although it will continue to do so where necessary—but rather an authoritative organization with a clear substantive focus on the interplay between media and democracy. An organization that stimulates collective thinking about the democracy of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. One that creates space for reflection and fuels conversations with relevant, innovative insights.
Specifically, SDM focuses on three levels. First: The rules governing a robust media infrastructure—in terms of policy, law, and technology—must align with today’s digital reality. Second: a self-assured and resilient media sector capable of reinventing itself. This is not just about protection, but also about transformation. Third: stimulating and innovative content that nourishes public discourse on the future of liberal democracy.
Activities
That ambition translates into four core activities. First: protection . Our independent and pluralistic media are a great asset. Just like our democracy and the rule of law. But it is not a given that they will remain so. We safeguard a pluralistic media landscape that serves the democratic rule of law. We protect journalistic independence against commercial and political influences. We take action against totalitarian tendencies that undermine democracy. In any form whatsoever.
Second: research. In our research, we focus on the well-informed citizen as a prerequisite for a strong democracy. We commission independent research on the relationship between media and democracy. We are a hub where knowledge about media and democracy converges. This helps inform policy and debates with new, fact-based insights.
Third: innovation. The current technological era poses new challenges not only for the media, but also for the democratic rule of law itself. How do we relate to AI, social media, and the power of big tech companies? We take a stand on these issues—as a dialogue partner, as a voice, and as a driver of innovation. Not only in the way the media operates, but also in the way democracy functions. We encourage reflection on the democracy of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
And fourth: bringing people together. We need each other to ensure strong media and a stable democracy. We organize events, develop programs, and connect networks. In this way, as an independent actor, we facilitate essential conversations and encounters, and we inspire people to think and take action.
Protection alone is no longer enough
This interim period is uncomfortable. It forces us to make choices that can no longer wait, even as the outcomes remain uncertain. But periods of transition are also moments of radical renewal. In times of uncertainty, a unique opportunity unfolds to rethink and reshape our frameworks of thought.
SDM has chosen to seize that opportunity—not out of alarmism, but out of a conviction that democracy and a free press must be actively protected, and out of the realization that protection alone is not enough. We must also build: new solutions, new connections, and new forms of public discourse.
This will enable Dutch citizens to exercise their democratic citizenship based on shared facts and a public debate that truly serves them. That is what we are working toward with everyone who shares that interest.
Because a democratic rule of law and free media can never be taken for granted.
