Perhaps the Dutch tradition of ‘poldering’ has not disappeared because we increasingly disagree, but because fewer and fewer institutions still feel responsible for the space between those differences. Whilst the media are, understandably, taking a more distinct stance and technology is organising information in an increasingly personalised way, the cultural sector, in particular, could once again become the place where different realities meet.
Much has been written in recent years about polarisation: about social media amplifying divisions, about algorithms reinforcing people’s existing beliefs, and about a political debate in which nuance seems to be finding it increasingly difficult to survive. That analysis is not incorrect, but perhaps it is focusing on the wrong problem. Democracy needs differences of opinion. A far more fundamental question is who still feels responsible for the space in which all these different perspectives can come together.
Public spaces under pressure
That question was also a key focus during Media for Democracy 2026, where editors-in-chief, directors, regulators, academics and policymakers took stock of the Dutch media landscape. Strikingly, the discussion barely touched on the production of more journalism. The underlying concern was how a society can maintain a shared public space when, quite logically, every organisation is increasingly defining its own distinct identity. The International Benchmark 2026, which then compared that day’s findings with eight international news markets, confirmed this picture. The Netherlands still ranks among the world’s best in terms of press freedom and trust, but it is precisely in strong information societies that a different challenge is emerging: the question of how all these separate perspectives can remain connected.
We are also seeing this trend within the Dutch media. The recent changes at the top of the NPO, which have seen several central directors and some of their teams leave, are perhaps the most visible example of this. Behind this administrative reorganisation, a broader trend is emerging in which the central organisation is increasingly developing into a facilitator for individual broadcasters, whilst those same broadcasters are further refining their own identities. From an organisational perspective, this is understandable. Broadcasters need members, public legitimacy and a recognisable profile in a media landscape where attention has become scarce.
Diversity does not necessarily mean connection
Yet it is precisely here that a fundamental paradox lies. The public broadcasting system was built on the idea that different social movements could have their own voice without losing sight of the collective dialogue. Pluralism was never an end in itself. It was the means by which citizens could gain insight into the same society from different perspectives. As individual broadcasters understandably distinguish themselves more clearly from one another, the question arises as to who still feels a sense of ownership over the whole.
Moreover, this trend is not confined to public service broadcasting. Commercial journalism is also moving in the same direction. Major media groups such as Mediahuis and DPG Media are building their strategies around portfolios of high-profile titles, each with its own target audience, tone and editorial identity. This makes perfect economic sense. A distinct profile increases loyalty, strengthens competitive position and makes distribution more efficient. But what makes sense for an individual title is not automatically good for the public sphere as a whole. As every newspaper, every platform and every brand becomes increasingly adept at serving its own audience, the same question arises, almost unnoticed: where do all these different audiences still meet?
Technology is driving this trend. Algorithms are optimised for engagement. Artificial intelligence makes it possible to tailor information in an increasingly personalised way. Digital platforms reward distinctiveness and recognisability. As a result, every organisation is almost inevitably forced to further refine its own profile. This results in better products for specific target groups, but not necessarily a society in which citizens understand one another better.
The missing link
That is precisely why the key conclusion from the International Benchmark 2026 is so interesting. The crucial question is no longer about access to information, but whether people still encounter enough verified, original and sufficiently diverse perspectives to be able to collectively give meaning to society. That is a challenge which journalism alone cannot solve. Journalism can bring perspectives to light; it cannot, on its own, organise the space in which those perspectives continue to meet.
The research by Sanne Vrijenhoek The concept of normative diversity ties in seamlessly with this. It demonstrates that diversity is not a technical feature of an algorithm, but a democratic choice made by a news organisation. Different organisations are free to prioritise different ideals and serve different audiences. It is precisely this that gives rise to a pluralistic media landscape. However, diversity and connection are two distinct social imperatives. A rich array of perspectives does not automatically create cohesion. On the contrary, as organisations become increasingly specialised, there is a growing need for institutions that make visible how those perspectives relate to one another.
A new mission for culture
Perhaps this presents a new social mandate for the cultural sector. Not because culture should replace journalism, but because it possesses something that is becoming increasingly scarce elsewhere. Whilst journalism is compelled to focus on current affairs and technology on efficiency, culture offers context. Museums, theatres, libraries, festivals and exhibition venues still bring people together around stories that cannot be reduced to a single viewpoint or a single truth. They facilitate encounters without forcing consensus.
It is precisely at a time when artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly adept at combining sources and producing synthesis that this quality is becoming more important. Technology can bring information together. It cannot create a shared experience. Ultimately, understanding does not arise from the technical merging of information, but from people’s willingness to engage with perspectives that are not their own. That requires imagination, context and room for doubt. That is precisely where the power of culture lies.
Perhaps, therefore, we should not judge cultural institutions solely on the basis of visitor numbers or audience reach, but also on their ability to bring different realities into contact with one another. Not by glossing over differences or engineering consensus, but by creating a public space in which people can engage with one another’s perspectives.
That, incidentally, also places demands on the sector itself. Cultural institutions, too, are increasingly being challenged to position themselves clearly, to serve specific target groups and to make use of digital tools to do so. The logic of profiling applies here as well. That is precisely why it is important for the sector not to lose sight of its broader public mandate. If every institution serves only its own community, the very same unifying function – which is already under pressure elsewhere – will ultimately disappear.
Perhaps that is the most important lesson to be learnt from both ‘Media for Democracy 2026’ and the ‘International Benchmark 2026’. The challenge for the coming years is not how to organise even more perspectives. These already exist and will continue to emerge. The challenge is how to ensure that these perspectives continue to engage with one another. It is precisely in this regard that the cultural sector could once again become the Dutch ‘polder’.
Nederlands 
English (UK) 
Français 