22%. That is the amount of Greeks who trust their media ecosystem according to data recently compiled by statista comparing 40 different countries, representing a broad range of economic and democratic progression. This figure alone is damning, not only because it means Greece shares its spot with the self-described “illiberal democracy” of Hungary, but also because that also happens to be the bottom spot. What is also damning is the fact that almost all stripes of democratic and economic development seem affected by the global disenfranchisement with news media, with Spain, France, the US, and Britain all scoring less than 35%. The reasons for this are myriad and well documented, but in essence boil down to our world’s inability to produce a news source which scores well on all core building blocks of a healthy news ecosystem; those being mass appeal, neutrality, quality, and incorruptibility.

To most, private sector established media sources are rife with potent emotion, malinformation, and partisan bias; with each carving out their own segment of the isle to treat as their loyal and manipulable base. These perceived attributes naturally disqualify the large media companies they are meant to describe from competing in the vital categories of neutrality, quality, and incorruptibility, a problem which is only supercharged by their performance in mass appeal and ability to shape public discourse.

This view of private media however is incomplete. Barring the fact that it ignores attempts at self-moderation by the private sector in the way of fact-checking units, ombudsmen, or editorial codes, it is the nature of the free market to provide alternatives. The caveat however is that none of these alternatives have successfully competed in all four laid out categories. High cost and quality subscription based newspapers such as the Financial Times, or The Economist, independent fact checkers, and even large media companies attempting to push reform, have all failed in the department of mass appeal for one reason or another, thus failing to challenge the popular perception of private news as a machine of low brow politically charged content.

To some, the answer comes in the face of public media, such as that of the world renowned BBC. This is of course with good reason, as the global north has found great success in its model of state funded independent news sources, with the likes of the BBC, ABC, NHK, and France 24 scoring highly in both their home markets and abroad. Yet even public media broadcasters have a well known weakness- the quality of their governments. While a small cohort of developed nations may have healthy state-affiliated broadcasters with a global reach, the countries in most dire need of a healthy media ecosystem, those being corrupt, unstable, kleptocratic, and illiberal democracies and authoritarian states, are all the least likely to have trustworthy public broadcasters.

Originally groundbreaking, one innovation that, in its onset, promised to break with the other two and revolutionise information was that of the news influencer/commentator. Their independence and passion were supposed to catapult them into becoming saviors of the media landscape, yet as most of us know by now, the nature of the algorithm is such that not only did it first drown out rational voices and pushed them to the niche in favor of the unpolished and unsophisticated, but later also corrupted its new class of demagogue through fame, influence, and the very same profit incentive which makes private platforms so problematic.

Seeing how embedded the problems are at the core of each modern source, questions arise.  How are we to navigate the great political challenges of our newly turbulent age if the very foundations of how our voterbases perceive reality are so critically flawed? How can we create a new globally applicable news source that combines the mass appeal of online influencers, the factuality and neutrality of subscription based newspapers, while also being simultaneously insulated from government pressure? The answer, odd as it may seem at first glance, is the British university.

The first factor supporting this case is, perhaps surprisingly, that of the profit incentive itself, as by its nature the higher education industry tends to laser focus on creating a positive societal association between it and the cutting edge of political and economic affairs. To put it in clearer terms, as a result of the desperate need for each institution to attract and keep the best students, staff, and research funding available in order to compete and surpass one another, schools would be incentivised to put out the most high quality and most broadly liked content, while also thinking twice before stepping into partisan, overly ideological, or frivolous takes.

These institutions’ accumulation and maintenance of intellectual capital wouldn’t just be their greatest moderating factor, they would also be the greatest guarantors of quality, as their ability to attract and produce heavyweight student, academic, public, and private sector talent would translate into explanations and interpretations of world events of greater precision than that of the television and amature commentators which dominate the media landscape ever could, and thus deepening the viewer’s (usually surface level) understanding of current affairs.

Far from a simple act of charity however, these news channels have the potential to be a great machine of reputation building for staff, students, and indeed each partaking institution as a whole. By making it an online platform (through a website, YouTube, or even short form content channel) each university would become a magnet for students and staff seeking to promote their innovative ideas and theories onto the wider media sphere, this all while it would be enabled to expand into new regions where it has yet to become a household name, and the health of local media infrastructure is not up to par with that of the English speaking world. This allows them to break the toxic media oligopolies endemic to endangered and fledgling democracies, making even greater strides in breaking the low media freedom of the global south.

If that all wasn’t enough, UK higher education institutions are also uniquely insulated from government interference when compared to their peers in quality, as unlike other globally leading universities, they do not rely on the state for their finances. This diversification from government funds is to the point where in some cases they aren’t even worth mentioning in financial reports. This is compounded by the reality that the British government itself has a history of supporting free yet dependent media (through the BBC), and would also be wary of damaging the credibility of a 265 billion pound a year industry which stands at the heart of Britain’s international footprint. This is especially the case in a time when the country’s soft power and economic performance are faltering.

In closing, the factors listed above could make for an accessible, difficult to corrupt, and neutral news platform. Should they fail however, the uncomfortable question remains; as this decade shapes up to be one of great tests for democracy, if universities can’t intervene to salvage the fourth estate, who will?

This op-ed is part of To BHMA International Edition’s NextGen Corner, a platform for fresh voices on the defining issues of our time.

*Orpheas Afridi is a member of ELIAMEP’s EU Youth Hub, and is a British-Greek university student passionate about European, African, and global affairs in an unstable world.