From uniting nations to dividing feeds

As we celebrate television’s centenary, the screen that once united the world now reflects a fragmented, algorithm-driven society, writes Paul Budde.

WHEN John Logie Baird It transmitted the first recognizable television image (from the Logie Awards) in October 1925, ushering in a technology that would shape the next century more profoundly than radio, newspapers, and even the first Internet.

For decades, television has united societies. As it turns 100 today, it increasingly reflects our divisions. With the rise of AI-powered video, it’s not at all clear that the next century of “television” will strengthen rather than undermine democracy.

An environment once united

The early years of television were defined by public trust. in Australia, Arrival of ABC in 1956 It created a national focal point in a rapidly modernizing country. The news anchors were authoritarian. Election nights represented common civic rituals. Even commercial channels helped create cultural references that gave Australians a shared sense of identity.

Television was not perfect, but it was a democratic medium at its best.

This consensus did not survive the digital revolution. Cable and satellite fragmented mass audiences, but it was broadband broadcasting that completely disrupted the monoculture. Netflix’s international expansion in 2010 It marked the transition from a shared public space to a world of personalized entertainment. Instead of a nation united around a single publication, we now live in separate algorithmic bubbles where no two households receive the same cultural nourishment.

Young people may never again experience the collective shock of big breaking news or the communal joy of a grand final watched in real time across the country.

The result is a slight but measurable loss in cultural fit. Television once enhanced public understanding; today it competes with a stream of unedited online video where facts, fiction and political manipulation blur. Traditional publishing still inspires trust, but its influence is weakening in a sea of hyper-personalized feeds designed to get users to click, not to inform communities.

The rise of AI-driven television

Artificial intelligence is accelerating this change. A. latest ITU article Celebrating the centennial of television scores, which show that AI now excels at cataloging content, personalizing guides, and creating accessibility tools like automatic captioning and sign language avatars, prompted me to write this article.

I see these as really important advances, especially for the aging population and people with disabilities. But the same technologies also power deepfakes, synthetic news readers, and political persuasion engines. now artificial intelligence actors create and (adult) movies are already produced using artificial intelligence. This will pave the way for other films, mini-series and different forms of content.

Moreover, AI enables micro-targeted propaganda, algorithmically tailored misinformation, and the erosion of ground truth.

This isn’t science fiction anymore. In many countries, synthetic political videos They already circulate with minimal transparency. Artificial intelligence-generated comments, doctored images and fake live broadcasts are becoming easier to produce and harder to detect.

Unlike previous forms of media manipulation, AI videos can be created at scale in real time and delivered directly to personalized media feeds without any editorial oversight. If the last century of television taught us the importance of public trust, the next century is shaping up to test whether trust can survive.

The future of a fragmented environment

Meanwhile, the technical form of television is also undergoing its own transformation. such as hybrid systems Brazil’s TV 3.0 And ATSC 3.0 standard In the United States, it combines broadcasts with broadband on the same device. Japan’s NHK is experimenting with sign language created by real-time artificial intelligence. european trials Local IP Broadcast We are investigating completely internet-based public channels.

These innovations promise flexibility and inclusivity, but also reinforce the shift from universally delivered broadcasts to individually shaped experiences. When every viewer gets a customized version of the same program, what happens to the common narrative that once held societies together?

Australia faces this dilemma acutely. While our traditional broadcast networks remain strong, they coexist with global platforms whose algorithms are optimized for engagement, not democratic health. A century ago, television was a social tool; is now a controversial issue.

The war for attention is also a war for truth, and the platforms pushing video to our screens are becoming increasingly transparent about how decisions are made.

holding on to what’s important

The first century of television was a story of connection. It informed, entertained, and held democracies together by offering a common worldview at critical moments. The second century risks becoming a story of fragmentation unless governments, regulators and citizens confront the forces reshaping the media.

The problem is not just technological. How to ensure a resilient public sphere is political and cultural, as personalized media constantly distance us from each other.

But television still gives hope. In times of crisis, people still turn to livestreams for clarity. Public broadcasters continue to play an important role in maintaining democratic accountability. Accessibility technologies promise to expand participation, not narrow it. And people’s fundamental need for shared stories remains unchanged.

Television being at 100 is both an engineering triumph and a warning about the future. If we want to remain a democratic force rather than an algorithmic battleground, we must treat media integrity as a public good. Otherwise, the curtain that binds societies together may turn into a tool that tears them apart beyond repair.

Paul Budde IA is a columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy. Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.