In 1960 the unified INR-NIR was split into two sections: the Flemish BRT (Belgische Radio en Televisie), later renamed VRT (Vlaamse Radio en Televisie), and the Francophone RTB (Radiodiffusion-Télévision Belge), later renamed RTBf. However, instead of giving each sociopolitical pillar its own channel (as was done in the Netherlands), the decision was made to create a system of so-called “internal plurality.” Belgian public broadcasting was supposed to provide for a proportionate representation of all political and philosophical opinions within one institute. Within such a setting the influence exerted by the political powers remained high. Political control was maintained as all top functions were prearranged and allocated, while the other jobs were also more accessible for party members or for people who had party support. This Belgian custom of preferring party loyalty over the qualities needed to do a job well is called politicization. While this system is gradually disappearing, it is not yet completely dispensed with. In critical moments, for instance on the eve of elections, most media still show their partisan colors.

Belgium can moreover be described as a country that is gradually evolving to a federalized structure. Simplifying Belgium’s complicated structure, one could say that there are two main linguistic groups: a Flemish/Dutch-speaking majority (about 60 percent of the population) and a Walloon/French-speaking minority (about 40 percent of the population). The so-called “regionalization” Law of February 2, 1977, not only reinforced the differences between these “language” communities, but also complicated the Belgian media policy. The control of broadcasting, for instance, is in the hands of the Flemish and Walloon Ministers of culture or the media, who are part of the regional governments, while technical issues remain national matters. The two communities have also grown apart in the field of media policy. In part this results from their different political structures: in the Walloon region predominantly socialist and humanistic, in Flanders predominantly liberal-conservative and Catholic. The media policies also differ, however, because of external factors; for instance, the influence of the commercial Luxembourg-based TV station RTL on French-speaking Belgium forces the RTBf to different policy options than the Flemish stations. Therefore, one cannot speak of Belgian media, except with reference to the official law gazette (Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge) and the national press agency Belga. All major newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations are either Flemish/Dutch or Walloon/Francophone, though some media in one community have links with media in the other linguistic community. Some media also cater to the other language communities living and working in Belgium.

As a consequence, the Francophone and Flemish television programs show a different visual culture. The presentation of the news broadcasts is different, as are entertainment programs, shows, and comedies. The distinction is even obvious in commercials. Moreover, the two linguistic communities have little interest in one another’s television programs. Flemish people hardly ever watch the Francophone RTBf or RTL-TVi, while Walloons watch the Flemish VRT or VTM even less. The ratings clearly show that viewing habits are predominantly linked with culture and language.

Furthermore, Belgium is the most densely cabled country in the world (94 percent of all households are connected to a cable network). In the beginning the cable companies only distributed the national programs, but very soon the programs of foreign television stations were also distributed. Therefore, the factual monopoly of the public broadcasters was indirectly undermined by the cable networks, which offered an increasing number of television stations (at least 25, often more than 50 channels). RTBf was losing viewers to RTL and the French channels, BRT to the Netherlands and to a certain degree to UK and international channels.

The major part of the Flemish population predominantly watches Dutch-language programs (including those of The Netherlands), with the BBC producing the second-most-watched programming. The Walloons almost exclusively tune in on the RTBf and other Francophone channels (including those of Luxembourg and France). Exception has to be made for popular sport programs, especially soccer, and to lesser degree for films. In those cases the more educated segments of the population also look beyond the language borders.

Another noteworthy shift, which took place in most European countries during the 1980s and 1990s, was of a commercial nature. Deregulation, commercialization, internationalization, privatization, and commodification changed the face of broadcasting (a “boom” of new channels and program genres and a crisis within the public broadcasting sector) but not its fundamental existing practices. In other words, this shift has to be seen in connection with the already mentioned politicization of the Belgian society. Politics have always been prominently present in the discussion on television, and the establishment of commercial television in Flanders was not the result of strictly economic but rather political pressure.

Already in the 1960s, public broadcasting was seen as vulnerable when traditional parties complained about the supposed lack of objectivity of the news on the public broadcasting corporation BRT. While extensive research showed little or no systematic distortion, politicians emphatically tried to meddle with the contents of media products. Gradually a direct censorship of broadcasting was replaced by more subtle forms of influencing and self-censorship.

The undermining of the public broadcasting monopoly was first begun by illegal local radio stations (“radio pirates”), which emerged in the late 1970s. In September 1981 these radio stations were legalized in Wallonia, and in May 1982 the same happened in Flanders. Advertising remained illegal at first, but under political and commercial pressure, the ban on radio advertising was lifted in December 1985.

In 1981 the coalition agreement between the Christian-democrats and conservative-liberals proposed a commercial television channel that would be placed in the hands of the press. The Flemish business world was reluctant about the proposal, which was initially met with extremely negative reactions from advertising companies and advertisers as well as from press companies. The first group preferred commercials on the BRT to a commercial channel that still had to be established. They argued that the BRT already reached the viewing public and that a new channel would not only be confronted with growing pains but would also have to compete with foreign channels. The press was divided. They were afraid that a commercial channel would drain away even more money from the press sector. They demanded guarantees from the government: a majority share of control for the Flemish publishers and an advertising monopoly for the commercial station VTM (Vlaamse TV Maatschappij).

Notwithstanding the fact that the European Commission objected to the Flemish broadcasting decree because of its advertising monopoly, the obligated majority participation of the press, and the obligated share of Flemish productions, the commercial station VTM started broadcasting on February 1, 1989. Contrary to all expectations, it was a success from the start.

In 1997 the government finally accepted the objections by the European Commission and promised to adapt its legislation. As a result VT4, a Britain-based affiliate of the American-Scandinavian media group SBS that transmits its Dutch-language programs through the Flemish cable network, had to become “Flemish.”

The immense success of VTM forced the public broadcaster to reinvent itself, a process that took many years and put public television through a number of crises. Gradually, it regained most of the market share it lost to the commercial stations. Today the two public television channels seem to have a stable and even slightly growing audience share, even though they are now facing many commercial channels. Three of those channels belong to the Flemish VTM; another is VT4. Ten local commercial television stations, a handful of specialized channels (business, life style, travel, and music) and a few commercial radio networks complete the picture.

Consequently, channel proliferation has also led to viewer diversification and segmentation. The competition for highly specialized audience segments is becoming very sophisticated. As a result, market strategies have taken over the programming of most channels, including the public service providers. The situation in Wallonia is similar. Two public channels, two main private channels, and about a dozen local stations are competing on the television market. A particular feature of that market is the presence of French stations.

The newest digital “revolution,” by which television converges with computer functions and multimedia features, may change broadcasting itself. An interactive, multi-usable medium will replace one-way television and promises users the ability to communicate with each other, companies, and governments. Television won’t just be for watching anymore, but it will also become a tool for shopping, working, and maybe even voting. Still, many legal, technological, financial, and content-related questions need to be answered, making any precise prediction about the future highly speculative.

With no clear view of who is authorized to lay down a digital policy, no legal framework concerning digital broadcasting and hardly any public debate about the issue, digital broadcasting in Belgium is somewhat of a non-event. So far, the VRT offers one digital audio package (using the DAB Eureka147-standard) with seven radio stations: the five national stations, the international service, and a brand new, digital-only channel called DAB Klassiek (round-the-clock classical music). Since almost no one in Flanders has a digital receiver yet, this is no more than an experiment.

Belgium faces its own kind of digital divide: one between Flanders and Wallonia. Indicators show that computer and Internet use in Flanders is more established than in Wallonia. Within each region the digital divide is threefold: an age gap, a gender gap, and an education gap. In short, older people, women, and less-educated people are lagging behind. The Flemish government, as part of its digital policies, has awarded the VRT the role of “bridge builder” to correct the digital divide. Therefore, the VRT is seen as a major player and ally in the Flemish government’s plan to take the region into the digital future.

In sum, culture and media policies have never received priority treatment by the Belgian lawmakers. Many media laws have only confirmed situations that were already in existence. In other words, Belgium has followed a media policy of laissez-faire. Therefore, many media laws are ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. In recent years media policies have been strongly oriented toward deregulation and liberalization of the TV market: new private initiatives have been supported such as commercial radio, pay television, and new commercial television networks.

No measures have been taken against the increasing concentration of the media. International and national business interests get an increasing grip on the Belgian media landscape. The government policy is regularly dictated by economic and financial interests. That is why the government is often confronted with faits accomplish. As a result, Belgium is drifting toward a commercially dictated political and media reality.