This distrust of the State, like trust in market mechanisms, was not felt everywhere, however. In other countries, the State model developed in response to an interventionist concept of the role of broadcasting. Although the State could have exercised some control over private broadcasting, it was decided most often to entrust broadcasting to direct government responsibility. This centralized and monopolistic model of broadcasting rested on the notion that the State is justified in using the media for its own purpose. The State, in this context, was seen as the guarantor of public interest-an interest that the State itself defined.

The public-service model, while it stems from the vision some had for radio, was also based on mistrust: mistrust of the ability of market mechanisms to fulfill certain goals, and mistrust of the State's ability to achieve the same objectives, generally grouped under the broad expectations that still apply to public broadcasting today, that is, to inform, educate, and entertain. This vision of the role and importance of public broadcasting required a public organization, at the service of citizens, culture and democracy.

Some countries rejected the notion that public interest, in broadcasting, could be served by the interests of private entrepreneurs primarily looking for profit. At the same time, however, people were suspicious of the State in these countries. Because of broadcasting's social, cultural and political potential, it was felt that direct State involvement in a field related by and large to thought and expression was not desirable. This is generally the least obvious distinction between public and State broadcasting when the different models are compared. A basic notion reflecting this difference is well known in Great Britain, namely the "arm's-length" relationship between the State and the public broadcaster. Rather than putting broadcasting directly under State authority, it was decided to entrust it to an organization that would act in the public interest and enjoy sufficient independence to prevent political or bureaucratic interference.

The public-service model, then, was based on the idea that neither the market nor the State could adequately meet the public-service objectives of broadcasting and act in the public interest; indeed, it was felt that the public interest does not coincide either with private interests or the interests of the political powers that be.

These three models, developed in the early years of radio, carried on into the television era-with varying degrees of success. The commercial model has become dominant, while since the 1990s the State model has been losing ground. Public-service broadcasting, for its part, while faced with an increasingly commercial environment, is staying afloat. It remains widespread and the solution preferred by those concerned about the limits of commercial broadcasting.