However, the recognition that freedom of expression protects the right to access the media does not necessarily mean recognition of the state's positive obligation to conduct public broadcasting. The question of whether such an obligation exists was at the center of the discussion on the matter The Public Broadcasting Corporation. This petition revolved around an amendment to the law that sought to split the news division from the Public Broadcasting Corporation and establish a separate news corporation in its place. Ultimately, following late legislation that canceled the main points of the amendment (against the background of the need to allow the Eurovision Song Contest to take place in Israel) - the need to decide on the question of the constitutionality of the amendment, and with it the question of the existence of a constitutional obligation to conduct public broadcasting, became superfluous. However, in the framework of the judgment, some of the judges on the panel expressed, more than necessary, their positions on this matter:
On the one hand, the vice president H. Melcer He emphasized the importance of professional, reliable, and independent public broadcasting as a means of ensuring the diversity of the market of opinions. According to him, although there is no dispute about the great importance of private media channels and their central role in any democratic society, given that these channels operate, by their very nature, for the purpose of generating profits, there is concern that commercial considerations, and sometimes even personal interests of the channel owners, will influence the content presented in them. On the other hand, the assumption underlying the public broadcasting institution is that a media organization that is independent of advertising revenues or the considerations of controlling shareholders, and is subject to public control mechanisms whose purpose is to ensure its professional independence, is capable of conducting a more critical, balanced and diverse discourse, free of considerations that are alien to the public interest (Name, in paragraphs 35-36 of his judgment; See also paragraph 8 of the judge's opinion M. Mazuz).