Country Reports
Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s prolonged political instability, combined with entrenched corruption and significant levels of media concentration, present major challenges to securing an independent and pluralistic media landscape.
This report explores the opportunities and challenges posed by the EMFA for improving Bulgaria’s media environment, including strengthening regulatory independence and public service media governance, increasing ownership transparency, strengthening safeguards for media pluralism and guaranteeing the fair distribution of state funds.
This report was written by Boryana Dzhambazova, freelance journalist and media expert. Nelly Ognyanova, media observer and a professor of media law at Sofia University in Bulgaria, reviewed the recommendations section of this report for consultation.
The report is available here.
Greece
In Greece, private media ownership is heavily concentrated among wealthy families and shipowners, often with political ties to the New Democracy party. This has led to a media landscape where, despite a large number of outlets, genuine pluralism and diverse perspectives are notably lacking.
Public media, on the other hand, faces persistent challenges from political and economic pressures, including a lack of protections against political influence. Government interference, censorship, and the routine replacement of executives with each change in administration undermine its independence and stability.
This report was prepared by Danai Maragoudaki of the media outlet Solomon in Greece.
The report is available here.
Slovakia
Slovakia’s public broadcasting history is marked by frequent political capture, and in fact the current situation represents the most aggressive interference since the era of authoritarian, proto-illiberal Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar in the 1990s.
Consequently, the country’s small media market remains highly susceptible to oligarchic control. Wealthy or politically connected entities dominate most TV networks, with persistent challenges at TV Markíza. The oligarchic group Penta controls a sizable portion of the press market, frequently supporting the government’s narratives. Nevertheless, many popular independent print and digital outlets continue to offer diverse news and information sources.
This report was prepared by Peter Hanak, journalist, researcher and university teacher.
Hungary
Hungary has long been the model of media capture in the European Union using the tools of the state to turn public media into government propaganda, to ensure political control of the media regulator, to misuse state advertising to reward media allies and punish its critics and to use government aligned oligarchs to ensure private media is closely aligned with government.
The Hungary report sheds light on how, despite a legal framework that appears to protect the political independence of public broadcasters and media regulators, these entities have become fully captured by the governing party.
This report was prepared by Robert Nemeth of Media and Journalism Research Center.
The report is available here.
Romania
The Media Capture Monitoring Report on Romania identifies several issues that present a threat to press freedom in the country. Firstly, it is notable that the Romanian media regulator has historically been influenced by political factors, with numerous members, including the current president, having ties to political parties or figures.
Secondly, the two public broadcasters, TVR and SRR, have encountered considerable difficulties over the past 15 to 20 years. In addition to new technologies, the emergence of alternative media and a series of economic crises, political instability, and attempts by politicians to exert control over the two broadcasters have persisted throughout this period.
Third, the current legal framework lacks the necessary transparency and fairness safeguards for the allocation of state advertising funds to media outlets.
Lastly, while Romania’s media landscape is diverse, there are serious concerns about political polarization, ownership transparency, and the concentration of media ownership. These issues not only harm the market’s health but also media pluralism and editorial independence.
This report was prepared by Liana Ganea and Razvan Martin of ActiveWatch.
The report is available here.
Project overview and research design
The International Press Institute and the Media and Journalism Research Center have partnered up to produce the Media Capture Monitoring Report, an annual report that measures the level of media capture in EU Member States and the degree to which they meet new regulatory standards set by the European Union to combat the problem.
In May 2024 the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) came into force and over the following months Member States are required to reform their legislation and media regulatory practices to come into line with the new regulation.
The EMFA covers a wide range of issues, but this study focuses on the new rules designed to address media capture. These include provisions
- to guarantee the independence of public service media,
- to guarantee the independence of media regulators,
- to ensure against the misuse of state funds to influence media output, and
- to ensure media ownership transparency and tighten safeguards for media pluralism.
The reports examine the standards prescribed by law and how those rules and principles are currently implemented in practice. They set out the areas of reform needed to bring each country into line with EMFA while also making recommendations for where reform can go further.
The reports are expected to be an important tool for media rights groups and national policy makers to guide reform efforts to combat media capture and to measure the degree to which Member States are meeting their obligations set out in the new EU rules.
For the first year a group of seven EU Member States have been selected for the pilot studies including Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Poland and Slovakia. The number of countries will expand in successive years of the report.
The project is a part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response, a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.
Independence of Public Service Media (PSM)
This area evaluates the editorial and functional independence of public service media providers. It assesses the procedures for appointing and dismissing heads of management or management board members to ensure they are transparent, open, effective, and non-discriminatory. The area also examines whether funding procedures are based on transparent and objective criteria to guarantee adequate, sustainable, and predictable financial resources that safeguard editorial independence. Independent authorities or bodies monitor and report on the application of these safeguards.
Independence of media regulators
This area considers the autonomy and effectiveness of national regulatory authorities or bodies. It examines their financial, human, and technical resources and their ability to request necessary information and data. The area also assesses the coordination and consultation processes with other relevant authorities or bodies to ensure effective regulatory cooperation.
Misuse of state funds to influence media output
This area focuses on the transparency and objectivity of public funds allocation for state advertising. It assesses whether these funds are awarded based on non-discriminatory criteria and whether information on public expenditure for state advertising is publicly available. It also examines the monitoring and reporting by independent authorities or bodies on the allocation of state advertising funds.
Media pluralism and political influence over news media
This area evaluates the transparency of media ownership and the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence. It assesses national substantive and procedural rules for media market concentrations, the criteria for assessing the impact on media pluralism, and the role of independent authorities in these assessments. It also examines safeguards for editorial independence and the influence of political factors on media ownership and market dynamics.
Methodology
Questionnaire and Variables
The MCMR uses a questionnaire with more than 50 questions covering the four areas above. The first set of questions focuses on the implementation of EMFA while the follow-up questions are control questions to check the effectiveness of EMFA.
Data Collection
The data needed for the monitoring is to be collected using an online platform by national country teams composed of media experts. These teams rely on secondary data, supplemented with primary data from interviews and document analyses. The MJRC supervises the quality and consistency of the collected data and the methodology used.
Data Sources
The MCMR relies on a variety of primary and secondary sources, including national laws, case law, governmental documents, NGO reports, official statistics, financial reports, and academic research. When available, EU-wide data from sources like Eurostat surveys are used to ensure comparability across countries.
EMFA questionnaire
1. Independence of media regulators
Is Article 30 AVMSD (Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU in) implemented?
- Is the regulatory authority legally and/or functionally independent from the government?
- Are the conditions and the procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the heads of national regulatory authorities or the members of the collegiate authority fulfilling that function, including the duration of the mandate laid down in the national law?
- Is the independence (the regulatory authority and their members shall not take instructions from any other body about the exercise of the tasks assigned to them) of the regulatory authority guaranteed in national law?
- Do national regulatory authorities or bodies have adequate financial and human resources ensured by national law? Is the annual budget of the regulatory authority provided by law? Is the annual budget of the national authority public?
- Are the tasks and powers of the national regulatory authorities or bodies clearly defined in national law? Are the ways of making them accountable clearly defined in national law?
- Is there an effective appeal mechanisms at national level?
- Are the members of the regulatory authority empowered to request natural or legal persons to provide, within a reasonable period, information and data that are proportionate and necessary for carrying out the tasks?
Control questions
- Are the decisions of the regulatory authority public? If yes, are they available online?
- Is there any representative of the opposition, or an independent NGO in the regulatory authority? If yes what is the proportion?
- Is there a control mechanism to substantially review the decisions of the regulatory body? E.g. the possibility of judicial review?
- Was there any case last year where a decision of the regulatory authority was appealed? If yes, how many? Were those decisions reversed? Was there any decision transferred to EU judicial review? If yes, what was the case and the result?
- Is there any overall report to monitor the activity of the regulatory authority? If yes, is it publicly available?
2. Independence of public service media
Is Article 5 of EMFA implemented?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law to ensure that public service media providers are editorially and functionally independent?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law to ensure that public service media providers provide impartially a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law to ensure that the procedures for the appointment and the dismissal of the head of management or the members of the management board of public service media providers aim to guarantee the independence of public service media providers?
- Is it guaranteed by national law that the appointment of the head of management or the members of the management board of public service media providers is based on transparent, open, effective and non-discriminatory procedures and transparent, objective, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria?
- What is the duration of their term? Does it differ from the duration of MEPs?
- Is it guaranteed by national law that the decisions on dismissal of the head of management or the members of the management board of public service media providers are duly justified? Is it subject to prior notification? Is there a possibility of judicial review?
- Is the funding procedure of public service media providers based on transparent and objective criteria laid down in advance? Is it guaranteed by law? Are the financial resources sufficient to guarantee the editorial independence of public service media providers?
- Is there any independent authority or body, and any mechanism free from political influence to monitor the editorial/functional independence of public service media?
- Is there any independent authority or body, and any mechanism free from political influence to monitor the provision of plurality of information and opinions to their audiences in an impartial manner?
- Is there any independent authority or body and any mechanism free from political influence to monitor the procedure of the appointment and the dismissal of the head of management or the members of the management board of public service media providers?
- Is there any independent authority or body and any mechanism free from political influence to monitor the funding procedure of public service media providers?
- Are the results of monitoring of those independent authorities or bodies made available to the public?
Control questions
- If the results of monitoring of an independent authority or body – either set up by EMFA or found independently – are publicly available, is there any malpractice identified? If yes, what?
- Is there any representative of the opposition, or an independent NGO in the top management or among the members of the management board of public service media providers? If yes what is the proportion?
- Are public service media providers airing ads? If yes, do they make the ad space available to everyone? Are the prices public? Are the list of purchasers public?
- Is there any “must-carry” obligation imposed on public service media channels? If yes, is it transparent and proportionate? Are the public media services distributed for free?
- Was any show of public service media reported to the authority? If yes, what is the decision? Is it public?
- Is any form of irregular state aid identified at any public services media provider? If yes, which one?
3. Misuse of state funds to influence media output
Is Article 25 of EMFA implemented?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law to ensure that public expenditure allocated for state advertising is distributed to a wide plurality of media service providers?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law to ensure that public funds/advantages/supply or service contracts to media service providers are distributed/concluded in a transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory manner?
- Are the criteria of distribution made publicly available in advance by electronic and user-friendly means? Are the tender procedures open, proportionate and non-discriminatory?
- Is the public expenditure for state advertising publicly available in an electronic and user-friendly manner? Does the information include the legal names of the media service provider and the total annual amount spent per service?
- Does the national regulatory authority or other body monitor the allocation of state advertising expenditure to media service providers? Do they make an annual report on the allocation of state advertising expenditure? Are the annual reports available publicly?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law to ensure that national regulatory authorities or bodies may request further information on the allocation of state advertising expenditure?
Control questions
- Is there any other independent body or NGO that monitors the allocation of state advertising expenditure to media service providers? Are their reports available?
- Are there any ads (including social advertisements and public service announcements) supporting the political purposes of the government or the ruling party that are not financed by the state? Is the financing of those ads transparent? Are the legal names of the vendors publicly available? Is the allocation of those funds transparent and non-discriminative?
4. Media pluralism and political influence over news media through beneficial ownership issues and other state or regulatory favours
Are Articles 6 and 22 of EMFA implemented?
- Are there legal requirements in national law to ensure that media service providers make easily and directly accessible:
§ their legal name(s) and contact information;
§ name(s) of their direct or indirect owner(s) who are able to exercise influence on the operation or strategic decision-making;
§ the fact that the state or a public authority or entity is an owner;
§ the name of beneficial owner(s);
§ the total annual amount of public funds for state advertising allocated to them;
§ the total amount of advertising revenues received from third-country public authorities or entities?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law that require national regulatory authorities or bodies to develop national media ownership databases containing the information above?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law that lay down substantive and procedural rules allowing for an assessment of media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence?
Those rules:
§ Are transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory?
§ Do they require the parties involved in such a media market concentration to notify the concentration in advance to the relevant national authorities or bodies or provide such authorities or bodies with appropriate powers to obtain information from those parties, which is necessary to assess the concentration?
§ Do they designate the national regulatory authorities or bodies as the ones responsible for ensuring that they are substantively involved in the assessment?
§ Do they set out in advance objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying such media market concentrations and for assessing their impact on media pluralism and editorial independence?
§ Do they specify in advance the timeframes for completing such assessments?
- Are there legal guarantees in national law that require that the assessment of media market concentration shall take into account:
§ the expected impact of the media market concentration on media pluralism, including its effects on the formation of public opinion and the diversity of media services and the media offering on the market, taking into account the online environment and the parties’ interests in, links to or activities in other media or non-media businesses;
§ the safeguards for editorial independence, including the measures taken by media service providers with a view to guaranteeing the independence of the editorial decisions;
§ whether, in the absence of the media market concentration, the parties involved in the media market concentration would remain economically sustainable, and whether there are any possible alternatives to ensure their economic sustainability;
§ where applicable, the commitments that any of the parties involved in the media market concentration might offer to safeguard media pluralism and editorial independence?
Control questions
- In the last 10 years was there any merger or acquisition that affected the media pluralism and editorial independence? If yes, were the above-mentioned legal guarantees taken into account?
- Did any national authority supervise the assessment? If yes, was there any merger or acquisition prohibited by any national authority? If yes, based on what justification?
Project team
