Can EMFA capture-proof the European media?
Measuring EMFA compliance across eight EU Member States.
The first comparative assessment of how selected Member States are implementing the European Media Freedom Act — and whether it is actually countering media capture. Synthesised from eight national reports across four core indicators.
Executive summary
August 2025The entry into force of EMFA in August 2025 was a decisive moment in the EU’s effort to confront media capture through binding law. For the first time, core safeguards — the independence of regulators, the governance and funding of public service media, the allocation of state advertising, and protections for pluralism — were consolidated into a single framework across all Member States. This overview is the first comparative look at how those provisions work in practice.
The findings reveal a fragmented and uneven implementation landscape. Of the eight countries assessed, only Finland has enacted timely, comprehensive reforms ensuring near-full alignment. Everywhere else, implementation has been partial, delayed or selectively pursued — sometimes with formal legal alignment masking persistent structural vulnerabilities.
Enduring weaknesses run across all four indicators. Effective regulator independence remains largely absent outside Finland, with appointment procedures, funding mechanisms and political oversight continuing to expose regulators to capture. Public service systems stay especially vulnerable: legal guarantees exist everywhere, but interference in governance, appointments and financing persists — most acutely in Hungary and Slovakia.
The misuse of state advertising remains one of the most powerful instruments of capture; except for Finland, no country has a fully transparent, non-discriminatory allocation system as EMFA Article 25 requires. Nor does any country fully comply on ownership transparency — fragmented registries and the absence of horizontal plurality tests leave ecosystems exposed to concentration.
Taken together, the 2025 findings suggest EMFA has strengthened the legal framework but has yet to translate into meaningful structural change. Whether it becomes an effective tool against capture — or a largely formal compliance exercise — will depend on political will, robust enforcement, and institutions moving beyond legal transposition toward genuine independence.
The four indicators
Regional riskEach bar shows how many of the eight assessed countries fall short of EMFA’s requirement on that indicator — a quick read on where the region is most exposed.
Explore the data
SortableMedia capture mechanisms and the existence and enforcement of legal safeguards, and their alignment with EMFA. Click a column header to sort; more filled dots mean weaker safeguards.
| Country | Regulator ⇅ | Public media ⇅ | State funds ⇅ | Pluralism ⇅ | Overall ⇅ |
|---|
Country reports
8 statesQuestions & answers
11 Q&AShort, structured answers to the key questions arising from the overview — for journalists, policymakers, researchers and educators who need comparative insight without reading the full report.
Resources & reference
DownloadsDragomir, M., Detrekői, Z., Money-Kyrle, O., Wiseman, J. (2025). Media Capture Monitoring Report: 2025 Overview. Measuring EMFA Compliance. Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC): London/Tallinn. International Press Institute (IPI): Vienna.
Invest in independent media research and join a community of practice.
MJRC takes no government money — which is why we ask people who value independent investigation to invest in it directly. Your contribution supports our investigations and global analysis. Supporters can receive early access to new findings, invitations to small-group briefings, inclusion in our Supporters Circle updates, and the option to be listed on our Supporters Page.