MJRC Fellowship

Profile and research description originally published 21 February 2023.

Simone Benazzo has joined the Media and Journalism Research Center’s Fellowship Program. The focus of his research project at MJRC is on investigating the active role that critical journalism can play in holding autocratic rulers to account, even under hostile conditions. His research will focus on Central and Southeastern Europe, a region where he will analyze four countries, namely Poland, Hungary, Serbia and Turkey. The research aims to understand how independent media resist autocratization and why some of those independent media succeed in resisting whereas others don’t. 

Simone Benazzo is pursuing a PhD in Political Science at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles where he also works as a teaching assistant. Furthermore, Simone is a contributor and policy analyst covering Central Europe and Western Balkans for various investigative reporting networks such as Balkan Insight, or news media such as Trieste.News, Rai Friuli, or EuroNews. 

Selected Publications:

•  “Allargamento UE: come ripartire?” (EU enlargement: how to restart it?), Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, 30 Dec 2021
•  “Il futuro della Bosnia è nero. C’è troppo carbone nell’aria” (Bosnia’s future is black. There’s too much coal in the air),Altreconomia, Feb 2020
• “Book review: Memories on the Move: Experiencing Mobility, Rethinking the Past”, Memory Studies 12 (1), 2019, 101-103
• “North Macedonia might have a name but does it have a national identity?”, Euronews, 28th Jan 2019

Impactful stories. Understanding independent media’s resistance against autocratization in Central- and Southeastern Europe

Scholarship on authoritarianism has long noted that media independence, albeit limited and contested, persists in hybrid regimes (Diamond 2022; Egorov, Guriev & Sonin 2009). As Levitsky and Way point out, “In competitive authoritarian regimes (..) Independent media exist and civic and opposition groups can operate above ground” (2010, 8). 

However, researchers’ attention has been primarily devoted to studying the incumbent’s actions, and his attempt to capture the media and repress critical voices (Enikolopov & Petrova 2015; Prat 2015). In Europe, illiberal rulers in Turkey (Akser & Baybars-Hawks 2012; Coşkun 2020; Finkel 2021) and Hungary (Ágh 2015; Bajomi-Lázár 2013; Bátorfy & Urbán 2020) have poured most resources into this endeavor. 

At the same time, the burgeoning research on democratic resilience (Boese et al. 2021 & Lührmann 2021) and resistance (Tomini et al. 2022; Vanderhill 2020) has identified independent media among the key players in preventing and, ideally, reversing autocratization. 

Both literatures indirectly allude to the active role that critical journalism can play in holding autocratic rulers to account, even under hostile conditions. Yet, this very role has remained largely unexplored.

By investigating the specific context of Central and Southeastern Europe, this research aims to contribute to filling this gap, whose heavy implications for policymaking are self-evident. 

Theoretical framework, research questions and methodology

As a basic theoretical reference, this research understands autocratizing regimes as “informational autocracies” (Guriev & Treisman 2019; 2020), namely regimes where leaders aim first and foremost to persuade their public of their competence, and rely on mass terror and fear only seldom. In such regimes, transparency can turn into an existential threat for the incumbents’ survival, as it is likely to trigger large-scale mobilization and collective action (Christensen & Groshek 2020; Hollyer, Rosendorf & Vreeland 2015). Accordingly, independent media’s impact maximizes during critical junctures, such as mass protests (Pleines and Somfalvy 2022). Moving from the assumption that independent media operate to target “pivotal audiences” (Corduneanu-Hucia & Alexander Hamilton 2022) to fuel resistance to autocratization, the present work intends to provide empirically-sound answers to two research questions:

– How do independent media resist autocratization?

– Why do some independent media succeed in resisting autocratization, whereas others don’t?

At the methodological level, the first question will be addressed through a survey devised to gather independent media and journalists’ experiences and practices of resistance against autocratization. The goal here will be to illuminate this composite empirical reality by providing a grounded systematization. Building on the insight collected in the previous phase, the second question will be answered through two rounds of semi-structured interviews aimed at analyzing four case studies – Serbia, Hungary, Poland and Turkey – in a comparative perspective.

Profile and research description originally published 10 August 2023.

Yijing Chen, a PhD candidate at the Department of Network and Data Science, at the Central European University, has joined our fellowship program. Her research centers around online political communication, social media, and social networks. With her background in Information Science, she is currently investigating the role of social media in political polarization, applying network analytics and natural language processing to measure polarization and understand structural patterns. She’s a curious reader in the broad field of computational social science and is interested in bridging perspectives and fostering collaborations across disciplines. 

Her ongoing PhD project collects and analyzes self-donated digital traces from multiple social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Instagram), combined with self-reported questionnaire responses from a nationally representative sample in Hungary. By considering both attitudes and behaviors, she assesses and compares the degree of polarization reflected in people’s self-perceived ideological positions and digital traits online.  

Social media, political communication and polarization

Deliberative democracy calls for efficient political communication that meaningfully engages the public in discussions of key issues. Social networking sites (SNS), by allowing distant users to form online social networks and participate in discussions, have provided citizens with “greater inclusion and access to public decision-making”^[1], thus serving as crucial communication channels for authentic political deliberation. However, the technological optimism about social media’s potential to promote civic engagement and build a larger common ground does not encompass the full magnitude of social media’s impact on political communication, as we see problems such as toxic conversations and filter bubbles arising in recent years. To realize the prospective merits of a hyper-connected society, we need to consistently reflect upon our online political conversations and carefully assess whether and how the architecture of today’s cyberspace alters with whom and about what we communicate.

Recent decades have seen alarming signals of an increasingly polarized population that diverges toward more extreme positions with shrinking tolerance for out-group members^[2], ^[3]. Among researchers and the general public, one major concern that has garnered significant attention is that social media may exacerbate political polarization by delivering ideologically congruent news feeds and siloing users into homophilic communities^[4],^[5] . Despite substantial research efforts, this field is still rapidly evolving and presents numerous intriguing gaps, including (i) that the theoretical conceptualization of polarization has not been fully integrated into today’s model simulations or SNS data-driven analysis, and (ii) that the net impact of SNS usage on polarization remains an open debate. These gaps motivate a more systematic breakdown of the problem itself, a more unifying language that aligns frameworks from different disciplines, and more thoughtful experiment designs to uncover the nuances in the causal chain.

^[1] Rishel, N. M. Digitizing deliberation: Normative concerns for the use of social media in deliberative democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis 33, 411–432 (2011).  

^[2] Mason, L. Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity (University of Chicago Press, 2018).  

^[3] Webster, S. W., Connors, E. C. & Sinclair, B. The social consequences of political anger. The Journal of Politics 84, 1292–1305 (2022).

^[4] Bail, C. A. et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9216–9221 (2018).

^[5] Levy, R. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. American economic review 111, 831–870 (2021).

Profile and research description originally published 16 August 2023.

Cerasel Cuteanu has joined the Media and Journalism Research Center’s Fellowship Program. Currently immersed in the pursuit of a PhD in Marketing at the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj, Romania, Cuteanu’s research revolves around the intricate web of fake news, a major topic in today’s information age.  

Under the umbrella of joint supervision with Saint Paul University in Canada, Cuteanu’s academic journey takes on a transcontinental dimension, exemplifying the interconnected nature of global academia. He has a background in Philosophy, European Studies/Political Sciences, as well as Investigative Journalism. Cuteanu approaches the topic of fake news in a transdisciplinary manner, bringing to his research concepts and ideas from various fields including social psychology, marketing/consumer behavior/theory, communication, political sciences and epistemology.  

As part of the MJRC fellowship, Cuteanu will focus on exploring how consumers can react to or resist, in real-time, the influence of fake news messages/communications and analyzing whether that is a better alternative than the post-factum types of reaction, which usually consist of retractions or corrections aimed to debunk fake news. 

Consumer responses to disinformation

Cuteanu’s innovative research suggests empowering media consumers to recognize and respond to fake news, applying the same positive skepticism as in evaluating advertisements, rather than focusing on correction methods. 

Since experimental studies come to the conclusion that correcting fake news (disinformation, misinformation, and other typologies of fake content) often proves to be inefficient, would there be a way to prevent, in real time, fake news from making an impact by empowering media consumers to activate certain functions/resources/intuitions when consuming an abundant amount of messages in our contemporary Web 2.0 context, thus helping those consumer avoid being affected by malign content?  

Cuteanu’s theory is that it could be of help to empower consumers to approach media news, possibly fake news, with the same kind of attention/positive skepticism that is used when being exposed to an advertisement where consumers know that there is persuasion involved and the advertised product may not do all that the ad is saying. In advertising, a reasonable dose of lying is mutually tolerated, yet people exposed to ads understand the rules of marketing and approach ads with a large dose of skepticism. 

How can that be used towards the research objective of this project? 

By extrapolating from consumer behavior, social learning, and social psychology, this project aims to identify ways to cope with and respond to fake news that enable consumers to debunk fake news without external help, but only using persuasion knowledge and self-control. What can be done to ensure action is taken at the consumer level and by the consumer before consuming disinformation as news? Is there a function/schema (similar to ad schema, or to persuasion knowledge) that consumers could use, as self-forewarning, without needing to appeal to excessive cognitive resources? 

Such a function would arguably be a much better alternative than debunking fake news by retraction/correction, which sends us to the unchartered territory of biases and sometimes excessively irrational worldviews. Even if it does not prove to be more efficient than post-consumption methods of debunking fake news, such a function could complement the latter, contributing to more effectively debunking and preventing fake news from making an impact. 

Such a ‘function’ would be similar to persuasion knowledge, which, if extrapolated from the Friestad and Wright Persuasion Knowledge Model (1994), could be personal knowledge underlined by people’s experience, possibly not requiring massive cognitive resources. Therefore, it could be a skill that might be taught/instilled at mass level, with significant efficiency, to support citizens in democratic societies to be better equipped to consume fake news (with reduced variance, obviously, depending on the individual self-efficacy). 

This set of skills could allow media consumers to avoid correspondence bias by looking at an influence agent’s behavior as situational rather than dispositional. Such skills can be honed by training consumers to ask, when seeing news content, the question they would ask, for example, when being exposed to an ad trying to sell a certain product: “What is going on?”; “Does the source/influence agent approaching me with this news have any ‘ulterior persuasion motive’” (Campbell and Kirmani, 2000). Identifying manipulative intent in news content could motivate consumers to activate such a “mindset” simply because people generally have an “aversion to being unduly manipulated” (Sagarin et al., 2002). 

If we test, for comparing reasons, a group of individuals, which are instilled to think this way, would we find them to be more effective in avoiding fake news effects over time than a group of individuals exposed to the alternative methods of correction of/debunking misinformation or disinformation who were not instilled with this type of ‘self-control’? 

These research hypotheses will be tested on three different cohorts of people with significant socio-cultural differences: an Eastern European country (Romania), a Western European country (to be determined), and a non-European country (i.e., U.S.A.). The main cohort will have academic background, yet, depending on the data collected in the pilot phase of the project, Cuteanu expects to expand his target population by including individuals with different educational backgrounds. 

The project ultimately aims at exploring the possibility of avoiding fake news effects by empowering consumers to do something simple: be constructively aware of possible persuasion schemas (maybe positively skeptical?) when approached by or exposed to various communications/messages/media news (same as consumers do, when approached by ads that try to convey a commercial message); and activate a social learning skill, self-control, in order to avoid being duped by fake content. 

Profile and research description originally published 11 January 2023.

Fatima el Issawi is a Reader in Journalism Studies at the University of Essex and Associate Professor in Journalism (in residence) at Northwestern University in Qatar. She led several research projects on the interplay between media and political change in the region. She recently completed the project “Media and Transitions to Democracy: Journalistic Practices in Communicating Conflicts- the Arab Spring” funded by the British Academy Sustainable Development Programme and looking at media’s impact on communicating political conflicts in post uprisings in North Africa. She is the author of “Arab National Media and Political Change” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) and the co-editor of “The Unfinished Arab Spring: Micro-Dynamics of Revolts between Change and Continuity” (Gingko, 2020). 

Fluent in English, French and Arabic, she holds a PhD in Media and Journalism Studies from Pantheon-Assas Paris II University. Her multifaceted background brings real-world expertise beyond academia and is reflected in a strong presence on prominent media platforms, including Al Jazeera English, France 24 TV, the New Yorker and The Independent, often publishing and commenting on current affairs and media policy in the region.

Investigating the media activism nexus in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 

At MJRC, Fatima will continue  investigating the media activism nexus in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and how the notion of resilience in the dynamics between dissenting actors in media and activism can help independent practices in the region that, eleven years after the beginning of the 2011 Arab uprisings, faces unprecedented authoritarian resurgence. 

The research is rooted in the everyday, using a bottom-up approach, considering the lived experience of civil society actors and journalists in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) on the background of the 2011 Arab uprisings’ consequences. By doing so, the author aims to develop context-specific knowledge on how the complex interplay between journalism and activism is supporting or hindering the formation of resilient public spheres in times of authoritarian resurgence. The project explores the significance this interplay has for journalistic practices and professional identities, as well as the multiple meanings and possibilities for activism and grassroots participation in the societies considered. The project will cover four case studies: Lebanon and Sudan, as new revolts that emerged against the backdrop of corruption and autocracy, and Tunisia and Egypt, as part of the first wave of revolts that led to regime change, and are currently challenged by resurgent autocracy, populism, conflict, and corruption.

In addition to its important policy implications, the research will bring important and novel theoretical contributions using resilience as a useful concept in media and journalism studies, to understand media practices under political retrenchment. 

Profile and research description originally published 19 December 2024.

Adriana Mutu is a University Professor in the Departments of Humanities and Market Research at ESIC Business & Marketing School in Barcelona, where she also serves as the Head of Academic Quality. She holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Autonomous University of Barcelona and a MA in Journalism and Communication Sciences from the University Alexandru Ioan Cuza of Iasi, Romania. She has conducted research at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Helsinki. Adriana is founding member of MEDEA (Mediterranean Europe and Africa) and provides expertise to the Council of Europe and the European Commission.

Audiovisual Media Regulation in the Platform Era: A Comparative Cross-Country Analysis of Media Regulatory Regimes in Southern Europe

This research project explores regulatory convergence, co-regulatory arrangements, and cross-sectoral European cooperation in the implementation of legislation that supports audiovisual media regulation, including online content regulation. It focuses on the role of National Media Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in four Southern European countries in ensuring viewers protection within the digital media ecosystem. The current state of audiovisual media regulation – covering on-demand services and video-sharing platforms under the jurisdiction of the national regulatory media authorities – is analysed through the lens of European integration theories. This approach clarifies what European integration entails for regulatory agencies responsible for the correct implementation of new media laws. The selected countries – Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece – represent the Polarized Pluralist media system as conceptualized by Hallin and Mancini (2004).

The research objectives are threefold:

1. To explore how national media regulatory authorities within the Polarized Pluralist media system align with new European regulatory requirements on online harm protection, content standards, and advertising rules as outlined by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).

2. To examine the interaction between the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and other relevant European legislative frameworks, including the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, the AI Act, the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation and the Regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertising.

3. To map out the multi-level systems of media governance, including co-regulatory arrangements and the cooperation between media NRAs and other national regulatory bodies with cross-sectoral oversight responsibilities. The outcome of the cross-regulatory cooperation includes developing cross-sectoral guidelines and criteria for consumer protection, content moderation, systemic risk management, transparency in political advertising, service integrity, and empowering viewers.

The central research question asks how to ensure meaningful cooperation between media regulatory authorities with other sectoral regulators (competition, data protection, consumer protection) to create a level playing field in the media sector while avoiding the risks of media capture.

This research proposal aligns with the MJRC’s strategy by investigating the complex European media regulatory landscape from a cross-country comparative perspective. This topic is relevant to the Media Policy Hub initiative at the MJRC, as it aims to analyse the relationships and dynamics between various actors in the audiovisual media regulatory regime, focusing on the transposition, implementation, and enforcement of media legislation in Southern European countries.

Background and rationale

The first phase of the project begins with an in-depth analysis of European legislation and regulations related to online content responsibility and the accountability of digital platforms, particularly regarding online harm, content standards, and advertising rules. It also examines the role of national media watchdogs in regulating on-demand platform services and video-sharing platforms under the revised AVMSD. The AVMSD governs the EU-wide coordination of national audiovisual media legislation and includes provisions for the protection of minors (Article 12), promotion and distribution of European works (Article 13), encouragement of co-regulatory and self-regulatory regimes (Article 4, paragraph 7), incitement to hatred (Article 6), accessibility for people with disabilities (Article 7), audiovisual commercial communications (Article 9), sponsorship (Article 10), and product placement (Article 11). The implementation of these requirements will be analyzed in the four selected countries – Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece – with a comprehensive mapping of the measures undertaken. In addition to the AVMSD, the project will examine other EU legislative acts, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising, the AI Act and the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation, to identify measures addressing online harms, content standards, and advertising rules.

In the second phase, the project will explore the implementation and enforcement of relevant legislation governing online platforms. The focus will be on the interaction and cooperation between media NRAs and other competent national regulatory authorities – such as those responsible for consumer protection, data protection, and competition – in developing cross-sectoral guidelines.

The goal is to understand how media authorities from the selected countries align with new European regulatory requirements related to consumer protection, content moderation, and advertising rules, and how media regulatory agencies address the challenges of regulating digital platforms and collaborate with relevant stakeholders. In-depth interviews with media regulatory authorities’ representatives will be conducted to gather primary data and evaluate the implementation of EU media law.

Building on this background, this research makes a theoretical and qualitative contribution to the existing literature on media regulation, governance, and compliance with EU legislation. Qualitative research will help explain key initiatives and activities undertaken by institutional actors and provide insights into the processes of transposing, implementing, and enforcing EU law.

This project makes three key contributions. First, as an exploratory qualitative case study, it provides an in-depth assessment of digital platform regulation in the European Union, enhancing our understanding of the cooperation between European institutions, national media authorities, and cross-sectoral regulatory bodies. Second, it maps media governance arrangements in four Southern European countries, identifying how media authorities align with new European regulatory requirements on harm protection, content standards, and advertising rules, as well as how they collaborate with relevant stakeholders to develop cross-sectoral guidelines and policies. Finally, this research complements existing studies on the application of EU media law.

Background knowledge and context of the area

The complex EU regulatory framework, particularly its cross-sectoral dimensions and implications for media regulatory authorities, has not been fully addressed in previous research. Most media policy scholarship has focused on the implementation of European laws and the roles played by regulatory authorities (Weinand, 2018; Broughton Micova, 2020; Rozgonyi, 2020; Broughton Micova & Jacques, 2020; Mutu, 2021). Within the context of EU law enforcement, the majority of studies tend to examine the topic from a singular perspective, often from the viewpoint of political science or media policy.

A significant body of political science literature investigates Europeanization (Börzel, 2005; Radaelli, 2003), integration theory, and EU implementation and compliance, particularly across various policy fields (Thomann, 2015; Mastenbroek, 2005). This research frequently emphasizes regulatory networks and the functional tasks of regulation – such as information gathering, rule setting, monitoring, and enforcement – within the context of international cooperation aimed at facilitating horizontal coordination and harmonization (Eberlein & Grande, 2005; Slaughter & Hale, 2010; Levi-Faur, 2011). Institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995) is also prevalent, building on prior research regarding Europeanization, the adoption of EU regulations (Mastenbroek, 2005), and the implementation of directives. Institutional theory posits that the context or environment in which any organization operates exerts pressures on decision-making, organizational behavior, and structures (Scott, 2008; Hambrick et al., 2005).

In line with previous research on national media authorities (Irion & Radu, 2014; Mutu, 2018, 2021) and the need for enhanced cooperation (ERGA, 2024) between these bodies and other cross-sectoral regulators, this project draws on interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks concerning European integration and the implementation and enforcement of European media legislation (Cornils, 2020; Stockmann, 2023; Dow, 2023; Horowitz, M. et al., 2021). This study aims to map and explain the specific domestic mechanisms for implementing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) into national laws in relation to enforcement of requirements on online harm protection, content standards, and advertising rules. Additionally, it will examine the domestic cross-sectoral cooperation that facilitates horizontal coordination and harmonization of rules.

Brief list of methods/approach

This project builds on interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks on European integration, implementation and enforcement of European media legislation, discussing the role played by the EU institutions and national authorities from four Member States in relation to the regulation of online platforms. Stakeholder interviews will be conducted with a representative of the relevant media national regulatory authority (NRA) the selected countries, within the network of the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA). The objective of the interviews is to map and explain the specific domestic instruments for implementing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) at a national level, while also looking at domestic cross-sectorial cooperation facilitating horizontal coordination and harmonization of rules on online harms, content standards and advertising rules.

Themes addressed in the interviews include relevant legislation for media regulation and the interplay with relevant EU legislation (media laws, laws on advertising, data protection, laws on rights of children and on protection of minors, guides/regulations/communications on hate speech).

The online desk research will include examination of relevant Directives, Regulations and Codes, and the reports published by various international organizations, including the European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO), the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA).

Profile and research description originally published 22 December 2022.

Sulochana Peiris is an independent documentary maker, researcher, and writer based in Sri Lanka. Sulochana has over two decades of experience in media, advocacy, and peacebuilding fields. During early career years, Sulochana worked as a print and TV journalist, and subsequently, switched over to the not-for-profit sector where she was involved in peacebuilding, early warning, human rights, and human security communication and advocacy related work in Sri Lanka. Over the last decade or so, she has increasingly engaged in research and documentary production work related to Southeast Asia, particularly in Thailand, Myanmar, and Cambodia. 

Sulochana’s recent research areas include media’s role in pluralism, social media and movements mobilization and communication, peacebuilding, women, peace and security, and women in politics.

Sulochana has an MA in Conflict and Peace Studies from the Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Her MA thesis was titled “The Role of Social Media in Contemporary Social Movements : A Case Study of Egypt from 2000 to 2011” . 

Sulochana is a Rotary Peace Fellow with an accredited certification in conflict and peace from Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. She is also Salzburg Global Seminar Fellow (part of the first cohort of Asia Peace Innovators Forum).

Media Capture in Sri Lanka

Media landscape in Sri Lanka is overcrowded and under-regulated. Sri Lanka’s media is highly segmented by language from the supply side. From a demand perspective, audiences are segmented across language, geographic, format, and geographic spheres.

The elite capture of media has had a clear and devastating impact on media’s independence, with politicians, the state and private parties/business moguls with ties to the government continuing to undermine media’s independence across the board. The most devastating outcome of this deteriorating media independence was seen in the run up to the 2019 presidential election in which one of the front runners of the election campaign was former defense secretary, Gotabaya Rajapakse who ran a very racist, anti-minority campaign based on the Sinhala-Buddhist (majority community in the country) supremacist ideology to win the majority community’s vote.

Together with rich moguls, Rajapakse’s election campaign infiltrated all key media platforms and spaces using very organic and strategic tools and approaches. They fabricated “stories” and “incidents” against the country’s Muslim minority, which had already become the “new enemy” of the majority community since the end of the thirty-year war with Tamil Tiger rebels who waged a bloody war against the Sri Lankan state for an independent homeland in North/East Sri Lanka.

Apart from using state media, the Rajapakse election campaign captured private media platforms, too. In a country where the mainstream media is still the main source of information for a majority of people, including the Sinhalese community, their main vote base, this proved to be very effective from a campaign point of view.

The anti-Muslim narratives and hate speech were also spread on social media and they strategically used social media “influencers” from the majority Sinhala community with large numbers of followers to get their key campaign messages across to as many people as possible.

Gotabaya Rajapakse won the 2019 presidential election with over 6.9 million votes. Subsequently, his administration paid little attention to the outstanding transitional justice issues connected to the country’s armed-conflict and took no effort to reconcile conflict-torn inter-ethnic/religious relations. Instead, his administration openly supported and promoted the Sinhala-Buddhist supremacist ideology both in governance as well as attitude towards the minority communities.

The media continued to lend their spaces for the fabrication, creation and propagation of anti-Muslim narratives and hate speech with little regard to increasingly visible consequences stemming from a lack of impartial and independent media in the country. This continued to be the case until the Rajapakse administration hit a wall because of bad fiscal and governance policies that largely contributed to the country’s worst economic crisis since its independence in 1948. Gotabaya Rajapakse was forced to resign in 2022 as a result of a youth-led protest campaign that began earlier in the year. Peiris’ research focuses on the impact of media capture by the Rajapakse administration on pluralism and inter-community relations. As part of her project, she wants to interview community groups/media consumers across ethnic/linguistic, geographic and demographic divides to further understand possible impacts of anti-minority narratives on their relations with other communities. Peiris has already over 50 key informant interviews collected during research on this theme for a project she carried out before. Ultimately, Peiris aims to develop this research into a book on the subject.

Profile and research description originally published 1 February 2023.

Andrei Richter is Researcher Professor at Comenius University in Bratislava and Adjunct Professor of the Webster University in Vienna. In 2011-22 he served as Director and a Senior Adviser at the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. 

An Austrian citizen, Richter holds university degrees in law, journalism and foreign languages, a doctorate of philology in Russia and a habilitated professorship in media studies from Slovakia.

He has authored more than 250 publications on media law and policy in 12 languages, including the standard media law textbook for journalism students in the Russian Federation (2002, 2009, 2016), a textbook on international standards of media regulation (2011), a textbook on online media law (2014), and a book on censorship and freedom of the media in post-Soviet countries, published by UNESCO (2007). Dr Richter sits on the editorial boards of a number of international journals on communications and the media. 

Andrei Richter was a long-time professor at the School of Journalism, Lomonosov Moscow State University, where hechaired a department in media law and history. He founded and led Moscow Media Law and Policy Center, a Russian NGO in 1990-2010s. 

He also served as a commissioner at the International Commission of Jurists and the Chair of the Law Section of the International Association for Media and Communication Research.

Propaganda, disinformation and freedom of expression

Dr Richter’s research interests include the legal challenges caused by the resurrected phenomenon of propaganda and hate speech, which often operate with disinformation, especially online and in audiovisual media.

The conflict in and around Ukraine since 2014 and U.S. elections in 2016 have brought about a spread of propaganda and hate speech. While in Ukraine the search for the right toolbox to stop its spread into the country without endangering the fragile democracy is a matter of life and death, the threat of Russian propaganda is also perceived with particular acuteness in other neighbouring countries with Russian-speaking population, from Finland in the north to Moldova and Georgia in the south. As such, Russian propaganda is considered a threat to the European values by the European Parliament and EU’s executive bodies. 

As today’s media environment is characterized by proliferation of propaganda-driven disinformation, it confronts professional traditional media entities with numerous new challenges, and places a heavier burden on journalists and standards of journalism. Additionally, the current state of technologies allows an instant diffusion of reports across borders without professional gate-keepers.

By blurring the lines between false and true, propaganda and disinformation undermine public trust in quality journalism and its role in a democratic society. Furthermore, the prevalence of online and offline disinformation can threaten international peace, weaken states’ sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and the safety of citizens.

The main purpose of Dr Richter’s research is to provide factual comparative information and analysis on the main aspects of the disinformation/propaganda phenomenon and the question of how to deal with it. It reviews existing international standards, current national and international practices of policy-making and regulation, scholarly work and relevant efforts by the media associations and companies, recommendations for possible common efforts in dealing with the false news phenomenon in Europe. 

Using the comparative legal method, the author analyzes sources of international and national law to determine their approaches to addressing the dissemination of disinformation. This methodological approach provokes relevant sources that are often not observable if the focus is on an individual international organization, nation or a covenant. Comparative studies can reveal the continuity and discrepancies of legal responses in various contexts that all claim to share common global values of free speech and free media.

Dr Richter is interested in reviewing European and other international obligations in regards to hateful internal and particularly transfrontier propaganda in the context of freedom of expression and freedom of the media commitments. The starting points is implementation of article 20 (on ban of war propaganda and incitement to hatred) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as its interpretations by the UN and other international bodies. Discussion of the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights is important as well: even though the European Convention on Human Rights lacks an equivalent to article 20, it had cases pertinent to the research topic.

Today’s digital media environment and the widespread proliferation of propaganda-driven disinformation confront professional media entities with numerous new challenges, and place a heavier burden on journalists and standards of journalism. Pursuit for truth is a basic principle that stays for professional journalism, and the research examins the current good practices on self-regulation of disinformation in Europe. It is important to review the recent efforts by media associations and companies to self-regulate and to promote media literacy as an antidote to disinformation, as well as the relevant intergovernmental policies in Europe. The research will look into the relevant decisions of self-regulation bodies, such as media councils. 

Dr Richter is interested to assess and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the position on co-regulation of propaganda and disinformation of the European Institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, and Vienna in regards to propaganda and disinformation, statements of other international human rights. 

The research aim is to deliver a modern rationale for regulation of hostile propaganda and provide recommendations to governments, courts, civil society, and media organizations. It includes specific recommendations on fine-tuning existing mechanisms to counteract disinformation, in particular through legal instruments, media accountability and literacy.

Dr Richter’s knowledge of the Russian media system, scholarly experience in media law of the post-Soviet countries, and international standards on media freedom facilitates research on the issue. The list of publications demonstrates that Dr Richter is focused on this research topic since 2015, having published a book and a dozen scholarly articles on the subject. This makes the research solid, well-considered, and realistic.

Profile and research description originally published 25 November 2022.

David Ruzicka is the Founding Editor of Datalyrics, a Prague-based investigative boutique that strives to communicate social science better. With a background in economics and comparative political science, David studies autocratization. He researched migration portrayal in newscasting. David is also a co-founder of the Czech & Slovak Club of the European Forum Alpbach.

Towards Shared Understanding of Accuracy and Impartiality

Background and rationale

Research on the standards of internal plurality is mind-bogglingly rare in Europe. The main focus of the debate about statutory content regulation has traditionally rested with the regulation of commerce and child protection. Yet, the first European comparative study on the subject of internal plurality was published only two years ago.(1)

If there is a relevant legal framework that connects the past and present regulatory experience to the current information malaise, it lies precisely in this area.

This project, therefore, aims to open the proverbial black box of national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and explain the problem of arbitrariness in the non/enforcement of ethical and legal standards like accuracy and impartiality in V4 countries. The project is focused on news, commentary and current affairs programs in broadcasting. Describing good practices of, for example, the UK’s national regulatory authority, the project seeks to offer recommendations for creating a shared understanding of the standards and making the compliance assessment – whether by a statutory regulator or a professional organization – more rules-based, predictable and transparent.

Key questions

How do representatives of national statutory regulators understand the standards of internal plurality and the processes through which they assess content compliance?

If content broadcast by Hungarian and Polish content providers fulfils the characteristics of propaganda, what weaknesses in the regulatory system cause that the viewers are typically not provided with any remedy?

How exactly does the British NRA prevent arbitrariness in its compliance assessment? Can its good practices be emulated in continental Europe?

What adaptations of the old standards does the digital age invite?

Methodology

We have conducted basic desktop research, leading to an overview of legal frameworks in all V4 countries and an overview of case law in the Czech Republic. 

We held 20 background interviews with regulation experts and media professionals in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, including several semi-structured interviews with current and former members of NRAs, about the standards’ definitions, contextual criteria, NRA’s assessment processes and selected cases.

^{[1] ERGA, ‘Internal Media Plurality in Audiovisual Media Services in the EU: Rules & Practices’, 2018 <http://erga-online.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ERGA-2018-07-SG1-Report-on-internal-plurality-LQ.pdf>. In Hungary, research on this topic has been done by media watchdog Mérték and CMDS. Another somewhat curious exception are studies published by the Hungarian NRA that are, however, formalistic: Moravec, Ondřej, Andrej Školkay, Luboš Kukliš, and Ondrej Jurišta, ‘Volume I: Czech Republic and Slovakia’, in Comparative Media Law Practice: Media Regulatory Authorities in the Visegrad Countries (National Media and Infocommunications Authority, 2016), I; Galewska, Eva, and Szabina Berkényi, ‘Volume II: Poland and Hungary’, in Comparative Media Law Practice: Media Regulatory Authorities in the Visegrad Countries (National Media and Infocommunications Authority, 2016)}

Profile and research description originally published 7 February 2023.

Anastasiia Vorozhtsova, an MA graduate in international relations from CEU with academic and professional experiences in Russia, the United States of America, and Austria, has joined our Fellowship program. Anastasiia is a freelancer at The New York Times Podcast The Daily, where she has been monitoring news coverage of Russia and the war in Ukraine, conducting research and interviews, translating, and connecting individuals with the New York Times journalists.

Concomitantly, Anastasiia has been contributing to Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression (GFoE) by engaging in legal analysis for the initiative and compiling databases of court cases on content regulation, disinformation, right-to-be-forgotten, and hate speech.

As an aspiring investigative journalist, Anastasiia wishes to break complex international stories into understandable pieces of social, political, and environmental importance. She strives to hold those in power accountable.

At MJRC Anastasiia will focus on analysing Russian propaganda media outlets – their governance, production, and consumption.

From Those in Charge to the Audience: How Russian Propaganda Media Outlets Are Governed, Produced, and Consumed

On February 24, 2022, Russia started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and all hell broke loose – for many, if not, most of us. The war acquired several fronts, and Russia is losing almost everywhere. One battlefield driver, however, remains in the Kremlin’s firm grip: propaganda. 

The Russian warmongers failed repeatedly, yet the smooth choir of the state media continued to supply lies. The lies spur the audience’s support of the war. The case of today’s Russia displays clearly that media capture leads to catastrophes. The Kremlin’s propaganda machine conceals the war crimes the Russian army commits in Ukraine. And if propaganda does not convince viewers/readers/listeners fully, it thwarts their critique of government actions.  

How did we get here? Who are those Kremlin’s loyalists who own the propaganda media? What are the disinformation techniques? Russia’s media capture case demands analysis. Examining the various functional levels of propaganda can help fight media capture internationally and boost the support of independent media. 

Anastasiia plans to analyze the Russian case in a three-focus look at 1) propaganda media ownership, 2) propaganda disinformation techniques, and 3) regular propaganda consumer portrait. By turning to open-source data gathering, content analysis, and interviewing, Anastasiia aims to probe into the enormous scale the media capture gained in Russia.