Audiovisual media, online platforms and elections The indicator on Audiovisual media, online platforms and elections assesses the existence

Figure 3.3.2.c. Social media guidelines for journalists - Map of risks per country (variable)

3.3.3. Audiovisual media, online platforms and elections

paigns. The reporting of public service media in the electoral period is often monitored by regulators, which puts additional pressure on such media to provide fair representa- tion of political actors and political viewpoints. Despite the long tradition of regulation and regulatory monitoring in this field, 14 countries score as being at medium risk (Al- bania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain). Turkey is the only country that registers high risk, while Hungary is very close to the high risk threshold.

Figure 3.3.3.a. Indicator on Audiovisual media, online platforms and elections - Map of risks per country

The indicator is composed of four sub-indicators: Commercial audiovisual media bias; Public service media bias; Rules on political advertising in audiovisual media;

and the new indicator on Rules on political advertising online. Concerns about polit- ical bias, preferential treatment and manipulative political advertising increase during periods of electoral campaigning. This was the case with the legacy media and perhaps is even more of a concern now, when political communication and advertising are shift- ing to the realm of online platforms and are taking on the new techniques that are en- abled by the online and platform environments. In the traditional media systems, legal provisions are in place to ensure that the public media act in a non-discriminatory way

and provide for equal treatment, that parties and candidates have access to media, and that citizens are given access to a variety of voices during election campaigns (Venice Commission, 2010: para 148). For the online dimension, clear standards, transparency and the pluralistic rules of the game are still widely lacking.

Figure 3.3.2.b. Indicator on Audiovisual media, online platforms and elections - Averages per sub-indicator

As was the case in previous MPM reports, on aggregate level, Audiovisual media, online platforms and elections is the indicator for which the lowest risk is recorded in the area of Political Independence. However, in MPM2020, the risk is significantly higher than in previous years mainly due to the new sub-indicator on Rules on political advertising online. The larger component of the indicator remains that dedicated to audiovisual media, as television remains the most common news source in Europe. However, on- line, and especially algorithm driven platforms, are increasingly gaining prominence as a general source of news and as a source of political information before elections.

For the first time MPM2020, includes a set of variables that aim to assess: (i) the exist- ence of legislation that seeks to safeguard democracy and prevent certain political actors from capturing online political communication by buying and targeting online political advertising in a non-transparent manner; (ii) the availability of rules for political parties to disclose campaign spending on online platforms (e.g. on Facebook and Google) in a transparent way; (iii) the effectiveness of the Code of Practice on Disinformation in a

platforms. Only 6 countries (Finland, France, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal) have a regulation that seeks to provide equal opportunities and the transparency of online political advertising during the campaign period. In 23 countries, there are no rules for political parties and candidates running in elections to report on campaign spending on online platforms in a transparent manner. In 28 countries candidates and parties are not fully transparent about the spending and methods used in their social media promo- tion. In 18 countries, some issues were noted in relation to the implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation with regard to the clear labelling and registering of political and issue-based advertising, and in terms of indicating who paid for it. In 20 countries, the data protection authority does not take sufficient account and/or monitor the use of personal data by political parties for electoral campaigning purposes.

Figure 3.3.3.c. Sub-indicator on Rules on political advertising online - Map of risks per country

There exists very little regulation of political advertising online largely due to a lack of understanding of the criteria used by online platforms in content moderation and rec- ommendation systems’ design. At the same time, the audiovisual media, especially pub- lic service media, are strongly regulated. The MPM results show that all EU countries have put in place rules to ensure the fair representation of political viewpoints in news and informative programmes on public service media. Political advertising is often pro- hibited, or at least restricted, in order to prevent the financially stronger political actor from acquiring a disproportionate amount of airtime, and/or to prevent political groups with fewer financial resources from being partially or wholly excluded from the media channels. Since the greater portion of this indicator is still dedicated to the audiovisual media, the overall results for the majority of countries remain within the low risk band.

Nevertheless, the results suggest that much more should be done to regulate the online dimension.

Figure 3.3.3.d. Comparison between sub-indicators: Rules on political advertising in audiovisual media (left) and Rules on political advertising online (right) - Average risk score

3.3.4. State regulation of resources and support to the media