In recent years, significant changes have occurred in the news ecosystem, including the ways in which the news has been produced, disseminated and consumed. Technological advancements have created new opportunities to support media freedom and media pluralism, but have also prompted new sources of risk, including, but not limited to:
the increasing importance of private technological companies in governing commu- nication online; the lack of transparency in algorithm driven news recommenders; the spread and impact of disinformation; the polarisation of the public debate; and the de- creasing sustainability of legacy news media and journalism.
These issues are largely perceived to have had an impact on the public sphere, pluralism, and the health of democracy and feature prominently on the agenda of public discus- sions and of policy making, both in the EU and worldwide. However, there is still an insufficient understanding of the extent of these challenges, both on the transnational and national level, especially taking into account the varieties in media systems. There is also a lack of agreement on what should be the right approach to ensure that the stand- ards set to protect freedom of expression and media pluralism in traditional media systems are also respected online, and whether new standards are needed.
MPM2020 introduces new topics and variables that aim to closely evaluate the con- ditions for media pluralism online, and, in particular, with regard to online platforms that distribute content. In this endeavour, the CMPF had to (re)define the object of the MPM, bearing in mind an evolving definition of the media and of the relevant (new) players in news processes. Accordingly, the focus is no longer solely on the media, but is extended to include all relevant actors that offer news and current affairs content to the public and, in the end, contribute to the shaping of “public opinion”.
Based on thorough research and consultations with experts and stakeholders, each of the areas of the monitor was revised to take better account of the digital-related risks to media pluralism. The key step in this process has been to understand the role played, and the power held, by online platforms in the news market in filtering, framing and delivering relevant (news) content to individual users. Although many new consider- ations were added to the MPM questionnaire, the list is not exhaustive, as some of the topics (for example algorithmic bias or the existence and relevance of “filter bubbles”) were excluded, due to the lack of reliable cross-country data and studies covering all the MPM countries that would allow for adequate assessment. The project applies a comprehensive interdisciplinary questionnaire of 200 variables in 30 countries, and, as such, significantly relies on the availability of relevant and comparable data sources at the country level. The purpose of the MPM project is, therefore, also to identify the gaps in data availability and to urge relevant institutions, including media authorities, to start collecting data that is relevant to understanding contemporary news environments.
one dimension or understate another. Recent applications of the MPM have shown that
‘traditional’ risks for media pluralism persist in many countries, while new risks are evolving as well. The sections below present the digital-related sources of risk to media pluralism, as captured by the MPM2020.
The risk scores of the digital component of each area are, in general and on average, higher than the overall scores, with the exception of Market Plurality. The reasons of the increase of risks may depend on the lack of data when assessing specific phenomena that are typical of the online environment, linked to the opacity of relevant stakehold- ers in providing such data; the introduction in the MPM questionnaire of normative standards that are based on regulatory trends that are not evenly implemented, so far, by all the countries (e.g. the obligations of transparency for political parties and candi- dates about the spendings and techniques used in social media political campaigns; the self-regulatory measures of the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation).
In the Market Plurality area the lower score for the digital variables does not come from a higher competition, but reflects the better economic trends of digital news media, in comparison with the traditional news media
Based on the MPM data collection, and considering the average of the risk scores in the four areas, overall the digital variables in the MPM2020 questionnaire raised the risk in all the countries, except in Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, and Slovakia. In the UK the two scores are equal.
The MPM is not the correct instrument to answer to the academic and political debate if in the digital era there is more or less access to information or plurality of news, but, on the basis of the 2018-2019 data, the present inquiry allows to conclude that in the EU and in the EU+2 the risk for pluralism has generally increased.
Under this area several topics have been included to evaluate emerging or evolving digi- tal-specific risks to media pluralism, namely:
• Guarantees for Freedom of Expression online (6 variables);
• (Journalists’) Working Conditions (1 variable);
• (Journalists’) Digital safety (2 variables);
• Journalism and data protection (3 variables);
• Broadband coverage (1 variable);
• Internet access (2 variables);
• Net neutrality (3 variables).
These are organised under three indicators of the Basic Protection area: Protection of the freedom of expression; Journalistic profession, standards and protection and Universal reach of traditional media and access to the Internet. In total, there are 18 (eighteen) dig- ital-specific variables (questions), which are also taken into account in the general assess- ment of the Basic Protection area.
The average of the “digital” variables (36%, medium risk) in the Basic Protection Area scores higher than the general average for the same area (33%, at the limit of low risk), and, therefore, results in a medium risk. In absolute numbers, the digital dimension of Basic protection is somehow comparable to the overall score of this domain, but it pre-