State regulation of resources and support to the media sector

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

Across this indicator, 3 countries score high risk: Hungary, Slovenia, and Turkey. Slo- venia possesses a regulation on spectrum frequency allocation but, according to the country team, the provisions of the law do not ensure transparent allocation, nor is the process transparent in practice. Direct subsidies to the media in Slovenia are very lim- ited and there is no clear set of rules regarding the distribution of state advertising. In Hungary, there have been several legal procedures against the media authority alleging unfair and non-transparent frequency allocations. State subsidies are distributed to the media by the Media Council and the MTVA (PSM) for local, regional and community media and programmes, via the Hungarian Media Fund, but no reports are available to scrutinise who the beneficiaries are. In the last few years, the state (including the government, state-owned companies, institutions, ministries, local government) has become one of the biggest advertisers in Hungary, in the absence of regulation on this matter that would ensure fair and transparent allocation that is free of political interests (Batorfy et al. 2020). In Turkey, the Directorate General of Press Advertisement (BİK) has been questioned on its legitimacy, function, and lack of autonomy ever since it was founded. During the observed period, BİK has been blocking state advertisements of the opposition dailies, Evrensel and BirGün, in a move that journalists describe as an attempt to silence critical media (Inceoglu et al. 2020).

12 countries rank in the medium risk band on this indicator, while 15 countries score as being at low risk. These results correspond to MPM2017.

Figure 3.3.4.a. Indicator on State regulation of resources and support to the media sector - Map of risks per country

This indicator is composed of three sub-indicators: Spectrum allocation, Government subsidies (direct and indirect), and Rules on state advertising. The sub-indicator on Spectrum allocation, which assesses the existence and implementation of the legal framework that enacts the general regulatory principles and policy objectives of the Ra- dio Spectrum Policy Programme (2012), continues to be at low risk for the vast majority of countries. Most have effective regulation, and no major disputes have recently been recorded on this matter.

In 12 countries there are no direct state subsidies to the media (Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slova- kia and Turkey). In Cyprus, Hungary and Poland, these are available, but the criteria regarding the distribution of direct state subsidies to media outlets are either not clearly set out, or the practice is not fully transparent. Indirect subsidies, largely in the form of tax exemptions, are available in two thirds of the countries under examination, and they are mostly fairly distributed.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, news organisations, as the key suppliers of credible and timely information, have recorded a remarkable increase in audiences, but have not been spared of economic consequences, strong drop in advertising revenue and follow up newsroom cuts (UNESCO Brief, 2020). Journalists associations have urgently called states to include the media in recovery plans and provide financial support to profes- sional journalism. From the perspective of preserving pluralism, it is crucial that these mechanisms are timely, comprehensive and allocated in a transparent way based on the clear and fair criteria.

Figure 3.3.4.b. Indicator on State regulation of resources and support to the media sector - Averages per sub-indicator

The third sub-indicator relates to the Distribution of state advertising. As in the previ- ous round of monitoring, state advertising persists in being the most problematic issue for most countries, and it is the highest scoring component of this indicator (Figure 3.3.4.b.). State advertising is described as being any advertising that is paid for by gov- ernments (national, regional, local) and state-owned institutions and companies, to the media. The majority of countries (21) scored high risk because they lack the legislation to ensure fair and transparent rules on the distribution of state advertising to media outlets, and this is also reflected in practice through low transparency in relation to the distribution criteria, the amounts allocated, and the beneficiaries. In fact, the risk level is the highest possible in 13 out of these 21 countries: Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slo- vakia, and Turkey. This list confirms that risks related to state advertising continue to be present to a greater extent in Central-Eastern European countries, and in the candidate countries, than in the other members of the EU. Ireland might look like an outlier here.

According to the information provided by the country team, any public body seeking to place an advert in the Irish print media must do so via an intermediary who is appoint- ed via a public tendering process. Although the public procurement is an open (and heavily rule-bound) tendering process, once that tender has been won, the rules on the placement of individual advertisements are completely unclear.

Figure 3.3.4.c. Sub-indicator on Distribution of state advertising - Map of risks per country

3.3.5. Independence of public service media governance and