Monitoring political independence of public service media: comparative analysis across 19 European Union Member States

ABSTRACT

This paper examines risks for political independence of public service media (PSM) in European Union Member States by examining legal safeguards for guaranteeing independence of PSM’s governance and its funding mechanisms, and also the extent to which these are implemented. The analysis was conducted in 19 EU countries through a questionnaire-based method. The questionnaire was completed by a local team consisting of national media scholars. Results point to differences in media policies concerned with PSM’s independence among EU countries, with many risks associated with these policies and their implementation. Specifically, significant risk for PSM’s political independence has been identified in more than half of the EU Member States included in the sample (n = 11), most of these being countries of Southern and Central Eastern Europe.

KEYWORDS:

• Comparative analysis
• public service media
• European Union
• political independence
• risk

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank colleagues from the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (European University Institute), particularly Elda Brogi, Lisa Ginsborg, Pier Luigi Parcu, and Alina Ostling, with whom she participated on development and implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2015, the project reported in this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. In spite of the fact that almost all countries in the world have a PSM of some kind, it needs to be acknowledged that there are many differences between PSM systems. The focus of this paper is on the PSM systems in the EU. European PSM are characterised by the low cost of accessibility, high availability, promotion of diversity and pluralism, catering for minorities, and overall focus on political, cultural, and educational content (Bardoel & d’Haenens, 2008; Papathanassopoulos, 2007), which is not how PSM necessarily functions in other parts of the world.

2. More details about the project are available here: http://monitor.cmpf.eui.eu/#. The data for MPM2015 were collected during June 2015, and hence captures the media policies and their implementation in this point in time. It should be noted that the changes in media law which affect PSM in Poland, which came into effect in 2016, as well as developments in Croatia, have not been captured by this study. The consequent monitor, Media Pluralism Monitor 2016, is aiming to assess these.

3. It should be noted that some countries could have been considered in a different cluster. For example, some studies place Croatia in Southern Europe (e.g. Peruško, 2013).

4. Local teams were affiliated with universities and research institutes, and consisted of media scholars who were invited by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom to implement the MPM2015 in their respective countries. For a detailed list of universities/institutes involved and local teams’ team leaders please consult Brogi et al. (2016).

5. Hanretty (2009) was among the first ones to raise the question about the connection of the de jure independence, which can be measured by the examination of the legal framework in which a PSM operates, and its actual, de facto independence. He argues that legislation may not be completely clear or enforced, so examining the regulations does not necessarily tell us whether or not a PSM is actually independent in practice. In order to test the connection between the de jure and de facto independence, Hanretty created an index of de jure independence consisting of several indicators (including PSM funding, and appointment and dismissal procedures for its board) and examined its correlation with PSM’s de facto independence which was measured through a proxy based on the executive turnover. The results showed that well-established legal framework which guarantees political independence of the PSM indeed ensures its independence, but only when the size of the market for news is taken into account. In other words, “assuming average press circulation, an increase from no legal protection to full legal protection would result in an increase from negligible to almost total de facto independence” (2009, p. 88).

6. For questions’ descriptions and methods of measurement, see Brogi et al. (2016).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Parliament through the Project for the update and the pilot test implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor, within the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), Grant Decision No [30-CE-0675501/00-40].

Notes on contributors

Maja Šimunjak

Maja Šimunjak’s research focuses on media policy, journalism, and political communication trends and practices, particularly in authoritarian and transitional societies. Research projects she participated in recently range from analyses of media reporting and media policies, to analyses of news management practices and electoral campaigns. Šimunjak previously worked as a journalist in a range of Croatian national media outlets.