6. How media freedom has developed 2013 -2024

Chapter summary

• Only three of the 29 countries we surveyed (EU + 2) made progress in media freedom score during the period 2013 – 2024.
• The progress in the countries showing the most positive development during this period, led by Lithuania and Latvia, is much smaller than the decline experienced by those with the most negative development.
• Among the countries we selected, the EU countries plus the United Kingdom and Norway, Norway leads the global ranking in 2024, while Greece, the weakest of these countries, ranks 88th.

Data on the status of media freedom differs from the other datasets in that it says more about the outcome of illiberal forces gaining greater influence in a country than about the possible causes of a weakening of liberal democracy. However, we believe that declining media freedom can, in some cases, serve as an early indicator of a shift towards illiberal development. 

In any case, the degree of media freedom is relevant for assessing the ability of free editorial media to fulfill their societal mission and, therefore, belongs in this analysis.

Media Freedom Index – data foundation and method

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has conducted an annual survey of the status of press freedom in 180 countries since 2002. RSF defines press freedom as “The ability of journalists as individuals and collectives to select, produce, and disseminate news in the public interest independent of political, economic, legal, and social interference and in the absence of threats to their physical and mental safety.”

When the focus is on assessing the relationship between the prevalence of free, independent media and the level of democracy, as in this case, we expect to find a correlation between the degree of democracy and the degree of press freedom. However, the causality between these variables remains open to interpretation. Will reduced press freedom weaken the media’s role to such an extent that its assumed positive impact on democracy will be reduced? Is this reasoning even relevant? Or rather, is freedom of the press first weakened when illiberal forces come into power and challenge democracy in various ways? These are the questions we aim to address.

Regarding the method used to assess the degree of press freedom, RSF writes: 

“[…] the press freedom questionnaire and map are broken down into five distinct categories or indicators (political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context and safety).”
RSF further explains that “[The] score is calculated on the basis of two components: – a quantitative tally of abuses against media and journalists in connection with their work; [and] a qualitative analysis of the situation in each country or territory based on the responses of press freedom specialists […]”.

RSF has changed the method for mapping media freedom several times. In 2012, a major change was made, making it impractical to compare figures from before and after. In addition, a minor change was made in 2021.

We resolved this by displaying the numbers in two columns: one for the period 2013 – 2021 and another for 2013 – 2024. We chose to rank the numbers for the latter period. In this format, the 2013-2021 data shows a slight improvement in scores for six countries and a decline for 23 countries, while for the most recent measurement period, which incorporates the transition to the updated method, there is a slight improvement for three countries and a decline for 26.

Development in the degree of media freedom in the 27 EU countries, plus the United Kingdom and Norway, from 2013 – 2024

Norway ranked highest on RSF’s Press Freedom Index for the past seven years, and all ten of the top ranked countries are European, as of 2024.

However, the most striking finding is that 26 out of the 29 countries studied have declined on the press freedom index over this period. It is also of note that the weakest have regressed more significantly than the strongest have progressed. Latvia and Lithuania have made the most progress, by 6 and 5 points respectively, while Cyprus and Poland have experienced the greatest decline, by 16 and 17 points respectively.

A simplified diagram illustrating the developments over the past 11 years:

The graph shows the development over the last 13 years for the countries with the highest and lowest scores. The blue line shows the average development for our 27+2 countries.

One of the most striking aspects, however, is the significant difference in scores and rankings among EU countries. Even though EU/EEA countries dominate the top 10 list, there are also countries such as Hungary in 72nd place, Malta in 84th, and Greece, holding the weakest position in this group, in 107th place. Greece has dropped 23 places over the period studied, with Malta and Poland experiencing the largest declines, falling 39 and 35 places, respectively.

Among this group of countries, Lithuania has experienced the most positive development in the Press Freedom Index during this period, rising by 26 places, from 33rd to 7th.

Editorial independence in the report Uncovering news deserts in Europe

In spring 2024, the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPM) presented the study  “Uncovering news deserts in Europe: risks and opportunities for local and community media in the EU”. The survey, which is the first of its kind, focuses on the situation for local and regional media in all EU countries. We will return to this study later in this report, but here we extract the result for the indicator ‘Editorial Independence’ in the CMPF study.

This indicator assesses the independence of local editorials from political and commercial actors, and the result aligns with RSF’s Press Freedom Index, although the methodology and presentation differ to some extent.

The map below shows the degree of risk to editorial independence in the various EU countries. CMPF explains as follows: “Central and Southeastern Europe […]are the areas most affected by political and commercial control over the local media, with a deleterious effect on trustworthiness and diversity of information sources. Poland and Malta stand out as the countries in most jeopardy in these terms, followed closely by Hungary and Bulgaria, which place at the highest margin of the high-risk band. The Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Greece and Cyprus also score an overall high-risk level, with peaks of concern under specific subdomains.”

There are several methods that powerful political and economic interests can employ to control free media. By using public or semi-public companies, or in alliances with economically strong friends of the government, one can buy media outlets that illiberal leaders want to control, either fully or partially. One example of this was witnessed in Poland, when PKN Orlen, the Polish state-owned energy company controlled by the then-ruling PiS party, acquired Polska Press in 2020. This gave them control of more than 20 of the country’s 24 regional newspapers. 

Economic measures can be used both to reduce media companies’ revenues and increase their costs. For example, governments may allocate public advertisements – a vital source of revenue for media in many countries – preferentially to favored outlets that demonstrate loyalty, while withholding it from those that ask critical questions. On the cost side, authorities may impose higher taxes or new fees, as seen in recent initiatives across some EU countries. 

Strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPPs) is frequently used to impose significant legal costs and the burden of extra work on troublesome media, without any ambition to win the cases brought forward. 

The final category involves restricting access to public information, both written and oral. For example, politicians might refuse to be interviewed by media they do not like. 

Some of these abuses of power are addressed in new EU legislation, especially the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and a new directive aimed at protecting journalists (and others) from SLAPPs. EMFA includes both specific rules, such as against unreasonable criteria for allocating public advertisements, and more general rules intended to prevent illegitimate public interventions against free editorial media.