Executive summary

The risk to liberal democracies in the EU has steadily increased over the past 10 to 15 years, prompting the new EU Commission to launch a European Democracy Shield. In this report, we at Schibsted Media explore how Europe’s editorial media contribute to democracies in these troubling times, whether this function has changed over the past 15 years, and what the potential might be going forward.

The situation for a large portion of the editorial media in the EU is challenging, and most likely weaker than commonly perceived. Editorial media have  lost influence over the past 10 to 15 years, with many so diminished and outdated – especially in terms of digitalization and appeal to young people – that they are likely to disappear. It’s probable that the journalistic function requires a restart or a re-invention, to make journalism more appealing and relevant for user groups that currently avoid or rarely engage with editorial media.

However, this is only possible if the editorial media themselves are willing and able to invest in innovation that makes them more attractive and relevant, if the regulatory framework supports innovation, if media owners stop using media for their own private advantage, and if the next generation of journalistic start-ups, with their new ideas, are encouraged to take the leap into this market.

In the report, we analyze four available datasets, look for correlations, and discuss possible causality.

These are:

1. The Democracy Index from the V-Dem Institute
2. The study ”Uncovering News Deserts in Europe” by the Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF) in collaboration with researchers from the 27 EU member states
3. The Media Pluralism Monitor, also from CMPF
4. The Media Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders, supplemented with data from other sources on the same topic. We include the United Kingdom and Norway when data is available.

Not previously compared

As far as we know, these datasets have not previously been compared, and as such, this report gives new insight to the debate on the role of media in democracy.

In addition to these datasets, we have interviewed 20 experts, who contribute to the uniqueness of this report. They are individuals with in-depth knowledge of the situation in specific countries, experts with insights into international affairs and comparisons, as well as media leaders from both new and established media organizations.

In all four of these datasets, we see a negative trend over the past 10 to 15 years. The Democracy Index shows that we are back to the 1986 level, news deserts in Europe are expanding, media pluralism is decreasing, and only three of the 29 countries we looked at have made progress on the Media Freedom Index over the past 11 years. In other words, these reports paint roughly the same picture. 

The main reasons why editorial media have weakened are: social networks, which compete for people’s time and advertising revenue, low engagement from young users, a significant decline in the media economy leading to major cutbacks and fewer editorial resources, weakened independence as illiberal economic and political forces have taken control of editorial content in many cases, and the media’s own lack of ability and/or willingness to innovate.

Light in the darkness

But there is also light in this dark description of the status of the media sector. There are interesting editorial start-ups emerging across much of the EU. These initiatives are often being led by relatively young people, who have clear views on what journalism’s societal mission and contribution to democracy should be. These new players can be broad or niche-focused, and they largely seem to share the common trait of rethinking most aspects of publishing, including how to engage with their audiences. 

Of course, many of the strongest legacy media companies are also engaging in significant innovation efforts. The publishing sector in Norway and Sweden, for example, is at the forefront of establishing a digital subscription economy, with continuous experimentation with new audio and video formats. Investments in AI-driven tools, to streamline journalistic workflows and create new publishing formats, have also made considerable progress in many media companies.

Not a direct causality

Although there is clear correlation between the different datasets, there does not seem to be a direct causality between weakened editorial influence and weakened democracies. Researchers and others we interviewed have different opinions on whether there is causality between these trends. Our interpretation suggests that one must study various forces at play simultaneously to understand what is decisive in specific cases where a population shifts in an illiberal direction and exhibits support for politicians presumed to have little respect for the fundamental characteristics of a liberal democracy. 

A classic example of this would be that journalism with low public trust has limited ability to counter demagogic leaders who exploit strong emotions in the public, such as fear, anger, and deep concern for the future.

The most important contribution of editorial media to liberal democracies is conducting critical journalism that holds power accountable and provides reliable information essential for citizens to engage in societal issues. Widely accessible and credible journalism can contribute to a shared understanding of fundamental facts, which is necessary for constructive dialogue in a society.

Despite a challenging period in the history of free journalism, there is no indication that the journalistic function itself, with its fundamental characteristics, is any less relevant for contributing to liberal democracies now than it was 15 years ago. However, realizing this potential will require a great deal of effort.

As a follow-up to our analysis, we discuss four fundamental prerequisites that we believe must be present for editorial media to have significant positive impact on the degree of democracy: 

1. Producing credible and relevant content,
2. Ensuring reach,
3. Being innovative, and
4. Creating an apt regulatory framework to protect editorial media.

The first three of these refer to what the media themselves must do, while the fourth relates to regulatory conditions. 

We looked into eight inspiring cases, drawn from both legacy media and start-ups. Several of these cases involve user engagement, both in the journalistic idea phase and in connection with the publication phase. Some cases focus on “solution-oriented” journalism, meaning journalism that not only describes problems but also discusses possible solutions. One of the cases describes how to engage high school students in journalistic work, while another case goes into how AI helps enhance the journalistic workflow.

Three recommendations

The report concludes with recommendations for decision-makers on how to strengthen editorial media in Europe, both on national and EU level:

1. Ensure that regulations impacting the media sector and the digital market are implemented and respected,
2. Introduce a “media assessment test” to ensure that upcoming digital regulations do not lead to unintended consequences for editorial media,
3. Understand the need for innovation in new forms of publishing to create relevant and trustworthy news products. 

Editorial media is struggling in many parts of Europe, but with the right conditions it can recover and reinstate its importance in liberal  democracies. For this we need decision-makers that are curious, open and enthusiastic about what can be achieved, in the service of journalism for liberal democracies.