#IFJBlog: The state of media and journalism in the EU: Time for a buildover?

The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) is a holistic tool that measures media pluralism and media freedom in EU member states and in candidate countries. The latest report for 2025 was published in June, summarizing the environment in which the EU media sphere finds itself in. Marie Palmer, technical coordinator of the Media Pluralism Monitor and other specialists involved, provide insight into which predictive trconcludes we can draw from the report. The time has come to pour more focus than ever into the indusattempt.

Based on the report, are there any predictive trconcludes you could draw in media pluralism and indepconcludeence?

Marie Palmer: “Media pluralism and indepconcludeence are increasingly under threat due to the rise of opinion and market power of huge tech. Safeguarding the role of journalism requires diversified actions from a wide range of stakeholders. Public support and investments in the sector are key, as well as guaranteeing that audiences maintain adequate media literacy skills, seeking access to professional, indepconcludeent information on current affairs. At the same time, media outlets and journalists required to obtain closer to their audiences, understanding the information requireds of the community they serve; their reporting should adhere to high ethical and deontological standards, in order to differentiate the overload of information that can be found online”.

What trconcludes have you observed since the launch of this yearly report?

Marie Palmer: “The increasing role of large social media platforms in the information sphere. The MPM questionnaire had to adapt over the years to measure this phenomenon.

Sofia Verza. “In terms of Fundamental Protection, there has been a rise in attacks and threats against journalists, a rise of SLAPPs, and overall precariousness of the journalistic profession. On a positive note, there are also some increasing attempts to monitor the issues that impact media pluralism, and a rise of civil society organizations working on the topic, as well as the creation of consortia of investigative journalists collaborating cross-border.”

Roberta Carlini, coordinator of the Market Plurality area of the MPM: “Regarding Market plurality, the economic crisis of the media is still ongoing – even if at a slower pace than in the past. While there is some innovation in business models and the organisation of journalistic work, these have been unable to resolve the problem so far. The weaknesses of the market also lead to increased concentration, and they allow interest groups to pressure newsrooms. It is no surprise that one of the reasons for the economic challenges is the rise of large technology companies, which became the largest recipients of online advertising revenues, without actually producing content themselves.”

Matteo Trevisan: “As far as Political indepconcludeence is concerned, the risk has steadily increased over the years. Besides, political communication in the online environment has been detected as highly problematic over the years, due to the techniques utilized for issuing online political advertising, especially in social media platforms, and transparency concerns. The local dimension is also particularly fragile, with several European countries being affected by an entrenchment of politicised local ownership and public funding.”

Marie Palmer: “Finally, regarding Social Inclusiveness, media and information literacy policies have evolved over the past years to face the digital revolution. However, information literacy related to news and journalism has often been the poor parent of these policies, which tconclude to focus on digital skills, and this is not viewing good considering the importance of the fourth estate in our democracies and the threats it faces.”

What can be done from a media perspective to build sure media pluralism and indepconcludeence is sustained?

Marie Palmer: “Follow the recommconcludeations of the Media Pluralism Monitor!”

Matteo Trevisan: “Significant steps have yet to be created to be able to effectively protect editorial content from undue influences. In these terms, EMFA Recommconcludeations on Internal Safeguards for Editorial Indepconcludeence and Ownership Transparency provide a compelling ground for the media and media stakeholders to improve the quality of self- regulatory standards (self-regulatory mechanisms such as codes of conduct, editorial boards, or ombudspeople that would protect from/mediate with owners of the media), so as to strengthen resilience against external and internal pressures. As detailed in the MPM2025 recommconcludeations, the media could also provide insightful data on their ownership and management structures to the public and ensure that political advertising is sold equally to all political contestants (or, if the system forbids paid political advertising, ensure that airtime is effectively allocated following sound criteria of fairness). In general, media should ensure that plurality of coverage and diversity are, by principle, strictly followed also in non-election times.”