The role of AI in journalism offers both benefits and risks. Whilst it enhances efficiency for tasks such as transcription and data analysis, it also poses ethical concerns, propagates misinformation, and causes dependency on tech companies. Responsible AI use, editorial oversight, and robust training are crucial to navigating these growing challenges. Support from donors is essential for building capacity and fostering innovation in newsrooms.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to: “a collection of ideas, technologies, and techniques that relate to a computer system’s capacity to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence.”
Large language models (LLMs), able to comprehend and generate human language text, became widely accessible in late 2022, with OpenAI’s ChatGPT pioneering these efforts. Following its launch, companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft released their own generative AI products, integrating the technology into existing systems.
The role of AI in journalism emerges as a double-edged sword. Whilst it has already inflicted much harm through social media algorithms and surveillance practices, it also holds promise for enhancing efficiency in the media. Journalists can harness AI to mitigate risks through informed adoption, leveraging its capabilities to increase the speed of monotonous tasks, track malign government funding, and identify deepfakes, particularly benefiting data journalists. However, it is imperative to maintain awareness of the risks posed by AI, especially considering past mistakes with social media and the tendency towards overreliance on it for audience reach.
AI Usage in Newsrooms
Media professionals are increasingly making use of AI tools. A May 2024 global survey conducted by the public relations firm Cision found that 47% of journalists used tools like ChatGPT or Bard. At the same time, in an AP report published in April, 70% of respondents, journalists and editors worldwide indicated that their organisation had, at some point, used various AI tools.
However, geographical differences in AI usage in newsrooms can also be observed. According to a new report by the Thomson Foundation and Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), focusing on the Visegrad countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary), “AI adoption is slower and marked by ethical concerns, highlighting the need for careful management and collaboration.”
At the same time, journalists have been using AI tools for longer and on a much broader spectrum than most would think, says Damian Radcliffe, a professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Oregon.
In a recent survey by the Oxford-based Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ), media professionals mentioned back-end automation, such as transcription and copyediting, where AI tools are the most helpful in the media industry. This was followed by recommender systems, content production, and commercial applications. Another common example of AI application in newsrooms includes data analysis and automating repetitive tasks. This helps improve efficiency and frees up journalists to focus on more complex stories, whilst simultaneously increasing the speed and decreasing the costs of content production and distribution. Nowadays, “it is almost impossible to work without AI tools, especially if one works with large datasets,” says Willem Lenders, Program Manager at Limelight Foundation.
AI tools are used in newsrooms for various other purposes as well. According to Radcliffe, one significant use is in programmatic advertising: over 90% of US ads are handled this way. Another innovative application is dynamic paywalls, which adjust based on user-specific factors such as location, device, and visit frequency. This approach, employed by larger outlets like The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal, allows organisations to tailor the number of free articles and subscription offers to individual users. Additionally, AI is used for predictive analytics, helping newsrooms identify trending stories, influence article placement, devise social media strategies, and plan follow-up stories.
AI-Associated Risks
The use of AI in journalism also presents significant concerns, as the usage of AI poses substantial risks related to reliability, ethics, and the dissemination of misinformation. AI’s ability to “hallucinate” facts, or generate plausible but incorrect information, makes its use in information gathering problematic. Therefore, experts argue that news organisations should implement ethical guidelines and robust training to navigate these challenges.
Limelight’s Lenders emphasises that responsible AI use depends not just on its application but on who owns the tool, drawing parallels to the influence of big tech on content distribution. He advocates for a balanced use that includes human oversight, to prevent the exclusion of critical editorial judgment. Radcliffe also identifies the most significant risk as removing human oversight in newsrooms. He thinks there are topics where AI tools can be helpful, for example in sports coverage, which can often be quite formulaic. However, other beats might require more nuance, and AI cannot provide that yet. An example of this risk is the insensitive headline generated by AI in an MSN obituary of a basketball player, underscoring the need for editorial supervision to avoid catastrophic mistakes. Furthermore, Lenders argues that LLMs regurgitate what has been written before, which can lead to reproducing harmful stereotypes.
The current function of generative AI jeopardises access to trustworthy information. It does not distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources and often fails to disclose its primary source of information, making verification difficult. This amplifies misinformation and public confusion, emphasising users’ need for digital and media literacy.
Accountability is another critical issue. Unlike human-generated content, AI lacks clear attribution, undermining public trust in journalism. Journalists’ intellectual property can even be compromised this way, as AI often uses information from journalistic articles without credit, exacerbating existing viability issues in journalism.
Radcliffe notes that smaller newsrooms might embrace AI as a cost-saving measure, reducing the number of reporters. Those roles will never come back. He warns of the dangers of dependency on platforms, highlighting the lessons from social media where algorithm shifts have impacted reach, and the control has always remained with tech companies. “It is not a partnership; all power lies with the tech companies,” he argues.
Lenders echoes this concern, pointing out that the primary aim of tech companies is profit, not public interest or quality information. He suggests developing independent tools and technologies, like those by OCCRP, ICIJ, Bellingcat, Independent Tech Alliance, AI Forensics, and others. However, these require significant investment and user support from the journalism sector.
Radcliffe further cautions that news organisations risk becoming redundant if users turn to chatbots for information. To mitigate this, he advises preventing chatbots from scraping content and looking to the newsrooms to create unique content that adds value beyond what AI can offer. He believes fostering trust, and educating the audience on why journalism matters, are crucial. Lenders concurs that AI cannot replace the relationship with the audience, highlighting trust as the main issue. He also believes smaller independent newsrooms will recognise that they cannot maintain quality by relying solely on AI.
The debate about AI in journalism often polarises into two extremes, Lenders adds that it will either save or ruin the industry. “We don’t need to worry about the robots, we have to look at the reality,” he argues. A realistic perspective acknowledges the harm algorithms have already caused, such as in ad distribution and spreading disinformation. An AI Forensics study showed how Meta allowed pro-Russia propaganda ads to flood the EU, illustrating the potential for AI misuse.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also raises alarms about AI-generated websites that mimic real media sites and siphon ad revenue from legitimate news outlets. Research by NewsGuard identified numerous sites predominantly written by AI, aiming solely for profit by maximising clicks with minimal effort. This approach eliminates ethical journalism, floods the market with questionable articles, and diminishes access to reliable information. These AI-generated articles also sometimes contain harmful falsehoods, underscoring the moral necessity to disclose AI-generated content and ensure transparency, so readers can critically evaluate the information.
The Potential Role of Funders
In this evolving landscape, donors could play a crucial role, not by providing direct solutions but by supporting organisations which, together, form an ecosystem that nurtures innovation. Their involvement could bridge the gap between technology and policy, particularly in journalism. For example, donors can invite experts with a high level of tech knowledge to critically assess potential pitfalls and ensure they are well-informed, in order to avoid simplistic utopian or dystopian narratives.
Lenders highlights the importance of donors informing themselves about the possible harms and risks of AI and encouraging grantees to improve their technology knowledge profoundly. He emphasises the need for good core funding to avoid reliance on cheaper, riskier solutions. Lenders argues that, given the rapid pace of technological change, it is crucial to have robust organisations that can anticipate risks and support journalists in connecting with these entities or conducting their analyses. Rather than shifting funding every few years, building capacity within newsrooms and CSOs to keep up with AI advancements is a more sustainable strategy.
Conversely, Radcliffe underscores the necessity of AI training, particularly for smaller news organisations. Whilst large organisations are well-resourced and capable of developing in-house AI solutions, smaller ones often lack the resources to follow or contribute to debates on AI. These smaller newsrooms are also less able to engage in legal battles against tech companies. Thus, donors should support them in lobbying for their needs and amplifying their voices. Training surrounding the uses and dangers of AI, especially increasing revenue through methods like dynamic paywalls and facilitating connections among smaller newsrooms to share their AI experiences and use cases, are crucial steps donors can take. “But I would encourage all donors to ask newsrooms what they need,” he adds. “Don’t dictate the training and funding, ask the outlets you want to support how you can best help them in this space.”
Smaller publishers often turn to third-party AI solutions from platform companies due to the high costs and challenges of independent development, such as the need for extensive computing power, competition for tech talent, and the scarcity of large datasets. These platform solutions offer convenience, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, allowing publishers to leverage AI capabilities without the financial burden of in-house development. However, Lenders points out the risks associated with cheaper solutions. “We need newsrooms that have the capacity to be critical of what they use,” he argues, adding that it is not a question of utopia versus dystopia: understanding how AI tools can help newsrooms requires a realistic analysis of its benefits and risks.
Amidst a global rise in news avoidance, an increasing number of journalists and researchers map its implications and underlying causes. As a response, a number of strategies are being proposed to re-engage with audiences and reaffirm the value of professional journalism.
The global increase in news avoidance is causing concern among journalists and media researchers alike. To understand the phenomenon, it is important to distinguish between selective and consistent news avoidance, as each has its own reasons and consequences. Selective avoidance, often attributed to news fatigue and information overload, involves steering clear of specific topics or sources rather than entirely shunning the news. Consistent news avoidance is more concerning, indicating minimal engagement with news in general.
According to the 2023 Digital News Report by Reuters Institute, financed by Google, the proportion of those who avoid news, either consistently or occasionally, is close to all-time highs of 36% across various markets. Selective news avoiders follow various strategies, including avoiding news on certain channels such as the radio or social media, as well as more specific actions like reducing news checking frequency or avoiding certain topics like the conflict in Ukraine or national politics.
Benjamin Toff, assistant professor at the Hubbard School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota, points out that there is less data on consistent news avoidance, which is a particularly concerning trend in countries like the UK and US where it has risen to 7%. “In anti-democratic countries there is also a correlation between lower press freedom and higher news avoidance, because news is perceived as less reliable and less trustworthy,” Toff said, adding that data about the phenomenon in highly autocratic countries are scarce.
There are various reasons behind the increase of news avoidance. Toff explained that selective news avoidance is a response to information overload and the complexities of today’s media landscape, reflecting a general disengagement from news. This phenomenon is closely intertwined with digital infrastructure and with people’s identities and ideological beliefs, shaping their perception of the world.
In a survey conducted in the Netherlands, researchers identified seven distinct profiles of news avoiders, each with its own set of characteristics and motivations. These profiles range from those who occasionally avoid news due to concerns about its quality or its negative impact on their emotions to those who prefer alternative media sources. Among these profiles are also those who feel indifferent towards news, or find it challenging to engage with. Additionally, there are those who hold negative sentiments toward news, often driven by political ideologies.
News avoidance is more prevalent among younger generations, Toff said, as well as among women and those with lower levels of education and socioeconomic status. There is no specific data linking the growing popularity of TikTok to the increasing tendency of younger audiences to access news through the platform, a trend that suggests a weakening connection to traditional news brands. Yet, there is a perception among these audiences that traditional news habits are outdated and a belief that news will naturally come to them.
News avoidance can have serious societal consequences. Toff noted a strong correlation between political engagement and news consumption. “Political coverage often requires a significant level of background knowledge, it is like tuning in to Episode 3 in Season 4 of Game of Thrones, without knowing what happened in the show before,” he said. Since news avoidance is particularly prevalent among disadvantaged groups in the society, it poses a risk of widening existing inequalities by further skewing mainstream journalism towards privileged audiences.
As publishers have recognised the urgency of the issue, many started to devise strategies to address it. Researchers have also proposed several research-backed steps that journalists and editors can take to effectively counteract news avoidance.
One crucial aspect involves responding to how news makes people feel emotionally, Toff said. News organisations should acknowledge common complaints about news being depressing, irrelevant, or overwhelming. By presenting uplifting, relevant, and accessible content that resonates with people’s lives, they may attract audiences who previously avoided news products. Additionally, efforts to engage news avoiders should prioritise representing and respecting diverse groups, fostering a sense of inclusion and relevance.
To make news more accessible for consistent avoiders, simplifying news content and formats is essential. Offering summary pieces, providing background and context for stories, and personalising news delivery based on individual interests and levels of background knowledge can help engage audiences who may feel overwhelmed by traditional news formats.
Furthermore, educating the public about the value of journalism and promoting innovative news formats are also important steps in countering news avoidance. Actively listening to audience feedback is a key component of successful engagement strategies.
Ultimately, countering news avoidance requires an all-purpose approach involving news organisations, especially public service media, non-profits, and even civic organisations and universities that can offer media literacy training, according to Toff. By making news content more visible and relevant to everyday life, reaching audiences on their preferred platforms and in preferred formats, and emphasising the social benefits of news consumption, publishers can attempt to re-engage audiences and reaffirm the importance of professional journalism.
In an era where the value of journalism is increasingly scrutinised, understanding its impact presents a complex puzzle. From traditional metrics to innovative methodologies, the quest to measure impact evolves, with new tools emerging.
Both journalists and donors recognise that the media operates within a larger ecosystem, making it difficult to isolate and measure the precise impact of journalism. Furthermore, impact can vary significantly depending on the goals and priorities of different journalists and newsrooms. For instance, while one news organisation might prioritise educating its audience and measure impact by assessing changes in public opinion on contentious issues, other outlets may focus on different indicators.
Still, journalists and media organisations worldwide are engaged in assessing the impact of their work, driven by a dual motivation of self-evaluation and the need to demonstrate value to donors, investors, and the public. Increasingly, media outlets recognise that communicating the positive outcomes of their work not only boosts trust and loyalty among audiences but also holds potential for revenue growth.
This shift reflects a common belief among funders that investing in journalism requires tangible evidence of impact, moving beyond viewing it solely as a public good. Such recognition underscores the need for donors to evaluate their investments in media and journalism programmes thoroughly.
Insights into measuring impact, such as those outlined by the International Journalists’ Network, highlight its multifaceted nature, encompassing not only the dissemination of information but also its broader societal effects. From shaping public opinion and encouraging public discourse to driving policy change, the impact of journalism spans various phases, often defying simple cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, methodologies for measuring impact extend beyond traditional metrics like online engagement, with a broad range of tools developed by academics. Add to that cross-border collaborations, or even negative consequences, such as potential backlash against journalists.
To analyse impact, there are a lot of different studies across various fields like economics and political science, focusing on topics from government spending and corruption to voter behaviour, argues Anya Schiffrin, director of the media, technology, and communications specialisation at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), adding that these “measurement tools are becoming more and more sophisticated.”
The Impact Dashboard, developed by Pluralis in collaboration with the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), is one of such tools. It evaluates supported media organisations across three key dimensions: long-term sustainability, plurality, and accessibility to information, analysing impact on three levels. On the micro level, it tracks how supported organisations change in terms of revenues and audience reach over the course of working with the funder. On the meso level, the Dashboard collects evidence to measure the level of media plurality in the country. Finally, on the macro level, it examines the impact on society, searching for evidence such as potential policy changes resulting from coverage by the media receiving the grant.
Another approach is proposed by Schiffrin, who, with Andre Correa d’Almeida, Lindsay Green-Barber, Adelina Yankova, and Dylan W. Groves developed a multi-faceted metric system to analyse media impact. As they argue, three primary research strands contribute to understanding media impact: social scientists focus on identifying causal effects, often related to citizen knowledge, attitudes, and government responses; media researchers offer accounts of causal processes and diverse media effects; and media practitioners provide an insider’s view, highlighting the impact on journalists and media organisations. These approaches can complement each other, hence their proposed taxonomy that can unify measures of media impact, and inform decisions by practitioners and donors.
The taxonomy comprises three levels of impact. At the individual level, media reports influence beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. The network/organisation level involves the collective impact on social networks, norms, and actions, including effects within media organisations and journalist communities. The institution level pertains to long-term effects on institutions and culture. The taxonomy also distinguishes between external impact on society and internal impact within the journalism community, providing a framework that can be adapted to different objectives, acknowledging the diverse goals of donors, activists, journalists, and media outlets. “One can look at the table and then measure those metrics their organisation cares about,” Schiffrin said.
In evaluating the impact of journalism, it is important to recognise that some news organisations have smaller audiences rendering metrics like pageviews or listenership alone inadequate. Furthermore, while one traditional measure of journalism’s impact involves influencing government policy or prompting officials to address issues, achieving such outcomes often demands sustained reporting over an extended period.
Furthermore, in countries with more autocratic rulers and intensified attacks on journalism, government responses to policy concerns or official misconduct exposed by investigative reporting cannot be expected. In fact, in such landscapes if donor funding contributes to the survival of a news organisation, it can already be perceived as having a significant impact. “It is important to keep the flame alive,” Schiffrin said. “You don’t want these outlets to die.” She added that, when measuring impact, journalism donors should avoid burdening grantees with overly demanding reporting requirements, focusing instead on listening to their feedback.
The Ethical Media Alliance (EMA) in Romania aims to tackle quantitative metrics: the main flaw of the digital advertising ecosystem that undermines public interest journalism. The initiative aims to allocate funds based on ethical principles to support trustworthy media in achieving a positive social impact and financial sustainability, while also securing brand safety for advertisers.
In the age of web 2.0, the advertising market disproportionally incentivises clickbait content. The quest for the higher reach at the lowest cost has led to an emphasis on viral content, often at the expense of responsible, public interest journalism. However, amidst this challenging landscape, initiatives like the Ethical Media Alliance (EMA) in Romania are emerging as beacons of hope for independent media organisations, especially those dedicated to public interest journalism.
The initiative was born as a “result of frustration over how much money is funnelled to irresponsible content producers,” says Dragos Stanca, EMA’s initiator. He thinks that there is a critical flaw in the digital advertising ecosystem, where the focus on quantitative metrics such as clicks and impressions undermines the value of public interest journalism. This has led even serious publishers to embrace clickbait content to survive in the era of programmatic advertising.
In the first phase of the project, EMA positions itself as a not-for-profit sales house guided by ethical principles, involving journalistic startups and projects often excluded from commercial funding due to their relatively modest audience numbers. Stanca acknowledges the necessity of speaking the language of the advertisers, thereby integrating metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) into their approach. Additionally, EMA aims to foster a positive social impact by supporting content essential for democracy.
The network currently includes 15 journalistic projects employing over 120 journalists, with a joint monthly reach of 1.2 million users and 550,000 video views on average. Advertisers are required to commit to a minimum one-month campaign that spans across all portals. In other words, the same ad is on display on all the sites thus increasing its reach to a level that, as Stanca puts it, “makes sense for a media buyer.” EMA ensures brand safety by allowing only organisations producing public interest content to join. This guarantees advertisers that their ads will be associated with responsible content.
Furthermore, EMA also reforms the distribution of ad revenue in the network. Half of it is distributed among partners based on the number of employed journalists, while the other half is based on quantitative metrics (35% based on the number of ad impressions and 15% on social media reach). This follows the usual ‘cost per mille’ (CPM) approach, which is the cost an advertiser pays for one thousand views or impressions of an advertisement.
The initiative sets an ambitious target: diverting 1% of the total ad spending in Romania to public interest journalism. In Romania, where the total ad market is €700m a year, with only €30-35m spent online by local companies (out of a total digital ad spending of €255m), the EMA initiative has the potential to double the funds allocated to digital journalism. Currently, no more than €3.5-5 million a year is allocated to digital journalism, according to the initiators of the Ethical Media Alliance.
Stanca believes that shifting even relatively smaller amounts to trustworthy media could significantly enhance their financial sustainability. Particularly for emerging journalistic startups, even a few thousand euros per month can make a significant difference.
Early successes are evident, with the initiative launching last fall and the first campaigns commencing in October. The two largest banks in Romania have joined to date, contributing €35,000 for the first two months as a test campaign.
“Drawing from our experience in the commercial digital brokerage market, I can confidently say that anything that is new takes up to one year to become adopted by the market,” says Stanca, adding that he aims for an ad spending of €100,000 per month by the end of the year.
Recently, he outlined the operating principles of the alliance and presented what his team considers to be an initial format for ethical advertising in a dialogue hosted by independent journalist Petrisor Obae, who operates the media-focused portal Pagina de Media. The principles the EMA operates on aim to create an “ethical algorithm” to be used for the allocation of funds from the ad space. The principles the EMA operates on aim to create an “ethical algorithm” to be used for the allocation of funds from the ad space. The primary goal is to provide enough resources to motivate especially young people to choose a career in journalism, according to Stanca. Moreover, the EMA wants to motivate them to produce content in and for the public interest, “not just to focus on gaining the programmatic advertising revenues or, more seriously, to exclusively serve the interests of media owners with questionable agendas or to write solely for and about brands that are essentially seeking disguised advertising,” Stanca added. “The Ethical Media sales house part is just the first phase of the project; we plan to propose additional initiatives that support an ecosystem which, in our opinion, is essential for the survival of democracy,” he said.
While the initiative is currently confined to Romania, Stanca is open to expansion. As EMA pioneers ethical advertising to support public interest journalism, it could have an impact far beyond national boundaries, ushering in a new era for responsible media funding.
The platform Journalift, the first to offer media development support in local languages in the Western Balkans, was launched as part of a three-year program. Despite the conclusion of the project, it continues to thrive independently. Offering free courses and a wealth of information to fortify the impact of media development in the region, Journalift has taken on a life of its own.
In the ever-evolving landscape of media development, projects often conclude with the end of their funding and implementation period. However, some elements of these initiatives take on a life of their own, continuing to thrive and make a lasting impact. One of the most prominent examples is Journalift, a digital platform born out of the ‘Media for All’ programme, jointly implemented by the British Council, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), Intrac, and Thomson Foundation, and funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO).
The primary goal of the ‘Media for All’ programme was to bolster smaller media organisations in the Western Balkans, supporting them in developing feasible and innovative business plans. Thomson Foundation played a key role by providing grants, capacity building, business support, and dedicated mentoring, recognising that mentorship is key to achieving successful results.
One tangible outcome of this programme was the creation of Journalift, a multilingual platform launched in May 2021. While the ‘Media for All’ programme concluded last year, Journalift has continued to flourish. “It has a life of its own now,” says Sanja Lazic, the platform’s Managing Editor, and Thomson Foundation’s Communications and Outreach Coordinator for programs in Central and South East Europe.
What sets Journalift apart is its commitment to breaking language barriers. Many media workers in news outlets in the Western Balkans face challenges accessing training and upgrading their skills due to language constraints, as these trainings are often offered only in English. Journalift addressed this by providing up-to-date news and valuable content in all local languages, making it the first platform of its kind in the region.
Even though new content on the platform is mostly available in English only, the target audience is wider after the end of the ‘Media for All’ programme. Now, Journalift is not exclusive to former programme grantees; it serves as a free resource platform for anyone interested in media development. The resources are tailor-made particularly for the Western Balkans and Central Europe; however, audiences from other regions also find it useful.
The platform offers a variety of written content collected through various types of activities related to media development. For example, a small media organisation in rural Serbia can share its experience and the most important lessons learned in a capacity-building programme in which it worked with the help of a mentor on business ideas. This makes it useful not only for other outlets in a similar situation but also for funders who may gain ideas about which approaches work best in the region.
“The idea is to have tailor-made content, but also to give tips, tricks and advice to all media that can implement it,” Lazic says.
The platform also offers free training, including e-learning courses covering a wide range of topics from safety to podcasting. Some courses are available in local languages as well. Additionally, webinars are organised through the platform.
With a monthly visitor count of around 8,000, Journalift has become a vital hub for media professionals. It stands out as a unique and indispensable resource, demonstrating that even after the conclusion of a project, certain elements can transcend their initial purpose and continue to shape the landscape they were created to serve.
The vague and undefined concepts in the new Hungarian “sovereignty bill” aimed at countering “foreign interference,” and the powers of a new authority present a threat to independent media.
On December 12, the Hungarian Parliament approved a new bill focused on “protecting national sovereignty.” Although the ruling party, Fidesz, claims that the law aims to prevent “undue political interference” by foreign agents, a closer examination reveals potential threats to press freedom and concerns over undefined parameters within the legislation.
A central feature of the bill is the establishment of a Sovereignty Protection Authority (SPA), which is empowered to investigate “foreign interference,” including acts of disinformation that influence democratic debates. Notably, the law lacks explicit clarification on the definition of “foreign interference,” leaving the interpretation to the discretion of the authority. This ambiguity raises concerns about the potential inclusion of independent media organizations as targets, particularly given the government’s historical hostility towards such entities that receive foreign grants. These organizations have long been targeted by the government’s propaganda machine, which labels them as “dollarmedia” for accepting foreign funding.
Hungarian experts say that intentionally vague definitions and the inclusion of undefined concepts in the legislation serve a deterrent purpose. Drawing parallels with the media law, one of the first major legislations passed after Fidesz had regained power in 2010, the broad interpretation possibilities granted to the SPA could lead to an atmosphere of uncertainty, similar to the effects observed when the new media authority was established.
The legislation provides unclear guidance on potential sanctions, which range from publishing investigation results to initiating criminal proceedings. The SPA is granted sweeping powers, enabling it to interrogate any individual, scrutinize all data of the targeted organization (including confidential contracts and tax files), and summon its head before the Parliament’s National Security Committee. The alarming aspect is that the SPA operates outside the judicial system and lacks any form of oversight, which raises concerns about the potential misuse of power. Furthermore, it has also been revealed that a loyal Fidesz cadre has been nominated as the head of the SPA. This individual is also known for having served as the editor-in-chief of a government-friendly weekly a few years ago. During his tenure, the publication caused a scandal by publishing a list of “agents of George Soros” in Hungary.
The broad investigative authority of the SPA, coupled with the lack of oversight, could have a chilling effect on media organizations, especially smaller ones heavily reliant on foreign grants. The fear of investigations disrupting their operations may lead such organizations to reconsider applying for foreign funding, further challenging their sustainability within Hungary’s captured media landscape.
In an unprecedented move, ten independent Hungarian news organizations issued a joint statement a day after the passage of the bill. They argue that the legislation severely restricts press freedom, potentially making it difficult or even impossible for independent newsrooms, journalists, and media companies to operate effectively.
While some government officials had previously downplayed that the new bill would target free press, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban confirmed this in a recent statement on national radio. “The Sovereignty Protection Act makes it clear that loopholes will be closed, dollars cannot roll into the coffers of the left and the left’s media. It’s not fair that foreign money is used to influence people’s political decisions according to the interests of their sponsors,” he said.
As a worrisome development, Hungary is not the only country exhibiting increased scrutiny of foreign funding for independent media lately. In November, Azerbaijan, where President Ilham Aliyev is an ally of Orban, summoned U.S., German, and French envoys to protest against what it calls “illegal financial operations” targeting investigative news outlet Abzas Media. Three journalists from Abzas Media have been detained, and the charges against them include smuggling. During the raid on the outlet’s office, police claim to have found €40,000. Similar to Hungary, the crackdown was accompanied by a campaign in the government’s propaganda machine, accusing Abzas Media of illegally bringing undeclared foreign grants into the country.
These developments may mean that some donors will have to reconsider their grantmaking strategy, either out of caution or because grantees may urge them to do so to avoid unwanted repercussions. Hungarian media organizations receiving foreign funding will most likely be under scrutiny in the upcoming months, prompting some donors and implementers to find “innovative” solutions to continue operating in the country, development that we will document in the Journalism Funders Forum newsletter.
As the world gears up for what has been touted by The Economist as “the biggest election year in history”, with a staggering 76 countries set to hold elections, the implications for media freedom loom large. Here are six key elections that will likely have a major impact on media freedom, some of them with clear implications for independent media in Europe.
US Presidential Elections: Will Trump Make a Comeback?
The upcoming US presidential elections pose the pivotal question: Will Donald Trump stage a return to the White House? Amidst the challenge of winning the Republican primaries, polls indicate a favorable chance for Trump. If he emerges victorious, concerns arise over a potential surge in disinformation, smear campaigns against the media, and cuts in funding for independent media. These issues could impact global perceptions and bolster populist leaders worldwide. According to data collected by the Media and Journalism Research Center, Trump’s return to power is likely to have a significant impact on the funds of American development agencies dedicated to supporting media and journalism, which are active in many European countries.
European Parliament: Rise of the Populist Far-Right
In early June, citizens of the 27 EU Member States will cast their votes for the European Parliament. The pressing question is whether the rise of far-right parties in certain countries will reverberate within the EU elections. Polls suggest gains for Eurosceptics and populists, raising uncertainties about their influence on EU policymaking, including media regulation and support for independent press. As in the United States, millions of euros in funding now earmarked for support of independent media and journalism could be jeopardized.
India: Will the Democratic Decline Continue?
India, the world’s most populous democracy, is facing the prospect of President Narendra Modi securing a third consecutive term. The last few years of his reign have been marked by ongoing campaigns against the Muslim minority as well as numerous attacks on critics and news media, including tax raids, arrests of journalists, and targeting them with the Pegasus spyware. Modi’s government has curbed press freedom through legislation and regulation, giving the government increasing control over the information space. In elections, he will face a coalition of 28 parties, led by Rahul Gandhi.
Romania: Surge of the Far-Right
Romania is bracing itself for presidential and parliamentary elections amidst the rise of the far-right party AUR, which has surpassed 20% in recent polls. AUR is characterized by Christian fundamentalism, sovereignism, and anti-scientific sentiments. The sympathy of AUR’s leader George Simion towards Hungary’s Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party, as well as the shared disinformation narratives between the two parties, hint at the potential direction Romania may take with Simion in charge. According to data from local journalists, AUR is believed to have strong financial backing from Russia. Its narrative is blatantly supportive of Russia and its war against Ukraine. AUR’s win is expected to have negative consequences on the independent media in Romania. The party has been building its own media in recent years and has been lashing out against critical journalists. AUR is also known as one of the country’s main sources of disinformation.
Austria: Far-Right Resurgence
Austrians will also head to the polls this year, and the parliamentary elections may bolster far-right populist parties, according to analysts. The Freedom Party (FPÖ) was shaken by the so-called Ibiza scandal four years ago. The party’s President, Heinz-Christian Strache, was recorded talking about corrupt political practices, including references to their wish to build a media landscape like Viktor Orban did. Now, the FPÖ is the most popular party in the country, signaling potential challenges for media freedom in Austria.
Mexico: Disinformation on the Rise
Mexico is poised to witness a historic moment in June, as it is likely to elect its first female president. Analysts describe Claudia Sheinbaum, the candidate of the ruling party, as less populist than the current president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. However, concerns have arisen over online, state-sponsored disinformation targeting the opposition candidate, Xochitl Galvez, as well as the electoral authority. During Lopez Obrador’s regime, media outlets, especially state-controlled ones, saw their independence dwindling as a result of attacks and interference with their editorial agenda.
The outcome of these elections will have a significant influence on media freedom in the respective countries, with some of them expected to have worldwide implications as well. The media will also be scrutinized during the campaigns as elections are expected to be heavily influenced by both traditional and social media. While numerous studies focus on social media content during election periods, less attention is given to the influence of the media market’s structural conditions on election fairness and outcomes. Therefore, the Media and Journalism Research Center has launched a new project focusing on media ownership and political finance, and it will collect data about media, spending, and political parties in around 40 countries in 2024. The research will be used to issue a comparative study in 2025, yet some of the data will be shared in the upcoming JFF newsletters.