As EMFA’s implementation grows closer, why concerns over its effectiveness remain

– By Charlotte Pion

As the regulations of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) are being implemented onto the member state level of the EU along the year, concerns remain regarding the effective implementation of the Act.   

The EMFA was adopted in March and April 2024, as an effort to safeguard media freedom, pluralism and editorial independence in Europe. The set of regulations was in response to a growing trend of attacks against media freedom and was designed to bring some harmony in the fragmented regulatory framework regarding media in the different Member States of the Union.   

Read more: EMFA comes at a critical time for public media

Although many civil society organisations – including the Public Media Alliance – felt the provisions of the EMFA could have been stronger, the Act was nevertheless seen as the most ambitious media legislation in the last decade and a pioneer both in law and in political messaging.  Imagined to function in a holistic way along with the Digital Service Act and the AI act, it was the first time the EU institutions took actions in the protection of media freedom, journalistic standards and the safeguarding of media pluralism in Europe.   

As with all EU regulations, these pieces of legislations have to be directly translated into national law and become legally binding. The implementation of the different articles of EMFA has been staggered intentionally, to allow national lawmakers update their legislation step-by-step. As of February, the editorial independence of media service providers must be ensured by Member States, and these providers must ensure the editorial independence of their editors. In the next few months, more EMFA articles will come into effect, but there is scepticism amongst media experts that these articles will actually be implemented by some of the Member States.    

EMFA and PSM  

Article 5 of the EMFA focuses on the safeguarding of the independent functioning of public service media. The article was set to ensure the editorial and financial independence of public service media. It mandates transparent procedures for appointing and dismissing media leadership as well as adequate, sustainable funding to maintain PSM’s editorial independence. It also outlines guidelines for the independent monitoring of these rules.  

Attempts to bypass EMFA

However, the EMFA did not convince everyone amongst the 27 different sta. A political polarisation and a recent political shift to more conservative government in some of EU’s Member States has influenced the European public media landscape. Since 2024, after the passage of the EMFA, several Member States have been trying to implement national laws that have been accused of restricting media freedom, and threatening the editorial independence of public service media. An adjacent trend of reducing the funding of public broadcasters has raised great concerns about the sustainability of PSM in Europe.   

In Italy, media experts have warned about the media crackdown of Giorgia Meloni’s government. On the legislative side, Article 63 and 61 of the Italian regulation of audiovisual media, which deals with the management and the funding of the Italian public broadcaster, Rai, could raise some problems in accordance with EMFA. The issue lies in the ambiguous criteria to select and appoint members of the Board, which may allow the political appointment of Board members. This conflicts with the EMFA’s requirement to avoid the appointment of government allies.  

 Additionally, the EMFA calls for the funding of public service media providers to be not just adequate but also long-term, so their mission can be carried out. However, the financial allowance of Rai depends on a yearly decision of the government. The uncertainty of their budget and the direct dependence on the government can jeopardise the independence of the public media organisation.   

In the East, in Slovakia, the reform of the public broadcaster by Robert Fico’s government in 2024 caused a stir in the press and led to numerous calls from civil society organisations to safeguard the former RTVS, now renamed STVR.   

Despite the initial reform proposal of the Broadcasting Act being watered down, the STVR Act which was passed in July 2024 was highly criticised for permitting political control over the media institution and could potentially enable “its swift conversion into an institution for state propaganda.”   

“I hope the trend of people’s decreasing trust in media will be stopped. We should see positive changes, regaining trust and renewal of authority.” –  Věra Jourová, Former Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency

The STVR Act outlined that a new nine-member council would be responsible for appointing the new Director General. Members of this council would be selected through various mechanisms: three from the culture ministry, one from the finance ministry, and the remainder chosen by Parliament.   

According to the former Director General of the public broadcaster, the newly-established Ethics Committee – tasked to supervise and advise on the ethical journalistic standards within STVR – could threaten the freedom of journalists in STVR, and be used as a tool of censorship.   

Worries over the financial stability of the public broadcaster also persists in Slovakia’s neighbouring country, the Czech Republic. An ongoing debate over the increase of the licence fees for Czech Television and Czech Radio has kept the public broadcasters waiting, uncertain of their future.  

While the parliament had initially agreed on a funding increase, the opposition has been arguing for a defunding of the public broadcaster, a reform of its financial resources and a merger of the two public media entities.   

However, according to Mark D. Cole and Christina Etteldorf, the supervisory and law enforcement tools provided by the EMFA remain very limited. Instead, the Act is more focused on “cooperation, monitoring, evaluation, exchange and coordination” between the different stakeholders to better understand the “existing and emerging problems in the media sector in the future”.   

The Director of the European Federation of Journalists, Renate Schroeder, told PMA that “we are still at an early stage of the implementation of the EMFA, so we have to keep a close look at what is going to happen in the coming months”.   

Besides the challenging implementation of the EMFA, the media landscape in Europe has other challenges to face. “I hope the trend of people’s decreasing trust in media will be stopped. We should see positive changes, regaining trust and renewal of authority. But it will not be easy. I am afraid that without a systemic, sustainable solution of financing media, we shall not be able to keep media strong enough. It is the main task of the EU and its Member States to find solutions to these challenges,” said Jourová.   

How to monitor the implementation?    

Another change brought by the EMFA is the creation of the European Board of Media Services (EMBS), a regulatory body gathering representatives of EU Member States’ national regulatory authorities. It will hold advisory responsibilities and assist the European Commission concerning the EMFA. The new body was also tasked with establishing formal guidelines to ensure smooth implementation and operation of EMFA regulations and prevent any personal biases or conflicts of interest among its members. One of its missions also concerns the strengthening of the promotion of media literacy among Member States.  

“Journalists and media outlets should be aware that the law exists and can work for them in case of need. The law gives them a good chance of winning cases at the national courts” – Věra Jourová, Former Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency

While the establishment of the Board is supposed to oversee the proper implementation of the EMFA standards in the different Member States, the fragmented European media market and the cultural differences relative to media policy between Member States are cause for concern. In a report on the state of media freedom in Poland,  the MFRR highlighted that the media regulator (KRRiT) was still very politised. This is far from being an isolated case. The longstanding capture of the media regulatory authority in Hungary and the recent capture of the Slovak public broadcaster is a source for concern as well. According to a recent IPI report, the Slovak media regulator remained relatively independent until now, but IPI warned of growing risks of political capture in the coming year.   

In this regard, the EFJ emphasised that “it will be essential that national stakeholders, including journalists’ organisations, have the legal expertise, resources, and the will to implement the minimum standards set out by the EMFA in the most ambitious way”.    

A need for wider awareness  

Despite the novelty of the EMFA and the tools it brings to protect the independence, the pluralism and financial sustainability of public service media, there is a lack of general awareness about the Act and little advertisement on a national level. However, it contributes to the protection of journalists and media from political and economic influence and provides tools to face legal challenges such as abusive lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP).   

Both Renate Schroeder and Věra Jourová told PMA that it was important for the EMFA to be properly implemented to improve the protection of journalists. Both stressed the necessity to widen awareness concerning EMFA. Journalists and media outlets should be “aware that the law exists and can work for them in case of need. The law gives them a good chance of winning cases at the national courts,” said Jourová.