INTERVIEW

From entrenched pressure to hopes of liberation: The mixed fortunes of Eastern Europe’s public media

30 July 2026

The past year has brought contrasting fortunes for public media across Eastern Europe: funding battles, governance overhauls and editorial interference. But even in some places, there’s hope for a better future.

For industry observers, the last few years have seen Eastern Europe as the theatre of public media drama, defined by the scale of activity, pace of change, and continuous shifting of dynamic and momentum, from country to country.

Serious threats are looming over the Czech public media with the government planning to axe their current licence fee funding model and replacing it with direct government funding, risking a less certain financial operating environment and greater political control. Yet Czech public media retains much popular support, from the people and from the president, who recently spoke glowingly about the value of truly independent public service media.

Janez Janša’s return to power in Slovenia has cast a shadow over RTV Slovenija’s efforts to rebuild an independent public service broadcaster and the public’s trust. His intentions to abolish the licence fee that provides 80 percent of RTV’s funding threatens could pave the way for political interference in the broadcaster’s affairs.

Meanwhile in Slovakia, the public broadcaster faced a complete rebrand and reshuffle when Robert Fico’s populist party came into government in 2024, in a move that was criticised as undermining the independence of the public broadcaster. That hasn’t stopped journalists, CSOs and the Slovak public from protesting to preserve the broadcaster’s independence.

In Lithuania, the populist party, Nemunas Dawn – until recently part of the governing coalition – sought to amend the law on public broadcasting, affecting its funding and governance. While a freeze in funding was approved, after months of public protests, strikes, and international outrage, the governance reforms were watered down. However, concerns remain that the LRT Act may still be weaponised to remove the head of the public broadcaster.

Much hope for public media in the region, ironically, resides in Hungary, given it was until recently regarded as the most heavily captured public media system in Europe. Under the new government of Péter Magyar, the attention of civil society is fixated on whether MTVA can be reformed into a stronger and more independent media institution. Yet as history shows in Poland – bogged down in its efforts to reform TVP several years on from the end of a government accused of taking over the public broadcaster – it will be by no means be a straightforward or easy process.

So how to make a sense of a region where public media are going through such a diverse range of experiences? And can recent history explain what’s driving the fluctuations in media policy, and the demonstrative civil resistance that public media provokes?

PMA’s journalist and researcher Charlotte Pion spoke with Pavol Szalai, the director of the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) Prague Office on the dynamic of deepening pressures on public media while a pro-public media sentiment and hope persists.

Charlotte Pion: How would you characterise the overall state of public media in Eastern Europe today? Why several governments in that region are going after public media?

Pavol Szalai: I would say that the pressures on public media, political or economic are present everywhere in Europe, even in Western Europe, countries like Italy, but also France. But I would say that these pressures are stronger, widespread and systematic and of a strong political nature in Central Eastern Europe.

So why is that? I think that these countries in general have a shorter tradition of democracy, which includes also the separation of powers, the independence of the justice system and a certain tradition in press freedom. In Sweden, press freedom [has been] inscribed in the constitution since the 18th century. So of course, such a tradition, is not present in these countries.

Read more: The Trump playbook: a precedent for PSM in Europe?

But I think we have to also see the positive examples. Estonia for example is ranked third in our World Press Freedom Index, second in the EU, and it has quite an independent public media. There are challenges, of course, and I know about their legitimate complaints, about the financial situation and the sustainability of the funding. However, there, as well as in other countries like the Czech Republic, public media have resisted this pressure.

“We really have to see the wider trend, which is that this political capture of the public media ultimately leads to their annihilation, or their marginalisation in the better case, as we have seen in Poland.”

And we consider this fight for the independence of the Czech media as something that’s bigger than Czechia. Because Czech Radio and Czech Television have been a model, something that journalists in the region, not only from public media, have admired, [because of] the strength, the reliability, the market position, and of course, the independence of this media. So, we fight for the independence of the Czech public media for the sake of press freedom in Europe.

CP: What kind of political and economic pressures are most commonly exerted on public broadcasters? You talked about Czech Republic, in 2024 there was Slovakia, there is Slovenia as well.

PS: There was also – there is still – Lithuania.

I think that when you have authoritarian political parties and then governments, the first target when it comes to media are always the public media, because they depend on public funding, so naturally, [they’re] the easiest prey. Authoritarian governments want to control the flow of information, or authoritarian political parties want to replace independent journalism with propaganda, and sometimes they have the support of media oligarchs who own private media and who want to marginalise, for financial reasons, the public media.

We have seen that in Lithuania.  Legitimate institutional oversight, was, however, abused, like the audit office, whose results were abused in the political debate, and the Parliament voted [for] a funding freeze and [an] eventual decrease for LRT. And it was arbitrary because this was not the recommendation of the audit office. And then we observed, and we fought – at RSF with other international organisations like [PMA] and with local partners – against another arbitrary law: to install a kind of political oversight and basically to remove the current director general. Eventually – and a success [for] all of us, and especially the civil society in Lithuania – this was avoided, and even the government was reshuffled ahead of the Lithuanian presidency of the EU Council. This is just one example.

There’s always the question of funding. We saw it in Slovakia. It always starts with the funding: discussions about removing the licence fee for arbitrary reasons, which starts with [the] partial removal of a licence fee. It is the case in Czechia, it was the case in Slovakia, then the overall removal and then state funding, which, “We can control better as politicians”. And then, [there are] the governing bodies, which are getting politicised.

CP: Would you say that these recurring tactics or this form of playbook that the government used to bring public media under control, would you describe what happened in Czech Republic, in Lithuania and Slovenia and Slovakia as political capture or something more systemic?

PS: What’s the right term? It’s definitely systemic and it’s an attempt at political capture of the public media. It’s an attempt and in Slovakia it’s largely been successful, not speaking of Hungary or Poland in the past under previous governments. [It’s] to transform public media into party media. Sometimes it’s said that it’s state media. I think it’s rather party media because these countries are still, they’re not dictatorships, but rather illiberal democracies, so you still have several parties and you have a state which is not totally captured. And historically, in most of these countries, the media have struggled with political pressure, more or less successfully.

But we really have to see the wider trend, which is that this political capture of the public media ultimately leads to their annihilation, or their marginalisation in the better case, as we have seen in Poland.

We have seen it in other countries. It’s also beneficial to digital platforms, to big tech. It’s good for oligarchs which own media, and I say oligarchs because they are close to politicians, and they have interests in other regulated sectors where they need to monopolise the market and reduce pluralism.

And yet we are at a moment when we need them the most, maybe since the fall of communism in Europe.

Our expert in Sweden explained to me how the independent Swedish public media have to adapt to the new security situation – the Russian war in Ukraine – and the threat perceived by Sweden, how it requires new investments, and how important the role of the public media is in this new geopolitical situation.

And precisely because we don’t have trustworthy information on Facebook, on X, on TikTok — and we now have AI, which offers us hallucinations, false information, mixing false and true information — we need public media more than ever as a source of information which can reach the wider public, because these are not niche media. These are media which speak to large groups of the public, as part of their mission.

CP: And in the Hungarian case, after 16 under the iron fist of Orban, what do you make of Magyar’s attempt to reform MTVA so far? Are you optimistic about it?

PS: We welcome the ongoing public broadcasting reform conducted by the government of Peter Magyar, voted by the Parliament in an accelerated procedure and aiming to align the national legislation with the European Media Freedom Act. Quick and efficient action was needed to liberate the Hungarian public media from state influence after it was turned into a propaganda mouthpiece for years by the government of Victor Orban, and give it back to the citizens.

However, any specific measures taken by the public media’s leadership — including the suspension of news broadcasting — should be based on a transparent roadmap with clearly indicated benchmarks and responsibilities. Any further government and parliament reforms should result from a consultative process that takes the views of experts, journalists’ representatives and Hungarian civil society into account.

The independence and credibility of Hungarian public broadcasting will be best restored through a process guided by the principles of transparency, accountability and inclusiveness.

“Dangers to media freedom and independence are a matter of public interest, not an internal or sectorial media issue.”

CP: Of course, Hungary is not the only one on the journey of reconstruction. There is also Poland since 2024, but obviously the attempt to turn around the public media has not really turned as planned and there have been some bumps on the road. Are there any lessons that you think the new Hungarian government could learn from what happened in Poland and the attempt of transformation of the public media?

PS: It is not a new lesson, but every temporary measure risks becoming permanent. Unfortunately, the Polish public media are still in liquidation. Their funding is decided on a bi-monthly or tri-monthly basis. It is definitely not in line with the EMFA. I understand the political context, the fact that the government cannot overrule the veto of the president. But we expected more from the Tusk government, to be more ambitious, to at least propose a reform in line with the EMFA. So far, it has not done so.

The public media are not instruments of hate, but I would say they are not completely independent yet. Progress has undeniably been made in this regard, but this is not at the optimal stage. And we have a new election coming in Poland next year.

These are all lessons to be learned for Péter Magyar. The real challenge is to win back the trust for this public media. The challenge is not to stop the former government propaganda, even with the same people, which has been the case in Hungary, the same staff. But the challenge is really to win back the trust of the public for these media.

And in Poland, it has not happened. So they are marginalised, although they invested and tried to innovate, which is good, but they have a very difficult position.