Media Outlook in the EU: Trends, Shadows and Limits
Debate at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. © European Union - European Parliament.
By Dimitris Rapidis and Roxanne Gobet
Media pluralism has always been a debatable and controversial issue globally. Especially in the EU, where we find different and competing media landscapes, there is an additional interest to explore this issue. When it comes to comparing figures and unveil statistics, it is always interesting to realise that the EU, despite being a "Union" itself, shows no elements that justify any sort of cohesion strategies and harmonisation policies, whether those might be referred to the political features of the Union, the fiscal policies or even some fundamental social policies.
Such discrepancies also occur in the media landscape and the way political parties are represented and heard via traditional and established news media. In our survey we have focused on a very specific aspect of this topic. We explore how opposition parties' news and positions on current domestic affairs of each member-state are covered by major media. We have scaled the survey up to 100 new topics mentions overall, which is the amount of newsfeed provided spontaneously in a period of four months, i.e. between January 10 and April 10, 2020, using major news sources from each EU member-state.
Such discrepancies also occur in the media landscape and the way political parties are represented and heard via traditional and established news media. In our survey we have focused on a very specific aspect of this topic. We explore how opposition parties' news and positions on current domestic affairs of each member-state are covered by major media. We have scaled the survey up to 100 new topics mentions overall, which is the amount of newsfeed provided spontaneously in a period of four months, i.e. between January 10 and April 10, 2020, using major news sources from each EU member-state.
Based on the above figures, we have categorised all member-states into seven (7) different groups depending on their score. In the first group we have the six countries with the best score, meaning that opposition parties' news and positions on current domestic affairs are fairly represented by the media at a percentage between 35%(Luxembourg) to 47% (Denmark). To the contrary, the last group includes the five countries with the worst ratio, meaning that opposition parties' news and positions on current domestic affairs are not at all fairly represented. In this last group, which includes Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary, we witness an extremely poor coverage, ranged between 2% and 12%, that is also related with the media freedom scores, as presented by the RSF Index recently. In other words, if we take into account the rankings of RSF and those of our survey we can certainly find strong correlations when it comes to examining the media landscape in each member-states, the level of pluralism and media freedom scores.
These results also demonstrate another key issue that the European institutions should address: The role political intervention plays in dealing with media freedom and pluralism and how influence networks affect the role of media themselves, turning them from literally news sources to channels of political influence. As of the top scorers on that list, it goes without saying that the Scandinavian group - i.e. Denmark, Finland, Sweden - along with Netherlands, Austria and Luxembourg present the best case scenario and set the pace for the other country groups to try improving media pluralism and fight against any kind of censorship or dependence from certain interest groups.
That said, it is also interesting to explore trends in terms of daily usage of information sources. In all member-states the majority prefers online and social media as major source of information whereas traditional media (TV channels, radio and newspaper) seem to lose significant ground. Finns with 79% come first in getting informed mostly via online and social media whereas Hungarians tend to get informed mostly via traditional media (42%). The shift towards new media is solid and poses another threat for traditional media. It goes without saying that unless they find additional sources income, traditional media will certainly face mounting financial struggles.
These results also demonstrate another key issue that the European institutions should address: The role political intervention plays in dealing with media freedom and pluralism and how influence networks affect the role of media themselves, turning them from literally news sources to channels of political influence. As of the top scorers on that list, it goes without saying that the Scandinavian group - i.e. Denmark, Finland, Sweden - along with Netherlands, Austria and Luxembourg present the best case scenario and set the pace for the other country groups to try improving media pluralism and fight against any kind of censorship or dependence from certain interest groups.
That said, it is also interesting to explore trends in terms of daily usage of information sources. In all member-states the majority prefers online and social media as major source of information whereas traditional media (TV channels, radio and newspaper) seem to lose significant ground. Finns with 79% come first in getting informed mostly via online and social media whereas Hungarians tend to get informed mostly via traditional media (42%). The shift towards new media is solid and poses another threat for traditional media. It goes without saying that unless they find additional sources income, traditional media will certainly face mounting financial struggles.
As of citizens' trust over different sources of information, we observe a differentiation between social media and online media on one side, and between social/online media and traditional media on the other side. As a matter of fact, in 15 member-states (i.e. Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain) people trust social media more than online or traditional media, whereas trust over online media is in most cases stronger compared to trust over traditional media. Finns and Swedish demonstrate the highest level of trust over all media contrary to Greeks, Hungarians and Polish that show the highest distrust against media.
Trends in all member-states demonstrate a rather clear image. There are actually three distinct groups based on the level of pluralism, media trust and preference over different sources of information that are structured in geographical terms. The Scandinavian group has better scores in all tables; the Western and Southwestern group finds itself in the middle with average scoring; the Eastern, Southeastern and Balkan group has the lowest score. If we look on European Commission's survey on multiple financial and social indicators we might also find that these three geographical groups have also some similarities that go beyond geography. These similarities might also refer to the level of social cohesion, media freedom, financial standing, performance of public administration, welfare state and other indicators, affecting as well the general function of the state, the views over the political system et.c.
In other words, this survey could be the departing point for a bigger survey that could encompass multiple variables and shed light on the role of media as one of the major institutions of a modern state. It could equally unveil connections and correlations between the political establishment and the media and how this is reflected in trust or distrust over media. There are different levels of research that could all produce interesting findings.
In other words, this survey could be the departing point for a bigger survey that could encompass multiple variables and shed light on the role of media as one of the major institutions of a modern state. It could equally unveil connections and correlations between the political establishment and the media and how this is reflected in trust or distrust over media. There are different levels of research that could all produce interesting findings.
* Dimitris Rapidis is founder of Bridging Europe and Roxanne Gobet is political analyst at Bridging Europe.
8.5.2020
8.5.2020
Survey details and methodology
Company: Bridging Europe (ΒΕ) | Sample characteristics: Representative, men and women, 17 years old and above | Sample size: 30,255 respondents covering all 27 member-states | Data collection period: January 10 - April 10, 2020 | Sampling method: Multistage sampling using quotas with respect to gender and age of the population for each member-state, analysed and compared using multivariate logistic regression | Data collection method: Computer-assisted questionnaires | Sampling error: 3% at the 95% confidence interval | Survey complies with ESOMAR rules of conduct.
Company: Bridging Europe (ΒΕ) | Sample characteristics: Representative, men and women, 17 years old and above | Sample size: 30,255 respondents covering all 27 member-states | Data collection period: January 10 - April 10, 2020 | Sampling method: Multistage sampling using quotas with respect to gender and age of the population for each member-state, analysed and compared using multivariate logistic regression | Data collection method: Computer-assisted questionnaires | Sampling error: 3% at the 95% confidence interval | Survey complies with ESOMAR rules of conduct.