Knowledge is power. Your contribution counts.

Media freedom and pluralism in the EU in 2025 continued to be plagued by longstanding concerns, finds the Liberties Media Freedom Report 2026. The adoption of new EU rules, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and the Anti-SLAPP Directive, promised improvement; however, slow and often superficial implementation rendered their impact negligible. The overarching trends of previous years, including rising media ownership concentration, opaque ownership structures, the politicisation of state advertising and political interference in public service media and regulators, remained pervasive issues throughout the Union, with certain areas even declining.

This Report is the fifth annual report on media freedom in the European Union (EU) produced by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties). It is based on data and input from nearly 40 member and partner organisations from 22 EU Member States. As in previous editions, this Report covers three primary areas: media freedom and pluralism, safety and protection of journalists, freedom of expression and access to information, as well as an additional section on European legislation related to media freedom and pluralism. 

EMFA Implementation falters as media freedom conditions deteriorate across the EU 

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) is the EU’s premier legislation to strengthen media freedom and pluralism in the EU, and has been in effect since August 2025 (with the exception of Article 20). It is still early days, but our report finds that implementation across the EU has stalled in most Member States. Without tangible action, the standards it sets for public service media independence, transparency in ownership, and journalist protection, along with rules on state advertising and competition, remain lofty ideals.

Our findings show that many of the areas the EMFA aims to address have, in fact, regressed, including in countries with traditionally stronger democracies. A safe environment for journalists is paramount in a democracy, so journalists can report on matters of public interest freely. But attacks against journalists have increased year-on-year, with troubling instances of gender-based violence in multiple countries, including an on-air rape threat against radio host Sanne Gottlieb in Denmark, who stepped down from the show ‘Nattevagnet’ due to feeling unsafe. Italy has the highest number of journalists (20) under police protection, and an explosive device was detonated under the car of leading investigative journalist Sigfrido Ranucci.

Public service media (PSM) came under increasing pressure, choked by political interference or financial instability, severely impairing its ability to provide unbiased and diverse public information. Hungary’s fully captured PSM was used as a propaganda tool during the pre-election period. Slovakia, whose PSM is well on its way to becoming a state mouthpiece, has followed in Hungary’s footsteps, while allegations of political bias on the discussion agenda were made in Spain and Bulgaria. In France, PSM's neutrality is threatened by a proposal to merge all public media organisations.

The concentration of media ownership persisted, and even worsened in some countries, which reduces the availability of diverse, balanced journalism. In the Netherlands, media pluralism shrank following a move in which DPG Media acquired RTL Nederlands, creating a dominant market position despite serious concerns about press independence. France’s media ownership is concentrated among a few billionaires, while in Greece, most of the major outlets are owned by politically connected oligarchic families.

Minimal transposition of Anti-SLAPP rules leaves journalists and activists exposed 

The other key piece of legislation introduced to boost media freedom is the Anti-SLAPP Directive, designed to protect against cross-border lawsuits weaponised by the wealthy and powerful to silence journalists and activists. Member States have until 7 May 2026 to transpose the directive, but, while there have been some signs of progress, our report highlights that many governments have been dragging their feet and are likely to miss the deadline.

The initial indications also suggest that the transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is unlikely to offer effective protection to activists and journalists. The vast majority of abusive SLAPP suits are domestic cases, but very few governments have committed to extending the directive’s protections beyond its minimum, cross-border requirements. Germany and Malta have faced criticism for choosing to exclude domestic cases, while in Ireland, the Defamation Amendment Bill does not fully transpose even the minimum standards and safeguards mandated by the EU law. 

EU governments show limited commitment to strengthening media freedom safeguards

Taken together, this creates the distinct impression that EU governments are resistant at worst or ambivalent at best towards their duty to safeguard media freedom and pluralism.

This is corroborated by the weak track record of implementing the Commission’s recommendations in its annual rule of law report, with media freedom one of the thematic areas with the lowest progress rates and most recommendations repeated from previous years.

Even in countries with stronger democratic track records, the lack of effort to tackle significant recommendations is highly concerning.

We saw evidence of this in Belgium and Estonia, where the Commission has reissued the same recommendation since 2022 to address obstacles faced by journalists seeking to access public information, with no action taken whatsoever by either country in 2025. Similarly, in Germany, a longstanding recommendation to remedy barriers faced by journalists seeking information from public authorities also saw no improvement. 

Eroding media freedom exposes lack of political will to defend democracy 

But if EU governments, including stronger democracies, have to be dragged kicking and screaming to strengthen media freedom, the Commission appears unwilling to do the dragging, as evidenced by the lack of repercussions for repeated, unprogressed recommendations.

At both the EU and national levels, the political will to tackle the issues plaguing Europe’s deteriorating media environment is missing. This is a bad omen, because the condition of media freedom is a bellwether for the health of the rule of law.

Holding our elected representatives accountable is the foundation of a thriving democracy. The tools to rehabilitate Europe’s struggling media freedom are in place, and the next steps are clear - the question is, are Member States and the EU willing to do what it takes? 

Resources

Download the full Liberties Media Freedom Report 2026 here.

Previous Media Freedom reports: 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022

Value knowledge by supporting Liberties

All great movements begin with sharing information. Our explainer articles help you understand the most pressing human rights issues, so together we can stand up for what matters. Support us by buying one of our activist authors a cup of coffee.

Add your voice to ours. Donate today.

Photo Credit: Lais Queiroz (pexels-laisqfotografia-18104761)