The latest report from the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) for 2024, published by the Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), highlights a general deterioration in media pluralism across Europe. Unfortunately, Croatia remains among the group of high-risk countries in 2024 where access to diverse and independent sources of information is not fully guaranteed. Croatia’s poor standing is underscored by its ranking alongside Montenegro and Romania as having the worst conditions for journalists. Out of 32 analyzed European countries, only seven were rated as satisfactory: Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, and Lithuania.
Protection of the Journalism Profession
The report assessed various criteria, including journalist safety, working conditions, legal threats, and digital security. It indicates a growing trend of commercial and political interference in the media, as well as the passivity of European governments and media companies in addressing this democratic threat.
The study evaluated the risk to media pluralism in 32 European countries: 27 EU member states and five candidate countries. The report documents the health of media ecosystems, detailing threats to pluralism and media freedom. It found that the countries with the highest risk levels remain Turkey, Hungary, Albania, Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro.
Underdeveloped Market Pluralism and Political Independence
Regarding Croatia, it received a medium-risk rating in basic protection (53%), political independence (60%), and social inclusiveness (59%), while achieving a high-risk rating in market pluralism (68%). The results in these areas have only slightly changed compared to the previous year, with no significant systemic changes that would warrant a notable increase or decrease in risk. The full report for Croatia can be read here.
The report highlights persistent issues in Croatia, including abuse of defamation charges and SLAPP lawsuits, appointments to regulatory bodies and public media services, underdeveloped digital media policy, lack of transparency and data on media sustainability, poor self-regulation of journalism and editorial independence, the social inclusion of constitutionally recognized and unrecognized minorities, and a fragmented and underdeveloped media literacy policy.
As in previous years, the high-risk indicator in basic protection is the journalism profession itself, including standards and protection. According to the Croatian Journalists’ Association (HND, 2023), there were 945 active lawsuits against journalists as of May 2023, 910 of which were for defamation. The plaintiffs are often from public and political life, including politicians in power, legal entities, and judges. Croatia ranked 42nd on the Reporters Without Borders (RSF, 2023) Press Freedom Index. The nomination process for the only Croatian media regulator (responsible for electronic media but not for print or digital services under DSA) is a major issue for the independence of the Council for Electronic Media. The Croatian Parliament appoints the president and other members of the Council on the proposal of the Croatian Government, leaving room for direct political influence.
High-Risk Indicators
In terms of political independence, high-risk indicators include media political independence and editorial autonomy. Political dependence is evident across all media types, particularly at the regional and local levels. Due to the general lack of revenue sources and financial stability, media outlets may rely on funding from municipal or regional local authorities.
Indicators of editorial autonomy and media political independence remain high-risk. Audiovisual media, online platforms, elections, and regulation of state resources and media sector support are low to medium-risk indicators. The independence of public media services is also under medium risk.
Reducing State Influence
The report includes specific recommendations for Croatia, including ensuring that defamation charges in the Criminal Code are not misused to limit freedom of expression. It also suggests reducing state influence on the appointment of members of the Council for Electronic Media.
Additionally, the Council for Electronic Media and the Croatian Chamber of Commerce should improve their data collection strategies to better understand and regulate the digital economy, particularly in the media sector. The report recommends enhancing concentration limits in the Media Act and the Electronic Media Act to assess audience shares.
Mechanisms for independent oversight of media statutes should be developed, and commercial influence on editorial policy should be reduced. For political independence, it is suggested that media ownership restrictions in the Electronic Media Act and Media Act should be better aligned with the Conflict of Interest Prevention Act. The Croatian Radio Television Act should be amended to change the process of appointing executives and reduce political interference.
An effective system for reporting state advertising is also necessary. The Media Act and the Electronic Media Act should be amended and supplemented with provisions that specifically protect against political influence and ensure autonomy in appointing and dismissing editors-in-chief.
For social inclusiveness, the report advises addressing the inclusion of constitutionally unrecognized minorities. A national media literacy strategy should be developed, strengthening formal and lifelong media education. A comprehensive media accessibility policy for persons with disabilities should be created, and the implementation of new gender equality policies at HRT should be monitored.
Questionable Editorial Independence
The MPM 2024 report shows that no analyzed country is free from risks to media pluralism, and another alarming trend concerns editorial independence, which this year has reached a historically high-risk level. Commercial pressures threaten editorial independence, with media owners and advertisers influencing reporting.
“Poor working conditions, attacks on journalists in the online environment, and governments failing to fulfill their positive obligations towards the media remain the most urgent issues,” the report states.
Regarding journalists’ working conditions, the report notes that, as in the previous year, only Denmark, Germany, Ireland, and Sweden were rated as low-risk. Thirteen out of 32 countries were rated as high-risk (Albania, Austria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Czech Republic, North Macedonia, and Turkey). Among these high-risk countries, Croatia, Montenegro, and Romania received a rating of 97%, the highest possible risk level used in the MPM methodology. The report notes the “very high number of high-risk countries for this sub-indicator, compared to other issues analyzed in the MPM.”
Physical safety is another fundamental sub-indicator for assessing the prerequisites for free journalism. In MPM2024, eight countries (three more than last year) were rated as high-risk: Bulgaria, France, Greece, Poland, Spain, Serbia, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Attacks and intimidation sometimes come from the highest political figures; for instance, in Slovakia, the risk rating for this sub-indicator significantly increased this year due to the ongoing trend of such intimidation. In November 2023, Prime Minister Robert Fico attacked four major media outlets, labeling them as enemies and hostile media. In Latvia, “journalists regularly acknowledged in public interviews that certain politicians tried to regularly attack journalists, considering that during the war [in Ukraine] professional journalism would represent a state and/or actual political position, rather than striving to provide professional content and diverse opinions. These attacks by politicians and politically engaged social media users have created risks of self-censorship, increased hatred towards journalists, and harmed content diversity.”
Recommendations
In its conclusions, MPM offers recommendations and calls on states and public authorities to:
Improve working conditions for journalists by implementing legal frameworks that ensure better working conditions in the sector. This should include extending public social protection schemes to all those professionally engaged in journalism (whether regularly employed or freelancers) and encouraging collective bargaining to introduce new types of economic protection against market downturns.
Promote journalist safety by raising awareness among state institutions (e.g., judiciary and police) about the importance of media for democracy, and avoiding unjustified arrests and impunity for crimes related to journalism.
Encourage state-media cooperation to ensure journalist safety, such as organizing training on behavior during protests or other high-risk events; encouraging journalists to condemn intimidation and attacks they face due to their work; and establishing systematic monitoring of SLAPPs and other forms of attacks on journalists, with special attention to the gender dimension of these threats.
Condemn attacks by the political elite on journalists.
Implement the European Commission’s Recommendation “on ensuring the protection, safety, and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union.”
Promote the implementation of an effective legal framework against SLAPPs that can prevent arbitrary and illegal attempts to silence legitimate professional journalistic activities and civil society activities, including allowing judges to expeditiously dismiss unfounded lawsuits against journalists and human rights defenders. The principles and practices contained in the EU Directive against SLAPPs 2024 for cross-border malicious lawsuits and the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 “on tackling the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)” should be fully considered in the national legal order.
Avoid the use of spyware and other intrusive technologies for monitoring journalists and other public overseers, even beyond the limitations set by Article 4 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).
The report also calls on media companies “to ensure decent working conditions for their employees, e.g., avoiding forcing journalists to become self-employed even when the nature of their cooperation mimics standard full-time employment contracts.”
CMPF Director Pier Luigi Parcu emphasized that over ten years of Media Pluralism Monitor implementation, numerous new challenges have emerged alongside digital transformation. “Today, more than ever, there is an urgent need to support journalism and media pluralism. We look forward to assessing the impact of the European Media Freedom Act in member states and urge governments to commit to protecting media freedom as a pillar of our democracy,” said Parcu.
Commenting on the results of this research, EFJ President Maja Sever noted that it is alarming to see the situation of media pluralism deteriorating year after year, with most European governments or media companies failing to take necessary measures to stop this decline. “EFJ has been calling for these measures for years. The MPM report has the advantage of pointing fingers at those responsible for this passivity: what are public authorities waiting for to preserve citizens’ right to access independent and pluralistic information? We will continue to condemn as harshly as possible those policymakers who act as gravediggers of press freedom, whether actively or through their culpable passivity,” Sever said.