For the first time since the introduction of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) in 2014, one of the four areas of investigation is at high risk: Market Plurality. Horizontal and cross-media concentration, insufficient consideration of changes in media supply and use in competition law, only modest revenue increases that are far below GDP growth, the outflow of well over one-third of online advertising revenue to a few global platforms, cross-cutting measures for newsrooms, and an inadequate system of media subsidies that favours large corporations all threaten market viability and market plurality. In two areas – Political Independence and Social Inclusiveness – media pluralism in Austria is at medium risk, only Fundamental Protection is at low risk. Across all four areas, three out of twenty indicators represent a high risk, ten a medium risk, and seven a low risk.
It has to be emphasised that the foundations of a democratic media system are intact and robust: Freedom of expression is well protected, even on the Internet. Media authorities work independently. Public TV and radio signals reach almost everyone, and broadband connections cover more than 90% of the population. Access to journalism is free and the number of physical attacks on journalists has declined. There is (still?) a rich and varied supply of regional and local media services, including a lively community media sector. During election times, the public service broadcaster ORF represents the parliamentary parties reasonably well. Regulatory safeguards that preclude government officials and political parties from media ownership in the audiovisual and radio sector, the Austrian Press Agency’s (APA) professional work, and editorial statutes (wherever they are in place) are among the precautions that seek to make political interference in journalism more difficult.
However, these results are impeded by the results of other indicators that indicate a higher risk. Due to investigations by the Economic and Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, more and more suspected cases of attempted political influence are becoming publicly known. It seems that the existing legal provisions and self-regulatory measures rated as low risk by the MPM cannot effectively safeguard political independence in practice. The extraordinarily high amount of state advertising expenditures, amounting to 225 million euros in 2021 and 201.4 million in 2022 contributes significantly to this development. Moreover, political influence on ORF is facilitated by the procedures provided by law for appointing the members of the highest management body and electing the Director-General – an unacceptable situation which will not be remedied by the new ORF law. On the other hand, the new provisions could endanger the fulfilment of the public service mission in a changing media environment and already in the medium term sufficient financing of the ORF. The increasing control of political parties over a steadily growing part of the online news sector is also worrying.
Like all previous governments, the current one has so far failed to pass a Freedom of Information Act. There is also some lack of transparency in the disclosure of online campaign costs of political parties, in the awarding of state advertising contracts, in the applied criteria of funding decisions, and in the disclosure media ownership (information on the ultimate ownership structures of media companies is not generally available). Women and minorities are largely underrepresented in media content and media organisations, and a comprehensive policy (and resources) for fighting disinformation and promoting media literacy is missing. A comprehensive framework for journalists’ protection is still missing which can abruptly worsen the situation in the face of social polarization, which is increasingly being exploited by groups and individuals that are ready to use violence. Most newsrooms lack structures and clearly communicated guidelines for dealing with (sexual) online harassment as well as with hate speech in community forums, and the media industry in general suffers from rudimentarily developed self-regulatory systems.
The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) is a tool developed by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom at the European University Institute, Florence, to assess the potential weaknesses in national media systems that may hinder media pluralism. Based on 20 indicators, summarizing 200 variables, it covers four areas: fundamental protection, market plurality, political independence, and social inclusiveness. The MPM is a key source of information for the European Commission, which relies on the findings to draw up its yearly Rule of Law Report. CMC’s Josef Seethaler and Maren Beaufort are the Austrian representatives to the MPM since 2015; Andreas Schulz-Tomancok joined the team in 2022.
Seethaler, J., & Beaufort, M. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor In the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Austria. Florence: European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF).
Seethaler, J., & Beaufort, M. (2021). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia & Turkey in the year 2020. Country Report: Austria. Florence: European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF).
Seethaler, J., & Beaufort, M. (2020). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2020 in the European Union, Albania and Turkey in the years 2018-2019. Country report: Austria. Florence: European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF).
Seethaler, J., & Beaufort, M. (2018). Monitoring media pluralism in Europe: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2017 in the European Union, FYROM, Serbia & Turkey. Country report: Austria. Florence: European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF).
Seethaler, J., & Beaufort, M. (2017). Media pluralism monitor 2016: Monitoring risks for media pluralism in EU and beyond. Country report: Austria. Florence: European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF).
Seethaler, J. (2016). Media pluralism in Austria: A test implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2015. Florence: European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF).
Seethaler, J. (2021). Safety of journalists in Austria. In M. Žuffová & R. Carlini (Eds.), Safety of journalists in Europe: Threats and best practices to tackle them (EUI Working Paper RSC 2021/43) (pp. 23-30). Florence: European University Institute.
Seethaler, J., & Beaufort, M. (2019). Recent developments on freedom and pluralism of media in Austria. In A. Giannakopoulos (Ed.), Media, freedom of speech, and democracy in the EU and beyond(pp. 116-130). Tel Aviv: S. Daniel Abraham Center for International and Regional Studies, Tel Aviv University.
Seethaler, J. (2018). Informations- und Meinungsfreiheit: Medienpolitische Grundlagen und Herausforderungen. In H. Koziol (Ed.), Tatsachenmitteilungen und Werturteile: Freiheit und Verantwortung (pp. 13-26). Wien: Sramek.