Parliament & Council
Political level (European Parliament & Council)
In brief - parliament & Council
Embed “do no harm” safeguards in legislation and budget rules, including mandatory risk assessments for visibility and safety.
Secure multi-year stability windows within the MFF to reduce fragmentation and administrative burden.
Champion coherence and coordination, linking EMFA, anti-SLAPP, and Democracy Shield initiatives under a whole-of-system lens.
Treat learning as infrastructure, mandating cross-committee reviews of media-support impact and institutional memory.
Balance visibility with independence, recognising that credible journalism depends on discretion as much as transparency.
Why it matters
The European Parliament and the Council sit at the heart of how Europe translates its democratic values into policy and budgetary reality. Their choices determine not only how much support reaches public-interest media but also whether that support strengthens independence, safety, and sustainability across the information ecosystem. Political leadership at this level sets the tone for all other EU actors: when the Parliament and Council treat reliable information as a cornerstone of Europe’s security, democracy, and economy, the rest of the system follows.
Introduction
The European Parliament and the Council hold a unique position in shaping how Europe safeguards the information ecosystem. Through their legislative, budgetary, and oversight powers, they define not only how media freedom is protected in law but also how effectively the EU’s financial instruments translate these commitments into practice. In an era marked by shrinking civic space, rising disinformation, and technological disruption, the political level has the responsibility—and opportunity—to anchor information integrity within Europe’s broader democratic and security agenda.
A pivotal moment for democratic infrastructure
The upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF 2028–2034) and the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) together create a decisive window for aligning Europe’s political ambitions with the practical needs of independent journalism. Both frameworks demand that the political level move beyond short-term visibility and adopt a view of media as part of Europe’s democratic infrastructure—essential to the stability of institutions, markets, and societies alike. Yet parliamentary and council negotiators must balance this long-term vision against the immediate fiscal and political pressures of the budget cycle.
The Parliament’s leadership in framing ambition
The European Parliament’s committees and rapporteurs have repeatedly positioned media freedom as central to Europe’s democratic resilience. Through its budget opinions and resolutions, Parliament can insist that core funding for journalism, audience research, and safety mechanisms are recognised as public goods, not discretionary extras. Parliamentarians also play a crucial role in scrutinising the Commission’s delivery, ensuring that MFF lines for democracy, rule of law, and digital transformation reflect the OECD Principles’ call for flexible, long-term support. Several interviewees noted that “attention follows what Parliament asks the Commission to measure”—underscoring how parliamentary oversight can drive evidence-based policymaking.
The Council’s responsibility for coherence and risk management
Within the Council, Member States shoulder the task of translating shared values into coherent action under budget constraints and differing national priorities. The Council’s working parties and conclusions set the tone for coordination, proportionality, and risk management across the EU’s external and internal funding. However, interviews revealed that “even where principles are agreed, coordination often depends on personal networks rather than institutionalised systems.” By embedding donor harmonisation and “do no harm” safeguards in Council Conclusions, Member States can help ensure that EU and bilateral actions reinforce rather than duplicate one another.
Balancing visibility and independence
Political visibility is a legitimate requirement of democratic accountability, but it can also carry unintended consequences for partners working in sensitive environments. Respondents from EU delegations and implementing organisations alike emphasised the need for formalised visibility waiver processes—so that the decision to protect partners is not left to discretion. Parliament and Council can codify these safeguards by requiring risk assessments and “harm tests” as part of programme design and reporting frameworks. This would help ensure that independence and safety remain integral to how success is defined and communicated.
Funding beyond project cycles
Across consultations, one recurring concern was the dominance of short-term project funding. As one participant noted, “We have to chase every pot available just to survive.” Parliament and Council can address this by creating stability windows—multi-year budget envelopes within the MFF that allow journalism organisations to plan sustainably. Longer cycles, paired with rapid-response mechanisms, would reduce churn and administrative overhead while giving partners the space to invest in safety, compliance, and innovation.
🎙️ Field voices — from consultations and interviews
“Short cycles push teams to chase every pot; administration eclipses journalism.” — Implementer, Eastern Europe
“Coordination still depends on personal networks, not systems.” — Member State representative
“Winning bids can be less polished if local legitimacy and capacity-building are clear.” — EU donor official
“Institutional memory is one of our most underfunded assets.” — EU staff member, democracy and rule-of-law unit
“Sometimes we overemphasise visibility at the expense of safety and credibility.” — Delegate, EU external action service
These voices capture recurring concerns across EU and Member State stakeholders: fragmented coordination, short-term cycles, and the tension between visibility, safety, and sustainability.
They underscore why the European Parliament and Council must embed predictability, proportionality, and coherence across MFF and EMFA frameworks — ensuring that principles translate into practice.
Integrating media into Europe’s broader strategic goals
The political level has a unique capacity to ensure that media freedom, digital policy, and security strategy evolve together. EMFA implementation, anti-SLAPP enforcement, and the Democracy Shield initiative all depend on coherent political direction. Linking these frameworks to the EU’s competitiveness and resilience agendas would underscore that supporting public-interest media is not a niche democratic concern—it is integral to Europe’s economic and epistemic security.
Recognising media as businesses with public obligations
Independent media are not only vehicles for democratic values but also enterprises accountable to their audiences and staff. Parliament and Council can advocate for policies that enable this dual role—encouraging fiscal instruments and investment frameworks that treat media viability as part of the EU’s single market strategy. In budget deliberations, this means coupling editorial safeguards with measures that facilitate access to credit, innovation funds, and shared infrastructure for smaller outlets.
Institutional learning and accountability
Both Parliament and Council have the means to institutionalise learning across the system. Requiring annual syntheses of evaluations and inviting cross-committee hearings on “system coherence” could prevent the duplication and knowledge loss that often accompany staff turnover and short political cycles. As one official put it, “Institutional memory is our most underfunded asset.” Making learning a visible output of EU democracy support would reinforce the OECD’s sixth principle—investing in knowledge, research, and learning—and strengthen Europe’s collective capacity to act on evidence.
Working across boundaries
Finally, political leadership at the EU level can create the culture of coordination that practitioners in the field repeatedly call for. This means using Council Working Parties and Parliament’s intergroup platforms to convene donors, align reporting standards, and ensure proportionality in compliance requirements. A structured EU Donor Coordination Compact—championed politically and monitored publicly—would help align principles with practice and restore trust between funders and implementers.
Last updated
Was this helpful?