GFMD Homepage

✅ Consolidated Checklist

Guidance for the European Parliament and Council on applying OECD principles to media support—ensuring EU laws, budgets, and policies strengthen independence, safety, coordination, and learning.

Purpose Equip the European Parliament and the Council to hard-wire independence, safety, coherence, local leadership, coordination, and learning into EU laws, budget frameworks, and oversight. Use during MFF negotiations, EMFA implementation, and when shaping resolutions, opinions, Council Conclusions and mandates.

“When information ecosystems are treated as cross-cutting, attention and resources follow.” — senior Commission official (interview).

⚙️ Legislative & Budget Levers

Parliament

  • In opinions/resolutions, class media as democratic infrastructure linked to rule-of-law, competition, and security files; request instrument-specific safeguards for independence/safety. [P1][P3]

  • Ask the Commission for principle-linked KPIs (viability, safety, coordination) and require DGs to show how evidence changes future calls. [P6]

Council

  • Use Council Conclusions to promote proportionality (scaled due-diligence/reporting) and local-leadership scoring in calls/evaluations. [P4]

  • Through working parties/COREPER, steer a whole-of-system approach linking EMFA, anti-SLAPP, DSA/DMA, competition, and external action. [P3]

All political level

  • Note the low share of ODA reaching local media directly; signal targets to increase it in the next MFF cycle. [P2][P4]

🛡️ Risk & Visibility Safeguards

Parliament

  • Require a standard harm test: visibility, data disclosure, and public comms must be risk-assessed and waivable, logged, and reviewable. [P1]

  • Request annual anonymised case summaries of waived visibility to normalise protective discretion. [P1][P6]

Council

  • Circulate harm-mitigation checklists for instruments touching media (incl. external action); promote data-minimisation and secure channels. [P1]

  • Codify that public diplomacy ≠ media support where association could endanger credibility/safety. [P1]

All political level

  • Make safety a baseline eligible cost (digital, legal, physical, psycho-social) across relevant instruments. [P1][P2]

💶 Funding Architecture & Stability (MFF)

Parliament

  • Champion multi-year stability windows (3–5 years) blending core support + emergency lines with flexible objectives and mid-course reviews. [P2]

  • Add budget remarks to cap admin burden and allow lighter evidence where disclosure could risk partners. [P1][P6]

Council

  • Back pooled mechanisms and shared audit/reporting templates to reduce duplication for smaller outlets. [P5]

  • Support differentiated access for first-time/local grantees (micro-grants, mentoring, proportional audits). [P4]

All political level

  • Use recipient-perception data (short cycles dominate) to justify longer terms and core funding. [P2]

🤝 Coordination & Coherence

Parliament

  • Hold “system-fit” hearings connecting EMFA, competition, and external-action agendas; publish follow-up logs. [P3][P5]

  • Promote inter-committee collaboration (CULT, LIBE, AFET/DEVE, IMCO, JURI) to align indicators and waiver norms. [P5]

Council

  • Endorse an EU Donor Coordination Compact: shared calendars, pooled audits, waiver registry, joint MEL notes. [P5]

  • Invite Presidencies to host regional knowledge exchanges with Delegations/Member States to align pipelines. [P5]

All political level

  • Recognise coordination costs for smaller actors; where feasible, budget for participation/compliance time. [P4][P5]

📊 Evidence, Accountability & Learning

Parliament

  • Request an annual cross-DG synthesis on how evaluations changed calls/budgets. [P6]

  • Pair output metrics with audience/trust indicators; allow anonymised reporting in sensitive contexts. [P6][P1]

Council

  • Encourage MS to finance a shared evidence hub (evaluations, risk logs, visibility-waiver analytics). [P6][P5]

  • Schedule regional review cycles to rebalance portfolios (training vs. safety/viability/infrastructure). [P3][P6]

All political level

  • Acknowledge trade-offs: fragmentation + short cycles erode impact; prioritise harmonisation and longer horizons. [P5][P2]

🧭 How to use this checklist

  • Apply at MFF/EMFA milestones; tag each item with its principle ([P1]–[P6]). Mark progress: ✅ Done · 🔄 In progress · ❌ Pending.

  • Log outcomes (e.g., waivers granted, pooled audits adopted) and share via Presidency briefings or EP committee notes.

  • Revisit annually with recipient-perception and impact findings to ensure changes close the loop.

🎙️ Field voices — underpinning this checklist

“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

“Sometimes we overemphasise visibility at the expense of safety and credibility.” — Delegate, EU external action service

These reflections from EU and Member State stakeholders highlight the core challenges this checklist addresses: fragmented coordination, short-term funding, and the tension between visibility and independence.

Together, they reinforce the need for predictable, proportionate, and coherent political guidance that translates principles into sustainable practice.

🔗 Overview of issues

  • Independence & Safety Clauses; Harm Test; Visibility Waivers → [See Principle 1]

  • Stability Windows; Core + Emergency Mix; Proportional Eligibility → [See Principle 2]

  • Coherence Hearings; Anti-silo Budgeting; Market + Legal + Safety → [See Principle 3]

  • Local-Leadership Scoring; Compliance-as-Outcome → [See Principle 4]

  • Coordination Compact; Shared Calendars/Audits/MEL → [See Principle 5]

  • Evidence Hub; Annual Meta-reviews; Audience/Trust Metrics → [See Principle 6]

PreviousParliament & CouncilNextEuropean Commission

Last updated

Was this helpful?