In fresh years, we have seen the increasing activity of the institutions of the European Union in the area of media financing. This trend raises questions about the limits of journalistic independence, transparency of political action and the impact of public funds on the form of public debate.
Report "Brussels media machine: EU media backing and public discourse shaping" ("Brussels's Media Machine: EU Media backing and the Shaping of Public Discourse"), by Thomas Fazi, published by the Brussels branch of the Conservative, Hungarian College of Maciej Korwin (Matthias Corvinus Collegium, MCC), is 1 of the most comprehensive reviews of this issue. The author argues that EU media grants not only do not support freedom of the press but besides service strategical communication of the Union – sometimes in a akin way to propaganda.
Thomas Fazi is an Italian economist, essayist and publicist who has gained publicity in fresh years thanks to critical analyses of the European institutions. In this publication, the author focuses on the issue of media backing by various EU institutions – the European Commission, the European Parliament and subordinate agencies. peculiar attention is paid to the impact of these measures on journalistic independence, editorial transparency and the structure of the media marketplace in Europe.
"The EU has established semi-structured relations with the media, de facto incorporating them into the organization ecosystem."
This quote reflects the main thesis of the report: the media that benefit from EU backing become not only recipients of support but besides elements of the EU information strategy.
EU media financing mechanisms
In the last 2 decades, the European Union has developed an extended media backing system, covering both editorials within the community and global projects. The key component of this strategy is the budget of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the executive agencies for media initiatives which, according to authoritative declarations, support "information pluralism", "democracy" and "the fight against misinformation". However, as Thomas Fazi notes, this practice is increasingly taking the form of conditional backing for journalism in line with the interests of EU institutions.
"These programmes frequently advance openly political narratives — taxpayers actually fund pro-European propaganda."
One of the most controversial financing instruments is the IMREG programme (Information Measures Relating to the EU Cohesion Policy) aimed at "populating the benefits of EU cohesion funds". Between 2017 and 2023, the EU allocated more than EUR 40 million, of which a large part went straight to the media.
"Over €40 million has been paid by IMREG for media campaigns covering the advantages of EU cohesion policy between 2017 and 2030."
In practice, this means subsidising content which clearly reflects the Union's actions. They are frequently produced by large commercial or public editorial offices, which, in return, undertake to "enhance the transmission of the effectiveness of EU policy". specified a programme plan raises serious doubts about editorial independence, especially since projects are not always marked as sponsored by EU institutions.
Another crucial tool is Journalism Partnerships, funded under the Creative Europe programme. Between 2021 and 1923, around EUR 50 million were allocated to it. Officially, it is about "supporting qualitative journalism", but according to Fazi, this programme in practice strengthens the EU's strategical narratives.
"In fact, these grants go to projects that strengthen EU communication objectives."
Importantly, applicants request to show that their actions will be "compatible with the values and objectives of the EU", which de facto eliminates critical or Eurosceptic communicative applicants. In addition, the selection of projects is frequently carried out by agencies closely linked to the European Commission, which increases the hazard of conflict of interest and asks questions about the transparency of competition procedures.
Multimedia Actions aims to support pan-European media production. It includes financing Euronews, an information channel available in respective languages. Although Euronews formally retains its independence, its European Commission backing draws a different reality:
"Although Euronews is formally independent, it receives crucial backing from the Commission, which raises questions about editorial independence."
According to the report, between 2014 and 2020 the European Commission provided Euronews with more than EUR 120 million. In return, "production of content promoting EU values" and "permanent cooperation with EU press services" was expected. The programme besides includes projects specified as the European Newsroom – a joint editorial platform from 18 countries which operates under the auspices of the German DPA agency and receives millions of EU budget support.
"Instead of supporting independent journalism, the EU is creating editorial offices that function as an extension of its press office."
The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) is simply a network of institutions dealing with "disinformation monitoring" and "fact verification". The European Commission has allocated at least EUR 27 million to its development. It is officially about fighting fake news and protecting democracy, but the study indicates that EDMO can besides service to classify uncomfortable narratives as “disinformation”.
"Institutions specified as EDMO, though presented as impartial, operate according to the EU strategical line and can silence content deemed to be contrary to its interests."
The EDMO structure is dominated by academic centres, think tanks and NGOs working closely with the EU institutions. However, there is no real representation of independent editorial boards, which undermines the declared "plurality" approach.
A separate origin of backing is grants straight from the European Parliament budget. Between 2020 and 2024, nearly EUR 30 million were allocated for information campaigns before the European elections, podcasts and audiovisual productions.
"These campaigns are designed not so much to inform, but to mobilise public opinion around EP activities, which is fundamentally approaching political PR."
In contrast to the Commission's programmes, Parliament's resources are intended exclusively for affirmative materials, which aim to increase assurance in the European institutions. However, there is simply a deficiency of backing for critical, satirical or analytical projects that could service as watchdogs. Under the IMREG programme, the funds received, among others, the Italian newspapers ‘Il Sole 24 Ore’ and ‘La Repubblica’, which carried out information campaigns on EU investments in confederate regions of Italy.
"Italian editorial offices did not make clear the nature of the financing – in many cases there was no indication of the sponsored nature of the content."
Similar cases have been reported in Germany and France, where local media promoted EU actions in the framework of Green Deal, sometimes excluding co-financing labels.
Fazi stresses that 1 of the key conditions for applying for EU grants is ideological compliance with the EU narrative:
"Financing applications that do not show coherence with the EU communicative are mostly rejected – leading to a quiet ideological selection."
This means that mainly the media promoting European integration, environmental transformation and digitalisation policies are financed, excluding critical voices.
"Union backing is not neutral media support, but a strategical communication tool to build a single European narrative."
One of the more striking aspects of the Fazi study is the deficiency of consequence from the journalistic community to the possible risks of EU funding. The author notes that organisations representing journalists seldom address the impact of Brussels funds on freedom of the press:
"Many journalists and editors accept EU backing without reflection, as obvious, without considering its structural consequences."
The European Journalists' Federation, which formally advocates media independence, cooperates with the European Commission on initiatives specified as the "Media Freedom Act". This double role, as a beneficiary and as an advocate of independence, may lead to a conflict of interest.
To better realize the impact of EU backing on the media, it is worth looking at 3 very different national examples:
France – Public media do not straight participate in IMREG or Multimedia Actions programs, but any local editors utilized Journalism Partnerships. The public debate seldom raises questions about independency from the EU, and the discussion of "partnership with EU institutions" is dominant.
Hungary – Viktor Orbán's government openly criticises EU media funding, accusing the EU of interfering with information sovereignty. Pro-government media do not apply for EU backing and independent editorial boards are frequently excluded from competitions due to "inconsistency with EU values".
Sweden “The media there keep a greater distance from EU funds and journalists are actively trained to avoid conflicts of interest. Social assurance in the media remains high, which may indicate the benefits of maintaining independence.
From a professional ethics point of view, journalism should act in the social interest alternatively than in the interests of political institutions. Fazi's study suggests that the current financing model puts this rule at risk:
"When journalism is financed by institutions that should control it loses its basic legitimacy."
There are no clear mechanisms to warrant editorial independency while utilizing political funds. The work to designate sponsored content is inconsistently implemented and "integrated" information campaigns — e.g. in Euronews — will blur the boundary between information and political marketing.
Reform proposals – votes from the report
The MCC study suggests a number of solutions:
- mandatory labelling of EU-funded content in a clear and visible manner.
- introducing limits for the level of financial dependence of editorial boards on EU programmes.
- Open programmes for communicative pluralism, including the anticipation of financing critical EU analyses.
- external control of the allocation of funds by entities independent of the European Commission.
Fazi besides stresses that the deficiency of comprehensive statistic makes it hard to measure the scale of the phenomenon. Many data are distributed between agencies and detailed reports are not published on an ongoing basis.
"Too many EU-funded media programmes operate in a grey area without public oversight, without transparency, without debate."
Media backing outside the EU – Information geopolitics
In the last decade, the European Union has intensified information and media activities outside its own territory. The main directions of these activities are the neighbourhood countries — Ukraine, the Western Balkans, the South Caucasus — and support for emigration media from authoritarian countries, mainly Russia and Belarus. They besides increasingly include North Africa, Turkey, the mediate East and Central Asia. Thomas Fazi argues that the nonsubjective of this action goes beyond the promotion of free media: it is about shaping narratives in line with the EU's strategical interest.
"In countries specified as Ukraine and Georgia, EU-funded media projects are not only to support independent journalism but to advance pro-European identities and counter Russia's influence."
Ukraine has been the key nonsubjective of EU media action since 2014. Funds are managed by NGOs and abroad foundations. The aim is to strengthen editorial boards and their ability to make content that is consistent with European values.
"Ten million euro have been allocated to Ukrainian media to strengthen their capacity to disseminate EU narratives and values."
The consequence is simply a strong communicative axis – Brussels as a guarantor of peace, Russia as a origin of destabilization. specified an agreement limits the place for debate and interior criticism, including against EU policies.
Similar activities are carried out in the Western Balkans and the Caucasus. There are besides mainstream media supported by Brussels, which not only advance integration but frequently marginalize alternate voices.
"The EU finances media in Serbia that advance the benefits of accession, marginalising more skeptical or national narratives."
Outside Europe, emigration from Russia and Belarus is peculiarly important. The EU, through the European Endowment for Democracy and national foundations, supports titles specified as Jellyfish is Belsat.
"The EU has become the main patron of emigration media critical of Kremlin and Minsk, financing their activities abroad."
Although this action protects freedom of speech, in a geopolitical context it is perceived as the communicative expansion of the West. The transmission of these media coincides with the interest of EU abroad policy.
In North Africa and the mediate East, the EU is engaged in media campaigns on tolerance, equality or the fight against extremism. However, content can besides be politically targeted.
Recipients frequently do not know that the consumed content was created for EU money, which undermines trust.
"A large proportion of EU-funded materials abroad are published without transparent indications, covering the border between journalism and the information campaign."
Brussels uses many instruments – from NDICI to national foundations. The problem is the deficiency of independent evaluation and transparency of objectives.
"The EU builds a network of media loyal to Brussels' normative order, more shaped by a political agenda than local independence."
Although the EU declares to support pluralism, in practice it mainly supports liberal or pro-Western editorial offices. Conservative, conventional or neutral media are not included.
"EU selectively supports pro-Western voices under the banner of freedom of speech, excluding conservative or traditionalist editorials."
The consequence may be a failure of trust and an increase in anti-Western sentiment, especially in more skeptical societies.
"EU information policy abroad reminds it of its energy strategy: taking over the impact on key transmission channels — in this case information and narratives."
Case study: Italian media
Among the examples of European editorial cooperation with the EU institutions, the case of Italy shows the mechanisms, tensions and risks associated with the financing of the media by EU structures. The Italian editorial offices, including the major press titles, played an crucial function in the implementation of the IMREG programme, the EU’s instrument for supporting ‘communication activities’ on cohesion policy.
The IMREG programme, as declared by the European Commission, aims to increase citizens' awareness of EU investments in regions. In fact, however, it was about co-financing media campaigns of a clearly promotional nature. As Fazi's study shows, run developers have frequently given up clearly identifying these content as sponsored, which has weakened the transparency of the message.
"In the framework of the IMREG programme, Italian editorial offices have been rewarded for creating information campaigns on EU cohesion policy – frequently without clearly identifying their sponsored character."
The beneficiaries included influential editorials: ‘Il Sole 24 Ore’, ‘La Repubblica’, ‘Corriere della Sera’ and regional and manufacture portals. Campaigns took the form of articles, podcasts, infographics, videos and peculiar additives.
"Il Sole 24 Ore" published the cycle Europe in regions, in which he presented examples of successful infrastructure investments co-financed by the EU, specified as the revitalisation of railway lines in Apulia and the construction of technological parks in Campania. These contents were prepared professionally but presented in the form of neutral economical journalism.
"La Repubblica" carried out an editorial action on social and environmental projects in confederate Italy, stressing the function of European funds in combating poorness and exclusion. The materials dominated affirmative narratives, and there were seldom critical voices.
"Editions not only carried out campaigns on behalf of the Commission but presented them as independent journalism – which covers the border between information and promotion."
The deficiency of clear indications of the origin of backing – in the form of footnotes, logos or editorial commentary – made many recipients unaware of the promotional nature of the materials. The markings were usually discreet – in editorial footnotes or in the description of the project, without clear information that the content came from an agreement with the European Commission.
During the campaign, media analysts noted a decrease in the number of publications critical of EU cohesion policy in major Italian titles. Although censorship cannot be spoken of, there was a clear alignment of the message to the sponsor's expectations. Fazi suggests that this phenomenon of self-censorship may be due to financial dependence.
“In practice, the Commission acts like a client of an advertising agency: coverage is important, not independency or journalistic integrity.”
Not only did national media usage IMREG – local titles, especially in the south of Italy, produced hundreds of sponsored materials, frequently without the public's knowledge. The campaigns afraid EU road projects, urban regeneration or educational programmes presented in a clear affirmative tone.
IMREG did not impose an work to verify the quality of the content or transparency of the financial structure. The key criterion was the number of recipients – access to websites, video views or social media interactions.
From the editorial point of view, the programme offered financial benefits, but introduced a hazard of weakening credibility – especially in the eyes of readers more critical of the EU.
The Italian writer union (FNSI) issued a position in which he warned against the unmarked financing of editorial content. The paper states that:
"EU promotional programmes must not be confused with independent journalism. deficiency of designation of sponsored content threatens the transparency and credibility of the editorial board.”
In response, the European Commission stressed that the content created under IMREG is not propaganda but informational. However, the work to clearly description sponsored content has not yet been implemented, nor has external supervision been introduced.
"EU information programmes, despite noble declarations, can in practice lead to media dependence and erosion of their independence."
The Italian case illustrates a wider problem: how can the request for information about EU action be reconciled with the rule of media independence? If the sources of backing are not transparent and a unilateral message, there may be a weakening of pluralism and public assurance in journalism.
Critical analysis and consequence to allegations
Thomas Fazi's study makes a clear allegation: the European Union uses media backing as a tool for shaping the information space according to its own geopolitical and ideological priorities. This applies to both associate States and neighbouring and authoritarian countries. Criticism includes deficiency of transparency, selectivity of support, marginalisation of critical voices and possible impact on journalistic independence.
"In fact, the Commission does not support freedom of expression as such, but only those manifestations which fit into Brussels' dominant view and political interests."
This allegation is valid, especially if the EU's declarations to advance pluralism are combined with the practice of selective financing. In the final reports of programmes specified as IMREG and NDICI, the mechanisms for assessing the ideological diversity of funded projects are seldom taken into account. There are besides no open competitions in which equal chances would be given to editorial boards with a conservative, socially conventional or neutral profile.
On the another hand, the EU institutions, partner organisations and part of the media community respond to these allegations with respective arguments.
First, they stress that financing is not editorial but structural – supports the improvement of competences, technological tools, training and ability to scope the recipient.
"The European Commission does not affect journalistic content but allows editors to access tools and cognition that increase their independency from commercial or authoritarian pressures."
However, this argument is losing its strength erstwhile the thematic campaigns, as in the case of IMREG, are financed with a well-defined subject substance and expected narrative. Critics indicate that no direct impact does not mean no systemic impact. Secondly, the EU explains that backing for editorial boards with a liberal or pro-Western profile results from the fact that it is these environments that make applications and have grants competence. By default, conservative or conventional editorial teams do not participate in competitions due to a deficiency of structural preparation.
"The selection of beneficiaries is not due to ideological prejudices, but to the quality of applications and skills of applicants."
However, this argument suggests the existence of a "mistakeful organization circle": the measures go to those who already have grant facilities and those who are outside of this circulation stay excluded.
Thirdly, the Commission emphasises that its actions are aimed at combating misinformation and hostile information campaigns, mainly from Russia, China and another authoritarian actors. In this context, supporting pro-European editorial boards is treated as a form of information defence alternatively than a propaganda tool.
"Support for media promoting European values is an component of building democratic resilience against information threats from the East."
However, this argument is besides contested – critics note that in defence of propaganda, you should not scope for reverse propaganda, but alternatively to strengthen the actual diversity and capacity for public debate.
An additional aspect of the analysis is the work of the editorial board itself. The Fazi accuses them of deficiency of ethical reflection on the adoption of measures from institutions which are simultaneously the subject of their transmissions. deficiency of markings, insufficient information to readers, and the desire to conform to the grantor's expectations indicate that editors do not always keep adequate distance.
"Medias that inform about institutions cannot accept money from them to make transfers without clear disclosure of this dependence."
The Italian case of IMREG shows that the boundary between independent journalism and corporate communication can blur – especially erstwhile there is crucial backing and campaigns with clear communicative objectives.
The implementation of reforms may be the answer to these allegations:
- the work to clearly description EU-sponsored content;
- the rotational pluralistic composition of the Grant bodies;
- open consultation before the publication of thematic contests;
- an editorial audit involving independent journalism bodies;
- diversification of distribution channels.
In conclusion, the dispute does not concern the thought of support itself – but the principles of its implementation. Fazi's criticism reminds us that Freedom of speech requires not only deficiency of censorship, but besides autonomy from political interests, even if democratically legitimized.
The analysis of the study by Thomas Fazi, published by the Brussels Conservative branch of the Hungarian College of Maciej Korwin (MCC), shows a disturbing image of the relation between the European Union and the media sector. Despite the EU's declared commitment to pluralism, independency and quality of journalism, actual media support mechanisms have proved to be burdened with serious structural, ideological and systemic shortcomings.
Firstly, the EU's media backing structure, both in and outside associate States, is based on differentiated and distributed mechanisms that are not covered by the common media strategy. Programmes specified as Creative Europe, NDICI, IMREG or EED, despite its formal openness, focus in practice on the editorial of a liberal, pro-European profile. This leads to the formation of circumstantial "grant-oligopolys", which results in a narrowing of information pluralism and a preference for 1 ideological orientation.
Secondly, the practices utilized in the implementation of media campaigns financed by EU institutions, as the case of Italy shows, frequently blur the border between journalism and promotion. The material created under programmes specified as IMREG is frequently not decently labelled as sponsored, which misleads audiences and undermines media assurance as a public trust institution. As a result, EU support can act counterproductively – alternatively of strengthening the media, undermining their credibility and undermining ethical standards.
Thirdly, the EU defends its financing policy as a defence mechanics against disinformation and hostile external influence. However, this argument cannot justify the systematic selection of the worldview or the exclusion of editorial boards presenting alternate political, social or cultural visions. actual democratic resilience is based, not on the uniformity of the message, but on the ability to conduct a multilateral open debate.
The conclusions of the analysis are clear. The EU should improvement the media support strategy by introducing transparent ideological and organization criteria to guarantee equal access for editorial boards with different profiles. The work to clearly description sponsored content and ethical control mechanisms supervised by independent journalism bodies should be introduced. It is essential to build channels of financing of a pluralistic nature – both at thematic and geographical level – so that funds do not focus in respective selected editorial boards.
The MCC Brussels study is not only a criticism of the European institutions – it is besides an appeal for reflection on the future of free media in Europe. If the Union is to stay a task based on democratic discourse, it must guarantee that media support is not a tool for political unification but a foundation for genuine diversity, accountability and transparency.
