Local and community media in Europe.

A comparative analysis of the Media

Pluralism Monitor data between 2020 and 2023

By Professor Agnes Gulyas

Research Project Report

October 2023
© European University Institute, 2023

Editorial matter and selection © Agnes Gulyas, 2023

Chapters © authors individually 2023.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY 4.0) International license
which governs the terms of access and reuse for this work. If cited or quoted, reference should be
made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the series and number, the year and the
publisher.

Views expressed in this publication reflect the opinion of individual authors and not those of the Eu-
ropean University Institute.

Published by

European University Institute (EUI)

Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014

San Domenico di Fiesole (FI)

Italy

Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are

however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect
those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture
Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA
can be held responsible for them.

2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 4

2. What are local and community media? 5

2.1 Interpretations of local and community media 5

2.2 Importance of local and community media 6

3. Key issues in local and community media in EU member states 7

3.1 Fragmented subnational media structures 7

3.2 Political independence 9

3.3 Sustainability of local media 10

3.4 Subsidies for local media 12

3.5 Role of Public Service Media 15

3.6 Working conditions of local journalists 17

3.7 Challenges facing community media 18

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 20

5. References 23

3
1. Introduction

Local and community media have traditionally received less attention in policy discussions and aca-
demic research compared to national media. The dominance of national media can be attributed to
several factors, such as the well-defined boundaries of nations and the fact that media and news pro-
duction tends to prioritize national agendas and champions national actors (Hanitzsch, 2009). However,
there has been an increasing interest in local and community media in recent years. This is partly due to
greater recognition of the importance of these media forms, and partly to a perceived crisis in the sec-
tor. Indeed, as the next section will discuss, local and community media have essential roles in a func-
tioning democracy and in fostering inclusive communities. Over the past two decades, however, these
sectors have encountered significant challenges due to digital transformation and economic downturns
that have hindered their capacity to fulfil their political and social functions (Gulyas and Baines, 2020).

This report offers an international comparative analysis of key issues in local and community media
across 27 EU member states and five candidate countries (Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North
Macedonia, Serbia & Turkey) based on data gathered as part of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM)
project by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF) at the European University Insti-
tute between 2020 and 2023. The MPM is “a research tool that was designed to identify and measure
potential risks to media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union, taking into account a
broad and holistic definition of media pluralism” (CMPF, 2022, p.119). The MPM has been implement-
ed by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom since 2013/14. Although the tool has been
updated to reflect changes in the media sectors and emerging issues since then, the core principle of
focusing on a broad definition of media pluralism remained encompassing different components of a
media system including media supply, distribution and use, as well as legal, economic and socio-cultur-
al considerations (CMPF 2022, p.119). The rationale for using MPM data for this comparative study is
two-fold. Firstly, it provides holistic insights into various aspects of local and community media given the
research design and holistic approach of the MPM tool. Secondly, it allows for a systematic comparative
analysis of local and community media in the 32 countries included in the study. These advantages are
significant for academic research as well as for policy discussions, both of which have been hindered
by the scarcity of comprehensive data on local and community media. Additionally, there is a lack of
comparative studies in the field, further underscoring the importance of this study.

The MPM tool explores the risks for media pluralism in four main areas: Fundamental Protection, Mar-
ket Plurality, Political Independence, and Social Inclusiveness. These areas are assessed in relation to
20 indicators (5 per area) and 200 variables using both quantitative and qualitative data primarily from
secondary sources as well expert assessments (CMPF, 2022)1. Eight relevant indicators2 and 40 vari-
ables that were relevant to local and community media were used to select the data from the 2020 to
2023 MPM database. This produced a qualitative dataset, which was then investigated using thematic
analysis. As Braun and Clarke (2006) suggest thematic analysis can be applied in various ways, in this
research it was used within the qualitative paradigm employing flexible and organic processes of coding
and theme development. The analysis revealed seven key themes that represent key issues of local
and community media in the EU and the five candidate countries during the study period. The themes

1 Find the full methodology in the MPM2023 Final report, at https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/75753 . The MPM Glossary
can be found here: https://cmpf.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/glossary_MPM-2023_export.xls
2 The indicators were: Protection of freedom of expression, Access to media for local/regional communities and for commu-
nity media, Access to media for minorities, Independence and effectiveness of the media authority, Journalistic profession,
standards and protection, Media viability, Political independence of media, State regulation of resources and support to
media sector.

4
exhibited diverse attributes and manifested uniquely across the various countries. The seven themes
are: fragmented subnational media structures, political independence, sustainability, subsidies, the role
of public service media (PSM), working conditions of local journalists and challenges of community
media. This report first provides an overview of definitions of local and community media and their key
societal roles. It then presents an analysis of the seven identified themes, concluding with a reflection
on key findings and policy recommendations.

2. What are local and community media?

2.1 Interpretations of local and community media

Subnational media can be defined as media divisions or entities that occur within a geographical area
that is smaller than the nation-state (Gulyas, 2023). There are different forms of subnational media,
which vary significantly between countries depending on their size, political system, economic, social
and cultural features, as well as media history. Local and community media are seen as two key forms
of subnational media. Arguably, local media are recognised as the most prominent form of subnational
media. However, there is no consensus about the meaning of local media. There are several factors
contributing to the difficulty of defining local media. These include the influence of a country’s size on
perceptions of locality, the fact that the relevance of particular news to a specific locality is not nec-
essarily tied to specific outlets, and the varied socio-political contexts within which subnational media
operate (Blagojev et al., 2023). Thus, local media can refer to newspapers produced for millions of
people in a metropolitan city, or to online news provisions for a few hundred people in a village. Apart
from differences in size, local media can work on different platforms - print, broadcasting and online -,
serve different communities with varied content, operate with diverse organisational goals and under
different regulatory regimes. Despite the great variety, all local media have a spatial aspect – a spe-
cific geographical location - which can be regarded as their defining feature. However, “local” is also
a mediatized social space that includes elements of culture, identity and language (Ali, 2017) and can
be conceptualised as a sense of place. As Costera Meijer (2020, p.358) argues “What counts as local,
community or regional journalism may be clear from a production perspective. From a consumer an-
gle it depends on people’s feelings of connection to a particular space, for some a neighbourhood, for
others a province”. Hess and Waller (2016) offer their geo-social model for understanding local news
comprising five key concepts: geo-social, local, local habitus, community and sense of place. Thus, to
understand local media we need to consider both their spatial as well as the social context.

Community media is another form of subnational media. Similarly to local media, community media are
also interpreted differently and it is a contested term. Defining community media poses challenges for
various reasons. These include the contested nature of the term “community” itself and the significant
transformations brought about by digital technologies and the online environment in how these media
forms function (Blagojev et al., 2023). However, as the name suggests, the concept of “community” is
key to understanding it. In general, a specific characteristic of community media is that it focuses on
serving the interest and needs of its community. Typically, it is seen as a third-sector, not-for-profit oper-
ation. A recent Council of Europe report describes community media as a media form that is run for the
community, about the community and by the community (Peissl et al., 2022). Importantly, community
in this context is interpreted broadly, and it can refer to a community in a specific geographical location
or community of interest based on shared identity or experience. While community media share some

5
characteristics with local media, it also has some distinctive features. Community media in Europe his-
torically tended to be not-for-profit broadcasting operations (typically radio) for a specific community,
run by volunteers (rather than professional journalists), and managed by a community organisation.
However, in recent years new, digital native community media forms have also emerged leveraging the
opportunities of digital technologies and tools. Overall, the community media sectors vary significantly
between different countries depending on legislation and levels of support.

Regional media can also play an important role in a subnational ecosystem, especially in larger coun-
tries. Again, there is no agreed definition for regional media, but commonly they are understood to be
media forms that cover larger geographical regions in a country, often defined in terms of administrative
political units, such as federal states, provinces or counties. A key difference between local and region-
al media is that the latter typically cover larger geographical areas. In Europe, in a historical context,
public service media have tended to fulfil regional media roles with legislation typically requiring public
service broadcasters to provide a certain amount of regional content as well as having a presence in
the regions.

2.2 Importance of local and community media

Subnational media share similar societal functions with national media, however arguably have also
some specific roles given their particular spatial and community context. In terms of political functions,
local media are perceived to play an important part in upholding local democracies. Adapting McNair’s
categorisation of general political functions of media (1995), political roles of subnational media in a
democratic society are:

• Informing citizens, in particular, catering to critical information needs of their communities;

• Educating citizens as to the meaning and significance of the ‘facts’;

• Providing a platform for public debate and discussion and fostering civic engagement;

• Holding elected officials and those in power to account;

• Providing a diversity of viewpoints;

• Acting as keystone media by underpinning national and global news ecosystems and playing a crit-
ical role in defining the state and structure of the wider political information environment (Nielsen,
2015);

• Contributing to media pluralism.

Diverse local and community media sectors are seen to have an important role in ensuring media plu-
ralism and are often seen as an indicator of a healthy democracy and vibrant media ecology (Peissl et
al., 2022). Serving the critical information needs of communities is a particularly important role of local
media. The notion of critical information needs originates from the US, where it is adopted by the Fed-
eral Communications Commission, to assess how the quality of local media content meets the needs of
their communities. “Critical information needs of local communities are those forms of information that
are necessary for citizens and community members to live safe and healthy lives; have full access to
educational, employment, and business opportunities; and to fully participate in the civic and democrat-
ic lives of their communities should they choose.” (Friedland et al., 2012).

6
In addition to political roles, subnational media also fulfil important social and cultural functions in their
communities (Hess and Waller, 2016; Gulyas and Baines, 2020), which are:

• Fostering community cohesion by bringing the community together and promoting community en-
gagement;

• Underpinning local identity by highlighting and promoting the unique characteristics, values, and
traditions of their community they serve, and creating a sense of belonging and solidarity among
residents;

• Recording and preserving local history and culture by documenting and reporting on local issues
and events, reflecting the unique identity of the locality;

• Promoting inclusive communities by providing media access to groups who are underrepresented
in mainstream and national media, for example many community media serve minority groups and
marginalised communities.

Different forms of subnational media contribute to these ideal societal roles differently. The ability of
local and community media to fulfil these roles, however, depends on a number of factors, including
political, economic, social and cultural systems and context in a country.

3. Key issues in local and community media in EU member states and five
candidate countries (Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedo-
nia, Serbia and Turkey)

3.1 Fragmented subnational media structures

Subnational media are present in all EU and candidate countries included in the study, but the analysis
revealed significant fragmentations. Typically, there are three key subsectors: local news media, local
or regional broadcasting, and community media. The subsectors vary in relation to size, dominant or-
ganisational purpose, media form and content, reach, and regulation. The analysis also revealed that
there are considerable variations between the countries in terms of the size and strengths of the differ-
ent subsectors. In the following, each subsector is examined highlighting key differences between the
countries.

Local news media can be classified into two types: legacy local newspapers that have expanded their
presence online and digital native outlets. The MPM data analysis revealed that generally, the former
category is more prevalent and holds a dominant position in local media markets in many countries.
However, the size of a country significantly influences the scope and scale of its local media landscape.
For instance, in small countries like Luxembourg or Malta, local media is limited and closely integrated
with national media structures. Where local newspapers are dominant, they have a long-standing tradi-
tion and are among the oldest forms of news media. In many Western and Northern European countries
local newspapers have been published for two, sometimes three hundred years. They have been play-
ing important political and social roles and they are perceived as key pillars of local democracy. Before
the mid-2000s local newspapers were stable markets run by commercial providers, but since then
digital technologies and the internet have fundamentally changed how they are produced, distributed
and operated (Gulyas and Baines, 2020). Notable shifts include the transition of outlets towards online
content delivery and a decline in the circulation of conventional print newspapers. Typically, their print

7
and online audience figures combined are higher than local radio or television audiences, albeit this
varies between countries. They tend to be stronger and more popular in Western Europe, and weaker
and less significant in Central and South Eastern Europe. As long-standing legacy media forms, many
local newspapers have a strong brand and are regarded as trusted professional institutions. In France
and Greece, for example, local newspapers are the most trusted media brands, before public service
broadcasters or national news outlets (Newman et al., 2022). The MPM data analysis also revealed that
the concentration of the local press market tends to be relatively high, but the levels are especially high
in countries where there is no support or policy to ensure pluralism in the sector. For example, more
than 90% of Hungarian and Polish local news media is controlled by one company (Batorfy et al., 2022;
Klimkiewicz, 2022).

Digital native local news outlets are a relatively recent phenomenon typically referring to outlets that
provide local news content online. Terminology about this sub-sector varies as they can include differ-
ent types of providers. They often cater for smaller geographical areas than local newspapers, and for
that reason they are also referred to as hyperlocal media (Harte et al., 2018). These outlets are often
perceived as independent players with less corporate influence, and having close relationships with
the communities they serve (Harte et al., 2018). They are seen as potentially filling news gaps left by
larger corporate entities (Barnett and Townend, 2015), but studies suggest that hyperlocal ventures ex-
hibit greater resilience when they are part of a diverse and thriving media ecosystem (Van Kerkhoven,
2020). The MPM data reveals that digital native news outlets now form an important part of the local
and community media landscape in many countries. For example, in Spain 42% of all regional or local
news sites are digital native, while 61% of all digital native sites are regional or local outlets (Negredo
et al., 2023). However, assessing and researching this sector is challenging due to its volatile nature,
frequent changes, and limited data availability.

In all countries in the MPM analysis, there is some form of subnational television and radio, which pro-
vide news but also other types of content. In many countries public service broadcasters offer regional
provisions which tend to cover larger geographical areas. However, in some countries commercial pro-
viders also provide regional or local broadcasting services. Local television, serving small towns or dis-
tricts of urban areas, is less widespread in the continent, but is popular in a few countries. For example,
in Croatia weekly use of local television is higher than that of local newspapers, while in Hungary and
the Netherlands they are at similar levels (Newman et al., 2022). The main reasons for the differences
between countries in relation to local television are the varied policy approaches and the role of local
authorities in running them. France has one of the strongest local tv scenes in Europe which is partly
due to the fact that independent local television outlets have been legally recognised since 1985, before
the digital age (Rebillard and Sklower, 2022). Hungary is an example where the role of local authorities
has been key in the existence of local TV; it is estimated that there are 108 local television stations in
the country, many of them in Budapest where local TV is available in each district operated by its local
authority (Kovacs et al., 2023). Local radio on the other hand tends to be more widespread than local
television, partly because they have been established for a longer period (Evens and Paulussen, 2012).
Local radio seems to be particularly popular in smaller countries where local press has been historically
weaker, such as in Cyprus (Christophorou and Karides, 2022).

Our data analysis indicates that community media exists in some form across all the countries included
in the study. However, it is generally perceived as less prevalent compared to other subsectors of sub-
national media. For instance, in some small countries, especially in South and South Eastern Europe,
the number of registered community media outlets is under six (for example in Malta and Republic of

8
North Macedonia), whilst in states where they are more established figures reach hundreds (for ex-
ample in France and Germany). However, in many countries, there is a substantially higher number of
unregistered outlets operating unofficially, particularly on online platforms. It is also important to note
that their geographical spread varies within countries depending on the location of the communities
they serve. For instance, in Finland, community TV and radio stations are predominantly concentrated
in areas where Swedish-speaking minorities live. And, in many countries, community media serving
migrant groups tend to be located in urban areas where those groups live. Community media tend to
take broadcasting-based formats, especially radio, partly because historically it has found recognition
within audio-visual legislation. However, there has been an increase in online-only community media
forms in recent decades, but we have limited insights into their reach and operation as there is a dearth
of data available about them. Another distinctive feature of community media is that they tend to be run
by volunteers from the community who create content and manage the operation (Peissl et al., 2022).

Importantly, the fragmentation of subnational media markets is reflected in policies and regulations.
None of the countries included in the study has comprehensive policies and regulatory regimes in re-
lation to subnational media as a whole. The main sectors are regulated and supported differently. For
historical reasons, broadcasting is more heavily regulated, both in terms of operations and content, than
print or online provisions. Another implication of the fragmentation is that none of the countries in our
report has comprehensive data about their subnational media ecosystem as a whole, for example in re-
lation to overall local and regional news consumption or market shares. There are differences between
the countries, but in general, there is a significant issue with the availability and accessibility of com-
prehensive data about subnational media sectors. Arguably, this is a concern as without appropriate
data neither the health and performance of subnational media nor the effectiveness of policy initiatives
could be evaluated.

3.2 Political independence

The picture regarding the political independence of local and community media is mixed in the 32 coun-
tries included in the study. The MPM 2022 analysis identified eight countries (Albania, Serbia, Turkey,
Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Bulgaria) that scored at high risk on political independence of
media in general, nine at low risk (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal,
Sweden and the Netherlands), and the rest at medium risk. In general, political independence in rela-
tion to local and community media follows a similar pattern in terms of country differences. Typically,
countries that have strong democratic institutions, where public service media values and pluralism
are embedded in the whole media ecosystem, and legislations require transparency regarding media
ownership and financial support tend to avoid direct political interference in local and community media.

In some recent EU Member States and in candidate countries, these necessary conditions to safeguard
the independence of local media are lacking, making them particularly vulnerable to political influence.
For example, Mecfal reports that since 2015 local journalists in Poland have faced increasingly au-
thoritarian restrictions on the freedom to report under the populist Law and Justice Party government
(Mecfal, 2020), In addition, in 2021 the media company controlling much of the local media was taken
over by a state-owned firm resulting in an editorial revamping of all newsrooms (Klimkiewicz, 2022). In
Hungary, the Fidesz government has exerted its influence via ownership and direct editorial control on
both publicly and privately owned local media across the country leading to significantly biased local
news content (Batorfy et al., 2022). Another type of threat to the independence of local media is when
local governments own or fund local media. In Slovakia, for example, local authorities often use their

9
financial power to influence the editorial policies of local media which they own, resulting in blatantly
biased content (Urbanikova, 2022). In Lithuania, local media organisations are reported to be most at
risk in relation to compromised editorial autonomy because politicians are allowed to be owners and
there is a lack of transparency around the issue (Balcytiene et al., 2022). The lack of transparency con-
cerning public procurement and state advertising is also a prevalent issue in many of these countries,
exacerbating the dependence of local media on those in positions of power. Political interferences such
as those mentioned above mean that in many countries in Central and South Eastern Europe local
media’s ability to fulfil their democratic functions and provide content to meet their audiences’ critical
information needs is impaired.

As well as country differences, the analysis also revealed variations between different subnational me-
dia sectors in terms of political interference. The data suggests that in nations where media control by
the state is prevalent, community media can become part of the state media apparatus. An illustrative
case can be found in Poland, where the influential Radio Maryja network, operating as a community
media platform, demonstrates strong support for the government while benefiting from diverse public
funds (Klimkiewicz, 2023). Regional provisions of PSM are more likely to score well in terms of editorial
independence, as long as there is legislation and editorial guidance to protect it. But editorial autonomy
in local media can be problematic even in countries with otherwise politically independent media. For
example, in Finland a survey of editors-in-chief of local newspapers found that 81.5% of respondents
have experienced attempts at influencing the editorial content by municipal decision-makers (Mantyoja
and Manninen, 2022). Arguably political independence of local media is complicated by the fact that
compared to national level media, local journalists have different, closer relationships with local politi-
cians, where professional and personal lives are often entangled (Blagojev et al., 2023). Beyond their
professional relationships, they might socialise in the same places, their children might go to the same
school, or they might use the same shops. Social encounters and influences like these are difficult to
regulate, however, professional codes of practice, both for local journalists and those working in local
authorities, can be a useful tool to manage such relationships.

3.3 Sustainability of local media

Financial sustainability of local media has emerged in the analysis as a key issue for the sector across
Europe, which reflects findings of other studies (Harte et al, 2018; Barclay et al, 2022). Most countries
reported declining revenues and numbers of local media outlets throughout the data collection period,
however, the overall picture is difficult to assess because of the lack of comprehensive data, as high-
lighted above. Figure 1 below illustrates the extent of this problem with MPM 2022 data, but the picture
was similar across all study years. 18 out of the 32 countries reported that there was no data about local
media revenues, and even those that conveyed high or medium risk (significant or moderate decline)
did so on partial data or anecdotal evidence. There were no countries which reported low risk in relation
to local media revenues. The legacy local news media has been seen as particularly adversely affected
and most of the declining indicators and anecdotal evidence come from this sector. For example, in
Portugal the number of newspapers declined from 732 in 2010 to 403 in 2019, while their circulation
dropped from 62.1 to 22.6 printed copies per inhabitant during the same period (the figures include
national papers too but most titles are local) (Fidalgo, 2021).

10
Figure 1 - Levels of risk reported in relation to local media revenues in MPM 2022
(% of countries)

As discussed above, the legacy local news media sector has gone through a fundamental transforma-
tion in the last 20 years during which three particular factors have threatened its sustainability. First,
overall, the sector has struggled to establish a stable business model for the digital era. In the pre-digital
era, the two key sources of income for the local press were revenues from print copies and advertising,
both of which declined significantly in the last 20 years as print circulations plummeted and advertising
shifted to online platforms (Gulyas and Baines, 2020). Although online audience figures have soared
for local news outlets, the majority of readers are not prepared to pay for access to the news online,
and even those who do pay tend to subscribe to national news outlets and not local ones (Newman et
al., 2023).

Second, local press companies have struggled to counter the power of the large platforms in the online
communicative environment, in particular that of Google and Facebook, which have taken a lot of their
advertising revenues. To illustrate the dominance of the platforms, in Hungary, for example, it is esti-
mated that Facebook and Alphabet had 65% of the online advertising revenues in 2021 (Batorfy et al.,
2022), while in Ireland the two platform providers accounted for 84% of all online advertising revenues
in 2020 (Flynn, 2022). The platforms also threaten the sustainability of local media through their control
of news aggregation and algorithmic strategies creating an uneven level playing field in the online en-
vironment (Blagojev et al., 2023).

11
Third, as the local press tends to rely on advertising revenues and has fewer resources, it is vulnera-
ble to economic downturns, such as during the 2018 financial crisis or the Covid-19 pandemic. Many
countries reported that local and regional media were among the worst affected during the Covid-19
pandemic among media sectors. In Portugal, for example, 27% of local and regional press owners
and 44% of local radio operators reported revenue losses between 61 and 80%, according to the ERC
Evaluation Report on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the media sector in the country (Cadima,
2021). In Latvia, local and regional newspapers were also the worst affected, losing between 30-50%
of their advertising and retail revenues in 2021 (Rozukalne, 2022).

Regional and local television has also seen financial challenges, but this varies between countries
included in the analysis. Funding for regional provisions of PSM has been cut in a number of coun-
tries in recent years, which is thought to have impacted the content delivered. Albania reported that a
number of local television companies closed down between 2019 and 2022 due to declining revenues,
high costs and lack of subsidies to the sector. Local television in France was also hit hard by the de-
clining advertising revenues during the Covid 19 pandemic, and as a result market concentration has
increased in the sector (Rebillard and Sklower, 2022).

3.4 Subsidies for local media

The system of subsidies for subnational media is fragmented in the countries included in the analysis.
Policies often focus on particular sub-sectors or actors, rather than considering the health of subnation-
al media ecologies as a whole. As such, traditional local and regional media forms often get more sup-
port, and digital local news outlets are not supported at all in some countries. Evidence from the MPM
dataset suggests that subsidies play an increasingly important part in sustaining some local media
sectors, especially legacy local news outlets, likely as a result of the sustainability issues discussed in
the previous section. Evidence also shows that subsidies come from different sources with different mo-
tivations. With regard to state subsidies, 20 out of the 32 countries included in the MPM study recorded
having state subsidies for local media in 2021, the others did not. But as Figure 2 below illustrates,
there are differences between countries in terms of the levels of subsidies available. Only 7 countries
recorded adequate levels of subsidies (categorised as low risk), while in 12 there were only limited state
subsidies available (categorised as medium risk). There are also differences between countries wheth-
er the subsidies targeted local media specifically, or are part of generic support schemes. For example,
in 2022, 15 EU member states allocated specific subsidies for local media, four countries extended
generic subsidies that encompassed support for local media outlets, while the rest did not provide sub-
sidies for the sector (Blagojev et al., 2023). Patterns around state subsidies for local media have not
changed significantly over the four years of this MPM data analysis. However, some countries offered
new or additional short-term subsidies to local media because of the impact of Covid 19 pandemic on
the viability of the sector during 2020 or 2021. For example, in Germany where usually there were no
direct subsidies for local media, the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia provided financial support for local
radio outlets (Holznagel and Kalbhenn, 2022), and in the Netherlands, the government introduced the
Temporary Support Fund Local Information Provision to support local media that lost advertising reve-
nues due to the pandemic (De Swert et al., 2022).

12
Figure 2 - Levels of risk reported in relation to the availability of state subsidies to local media
in MPM 2022 (% of countries)

Governments’ motivations to provide subsidies vary between countries. In Hungary, for example, the
support system is employed as a means of political control, favouring titles that align with the govern-
ment’s perspectives. Conversely, in Denmark and Sweden, the subsidies aim to secure the viability of
local news outlets, thereby upholding pluralism within local media ecosystems. Interestingly, six out of
the seven countries that reported sufficient levels of subsidies in 2022 have media markets with lim-
ited economies of scale(Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Portugal and Sweden) indicating that
concerns about the sustainability of local media are particularly acute there. Such countries were also
more likely to report in the MPM data that local media were increasingly dependent on subsidies with-
out which the sector was perceived to be unable to financially survive. It is also notable that ten out of
the twelve countries that do not have state subsidies for local media are recent EU states or candidate
countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, the Re-
public of North Macedonia and Turkey), which suggest that levels of economic development and dem-
ocratic traditions influence whether local media are supported and if yes how.

13
Subsidies for local media can originate not only from central governments but also from local authori-
ties, and this type of support holds significant importance in certain countries. In France, for example,
22 out of 36 local television stations reported that subsidies from local governments constitute more
than half of their revenues (Rebillard and Sklower. 2022). Subsidies from local authorities however raise
concerns about undue influence in certain contexts. In Croatia, journalists’ associations in the country
have organized a campaign to raise awareness about the growing dependence of local media on sub-
sidies from local authorities. They caution that these subsidies are perceived as lacking transparency
and can potentially undermine the independence of local media (Bilic et al., 2022). There are also vari-
ations between the countries under analysis in terms of transparency and fairness in distributing direct
state subsidies to local media. Out of the 20 countries that provide direct subsidies to local media three
(Greece, Luxembourg and Turkey) were reported as high risk in terms of transparency and fairness,
nine as medium risk (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Serbia)
and eight as low risk (Denmark, France, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden),
in MPM 2022.

In addition to direct subsidies, some governments also operate indirect support for local media, but the
form and extent of these vary significantly. Typically, these aim to lower the costs for media operations
and are used across both national and subnational levels, meaning they do not particularly target local
media. For example, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Albania, Poland, and Croatia, all have re-
duced VAT rates for either print or broadcasting operations, or both, that affect regional and local media
operations.

Another way governments can support local media indirectly is through state advertising, which hap-
pens both at national and subnational levels. State advertising is a problematic issue in many countries.
The MPM 2022 report highlights that out of 32 countries, 24 scored as high risk in relation to the distri-
bution of state advertising; while there were two medium-risk countries (Denmark and the Netherlands),
and six low-risk countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Montenegro, Portugal and Sweden) (CMPF, 2022).
Unsurprisingly, all the countries in the low-risk category have regulations regarding state advertising to
media, but even in their case, there could be issues around the implementation of the law (as in Mon-
tenegro) and a lack of monitoring. The concerns around state advertising are that they are used as a
covert subsidy and as a way to support those media outlets that are close to those in power.

Non-state actors also provide subsidies to local media, for example, funding schemes of NGOs or
international bodies, private donors and corporate players, but again there are significant variations
between the countries under analysis in this regard. Generally, this kind of support does not directly
focus on local or community media sectors; instead, it often revolves around specific issues, such as
journalism innovation (like the Google News Initiative) or defending and supporting journalists’ rights
and safety (such as the European wide Media Freedom Rapid Response project3). While these forms
of support do provide assistance to selected local or community media initiatives, they primarily operate
on a short-term, project-based approach, which often fails to tackle the systemic challenges faced by lo-
cal media sectors. Interestingly Google and Facebook, two of the main platforms that have contributed
to the challenges of local media sectors in the online environment, have also launched initiatives aimed
at supporting digital journalism and news, including at local level. However, both the Meta Journalism
Project and Google News Initiative tend to focus on short term projects that have some commercial
aim or outcome. In addition, support often goes to mature larger media markets with economies of

3 https://www.mfrr.eu/

14
scale. The selective support for local journalism by these two platforms raises questions regarding their
motivations, suggesting that they primarily prioritise backing initiatives that align with their commercial
interests.

One of the implications of the declining legacy local news media sector that has emerged in the MPM
data analysis is the emergence of local news deserts as a result of the closures of local news outlets
and/or declining local content. The issue has become a focus of policy debates in some countries and
new subsidies have been introduced as a result. Although there is no agreed definition of the term local
news deserts, it generally refers to geographical areas or communities that have few or no news outlets
and receive little coverage (Usher, 2015), and is concerned with spatial inequalities regarding news
provision and consumption (Gulyas, 2021). Recent debates on news deserts have tended to focus on
the decline of local newspapers, and as such they have been more prominent where that sector has
been particularly strong historically. For example, in Sweden, new media subsidies were implemented
in 2019 specifically to strengthen local journalism in areas that lack or have weak local news coverage
(Fardigh, 2022). Similarly, in the Netherlands a new funding scheme (Journalistieke Professionalisering
Lokale Publieke Mediadiensten) was introduced with a Euro 4.85 million budget to boost the quantity
and quality of local media in the country (De Swert et al., 2022). In Germany, the state media authority in
Berlin-Brandenburg is providing subsidies for local content to counteract information deficits (Holznagel
and Kalbhenn, 2022), and in Denmark, the issue has been discussed in policy, professional and public
forums, and there is a political drive to strengthen local media by redirecting some of the state subsi-
dies. In response, some commercial companies have launched new local news services in geograph-
ical areas that are deemed news deserts (Newman et al., 2022). Although research on news deserts
is challenging because of the lack of comprehensive data on subnational media, there are indications
that areas that are economically poorer and deprived are more likely to become local news deserts.
For example, in Hungary the number of local newspaper titles is reported to be higher in economically
more developed areas (Kovacs et al., 2023). This corresponds to research findings in the US and the
UK which found a correlation between general levels of deprivation in a community and the emergence
of local news deserts (Gulyas, 2021).

3.5 Role of Public Service Media

Public service media (PMS) has a strong tradition in most parts of Europe and it has played a key role in
underpinning democratic politics and providing media services that are in the public interest. However,
historically PSM policies have focused on broadcasting and national level services (Van Cuilenburg and
McQuail, 2003), and thus arguably played a less significant role at the local level which was dominated
by commercial local media companies in Western Europe. In newer democracies of Europe PSM has
a shorter history and is less established (Jakubowicz, 2008), but here too they have not been designed
to deliver public service media at a local level. The MPM research explored two aspects of PSM that
have particular relevance to media pluralism and diversity at the subnational level: first, the presence
of PSM at the subnational level, and second, the role it plays to cater for the media needs of minority
communities who are often concentrated in specific geographical localities.

In relation to the first aspect, Figure 3 below shows that PSM in over half of the countries in the study
have been required by law to provide regional content and have a branch in regional centres. In Austria,
for example, the public broadcaster operates regional branches in all federal states, which provide re-
gional radio and television content (Seethaler and Beaufort, 2022). Figure 3 also illustrates that the ma-
jority of PSM in the 32 European countries under study have regional representations in practice, even

15
when it is not mandated by law. This is likely due to it being outlined in their code of practice or being
an integral part of the public service media ethos. There are nine countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, France,
Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Republic of North Macedonia and Turkey) in the medium risk category
for providing branches at regional level, this means that the representation is assessed as insufficient.
This suggests that in certain countries, PSM may lack the necessary resources to sufficiently serve
regional communities. In addition, the MPM data suggests that due to budget constraints, certain PSM
entities are reducing their regional offerings and presence.

Figure 3 – PSM’s presence at regional level as required by law and as in practice in MPM 2022
(% of countries)

Overall, the data highlights that PSM have a regional role, rather than a local one at subnational level.
There are examples though where the PSM have got involved in initiatives to enhance the provision of
local news and content. For example, in the Netherlands the “Local Media Fund” (Stimuleringsfonds
voor de Journalistiek) supports collaborations between public service broadcasters and local media
organisations (De Swert et al., 2022), and some broadcasters have content-sharing agreements with
local media companies. In addition, some countries also require the national news agency to have
regional representations and provide local news content. For example, in Portugal the national news
agency Lusa has legal obligations to provide a news service with public interest, as part of which it has
to offer a minimum level of news services to regional and local newspapers and radio stations, as well
as have branches in regional centres (Lusa, 2021).

In relation to catering for the interests of minority communities4, PSM has held an important remit tra-
ditionally. In many EU countries where minorities are recognised, PSM are regulated to provide media
access to them. Apart from national regulations, international bodies also make recommendations on
the issue, such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Oslo recommendations
(OSCE, 1998). However, there are considerable variations between countries both in terms of regu-
lation and practice, and according to the MPM 2022 report in the majority of countries minorities do
not have adequate access to media (CMPF, 2022). There are countries (for example Sweden) which
provide media access by law to both recognised and not recognised minorities, and minority groups

4 For definition of minorities in the MPM study please see: https://cmpf.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/glossary_MPM-

2023_export.xls

16
do have media access in practice. There are countries (for example Italy) that only grant media access
to recognised minorities, while in practice unrecognised minorities, such as migrants and refugees, do
not have media access and their representation is often biased and stereotyped (Carlini et al., 2022).
There are then countries (for example France) that do not provide media access by law but in practice
minorities have access (Rebillard and Sklower, 2022). And there are also countries (for example Malta)
that do not provide media access by law and in practice minorities do not have access (Vassallo, 2022).
The analysis suggests that there are several factors that influence to what extent and how minorities are
granted media access, including the size of the country and its minority groups, their recognised status,
PSM resources, and political and cultural traditions. However, arguably, there is not enough research
on to what extent PSM provisions for minority communities address their critical information needs, and
how it measures up against the advantages offered by community media operated by these groups.

3.6 Working conditions of local journalists

There have been increasing concerns about the working conditions of journalists recently both by pro-
fessional bodies (for example Marthoz, 2023 and by the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Inter-
national Federation of Journalists) and academic research (Ornebring, 2018; Haynes and Silke, 2019).
The reasons behind these worsening conditions vary, but they tend to be multifold including economic
pressures and industry changes, increasing political pressure and polarised political cultures, digital
disruption and lack of legal protection. Concerns about working conditions for local journalists are simi-
lar to those of national journalists, including job insecurity, precarious contracts, work pressures, labour
laws, declining wages, and issues with pension schemes, albeit the specific concerns vary significantly
between the countries under analysis. Importantly, analysis of the MPM data revealed that the condi-
tions of local journalists tend to be worse than those of national or international journalists, and that the
Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the situation. For example, in Portugal local journalists are more
fearful of losing their job compared to their national counterparts (Cadima, 2021), while in Belgium there
are concerns that newsroom integration and industry mergers have led to increasing pressures on local
journalists and layoffs (Newman et al., 2022). In France, some local journalists’ jobs are not replaced or
are replaced with precarious contracts. In Albania, labour rights are less likely to be respected in local
media organisations (Voko and Likmeta, 2022), and in the Czech Republic, local journalists face long-
term precarious work conditions (Stetka, 2022).

The MPM 2022 report found that the indicator on the working conditions of journalists on the average
stand at medium risk of 62%, with four countries at low risk (Denmark, Germany, Ireland, and Sweden),
15 countries at medium risk (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxem-
bourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain), and 13 at high risk (Austria, Albania,
Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Montenegro, the Netherlands, the Republic of
North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, and Turkey) (CMPF, 2022). Although these figures refer to all jour-
nalists, it is likely that variations between countries in relation to working conditions of local journalists
follow a similar pattern. The existing evidence shows that, especially in recent EU states and candidate
countries, local journalists often face more precarious conditions and increased risks to their safety and
well-being. For example, Slavtcheva-Petkova’s analysis of Bulgarian journalists as part of the Worlds of
Journalism study illustrates that local journalists in the country experienced more constraints, compared
to national journalists, in relation to access to information, availability of news-gathering resources, time
limits, audience research and data, and relationship with news sources (Slavtcheva-Petkova, 2020).
Bulgarian local journalists are also reported to face layoffs, pay cuts or inadequate remuneration for
their work (Spassov et al., 2022). In Serbia, local journalists often receive their salaries on a ‘cash in

17
hand’ basis without paying social security contributions, whilst their salary is below the national aver-
age (Milutinovic, 2022). Local journalists in these countries are also more likely to have negative views
about the state of their profession. Slavtcheva-Petkova’s study found that the three main ways Bulgar-
ian local journalists perceived the state of their profession were crisis and decline, dependency and
servitude, and low professional and ethical standards (Slavtcheva-Petkova, 2020).

Safety of journalists is perceived to have worsened in recent years in parallel with heightened political
pressure and greater polarisation in the political culture of a number of states. The Council of Europe’s
Safety of Journalists Platform has reported increases in Europe in almost all their safety categories,
particularly in relation to the number of harassment and intimidation of journalists (which rose from 43
to 94 between 2019 and 2022) and attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists (which rose
from 33 to 74 between 2019 and 2022) (Safety of Journalists Platform, 2023). Local journalists face
more risks due to a combination of factors. Their lower public visibility and close proximity to potential
sources of harm contribute to this vulnerability. For example, journalist Morgan Large, who worked for
Radio Kreiz Breizhin Brittany, in France, investigated the effects of intensive agriculture in her region
as a consequence of which, she has been a victim of intimidation and online harassment, and her local
station was attacked (Rebillard and Sklower, 2022). For example, in Hungary, verbal threats against
local journalists have risen and one opposition local news portal has been hacked (Kovacs et al., 2023).
In Turkey, a local radio host, Hazim Özsu was shot dead in his home by a man who later said that he
disliked some of the host’s comments in his radio programme (Inceoglu et al., 2022). Safety concerns
surrounding local journalists pose significant challenges as they jeopardize press freedom, potentially
influencing the quality of news they produce. Moreover, intimidation and harassment can adversely
affect journalists’ well-being, prompting self-censorship. Additionally, these concerns can erode public
trust in local media.

3.7 Challenges facing community media

As highlighted previously community media have important functions in a democratic society and are
seen as a valuable part of a pluralistic media ecology. While community media share some character-
istics with local media, it also has some distinctive features, which have led to specific challenges. The
analysis of MPM data from the 32 countries highlights three primary challenges faced by the community
media sector in general: legal recognition, lack of shared understanding and definition of what commu-
nity media actually means in the digital age, and lack of long-term funding model. Their severity differs
between the countries, as there are significant variations across the continent regarding the state and
scale of community media. In terms of legal status, community media are not recognised legally in ten
countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Montene-
gro, Portugal) (Blayer-Simon et al., 2023). Legal recognition has improved between 2020 and 2023 as
three countries (Lithuania, Slovakia, and Luxembourg) have adopted new legal provisions that cover
community media. However, even where there is legal recognition, there could be issues with what the
law actually covers and stipulates, as well as with implementation. For example, community media are
guaranteed access to television and radio infrastructure only in six countries (France, Germany, Ire-
land, Malta, Sweden, Slovakia), and their independence legally protected in 11 states (Albania, Austria,
Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Sweden, and the Republic of Mace-
donia) (Bleyer et al., 2023).

The legal status of community media directly impacts the recognition and conditions of the sector. For
example, in the absence of legal recognition, minorities may encounter difficulties to access community

18
media. A number of countries where community media are not recognised legally have reported issues
regarding the access of minorities to media. However, five countries (Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy
and the Netherlands) reported to have a community media sector whose independence is safeguarded
in practice despite not having a legal status.

The second key challenge specific to community media which was identified in the analysis is that
there is no agreed definition or shared understanding of what community media means, and different
countries interpret the term differently both in legal terms and public discourse. For example, in Austria
community media is seen as the ‘third broadcasting sector’ performing valuable social functions and
operating without political interference. However, despite its recognized importance, the broadcasting
laws lack explicit legal recognition, or detailed licensing procedures and criteria remain absent (See-
thaler and Beaufort, 2022). While in Luxembourg, the 2021 media law recognized community media
for the first time as ‘Editeurs citoyens’, specifying strict conditions including nonprofit status, citizen
participation, being involved in media education, having financial resources, independence from media
groups, providing local content, having professional editorial team, and non-commercial focus. While
the law allocates one hundred thousand Euros annually to community media organisations that fulfil
all criteria, currently, only a single outlet has satisfied these conditions (Kies et al., 2022). Meanwhile
in Spain, the Law 7/2010 on Audiovisual Communication recognises community media as non profit
operation, but the government has yet to establish licensing procedures or criteria since the law’s en-
actment. As a result, there are no legally operational community media outlets in the country (Suau et
al., 2022). Where community media are legally recognised it is often established as a media form in its
own right, but in some countries, notably in the Netherlands it is treated as part of public service media
(De Swert et al., 2022).

Arguably, digital technologies and convergence have compounded the definitional debates on commu-
nity media. Traditionally, community media encompassed platforms like local radio stations, that served
geographically bound communities. However, the digital era has reshaped this landscape. Online plat-
forms, social media networks, and user-generated content have given rise to new forms of community
media that are not confined to geographic proximity. The internet has also transformed how commu-
nities are defined, created, and sustained, blurring the lines between local and global affiliations. The
essence of community media, once firmly anchored in localized communication, now encompasses a
broader spectrum of virtual communities, global networks, and multimedia storytelling. The concept’s
evolution highlights the need for adaptable definitions that take into account issues of participation,
interactivity, and access, as well as embrace the diverse ways people engage, communicate, and form
communities in the digital age.

19
Figure 4 – Levels of risk reported in relation to community media’s state subsidies in MPM
2022 (% of countries)

The third challenge for community media identified by the analysis was lack of long-term funding mod-
els. The data suggest that the sector is in a more precarious position overall compared to local media,
mainly due to their financial models, size, and legal status. Given that community media are most of
the times not for profit operations, their existence depends on access to adequate levels of funding that
are reliable and consistent. However, access to such funding is problematic in the majority of countries.
The finance models of community media vary between countries but can be understood as a ‘mixed
economy’, where outlets rely on several financial resources (Evens and Paulussen, 2012). Funding
support can come from different sources, but typically the main sources are central government, local
authorities, private organisations and funding schemes of NGOs or international bodies (e.g. European
Social Fund, EU-funded projects). A key issue with such funding arrangements is that many sources are
not reliable, often project-based and short term (Peissl et al., 2022), which makes long-term planning
difficult for community media organisations.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

This report provided an international comparative analysis of local and community media in 27 EU
member states and five candidate countries (Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedo-
nia, Serbia & Turkey) based on data gathered as part of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) project
by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom at the European University Institute between

20
2020 and 2023. Within this period the impact of Covid-19 pandemic and new policy initiatives targeting
some subnational media sectors in some countries were the notable changes, but overall features and
challenges of local and community media continued to be reshaped by longer term changes driven by
digital technologies and online media environment. The analysis revealed seven key findings. First,
subnational media are fragmented into three main sub-sectors in most countries included in the study,
which vary in terms of their size, regulatory regimes, geographical coverage, media form, structure and
dominant ethos. The three main sub-sectors are local news media, local and regional broadcasting, and
community media. This fragmentation highlights that subnational media is not a homogenous sector.

Second, local and community media sectors vary significantly between the 32 countries included in the
analysis. Four influential factors have emerged as key contributors to a pluralistic and robust subnation-
al media landscape: a historical tradition of local media, the presence of strong democratic institutions
and public service media values, and an effective subsidy system. Typically, the subnational scene is
the strongest in mature democracies of Western Europe with long traditions of local media, and weak-
er in Central and South Eastern Europe countries, where one or more of the factors are not present.
Third, political independence poses a different but pressing concern for local and community media in
comparison to their national counterparts, given closer social ties with local politicians and authorities.
However, it is in some Central and South Eastern Europe where direct political interference is a present
and real issue.

Fourth, there are uncertainties and conflicting opinions regarding which media outlets and organisa-
tions should be responsible for delivering public service media at the local level in the digital age, given
that most public service broadcasters have operated at national and regional levels historically. In many
countries, there is agreement that local and community media play key political and social roles, as
discussed in section 2 of this report. However, greater considerations and more research are needed
about what local public media means, how best to organise and support it in the digital age. Fifth, com-
pared to national media, local and community media are more vulnerable sectors financially, especially
during economic downturns. As such, governments should have comprehensive policies to ensure local
and community media are able to fulfil their important political and societal roles.

Sixth, the working conditions of local journalists are generally worse than those of national or inter-
national journalists, partly because their sector is weaker and financially more vulnerable and threats
are closer. Many local journalists face job insecurity, precarious contracts, pressurised work, declining
wages, and issues with pension schemes, albeit the specific concerns vary significantly between the
countries under analysis. Safety is an issue as some local journalists are subject to aggression and
threats, especially those working in recent EU states or candidate countries.

Seventh, the size and vibrancy of community media vary significantly between the 32 countries includ-
ed in the analysis, but overall, the sector faces three key challenges: legal recognition, insufficient long-
term funding model, and lack of shared understanding and definition of what community media means
in the digital age. Not all these challenges are present in every country, but in general community media
are in a worse state where it is not recognised legally and where media freedom and pluralism are un-
der threat.

21
Based on the findings and the analysis, we make the following recommendations for policymakers and
other stakeholders:

• Comprehensive data: Develop and implement initiatives to gather comprehensive data about sub-
national media, including their reach, audience demographics, revenue sources, and operational
challenges. These data will provide a solid foundation for evidence-based policy-making and a bet-
ter understanding of the subnational media landscape.

• Subsidy and support systems: Ensure that subsidy and support systems are designed to promote
the vitality and sustainability of the entire subnational media ecosystem, rather than favouring spe-
cific actors or subsectors. Implement transparent and fair allocation processes to distribute sub-
sidies and support, taking into account the diverse needs and challenges of local and community
media outlets.

• Enhancing political independence and pluralism: Give greater consideration to local and commu-
nity media in policy discussions and initiatives focused on addressing concerns related to political
independence and pluralism in the media landscape. Implement initiatives that safeguard editorial
independence, promote sustainability, encourage diversity and pluralism, foster media literacy, and
facilitate collaborations and partnerships among local media organizations.

• Legislative and support system for community and non-profit local media: Establish a comprehen-
sive legislative framework and support system to empower community and non-profit local media
organisations. This system should recognize the vital social roles these media outlets play and pro-
vide resources, protections, and incentives to help them fulfil their missions effectively.

• Improved working conditions for local journalists: Recognise the challenging working conditions
faced by local journalists, especially in new EU states and candidate countries. Implement tailored
support programmes and initiatives to address their specific needs, such as providing training op-
portunities, promoting fair employment practices, and ensuring their safety and protection.

• Address the issue of local news deserts: Develop targeted support systems, including financial as-
sistance and capacity-building programs, to address the issue of local news deserts. Encourage the
establishment of new local and community media outlets and explore innovative solutions to ensure
the availability of reliable local news sources in underserved areas.

• Clarify the role of local public media: Foster greater considerations and provide clarity on the role
of local public media in policy discussions and initiatives. Explore best practices and operational
models for local public media, including how to effectively implement and support their missions to
serve the public interest at the local level.

22
5. References

Ali, C. (2017) Media localism: The policies of place. University of Illinois Press.

Balcytiene, A., Jastramskis, D., Juraite, K. & Kalpokas, I. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the dig-
ital 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: Lithuania. Centre
for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

Barclay S., Barnett S., Moore M., Townend J. (2022) Local News Deserts in the UK: What Effect is the
Decline in Provision and Information Having on communities? (Research by the Charitable Journal-
ism Project, June 2022).

Barnett, S. & Townend, J. (2015) Plurality, Policy and the Local, Journalism Practice, 9:3, 332-349

Batorfy, A., Bleyer-Simon, K., Szabó, K., & Galambosi, E. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the dig-
ital 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: Hungary. Centre
for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom.

Bilic, P., Valecic, M., & Prug, T. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the
Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Mace-
donia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Croatia. Centre for Media Pluralism and
Media Freedom.

Bleyer-Simon, K., Brogi, E., Carlini, R., Da Costa Leite Borges D., Nenadic, I., Palmer, M., Parcu, P.L.,
Trevisan, M., Verza, S. & Zuffova, M. (2023). Monitoring Media Pluralism In The Digital Era, Appli-
cation of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of
North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2022; Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Free-
dom, European University Institute.

Blagojev, T., Da Costa, D. L. B., Brogi, E., Kermer, J. E., Trevisan, M., & Verza, S. (2023). News deserts
in Europe: Assessing risks for local and community media in the 27 EU member states (technical
report). European University Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/75762

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psycholo-
gy, 3:2, 77-101, DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cadima, F. R. (2021). “Covid-19 em Portugal e o apoio aos media”. In Cádima, F. R. e Ferreira, I.

(2021). Perspectivas multidisciplinares da Comunicação em contexto de Pandemia (Vol II), pp. 30-
46. Lisboa: ICNOVA.

Carlini, R., Trevisan, M. & Brogi, E. (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: Italy. Centre for Media Pluralism
and Media Freedom.

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022). Monitoring Media Pluralism In The Digital Era,
Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Repub-
lic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021; Centre for Media Pluralism and Media

23
 Freedom, European University Institute.

Christophorou, C. & Karides, N. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the
Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Mace-
donia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Cyprus. Centre for Media Pluralism and
Media Freedom.

Costera Meijer, I. C. (2020). What Does the Audience Experience as Valuable Local Journalism? Ap-
proaching local news quality from a user’s perspective. In A. Gulyas, & D. Baines (Eds.), The Rout-
ledge Companion to Local Media and Journalism (pp. 357-367). Routledge.

De Swert, K., Schuck, A. & Boukes, M. (2022) Monitoring Media Pluralism In The Digital Era Applica-
tion Of The Media Pluralism Monitor In The European Union, Albania, Montenegro, The Republic Of
North Macedonia, Serbia & Turkey In The Year 2021; Country Report: the Netherlands; Centre for
Media Pluralism and Media Freedom.

Evens, T. & Paulussen, S., 2012. Local radio in Europe: Policy options for a sustainable sector. Media,
Culture & Society, 34(1), pp.112-121.

https://www.facebook.com/formedia/mjp/timeline

Färdigh, M. A. (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: Sweden. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom.

Fidalgo, J. (2021). Portugal : Impoverished media struggling for survival. In : [ed] Trappel, J. & Tomaz,
T., The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021 : How Leading News Media Survive Digital Transforma-
tion (Vol. 1) (pp. 297–352) Gothenburg: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.

Flynn, R. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the Media Pluralism Mon-
itor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and
Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Ireland. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

Friedland, L., Napoli, P., Ognyanoba, K., Weil, C., & III, E. J. W. (2012). Review of the Literature Re-
garding Critical Information Needs of the American Public. FCC. Retrieved from https://transition.fcc.
gov/bureaus/ocbo/Final_Literature_Review.pdf

Gulyas, A. (2023) ‘The media that are not national: Towards a comparative framework for local media
research using the concept of subnational media’ paper presented at the International Communica-
tion Association 2023 Annual Conference, 25-29 May, 2023, Toronto, Canada.

Gulyas, A. (2021). Local news deserts. in: Reappraising Local and Community News in the UK: Media,
Practice and Policy Routledge.

Gulyas, A. & Baines, D. (2020) (eds. by) Routledge Companion to Local Media and Journalism, London
and New York: Routledge.

Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics (Com-
munication, Society and Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hanitzsch, T. (2009). ‘Comparative journalism studies’. In Wahl-Jorgensen, K. and Hanitzsch, T. The

handbook of journalism studies (pp. 433-447). Routledge.

24
Harte, D., Williams, A. & Turner, J. (2017) Reciprocity and The Hyperlocal Journalist, Journalism Prac-
tice, 11:2-3, 160-176

Harte, D., Howells, R., & Williams, A. (2018). Hyperlocal Journalism The decline of local newspapers
and the rise of online community news. Routledge.

Hayes, K. & Silke, H. (2019) Narrowing the discourse? Growing precarity in freelance journalism and its
effect on the construction of news discourse, Critical Discourse Studies, 16:3, 363-379

Hess, K., & Waller, L. (2016). Local Journalism in a Digital World. Palgrave.

Holznagel, B. & Kalbhenn, J. C. (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 & Turkey In The Year 2021; Country Report: Germany; Centre for Media Plural-
ism and Media Freedom.

Inceoglu, Y., Erbaysal Filibeli, T., Ertuna, C., Çenberli, Y. (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 : Turkey, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), Media Pluralism
Monitor (MPM), 2022.

Jakubowicz, K. (2008) ‘Finding the right place on the map: Prospects for public service broadcasting in
post-communist countries. In: Jakubowicz, K. and Sukods, M. (eds. by) Central and Eastern Euro-
pean media change in a global perspective, Intellect, p101-124.

Kies, R., Ostling, A. & Hamdi, 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: Luxembourg. European University
Institute.

Klimkiewicz, B. (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: Poland. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

Konno, A. (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: Estonia. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

Kovács, Polyák & Urbán (2023) A helyi médiapiacok Magyarországon, Mérték Médiaelemzö Mühely,
Budapest, https://mertek.eu/2023/03/03/a-helyi-piac-allapota-kulonos-tekintettel-az-onkormanyza-
ti-mediara/

LUSA (2021) Relatorio e Contas 2021; https://www.lusa.pt/Files/lusamaterial/PDFs/Lusa_Relatorio_e_

Contas2021.pdf

Marthoz, J-P. (2023) (ed by) War in Europe and the Fight for the Right to Report, Annual Report by the
partner organisations to the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and
Safety of Journalists, Council of Europe.

McNair, B. (1995) Introduction to Political Communication, Routledge, 2nd edition.

25
Mantyoja, M. & Manninen, V. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the
Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Mace-
donia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Finland. Centre for Media Pluralism and
Media Freedom.

Mecfal, S. (2020) ‘Local media policies in Poland’, in: Gulyas, A. and Baines, D. (eds. by) Routledge
Companion to Local Media and Journalism, London and New York: Routledge, pp122-130.

Martínez, J.S., Caballero, C.R., García, P.C., Piquer, E.Y., Graell, D.P., Triay, L.C., & Masdeu, J.A.
(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: Spain. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom.

Milutinovic, I. (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: Serbia. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom.

Negredo, S., Sánchez-García, P., Amoedo-Casais, A., Martínez-Costa, M. P., & Salaverría, R. (2023).
Quantifying digital-native and legacy, national and local news websites in Spain, their topic scope
and platforms. Anàlisi, 68, 81-96.

Newman, N. with Fletcher, R., Robertson, C.T., Eddy, E., and Nielsen, R.N. (2022) Reuters Institute
Digital News Report 2022, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford.

Newman, N. with Fletcher, R., Eddy, K., Robertson, C.T. and Nielsen, R.K. (2023) Reuters Institute
Digital News Report 2023, Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism, Oxford.

Nielsen, R.N. (2015) Local Journalism: The Decline of Newspapers and the Rise of Digital Media, Re-
uters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Ornebring, H. (2018) ‘Journalists thinking about precarity: Making sense of the “new normal”’, in #ISOJ
International symposium on online journalism (Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 109-127).

OSCE (1998) The Oslo Recommendations regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities & Ex-
planatory Note, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.

Peissl, H., Purkarthofer, J., Bellardi, N. & Scifo, S. (2022) Community Media contributions to citizens’
participation, Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/community-media

Rebillard, F. & Sklower, J. (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: France. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media
Freedom.

Rozukalne, A. (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: Latvia. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

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 Mace-
donia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Austria. Centre for Media Pluralism and
Media Freedom.

26
Slavtcheva-Petkova, V. (2020) ‘Local journalism in Bulgaria: trends from the Worlds of Journalism
study, in: Gulyas, A. and Baines, D. (eds. by) Routledge Companion to Local Media and Journalism
(p. 288-299). London and New York: Routledge.

Spassov, O., Ognyanova, N. & Daskalova, N. (2022), Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era : ap-
plication 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 : Bulgaria, Centre for Media
Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM), 2022.

Statka, V. (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: Czech Republic. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media
Freedom

Martínez J. S., Caballero C. R., García P. C., Piquer E. Y., Graell D. P., Triay L. C. & Masdeu J. A. (2022)
Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the Euro-
pean Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the year
2021. Country report: Spain. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, European University
Institute.

Usher, N. (2015). Does New Jersey have a ‘media desert’ problem? Columbia Journalism Re-
view August 7 2015.

Urbanikova, M. (2022). Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the Me-
dia Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North
Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Slovakia. Centre for Media
Pluralism and Media Freedom.

Vassallo, L. (2022) Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era: Application of the Media Plu-
ralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedo-
nia, Serbia and Turkey in the year 2021. Country report: Malta. Centre for Media Pluralism
and Media Freedom.

Van Cuilenburg, J. & McQuail, D. (2003) Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new commu-
nications policy paradigm. European journal of communication, 18(2), pp.181-207.

van Kerkhoven, M. (2020). I’ve Started a Hyperlocal, So Now What? In A. Gulyas & D. Baines
(Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Local Media and Journalism. Routledge.

Voko, K. & Likmeta, B. (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: Albania. Centre for Media
Pluralism and Media Freedom.

27
Research Project Report doi:10.2870/94027
ISBN:978-92-9466-483-9
October 2023 QM-07-23-384-EN-N