This August, most parts of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) will officially come into force across the EU. Policymakers and regulators outside Europe are watching closely. The big question: can this ambitious law help rebuild a healthier, more resilient media ecosystem at a time when journalism faces constant disruption and unprecedented threats?
This supranational policy is Europe’s latest attempt to safeguard media freedom in the digital age – an era shaped by algorithms, artificial intelligence, and rapidly advancing technologies. It applies to all types of media services with editorial responsibility available to the public – from Spotify playlists and LinkedIn News, to The Lancet and Eurosport.
At its core, the Act emphasizes on public interest media and the press, underlining the vital role of journalism as a democratic “public watchdog.” This addresses gaps in earlier policies like the 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which did not fully cover journalistic work or editorial safeguards.
So what does the EMFA bring to the table? It introduces new governance tools designed to protect media plurality, from the creation and distribution of content (“the first mile”) all the way to how it reaches audiences (“the last mile”). These tools will drive new debates among regulators, media service providers, and digital platforms worldwide. The bigger question remains: will the EMFA be the model that helps journalism not just survive but truly thrive in today’s digital ecosystem?
The First Mile : Digital Safety of Media Practitioners and Sources
Media plurality can only be safeguarded when content and its sources are shielded from threats and interference. While digital safety issues like cyberattacks, online harassment and doxxing can often be handled through general digital safety policies, journalism now faces new threats from AI and censorship. In particular, AI-powered spywares can now go beyond occasional checks, enabling constant, disguised, and highly targeted surveillance with wide reach and advanced analysis. This has sparked serious concerns about editorial independence and the digital safety of journalists.
Across the Asia Pacific, some governments have worked with surveillance companies to track targeted individuals, including journalists. A2024 Amnesty International report has raised the difficult question of how Southeast Asia became a spyware hotspot. Other reports from press freedom and rights groups show that surveillance tech from the region has grown more sophisticated and its export has fueled prosecutions and repression abroad. Meanwhile, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, signed a Joint Statement in September 2024 pledging to defend journalists against threats to their freedom and dignity.
Europe faces a similar dichotomy. The 2025 Media Pluralism Monitor shows that while the EU’s average media pluralism risk stands at a medium-low level (49%), the average digital safety of journalists are in the high-risk category (69%), with wide differences across countries. In response, the EMFA introduces new provisions to strengthen the protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications. It explicitly bans the illegitimate use of intrusive surveillance software on journalists and any unauthorized access to encrypted content on their devices. These Union-wide obligations, pulling in member states that had not yet established basic digital safeguards, mark a rare and important step at a time when media freedom and editorial independence are declining across Europe and the world.
The Last Mile : Online Content Dissemination and Moderation
Today, most media services are online, but access to them is concentrated among a handful of global platforms that serve as the public’s main gateways. Given the immense power of these very large online platforms (VLOPs) over what media people can see and share, governments have turned their attention to regulating both content and the algorithms that shape its distribution. Examples include Singapore’s Online Safety Code, which requires designated social media services to curb the spread of “harmful content,” and China’s Algorithm Recommendation-Based Services Management Rules, which promote algorithm transparency and prohibit platforms from using algorithms to distort information, while also requiring review mechanisms to identify “illegal and bad information.”
Building on existing content moderation rules like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Digital Services Act (DSA), the EMFA emphasizes the right to receive and impart information and ideas online without interference,introducing “media privilege”. Regarding VLOP’s content moderation, MSPs have the right to be informed and to object before a piece of content is removed. More importantly, the Act encourages direct communication between MSPs and VLOPs, giving priority to MSPs’ complaints.
And Everything In Between : Economics of Media in the Digital Era
Amid rapid digital transformation, much of the EMFA aims to level the playing field for media services, ensuring the industry can operate economically without undue restrictions or editorial interference. However, unlike Australia’s influential News Media Bargaining Code – which has inspired similar policies in Indonesia and Canada, and considerations in New Zealand, Malaysia, Taiwan and South Africa – the EU did not require VLOPs to remunerate MSPs for using media content on their platforms, highlighting a key difference in regulatory approaches.
Instead, the EMFA focused on ensuring public service media receive transparent, “adequate, sustainable and predictable” financial resources without compromising their independence. It promotes soft harmonisation and regional coordination through measures such as a common framework for media pluralism tests, enhanced transparency of media ownership, audience measurement, state advertising, and a new independent European Board for Media Services (EBMS). Combined with direct funding, support measures, and legislative tools from the AVMSD, DSA and Copyright Directive, the EMFA marks an important step in strengthening media freedom and pluralism in support of democratic rights.
Yet the EMFA is not a silver bullet for creating a vibrant and resilient media landscape for the EU in the digital era. For instance, the EU-wide media plurality test addresses only future media mergers, leaving media concentration from market exits and retrenchments unexamined. Funding mechanisms do not automatically guarantee sustainable financial streams. The digital safeguards for journalists remain limited, potentially leaving room for state surveillance. And ultimately, the real impact of implementing the EMFA at the national level remains uncertain. These limitations, along with the EMFA’s nuanced rationale and approach, offer a critical lens for stakeholders to rethink and reinforce media governance in an increasingly digital and interconnected world.
What we are reading:
- Generative AI, EU Press Publishers’ Rights & the Australian News Bargaining Approach: Copyright & Competition Law as Enablers of Media Plurality & Diversity of Opinion – Kalpana Tyagi, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Maastricht University
- RSF: Without political will to enforce it, the EMFA risks becoming a dead letter – Reporters Without Borders
- AI and media freedom: A double-edged sword by International Center for Journalists – International Center for Journalists
- Australia media ranked second-most concentrated in 2022 – Global Media & Internet Concentration Project
Written by Kenneth Leung (Reviewed by Jenna Fung)