Note: This methodology applies to the 2025 update of the Euromedia Ownership Monitor (EurOMo).
It replaces the pilot methodology used in 2022–2023. The earlier version remains archived on this website as “Methodology – 2022/2023.”
The Euromedia Ownership Monitor (EurOMo) documents who owns and controls the news media across the European Union. Its goal is simple: to make ownership and influence in European news systems transparent, comparable, and publicly accessible.
EurOMo was established under the European Democracy Action Plan and contributes to the democratic principles recognised in the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD). These legal frameworks highlight transparency in media ownership as a democratic requirement: citizens should be able to know who ultimately controls the information they receive.
The 2025 edition maintains the core principles of the pilot (2022–2023) but refines its approach to reflect today’s information environment.
Key improvements include:
EurOMo maps ownership and control relations of the most relevant news producers in every EU Member State — those that shape public opinion and the national news agenda.
This includes both legacy media (print, television, radio, and online news outlets) and digital-only channels that have become central to news distribution.
Each national team monitors between 15 and 30 major outlets, depending on the size and diversity of the country’s media system. The selection balances audience reach and agenda-setting power — that is, outlets that people most consume or those that other news media cite and follow.
In addition to traditional outlets, teams identify 5 to 10 news-producing accounts on large online platforms. These may belong to established media brands or to independent initiatives that publish news content and reach large audiences online.
Non-news influencers or political figures are not included. The focus remains on accounts that play a recognisable role in informing the public.
All data in EurOMo are based on publicly available sources.
Researchers do not rely on private interviews or confidential communications. Every data point must be traceable to verifiable evidence such as:
If a piece of information cannot be found after exhaustive search, the corresponding field in the database is left blank.
Missing information is never substituted or estimated — transparency also includes being clear about what is not known.
Media ownership is not limited to the names on paper. True control can be exercised through financing, management, or political and organisational ties. EurOMo therefore analyses four interrelated dimensions of decision-making power, plus one additional dimension that assesses the public policy framework.
Who formally owns the outlet?
This includes both direct and indirect ownership — identifying not only the immediate company but also its ultimate or “beneficial” owners, as defined by the AMLD.
Who benefits financially, and who funds the operation?
This includes analysis of revenues, advertising from public bodies or foreign sources, and the economic interests of key shareholders.
Who makes editorial and strategic decisions?
This covers CEOs, editors-in-chief, and others who control daily operations or shape editorial direction.
Who is connected to whom?
This dimension tracks political and organisational ties — such as politicians holding shares or individuals involved in business networks, NGOs, or religious institutions that may influence editorial independence.
What rules apply, and how well are they enforced?
EurOMo evaluates the transparency and independence of national regulatory systems, disclosure obligations, and safeguards against political interference.
Together, these dimensions reveal how ownership, funding, and influence intersect in European news media.
The risk assessment identifies and compares risks to transparency of media ownership and control in each EU Member State.
It examines where and how the public’s ability to know who owns, funds, and influences news media is limited or uncertain.
Rather than judging editorial independence or media freedom as a whole, this assessment focuses specifically on the conditions that make ownership transparency possible or opaque.
It helps reveal patterns such as missing disclosures, unclear ownership chains, cross-border opacity, or weak enforcement of transparency laws.
The assessment builds on a set of indicators grouped under five dimensions: Legal Ownership, Economic Control, Management, Relations, and Public Policy.
Each indicator measures one concrete aspect of transparency risk — for example, whether an outlet names its beneficial owner, or whether regulatory data are publicly accessible. Scores range from 0 (low risk) to 3 (very high risk). Assessments are made at the level of individual outlets. The results are automatically aggregated into national averages, showing where transparency conditions are stronger or weaker.
Because citizens in each country rely on different media types for news, national scores are weighted according to news consumption patterns (television, print, online, and social media). The weighting is based on the Eurobarometer – Media & News Survey 2023, ensuring that the results reflect the actual prominence of each medium in public information flows.
The 2025 round refines and expands the pilot approach. Key methodological updates include:
The outcome is a clearer picture of where transparency gaps persist — not a ranking of media systems, but a diagnostic tool showing the risks that hinder public visibility of who owns and controls the news.
Below are the five groups of indicators that make up the EurOMo 2025 risk assessment. Each indicator points to a specific factor that can increase or reduce risks to transparency in media ownership and control.
| Indicator | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Disclosure of direct owner | Whether the outlet publicly identifies its immediate legal owner. |
| Naming of natural-person shareholders | Whether key individual shareholders are named and accessible to the public. |
| Explicit disclosure of beneficial owner | Whether the ultimate controlling persons are clearly identified. |
| Non-EU shareholders (multiplier) | Whether relevant owners are based outside the EU, increasing opacity risk. |
| Legal form of owner | How transparent the owner’s legal form is (e.g., listed company vs. trust). |
| Indicator | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Disclosure of financial data | Whether basic financial information (revenues, profits) is publicly available. |
| Disclosure of audience data | Whether audience reach is disclosed or verified by independent sources. |
| Disclosure of public and foreign advertising | Whether advertising from governments or non-EU sources is reported. |
| Magnitude of public and foreign advertising | The share of such revenues in total income, signalling potential dependence. |
| Non-media interests of shareholders | Whether major owners have significant business interests in other sectors. |
| Indicator | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Disclosure of CEO | Whether the outlet identifies its chief executive or equivalent manager. |
| Disclosure of editorial responsibility | Whether editors-in-chief or equivalent decision-makers are named. |
| Breaches of editorial independence | Documented cases of interference with editorial decision-making. |
| Political presence in PSM boards | Whether politicians hold seats or control appointments in public-service-media governance. |
| Indicator | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Politically exposed persons (PEPs) in ownership | Presence of current or recent political figures among owners. |
| PEPs in management | Presence of political figures in managerial or editorial positions. |
| Political ties | Frequency and depth of political connections or alignments. |
| Organisational ties | Links with influential non-political organisations (business, religious, NGOs, etc.). |
| Indicator | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Disclosure of legal identity | Whether law requires media to clearly identify the legal entity behind an outlet (name, address, registration). |
| Disclosure of direct and indirect ownership | Whether law obliges outlets to disclose both immediate owners and the full ownership chain. |
| Disclosure of beneficial owners | Whether law requires naming the natural person(s) who ultimately own/control outlets (BOs or senior managing officials). |
| Disclosure of public and third-country advertising revenues | Whether law requires transparency on advertising income from domestic public sources and from non-EU sources. |
| Disclosure of political office/function of media owners/controllers | Whether law requires declaring political roles or functions held by owners/controllers. |
| Cross-border ownership transparency and regulatory cooperation | Whether law/regulators provide tools and cooperation to trace ownership across jurisdictions. |
| Transparency obligations for digital-only and new formats | Whether online-only outlets and new formats (incl. platform accounts acting as news providers) are covered by transparency rules. |
| Transparency of media concentration and cross-ownership | Whether law mandates disclosure/monitoring of concentration and cross-media holdings. |
| Accessibility of ownership and control registers | Whether relevant registers (company/beneficial ownership/media) are public, searchable, up-to-date, and usable. |
| Regulator mandate and capacity | Whether regulators have a clear mandate, resources, and tools to oversee ownership-transparency compliance. |
| Regulator independence and safeguards | Whether legal safeguards protect regulators from political/market interference in performing transparency oversight. |
| Enforcement and sanctions | Whether there are effective procedures and proportionate sanctions for non-disclosure or false disclosure. |
| PSM mandate and funding transparency | Whether law ensures public service media missions are clear and funding is transparent and trackable. |
| PSM governance and independence | Whether appointments, terms, and safeguards prevent political capture of PSM boards/executives. |
| Editorial independence guarantees | Whether law provides explicit protections for editorial autonomy (e.g., charters, whistle-blower/anti-interference clauses). |
| Platform transparency & moderation enforcement | How national authorities implement and enforce obligations on platform transparency and content moderation that affect news visibility. |
EurOMo 2025 provides a harmonised instrument to detect and compare risks that obstruct transparency of media ownership and control across the EU. It builds on the pilot project’s foundation while adapting to today’s media environment—integrating digital platforms, aligning with EU transparency standards, and using an improved open-data structure.
By revealing where information about media ownership is visible, incomplete, or hidden, EurOMo helps strengthen accountability and supports evidence-based policy to safeguard media pluralism and democracy in Europe.