Organised in a country-by-country basis, the pilot version of the EurOMo is composed by: (1) a searchable database of news media and owners; (2) comparable assessments of the risks to transparency in ownership and control; and (3) reports that summarise the most relevant findings. The theoretical concept was developed by the coordinating team at the University of Salzburg, whereas the database and the search were programmed by experts from the University of Turku, Tampere University and Cyprus University of Technology. National research teams were responsible for the data collection and the assessments.
Each national team defined their sample of media outlets and organisations based on relevance for opinion shaping. The pilot EurOMo, therefore, does not cover all the media. Relevance for the sample definition is understood in terms of consumption (market share) and/or agenda setting (citation and/or recommendation by other news services). The samples consider both national and regional media, but the national teams could determine the proportion, considering the peculiarities of each country. The same applies with regard to the media sectors. Print (newspapers and magazines), broadcasting (TV and radio) and online (web-only or web version of print and broadcasting) are present in all samples, following deliberation by national teams on the relevance of representing more or less each sector.
Data was collected from publicly available sources. As public sources, we consider information that can be accessed by any person, for free or behind a paywall, in the following sources:
For the assessments and country reports, data may also come from interviews with stakeholders (media owners and managers, editors-in-chief, journalists, union representatives, NRA representatives, media experts and researchers).
The most important information about in EurOMo is the legal ownership. Each national team searched for direct and indirect legal owners of the media outlets in their sample, when possible including all legal and natural persons with at least 5% of participation in an outlet.
Example: if the TV channel “News Max” is published by “Media Company A”, this is 50% owned by “Company B”, which in turn is 50% owned by “John Person”, this means that “John Person” is a beneficial owner of “News Max” owning 25% of the outlet.
We rely on public sources as mentioned above. By comparing data from several sources, our research team has done the best to identify incorrect or incomplete information. However, if these public sources themselves are not updated or incorrect, the monitor will probably reproduce the mistake.
Furthermore, we consider the broader concept of beneficial ownership, which according to the OECD includes not only legal ownership interest, but also other forms such as “control of a significant percentage of voting rights, or the ability to name or remove the members of an entity’s board of directors” (Inter-American Development Bank & Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019, p. 4). For these other controlling functions, we look in this pilot especially for economic managers (CEOs, general directors), editors-in-chief and relevant owners of foundations as well as percentage of voting rights. However, we cannot claim completeness, as some legal arrangements make private the information about control over a company. We attempt, though, to indicate when this information should be available and is missing, and use it to help assess transparency.
In its pilot phase, the EurOMo introduces a Risk Index at the country level. The Index assesses in which areas conditions might foster or hamper future transparency in who controls and influences news provision in each of the 15 EU countries analysed during the pilot phase. Based on the methodology of composite indices provided by the OECD and others (2008), the index translates into comparable quantitative values the qualitative assessments made by the research consortium.
This is a pilot index, which is subject to changes and improvement before the final release (October 2023 with data from all 27 EU countries). The EurOMo intends to release in the first half of 2023 a pilot version of a Transparency Index, which will assess the overall level of transparency of news media regarding ownership and control.
For understanding the theoretical background of our methodological choices, we strongly recommend reading our theory.
The EurOMo Risk Index is a value between 0 and 3, where 0 refers to the worst performance possible and 3 to the best performance possible, leading to a low risk for transparency in ownership and control of news provision. It goes beyond the current transparency to analyse conditions that might impact future developments in transparency. The final value corresponds to the average of the risk score of each country in the areas of news production, distribution, and public policy. Each risk area is composed of empirical indicators based on scholarly literature and EU recommendations and policymaking.
Most indicators are qualitative assessments by the national teams graded in a 0-3-point scale, in which:
Furthermore, every indicator is weighted. Both grades and weights are normative decisions following deliberation by the research team.
Some risk areas have particularities which require slightly different approaches. See explanation below.
The risks in news production are assessed in each of the four dimensions of media ownership and control, namely legal ownership, economic control, management, and relations. See the explanation on these dimensions in our theory.
| Indicator | Empirical evidence | Grade | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden ownership | Media outlets whose legal structure ensures control of news media by individuals and/or families without appearing as legal owners (e.g., private foundations, family investment funds) | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlet |
0,3 |
| Contested ownership | Media outlets whose legal ownership is publicly contested (e.g., legal owners are “stooges”, “front men” or“straw men”) | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlet |
0,3 |
| Foreign ownership – national | Media outlets whose legal owners are based in other national jurisdictions | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlet |
0,1 |
| Foreign ownership – EU | Media outlets whose legal owners are based outside the EU | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlet |
0,1 |
| Transparency score – Legal ownership | Media outlets whose direct and beneficial owners are informed on their websites | 0 – very low transparency 3 – high transparency |
0,2 |
| Indicator | Empirical evidence | Grade | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-media ownership | Media outlets whose relevant legal owners have a non-media business as their main economic activity | 0 – more than 20% 3 – no outlet |
0,4 |
| Cross-ownership distribution-production | Media outlets whose owners also operate media distribution companies. This indicator also appears in the risk area of distribution | 0 – more than 20% 3 – no outlets |
0,3 |
| Transparency score – Economic control | Legal owners whose relevant financial data, including public funding, is publicly available | 0 – very low transparency 3 – high transparency |
0,3 |
| Indicator | Empirical evidence | Grade | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial influence | Breaches of editorial independence by owners, advertisers, and economic managers | 0 – more than one outlet, more than one case 3 – no cases |
0,5 |
| Owners in councils | Presence of media owners in media councils | 0 – present in majority with voting rights 3 – absent or no voting rights |
0,3 |
| Transparency score – Management | Information about CEO (or other similar economic management positions) and editorial responsibility on the outlets' websites | 0 – very low transparency 3 – high transparency |
0,2 |
| Indicator | Empirical evidence | Grade | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political relations | Politically exposed persons (PEPs) in official documents and registers | 0 – no information 3 – information is available and there is no PEP |
0,2 |
| Related persons | Media outlets whose owners have related persons (spouse, parent, sibling, child) in politics | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlet |
0,2 |
| Affiliation – media outlets | Media outlets affiliated to external institutions (political party, church, interest group) | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlets |
0,2 |
| Affiliation – legal persons | Media owners (legal persons) affiliated to external institutions (political party, church, interest group) | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlets |
0,1 |
| Affiliation – natural persons | Media owners (natural persons) affiliated to external institutions (political party, church, interest group) | 0 – more than half 3 – no outlets |
0,1 |
| Transparency score – Relations | Self-disclosure on the outlets' or legal owners' websites about affiliation to external institutions (political party, church, interest group) | 0 – very low transparency 3 – high transparency |
0,2 |
The risks in news distribution cover linear (print, free-to-air and paid TV, radio) and non-linear distribution (digital, online, especially intermediaries such as search engines and social media). The weight of the indicators is different for each country depending on the use of linear or non-linear distribution in that market (main source: Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021 by Newman and colleagues (2021)), reason why the column “weight” is suppressed below.
| Indicator | Empirical evidence | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| Print distribution | Availability of distribution infrastructure of print media and discrimination of access | 0 – low reach and discrimination 3 – high reach and no discrimination |
| Radio distribution | Diversity of distribution infrastructure of radio (FM, AM, DAB, DAB+) and competititon between providers | 0 – FM/AM only, monopoly 3 – high diversity, multiple operators |
| TV distribution | Diversity of distribution infrastructure of broadcast TV (DTT, CATV, IPTV, DTH) and competititon between providers | 0 – DTT only, monopoly 3 – high diversity, multiple operators |
| Internet access | Internet connectivity and competition between providers | 0 – low connectivity, monopoly 3 – high connectivity, multiple operators |
| Cross-ownership distribution-production | Media outlets whose owners also operate media distribution companies | 0 – more than 20% 3 – no outlets |
| Net neutrality infringement | Cases of net neutrality infringements (according to articles 3 and 4 of the TSM Regulation | 0 – no compliance, high level of recidivism 3 – high compliance, no recidivism |
| Non-linear news use | News use via digital intermediaries in comparison with other sources such as direct online access and print/broadcast distribution | 0 – digital intermediaries higher than other sources 3 – digital intermediaries lower than two or more sources |
| Content curation criteria | Disclosure of criteria for content curation by relevant digital intermediaries for news use | 0 – no disclosure 3 – all disclose one click away from the content area |
| Commercial agreements | Disclosure of commercial agreements that influence content curation | 0 – no disclosure 3 – all reject influence or promise to label/tag |
The risks in public policy also cover all media sectors, including non-linear distribution (digital intermediaries). Most of the indicators regarding ownership transparency are inspired by the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), whereas provisions for transparency in algorithmic services reflect the discussions of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). The EurOMo also considers concentration a risk for transparency in media ownership and control, and corresponding regulation is also assessed. Finally, the risk assessment covers the role of national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and their capacity of enforcement as well. Similar to the risks in news distribution, the weight of the indicators changes in each country depending on the predominance of news use offline or online, direct access or via digital intermediaries, so the column “Weight” is suppressed.
| Indicator | Empirical evidence | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| Transposition of Art. 5 of the AVMSD | National implementation of Art. 5 of the AVMSD | 0 – not transposed 3 – implemented and requires additional information |
| Coverage of media sectors | Media sectors covered by laws that require disclosure of information regarding direct and beneficial owner(s) | 0 – no obligations 3 – all sectors including digital intermediaries |
| Level of information | Level of information depth required by the national legal framework about media ownership and control | 0 – no obligations 3 – high level (shareholdings, names of manager, funding) |
| Requirements for updates | Requirement of periodical updating of ownership information upon change | 0 – no requirements 3 – requirements for immediate updates |
| Information disclosure request | Level of accessibility to information disclosure requests for relevant media ownership data | 0 – no provisions 3 – filing possible regardless of status of applicant and existence of direct interest |
| State/public funding | Obligation to disclose information on media funding provided by state/public institutions | 0 – no obligation 3 – public authorities and media companies have disclosure obligations |
| NRAs for media ownership transparency | Existence of national regulatory authorities (NRAs) or other designated bodies responsible for media ownership issues | 0 – no authority 3 – independent regulatory authority has this responsibility |
| Enforcement and sanctions (transparency) | Enforcement of compliance to the AVMSD or other relevant legislation by NRAs (from monitoring to sanction) | 0 – no powers 3 – sanction powers |
| Anti-concentration provisions | Media sectors covered by anti-concentration provisions | 0 – no specific provisions 3 – limitations at cross-media level, including distribution |
| Qualitative and quantitative limits | Provisions for media concentration | 0 – no limitations 3 – quantitative caps on market and pluralism grounds |
| NRAs for media mergers | Existence of NRAs or other designated bodies responsible for the control of ownership concentration issues | 0 – no authority 3 – all types of media subject to independent authority |
| Enforcement and sanctions (concentration) | Enforcement of limitations of concentration | 0 – no powers 3 – provisions include ban, annulment, dismantling of positions |
| Government overrule | Role of the governement in anti-concentration decisions taken by NRAs | 0 – no decisions by NRAs 3 – decisions are fully respected by the government |
| Newsroom independence | Provisions for ensuring newsroom independence from owners and economic management in editorial issues | 0 – no provisions 3 – provisions limit intervention with civil liability |
| Legal provisions for PSM | Provisions for the role of state/government in defining the board of public service media | 0 – all board appointed by politicians 3 – no board member appointed by politicians |
| Must carry provisions | Must-carry rules for content in the public interest or contribute to political, cultural, or geographical diversity | 0 – no provisions 3 – provisions apply also to PSM and commercial content providers |
| Provisions for content curation | Provisions for transparency of curation criteria, commercial arrangements between digital intermediaries and news providers, and alternatives to standard content curation | 0 – no provisions 3 – provisions cover all three areas |
| Exposure rules | Provisions for exposure of public interest content in content curation (discoverability and prominence) of digital intermediaries | 0 – no provisions 3 – provisions cover large platforms and other relevant players |
| NRAs for content curation | Existence of NRAs or other designated bodies responsible for content curation at the national level | 0 – no authority responsible 3 – independent authority with sufficient resources |
| Enforcement and sanctions (content curation) | Enforcement of provisions for content curation | 0 – no powers 3 – sanction powers |
The EurOMo is a monitoring instrument of media ownership transparency in Europe. It is operated by a consortium of 15 Higher Education Institutions and research institutes, coordinated by the University of Salzburg. It is co-funded by the European Commission.
Prof. Josef Trappel
[email protected], +43 8044 4167
Dr. Tales Tomaz
[email protected], +43 8044 4195
Dept. of Communication Studies
University of Salzburg
Rudolfskai 42, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
