What the debate about subsidising EU media misses

In recent weeks, the debate over public funding for journalism has risen from the ashes once again, this time within the EU public affairs bubble.

While at times the tone of the reporting drifted towards clickbait territory, the noise it made had at least one merit: putting the issue back on the table, right when it matters most.

Just a few days later, the European Commission released the first draft of the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the common budget for the period 2028-2034, which (at least in its current draft), offers some unexpected, yet fragile, hope for journalism.

And with that, it calls for a reminder of what the debate should be about.

There is one claim that deserves the largest share of attention, amongst all the claims advanced in recent Euractiv articles.

The claim, in short, is that giving public money to journalist organisations is considered taboo in most EU countries, as it would distort the market and undermine media credibility.

Therefore, the EU should refrain from supporting the media. It’s an idea that deserves closer attention, not just because parts of it don’t hold up, but because it opens the door to a broader conversation about the role of public funding for journalism in Europe today.

A good place to begin is by acknowledging that the relationship between journalism and the state is both fragile and complex.

To quote Helle Sjøvaag, one of the most respected scholars on media funding, “Get too close to the state, and fourth estate legitimacy is compromised. Get too close to the market, and professional legitimacy is compromised”.

When is a 'taboo' not a taboo?

Let’s take the ‘get too close to the state’ part, with the premise that this discussion is not about public service media, but about public support to commercial news organisations.

And here’s the key point: such support is not a taboo.

Collectively, EU member states, according to an independent report published by the European Commission in 2024, spent €1.32bn in support for private news media in 2022, the year this report refers to.

In front of this number, one could still support a minimal state doctrine arguing that phenomena of media capture of the Hungarian type - with state advertising weaponised to fully control media – happen to varying degrees also in states where democratic institutions are stronger.

But you could also take the opposite perspective.

The Danish example/exception

Take Denmark, where a solid welfare model applied to media subsidies has generated a sophisticated infrastructure which ensure trasparency of ownership funding mechanisms, while preserving the independence of media regulators.

A recently published study has analysed the first 10 years of the Danish public innovation support and found that such support has served the function it was designed to serve: 31 new, still active, news organisations were created, adding pluralism of voices and diversity to the Danish media landscape, something the market alone would likely not have achieved.

And here we come to the “get too close to the market” part.

Over the past two decades, one of the most transformative market dynamics for journalism has been the platformisation of news media systems.

As news organizations adapted to the logic of social media, they were drawn into a metrics-driven race: prioritising algorithm-friendly content, chasing clicks, and competing for ad revenue in a game largely dictated by platforms.

The results have been clear.

Newsrooms have trimmed costs, often at the expense of the most expensive yet democratically-essential forms of journalism, namely investigative and public affairs reporting.

After traditional business models have collapsed, digital subscriptions remain dominated by winner-takes-most dynamics, and the online ad market has grown more brutal, especially as platforms have turned their backs on publishers.

In response, many media markets have retreated into defensive consolidation. And while this might offer some economic resilience, it carries a clear risk: the erosion of media pluralism and diversity.

Both state and market forces have the power to either undermine or sustain journalism’s democratic function, it all depends on the context.

How much state intervention in the media is desirable is ultimately a normative question.

However, there is ample evidence to reject the blanket claim that subsidies inevitably undermine media legitimacy.

The conversation we should be having

On the contrary, in today’s context, marked by growing market consolidation, public intervention is not only justified but necessary to safeguard media pluralism and diversity. And this is precisely where the focus should be. 

While public funding can be a powerful corrective to market failures, a growing body of academic research confirms a persistent and troubling pattern: most subsidy schemes across Europe, including those aimed at innovation, disproportionately benefit incumbent players, typically legacy media rooted in the print era.

These schemes are often path-dependent: they do little to support emerging journalistic actors.

This is the conversation we should be having.

Public institutions must be held accountable, not only to increase the transparency of their subsidy mechanisms, but to ensure they are genuinely inclusive, technology-neutral and supportive of media pluralism.

There is an important role to play for the European Union.

First, the European Commission, when faced with governance shortcomings at the member state level, can and should pressure governments to adopt best practices already in place. There is no need to reinvent the wheel: models like the Danish innovation subsidy system, approved by the commission itself in 2013, offer proven frameworks for transparent, effective support.

Second, with the upcoming budget, the EU has the opportunity to shape funding instruments that not only help sustain new media initiatives but also help them grow and gain a foothold in the market.

It takes a fervid imagination to expect the market to do this alone. It’s time for public institutions to lead, and get it right.

This year, we turn 25 and are looking for 2,500 new supporting members to take their stake in EU democracy. A functioning EU relies on a well-informed public – you.