Is the European Media Freedom Act an Orwellian name? I guess so.
On February 10, 2025, the European Commission announced the creation of the European Board for Media Services (or ‘Media Board’), as part of implementing the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Officially, the EMFA is meant to strengthen press freedom and media pluralism in the EU. But dig deeper, and you’ll find a growing concern—this law might be more about control than protection.
It raises an unsettling question: Does the EMFA actually enhance media freedom, or does it lay the groundwork for increased surveillance and government intervention in journalism?
In my humble opinion, it cannot be a ‘Freedom Act’ when it’s designed to spy and infiltrate.
What Is the European Media Freedom Act?
The EMFA is a legislative proposal designed to regulate media across EU member states. Its stated goal is to promote media independence, prevent government interference, and ensure fair competition in the media landscape.
Core Elements of the EMFA:
✅ Independent Oversight – Establishes the Media Board, replacing the previous European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA). This new body has expanded authority to oversee and advise on media regulations across the EU.
✅ Protection from Political Influence – Aims to prevent governments from pressuring media organizations or controlling editorial decisions.
✅ Transparency Requirements – Forces media companies to disclose ownership structures to avoid conflicts of interest.
✅ Cross-Border Regulation – Gives the Media Board power to assess foreign media influence and review mergers that could impact media pluralism.
The Controversy: Media Freedom or Government Power Grab?
The biggest criticism of the EMFA? It might give regulators the ability to interfere with journalism, rather than protect it.
The Core Concerns:
❌ Surveillance Fears – Some fear the EMFA could be used as a pretext for governments or EU institutions to monitor journalists under the guise of preventing “foreign influence” or “disinformation.”
❌ Regulatory Overreach – The Media Board is supposed to be “independent,” yet it consists of government-appointed regulators. Can such a body truly be neutral?
❌ Opaque Decision-Making – The EMFA gives the European Commission significant influence over media decisions without clear oversight mechanisms.
Why People Fear Journalists’ Privacy is at Risk
A major online criticism of the EMFA is that it could grant authorities the ability to access journalists’ phones and private communications. While the official text doesn’t explicitly state this, the concern arises from broader EU-wide trends in digital surveillance laws.
Consider this:
- In multiple EU countries, security agencies already have expanded powers to track digital communications.
- The EMFA increases cooperation between national regulators and the EU, potentially paving the way for more centralized control.
- The Media Board’s authority to investigate media concentration raises questions: Could this be used to justify intrusive monitoring of journalists?
What’s Actually in the EMFA (and What’s Not)?
Let’s clear up some misconceptions:
🔹 The EMFA does NOT explicitly allow hacking into journalists’ devices. There’s no official wording that grants direct access to journalists’ private data.
🔹 However, it does give the Media Board significant regulatory powers.This includes reviewing media ownership and advising on “threats” to media pluralism.
🔹 The law emphasizes monitoring foreign influence. But without strong legal safeguards, such monitoring could be used to justify investigations into domestic journalists.
The Bigger Picture: The EU’s Growing Appetite for Regulation
The Media Freedom Act isn’t happening in a vacuum. Across Europe, governments are expanding their powers over digital spaces.
Here’s how the EMFA fits into a larger pattern:
📌 Digital Services Act (DSA) – Grants the EU oversight over large online platforms, regulating content moderation and digital advertising.
📌 AI Act – Regulates artificial intelligence, particularly “high-risk” applications like automated content moderation.
📌 Expanded Anti-Disinformation Measures – Multiple European governments have pushed for tighter controls on what is classified as “fake news” or “harmful content.”
While these laws are framed as necessary safeguards, critics argue they are creating an environment where governments and large institutions have more control over information flows than ever before.
Key Questions Going Forward
As the EMFA moves toward full implementation, here’s what journalists, policymakers, and citizens should be asking:
🔹 What safeguards exist to prevent abuse of the Media Board’s powers?
🔹 Could this law be used to justify deeper surveillance in the name of protecting “media pluralism”? 🔹 How will this impact independent journalists and smaller media outlets, who may not have the resources to comply with new regulations?
🔹 What role will tech platforms play in enforcing these rules?
Conclusion: Is the EMFA Addressing a Problem or Creating a Bigger One?
The European Media Freedom Act is being sold as a law to strengthen journalism and protect democracy. But history shows that laws designed to regulate media rarely result in more freedom.
The key takeaway? Regulation always sounds reasonable—until the people in charge start using it for their own purposes.
It remains to be seen whether the EMFA will truly promote media independence—or if it will become another tool for governments and EU institutions to exert influence over journalists.
In the meantime, journalists, publishers, and citizens must stay vigilant. Freedom of the press isn’t just about what’s written in the law—it’s about how that law is used.