During the last decade, Europe has witnessed a worrying decline in media freedom and pluralism, which causes a real threat on democracy and the rule of law. Meanwhile, the European Union's role in media regulation has significantly expanded. The introduction of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) Directive reflect a coordinated effort to counter threats to media freedom, protect journalists, and uphold democratic principles across Member States. The interplay between these measures offers critical insights into the EU's evolving approach to fostering resilient democratic media ecosystems.
While both legislations represent a significant step toward protecting media and journalists, they have sparked significant debates regarding certain limitations that may hinder their effectiveness in fully addressing the challenges they tackle. The anti SLAPP is criticised for its restrictive scope of cross-border cases and the exclusion of civil claims in criminal proceedings. The EMFA is criticised for enabling government surveillance, for insufficiently protecting journalists, and for disregarding smaller media outlets. Both legislations also raised concerns as to the legitimacy of the EU to legislate in these matters.
This paper explores the political dynamics and rhetorical strategies employed by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to frame and justify these legislations. Through a qualitative discourse analysis of plenary debates, it examines how MEPs conceptualise the media's role in democracy and justify regulation accordingly. In total, 129 speeches in three different plenary debates were analysed. The analysis reveals distinct framing patterns: while EMFA debates often highlight the tension between state oversight and journalistic independence, Anti-SLAPP discussions underscore the need to combat legal threats to free speech. Divergent perspectives emerge across political groups, with far-right factions critiquing both measures as EU overreach, while progressive groups advocate for stronger protections against concentrated media ownership and legal intimidation.
By comparing the EMFA and Anti-SLAPP, the study identifies overlapping blind spots in the debates on both initiatives, including the undervaluation of public service media's role in pluralism and insufficient attention to the broader implications of media monopolisation. This paper also contributes to understanding the new European approach towards the rule of law through media regulation.
