Media Sustainability Index (MSI) - Europe and Eurasia

MSI Europe & Eurasia 2008

Methodology

IREX prepared the Media Sustainability Index (MSI) in cooperation with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as a tool to assess the development of independent media systems over time and across countries. IREX staff, USAID, and other media development professionals contributed to the development of this assessment tool.

The MSI assesses five “objectives” in shaping a successful media system:

Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information.
Journalism meets professional standards of quality.
Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and objective news.
Independent media are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial independence.
Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of independent media.

These objectives were judged to be the most important aspects of a sustainable and professional independent media system and served as the criteria against which countries were rated. A score was attained for each objective by rating seven to nine indicators, which determine how well a country meets that objective. The objectives, indicators, and scoring system are presented below.

The scoring is done in two parts. First, a panel of experts is assembled in each country, drawn from representatives of local media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), professional associations, and media-development implementers. Panel participants are provided with the objectives and indicators and an explanation of the scoring system. Each panelist individually reviewed the information and scored each objective. The panelists then assembled to discuss the objectives and indicators, and to devise combined scores and analyses. The panel moderator, in most cases a host-country media or NGO representative, prepares a written analysis of the discussion, which is subsequently edited by IREX representatives.

The panelists’ scores are reviewed by IREX, in-country staff and/or Washington, DC, media staff, which then score the countries independently of the MSI panel. Using the combination of scores, the final scores are determined. This method allows the MSI scores to reflect both local media insiders’ views and the views of international media-development professionals.

I. Objectives and Indicators

Objective #1: Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information.

Indicators

1. Legal and social protections of free speech exist and are enforced.

2. Licensing of broadcast media is fair, competitive, and apolitical.

3. Market entry and tax structure for media are fair and comparable to other industries.

4. Crimes against journalists or media outlets are prosecuted vigorously, but occurrences of such crimes are rare.

5. State or public media do not receive preferential legal treatment, and law guarantees editorial independence.

6. Libel is a civil law issue; public officials are held to higher standards, and offended parties must prove falsity and malice.

7. Public information is easily accessible; right of access to information is equally enforced for all media and journalists.

8. Media outlets have unrestricted access to information; this is equally enforced for all media and journalists.

9. Entry into the journalism profession is free, and government imposes no licensing, restrictions, or special rights for journalists.

Objective #2: Journalism meets professional standards of quality.

Indicators

1. Reporting is fair, objective, and well sourced.

2. Journalists follow recognized and accepted ethical standards.

3. Journalists and editors do not practice self-censorship.

4. Journalists cover key events and issues.

5. Pay levels for journalists and other media professionals are sufficiently high to discourage corruption.

6. Entertainment programming does not eclipse news and information programming.

7. Technical facilities and equipment for gathering, producing, and distributing news are modern and efficient.

8. Quality niche reporting and programming exists (investigative, economics/business, local, political).

Objective #3: Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and objective news.

Indicators

1. A plurality of affordable public and private news sources (e.g., print, broadcast, Internet) exists.

2. Citizens’ access to domestic or international media is not restricted.

3. State or public media reflect the views of the entire political spectrum, are nonpartisan, and serve the public interest.

4. Independent news agencies gather and distribute news for print and broadcast media.

5. Independent broadcast media produce their own news programs.

6. Transparency of media ownership allows consumers to judge objectivity of news; media ownership is not concentrated in a few conglomerates.

7. A broad spectrum of social interests are reflected and represented in the media, including minority-language information sources.

Objective #4: Independent media are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial independence.

Indicators

1. Media outlets and supporting firms operate as efficient, professional, and profit-generating businesses.

2. Media receive revenue from a multitude of sources.

3. Advertising agencies and related industries support an advertising market.

4. Advertising revenue as a percentage of total revenue is in line with accepted standards at commercial outlets.

5. Independent media do not receive government subsidies.

6. Market research is used to formulate strategic plans, enhance advertising revenue, and tailor products to the needs and interests of audiences.

7. Broadcast ratings and circulation figures are reliably and independently produced.

Objective #5: Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of independent media.

Indicators

1. Trade associations represent the interests of private media owners and provide member services.

2. Professional associations work to protect journalists’ rights.

3. NGOs support free speech and independent media.

4. Quality journalism degree programs that provide substantial practical experience exist.

5. Short-term training and in-service training programs allow journalists to upgrade skills or acquire new skills.

6. Sources of newsprint and printing facilities are in private hands, apolitical, and unrestricted.

7. Channels of media distribution (kiosks, transmitters, Internet) are private, apolitical, and unrestricted.

II. Scoring System

A. Indicator Scoring

Each indicator is scored using the following system:

0 = Country does not meet the indicator; government or social forces may actively oppose its implementation.

1 = Country minimally meets aspects of the indicator; forces may not actively oppose its implementation, but business environment may not support it and government or profession do not fully and actively support change.

2 = Country has begun to meet many aspects of the indicator, but progress may be too recent to judge or still dependent on current government or political forces.

3 = Country meets most aspects of the indicator; implementation of the indicator has occurred over several years and/or through changes in government, indicating likely sustainability.

4 = Country meets the aspects of the indicator; implementation has remained intact over multiple changes in government, economic fluctuations, changes in public opinion, and/or changing social conventions.

B. Objective and Overall Scoring

The averages of all the indicators are then averaged to obtain a single, overall score for each objective. Objective scores are averaged to provide an overall score for the country. IREX interprets the overall scores as follows:

Unsustainable, Anti-Free Press (0-1): Country does not meet or only minimally meets objectives. Government and laws actively hinder free media development, professionalism is low, and media-industry activity is minimal.

Unsustainable Mixed System (1-2): Country minimally meets objectives, with segments of the legal system and government opposed to a free media system. Evident progress in free-press advocacy, increased professionalism, and new media businesses may be too recent to judge sustainability.

Near Sustainability (2-3): Country has progressed in meeting multiple objectives, with legal norms, professionalism, and the business environment supportive of independent media. Advances have survived changes in government and have been codified in law and practice. However, more time may be needed to ensure that change is enduring and that increased professionalism and the media business environment are sustainable.

Sustainable (3-4): Country has media that are considered generally professional, free, and sustainable, or to be approaching these objectives. Systems supporting independent media have survived multiple governments, economic fluctuations, and changes in public opinion or social conventions.

E-mail this page