Lebanon Media Sustainability Index (MSI)
April 17, 2012
About the MSI
IREX designed the MSI to measure the strength and viability of any country’s media sector. The MSI considers all the factors that contribute to a media system—the quality of journalism, effectiveness of management, the legal environment supporting freedom of the press, and more—to arrive at scores on a scale ranging between 0 and 4. These scores represent the strength of the media sector components and can be analyzed over time to chart progress (or regression) within a country. Additionally, countries or regions may be compared to one another. IREX currently conducts the MSI in 80 countries, and produced the first Middle East and North Africa MSI in 2005.
MSI Overview | Africa | Asia | Europe & Eurasia | Middle East & North Africa
Download the Complete Lebanon MSI Chapter (PDF): 2010/11 (in Arabic) | 2009 | 2008 | 2006/7 | 2005
The 2010/11 Lebanon MSI includes a "sixth objective" funded by USAID/Lebanon and currently only conducted in Lebanon. This study measures, from the perspective of citizens, the following: how well media capture public concerns in a non-partisan manner; the media's ability to serve as a facilitator of public debate and as an outlet for citizen voices; and measures the capacity of media to hold politicians, business, and other actors accountable. The methodology is similar to the standard MSI methodology and is explained in detail at the end of the PDF file. Click here to download a version in Arabic.
MSI Lebanon - 2010/11 Introduction
Overall Country Score: 2.03
Perhaps the sight of a pro-Syrian party member picking up his studio chair and wildly attempting to swing it at the anti-Syrian politician he was supposed to be debating on a new television show called Objectivity best sums up the continuing deterioration of Lebanon’s media. Falling 0.12 from its overall score in 2009, the combined MSI score for 2010-2011 showed a continuing trend that threatens to take the country’s overall score into the unsustainable, mixed system range.
Reverberations from the unprecedented challenge to the Assad family’s 41-year dictatorship in neighboring Syria deepened Lebanon’s profound political division between Lebanese parties supporting and supported by Syria and Iran in rejection of Western influence in the region, and those backed by Western governments and their regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia.
Hezbollah, the Iranian-financed Shia political and militant organization that has twice forced the resignation of Western-backed elected governments since its self-declared victory over Israel in the 2006 July War, came out in full support of the Assad regime.
Hezbollah and its allies, now leading the government, used the media they control to repeat the Syrian regime’s claims to be fighting Sunni fundamentalists, dropping any pretense to objective reporting in favor of attacking its political and sectarian rivals in the Sunni-led opposition bloc. On the opposing side, the media of deposed Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose multi-billionaire father was assassinated in 2005 (in a crime originally linked to Syria, but which a Hague Special Tribunal has now indicted Hezbollah members over), began to simply refuse to broadcast speeches by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
An MSI panelist familiar with the MSI since 2005 declared 2011 the worst year for press freedom in Lebanon, with unprecedented attempts by the army to block reporting by both local and foreign press on stories apparently sensitive to Syria. That said, the bedrock of Lebanon’s adherence to the values of free speech remains solid, with Lebanese enjoying almost unrestricted access to regional and international media.
Scores for the majority of objectives were strikingly similar to 2009, perhaps reflecting a general state of political paralysis with rival blocs firmly entrenched in their positions, parliament largely unable to pass reforms, and the politically-controlled media settled into the deadlock. However, Objective 5, scoring the strength of supporting institutions such as journalism associations, training programs, and associated media infrastructure, showed a significant fall of about a third of a point compared to last year. Lack of progress in the development of inclusive trade and professional associations, dwindling training opportunities for practicing journalists, and lingering problems with the infrastructure that supports media distribution were all cited as reasons for this decline.
