Hungary passes media law that dismantles Fidesz‑run public broadcaster — UnionPress

A parliamentary amendment enacted on 26 June replaces the directors of state media, creates new oversight bodies and embeds EU standards, aiming to curb partisan control of public‑service outlets.

Hungary has enacted a sweeping amendment to its media law that ends the tenure of all current heads of the public‑service broadcaster and replaces the governing structure that had been dominated by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party. The legislation, approved by parliament on 23 June and brought into force on 26 June, introduces new founding companies, independent monitoring boards and a selection process for senior posts that gives opposition parties equal footing with the government.

The change arrives at a moment when the country's media landscape has been described as a "propaganda factory". Critics say the state‑run outlets, most notably the television channel M1 and the radio network Kossuth, have functioned as mouthpieces for the ruling party since 2010. By stripping the incumbent director‑general of the Media Service Support and Asset Management Fund (MTVA) and mandating fresh appointments, the law seeks to prevent any single political force from monopolising editorial direction.

Under the new framework, the public‑service broadcaster will be separated from the state news agency MTI, which previously supplied a large share of its content. Two new corporate entities will be created to act as founders of the broadcaster, each overseen by a board that includes representatives from the governing coalition, the opposition and three professional organisations such as journalists' unions. While party nominees will serve four‑year terms, the civil‑society appointees will enjoy five‑year mandates, a design meant to balance political influence with expertise.

Selection of the director‑general, the top executive of the public‑service system, will be conducted through a public tender. Before any applications are invited, a rapid consultation with media scholars, industry bodies and the audience will be held to define the competencies required. The law obliges the authorities to adapt the selection criteria in line with the feedback received, a safeguard that, according to media law professor Gábor Polyák of ELTE University, should filter out candidates lacking a realistic vision for independent public broadcasting.

One of the most notable aspects of the amendment is the explicit incorporation of EU media‑freedom standards into Hungarian legislation. By aligning domestic rules with European norms, the law promises additional judicial oversight and the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Justice should breaches occur. Observers note that this move could make it harder for the government to revert to overt control without triggering infringement proceedings.

Polyák told the daily Napunk that the amendment "guarantees that decisions concerning the public‑service media will not be taken by a single party". He added that the institutional framework for appointing the director‑general and for ongoing oversight is now "unambiguous" in its aim to produce a diverse and impartial service, thereby removing the broadcaster from its former role as a propaganda tool.

While the law reshapes governance, it leaves several operational questions open. The amendment does not set the number of television or radio channels that will continue to operate, nor does it earmark a specific budget for the restructured entity. Polyák warned that "there are still a great many unclear questions, and deciding on them will inevitably require another legislative step". The government has signalled that a comprehensive review of media legislation is planned for the autumn, with a public debate to follow.

Another concern voiced by independent media analysts is the financial fallout for smaller, non‑state outlets. After the 2022 elections, advertising revenue that once flowed to independent publishers has dwindled, and the new law's overhaul of the state‑advertising system could further concentrate spending on the re‑organised public broadcaster. Polyák cautioned that "a difficult period awaits not only Fidesz‑aligned media, but also independent newsrooms".

Prime Minister Péter Magyar, who campaigned on a promise to "switch off the factory of lies", has so far not delivered on the pledge to suspend news coverage by the former propaganda outlets. In a heated interview on Kossuth Radio shortly after the April election, he reiterated his intention to curtail the reach of what he termed "propaganda media", but the promised shutdown has not materialised.

Opposition leaders have welcomed the amendment as a step toward dismantling the Fidesz media empire. They argue that the equal representation on the new oversight board will prevent the government from re‑asserting unilateral control. However, some senior members of the governing coalition have expressed reservations, suggesting that the new structures could impede swift decision‑making in a sector that still requires state support to remain viable.

International observers, including representatives from the European Commission's Directorate‑General for Media and Information Society, have noted the reform as a positive development but have urged Hungary to follow through with the promised autumn review and to ensure that the public‑service broadcaster receives sufficient funding to fulfil its public‑interest mandate without resorting to commercial pressures.

The Hungarian case is being watched closely by other EU members where government influence over public broadcasters remains a contentious issue. Countries such as Poland and Slovakia have faced similar accusations of politicising state media, and the EU has repeatedly warned that media pluralism is a cornerstone of democratic resilience. By embedding EU standards directly into national law, Hungary may set a precedent for how member states can reconcile domestic media reforms with European expectations. If the new oversight mechanisms prove effective, they could become a model for other nations seeking to depoliticise their public‑service sector while preserving editorial independence.

For European workers in the media sector, the reform could mean a more level playing field. Journalists employed by the restructured public broadcaster will be subject to transparent hiring criteria, potentially opening senior positions to a broader pool of talent beyond party loyalists. At the same time, the uncertainty surrounding state advertising may force independent outlets to explore alternative revenue models, such as reader‑supported journalism or EU‑funded media projects.

In the coming months, the real test will be how the newly appointed director‑general navigates the balance between public‑service obligations and the political realities of a polarized parliament. The law provides the scaffolding; the effectiveness of the reforms will depend on the willingness of both government and opposition to respect the spirit of impartiality that the amendment seeks to enshrine.