Global Findings of State Media Monitor 2025 Published

While government-controlled media remain dominant, the space for independent public service broadcasting has shrunk to historic lows.

Read the full study here.

The 2025 State Media Monitor reveals a further erosion of editorial independence in state and public media worldwide. Out of the 606 outlets surveyed, 512 (85%) are captured or controlled, compared to 505 out of 601 (84%) in 2024. This marginal decline underscores a continuing downward trajectory since monitoring began in 2021.

The State Controlled (SC) model remains the most widespread, accounting for 392 outlets in 2025, only slightly below last year’s 393. Most SC outlets are located in Asia (86), Sub-Saharan Africa (116), MENA (52), and Eurasia (54). By contrast, the number of Independent Public Media (IP)—the benchmark for editorial autonomy—remains stubbornly low. The total rose from 18 outlets in 2024 to 19 in 2025, representing just 3% of the global sample, with 13 based in Europe, 4 in Asia, and 2 in North America. (for a detailed explanation of the differences between the various forms of editorial control by the government, refer to our Methodology and Matrix).

Overall, the number of outlets displaying genuine editorial independence declined from 96 in 2024 to 94 in 2025, the lowest since the launch of the Monitor. The deterioration was marked by the loss of six outlets that had previously been ranked as independent. At the same time, Captured Private Media (CaPr) grew from 48 in 2024 to 53 in 2025, showing how governments increasingly rely on economic leverage to bend private ownership structures to their advantage. Captured Public or State Managed Media (CaPu) also increased slightly, from 64 in 2024 to 67 in 2025.

The most dramatic shift occurred in the United States, a country traditionally perceived as safer ground for editorially independent media. In a historical development, a North American outlet was downgraded to SC status. In early 2025, the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM)—the umbrella for Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network—was brought directly under the control of President Trump’s administration. Funding freezes and management purges left most of these broadcasters dormant, with only VOA surviving at a third of its former staff capacity. In parallel, Congress froze funding for PBS, effectively suspending operations and putting its workforce on indefinite leave. This shift illustrates how quickly public media independence can collapse even in established democracies.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, conditions were not much better. The region counted 51 state-controlled outlets in 2025, roughly the same as in 2024, with only six media companies retaining some form of independence.

Elsewhere, patterns remained broadly consistent with the previous year. Europe continued to stand out as a relative stronghold of independence, with 54 outlets out of 116 maintaining editorial freedom, though losses in Spain demonstrate that even in Europe the trend is fragile. Sub-Saharan Africa offered the starkest imbalance: of 137 outlets surveyed, 116 were state controlled and only two displayed any degree of independence. MENA remained dominated by state influence, with 52 SC outlets, unchanged from 2024. Asia recorded a small improvement in the IP category, which rose from three to four outlets, but still had one of the highest concentrations of SC media globally with 86. Oceania remained the most balanced region, with four ISFM outlets, three ISF, and one SC, though its sample is small at only nine outlets in total.

Taken together, the results confirm a world in which independent public media are increasingly rare, captured media are on the rise, and the United States—long seen as a bastion of editorial independence—is no longer immune to the global trend of political interference and state control.

Government control of state and public media

Editorial Independence of State and Public Media

Despite the relentless assault on media independence recorded this year, the 2025 results also reveal important shifts, both positive and negative, across all regions. They show that editorial capture is not a one-way street and that changes in political context or governance can trigger rapid reclassifications within the State Media Matrix.

Several countries announced reform processes in 2025 that could, in principle, improve their media landscapes. Bangladesh, Syria, and Nigeria all launched initiatives to overhaul their public media systems following regime changes. Yet these plans remain fragile and largely aspirational. In places where institutions have been severely weakened, such as Syria, the prospect of building truly independent public media will be an especially arduous and uncertain task. Even in Bangladesh and Nigeria, where reforms appear more structured, entrenched political interests and unstable governance make the implementation of editorial safeguards far from guaranteed. These developments are important to note, but they should be treated with caution rather than celebrated as clear gains.

In Asia, the most notable improvements came from Indonesia, where both Television of the Republic of Indonesia (TVRI) and Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI) were upgraded from State Controlled (SC) status to Independent State Funded and Managed (ISFM). These changes were driven by the appointment of seasoned media professionals to their boards and by ambitious digital transformation programmes that helped counter disinformation during the 2024 general election. In South Korea, the Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) regained its Independent Public Media (IP) ranking after major reforms to broadcasting laws strengthened its editorial safeguards. Similarly, Japan’s NHK improved its position, moving from the Captured Public (CaPu) category to Independent State Managed (ISM) status as part of a broader government commitment to strengthen independence in public broadcasting.

In Europe, the return of Donald Tusk’s liberal government in Poland in late 2023 translated into real improvements in 2025. Three of the country’s major outlets—Polish Television (TVP), Polish Radio, and the Polish Press Agency (PAP)—were upgraded, with TVP and Polish Radio now classified as ISFM, and PAP as ISM. This represents a remarkable turnaround after years of political capture under the previous administration. Yet despite these formal upgrades, the Polish case remains highly complex: the government faces the monumental task of rebuilding institutions that were hollowed out during years of politicisation, and genuine independence will not be easy to achieve. The case of Poland highlights both the possibility of recovery and the enormous structural challenges that follow capture.

Elsewhere in Europe, however, setbacks dominated. Spain witnessed the loss of independence in multiple regional broadcasters. Ens Públic de Radiotelevisió de les Illes Balears (EPRTVIB) and Corporació Audiovisual de la Comunitat Valenciana (CACVSA) were downgraded to SC, joining Catalonia’s CCMA, Radio Televisión Canaria (RTVC), and Corporación Aragonesa de Radio y Televisión (CARTV), all of which lost their independence in 2024. Although Radio Televisión Ceuta (RTVCE) regained ISFM status, the overall picture is of serious deterioration in Spain’s regional public media sector. Similarly, Montenegro’s RTCG fell back into SC, erasing the limited progress achieved in 2023, while Greece’s AMNA slid from ISFM to SC. These developments underscore the fragility of editorial autonomy even within EU member and candidate states.

Sub-Saharan Africa saw further expansion of captured private conglomerates, particularly in Tanzania, where Sahara Media Group, Uhuru Media Group, IPP Media, and Azam Media Ltd all shifted into the CaPr category, illustrating the growing reliance of private outlets on state patronage and concessions. In Burkina Faso, the leading public media house Sidwaya was downgraded to SC, underlining the country’s broader democratic backsliding following the coup that happened in 2023.

In Eurasia, Moldova’s Teleradio-Moldova (TRM) was reclassified from ISFM to ISF, indicating a cautious improvement as its governance board began implementing reforms designed to reduce direct government influence. But Central Asia showed further evidence of capture: Kazakhstan’s Qazcontent was downgraded to SC, while in Uzbekistan new outlets such as Mening Yurtim (MY5) and Daryo.uz were classified as CaPu, and Radio Grand as CaPr.

In Latin America, the overall picture remained mixed. The Dominican Republic’s CERTV gained independence in 2024, but Mexico’s Canal 22 slid into SC in 2025. In El Salvador, the consolidation of power under President Bukele extended to the private sector, with both Grupo Samix and Grupo Orbita now classified as CaPu, confirming the entanglement of private owners with government patronage.

Taken together, these changes show that the global picture of the public media landscape remains one of gradual deterioration, but also with pockets of resistance and even recovery. The reinstatement of independence in Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, and Poland illustrates that reforms are possible, especially when backed by political change and professionalised governance. At the same time, the setbacks in Spain, Montenegro, Greece, and, especially, in the United States underline how fragile independence remains, and how difficult it will be to rebuild trust and autonomy in systems that have been deeply damaged.

Several broader dynamics defined the global state and public media landscape in 2025, cutting across regions and typologies.

First, governments seem to be tightening their grip on outlets that report on sensitive geopolitical conflicts. Coverage of the war in Gaza has become the clearest flashpoint. In Israel, both IPBC and Galatz faced sustained political pressure from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s administration over their handling of the conflict. Although they have so far retained their classification as independent, their editorial space is under constant threat. These examples confirm a broader trend: whenever public broadcasters provide narratives that deviate from official state lines on international crises, they become immediate targets for political reprisal.

Second, budget cuts and financial restructuring are increasingly wielded as political tools. Governments present these steps as efficiency drives or fiscal prudence, but the effects are clear: weakened capacity, shrinking editorial independence, and greater susceptibility to executive influence. Taiwan’s Yuan Parliament slashed PTS’s budget by 25 percent; Nepal merged its public broadcasters into a new entity as a cost-saving measure; and the Israeli Knesset gave itself powers to audit IPBC’s finances.

The most dramatic case is the United States, where developments went far beyond technical funding debates. Under President Donald Trump’s second administration, the suspension of budgets for USAGM and PBS was not just an economic measure but part of a wider ideological offensive against public and independent media. The closures and layoffs that followed were designed to neutralize outlets seen as obstacles to the White House’s agenda, leaving most of USAGM’s landmark subsidiaries dormant and PBS effectively shuttered. At the same time, the administration intensified its attacks on private media companies and regulators, framing independent journalism as a partisan enemy rather than a democratic institution. This dual assault—disabling public service broadcasters while delegitimizing independent private outlets and oversight bodies—illustrates how quickly even long-established democracies can slide into an environment of systemic hostility to media independence.

Third, public media continue to be treated as political bargaining chips, reshaped after elections or regime changes. Where transitions led to reformist governments, as in Syria, Bangladesh, and Poland, new leaders moved to restructure governance boards and appoint professionals with journalistic credibility. Syria’s interim administration under President Ahmad al-Sharaa has promised sweeping structural reforms, including placing a respected media figure in charge of the Ministry of Information. Bangladesh’s caretaker government has set out plans to merge BTV, Bangladesh Betar, and BSS into a single National Broadcasting Corporation that would have its editorial independence guaranteed. Poland’s new leadership worked on cutting the political pressures on TVP, Polish Radio, and PAP following the end of the Law and Justice (PiS) party rule. Yet, in all three cases, entrenched patronage networks and politicized legacies mean that independence will be extremely difficult to entrench. Where political change moved in the opposite direction, the results were immediate and damaging: El Salvador’s President Bukele cemented control over both public and private broadcasters, while the Trump administration’s direct interventions effectively collapsed U.S. public media governance. The lesson from 2025 is that public media remain extraordinarily vulnerable to the direction of electoral politics, whether reformist or authoritarian.

Fourth, China’s influence continues to expand into a structural feature of global media. In Asia, six major ASEAN countries—Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and Singapore—deepened partnerships with Xinhua and other Chinese state media, producing joint news content, training journalists in China, and rebroadcasting Beijing’s narratives domestically. Across Sub-Saharan Africa, media outlets opened Mandarin-language programmes, often with direct support from Chinese media companies. In Cambodia and Laos, governments actively relied on Chinese funding to prop up local state media operations, effectively outsourcing financial sustainability to Beijing. This pattern is striking: where local governments cut funding or impose financial constraints, Chinese partnerships increasingly fill the gap, entrenching foreign influence in editorial agendas and reducing the scope for independent reporting.

Other dynamics reinforced these trends. Europe remains home to the world’s largest cluster of independent outlets, yet the state-controlled model has consolidated as the single most common category, driven in the last year by regional broadcaster capture in Spain and political pressure in Slovakia and Montenegro. In Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, the dominance of the state controlled and captured models remained overwhelming, with television and radio still the most effective control vectors. In MENA, the tiny number of independent outlets are under mounting siege, confirming the region’s reputation as one of the most repressive media environments worldwide.

Taken together, the 2025 data reveal a world where independence is chipped away not only by direct censorship or propaganda, but by financial manipulation, geopolitical confrontation, electoral politics, and foreign partnerships. Where reforms emerged, as in Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, and Poland, they remain fragile, contested, and easily reversible. The long-term trajectory continues to point towards attritional decline: independence is never secured once and for all, but must be defended against a widening array of pressures.

For more in-depth analysis, see the Regional Overviews here.

Conclusions: The Rise of a Government-Dominated Media Order

The 2025 State Media Monitor underscores a grim reality: globally, state and public media are edging ever closer to becoming extensions of government power. What were once exceptions—the direct steering of editorial agendas by political authorities—are increasingly the rule. Independent journalism survives, but mostly in fragile pockets, often under siege.

Political leaders are tightening their grip on coverage of sensitive conflicts, governments are using financial leverage to discipline broadcasters, public media are treated as bargaining chips after elections, and major global powers—most visibly China—are expanding their influence by filling funding gaps. Together these dynamics are producing a global information space dominated less by pluralistic journalism and more by propaganda clashes between states. In many regions, the very idea of public service broadcasting as a democratic institution is being hollowed out.

This trajectory carries two major dangers. The first is that as public media lose independence and credibility, citizens turn away from them. Audiences—especially younger ones—are already shifting toward social platforms, where information flows are unregulated and disinformation flourishes. The second is systemic: as governments pour resources into their own media and attack those of their rivals, the global media system risks becoming a battlefield of competing propaganda machines, with less space for fact-based journalism that serves the public interest.

Reversing this trend is already extraordinarily difficult. The conditions that sustain editorial independence—insulated and predictable funding, depoliticized governance, and robust legal safeguards—are being eroded in most regions. Single reforms or frameworks, like the European Media Freedom Act, at best can provide partial templates and a degree of leverage in specific jurisdictions. Globally, the defense of independent public media will depend on a patchwork of strategies: stronger international monitoring and solidarity networks, legal and institutional reforms tailored to local contexts, and, critically, sustained pressure from journalists and civil society to demand transparency, accountability, and professional standards. These efforts may not prevent capture and state dominance everywhere, but without them, the space for genuine public service journalism will continue to shrink.

The lesson of 2025 is sobering: independence is not a default condition but a contested achievement. If left undefended, it will be dismantled piece by piece until public media become indistinguishable from state propaganda.

Photo by Robin Jonathan Deutsch on Unsplash (used under Unsplash license)

State Media Monitor Resources

Typology: see how we classify state and public media outlets (State Media Matrix)

Methodology: see how we collect data to be able to classify state and public media outlets

Regional overviews: see more detailed analysis about how state and public media perform in their region

Global list: find the state and public media you are interested in by checking checking our state and public media list

Global study 2025: access to the full global study

Archive global studies: access to all the State Media Monitor annual global studies

Read the key findings of the State Media Monitor in the past years

2024 Global Analysis of State and Public Media

2023 Global Analysis of State and Public Media

2022 Global Analysis of State and Public Media