Belgium

Belgium ranked 16th of 180 countries in the 2026 RSF World Press Freedom Index, with a score of 81.17, improving from 18th and 80.12 in 2025. The advance came in a year when press freedom reached a 25-year global low and, for the first time in the index’s history, more than half of the world’s countries fell into the difficult or very serious categories.

Belgium’s audiovisual system is organised by language community. Political institutions participate in appointing the governing boards of the three public broadcasters mapped by State Media Monitor, through different procedures in each community. Those governance arrangements qualify their institutional independence, although substantial legal and editorial safeguards operate at all three.

Source protection is strong, but defamation remains criminal. Source confidentiality has been protected by federal law since 2005. Journalistic self-regulation is divided between the Raad voor de Journalistiek in the Dutch-language market and the Conseil de déontologie journalistique in the French- and German-language communities.

Defamation remains a criminal offence. In 2023 and 2024 several proceedings sought to prevent news stories from being published or broadcast. A positive clarification followed in June 2025, when the Court of Appeal in Liège confirmed that prior restraints on publication are not permitted. Reporters Without Borders nevertheless identifies abusive litigation against journalists as a continuing concern.

Subsidy reductions affected media in both principal language communities. In the French-speaking Community, the media minister proposed reducing the number of subsidised non-profit local outlets from twelve to eight by 2031 and freezing indexation of their subsidies.

In Flanders, cuts affected public, local and non-profit media. The bilingual Brussels media house BRUZZ saw its funding fall by 6.4 per cent, resulting in the loss of four journalistic posts and reduced coverage. The global-affairs magazine MO* lost its annual subsidy of EUR 216,000 and launched a crowdfunding appeal. VRT, the Fonds Pascal Decroos for investigative journalism, the Flemish Association for Journalists and DeWereldMorgen also experienced funding reductions.

Concentration increased substantially. Belgium’s Flemish- and French-language media markets were already highly concentrated, with only a handful of companies operating in each. DPG Media is the only company active across television, radio, print and online media, while DPG and Mediahuis both operate internationally.

On 3 July 2026 the Belgian Competition Authority conditionally approved Rossel’s acquisition of IPM’s press activities. Rossel consequently obtained sole or joint control of all five French-language daily newspapers. Reporters Without Borders estimates that the enlarged group represents 94 per cent of the French-language daily-print market and around 82 per cent of the corresponding online-news market. The approval is subject to commitments intended to preserve the quality and diversity of the affected titles.

Ownership safeguards remain narrow. No general rule prevents politicians, whether in government or opposition, from owning media shares. An explicit prohibition on political office-holders serving on a media board exists only in the Flemish radio sector. Community legislation provides additional safeguards concerning independence from governments and parties, but these principally cover broadcasting rather than newspapers, online media or distribution.

Advertising revenue continues to migrate to online platforms, and the principal media groups have responded through acquisitions, diversification and international expansion. DPG Media and Mediahuis plan to pay part of their journalists’ remuneration as copyright royalties from 2026, a model criticised by the Flemish journalists’ association because of legal uncertainty and its possible effect on social protection.

State Media Monitor maps three entries in Belgium, one for each language community. All three are classified Independent State-Funded and State-Managed (ISFM), and all three sit in the independent family.

VRT serves the Flemish Community. It is a naamloze vennootschap van publiek recht, a public limited company under public law, reaching approximately 90 per cent of Flemings each week through three television channels, five radio services and its digital platforms. RTBF serves the French-speaking Community as an autonomous public cultural enterprise under the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. BRF serves the German-speaking Community as a public-law broadcasting institution. With around 70 employees, it is among the smallest public broadcasters in Europe.

The appointment arrangements differ. VRT’s 12-member Board of Directors is appointed by the Flemish Government. Eight seats reflect political representation in the Flemish Parliament, while four are held by independent directors appointed for their expertise. RTBF’s thirteen directors are appointed by the Parliament of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation in accordance with parliamentary representation. Two government-appointed commissioners monitor compliance with the broadcaster’s legal and public-service obligations. BRF’s Verwaltungsrat comprises eight voting members and one advisory member elected by the Parliament of the German-speaking Community. Each recognised parliamentary group is entitled to at least one voting member.

Governance operates through negotiated public-service agreements. Each broadcaster’s remit and financial framework are defined in an agreement with its Community government. VRT’s current agreement covers 2026 to 2030. RTBF operates under a 2023 to 2027 management contract, as amended. BRF’s Geschäftsführungsvertrag runs for the duration of a legislative period and is adopted by government decree. Their legal, contractual and internal frameworks protect editorial autonomy.

Funding is predominantly public at all three, although the reporting bases differ. VRT recorded EUR 520.0 million in financing from its two principal pillars in 2025: EUR 319.4 million in public financing, or 61.4 per cent, and EUR 200.6 million in own revenue. Exceptional and timing adjustments brought recognised total revenue to EUR 528.4 million.

RTBF reported EUR 479.7 million in receipts in 2025. These included an ordinary Federation endowment of EUR 350.8 million and separately identified public transfers totalling EUR 27.3 million for pension costs, TV5 and accessibility.

BRF’s approved 2025 budget was approximately EUR 8 million, of which 86 per cent was expected to come from the German-speaking Community. Because the three broadcasters use different accounting and reporting presentations, these figures should not be compared directly.

Financial constraints affect all three. RTBF’s ordinary endowment is frozen at its 2025 level, and the broadcaster is implementing a programme intended to reduce its annual budget by approximately EUR 55 million by 2028. BRF’s 2026 endowment is frozen at its 2025 level. VRT’s 2026 to 2030 agreement requires cost control rising to EUR 16 million by 2030, without compulsory redundancies.

Editorial safeguards are substantial and layered. RTBF’s independence is guaranteed by the decree of 14 July 1997, and its management contract expressly prohibits political or governmental interference in editorial content. VRT’s editorial statute enshrines journalistic autonomy, while its management agreement requires absolute editorial autonomy and impartial news provision. BRF’s published principles reject external attempts to influence coverage and state that neither management nor the Editor-in-Chief may prescribe an authorised line of opinion.

All three participate in journalistic self-regulation. VRT is affiliated with the Raad voor de Journalistiek, while RTBF and BRF participate in the Conseil de déontologie journalistique. The Vlaamse Regulator voor de Media, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel and Medienrat oversee statutory compliance in their respective communities without directing everyday editorial decisions.

Content analyses conducted for State Media Monitor in May 2021, March 2024 and May 2026 found no evidence of state direction of the editorial agenda at any of the three broadcasters.

Media profiles