How the database is built
Methodology,
evidence, and
research cycles
The State Media Monitor rests on a database first built in 2004 and refined across two decades of country-level research. Every classification is traced to funding, governance, and editorial control, and weighed against tiered, verifiable sources.
A continuous record, region by region
Since 2021 the database has been updated continuously across all regions. Since 2024 a dedicated monitoring system has tracked each region on its own cycle, so classifications reflect the most current evidence available.
- 2004State Media Database established
- 2020Global update consolidates all regions
- 2021Continuous updating begins across every region
- 2022Outlets counted as entities; six countries added
- 2024Per-region monitoring system in place; 13 countries added
- 2026Rolling regional overviews, updated year-round
Section one
Research cycles
The database was created by Marius Dragomir in 2004 and has been maintained since by expert teams at the institutions he has led — notably the Center for Media, Data and Society (CMDS) at CEU in Vienna, and its successor, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC).
Since 2021 it has been updated continuously across all regions rather than in occasional waves, and since 2024 a dedicated system has monitored each region on its own schedule. The historical cycles behind the current record are:
- Global update2006, 2010, 2013, 2020–2024
- Latin America2006, 2012, 2023–2024
- Europe, North America, Australia & New Zealand2005, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2023–2024
- Sub-Saharan Africa2014, 2023–2024
- Asia, incl. parts of Eurasia2005, 2008, 2012, 2015, 2019, 2023–2024
- MENA2015, 2019, 2023
Section two
Country coverage
Coverage has widened in steps. The 2022 update brought in six countries; the 2023 sample was unchanged; the 2024 update added thirteen more, extending the database well into the Pacific and the Caribbean.
Added in 2022
Added in 2024
In Liechtenstein and Monaco, no state-administered media were identified.
Section three
Counting outlets as entities
The methodology treats media outlets as standalone entities that deliver services across many channels — television and radio stations, print titles, and news portals alike. To keep comparisons consistent across countries and regions, operators are counted as entities rather than by the number of channels or assets they hold. Where an operator has acquired outlets specifically to gain control of the media — as KESMA has in Hungary — that is noted in the analysis.
The 2022 update identified every outlet run as an individual operator and classified it as a distinct entity. This affected a handful of countries, including Nigeria, where outlets operating at the state level are now counted separately rather than folded into the federal level. Where state media are run by a single government body, they continue to be counted as one entity.
Section four
Criteria and sources
Three criteria structure the database. Each classification is built from evidence gathered against all three, then analysed through the models of the State Media Matrix.
Criterion A
Funding
The budget of the outlet and where its money comes from.
Criterion B
Management & governance
Who appoints leadership, and how the outlet is governed.
Criterion C
Editorial control
Whether output is directed toward, or protected from, the state.
Step one
Collection of data
| Tier | Sources |
|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Annual reports of the outlet; legal acts that establish its funding model. |
| Tier 2 | Media articles, NGO reports, academic reports. |
| Tier 3 | Interviews with experts or sources inside the outlet; investigative reporting. |
| Tier | Sources |
|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Annual reports of the outlet; legal acts that establish its governance model. |
| Tier 2 | Media articles, NGO reports, academic reports. |
| Tier 3 | Interviews with experts or sources inside the outlet; investigative reporting. |
| Tier | Sources |
|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Legal acts or statutes establishing the outlet’s mission as a state propaganda unit; public statements by officials establishing that role. |
| Tier 2 | Media articles, NGO reports, academic reports. |
| Tier 3 | Interviews with experts or sources inside the outlet; investigative reporting; content analysis in specific contexts. |
Step two
Data analysis
Using the data gathered in each country and the criteria above, outlets are categorised according to the models introduced by the State Media Matrix.
Section five
Definitions and thresholds
Classification turns on how the three criteria combine. Each criterion is assessed against defined thresholds — whether a given safeguard exists in law and, crucially, whether it is implemented in practice.
Funding
How much of the outlet’s budget the state provides, and on what terms.
Governance
Who controls appointments, board composition, and the terms of office.
Editorial
Whether an enforceable firewall separates output from the executive.
A safeguard counts as present only where it is implemented, not merely written. For the full framework, see the State Media Matrix typology.
Section six
Research limitations
The database reflects ongoing data collection managed by a team of experts at the Media and Journalism Research Center. It draws extensively on the Media Influence Matrix project, conducted by MJRC with partner organisations and experts.
The media industry is highly dynamic, and some outlets move between State Media Matrix models quickly. These shifts cannot be captured in real time. The continuous, per-region monitoring in place since 2024 narrows that gap, and the overall trends the project captures at any given point are not significantly affected by such short-term inconsistencies.