In democratic societies, a shared informational environment is considered a condition of civic and informed engagement and for a sound deliberative democracy. This common public sphere (Habermas) enables citizens to access facts, interpretations, and debates, which are a shared domain and define preconditions necessary for the legitimacy of democratic processes.
In this context, the importance of media pluralism as a fundamental aspect of the civic discourse in democratic societies is (or should be) widely acknowledged at national and European levels. It stems from freedom of expression, ensures the market is not dominated by just a few media operators (and this is the meaning that traditionally is the most common, “external pluralism”), underpins equal possibilities for political parties to access the media, ensures a diverse range of views and information is accessible to the citizens, that a diversity of voices is represented, and fosters a well-informed public.
A pluralistic media landscape allows no single viewpoint to dominate the public discourse, providing for a healthier, more vibrant exchange of ideas that is a precondition for informed citizenship and, ultimately, for democracy. This relationship underscores the necessity of ensuring media plurality and diversity through thoughtful legislation and regulatory frameworks to allow dispersal of informative power and allow, at least potentially, exposure to a plurality of voices.
As media ecosystems become increasingly digital, the interpretation of “media pluralism” has evolved, taking into account new dimensions such as platform dominance, technological dependance, opinion power in the digital sphere, prominence of the content of public interest, and the fight against disinformation, just to mention a few. Therefore, the definition of “media pluralism” has conceptually evolved and expanded, especially with the advent of digital platforms, complicating its integration into effective media regulation.
This term has been used in recent policymaking in various contexts. However, in many cases, this definition or description is inconsistent across different statutory and policy instruments, particularly in the digital context. What, therefore, is the definition of media pluralism adopted in the EU legal system and followed by the new digital regulation?
Below, there is a list of how the concept of media pluralism is envisioned by legislators and policymakers in some relevant documents at the EU level.

• The annual Rule of Law (RoL) Report, issued yearly since 2020 by the European Commission, does not give an explicit definition of what “media pluralism” is, but describes what it entails. In this context, media pluralism comes from the systemic analysis of various indicators mainly pertaining to a member state’s (constitutional) order, namely how relevant fundamental rights are protected and how the institutional framework is shaped to be the guarantor of media pluralism. The RoL Report mentions as indicators to evaluate the media pluralism and media freedom, for example: measures taken to ensure the independence, enforcement powers and adequacy of resources of media regulatory authorities and bodies, ensuring transparency in media ownership, safeguards against government or political interference, including fair and transparent allocation of state advertising, that is critical to prevent media capture and ensure a level playing field. Media independence can be undermined by political pressure and undue influence, in particular when it comes to public service media, whose independence should be safeguarded.

Moreover, the RoL Report takes into account access to information, protections for journalists, including legal protections against manifest SLAPPs and frameworks that guarantee their freedom of expression.

• The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) mentions media pluralism several times, coupled with “editorial independence” (“media pluralism or editorial independence”) or with “media freedom” (media freedom and media pluralism). The fragmentation of national rules on media pluralism[1] is the justification of the legal basis for EMFA under art 114 TFUE. A sort of more detailed definition could be found in Recital 64 and in Article 3. Specifically, media pluralism is referred to as: “the possibility to have access to a variety of media services and media content which reflect diverse opinions, voices and analyses” in recital 64, embracing a definition that refers to the market structure (the recital hints at art. 22 of EMFA). In art 3 the Act refers to an obligation of Member States not to act to limit access to plural and editorially independent media (liberal approach vis à vis interferences of the state on freedom of expression) and to be the last guarantor of a plural media environment, indirectly recalling also the standards of the Council of Europe in this regard: “Member States shall respect the right of recipients of media services to have access to a plurality of editorially independent media content and ensure that framework conditions are in place in line with this Regulation to safeguard that right, to the benefit of free and democratic discourse.”[2] In practice, looking also at the content of the Act, the concrete operationalisation of the concept is very much in line with the one provided by the RoL report: each EMFA article is trying to add a building block in defining the indicators for a plural media system. Indeed, just to mention a few of the issues regulated by the Act, in the EMFA there are provisions on media ownership and transparency, the transparent and fair allocation of state advertising, the independent functioning of public service media and availability of financial resources for the fulfilment of their public service remit, the independence of media authorities, editorial independence of the newsrooms.

The concept that stems from the EMFA covers mostly elements of market plurality, or “external pluralism”, and includes also “internal pluralism”, intended as a plurality of viewpoints in a single media outlet, as foreseen in art 5.1 on PSM, and also some elements referring to forms of “prominence”, referring to the AVMSD too.[3]
Art. 22 EMFA requires member states to define procedural and substantive rules to address media concentrations that may significantly affect pluralism and editorial independence, not defining explicitly what media pluralism is, but listing once again criteria and indicators based on which it is assessed (Art. 22.2 EMFA). The implementation of art 22 involves “traditional” policymakers, such as national legislators, national regulators, the Board of Media Services, the Commission, in a perspective implying that such measures are part of those “positive obligations” as defined in the context of the standard setting activity of the Council of Europe the fact that, as the ultimate guarantors of pluralism, states should put in place “an appropriate legislative and policy framework to that end”.
Moreover, about very large online platforms’ (VLOPs) content moderation, EMFA protects media pluralism in practice by safeguarding media service providers that show editorial independence and integrity (art. 18), providing for them a relatively more privileged content moderation procedure than the one prescribed by the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the cases in which the media content is incompatible with VLOPs terms of services and media services are listed as such under the VLOPs ad hoc functionality.
As a general rule in the internal market, and as criteria to conceive and evaluate any national measure on media pluralism, article 21 EMFA states that legislative, regulatory or administrative measures taken by a Member State and that can affect media pluralism or the editorial independence of media service providers should be duly justified and proportionate. Such measures shall be reasoned, transparent, objective and non-discriminatory.
 

• Finally, the DSA. It does not provide an explicit definition of media pluralism, limiting itself to state, in Recital 153, that “This Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression and of information, as well as the freedom and pluralism of the media”. However, in practice, the DSA mentions “media pluralism”, or more precisely, “freedom and pluralism of the media” in two provisions: Article 14 and Article 34, that deal respectively with the requirements and transparency for terms and conditions of the providers of intermediary services and with the risk assessment of very large online platforms and very large search engines.
• Art 14.4, in particular states that “providers of intermediary services shall act in a diligent, objective and proportionate manner in applying and enforcing the restrictions…” “with due regard to the rights and legitimate interests of all parties involved, including the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service, such as the freedom of expression, freedom and pluralism of the media, and other fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Charter.” Art 34 1(b) states that VLOPs and VLOSEs (very large search engines) “shall diligently identify, analyse and assess any systemic risks in the Union stemming from the design or functioning of their service and its related systems, including algorithmic systems, or from the use made of their services […] This risk assessment shall be specific to their services and proportionate to the systemic risks, taking into consideration their severity and probability, and shall include the following systemic risks: (a) the dissemination of illegal content through their services; (b) any actual or foreseeable negative effects for the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular…, to freedom of expression and information, including the freedom and pluralism of the media, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter […].[4]

In the context of the DSA, freedom of expression and information, as well as freedom and pluralism of the media, are interpreted as key criteria that operators must consider both when defining platform terms of service and when assessing system risks to fundamental values, risks that must be addressed through appropriate mitigation measures (article 35 DSA).[5]
 
Some reflections on the connections between the DSA, EMFA and RoL Report
What has been discussed so far, leaves several open questions. If media plurality is the guiding concept highlighted in the RoL Report and EMFA, what is the corresponding concept that providers of intermediary services must reflect in their terms and conditions under the DSA? And on what basis do VLOPs and VLOSEs conduct risk assessments under Article 34? What mitigation measures are expected under Article 35 DSA?
Does Article 34, in connection with Article 45 (Codes of conduct) and 37 (Audit), imply that media pluralism is effectively defined by the Codes of Conduct that platforms signed to limit the spread of disinformation online and by the platform commitments in there? If so, is that sufficient to ensure (or mitigate risks for) a genuinely pluralistic media environment?
At present, the reports of these VLOPs and VLOSEs offer limited insight into how these risks are assessed or addressed, and this raises further questions. For instance, Meta, in its 2024 report, does not take into account media pluralism, but seems to include it in the category of “fundamental rights”, which, with this interpretation, also encompasses other different rights mentioned in art 34. Also the Google report mentions media pluralism and defines it with examples “e.g., the plurality, polarisation, and diversity of perspectives available”. X refers to media freedom and pluralism, hinting at the fact that “personalisation of recommendation content ” could, in some circumstances, also contribute to information bubbles, limiting users’ access to pluralistic sources of information. While this could happen within our platform, it is also a persisting risk in the wider ecosystem of social media platforms”.[6]
In other terms, risk assessments for media freedom and pluralism conducted by VLOPs as a form of due diligence may be inherently subjective. Consequently, if Articles 34 and 35 are applied either too broadly or aggressively, they have the potential to influence the media sphere, unchecked by the safeguards of Article 18 of the EMFA, which does not apply when Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA are implemented. Consequently, they are only weakly constrained by the audit obligations to which platforms are subject.
While digital platforms undoubtedly play a central role in shaping today’s public discourse, entrusting them with the task of assessing and mitigating systemic risks to media pluralism opens to multiple outcomes. One risk is on the one hand VLOPS and VLOSEs undermining the need to address the issue in the risk assessment, on the other, to interpret media pluralism in a way that is not consistent with the general conceptualisation of media pluralism; undermining the role of states as the “ultimate guarantors” of a pluralistic media environment, delegate in any case the definition of media pluralism to the very large intermediaries, and potentially interfere in the media market structure.
It must be noted, nonetheless, that both art 14 and article 34 DSA refer to “to freedom of expression and information, including the freedom and pluralism of the media” “enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter”. This can be considered a safeguard and a stronger link to the Court of Justice’s interpretation of the concept.
 
References
[1] recital 60 “Such measures can take various forms, for example rules to limit the ownership of media undertakings by other undertakings active in the media sector or non-media related sectors. They also include decisions related to licensing, such as revoking or making more difficult the renewal of media service providers’ licences, and decisions related to the authorisation or prior notification of media service providers.”. recital 62”Media market concentrations are assessed differently across the Union from a media pluralism standpoint. The rules and procedures related to the assessment of media market concentrations vary across the Union.”
[2] See also Recital 8 and the referral to the rights of the recipients to enjoy “pluralistic media content produced in accordance with editorial freedom in the internal market. That is key to fostering public discourse and civic participation, as a broad range of reliable sources of information and quality journalism empowers citizens to make informed choices, including about the state of their democracies. It is also essential for cultural and linguistic diversity in the Union, given the role of media services as carriers of cultural expression. Member States should respect the right to a plurality of media content and contribute to an enabling media environment by making sure that relevant framework conditions are in place.”
[3] For a detailed analysis, Ottavio Grandinetti Quale nozione di pluralismo nell’EMFA?, RIID, 2024 https://www.rivistaitalianadiinformaticaediritto.it/index.php/RIID/article/view/271/212
[4] In point 21 of the Communication from the Commission C/2024/3014   Commission Guidelines for providers of Very Large Online Platforms and Very Large Online Search Engines on the mitigation of systemic risks for electoral processes pursuant to Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, taking into account risks to electoral processes, the Commission suggests VLOPs and VLOSEs to take into account independent analyses such as the Media Pluralism Monitor. Point 49 also refers to the EMFA (what is now art 18) as a way to enhance the availability of trustworthy information from pluralistic sources. This includes the collaboration amongst stakeholders to identify  “Independent news media service providers and organisations with well-established internal editorial standards and procedures” that “are widely regarded as trusted sources of information”.
[5] The AI Act does not mention media pluralism. For a more detailed analysis, see Rosa Maria Torraco, Risk in the Digital Services Act and AI Act: implications for media freedom, pluralism, and disinformation https://cmpf.eui.eu/risk-in-the-digital-services-act-and-ai-act-implications-for-media-freedom-pluralism-and-disinformation/
[6] all the reports can be found here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12hJWpCFmHJMQQlz1qkd6OgGsMW82YcsWgJHXD7BHVps/edit?gid=0#gid=0