Changes in media legislation are only partially pro-European

The amendments to the Law on Media, which are currently in the second reading phase in Parliament and have passed the competent committee’s review, aim, as the Government and the responsible ministry have written, to fulfill the Roadmap for Reforms under Chapter 23 and align the law with European legislation, including, for the first time, online media outlets within the regulated sphere. Although the latest amendments have addressed some of the demands raised during public hearings, they still represent only a partial harmonization with European legislation, and therefore only a partial solution

 

Author: Teofil Blazhevski

 

The amendments to the Law on Media, currently in the second reading phase in Parliament, relate mostly to the inclusion of online media outlets in the legislation, something that has been requested by online media owners themselves, but is also a part of modern European legislation, specifically the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).

 

After this topic was raised, which was primarily pushed during the previous government by portals affiliated with the Association for the Protection and Promotion of Internet Media ONLINEMEDIA.MK, but also after both journalist associations and the Macedonian Trade Union of Journalists and Media Workers (SSNM) shifted from the position that there was no need to regulate internet porals (a position also held by the EU until a few years ago), the Ministry of Digital Transformation (MDT) prepared amendments to the Law on Media. These amendments were prepared towards the end of last year, but after guild organizations and experts requested a public debate, the process lasted until March. Since then, the proposal for amendments has been submitted to Parliament, where it passed the competent committee’s review yesterday (14.04.) and are now expected to be adopted at a plenary session.

 

What should be achieved with these changes?

The main amendment to this law is the inclusion of online media outlets as regulated entities with rights and responsibilities, along with the establishment of a Register of Online Media Outlets, which will be managed by the AVMU regulator under this legal framework.

However, one of the main goals of the law is to guarantee freedom of expression and media freedom, which fall under fundamental rights, more specifically, the first cluster in the EU negotiation process, “Fundamentals.” In the introduction to the proposed amendments, the Government, as the proposer, stated:

The adoption of the amendments to the legal solution will comply with the recommendations outlined in the Roadmap for Rule of Law, which covers the key reform priorities in “Chapter 23—Judiciary and Fundamental Rights,” specifically in the area of freedom of expression. The implementation of the recommendations contained in European policies will enable increased transparency of online media outlets regarding ownership, advertising, and financing, improved competitiveness, the protection of editorial independence, and enhanced rights for journalists. In this way, online media outlets will exercise all the rights, as well as the obligations, of all other media outlets.

 

 

Is this true?

The answer to this question is: only partially. This is supported by experts from both the SSNM and NGOs, who, along with the AJM, demanded that there be no partial solutions, as well as by part of the NGO sector who participated in some of the public debates.

 

Snezhana Trpevska from the RESIS Institute, an expert on media policy, told us that the changes are only partial, and that the alignment with European legislation, specifically with the EMFA which came into force in May last year, is also partial or minimal. As supporting arguments, Trpevska states:

 

• The definition of online media outlets is not aligned with the EMFA, nor with the Law on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services. Both the EMFA and the Law on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services refer to “media service providers,” whereas the current terminology still uses “media publishers.”
• There are no provisions for the protection of pluralism (Article 22 of the EMFA)–because the concentration of ownership in the online sector is not regulated (the provisions in the Law on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services are outdated and do not apply to the online sector).
• There are no provisions to protect journalists in newsrooms from arbitrary interference by media owners and directors, nor are there guarantees for their working status (Article 6.3 of the EMFA).
• There are no obligations for media owners to report conflicts of interest (Article 6.3 of the EMFA).
• There are no provisions protecting journalists from digital surveillance–spyware (Article 4 of the EMFA).

In addition, Trpevska notes that the competent ministry (MDT), despite announcements, is uncertain whether work will even begin on new legislation that would be consistent with and implement the remaining provisions of the EMFA. These include: Safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media providers (Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 EMFA), Assessment of media market concentrations (Article 22 of EMFA), Content of media service providers on very large online platforms (Article 18 of EMFA)…

In fact, this stems from the Roadmap for the Implementation of Rule of Law-Related Reforms itself, in which the Government, in its December 2023 version, set a deadline of 2028 for these changes:

The amendments to the various laws, adopted in different phases, will regulate online media outlets, the position of the national broadcasting service, the legal protection of journalists, social and labor rights, competitiveness, sustainability, and pluralism, etc. (until 2028), states the Roadmap, which was adopted by the Parliament but, according to the latest information, is now in the process of revision.

The SSNM expressed satisfaction that the Government has acknowledged their concern that requiring three permanent employees as a condition for entry into the Register of Online Media could jeopardize the existence of many outlets, particularly at the local level. As a result, the requirement is being amended through a group of MPs to reduce the number to two permanent employees, with an exception allowing one permanent and one part-time employee for local and specialized media outlets—defined as “media outlets with a small and/or specialized scope.” However, they also highlight the partial nature of this solution:

SSNM is pleased that in the end our requests for changes and amendments to the Law on Media were accepted. These changes are, above all, significant and of great importance for local media outlets that are in an unenviable situation and face serious challenges, but also for non-profit, specialized media outlets, and community media outlets. However, we emphasize once again that in order to seriously improve the situation, it is necessary to open a complete, inclusive process of drafting a completely new Law on Media that will be harmonized with the European Media Freedom Act and in which definitions will be introduced that will be up to date with technological progress, and even more importantly for us, to strengthen the articles in the law that will strengthen the mechanisms for protecting the labor and professional rights of journalists and media workers, which is the basis for free media that protects the public interest, Pavle Belovski, President of SSNM, told us.

This was also the conclusion after the second panel debate dedicated to the amendments to the law at the end of March, which was attended by over 50 representatives of the NGO sector, relevant media outlets, associations, and experts. However, among the conclusions of these debates that were sent to the responsible ministry, there was also a statement emphasizing “full alignment with European regulations, especially with EMFA,”  as well as that “partial solutions are not sustainable in the long term and it is necessary to draft a completely new Law on Media.”

 

What did Metamorphosis propose?

The Metamorphosis Foundation, as a non-governmental organization that is the publisher of three online media outlets—internet portals, also advocates for a complete solution regarding this issue. In the public debate and in the comments of ENER when the first version of the Draft Amendments to the Law on Media was published, it was stated that Metamorphosis is of the opinion that it is necessary to adopt a new Law on Media, in which all open issues will be comprehensively regulated in accordance with European norms and standards. This means that it is against partial solutions.

On the issue of the number of employees, Metamorphosis maintained the position that if such a requirement is necessary, it should be limited to a maximum of two employees. However, the organization also emphasized that the legislator should be aware this puts local and specialized media outlets at risk, and therefore an exception should be made:

The publisher of information content in the form of text, audio, or audiovisual format through an online media outlet–an internet portal can by exception have only one employee in a regular employment relationship, if their address and daily work takes place in the municipalities and regions of the Republic of North Macedonia outside of Skopje, that is, fall under the category of local or regional media outlets or deal with information content intended for vulnerable categories of citizens and groups, which are of general public interest, it is stated in the comments submitted to ENER by Metamorphosis at the end of November 2025.

There are other arguments in these proposals (such as the need for the definition of online media outlets to include their social media profiles due to compliance with the DSA), which you can read HERE.

Moreover, the Government, in its 2025 Program (pp. 29-30), has foreseen that the MDT will submit to Parliament in April a Draft Law on Digital Services, which is part of the Reform Agenda for Harmonization with the EU and the DSA. However, the draft cannot be found either on ENER or through an online search in Parliament.

Finally, the EU also emphasized the importance of comprehensive harmonization, rather than partial solutions regarding media outlets, in its reports from both 2023 (p. 11) and 2024 (p. 7).

All comments and remarks regarding this and other Vistinomer articles, correction and clarification requests as well as suggestions for fact-checking politicians’ statements and political parties’ promises can be submitted by using this form