Freedom of expression and freedom of the media

Participants believed that the legal framework on freedom of expression and media freedom was good, but that significant challenges persisted in the area of socio-economic developments. They believed that the media sector suffered from a lack of funding, which was leading to a real crisis affecting quality and investigative journalism and favouriting commercialism and sensationalism, despite the existence of a solid code of ethics for journalists that guide the profession. The current economic model was considered unsustainable for the media, given recent developments such as the increasing 4/7 costs of production, the scarcity of porters to deliver newspapers, or the local "news deserts" characterised not only by the disappearance of local media, but also of media points of sale. The Portuguese authorities acknowledged the issues faced by the media sector, while noting that such challenges were global. They explained that public funding was available to support regional media and delivering newspapers and magazines to subscribers.

One participant explained that the media sector was highly regulated in Portugal. It was considered that the Portuguese Regulatory Authority for the Media's scope to take action was limited by the nomination process of its regulatory board, which was de facto in the hands of the two main political forces that had dominated the parliament for decades. This situation had apparently created a one-year gap between the end of term of the previous board and the installation of the next. One participant explained that several key provisions of the European Media Freedom Act, such as transparency of ownership and the participation of journalists in editorial decisions, were already in effect in Portugal. They also expressed fears that the organisation of media regulators at EU level would lead to a topdown decision-making model.

Like elsewhere in Europe, journalists' socio-economic situation was characterised by poor working conditions, precarious labour contracts and low remuneration, especially when considered alongside the social responsibility they carried in democratic societies. The rise of extremist discourses had also brought into question the legitimacy of journalists' work, with examples presented of politicians insulting journalists. Cases of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) also contributed to the rise of self-censorship. One participant pointed to an example of a more explicit attempt to limit journalistic work in the case of a sport journalist summoned to the disciplinary board of the Portuguese Football Federation for having asked a question which was not directly related to the game that was being discussed in the interview. The Portuguese authorities acknowledged individual difficulties faced by journalists, while still noting that the country was a very safe place compared to others, as indicated by the low number of cases reported to the Council of Europe platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.

The increasingly difficult access to public documents was another issue that was raised. It was explained that a journalist who is refused access to a public document by the authorities could turn to the commission for access to administrative documents. However, public authorities were not bound by the decisions given by that commission, which sometimes left journalists to appeal to courts as a last resort. It came to light that recourse to courts to counter refusal of access to public documents had never been so high. A parallel phenomenon also mentioned was the tendency for public authorities and politicians to limit their responses to journalists. One-sided "declarations" had started to replace traditional press conferences, which usually end with Q&A sessions. The Portuguese authorities considered that the right to access public documents benefitted from strong legal protection covering all administrations, with only limited legitimate exceptions.

It was considered that the difficult situation facing the media not only stemmed from the media providers themselves but was also due to audiences' lack of awareness and education on and interest in important principles, such as the difference between facts and opinions, the protection of sources, and the verification of information. A more demanding audience and more qualitative journalism were needed, however current economic models – for example paid subscriptions for quality online news – had become barriers to information for the majority of the population. Some participants shared best 5/7 practices in the area, including projects allowing journalists to teach media literacy to the populations most prone to becoming victim to fake news, such as the younger and older populations. Participants also discussed the importance of increasing literacy and safeguards in the area of online algorithms and privacy rights online, such as the right to be forgotten. The Portuguese authorities indicated that they took the global disinformation problem very seriously, and that they promoted media literacy through several channels, including awareness campaigns, an informal group on media literacy involving several institutions, and an amendment to the audio-visual law putting more obligations on the broadcaster in that area.