Since its establishment, the NMHH has been monitoring and commenting on various international evaluations of the Hungarian media landscape in order to contribute constructive input to a professionally informed and unbiased assessment of the issues involved.

The methodological issues already mentioned in previous year’s comprehensive analysis were, with a few exceptions, also identified in 2024. The criteria for the selection of the persons involved in preparing the different country reports and scoring are not clear.

Freedom House’s reports on Hungary are typically based on the scores of only one Hungarian expert, while Reporters Without Borders fails to provide information on those involved in the scoring. In a number of cases, the publications repeat statements made in previous years outside the period under review.

Overall, the reviewed reports were characterised by a one-sided use of sources. Another shortcoming is that Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report and Reporters Without Borders’ assessments fail to identify their sources.

Once again, it was necessary to point out a number of factual errors in the reports as well as material facts and circumstances omitted by the authors. Examples include Liberties’ false claim that Hungarian media regulation does not prevent the rise of market concentration, and the Media Pluralism Monitor’s assessment of action against hate speech, which gives the false impression that Hungarian regulation fails to grant protection to groups with certain protected characteristics.