Once again, several methodological shortcomings can be identified in the documents. The question still arises as to what extent the reports allow for a pluralistic assessment of the media landscape, given that in many cases only one expert or organization was involved in the scoring process and the compilation of the reports, whereas in other cases the individuals involved in this process are not known. It is also criticisable that the publications examined do not always cite their sources or ensure the use of diverse sources to represent different viewpoints.

In addition, factual errors and subjective expressions of opinion can also be found in the 2025 reports. The publications continue to question the independence of the NMHH and the Media Council, despite the fact that the Media Law guarantees the independence of both bodies. Furthermore, the state of media pluralism was criticized again, even though, as indicated in the Media Market Report published by NMHH, there are numerous media outlets in Hungary representing a variety of different viewpoints among the most significant market players. The current report of Media Pluralism Monitor inaccurately presents the requirements of the European Union’s Digital Services Act regarding the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies. The professional credibility of Reporters Without Borders and the Safety of Journalists Platform is weakened by the fact that they compare the Hungarian media landscape with countries that they themselves consider to be in a much worse situation, citing serious abuses that even affect the freedom and physical integrity of journalists in their cases.

Given that the findings and conclusions of the reports often serve as a reference point for institutions, experts, public figures and the general public who form opinions on the subject, it is important that the public receive accurate information on certain aspects of media freedom, to which the NMHH hopes to contribute with this assessment.