Why we should all be alarmed by Hungary’s latest assault on independent media

In the complicated, often contradictory patchwork of European politics, language matters.

So when a government dresses up repression in the finery of democracy, invoking concepts like “transparency” and “public interest”, we should be suspicious.

Hungary’s newly proposed “On the Transparency of Public Life” Bill, now being rammed through its parliament by prime minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party, is a case study in Orwellian doublethink.

At first glance, the Bill might appear a wonkish set of amendments to existing public accountability laws. Indeed, it is the latest in a long line of calculated moves aimed at dismantling the last remnants of Hungary’s independent media and silencing civil society.

A handful of billionaires and a million artists in penury: big tech’s effect on culture, and what you can do about it

Jeff Bezos has made a sacrificial offering of the Washington Post. A once-great newspaper is dying in darkness

As it turns 100, meet the most reliable New Yorker you’ll ever encounter

The proposed legislation purports to increase public trust and combat misinformation, but its real objective is to bring all public discourse – including everything which occurs outside the already Fidesz-captured state media – under government control.

The Bill’s language is intentionally slippery. It targets what it calls “foreign-influenced” organisations and “unaccountable” media actors, allowing for investigations and sanctions against groups and individuals who, in the government’s view, “distort public life”. The vagueness is the point. The net is cast wide enough to catch investigative journalists, non-governmental organisations, independent academic researchers, and indeed anyone who dares to question the government’s narrative.

The legislation is widely seen as part of a renewed push by Orbán against independent voices, prompted by the rare prospect of a real threat to his 14-year grip on power from opposition leader Péter Magyar at next year’s election.

Over those 14 years, Orbán has systematically reduced the space for dissent in Hungary. State funding has been funnelled into pro-government media conglomerates. Independent outlets have faced advertising boycotts, legal threats and regulatory harassment. Ten years ago the country ranked 40th in the Reporters sans Frontières world press freedom index; it’s now 85th.

So what does “transparency” mean in this context?

It has nothing to do with clarity and everything to do with control. The state declares itself the arbiter of truth, and any deviation from the approved script becomes a threat to “public life”.

The language recalls not liberal democratic principles, but the rhetorical doublespeak of the old Stalinist Soviet bloc. The press, you see, must be “free”, but only so long as it doesn’t undermine “national unity”.

Why should Ireland, or other European Union member states, care?

Because Hungary is not some eccentric outlier, but a test case for how far illiberal democracy can stretch the bounds of EU membership. Each law that goes unchallenged becomes a blueprint for others.

Poland’s media reforms (unlikely to be improved by Sunday’s presidential election result), Slovakia’s creeping judicial overreach and even Italy’s growing pressure on journalists all bear traces of the same anti-pluralist logic.

More than 90 editors-in-chief and publishers from across Europe have signed a statement calling on the EU to take action over the Hungarian Bill, warning that it could result in “effectively outlawing the free press”.

But the bloc’s mechanisms for accountability remain frustratingly slow and politically hesitant. Rule-of-law procedures against Hungary have been dragging on for years. Financial sanctions are diluted through back-room deals.

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which comes into effect across all member states in August. aims to protect media pluralism and independence. It includes measures to safeguard editorial independence, protect journalistic sources and ensure transparency in media ownership.

Hungary launched an unsuccessful legal challenge to the EMFA following its ratification last year, with a spokesperson arguing that it “covers several areas where the union has no legislative competence”.

But it now remains to be seen whether these new and untested regulations are actually effective, whether these will be enforced and what the consequences will be for those who breach them.

Last week, before a meeting with European foreign affairs ministers in Brussels, European Commissioner for democracy, justice, the rule of law and consumer protection Michael McGrath said the Commission had serious concerns about the “transparency” Bill.

“We believe it is a breach of EU law,” he said. “And we have asked the Hungarian government to withdraw that draft law. And in the absence of that happening, and should they proceed to legislate and enact this legislation, we stand ready to use the tools at our disposal.”

Meanwhile, the damage accumulates. The Bill, once passed, will empower a new supervisory authority with wide-ranging powers to investigate and penalise those deemed insufficiently transparent.

You don’t have to squint too hard to see what that will mean for local reporters asking questions about corruption or activists criticising the government’s stance on refugees or LGBTQ+ rights.

Ireland has generally taken a principled stance on media freedom, although successive governments have been painfully slow to reform our draconian defamation laws, with their chilling effect on legitimate inquiry into matters of public interest.

But it’s not enough to nod from the sidelines at what is happening in other member states. The EU must confront the Hungarian government not just in legal terms, but also on the battleground of public opinion. Because if language is allowed to mean its opposite, democracy begins to erode from within.

Transparency, in its true sense, involves allowing the public to scrutinise those in power. Hungary’s government’s Bill reverses this, turning scrutiny on to the public itself under the guise of national interest.

That is not transparency; it is surveillance. And if we do not call it what it is, the danger is not just that Hungary falls deeper into autocracy – it’s that the rest of us get used to it.