The International Research and Exchanges Board's (IREX) Media Sustainability Index (MSI) is a tool to evaluate the global development of independent media. The MSI is one of the most important indices "to assess how media systems change over time and across borders", in addition to the Freedom of the Press Index compiled by Freedom House and the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders. In 2018, IREX launched a dynamic data platform, the Media Sustainability Explorer, that enables users to analyze and examine data from all years of the Europe and Eurasia MSI and to compare data trends across time, MSI objectives, regions and individual countries.
Framework The Media Sustainability Index (MSI) was elaborated by the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2001. Since then annual reports about “the development of media systems over time and across countries” have been published. The reports rate independent media sustainability in 80 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe and Eurasia and the Middle East and North Africa. The reports not only contain ratings, but also “an extensive Executive Summary of regional findings as well as individual country reports”. However, not all regions have been evaluated from the beginning. The Middle East and North Africa were added in 2005 and the Africa MSI was launched in 2007. The MSI does not gauge Western Europe or the United States. The surveys are funded by USAID, the US state department, UNESCO, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the People Technology Foundation. "Sustainability" within this concept "refers to the ability of media to play its vital role as the ‘fourth estate’". In other words, it relates to a media system that provides citizens with "useful, timely and objective information" and as well to a media system that can operate free and independent without political, legal, social or economic restrictions. Furthermore, it refers to a media system in which journalists have professional standards. And to a system where everybody has the right of free speech and access to information as the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says. With the aid of the MSI an international comparison of the independence and/or sustainability of media systems is possible. An international comparison allows policymakers to parse media systems and examine the areas in which media development assistance can advance citizens’ access to news and information. Moreover, the results of the MSI provide essential information for the media, their representatives and outlets and inform them as well as the civil society and the governments of the strengths and weaknesses of each country.
Methodology
Scoring system The MSI uses five fundamental objectives to assess to what extent a media system is independent, sustainable and successful. The five objectives are:
"Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information. Journalism meets professional standards of quality. Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable, objective news. Media are well-managed enterprises, allowing editorial independence. Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of independent media". These five objectives are the most central aspects of a sustainable and independent media system. Under each of these objectives are seven to nine indicators defining how well a country achieves that objective. Each indicator is scored from 0 to 4.
A country scoring 0 does not fulfill the indicator and there might be forces holding back the implementation of the objective. Score 1 signifies the country slightly reaches the characteristics of the indicator. That means the government or other forces do not actively combat its implementation, but business environment do not foster it and also government or profession do not entirely support the progress. Score 2 implies that the country accomplishes many aspects of the indicator, but it is too early to evaluate the development. The country could still depend for example on present political forces. Score 3 connotes that the country reaches most features of the indicator. Implementation of the indicator has appeared over a number of years and/or during changes in government. The score refers to likely sustainability. Score 4 is the best score a panelist can give. It means the country fulfils all characteristics of the indicator. Implementation has endured intact over several changes in government and/or economy, shifts in public opinion and social conventions. The scores for the indicators are then averaged to generate a single score for each objective. Next the five objectives’ scores are averaged to produce a final score for every country. In a following step the final score is interpreted as shown below:
0 - 1.00 = unsustainable, anti-free: Country does not reach or just slightly reaches objectives. Government and legislation actively holding back free media development. Country has little professionalism and low media-industry activity. 1.01 - 2.00 = unsustainable mixed system: Country marginally approaches objectives. Country has parts of a legal system, government is against a free media system, but there is obvious improvement in free-press advocacy and increasing professionalism. To evaluate sustainability one must continue to observe the development of new media businesses. 2.01 - 3.00 = near sustainability: Country approaches multiple objectives concerning legal norms, professionalism and a business environment supporting independent media. Improvements have survived shifts in government and have been established in law and practice. Nevertheless, the country needs more time to guarantee that change and to maintain the increased professionalism and the still young media business environment. 3.01 - 4.00 = sustainable: The media in the country is assumed to be professional, free and sustainable, or approaches these objectives almost. The systems fostering free media are still extant after several governments, after an unsteady economy and after changes in civic opinion or social conventions.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
