Hungary

Hungary is a Central European EU and NATO member state with its capital in Budapest. It also has a parliamentary republic form of government. Over the last decade, Hungary has become a key case study in democratic backsliding and "media capture," where political power and business interests reshape it's information environment through forms of regulation, ownerships and state resources. Freedom House currently rates Hungary as "partly free" with a 65/100 overall and partly free with 69/100 on internet freedom which is a great contrast for the United States. The US is generally higher but there is still a debate when it comes to how free the US actually is because of legal speech protection and media competition.

Theory of the Press

I would say that out of the four theories of press, Hungary most closely resembles with Authoritarian / leans more towards it rather than a Libertarian or Social Responsibility model. In an Authoritarian press system, media is allowed to  exist privately but the state ultimately shapes what is safe, rewarded or even punished. This is controlled through licensing, regulatory pressure, state advertising and also selective access. 

Hungary's landscape reflects this logic through high concentration of pro government media and strong political influences over the public broadcaster and environment. Reporters Without Borders described a highly concentrated that points to the role of the KESMA foundation and notes that independent outlets still exist but they operate under pressure. Basically, Hungary still has journalism but the overall system tilts heavily toward government aligned narratives. This aligns with the authoritarian theory and emphasizes media influencing the political center of power. 

photo credit: Theory of Press

Print Media (Hungary vs US)

Hungary: Print has been hit by global trends but it's distinctive feature is who fills the gap. Media Landscapes notes that a transformation in ownership as foreign investors left and domestic actors bought outlets, shifting the structure of the market. The research tracking market reach has argued that the government influences large shares of daily and regional print. This matters because local and regional news can strongly shape political opinions (especially if that's all you're seeing). 

US: the US also has local news decline and consolidation problems but it still operates under a strong constitutional press. This is basically the first amendment and it limits the government from being able to have direct control/influence over the press. In contrast to Hungary,  the government in the US can't control the media to influence the public for political influence.

references:

Euromedia

Radio 

Hungary: Audience reach analyses suggest that Hungary's government has a very strong influence over radio. This fits authoritarian style control because radio is a licensing dependent and can be shaped through regulatory decisions. The government controls this sector by limiting negative government opinions and will instead make sure that only pro government takes are released to the public.

US:  U.S radio is a little different but is still influenced commercially. The regulation is built around licensing in the public interest rather than alignment with the ruling party. Politics and businesses still matter but still regulated through legal ways.

References:

 

 

Congress

Television

Hungary: In this country, television is still very influential. Media Landscapes lists a large public TV portfolio and the "public service" sector has a ton of criticism for pro government biases. Again, because it is mainly under government control, television can have elements to sway public opinion, making the country leaned towards an Authoritarian structure. 

US: The US has a more competitive TV structure compared to Hungary because of broadcasting,  cable and streaming services. While political polarization is dramatic, government doesn't own the dominant news infrastructure. Regulation runs through the FCC's licensing authority and still has to operate within the First Amendment. Meaning that there is a very strict regulation that prevents intentional censorship to gain political siding.

photo credit: tv

Cinema 

Hungary: Hungary is a major production hub and is helped by a state supported incentive system. This means that a 30% rebate framework is administered through state structures. However, the state centered funding can also create cultural gatekeeping. Reporting has described that there is a split between international production while some independent filmmakers struggle to secure state support. This raises concerns that cultural funding can also shape what stories get told, regardless if credible or not.

US: The film industry is very different in the US. It is driven primarily by private capital and large studios and recently, streamers. Political  pressure still exists but the state funding is less influential as to whether or not a movie gets made and released or not. Because of private capital, businesses that are already dominant ex. Warner Bros, are the ones that can make films based on their own budget without really relying on the state to fund them.

Internet Freedom 

Hungary: In this category, Hungary differs from the United States but not too much. With Freedom House rating it as "Partly Free" with a 69/100. What Freedom House means is that most people can go online and the government doesn't just arrest people just for posting online. However, the government still influences what information people can see and is influences in ways like blocking certain websites, promoting pro government voices and using laws, and ownership to favor preferred outlets. So Hungary's internet is "managed" because the government doesn't just shut down everything but it does guide and control the online environment, shaping public opinion without making it too obvious.

US: The US actually has a rating of 84/100, making it rated as "Free." This means that the government generally doesn't block websites,  criticism is allowed to exist in the media without fear of arrest and social media operates independently. However, what sets it from being 100/100 is that content moderation exists so platforms can remove or allow certain content, Law enforcement also surveils the online environment and can use incriminating posts as evidence. Finally,  harassment from others can make people hesitant to even want to post online. Basically, just because the US is open and legally protected, social pressures, platform rules and security policies can still discourage people to speak but this is very different from direct government control.

photo credit: Freedom

Pros and Cons of each System

Hungary's media can produce coordinated messaging and narratives across platforms can be aligned which is something that governments defend as promoting stability or order. The cons is that heavy political influence can reduce journalism, narrow viewpoint diversity, and make it harder for citizens to evaluate who is good to vote for in power. Also, credible information can be censored out if the government decides that it doesn't want it to be spread which could be scary if there is a corrupt leader. Hungary's partly free scores show this limited online environment and the space is not completely neutral.

The US media system benefits from having tons of strong constitutional protections and a large market that makes it harder for one political group to dominate all information.  However, the downsides are a little different than Hungary's.  There are concentrated corporate ownership in some categories, polarization and uneven news coverage can still distort the publics understanding. In other words, Hungary's main risk is political capture but the US's main risk is market driven distortion.