Findings from the MeDeMAP research in Portugal
Nuno Cintra Torres – Lusófona University (Portugal)
Many media studies are based on quantitative methods. Some use both qualitative and quantitative methods. MeDeMAP applied an innovative multi-method research design that includes data science methods, large-scale quantitative analyses, in-depth qualitative approaches, and participatory action research. The research encompasses perspectives of both representative and participatory notions of democracy as they exist in European societies. The research produced new insights into the relationship of the Portuguese public with the media and of the media professionals with their audiences.
© Canva
Current research methods and findings
The Reuters Institute of Journalism uses a survey to capture people’s self-reported behaviour based on population samples in 47 countries who answer an online questionnaire. According to the 2024 survey, 56% of the Portuguese trust the news, ranking sixth in the 47 surveyed countries.
Other studies originate rankings based on evaluative criteria questions. The Reporters without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index evaluates five contextual indicators. The ranking is calculated based on a quantitative tally of abuses against media and journalists in connection with their work and a qualitative analysis of the situation in each country or territory based on the responses of press freedom specialists to an RSF questionnaire. In a universe of 180 countries, in 2024, Portugal ranks very high, in seventh place. The report considers that “freedom of the press is robust in Portugal. Journalists can report without restrictions, but face economic, legal and security challenges.”
The European University Institute EUI Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom is a research tool designed to identify potential risks to media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union and Candidate Countries. It produces a Monitor that scores risks and offers recommendations in four thematic areas based on data collection, and a standard questionnaire evaluated by a group of experienced researchers, including expert interviews. The Report notes that media literacy in Portugal is high-risk as it is almost absent from the school curriculum. In political independence, Portugal ranks medium-risk, but in state regulation of resources and support to the media, Portugal is low-risk. The gender equality policy in PSM is considered comprehensive, but in contrast with the MeDeMAP findings, in the media overall, it is considered high-risk.
In general, these findings correlate positively with each other and with the preliminary MeDeMAP findings in Portugal.
The MeDeMAP methodology
The MeDeMAP research covers the entire range of news media, regardless of distribution channel, mandate, ownership, and source of financing. The investigation addresses the legal and (self)regulatory framework under which media houses and journalism operate and how people use media, the media’s potential to promote and support political participation (supply side), as well as media use patterns, communication needs, and democratic attitudes of the audiences (demand side) in the ten EU countries covered by the project.
The research in Portugal followed the protocols established by the multinational research team: Interviews with regulators and analysis of the regulatory framework; interviews with significant samples of journalists and media managers representing the media supply side; interviews with individuals and with well-balanced focus groups representing the audience – the demand side. In some participating countries, the citizen parliament research method is also used.
Extensive regulation
The media in Portugal is a thoroughly regulated sector, leading to the “robust” RSF classification and low-risk in the EUI evaluation. The legislative foundation is the 1976 Constitution (revised several times) that reestablished democracy in Portugal. Article 38 guarantees freedom of the press, of expression, and journalistic creativity. Apart from specific legal diplomas addressing social communication, journalists must observe several other diplomas, namely the Civil Code, that covers topics such as the right to one’s good name, image and privacy, and the Penal Code that covers areas such as defamation (which is still a crime and not a civil law contravention) or against private life, cultural identity, or espionage. The Journalist’s Statute defines who is a journalist (only those with a steady and remunerated profession), the journalist’s rights and duties, including access to official sources of information, and rights such as to professional secrecy and independence. Other diplomas establish how to become a journalist and to obtain the accreditation indispensable to practising the profession.
Particularly relevant is the social communication regulator (ERC), a public law, independent entity that oversees whether contents comply with the medium’s self-ascribed remit, with the law and imposes fines or corrections. Its vast ambit includes cultural pluralism, diversity, free diffusion of contents, protection of sensitive publics, editorial journalistic rigour, rights of consumers and individuals. ERC must also promote media self- and co-regulation. The regulator imposes media ownership transparency via a publicly available portal. The diploma in electronic communications is relevant to the creation and operation of TV or radio channels and is regulated by ANACOM. The Competition Authority (AdC) is another sector-relevant regulator.
Journalists and audiences: Perceptions mismatch
One of MeDeMAP’s main findings emerging from interviews with journalists in Portugal is the notable mismatch between the perceptions and expectations of news producers and news consumers. Journalists have their work in high regard, as rigorous, factual, deontologically abiding. Audiences diverge. Despite unanimously and vigorously considering that a free press is of the essence to democracy, many in the focus groups representing the audiences feel disempowered, mistrustful, truth-deprived, confused, facts-less. They complain that the media does not care for local and personal situations and grievances, even though nationwide everyday life events are abundantly covered by TV news broadcasts, in particular by the several news channels and are a specialty of the tabloid press. It is contended that the nation’s present and future are painted dark because the picture emerging from TV coverage is not in general positive: it is tainted by the “bad news is good news” sensationalist business principle.
The journalists’ view
MeDeMAP’s sample representing the media – journalists and media managers — revealed two main views that coexist and support each other.
The first is moral/ethical notions, such as rigour, credibility, honesty, truth, open-mindedness, and independence. These principles and standards are deemed fundamental in journalism. The need for independence and credibility is vividly mentioned by those working in public service media. Honesty in reporting is also frequently mentioned as a personal standard motivating professional choices, but one that could lead to ethical dilemmas. Journalism ethics, as laid down by the Journalists Union’s deontological code, is often invoked as a guiding principle.
The second is practicalities grounded and justified by moral notions. Factuality is a widely shared principle applied by different methods of fact-checking conducted either by a separate department or by the editorial hierarchy through chains of editors or the journalists themselves. Scarce time and financing limit investigative journalism, in inverse proportion to the shrinking of newsrooms and the increased speed of news delivery.
Encouraging the public debate is seen by journalists as interlaced with facilitating political participation, sometimes envisioned as a single journalistic mission alongside the pipeline of journalistic production.
Political pressure on journalism is not a concern (“we do our journalism in peace”), and censorship is absent. Of concern is the financial pressure holding back the development of quality products such as investigative journalism. Journalists complain that original reporting is overcome by cheaper formats based on an increasing number of non-journalist commentators, mostly on TV, mixing facts with opinions or inaccuracies that may negatively influence trust in journalism.
Journalists acknowledged the lack of financing as the greatest risk to media pluralism in Portugal. The lack of sustainable financial models and strategies created a “vicious circle” of problems influencing the quality and independence of the industry. The harsh working conditions nudge seasoned professionals to leave the profession because of financial precarity and mental health hazards. Unanimously, journalists from all types of outlets agree on the vital role of journalism as democracy’s “backbone”.
The performative function of journalism is acknowledged in some cases. It is assumed that journalism can influence the political outcome of specific events. Journalism collects knowledge about the present and keeps memories about the past. The mediating function is explicitly stated. The journalist is responsible for providing context and nuance, to transmit knowledge about complex issues of contemporary societies and to spark the debate. Journalists should offer audiences the opportunity to make better-informed decisions. Information empowers citizens, and without an informed society, democracy is unsustainable, as argued by all the interviewees.
The audience’s view
The focus groups’ participants recognize that life in Portugal is much better than 50 years ago, despite problems like housing and low wages. The general, vehement view is that the media are important to society and that without free media there would not be democracy.
This positive view of the societal and political role of the media contrasts with a common complaint regarding what is claimed to be a negative outlook, tainted by sensationalism, of the present and the future presented by the media. In line with the Reuters study, although only recognised by a minority of participants, broadcast TV continues to be the major news source for most. Newspapers, whether print or online, occupy an eventual secondary place after an entity referred to as the “Internet”, a medium considered faster and more efficient than TV. This view of the importance of the Internet seems overplayed. As the Reuters study also shows, the Internet is still a source of information for only a minority of the public.
The focus groups revealed a consistent pattern of self-reliance in the search for “truth” by comparing freely available headlines and news leads posted on the Internet by all media types, mostly from supposedly trusted brands. Participants conceded that this process is fallible and unnerving as the complete news stories are available only to subscribers. One said that “the algorithm is a dreadful service to democracy”. Some in the groups argued that the media should be more impartial. A confirmatory bias is noticed, although it is acknowledged that “journalists have no time to think.”
The low level of trust expressed by many in the MeDeMAP focus groups does not correlate with the high level of trust in the news expressed by Portuguese audiences that was found by Reuters, but it conforms with the downward trend found by that study: Portugal still occupies the sixth place in 47 countries, but trust in news continues a downward path since 2022.
Some quotes highlight the frame of mind of many. “For a start, I don’t trust anything”, said one participant, expressing a common view. Another said she must do “an effort not to be cheated”. Another claimed that “everything is spectacle” and “TV channels are financed by morbid curiosity to attract more ad revenue”. The ad-supported business model is not well understood or is promptly dismissed: “The media say important things, but they don’t ask questions because they are part of large business groups”, so that “they are profitable”. Some argue that there is “too much politics”, others “ponder that although “everybody has a mobile phone, it is full of crappy news”. The results show that the participants often consider that content supplied by traditional or new media can be misleading, as it does not specifically address the actual story but works only as clickbait. “We become paralysed with ‘global news’, proximity media is needed”, one said. Another noted that “so much information serves no purpose”. But another acknowledged that “international politics have great influence” in Portugal.
A generalised fear of participating in political debate is acknowledged by many. People should be more politically proactive. Participatory activities in schools should be promoted, and politics explained. Of major importance is the context provided by the family: if the political debate is missing from the conversation, it reflects negatively on the participation of young people in politics. The acknowledgment of widespread illiteracy and that “people lack instruction” are views shared by many.