Media Sustainability Index

[2] Since then annual reports about “the development of media systems over time and across countries” [3] have been published.

[6] The surveys are funded by USAID, the US state department, UNESCO, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the People Technology Foundation.

[7] "Sustainability" within this concept "refers to the ability of media to play its vital role as the ‘fourth estate’".

With the aid of the MSI an international comparison of the independence and/or sustainability of media systems is possible.

[11] The MSI uses five fundamental objectives to assess to what extent a media system is independent, sustainable and successful.

The recruited experts represent a broad range of local media workers (editors, reports, owners, managers, media development workers) of urban and rural populations, of the main local ethnic groups in addition to representatives from different geographic regions as well as representatives from academia, NGO’s and the legal field.

[22][23][24] All panelists receive the objectives, the indicators with descriptions and an explanation of how the scoring is done correctly.

[28] This means it is not possible to compare the development of the media environment in the surveyed countries at the same time within one year.

So the panelists score the questions of the Freedom of the Press Index with a different number of points.

For example, Becker and Vlad found out that although the indices pretend to measure different concepts (sustainable media vs. press freedom) they have a high average correlation (*Pearson r .87) across the years 2001 to 2007.

So press freedom is definitely one condition for a sustainable media system and therefore it becomes evident that the indices examine much the same phenomenon.

To find out what questions of the two indices really match and measure the same issues, the questionnaires need to be regarded in more detail.

Private and public news sources, niche reporting and programming, local, national and international information as well as social interests and minority languages should be reflected.

The MSI relates more to the person who is defamed and what they can do to prevent libeling (e.g. public officials are held to higher standards, must prove falsity).

This is just one example for the fact that the MSI as well as the Freedom of the Press Index sometimes ask two questions in one, which makes it difficult for the panelists to score.

Both indices ask if media ownership and concentration allows transparency so that consumers are able to judge the content and have access to different points of view.

By contrast the MSI indicator deals more with a fair and law-based distribution of subsidies and advertising that promotes editorial independence.

Whereas the MSI indicators include independent broadcasting ratings and market researches and its duties, the question of the Freedom of the Press Index includes independent media regulatory bodies like the communications council.

They divide production and distribution in their different branches like media equipment, newsprint, and printing facilities, kiosks, transmitters, cable, Internet, mobile.

In contrast the Freedom of the Press Index does not divide production and distribution in different branches and here again the question is asked in a direct way in order to get an exact answer to what it wants to measure: the restrictions.

These questions examine to what extent the state, politicians or others affect or influence the media content and diversity.

Generally speaking, the Freedom of the Press Index operates with more direct questions and on a more restrictive level.

This concept of the freedom of the press must be seen together with "the legal environment for the media, political pressures that influence reporting, and economic factors that affect access to information".

[48] So the Freedom of the Press Index also includes for example questions about independent judiciary, censorship and the impact of the overall economic stability on the media, subjects that are not covered by the MSI.

That means it also focuses on professional standards, quality journalism, trainees for journalists, modern technical facilities for distributing and infrastructure, NGOs supporting free media, and the existence of private media as one can see in table 2.

Therefore, the indices may not fit perfectly in order to access media freedom in countries with a different cultural background.