The European Media Freedom Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/900) became fully applicable in August 2025. Malta issued Legal Notice 175/2025 as implementing measure and established an Office for Advertising and the Media.
Historically, the Broadcasting Act of 1991 abolished the state monopoly over the media and liberalised the market. Subsequently, the two major political parties and the Catholic Church involved themselves in audiovisual production. The liberalisation also led to economic growth, with a significant increase in advertising revenue, and the provision of job opportunities for journalists and broadcasters at private and community stations. As reported by the Media Pluralism Monitor, the lack of oversight on matters of transparency remains an issue till today.
The media sector in Malta is diverse, encompassing public, commercial, and non-profit entities across traditional and new media. Mainly due to data accessibility and keeping in line with previously published international research, the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) for 2024 notes that the plurality of media providers indicator shows a much lower score than in MPM 2023, with 77% as opposed to 94%.
There are no rules on cross-media ownership. The two main political parties own the top radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers, while the Labour Party also has a digital native news website.
There is no single media authority to regulate such matters. The only prohibition is that nationwide radio or television services cannot own, control or be editorially responsible for community radio services, which are peripheral. There are no established concentration caps, except the provision that a single entity can at most control 1 nationwide radio service, 2 generalist TV service stations, 1 nationwide TV service, and 1 radio or TV service predominantly transmitting news and current affairs, as per the Broadcasting Act. The audiovisual market remains dominated by the public broadcaster and partisan TV and radio stations.
Given the limited data availability, the MPM 2024 plurality in digital markets indicator has a score of 86%, which is consistent with MPM2023. Maltese media are compelled to use dominant social media platforms due to their overwhelming popularity, in spite of diminishing, small returns to the media. Based on the limited internationally available data and the Broadcasting Authority’s survey, Google and Meta’s products are the main gateways to news for many people, and only the homepages of the Times of Malta and Lovin Malta compete with social media platforms. For instance, Facebook enjoys ad reach equivalent to two thirds of the total population. The figure for Facebook Messenger represented over half of the total population, while LinkedIn and Instagram had ad reach close to half of the population. Furthermore, competition law in Malta lacks media-specific provisions.
A 2023 Euromedia Ownership Monitor overview of the organisation and ownership structure is available through the 2025 country report.
In terms of the current regulatory framework, the media sector is regulated by the Broadcasting Authority (BA), which enforces the Broadcasting Act, the Electronic Communications (Regulation) Act, and the Media and Defamation Act. These laws govern licensing, ownership restrictions, and content regulation.
All party-controlled media employ Maltese as a primary language of communication, thus showing that politicians are aware of the efficacy of Maltese in reaching out to the largest possible number of people, while the electronic media outlet of the Catholic Church employs both English and Maltese. The market share of these outlets is quite considerable, although it varies with the support levels garnered among the general Maltese population by the entities (political parties and Church) using them as a platform.
Most media outlets have a director, a manager and/or board members who have Maltese citizenship, while most companies (including secondary and tertiary owners) are registered in Malta. A large segment of the independent media is privately-owned and provides mainly content in English. Among these are the largest media outlets, combining print with online platforms. They hold large market shares and have legacy-outlets, such as Times of Malta and The Malta Independent. The public broadcaster (TVM) still plays an important role in the Maltese media landscape through its television and radio channels and online platform; however, its political independence has been questioned. The intrinsic design of its governance structure makes it vulnerable to ideological interventions in its editorial policies from the part of the political party in charge. The State Media Monitor Global Dataset 2025 classification of PBS is of it being ‘state-controlled’, while the EC Rule of Law Report 2025 found ‘no progress’ on editorial independence.
Publishing via the Internet has led to significant changes to the media landscape in Malta. Journalists and opinion writers need not be associated with traditional print media. This has led to a number of individual bloggers as well as fledgling private news organisations which have achieved a significant following amongst the Maltese English-speaking public.
While acknowledging the importance of the Broadcasting Act, including provisions to prevent excessive concentration of media ownership by setting limits on the number of broadcasting licenses a single entity can hold, and the Media and Defamation Act, aiming to ensure transparency in media ownership and prevent conflicts of interest, there are concerns about the effectiveness of these regulations. The European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report highlighted ongoing issues with media freedom and concentration in Malta. The report noted that there has been little progress in enhancing the independent governance and editorial independence of the public broadcaster, and there are still significant obstacles to media pluralism.
Another amendment to Malta’s Broadcasting Act that was straightforward yet significant was enacted through the Broadcasting (Amendment) Act 2014 – Act No. XXXII. It ensures that the principle that ‘freedom to broadcast and to receive broadcasts is guaranteed’, as well as the principle that ‘freedom of reception is guaranteed’, and that ‘freedom of retransmission in Malta of audiovisual media services from other Member States for reasons which fall within the fields co-ordinated by the (European Union Audiovisual Media Services) Directive is guaranteed’, can be regulated in terms of the Broadcasting Act itself, while not being subjected to any other law. This amendment followed representations by the European Commission to the Government of Malta to ensure full compliance of Malta’s legislation with the relevant European Union Directive.
The share of domestic versus imported media programs in Malta varies across different types of media.
Detailed, publicly accessible data on the exact share of domestic versus imported media programs is limited. Reports often highlight the need for more transparency and better data.
The MPM2024 political independence indicator reached the highest risk score ever at 84%, one percentage point higher than in the MPM2023. Furthermore, the independence of public service media (97%), political independence of media (94%) and editorial autonomy (88%) are areas of particular concern. As attested by national and internationally comparative research, relatively high degrees of political polarisation and influence are rather widely accepted and tolerated. While enjoying market leadership, PBS continues to be embroiled in controversies regarding impartiality and public spending. It has retained its status as a state-controlled public broadcaster.
The score for social inclusiveness has entered the high-risk band according to the MHM2024. On the one hand, the situation is dire in terms of representation of minorities (97%) and gender equality in the media (82%). On the other hand, improvements were registered in media literacy (57%) and protection against disinformation and hate speech (65%). Courses on media literacy have contributed to this betterment. However, one should note that such courses are mainly focused on digital content production skills. Such courses are available in formal, non-formal, and informal education settings. Some target vulnerable groups, notably senior citizens. Two newsrooms run regular fact checking and disinformation monitoring initiatives.
The social inclusiveness score in the digital domain has remained constant between MPM2023 and MPM2024, at 58%. The gap between the digital and the overall score has widened slightly. Issues of gender imbalance, low visibility of minorities, and limited access to people with disabilities extend to the digital domain as well.
Malta has implemented a number of measures and policies to promote the diversity of cultural expression, especially in response to the challenges posed by technological disruption and the influence of streaming platforms. These include the Artistic Freedom Bill, approved in 2023, to enhance the freedom of artistic expression, protecting artists from prosecution and promoting broad cultural expression. It is also worth mentioning the Cultural Rights campaign, administered by Arts Council Malta to promote cultural rights and ensure diverse cultural expressions are supported. Funding, grants and efforts at enhancing the digital presence of Maltese cultural content extends to digital archives and online platforms.
There have also been regulatory measures. These include the Broadcasting Act, that includes provisions to ensure a quotas of local content are broadcast on television and radio. The Electronic Communications Act includes regulations that apply to digital platforms, ensuring they adhere to local content requirements and cultural policy. Additionally, international streaming services operating in Malta are subject to local content regulations.
With regard to freedom of speech, the media landscape contributes significantly to public discourse, information dissemination, and cultural expression. Both traditional media, including newspapers and television broadcasters, and digital platforms such as blogs and social media, are subjected to these regulations, which shape how content is created and shared.
Traditional media in Malta has historically faced challenges that stem from political influences and societal pressures. The struggle for editorial independence is an ongoing issue, as media outlets often find themselves navigating a delicate balance between ensuring compliance with censorship laws and fulfilling their duty to inform the public. Notably, the Maltese media has a responsibility to present diverse perspectives while adhering to legal guidelines that restrict certain types of expression. This regulation can lead to a hesitance in reporting controversial or sensitive topics, consequently impacting the overall landscape of public discourse.
With the rise of digital media, new opportunities and challenges have emerged in the context of censorship and freedom of speech. Online platforms provide a greater space for diverse voices and opinions, yet they also introduce complexities regarding regulatory oversight. Journalists and content creators are often confronted with the dilemma of self-censorship, as the fear of repercussions may hinder robust discussions on significant issues. Digital media’s rapid evolution means that censorship laws must adapt to keep pace, influencing how information is conveyed and received in Maltese society.
The landscape of freedom of speech and censorship laws in Malta has been under significant scrutiny in recent years, particularly against the backdrop of global shifts toward either the protection or restriction of individual rights. Noteworthy court cases have emerged that challenge the existing frameworks safeguarding freedom of expression. For instance, a landmark ruling from the Maltese judiciary has underscored the importance of journalistic freedom, demonstrating the critical need to balance freedom of speech with legal accountability.
Legislative changes have also played a role in shaping the discussion around censorship. Government has introduced measures aimed at updating laws that address hate speech and online harassment, reflecting a growing concern about the implications of digital communication on public discourse. However, critics argue that some of these legislative reforms may inadvertently curtail freedoms, suggesting that the terms used to define unacceptable speech could be overly broad. This perspective raises alarms among activists who contend that increased censorship in the guise of regulation can impede genuine dialogue.
Public reactions to these developments have been mixed. On the one hand, calls for stronger protections for journalists and civilians have stressed the necessity for an environment where dissenting voices can be heard without fear of repercussion. On the other hand, segments of society express support for stricter regulations, arguing that they are essential in maintaining social cohesion. This division highlights the ongoing struggle to achieve a balance between safeguarding individual rights and upholding social order.
There exists a tension between state interests and civil liberties, leading to an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding the development of free speech. International trends indicate that many nations are grappling with similar dilemmas, suggesting that Malta’s developments in this area reflect a wider, ongoing debate on the importance of preserving democratic freedoms while addressing societal concerns.
In addition to grassroots activism, potential reforms in legislation could redefine the balance between public safety and individual expression. Engaging in constructive dialogue around these issues, along with gaining insights from international best practices, can help Malta navigate the delicate balance needed to protect both public order and freedom of speech. As the global dialogue on human rights and freedom of expression continues to develop, Malta must remain vigilant in ensuring that its laws promote, rather than hinder, effective communication and healthy debate.
A 2024 report by the Mediterranean Digital Media Observatory (MedDMO) and the University of Malta on the growing disinformation tactic of launching bogus copyright complaints submitted to Google against investigative journalists notes that Malta has long had a problem with its attitude towards journalism. It identifies its roots in the the polarised nature of its politics and poor understanding of the role of the press in society.
Many attempts to censor the media in Malta have been registerd over the past years. The report identifies examples from recent years including a major spoofing attack in August 2021, when counterfeit websites and false articles and emails purporting to be by journalists and other outspoken individuals flooded the information landscape. More recently, in May 2024, journalists were accused of forming part of ‘the Establishment’ that government claimed had taken over the institutions.
There is a significant number of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) filed in Malta, which is reported as the country having the highest number of these per capita in Europe. Government had transposed the EU anti-SLAPP directive stating that Malta was the first EU member state to do so, through a legal notice, bypassing parliament. However, issues with the published legislation emerged, including the fact that it provides no legal protection against domestic SLAPP cases, as noted by the 2025 report written by the partner organisations of the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists. The Directive‘s transposition deadline of 7 May 2026 has passed; Malta’s Legal Notice 177/2024 covers only cross-border cases. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe named Malta “SLAPP Country of the Year 2024” and domestic cases remain unprotected.
Maltese sign language is recognised as an official language, and some news segments have sign language interpretation, but this is not universal. The Broadcasting Authority reporting contains no mention of media accessibility for people with disability or Maltese sign language. There is no specific legislation which covers access to the media for disabled people. Nevertheless, Article 9 and Article 21 of the Broadcasting Act refer to accessibility in its widest form and access to information.
Malta has no inclusion policy for TV and multimedia.
The latest Global Media Monitoring Project (2020) noted that minorities of non-Maltese background were visible or mentioned in only 10% of the cases, mostly in the celebrity, media, sport, social and legal contexts. There is a lack of data on the visibility of minorities, and a lack of willingness to collect that data.
The Arts Council Malta (ACM) Screen Support Scheme as elaborated upon in sections 3.5.3 and 7.2.3.
Malta features TV programmes and series dedicated to arts and culture that also have an online presence. A main example is Maltarti, a platform that provides comprehensive coverage of arts and culture in Malta, featuring content on national TV stations. It includes a range of programmes that highlight local artistic events, exhibitions, and cultural activities.
Campus 103.7 is a broadcast and online radio station managed by the University of Malta that produces programmes addressing educational, cultural and scientific content as the mainstay of its schedule. Its online archive is extensive and spans a great deal of its 25-year history.
Higher education and ad hoc training courses do exist to sensitise journalists and media professionals when addressing matters that impinge on cultural diversity. These include courses at the University of Malta and the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST).
Comments are closed.