Policy brief
57
October 2022

How It Started, How It is Going:
Media Literacy Index 2022

Marin Lessenski

Contents
How It Started, How It is Going: Media Literacy Index 2022 ................................................................ 2
Highlights ............................................................................................................................................ 2
The context of the new index ................................................................................................................. 2
Sorting out terminology and approaches ........................................................................................... 2
Deliberating possible solutions ........................................................................................................... 3
Risks for erosion of democracy ........................................................................................................... 4
Global concerns and European opinion on media and misinformation ............................................. 5
How the predictors are measured: about the index methodology ........................................................ 6
The complexity of it all: a disclaimer ...................................................................................................... 8
The new Media Literacy Index 2022: the results .................................................................................... 9
Wrapping up: addressing a problem in the short and long-term ..................................................... 15
Appendix I: Indicators, Scores and Overall Ranking in Media Literacy Index 2022 .......................... 16
Appendix II: Sources and Data of Media Literacy Index 2022 .......................................................... 17
Annex III: Expanded Media Literacy Index 2022 ............................................................................... 18

October 2022

www.osis.bg

How It Started, How It is Going: Media Literacy Index 2022
Highlights










The index is assessing the potential vulnerability of 41 societies in Europe to the so-called“fake news” and related phenomena by employing media freedom, education andinterpersonal trust indicators.
This is the first index, which includes most of the countries in Europe – 41 in total - comparedto the 35 countries included in the previous editions of the index.
The countries in Northern and Western Europe have higher resilience potential to fake news
with better education, free media and higher trust between people.
The countries in Southeast and Eastern Europe are generally most vulnerable to the negative
effects of fake news and post-truth, with controlled media, deficiencies in education andlower trust in society.
Media freedom is a key prerequisite for tackling the “fake news” problems, including in thecontext of safeguarding democracy.
Education remains an essential component in addressing the “fake news” problems withtargeted media literacy training as for youth and adults alike.
As education and awareness raising remain long-term solutions, regulatory measures arenecessary too in the short-term to address erosion of democracy and geopolitical challenges
too.

The context of the new index
Sorting out terminology and approaches
In 2017, when the Media Literacy Index was created “fake news” and “post-truth” were just starting
to become a major concern on the public agenda. Fast forward to 2022, there are already a numberof studies, instruments and policy approaches helping to better deal with the problem.
But the challenges have grown too with successive waves of events over the years. The attention to
the fake news spiked after the 2016 US presidential elections. Then the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020
brought with it an “infodemic”. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine made clear the“infowars” have been an active operation alongside an actual, cruel war. All these events turbocharged disinformation and the threats emanating from it.
In these years, experts and decision-makers sought to identify the terminology, probable causes andeffects of the phenomena. The European Union1 came up with its own definitions of disinformationand misinformation, where “Disinformation is false or misleading content that is spread with anintention to deceive or secure economic or political gain, and which may cause public harm.

1

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/online-disinformation2

October 2022

www.osis.bg

Misinformation is false or misleading content shared without harmful intent though the effects canbe still harmful.”
Although “fake news” has been recently shunned as it thought to be too misused – not less by thosepeddling fake news too – it remains a good umbrella term to describe the plethora of manifestations
and problems associated with it and thus is used in this report. Furthermore, the term ‘post-truth’ isstill useful, as selected as the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year in 2016 – an adjective defined as“relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public
opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. It adds a necessary psychological component
in explanations that may be often useful.
One important aspect that has been more or less broadly agreed upon is about the aim ofdisinformation. Disinformation is thought to be not so much aimed at convincing the public at a certain
viewpoint, but more often than not at sawing confusion, distrust among people and institutions andincreasing polarization in society and it was soon noted that the effects on democratic system of
disinformation have been detrimental.
But in dealing with fake news there is inherent tension - especially valid for liberal democracies– theneed to restrict disinformation and misinformation with the necessity of upholding free speech. E.g.
it included an aspect of the paradox of tolerance, how to defend tolerant society from the intolerant,
whereby unlimited tolerance would lead to disappearance of tolerance. At the same time, what it is
not understood or understood and misused is that, in Europe especially, there are already limits tofree speech introduced by hate speech regulations at least.

Deliberating possible solutions
Just several years ago, the solutions probably seemed a little bit easier. In 2018, the Media Literacy
Report was entitled “Common Sense Wanted” as common sense and common decency are probably
the natural remedies to fake news and the behaviour related to it. However, this is not apparently
how things work. Furthermore, the Media Literacy Index Reports advocated “education before
regulation” as education would provide “vaccination” at least against the worst effects of fake news.
Regulation, while necessary, has its drawbacks.
The deliberations on the approach were cut short – much like the proverbial Gordian Knot – by noneother than the European Union when it decided to ban the broadcast of several Russian TV stations in
February 2022. The reasons for this were that “The Russian Federation has engaged in a systematic,
international campaign of disinformation, information manipulation and distortion of facts in order toenhance its strategy of destabilisation of its neighbouring countries, the EU and its member states. In
particular, disinformation and information manipulation has repeatedly and consistently targeted
European political parties, especially during the election periods, civil society and Russian gender andethnic minorities, asylum seekers and the functioning of democratic institutions in the EU and its
member states.”22

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/03/02/eu-imposes-sanctions-on-stateowned-outlets-rt-russia-today-and-sputnik-s-broadcasting-in-the-eu/

3October 2022

www.osis.bg

There are two important aspects to be mentioned. First, this was not a blind ban on all Russian media,
but on selected ones. The move was even criticized for its limited usefulness as it left untouched anumber of media outlets that continued broadcasting. Second, the EU sustained its own rights andfreedoms, specifying that “In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, these measures will notprevent those media outlets and their staff from carrying out activities in the EU other thanbroadcasting, e.g. research and interviews.”.

Risks for erosion of democracy
The danger of fake news and related phenomena for democracy are hard to underestimate. There are
already high-profile debates on the erosion of democracy 3and the European Union have has linked
fighting disinformation and its European Democracy Action Plan of 2020 and other policies such as the
Digital Services Act. It says4: “The Action Plan proposes improving the existing EU's toolbox forcountering foreign interference, including new instruments that allow imposing costs on perpetrators.
The Commission will steer efforts to overhaul the Code of Practice on Disinformation into a coregulatory framework of obligations and accountability of online platforms, in line with the upcoming
Digital Services Act.”Now it seems that the social and online media have long outgrown the period of enthusiasm, when
they were seen as tools for reinvigorating democracy – the roughly 2008 – 2013 period was filled withreferences to Twitter Revolutions5 or citizen journalism6. Nowadays, it is mostly about the dangers ofsocial and online media for the democratic process. The far-reaching example is the so-called digital
authorianism as in the 2018 Freedom House report “Disinformation and propaganda disseminatedonline have poisoned the public sphere. The unbridled collection of personal data has broken down
traditional notions of privacy. And a cohort of countries is moving toward digital authoritarianism….”7.
Indeed, social and online media has exacerbated immensely the creation and spread of disinformationcompared to the situation before them. But at the same time they should not be discounted out ofhand. This is a narrow viewpoint disregarding the contexts where media are largely controlled andmedia freedom is low. Then social and online media remains an opportunity for free information anddebate.

3

Such as the Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy by the Atlantic and the University of Chicago
https://www.theatlantic.com/live/disinformation-democracy-uchicago-conference-2022/
4
European Commission, European Democracy Action Plan: making EU democracies stronger, 3 December 2020,
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2250
5Blake Hounshell, The Revolution Will Be Tweeted https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/the-revolution-willbe-tweeted/
6
Jay Rosen (July 14, 2008). "A Most Useful Definition of Citizen Journalism". PressThink. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
7
AdrianShahbaz,
The
Rise
of
DigitalAuthoritarianism,
FreedomHouse2018,https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism

4

October 2022

www.osis.bg

Global concerns and European opinion on media and misinformation8
The Medial Literacy Index has been designed in 2017 to include 35 European countries. This year theindex has been expanded with additional countries making the total number to 41 in Europe to allow
for further comparisons. The expanded index in 2022 includes the EU member states, the EU
candidate and potential candidate countries, prospective candidates, the countries in closer relations
with the EU such as the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland as well as the UK, a former EU
member state. In this new setting, it is interesting to add to the wider context with some findings of a
new study about misinformation as a serious concern of the public too. A recent global study of 142
countries “Who is afraid of fake news? Modelling risk perceptions of misinformation in 142
countries”.9 The study investigated internet user perceptions of the risks associated with being
exposed to misinformation. There are several interesting findings that ware worth quoting here as
they may concern the findings of the Media Literacy Index too. First, the study found out that “people
living in countries with liberal democratic governments are more likely to worry about misinformation
than people in countries without or with limited democratic institutions.” The authors offer the
explanation that misinformation has been a hotly debated topic in liberal democracies
Second, it was found out that concern for misinformation was higher among people with higher
education levels. The authors assume that in this case younger and therefore more educated people
with higher digital skills, have higher concern of misinformation.
Third, there were geographical patterns and in relation to media freedom: “The data we used shows
surprisingly low levels of concern about misinformation in some regions, such as parts of Central Asia
and Eastern Europe, where the freedom of the press is in part curtailed.”
Fourth, the authors of the study say “that risk perception often doesn’t reflect the actual risk ofencountering misinformation”, especially “in as parts of Central Asia and Eastern Europe, where thefreedom of the press is in part curtailed” – i.e. the public in these settings is not overwhelmingly
concerned – or aware - about misinformation, despite the abundance of the phenomena in thissetting.
In addition, a new European study - News & Media Survey 202210 of the European Parliament, covering
the EU member states, provides insights into the media consumption in large part of the continent aswell as issues related to disinformation. The survey found out that one traditional media remains themost used and trusted sources of information as TV remains the most commonly used media channel.
75% of respondents replied that TV was one of their most used media to access news in the past sevendays – TV is the most commonly used media channel in most Member States. The shares for used byonline news platforms are 43% of the respondents and radio - 39%. The print press remains a sourceof 21% of respondents. Social media platforms and blogs are mentioned by 26% of respondents.

8

Knuutila, A., Neudert, L.-M., Howard, P. N. (2022). Who is afraid of fake news? Modeling risk perceptions of
misinformation in 142 countries. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review.
https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-97
9Knuutila, A., Neudert, L.-M., Howard, P. N. (2022). Who is afraid of fake news? Modeling risk perceptions of
misinformation in 142 countries. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review.
https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-97
10Link to the data https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2832

5

October 2022

www.osis.bg

In terms of trust in media sources, 49% of respondents select public TV and radio stations (incl. their
online presence) as a news source they trust, while private TV and radio stations are mentioned by
27%. The written press (incl. their online presence) is a trusted media source for 39% of respondents.
It is very telling that there are considerable differences between countries in terms of trust:

In Finland, 73% of respondents trust public TV and radio stations, while this is true only for
22% of respondents in Hungary and 23% in Poland.
In Luxembourg, 63% of respondents trust the written press, but only 18%of those in Bulgaria
and Poland trust the written press.

There are also difference in perceived exposure to disinformation and fake news. Respondents in
Bulgaria have the highest rate of those who have been exposed to it in the past seven days - 29% say“very often” and 26% say “often” - and respondents in the Netherlands are the least likely to say so 3% say “very often” and 9% say “often”.
Furthermore, the study says that education plays a role as confidence in distinguishing between realnews and fake news increased with level of education.

How the predictors are measured: about the index methodology
The current paper contains an instrument for measuring if not media literacy itself, but predictors ofmedia literacy with the aim to rank societies in their potential for resilience in the face of the posttruth phenomenon. The model employs several indicators (the table below) that correspond todifferent aspects related to media literacy and the post-truth phenomena. Level of education, state of
the media, trust in society and the usage of new tools of participation seem to be the predictors ofmedia literacy. As they have different importance, the indicators are included with a corresponding
weight. The media freedom and education indicators carry most weight, with reading literacy
attributed relatively most importance in education. Trust and e-participation indicators are attributed
the remaining share. The index converts the data into standardized scores from 0 to 100 (lowest to
highest) and ranks the countries from 1 to 41 (highest to lowest position).11
The Media Literacy Index was developed by the Open Society Institute – Sofia to include 35 European
countries and had editions in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 202112. This year, the number of countries was
expanded to 41 countries in Europe to allow for further comparison with minor changes in the usedsources to accommodate for the additional countries.13

11

The used methodology and sources are based on the Catch-Up Index of the Open Society Institute - Sofia; thelatest available data is as of 31 May 2022. You can find description of the methodology in the report " Where
Are They Now? Findings of the European Catch-Up Index 2021", available in the Documents and Links section of
the website www.thecatchupindex.eu and https://osis.bg/?p=4135&lang=en . Missing data were replaced using
imputation procedures as described in the report.
12
You can find the latest edition Media Literacy Index 2021 at https://osis.bg/?p=3750&lang=en
13
In 2021, Mr. Joe Carr, a volunteer for Media Literacy Now and a semi-retired Cisco Systems executive, modified
the existing model of the Media Literacy Index in order to include and compare a larger number of countries
around the world. The analysis was published by the US-based Media Literacy Now organization has publishedan analysis.

6October 2022

www.osis.bg

Methodology of the Media Literacy Index
Indicators
Media Freedom indicators
Freedom of the Press score by Freedom House
Press Freedom Index by Reporters without Borders
Education indicators
PISA score in reading literacy (OECD)PISA score in scientific literacy (OECD)PISA score mathematical literacy (OECD)
Tertiary Education enrolment (%) (World Bank)
Trust
Trust in others (World Values Survey)
New forms of participation
E-participation Index (UN)Weight
20%
20%
30%
5%
5%
5%
10%
5%

Table 1. The table shows the methodology of the media literacy index with thegroups of indicators, sources and their respective weight (importance). The data
are converted into standardized scores (z-scores) from 100 to 0, highest to
lowest.

There are several reasons why these indicators were selected:

Media freedom. Media freedom is an essential indicator. The rise of fake news amidst the severely
fragmented media landscape or outright weak and controlled media in some countries has
accompanied the deterioration of the public and political debates and the overall quality of thedemocratic process. In the model, suggested in this brief, two commonly accepted indices are used –of Freedom House and of Reporters without Borders - to measure media freedom. In this respect, acertain East-West divide can be observed in the debates.

Education. Education is another essential component. For example, Finland’s government considers
the strong public education system as a main tool to resist information warfare against the country
and “widespread critical thinking skills among the Finnish population and a coherent government
response” is thought to be a key element for resisting fake news campaigns. In general, it is thoughtthat more educated people are more informed, more critically thinking and less likely to fall into thetrap of a fabricated news. But there is also a more complex psychological mechanism at work. A study
by Jan-Willem van Prooijen on conspiracy theories have found that more educated people feel morein control of their lives, do not believe so much in easy solutions and have more analytical skills.14 The
14

See “Why Education Predicts Decreased Belief in Conspiracy Theories” by Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Applied
Cognitive Psychology, Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 31: 50–58 (2017). Published online 28 November 2016 in Wiley
Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.3301, and also James N. Druckman, The Politics ofMotivation, 2012.

7

October 2022

www.osis.bg

included indicators for educations are PISA reading performance, PISA science and PISA mathematics
components with reading attributed the highest importance in this case. PISA provides picture not
only of pupils’ achievements, but also the overall outcomes of the educational system in a country.
The indicator “tertiary education enrolment” is also included, although with smaller weight, as
education indicator.
Trust in people (interpersonal trust). Trust is another important aspect. The entire post-truth
phenomenon is accompanied by extremely high levels of mistrust towards institutions, mainstream
media, politicians, experts. Conspiracy theories about the functioning of the world both reflect andbring about low level of confidence in existing institutions. The current model uses a related indicator- “Trust in People”. It measures the level of trust in society and “reflects people's perception of others'reliability”, according to the definition of OECD. As a rule, high level of trust is a hallmark of successful
societies and a proxy for the development of civil society.

E-participation. In addition, “E-participation” indicator is also included to measure the use of
information and communication technologies to enhance political participation, making possible forcitizens to communicate with each other, the elected officials and authorities.

The complexity of it all: a disclaimer
As in previous edition of the index, there should be a disclaimer, a word of caution. There are some
aspects of the disinformation and misinformation phenomena, which are very specific and difficult toassess. As noted, the 2016 Oxford dictionary definition of post-truth puts a strong emphasis on therole of emotions – it is an adjective defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which
objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal
belief”. For example, there is no simple causality between education and post-truth as there are more
complex psychological mechanisms at play such as confirmation bias or prior-attitude effect. In otherwords, people sometimes prefer or outright seek information that confirms their own preconceived
views, tend to dismiss evidence which does not coincide with their already formed opinion anddisregard objective accuracy. Also, there is a whole range of details that should be taken into accountwhen discussing disinformation, misinformation, post-truth and related phenomena. For example,
fake news is fabricated news and deliberate presentation of falsehood as fact that may pursue politicalor financial gains and should not be confused with lazy journalism.

8

October 2022

www.osis.bg

The new Media Literacy Index 2022: the results
Media Literacy Index 2022
Rank
(1-35)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Country
Finland
NorwayDenmark
Estonia
IrelandSwedenSwitzerland
Netherlands
Germany
Iceland
UK
Austria
Belgium
Portugal
Spain
FranceLithuania
Czech Republic
PolandSlovenia
LatviaLuxembourg
Italy
Slovakia
Croatia
Malta
Hungary
CyprusUkraine
GreeceRomania
SerbiaBulgaria
Moldova
Montenegro
TurkeyAlbania
BiH
KosovoNorth Macedonia
GeorgiaScore(100-0)Finland with 76 points is first in the ranking in
the new Media Literacy Index 2022 out of 41
countries in total. It is followed by Norway with74 points and 2nd place, Denmark with 73 points
on 3rd place, Estonia with 72 points and 4thplace, Ireland and the Sweden with similarscores of 71 points each on 5th and 6th placerespectively, where the differences are minimal
after the decimal point. The ranking is done ona scale from 1 to 41, highest to lowest and thescores are 0-100, lowest to highest score.

Cluster
76
74
73
72
71
71
68
66
62
62
62
61
61
61
59
58
58
57
56
56
54
54
50
49
47
44
42
41
39
38
36
35
33
32
32
31
25
24
23
23
20

1

At the bottom of the ranking, Georgia with 20
points occupies the last 41st place, preceded by
North Macedonia and Kosovo with similarscores of 23 points on 40th place and 39th placerespectively.
The countries in the index are also divided into
clusters using a cluster analysis, which groups
countries with identical characteristics along
the indicators of the Media Literacy Index. The
clusters are hierarchical – from the best
performing countries in the 1st cluster, to thepoorly performing ones in the last 5th cluster.
The 2nd cluster is composed of well-performing
countries, while the 3rd cluster is “transitional”
with countries at the risk of slipping further
down the ranking. The fourth cluster is ofalready problematic countries, but still not
those with the poorest performance.

2

3

When these clusters are put on the map, thereis the following pattern. The best performing
countries in the 1st cluster are located in
Northern and Western Europe, with the all
Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands andIreland. The 2nd cluster includes much ofWestern and Central Europe. The 3rd cluster
includes countries in Southern (Italy, Malta,
Cyprus) and Central Europe, Central (Slovakia,
Croatia, Hungary). The 4th cluster includes the“expanded” Balkan countries from BiH,
Romania and Bulgaria to Turkey and Moldova as
well as Ukraine and Moldova. The last 5th cluster

4

5

9

October 2022

www.osis.bg

includes four Balkan and the one South Caucasus country – Georgia – included in the index.
The geographical patterns show East-West and North-South divides with the Balkan countries and theCaucasus trailing behind.

Different factors contribute in different mannerto the ranking of the countries in the new Media
Literacy Index (MLI) as shown in the next tables.
The following tables present the scores of groups
of indicators (media freedom, education, trust inpeople and e-participation) as sum of thestandardized scores (100-0) multiplied by theirweight as explained in the methodology notes.

10October 2022

www.osis.bg

When only the Media Freedom score is taken
into account (the score is a sum of the scoresof the two indicators used in the index
multiplied by their weight). Norway rises to the
top at 1st place of the media freedom ranking
compared to its 2nd place in the overall rankingof the Media Literacy Index (MLI). Turkey slips
to the bottom of the ranking at 41st placecompared to the 36th place in the MLI 2022.

11

October 2022

www.osis.bg
Education Score and Ranking Compared to Media Literacy
Index 2022 Ranking and Clusters
Education Education
Rank
Score
(1-41)(100-0)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

The education ranking (sum of the respective
education indicators scores multiplied by theirweight) has Estonia and Finland on 1st and 2ndplace with identical scores of 34 points, followedby Ireland (3rd place) and Poland (4th place). The
last countries in the ranking are North
Macedonia (39th place), Georgia (40th place) andKosovo (41st place).

12Country

MLI
MLI Rank MLI Score
Cluster(1-41)(100-0)(1-5)

34 Estonia
34 Finland
32 Ireland
31 Poland
30 Sweden
30 Denmark
30 Switzerland
29 UK
29 Norway
29 Slovenia
29 Germany
28 Belgium
28 Spain
28 Netherlands
27 France
27 Portugal
27 Czech Republic
27 Austria
26 Latvia
25 Iceland
25 Lithuania
24 Italy
24 Turkey
24 Croatia
24 Hungary
23 Greece
23 Ukraine
21 Luxembourg
20 Slovakia
19 Malta
17 Serbia
16 Cyprus
14 Romania
14 Bulgaria
13 Moldova
13 Montenegro
11 Albania
8 BiH
7 North Macedonia
6 Georgia
3 Kosovo

4
1
5
19
6
3
7
11
2
20
9
13
15
8
16
14
18
12
21
10
17
23
36
25
27
30
29
22
24
26
32
28
31
33
34
35
37
38
40
41
39

72
76
71
56
71
73
68
62
74
56
62
61
59
66
58
61
57
61
54
62
58
50
31
47
42
38
39
54
49
44
35
41
36
33
32
32
25
24
23
20
23

1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5

October 2022

www.osis.bg

The trust in people ranking shows
Denmark (1st), Norway (2nd), Finland
Trust In
Trust inMLI(3rd), Ireland (4th) and Sweden (5th) on the
MLI Rank MLI Score
People Rank People Score
Country
Cluster(1-41)(100-0)
top of the ranking. Albania (41st) is the(1-41)(100-0)(1-5)
th1
9.3 Denmark
373
1 last in the ranking, with Cyprus (40 ),thth2
9.2 Norway
274
1 Greece (39 ) and Georgia (38 ).
3
8.8 Finland
176
1
4
8.2 Ireland
571
1
5
8.2 Sweden
671
1
6
8.2 Iceland
10
62
2
7
7.7 Switzerland
7681
8
7.6 Netherlands
866
1
9
6.9 Austria
12
61
2
10
6.1 Germany
9
62
2
11
6 Spain
15
59
2
12
5.9 UK11622
13
5.3 Estonia
4
72
1
14
5.3 Belgium
13
61
2
15
5.3 Luxembourg
22
54
2
16
5.1 Lithuania
17
58
2
17
4.8 Ukraine
29
39
4
18
4.6 Italy
23
50
3
19
4.6 Malta
26
44
3
20
4.6 Hungary
27
42
3
21
4.5 France
16
58
2
22
4.4 Slovenia
20
56
2
23
4.3 Poland
19
56
2
24
4.1 Latvia
21
54
2
25
4.1 Slovakia
24
49
3
26
4.1 Montenegro
35
32
4
27
4 Czech Republic
18
57
2
28
3.6 Portugal
14
61
2
29
3.6 Bulgaria
33
33
4
30
3.5 Serbia
32
35
4
31
3.4 Kosovo
39
23
5
32
3.4 North Macedonia
40
23
5
33
3.3 Croatia
25
47
3
34
3.3 Turkey
36
31
4
35
3.1 Romania
31
36
4
36
3.1 Moldova
34
32
4
37
2.9 BiH38
24
538
2.8 Georgia
41
20
5
39
2.7 Greece
30
38
4
40
2.6 Cyprus
28
41
3
41
2.2 Albania
37
25
5
Trust in People Score and Ranking Compared to Media
Literacy Index 2022 Ranking and Clusters

13

October 2022

www.osis.bg
E-Participation Score and Ranking Compared to Media Literacy Index
2022 Ranking and Clusters
EEParticipation Participation
Rank
Score
(1-41)(100-0)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

The ranking in E-Participation has several
European countries with identical scores of 4
points (with minimal differences after thedecimal point) - Estonia on 1st place, UK on 2ndplace and Austria on 3rd place, followed by
Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland andCyprus (4th to 8th place).

14

Country

4 Estonia
4 UK
4 Austria
4 Denmark4 Netherlands
4 Poland
4 Finland
4 Cyprus
3 Norway
3 Switzerland
3 France
3 Croatia
3 Bulgaria
3 Turkey
3 Ireland
3 Slovenia
3 Spain
3 Albania
3 Kosovo
3 Malta
3 North Macedonia
3 Sweden
3 Portugal
3 Italy
3 Serbia
2 Ukraine
2 Romania
2 Greece
2 Iceland
2 Moldova
2 Germany
2 Lithuania
2 Czech Republic
2 Luxembourg
2 Slovakia
1 Hungary
1 Belgium
1 Georgia
1 BiH
0 Latvia
0 Montenegro

MLI Rank(1-41)

4
11
12
3
8
19
1
28
2
7
16
25
33
36
5
20
15
37
39
26
40
6
14
23
32
29
31
30
10
34
9
17
18
22
24
27
13
41
38
21
35

MLI Score(100-0)MLI Cluster
(1-5)

72
62
61
73
66
56
76
41
74
68
58
47
33
31
71
56
59
25
23
44
23
71
61
50
35
39
36
38
62
32
62
58
57
54
49
42
61
20
24
54
32

1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
2
5
5
3
5
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
5
5
2
4

October 2022

www.osis.bg

Wrapping up: addressing a problem in the short and long-term
The Media Literacy Index results show there is a concentration of countries in the Southeast and Eastof Europe, which are potentially more vulnerable to fake news. For those of the countries, which arewilling to deal with the situation, there should be special attention as they are lacking in several
aspects monitored by the Media Literacy Index – quality of education, media freedom, lowinterpersonal trust or combination of problems in these areas.
As noted already, the Media Literacy Index has advocated for “education before regulation”. But asrecent events and practice show, education is the necessary, but long road. Regulation, including ofsocial media and bans proved necessary, while safeguarding rights and free speech to the extent
possible. Governments and entities such as the European Union started to pay attention and offering
measures such as codes of conduct, technological solutions and last but not least paying attention tothreats to democracy and geopolitical challenges associated with disinformation. Otherwise, the“paradox of tolerance” comes forward, when the rules of liberal democracy are being used toundermine it.
Also, as the recent Eurobarometer study shows, the higher the level of education the more easily
misinformation is identified. But this includes – as increasing functional education in general as well
as specialized education – that is media literacy education. Education and training is usually associatedwith pupils and young people and this is what decision-makers and organizations do first. However,observations and studies have already noticed the need and demand for media and digital literacy
education among adults and the elderly, including educating the educators.
One important note on media and the distinction between traditional and social media. There is a lotof attention – and rightly so – on social media as they proved to be game-changer with regard to fakenews and disinformation. The speed, ease and access of spreading of information is unprecedented inhuman history. Autocratic regimes learned to play the game better than citizens and “digital
authoritarianism” is on the rise. At the same time, the social and new media should not be viewed as
the culprit only as there are places where they offer free access and information.
Traditional media should not be side-lined too. As the quoted study on media and misinformation in
the EU show, these media still play a considerable role. I.e. under normal circumstances these areproviding reliable, fact-checked information and educating the public. Probably one of aspects of an
East-West divide is that in the well-functioning liberal democracies, traditional media are more or lesstaken for granted and the challenge is seen in social media. But in other countries, where media
freedom is low, many traditional media are part of the ecosystem of fake news and disinformation.
To make matter worse, in such countries controlled media are a symptom of larger set of democracy
deficits or state capture. In contrast to better functioning liberal democracies, who may or may nothave a media problem, in these countries check and balance mechanisms do not work properly suchas rule of law, media ethics or discrimination committees, exacerbating the fake news problem.
There is link between the health of a democracy, disinformation and misinformation, and it is goingto stay. Addressing “fake news” - used as an umbrella term here- will need a combination of public
policies and citizen action for the foreseeable future.

15

October 2022

www.osis.bg

Appendix I: Indicators, Scores and Overall Ranking in Media Literacy Index 2022
Media Literacy Index 2022: Indicators, Scores and Overall Ranking
Indicator/
Ranking

Freedom of the Pressscore by Freedom House

Press
Freedom
Index byReporters
without
Borders

Rank(1-41)Country(0-100)1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Denmark4 Estonia
5 Ireland
6 Sweden
7 Switzerland
8 Netherlands
9 Germany
10 Iceland
11 UK
12 Austria
13 Belgium
14 Portugal
15 Spain
16 France
17 Lithuania
18 Czech Republic
19 Poland
20 Slovenia
21 Latvia
22 Luxembourg
23 Italy
24 Slovakia
25 Croatia
26 Malta
27 Hungary
28 Cyprus
29 Ukraine
30 Greece
31 Romania
32 Serbia
33 Bulgaria
34 Moldova
35 Montenegro
36 Turkey
37 Albania
38 BiH
39 Kosovo
40 North Macedonia
41 Georgia

72
77
72
67
65
73
71
73
63
69
57
60
72
66
53
56
62
62
46
59
56
70
50
56
38
59
34
59
24
34
41
28
37
20
34
0
26
26
29
10
27

PISA score in PISA score in PISA score in
Tertiaryreadingscientific mathematical Education
literacy
literacy
literacy
enrolment(0-100)

76
83
79
76
76
76
66
58
65
66
59
56
60
74
56
59
69
62
37
42
60
61
42
59
45
30
27
38
21
20
42
30
26
51
39
0
22
37
40
42
27

(0-100)(0-100)

76
66
67
77
75
69
69
59
65
54
68
58
63
62
64
63
55
61
72
64
56
52
55
46
56
41
55
29
50
45
31
37
27
29
28
50
20
19
0
14
8

68
65
69
76
64
65
72
74
64
61
65
64
68
60
54
61
54
64
72
69
57
55
57
57
45
50
54
39
40
39
28
37
31
23
28
40
31
15
0
9
11

(0-100)

77
61
63
82
64
66
64
68
68
53
69
61
66
62
57
63
57
65
72
70
60
54
50
48
52
44
56
35
50
42
28
35
27
29
23
50
24
14
0
21
6

Trust in
People(0-100)

70
60
59
52
53
55
41
64
51
55
44
63
57
46
70
46
50
44
47
55
71
0
44
25
46
43
31
65
60
100
30
46
51
36
34
91
36
17
53
22
45

EOverall Score
participation
2022(0-100)

88
92
93
53
82
82
77
76
61
82
59
69
53
36
60
45
51
40
43
44
41
53
46
41
33
46
46
26
48
27
31
35
36
31
41
33
22
29
34
34
28

(0-100)Cluster(1 to 5)

73
65
75
81
56
50
65
75
38
42
77
77
21
50
54
65
36
34
75
56
9
30
50
30
63
52
25
73
48
44
48
50
63
40
3
63
54
13
54
52
19

*The table presents indicators, scores and ranking of the Media Literacy Index 2022 in scores from 0 - 100 (lowest to highest). The ranking is done by the overal Media
Literacy Score as explained in the index methodology in this report.The data was converted into standartized z-scores and missing data was imputed following themethodology described in the Catch-Up Index reports, available in the documents and links section of the website www.thecatchupindex.eu andhttps://osis.bg/?p=4135&lang=en. The latest available data was used as of 31 May 2022.

16

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5

October 2022

www.osis.bg

Appendix II: Sources and Data of Media Literacy Index 2022
Media Literacy Index 2022: Sources and Data
Freedom of
the Press
score byFreedom
House

Country/Indicator

Weight of theindicator

Press
Freedom
Index byReporters
without
Borders

Tertiary
PISA score PISA score PISA score
Education
in reading mathematic in scientificenrolment
literacy
al literacy
literacy(World(OECD)(OECD)(OECD)
Bank, UN)The higher
The higher
The higherscore thethe better,the better;On a scale
On a sclae
better; 500 is 500 is very
500 is very
from 0 to 100 from 100 to 0very good
good andgood and(best to(best toand below below 300 is below 300 is
worst)
worst)
300 is a very a very poora very poor
poor result
resultresult

20%

20%

30%

5%

5%

Trust in
People(WorldValuesSurvey)Eparticipation(UN)

In
percentages(higher isbetter)On a scalefrom 10 to 0
(highest to
lowest)On a scalefrom 1 to 0
(highest to
lowest)

5%

10%

5%

Albania

51

56.41

405

437

417

57.8131409

2.8

0.8452Austria

22

76.74

484

499

490

86.4755325

49.8

0.9762

Belgium

12

78.86

493

508

499

80.1381683

33.9

0.6548

BiH

51

65.64

403

406

398

37.9199791

9.6

0.6071

Bulgaria

42

59.12

420

436

424

73.3791733

17.1

0.8929Croatia

41

70.42

479

464

472

67.7217484

13.6

0.8929Cyprus

23

65.97

424

448

439

88.4853287

6.6

0.9524

Czech Republic

21

80.54

490

499

497

65.5869827

21.1

0.7262

Denmark

12

90.27

501

509

493

81.8397598

73.9

0.9643

Estonia

16

88.83

523

523

530

74.231987

33.9

1

Finland

12

88.42

520

507

522

92.9550095

68.4

0.9524

France

26

78.53

493

495

493

68.3579025

26.3

0.9048Georgia

50

59.3

380

398

383

66.6892166

90.6429Germany

20

82.04

498

500

503

73.5210571

41.6

0.75

Greece

44

55.52

457

451

452

148.530884

8.4

0.7857

Hungary

44

59.8

476

481

481

52.4446487

27.2

0.6786

Iceland

15

82.69

474

495

475

77.5888367

62.3

0.7738

Ireland

18

88.3

518

500

496

75.1799393

62.8

0.8571

Italy

31

68.16

476

487

468

66.0515976

26.6

0.8214

Kosovo

48

67

353

366

365

75.698822

15.1

0.8452

Latvia

26

79.17

479

486

487

94.8645325

22.2

0.5833

Lithuania

21

84.14

476

481

482

72.0089722

31.7

0.7381

Luxembourg

14

79.81

470

483

477

18.4300003

33.9

0.7024

Malta

23

61.55

448

472

457

64.8729095

27.2

0.8333

Moldova

56

73.47

424

421

428

57.9757805

12.1

0.7619Montenegro

44

66.54

421

430

415

55.5265388

21.7

0.5476

Netherlands

11

77.93

485

519

503

87.097847

57

0.9643

North Macedonia

64

68.44

393

394

413

43.1165009

15.1

0.8333

Norway

8

92.65

499

501

490

83.23069

72.1

0.9048

Poland

34

65.64

512

516

511

69.1840286

24.1

0.9643

Portugal

17

87.07

492

492

492

67.9307022

16.9

0.8214

Romania

38

68.46

428

430

426

51.3538208

12.1

0.8095

Serbia

49

61.51

439

448

440

68.1431122

16.3

0.8214

Slovakia

26

78.37

458

486

464

46.4290199

21.4

0.7024

Slovenia

23

68.54

495

509

507

77.8827667

25.3

0.8571

Spain

28

76.71

496

481

483

92.8823471

41

0.8452

Sweden

11

88.84

506

502

499

77.3291092

62.8

0.8214

Switzerland

13

82.72

505

515

495

63.3080597

57.1

0.9048Turkey

76

41.25

466

454

468

115.042061

140.8929

UK

25

78.71

504

502

505

65.7733612

40.2

0.9762

Ukraine

53

55.76

466

453

469

82.6711807

28.4

0.8095*The table presents the raw data and sources used for the Media Literacy Index 2022 with the latest data as of 31 May 2022. Missing data was
imputed using the procedures described in the Catch-Up Index reports, available here https://osis.bg/?p=4135&lang=en

17

October 2022

www.osis.bg

Annex III: Expanded Media Literacy Index 2022
Expanded Media Literacy Index (MLI) 2022
Country

Expanded
MLI 2022
ScoresExpanded
MLI 2022
Ranking

Extended
MLI 2022
Clusters

Finland75

1

1

Norway73

2

1

Denmark73

3

1

Estonia71

4

1

Ireland70

5

1

Sweden70

61Canada68

7

1

Switzerland

67

8

1

Netherlands

65

9

1

Australia

63

10

1

Germany

61

11

2

Iceland

61

12

2

UK

61

13

2

Belgium

61

14

2

Austria60

15

2

Portugal

60

16

2

South Korea

60

17

2

USA

60

18

2

Spain

58

19

2

France57

20

2Czech Republic

57

21

2

Lithuania

56

22

2

Japan

56

23

2

Poland55

24

2

Slovenia

55

25

2

Latvia53

26

2

Luxembourg

53

27

2

Italy

48

28

3

Slovakia

48

29

3

Croatia

46

30

3

Malta

43

31

3

Israel41

32

3

Hungary

40

33

3

Cyprus40

34

3

Ukraine3735

4Greece37

36

4

Romania

34

37

4

Serbia33

38

4

Bulgaria

31

39

4

Moldova31

40

4Montenegro

30

41

4

Turkey29

42

4Albania

23

43

5

BiH

23

44

5

Kosovo22

45

5North Macedonia

22

46

5

Georgia

18

47

5

The expanded Media Literacy Index 2022 includes six
additional countries outside of Europe – Australia, Canada,
Japan, Israel, South Korea and USA – to the European
countries included in the regular 2022 index. The countries
selected for the expanded index are democracies. It wasdeemed that including in the index of autocratic or
totalitarian regimes with extremely low or non-existent
media freedom would not make sense as the informationin such regimes would be almost fully controlled andmanipulated and “fake news”, “disinformation” or“misinformation” within these countries would meansomething completely different.
The results of the expanded Media Literacy Index 2022show that most of the additional countries perform very
well in the ranking. Canada (7th place out of 47 countries
with 68 points out of 100 total) and Australia (10th placewith 63 points) are the best performers of the additionalgroup. Both Canada and Australia joined the 1st cluster ofbest performers, mostly North European countries. South
Korea (17th place) and the USA (18th place) have identicalscores of 60 points and Japan is on 23rd place with 56
points. All three countries – South Korea, USA and Japans
are in the 2nd cluster with mostly Western and Central
European countries. Israel is on 32nd place with 41 points
and in the 3rd cluster with South and Central European
countries.

18

October 2022

www.osis.bg

How It Started, How It is Going: Media Literacy Index 2022
Policy Brief 57
October 2022

About this report
The report presents the findings of the Media Literacy Index project of the European Policies Initiative(EuPI) of Open Society Institute – Sofia Foundation (OSI-Sofia). This product is for non-commercial use
only. The views expressed in the report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect theviews of OSI-Sofia or OSFs.

About EuPIThe European Policy Initiative (EuPI) aims at stimulating and assisting new Member States from CEE
to develop capacity for constructive co-authorship of common European policies at bothgovernment and civil society level.

Please, check OSI-Sofia’s web-site at www.osis.bg regularly for new policy briefs, other publications
and events.

About the author
Marin Lessenski is Program Director, Open Society Institute – Sofia
E-mail: mlessenski@osi.bg

Statistical processing:
Petia Brainova, Dragomira Belcheva, Open Society Institute – Sofia.

© 2022, Open Society Institute – Sofia
Contact
Address:
56 Solunska Str.
Sofia 1000
Tel.: (+359 2) 930 66 19
E-mail: info@osi.bg
Web: www.osis.bg
www.osis.bg
19