For years, the government has been fiercely attacking media outlets that operate with funding from outside Hungary. In May 2025, a bill was introduced in Parliament that, if passed, would give the Sovereignty Protection Office and the government virtually free rein to silence anyone on this basis. The 21 Research Center and Mediaforum conducted a representative online survey of 800 internet users to find out how Hungarians view questions about the independence of the media and their sources of income.
In the first part of the survey — which was conducted before the so-called transparency bill was tabled — respondents had to decide which of two pairs of opposing statements on media funding and the political and economic independence of journalism they agreed with. In the other part, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they considered media using different sources of revenue to be objective.
Main findings
Media funding and journalistic independence are divisive issues: there are very few statements with which the majority of respondents agree. On most issues, there is a marked difference of opinion between Fidesz and Tisza Party supporters.
However, a significant majority of Hungarians who use the internet — 61% — agree with the statement that “foreign sources are just a source of income, and media and news sources cannot be judged on this basis.” The narrative of “foreign-funded,” “pressure-peddling,” “agent” journalists has not become dominant in a significant part of public opinion, despite considerable efforts to make it so. “Only” 24% think that “if a media or news source receives money from abroad, it is probably working against Hungary.”
However, there is considerable skepticism about the general economic and political independence of journalists: only 45% agree that “There are media and news sources whose content does not depend on the business interests of their owners,” and only 40% that “There are major media and news sources in Hungary that are completely independent and not under the direct influence of any political party or actor.”
In all the questions examined, the differences by party preference are very significant: there is a 30–40 percentage point difference between respondents who would vote for Fidesz (approximately a quarter of the sample) and those who would vote for the Tisza Party (approximately a third of the sample) in terms of which of the opposing statements they agree with. The exception is the statement “Only media outlets that are financially and politically independent are trustworthy,” where the two groups have similar perceptions: 60% and 65% agree with this statement (compared to those who voted for other parties and those who are undecided, with only 46% and 29% agreeing, respectively).
It is important to highlight the role of age in perceptions of these statements: across all statements, young people are most likely to have confidence in the independence of journalism.
Revenues from readers, advertising, and EU tenders are not seen by a large majority as obstacles to objectivity, while revenues from foreign sources (private individuals, foundations, states) and from the Hungarian state are seen by a majority as more problematic from an objectivity standpoint. As with opinions on independence, there are also large differences by party preference: Fidesz voters are more accepting than average of revenues from the Hungarian state and more negative about foreign sources and EU grants. In contrast, only a small fraction of Tisza Party voters are accepting of Hungarian state resources while most of them accept EU tenders and reader subscriptions.
Detailed results
Media funding and independent journalism
Five pairs of statements were tested: respondents were asked to decide which of two opposing statements they agreed with.
- The issue of journalists’ political responsibility divides society: 43% agree that “Journalists should consider the political consequences of the articles/videos/podcasts they produce,” while 48% prefer that “Journalists should not consider the political consequences of the content they produce” (9% don’t know).
- Gender differences are significant: men are more likely to agree that journalists should not have to concern themselves with the political consequences (56% vs. 41%).
- There are also differences by education level: those with higher education tend to agree that journalists should not be concerned with the political consequences (54% of those with higher education vs. 42% of those with lower education).
- Party preference is a strong explanatory variable: 64% of Fidesz voters agree that political consequences should be taken into account by journalists, compared to 29% of Tisza voters.
2. The question of independence from business interests is the most divisive issue, with almost as many agreeing with one statement as with the opposite: “The content of all media is dependent on the business interests of their owners” (44%) vs. “There are media whose content is not dependent on the business interests of their owners” (45%) (12% don’t know).
- There is a big difference between people living in cities and small towns: 61% of people living in Budapest and only 36% of people living in villages agree that media can be independent of the business interests of their owner.
- There is a significant difference between age groups: 75% of younger respondents (18–29) agree that the media can be independent of business interests, while middle-aged and older respondents are more skeptical.
- Party preference is also decisive: almost two-thirds of Tisza Party voters and just over one-third of Fidesz voters believe in the possibility of media independent of business interests.
3. Judging foreign sources: a small proportion of respondents agree that “If a media or news source receives money from abroad, it is probably working against Hungary” (24%) vs. “Foreign sources are just a source of income, and media or news sources cannot be judged on this basis” (61%) (15% don’t know).
- There is extreme polarization on this question based on party preference: 70% of Fidesz voters agree that foreign sources likely work against Hungary, while 89% of Tisza voters agree that foreign sources are just a source of income and not a basis for judgment.
4. Independence of the media from politics: only 40% of respondents agree that “There are major media and news sources in Hungary that are completely independent, not under the direct influence of any political actor or party,” while half of respondents say that “All major news sources are under the influence of some political side” (10% don’t know).
- Age is an important factor in the perception of political independence: younger people are much more likely to agree that there is media independent of politics (62% of 18–29-year-olds) than older people (23% of 60–74-year-olds).
- Party preference, again, shows high polarization, with 70% of Fidesz voters agreeing that all news sources are politically influenced, while 68% of Tisza voters agreeing that there are news sources free from direct political influence.
5. More than half of Hungarians who use the internet agree that “Only media outlets that are financially and politically independent are reliable” (52%), while more than a third say that “Reliability does not depend on where the sources come from, but on the quality of the journalists’ work” (36%) (12% don’t know).
- This is the only question where perceptions do not differ much by party affiliation: Fidesz and Tisza Party voters agree in similar proportions (60% of Fidesz voters and 65% of Tisza Party voters agree that financial and political independence is a condition for reliability).
Sources of media revenue
Respondents were asked to what extent they consider a media outlet whose revenues come from the following sources to be objective. The order of the sources, according to the percentage of respondents who consider media outlets receiving revenue from them to be completely or rather objective, is as follows:
- Differences by age group: young respondents (18–29) show exceptionally high trust in reader contributions (96% for subscriptions) and very low trust in state resources (11%).
- Among those with higher education, reader subscriptions and 1% income tax designation are viewed more positively than among those with lower education. Those with lower levels of education are less accepting of EU funding (47%) than those with medium (71%) and high levels of education (67%).
- Those living in rural areas are more accepting of state resources (34%) than those living in large cities (18% and 17%, respectively).
- As with opinions on independence, the perception of funding sources shows a strong divide based on party-preference: Fidesz voters are the only social group in which a majority considers state-funded media to be completely or rather objective (55%), while they are skeptical of foreign sources (20% trust funding from foreign private individuals or foundations, 11% from foreign states). Fidesz voters are also skeptical of EU funding, with only 38% saying media using EU funding can be considered objective.
- In contrast, Tisza voters show the opposite pattern: a very low proportion trust state-funded media (6%), while a very high proportion accept EU grants (83%), reader subscriptions (87%), and funding from foreign private individuals and foundations (58%).
Methodology and background
The online survey was conducted between 8 and 12 May 2025, with 800 respondents. The survey is representative of the adult Hungarian population using the internet. The data may differ by ±3.5 percentage points from what would have been obtained if the entire population had been surveyed. Minor biases in the sample were corrected by weighting according to gender, age, education, place of residence, and 2024 party preference.
The survey was funded by the International Press Institute, in collaboration with Direkt36 and Mediaforum. The research design, data gathering, and data processing were carried out by 21 Research Center.
More information:
bognar.eva@mediaforum.hu
To subscribe to the Mediaforum Association newsletter, please visit the website or email info@mediaforum.hu.