The International Research and Exchanges Board's (IREX) Media Sustainability Index (MSI) is a tool to evaluate the global development of independent media. The MSI is one of the most important indices "to assess how media systems change over time and across borders",IREX, 2012a in addition to the Freedom of the Press Index compiled by Freedom House and the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders.
In 2018, IREX launched a dynamic data platform, the Media Sustainability Explorer, that enables users to analyze and examine data from all years of the Europe and Eurasia MSI and to compare data trends across time, MSI objectives, regions and individual countries.
Framework The Media Sustainability Index (MSI) was elaborated by the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2001.Becker, Nusser, & Vlad, 2007, p. 10 Since then annual reports about “the development of media systems over time and across countries” IREX, 2012b have been published. The reports rate independent media sustainability in 80 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe and Eurasia and the Middle East and North Africa. The reports not only contain ratings, but also “an extensive Executive Summary of regional findings as well as individual country reports”.Becker, Nusser, & Vlad, 2007, p. 10 However, not all regions have been evaluated from the beginning. The Middle East and North Africa were added in 2005 and the Africa MSI was launched in 2007.IREX, 2012a The MSI does not gauge Western Europe or the United States.Burgess, 2010, p. 40 The surveys are funded by USAID, the US state department, UNESCO, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the People Technology Foundation.Burgess, 2010, p. 13 "Sustainability" within this concept "refers to the ability of media to play its vital role as the ‘fourth estate’".IREX, 2012a In other words, it relates to a media system that provides citizens with "useful, timely and objective information" IREX, 2012a and as well to a media system that can operate free and independent without political, legal, social or economic restrictions.Becker, Nusser, & Vlad, 2007, p. 10 Furthermore, it refers to a media system in which journalists have professional standards. And to a system where everybody has the right of free speech and access to information as the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says. With the aid of the MSI an international comparison of the independence and/or sustainability of media systems is possible. An international comparison allows policymakers to parse media systems and examine the areas in which media development assistance can advance citizens’ access to news and information. Moreover, the results of the MSI provide essential information for the media, their representatives and outlets and inform them as well as the civil society and the governments of the strengths and weaknesses of each country.Holtz-Bacha, 2011, p. 141
Methodology
Scoring system The MSI uses five fundamental objectives to assess to what extent a media system is independent, sustainable and successful. The five objectives are: "Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information. Journalism meets professional standards of quality. Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable, objective news. Media are well-managed enterprises, allowing editorial independence. Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of independent media".IREX, 2012b
These five objectives are the most central aspects of a sustainable and independent media system. Under each of these objectives are seven to nine indicators defining how well a country achieves that objective. Each indicator is scored from 0 to 4. A country scoring 0 does not fulfill the indicator and there might be forces holding back the implementation of the objective.IREX, 2012b Score 1 signifies the country slightly reaches the characteristics of the indicator. That means the government or other forces do not actively combat its implementation, but business environment do not foster it and also government or profession do not entirely support the progress.IREX, 2012b Score 2 implies that the country accomplishes many aspects of the indicator, but it is too early to evaluate the development. The country could still depend for example on present political forces.IREX, 2012b Score 3 connotes that the country reaches most features of the indicator. Implementation of the indicator has appeared over a number of years and/or during changes in government. The score refers to likely sustainability.IREX, 2012b Score 4 is the best score a panelist can give. It means the country fulfils all characteristics of the indicator. Implementation has endured intact over several changes in government and/or economy, shifts in public opinion and social conventions.IREX, 2012b
The scores for the indicators are then averaged to generate a single score for each objective. Next the five objectives’ scores are averaged to produce a final score for every country. In a following step the final score is interpreted as shown below: 0 - 1.00 = unsustainable, anti-free: Country does not reach or just slightly reaches objectives. Government and legislation actively holding back free media development. Country has little professionalism and low media-industry activity.IREX, 2012b 1.01 - 2.00 = unsustainable mixed system: Country marginally approaches objectives. Country has parts of a legal system, government is against a free media system, but there is obvious improvement in free-press advocacy and increasing professionalism. To evaluate sustainability one must continue to observe the development of new media businesses.IREX, 2012b 2.01 - 3.00 = near sustainability: Country approaches multiple objectives concerning legal norms, professionalism and a business environment supporting independent media. Improvements have survived shifts in government and have been established in law and practice. Nevertheless, the country needs more time to guarantee that change and to maintain the increased professionalism and the still young media business environment.IREX, 2012b 3.01 - 4.00 = sustainable: The media in the country is assumed to be professional, free and sustainable, or approaches these objectives almost. The systems fostering free media are still extant after several governments, after an unsteady economy and after changes in civic opinion or social conventions.IREX, 2012b
Scoring process In each country IREX compiles a panel of local experts who undertake the scoring. 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.Becker, Nusser, & Vlad, 2007, p. 10Burgess, 2011, p. 14IREX, 2012b All panelists receive the objectives, the indicators with descriptions and an explanation of how the scoring is done correctly. First each panel member individually completes the questionnaire and scores the indicators. In a second step the panelists get together to talk about the objectives and indicators. This discussion is written up by a panel moderator, mostly a representative of the country's media or an NGO. Then it is revised by IREX editorial staff. Panelists are allowed to change their scores during the discussion, but it is not promoted by IREX.Becker, Nusser, & Vlad, 2007, p. 10IREX, 2012b In a third step the "IREX editorial staff review the panelists’ scores, and then score the country independently of the MSI panel" .
Comparing the MSI (IREX) to the Freedom of the Press Index (Freedom House) The following two tables show a synopsis of the Media Sustainability Index (MSI) and the Freedom of the Press Index compiled by Freedom House. Table 1 compares the basic characteristics of the two indices, whereas table 2 is a more detailed analysis of the questionnaires.
Comparing the characteristics of the indices First of all you can see in table 1 that there are some similarities between the indices. Both IREX and Freedom House have their headquarters in America, both are nonprofit organizations, which receive financial support from the American government or from agencies like USAID or NED, which are subsidized on their part by the government.IREX, 2012a; Holtz-Bacha, 2011, p. 138-139 Furthermore, both indices measures are designed to evaluate characteristics of media systems from the point of view of elite evaluators. Means the survey in a certain country is conducted by experts of the media environment of the country concerned. But the two indices do not assess the same number of countries. The MSI rates 80 countries, whereas the Freedom of the Press Index rates more than twice as much countries. Another difference is that Freedom House captures all 196 countries in one annual report, which allows a comparison of all 196 countries at the same time, whereas IREX assesses the 80 countries in five studies (Africa, Asia, Europe & Eurasia and Middle East & North Africa), that are not published simultaneously and some of them not even annually. For example, the last report of Middle East & North Africa one can download is from 2009.IREX, 2012a 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. Another point is that Freedom House has measured Freedom of the Press since 1980, more than twenty years longer than IREX measures Media Sustainability. So it becomes evident that Freedom House has more experience in conducting these studies. Furthermore, the two indices have different underlying concepts. The underlying concept of the Freedom of the Press Index is to evaluate the status of press freedom in an individual country.Holtz-Bacha, 2011, p. 131 IREX’s concept however is to assess how successful, independent, sustainable a media system is in an individual country and “how media systems change over time and across borders”.IREX, 2012b To evaluate their respective target they use different questionnaires and scoring systems. The scoring systems as one can see in table 1 do not have much in common. IREX uses scores from 0 to 4, in which 0 is the worst score. Freedom House uses scores from 0 to 100, in which 0 is the best score. In advance Freedom House attaches different importance to the questions by giving some questions higher scores than others. So the panelists score the questions of the Freedom of the Press Index with a different number of points. The scoring system of the MSI is constantly the same. The surveyed persons score each indicator from 0 to 4. For this reason the MSI questionnaire seems to be clearer and more transparent and the questions can be better compared to each other.
Table 1 Media Sustainability Index (IREX) Freedom of the Press Index (Freedom House) Countries 80 196 Panelists Experts Experts First conducted in 2001 1980 Publication Frequency partly annual annual Origin America, Washington, D.C.IREX, 2012a America, Washington, D.C.Becker, Nusser, & Vlad, 2007, p. 9 Sponsors USAID U.S. state department UNESCO Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Burgess, 2010, p. 13 U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Burgess, 2010, p. 12 U.S. government European CommissionHoltz-Bacha, 2011, p.138 Concept To assess how successful, independent, sustainable a media system is in an individual country IREX, 2012b To assess the status of press freedom in an individual country Holtz-Bacha, 2011, p. 131 Categories Scoring System 0-4, 0 = worst; 4 = best 0 - 1.00 = unsustainable, anti-free press 1.01 - 2.00 = unsustainable mixed system