Hungary’s incoming leader, Peter Magyar, is right to demand reforms in state media, but his approach risks replacing one form of political control with another.
Magyar’s election victory ends more than a decade of rule under Viktor Orbán, a period widely marked by the consolidation of media power. Reports show that a large network of outlets aligned with Orbán’s allies came to dominate Hungary’s information landscape. Independent voices shrank, and public broadcasters faced repeated criticism for bias.
That context explains Magyar’s urgency. He has accused state media of acting as a “propaganda machine” and has called for major reforms, including suspending public news broadcasts and rewriting media laws. He has also urged Tamás Sulyok to step down, arguing that the current leadership no longer reflects national unity.
The problem is not the goal. It is the method.
Shutting down or suspending public broadcasts, even temporarily, raises serious concerns. Public media should serve citizens, not governments. Reforming it requires independence, not interruption. If a new administration directly intervenes in content or operations, it risks repeating the same pattern it claims to oppose.
Hungary does need media reform. Years of political influence have weakened trust in public information. Magyar has outlined several steps, including creating a new media authority and passing updated legislation. These are valid starting points. But without safeguards, they could simply shift control from one political group to another.
A credible reform plan must focus on structure, not control.
First, Hungary should establish an independent media regulator with clear legal protections from political interference. Its leadership should come from multiple sectors, not just government appointments. Second, public broadcasters must adopt transparent editorial standards, with oversight mechanisms that allow journalists, not politicians, to guide content. Third, ownership concentration in private media should face stricter scrutiny to prevent future monopolies.
Magyar’s broader reform agenda, including anti-corruption efforts and judicial independence, suggests he understands the need for institutional change. Media reform should follow the same principle: build systems that last beyond one administration.
Hungary now has a rare opportunity to reset its democratic institutions. But strong intentions alone are not enough. The way reforms are carried out will determine whether the country strengthens press freedom, or simply reshapes political influence.
If Hungary wants a media system that serves the public, it must reduce political control, not redistribute it.
