The Crisis of Liberal Democracy

1. The Crisis of Liberal Democracy Democracy can be measured by different factors, such as fair elections, freedom of expression, and deliberation. The graph below from the V-Dem report shows an increase of countries declining in respect to these factors compared to those improving. Out of all of the factors, “deliberation is the only component worsening in both panels. It is declining in 19 countries in 2023, compared to 14 in 2013, while improving in eleven countries both in 2013 and 2023. The deliberative component measures respect for opposition, pluralism, and counterarguments with several different indicators and is central to the democratic process”. Freedom House found that attacks on pluralism were among the main reasons for the decline in democracy. They define pluralism as “the peaceful coexistence of people with different political ideas, religions, or ethnic identities”.  It is true that the global averages could be weighed down by some specific nondemocratic countries. However, in the increasingly globalized landscape we are living in, countries are now more economically interdependent than ever. According to the Wall Street Journal, the initiative of “change through trade”, which aimed to increase shared values through international trade, actually benefited countries such as China and Russia, and allowed them to become even more “radical and undemocratic”, while making western democracies more economically dependent on these nondemocratic countries (Dopfner, 2023). Looking specifically at democracy in Spain, experts have said that “Spain may well be the most impressively democratic major country in mainland Europe” (Reid, cited by Varadarajan, 2023). Although the political situation is not without its struggles, Reid says that “Spain's politics are no more unkempt than the present Western norm”, and Freedom House classified it as “free”, with a score of 90/100 in their “Freedom in the World” report of 2024. The ideals at the core of democracy remain popular in Spain and the rest of Western Europe, making them part of the global median of 66% who believe that direct democracy is a good way to govern.  These claims of freedom and democracy are not however in line with the perception of Spanish citizens, because another study by Pew Research Center found that large majorities in Spain are dissatisfied with how democracy is working in their country. This makes it part of the 51% of the 27 countries they polled who are dissatisfied with the state of democracy in their country, compared to 45% who are satisfied. Dissatisfaction with democracy is influenced by factors such as people’s perceptions of their politicians and the economic situation in the country, as well as others such as partisanship, because those who support parties that are not currently in power are more likely to say they are dissatisfied with democracy in their country. This last factor is important to note in the increasingly polarized political landscape of the world. Another factor they cited as important to satisfaction with democracy is the freedom of speech. “In every nation studied, dissatisfaction with democracy is more common among people who say the statement ‘the rights of people to express their views in public are protected’ does not describe their country well.”  Scholars such as Little and Meng insist that democracy should be measured based on quantifiable factors, which are not susceptible to individual bias. They state that studies that claim that the state of democracy rely too much on subjective indicators, such as experts using their own judgment to rate the extent to which an election was free and fair (Little & Meng, in Willick, 2024).  2. The Risks of Disinformation The World Economic Forum (WEF) ranked misinformation and disinformation as no. 1 in their 2024 Global Risk Report. This risk rose to the top of the rankings because of the increase in AI generated false information. Their survey of 1,500 policy makers and industry leaders found that fake news written and being spread by AI was the biggest short-term risk to the global economy. AI was also labeled as an “emerging risk” by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) (Vynck & Lynch, 2024). Policy makers are struggling to keep up with the regulation of the rapid development of technology, and to support innovation while at the same time reduce their potential harm (Ye Hee Lee, 2023). A 2022 study by UTECA and the University of Navarra found that 95,8% of Spaniards believe that disinformation is a problem in current society. In the survey they conducted, 72,1% of Spaniards recognized that they had believed a message or video that turned out to be false once. The risk of disinformation is one that is rapidly growing, especially in recent years. The same study found that 83,3% of the Spanish population believes that the spread of disinformation has increased first during the pandemic, and again with the war in Ukraine.  Although media companies are adapting to create more content online, and it appears that digital media is going to be the future of the industry, people seem to find more credibility in traditional media. In the study, 80,9% of Spaniards agree that television, radio, and print media provide the best guarantee against the proliferation of disinformation. This does not mean that the diversity of new media sources is only viewed negatively however, as seen in the statistic that 86,6% of Spaniards believe that thanks to the diversity of news programmes, they have a more pluralistic view of society. Misinformation and disinformation threaten “the cohesion of societies”, by increasing distrust, and which could lead to increasing polarization. The WEF considers societal polarization and misinformation and disinformation to be the two most closely linked risks in their framework, stating that they have the largest potential to amplify each other compared to other risks. The study conducted by UTECA and UNAV found that 91% of Spaniards believe that disinformation is a threat to democracy and the stability of a country.  When people are not sure what information is true, they do not know what institutions they can trust. This is evident in the results of the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, which reports that businesses are seen as the only trustworthy institution. This study links trust to competence and ethics, and it found that government is seen as far less competent and ethical than business. It was ranked as 52 points less competent and 32 points less ethical. This is in line with other studies on this topic, such as one conducted by the Pew Research Center which found that “only 17% of Americans trust officials in power in Washington to do the right thing” (Pew cited by Eddy in the NYT, 2023). It is worth noting however, that although business is the most trusted as an institution, business leaders are not seen as trustworthy. The Trust Barometer shows that 61% of people worry that business leaders are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations”. This shows that the majority believe that business leaders could actually be contributing to disinformation. However, they are still perceived as better than government leaders (63%) and journalists (64%) in this indicator.  Despite this apparent distrust in business leaders, there are high expectations for them in terms of information and ethics, and a demand for them to start playing a bigger role in society. According to the same Edelman report, 62% of employees expect their CEOs to manage changes occurring in society, not just those occurring in their business. Employees believe it is important that their CEOs speak publicly about issues such as “job skills of the future” (82%), “ethical use of technology” (79%) and “automation impact on jobs” (78%). This is especially evident in younger generations. Businesses are starting to realize their role as a “collective stabilizing force in helping ensure that the norms of democracy are upheld” (Levine cited by Eddy, 2023).  Disinformation can also be used as a tool for control in the political sphere. The decline of liberal democracy and the weakening of checks and balances in governments could also be considered a factor that could amplify disinformation in pursuit of political agendas (WEF, 2024). The WEF stated that it is especially a risk in 2024 because of the threat it poses in the many elections set to take place this year worldwide, which makes disinformation both a consequence and cause for the decline in democracy.  3. The Risks of Polarization 4. Technological Risks 5. Impact on Business

Trust in the Media and the Future of Democracy

8 Julio 2025 Por Sophia He “Trust in the media is essential to the future of democracy in Europe,” affirmed Michael McGrath, European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, Rule of Law, and Consumer Protection, during the opening address of a conference held on June 10, 2025, in Madrid, Spain. Hosted by the Observatorio de Medios e Información Responsable—an initiative of the Spanish think tank Ethosfera and Fundación Haz —the event brought together over thirty editors, journalists, academics, and media executives to examine the evolving relationship between journalism and democracy. Based on insights from the conference, this article analyzes the causes and consequences of media distrust, the solutions proposed, and the future of media as a watchdog for democracy. The Problem: Distrust in the Media and Its Stakes for Democracy Altogether, the stakes of growing media distrust are undeniably high. Democratic institutions, economic systems, and even the rule of law falter without a “free, plural, and independent media that speaks truth to power and holds it to account.” This warning from McGrath was echoed by Stiglitz, who stated: “What is at stake here […] is not just the media. It’s democracy. It’s our economy. It’s our prosperity.” The Solution: Proposals for Institutional Support and Self-Regulation Institutional efforts at the continental level have laid critical groundwork for rebuilding trust in the media. McGrath highlighted the European Media Freedom Act, set to take effect in August 2025, which protects against political interference in editorial decisions, secures the independence and stable funding of public service media, and ensures transparency in media ownership and state funding. The EU has also supported the European Digital Media Observatory, which monitors disinformation threats and promotes media literacy. Finally, media is a core focus of the European Democracy Shield, an emerging EU initiative aimed at strengthening democracy across member states. The appropriate scope of institutional regulation was a subject of significant discussion. While regulation does not inherently conflict with freedom of expression, some warned that excessive oversight could stifle innovation, isolate it within Europe, or render it irrelevant. Others countered that the absence of regulation has enabled systemic disinformation campaigns. In light of these concerns, panelists pointed to the lack of regulatory oversight over the primary source of disinformation: social media. Technology has made it easier than ever to publish unverified content, yet regulators continue to give social media a “blank check.” In response, speakers urged equal regulatory treatment for both traditional and social media. In addition to institutional regulation, self-regulation plays a key role in restoring media credibility from within. One proposal was a label of credibility to help channel investment from high-traffic platforms toward trustworthy sources. Some speakers, however, favored a label of identity, one that distinguishes investigative journalism from mere content creation. They argued that, since truth is the only reliable marker, any label should serve as a complement rather than a definitive judgment. For the governance of such labels, speakers suggested oversight by independent bodies such as the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE). Additional self-regulatory proposals included complaint mechanisms reviewed by independent councils, with repeated violations leading to disqualification from public funding. Panelists also proposed a public media registry requiring transparency in media ownership and financing. Ultimately, trustworthy journalism depends on both sustainable external funding and resilient internal revenue streams. Panelists reinforced Stiglitz’s definition of news as a public good by asking for a more efficient allocation of public funds. Proposed measures included compensation for violations of intellectual property—an approach implemented in Norway through a levy—and the reduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) across the board. Some speakers noted concerns surrounding public subsidies, cautioning that they could exacerbate existing issues of transparency and objectivity. On the internal side, panelists identified a readership-based business model as the most viable path forward, especially given the collapse of the “accidental marriage” between media and advertising. The Future: Media as a Watchdog for Democracy The speakers’ proposals reflect a vision for the future of media rooted in values. Foremost among these is pluralism—a cornerstone of democracy, which depends on the dispersion of power across all sectors of society, including the media. To ensure that media fulfills its democratic function, panelists highlighted four additional values: creativity, opportunity, ethics, and dialogue. Creativity is essential, as the human element is what ultimately distinguishes journalism in today’s digital landscape. In a field where technology often seems to displace opportunity, journalism must carve out its own by harnessing digital tools while upholding ethical standards. Finally, given the urgent need to mend the social fabric, the media must realize its potential as a unifying force by fostering spaces for meaningful dialogue. The media’s role as a watchdog of democracy extends beyond Europe, as emphasized by Anya Schiffrin, director of Columbia University’s Technology, Media, and Communications (TMaC) program, in her closing address. From the American perspective, she noted that unscrupulous media outlets have deepened polarization and eroded public trust in both science and government. As Schiffrin observed, platform remuneration will not save journalism, and journalism alone cannot save the world from polarization. Yet without reliable journalism, democracies cannot save themselves. The challenges are substantial, but in the view of Stiglitz, democracy is worth the trade-offs—even trade wars, if that is what it takes. It is up to actors both within and beyond the media to transform these proposals into a future where journalism safeguards democracy, bolsters our economy, and advances our shared prosperity.