Three MEPs from the Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) group have submitted a written parliamentary question to the European Commission, challenging the allocation of EU funds to the German media outlet Correctiv and its involvement in EU-funded disinformation-fighting networks. The MEPs—Mary Khan, Irmhild Boßdorf, and Christine Anderson—question the transparency and political neutrality of the funding, arguing that Correctiv promotes biased content under the guise of fact-checking. The move puts pressure on the Commission to justify its support for media projects that police critical opinions, potentially impacting EU taxpayers and media freedom advocates.
The question, filed on 13 April 2026 under reference E-001482/2026, is a written parliamentary question under Rule 144 of the European Parliament's rules of procedure. It contains three concrete asks: the total EU funding received by Correctiv and the criteria for awarding it; the amount received through the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) and its regional hub GADMO, along with specific projects; and whether the Commission plans to continue funding Correctiv under new calls published in April 2025 worth €5 million or through other programmes.
Policy orientations The question signals a clear policy direction: the MEPs seek to reduce or halt EU funding to media outlets they perceive as politically biased, advocating for stricter transparency and accountability in the allocation of EU anti-disinformation funds. This reflects a broader cleavage between security (combating disinformation) and freedom of expression, as well as between increasing EU regulatory oversight of online content and protecting media independence. The MEPs' concerns about "politically biased media outlets" suggest a preference for less EU involvement in content moderation, aligning with national sovereignty over EU-level control.
Expected follow-up The Commission is required to respond within approximately six weeks. Its answer will signal the EU executive's stance on funding media fact-checking initiatives and its willingness to disclose detailed financial data. A defensive response could indicate continued support for EDMO and its partners, while a more accommodating reply might open the door to greater scrutiny or changes in funding criteria.
← Atlas › News › Digital & Communication