The media ecology in Lebanon and Tunisia is vibrant and pluralistic. A wide variety of voices can be heard across multiple platforms, ranging from traditional newspapers to activist electronic media. Still, most Lebanese and Tunisian journalists would agree with the Lebanese journalist Nidal, who said that the news media ‘rely on political funding’, a business model that is ‘an impediment to freedom and independence and keeps the journalist on a leash held by the funder’ (L38, 6 March 2019). As stated in the previous chapter, press freedom and pluralism are marred by widespread media capture, or instrumentalisation of the media. Why is this, and how does it happen?

Countries that have recently democratised or that oscillate between democracy and autocracy are especially vulnerable to media instrumentalisation (Voltmer 2013). While they are liberated from direct state control over information flows, the institutions, norms and economic arrangements that protect citizens’ interests and free journalism in stable democracies are often underdeveloped. The quality of the media depends on the level of political progress. Discussing Eastern Europe after Communism, Zielonka (2015) gives several reasons why political interference in the media in young democracies is rife. We shall emphasise three of them in this chapter. First, the political institutions in young democracies are fragile, in the sense that the democratic structures have weak roots and continue to suffer from deficiencies. The state itself is often frail, and institutional instability harms the media's development. Second, a culture of informality reigns, because institutional shortcomings incentivise actors to seek influence and solutions outside formal political channels. Both politicians and journalists have acquired habits in the past that are hard to break. On Eastern Europe, Zielonka's (2015: 18) judgment is candid: