Right to Write European Observatory
Submit an incident

Our Methodology

The Observatory uses a rigorous analytical framework drawn from the FSE report Right to Write: Screenwriters and the Growing Threats to Freedom of Artistic Expression in Europe.

The Authoritarian Playbook

Through extensive research across Europe, the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe identified 14 recurring methods used by governments and political actors to restrict artistic freedom and undermine independent media. These methods operate individually and in combination, often beginning subtly before escalating into systematic suppression.

Every submission to this Observatory is analysed by an AI system — informed by this framework — which identifies which method or methods may apply, with a confidence level, before a human expert from the FSE validates the classification.

1

Generalised attacks on the media

Media delegitimisation

Continuous and aggressive denunciation of all media as "fake news" or "lying press". The goal is not direct censorship but the systematic discrediting of truth itself, creating a generalised climate of suspicion toward verified information. This undermines public trust in independent journalism and pushes editors and publishers toward self-restraint out of fear of being targeted.

2

Creation of a climate of fear among journalists

Climate of fear

Use of legal harassment (SLAPP suits), online harassment campaigns, physical threats, accreditation restrictions, and advertising blacklists to constrain independent journalists without resorting to formal censorship.

3

Purchase or acquisition of media by friendly business interests

Media acquisition

Progressive constitution of media empires by economically powerful actors ideologically aligned with far-right movements, enabling indirect but effective editorial control without direct government intervention.

4

Abuse of state resources and regulatory bodies to harass independent media

Regulatory abuse

Use of state tools (government advertising budgets, broadcast regulators, tax authorities, licensing procedures) to economically asphyxiate critical media and favour aligned outlets.

5

Attacks on media with foreign ownership or NGO funding

Foreign agent framing

Instrumentalisation of foreign funding or ownership to discredit independent media as "foreign agents", mimicking Russian legislation.

6

Dismissal of senior figures in cultural institutions

Institutional dismissals

Replacement of directors of museums, theatres, film funds and public broadcasters by ideologically aligned figures, often without relevant qualifications, with the dual objective of reorienting public cultural funding and making these changes structurally difficult to reverse after an electoral defeat.

7

Direct censorship

Direct censorship

Cancellation of performances, withdrawal of funding from specific projects deemed politically undesirable, or outright bans.

8

Direct attack on public service broadcasting

PSB attack

Outside power: campaigns to defund or abolish public service broadcasting. Once in power: capture of boards and editorial leadership to put public broadcasters at the service of the ideological agenda.

9

The chilling effect (induced self-censorship)

Chilling effect

Without any direct intervention, the progressive transformation of selection and funding conditions leads creators, producers and broadcasters to anticipate what will be acceptable and to eliminate projects upstream that might be deemed controversial. The selection happens before the selection takes place.

10

Normalisation of extremist positions

Normalisation

Centre-right parties progressively adopt positions and rhetoric drawn from the far-right playbook, legitimising discourse previously considered unacceptable and expanding the political space in which these methods operate.

11

Politicisation of cultural funding bodies

Cultural funding politicisation

Reorientation of public funding criteria for creative work toward ideological criteria (national identity, Christian values, biased historical representation), operating through the appointment of aligned figures to selection committees and funding juries.

12

Creation of parallel aligned cultural institutions

Parallel institutions

Funding and promotion of schools, training programmes, think tanks and cultural centres designed to form a new generation of ideologically aligned creators, bypassing existing independent cultural institutions.

13

Use of state advertising budgets as a pressure tool

Advertising pressure

Discretionary allocation of government advertising budgets to favourable media and systematic withdrawal from critical outlets, creating economic dependency that leads to editorial self-censorship without any formal instruction being issued.

14

Disqualification of neutral arbiters

Epistemic destruction

Systematic destruction of trust in any institution claiming neutrality or expertise — universities, polling institutes, fact-checkers, regulatory authorities, international organisations — to create an epistemological void in which only the leader's word or aligned media can impose itself as truth.

How submissions are processed

1

Submission

A screenwriter or cultural professional submits an incident via the public form — as a URL, a text, or a written description. Personal contact details are optional and kept strictly separate (GDPR).

2

AI pre-analysis

The submission is immediately analysed by our AI system, which identifies relevant methods, assigns confidence levels, and generates an explanation. This happens in real time before the form is submitted.

3

Expert validation

An FSE expert reviews the AI analysis, may correct the classification, and validates or rejects the submission. Guild members see validated submissions 1–3 weeks before public release.

4

Public record

Validated submissions become part of the public Observatory dataset, feeding the interactive map and country reports — a permanent, searchable record of documented threats.