Parliament is preparing to discuss amendments to the Freedom of the Press Law.

• 🔍 Why it matters: While the amendments aim to update the Media Law for the first time in 27 years, media industry leaders and several MPs are urging Parliament to withdraw and fully redraft the proposal, citing its weak and superficial content.

😷 Cosmetic Amendments

The stated goal of the draft law is to safeguard press freedom and create a legal framework for the dissemination of information without harming honor, reputation, public morals, or national security. Key features of the amendments include:

• Defining the basic terms and principles for journalists, editorial teams, and media organizations.
• Prohibiting government and local authorities from owning media outlets, instead requiring them to advertise their activities through public tenders.
• Mandating disclosure of paid articles and programs, as well as ownership details for shareholders with more than 5% stakes, ultimate owners, and any state involvement.
• Allowing citizens and organizations to submit complaints directly to editorial offices or their regulatory bodies.

Despite these changes, critics argue that the draft merely formalizes daily operations already governed by internal editorial policies. They also note that without amending defamation-related provisions in the Criminal and Civil Codes, the reforms will be superficial. Although the Criminal Code is scheduled for revision this spring, Parliament appears set to fast-track the Media Law separately, risking incoherence between the reforms.

🤫 Reality Check

Mongolia’s standing in the World Press Freedom Index has sharply declined, falling 21 to 109th out of 180 countries this year, moving from the “problematic” to “critical” category.

📢 Final Thought… Lawmakers and regulators have consistently failed to distinguish press freedom from the spread of defamation and false information. Instead, defamation laws have been weaponized, leading to further erosion of media freedom. Once again, a law with a new name but lacking real substance risks being passed without addressing the fundamental issues.