In the midst of crises and wars, the media is no longer merely a transmitter of events; it becomes a key actor in shaping public opinion, capable of contributing both to de-escalation and to incitement. This role became clearly evident in Lebanon during the media coverage of the recent wars, which recently prompted Minister of Information Paul Morcos to hold meetings with media institutions aimed at formulating recommendations to regulate discourse and limit the drift toward incitement and hate speech. However, these initiatives raise a deeper governance issue: who monitors media performance and holds it accountable?

 

In theory, this role, with regard to audiovisual media, is assigned to the National Council for Audiovisual Media. However, its limited advisory powers, combined with the expiration of its mandate and its declining effectiveness, render its presence almost absent at a critical moment. In parallel, the National Media Council, which is supposed to be established under a new media law with a more independent and effective structure, remains absent due to the failure to adopt this law. Between non-binding recommendations and either non-functioning or non-existent bodies, a regulatory vacuum emerges that directly affects media performance, which has often appeared largely unchecked, in the absence of any authority capable of guiding or holding it accountable.

 

Initiatives to Return to Professional Standards

Media coverage in Lebanon during crises, including recent wars, has not been detached from political and sectarian alignments. Media institutions often reflect the positions of the actors that fund or support them, resulting in biased media discourse that sometimes lacks professional standards and contributes to deepening divisions rather than mitigating them. This phenomenon has intensified with the rise of digital media and social media platforms, where discourse escapes regulation, and misinformation and hate speech spread at unprecedented speed, in the absence of effective accountability mechanisms.

 

Faced with this reality, the Ministry of Information has attempted to intervene within the limits of its mandate. The current Minister of Information, Paul Morcos, has held meetings with media outlets to develop general recommendations calling for the adoption of a responsible professional discourse that limits incitement and hate speech. The ministry has also worked, in cooperation with organizations such as “Maharat” and UNESCO, to advance a draft new media law that includes provisions to regulate online media and combat hate speech.

 

As Minister Paul Morcos explains in an interview with Maharat, the Ministry of Information does not have the authority to investigate, prosecute, indict, judge, or punish, nor does it have an executive apparatus or what could be described as a “media police.” Its role is limited to working with media outlets within a framework of partnership, interaction, and communication. At the same time, prosecution is left to the judiciary, particularly the Public Prosecution, which acts either ex officio, upon complaints, or at the instruction of the Minister of Justice, to pursue individuals inciting on social media in cases that go beyond freedom of expression to insults, defamation, and disturbance of public order. These proceedings are carried out by the competent authorities, including judicial police units such as the Cybercrime and Intellectual Property Bureau. This reflects a reality in which the Ministry of Information serves as a body for guidance and communication, rather than one of oversight or accountability.

 

 

On her part, the Executive Director of Maharat,  Roula Mikhael, believes that Lebanon’s media landscape is witnessing a clear erosion of professional and ethical standards. She notes that the circumstances, particularly during the recent war, have highlighted the role of the media in deepening divisions through violent, accusatory discourse and accusations of treason, the impact of which has also extended to public discourse.

 

She stresses that this reality is exacerbated by the absence of an effective media council, which leaves a significant regulatory vacuum. In this context, she points out that Maharat,  in cooperation with a number of media-focused associations, has pushed for the adoption of a new media law that includes the National Media Council reform by establishing an independent body composed of qualified experts capable of working with various stakeholders to advance the sector. According to the proposal, its role would focus on media sector governance and development, and on ensuring content quality rather than restricting freedom. The current situation, however, remains characterized by a chaotic media environment fueled by rumors rather than facts.

 

For his part, the Communication and Information Programme Officer at UNESCO Regional office in Beirut, Georges Awad, states that media performance in covering crises and conflicts in the Arab region can be analyzed through three interrelated priority areas for UNESCO: media and information literacy, safety of journalists, and information integrity. Despite the expanding role of the media in providing information and enhancing participation, significant gaps remain, most notably weak critical thinking among audiences and the limited integration of media literacy into education, which increases societies’ vulnerability to disinformation and hate speech.

 

He also notes that conflict environments and political pressures limit journalistic independence, leading to self-censorship and reduced field verification. At the same time, issues such as the politicization of media, weak fact-checking, lack of editorial independence, and the spread of conflict-amplifying narratives persist. This underscores the need to strengthen journalists’ capacities, consolidate media literacy, and develop mechanisms for protection, accountability, and ethical reporting.

 

The National Media Council as a Framework for Crisis Management

Since its establishment more than twenty years ago, the National Council for Audiovisual Media has remained an advisory body whose role is limited to issuing reports and recommendations without possessing effective enforcement tools, which has constrained its ability to influence media performance. In an attempt to address this shortcoming, the Council has at times expanded its role beyond its legal mandate—particularly with regard to online platforms. However, these efforts, while aimed at finding solutions, have not translated into tangible results or real impact, especially given that its composition falls short of the structure proposed under the draft new media law for the National Media Council.

 

As its presence has declined, structural deficiencies in regulating the sector have deepened, particularly in light of the absence of the National Media Council due to the failure to adopt the law. This has left a clear regulatory vacuum within the governance framework. This vacuum is reflected in a media landscape that is increasingly prone to deregulation, where inciting and hate-driven discourse spreads without an authorized body capable of effective intervention. In this regard, legal expert and former MP Ghassan Moukheiber notes in an interview with Maharat that judicial remedies alone are insufficient, especially since the roots of the problem lie in political divisions that are in turn reflected in the media.

 

The importance of the National Media Council lies in its composition, neutrality, and independence from the executive power and the Ministry of Information, making it closer to a “council of wise figures,” as Moukheiber describes it. This image could be leveraged to enable it to play the role assigned to it in the draft media law.

 

According to the revised draft media law, the Council would have been tasked with developing a code of conduct specific to conflict situations, to be formulated in consultation with media institutions and professionals. This code would cover all media formats—from audiovisual to print and digital—providing a unified ethical framework that could help establish a minimum level of consensus within the media sector.

 

The Council could also have monitored the proper implementation of these rules and adopted dedicated mechanisms for dispute resolution, rather than limiting recourse to criminal proceedings, while preserving the role of the judiciary in cases related to incitement to violence and hate speech. The draft law also provides for the decriminalization of libel, slander, defamation, and opinion-related offenses, while maintaining the criminalization of incitement to violence and hate speech. In severe cases, the Council would have the power to refer violators to the competent judiciary. In addition, it could issue both general and specific reports and provide recommendations to media professionals and the public, contributing to a more rational public discourse and reducing tensions.

 

In this context, the Media Council, if it existed, would appear as a supportive and useful actor in regulating the media landscape, even if not a decisive one, given that political divisions remain a key factor shaping media discourse.

 

In light of this regulatory vacuum, further compounded by the absence of the National Media Council, international approaches emerge as important references for understanding how to manage and regulate the media landscape during crises. In this regard, Georges Awad emphasizes that monitoring media performance during crises should be a shared responsibility among regulatory bodies, civil society, and media institutions themselves, as no single actor can ensure credibility and legitimacy on its own.

 

He explains that the role of regulatory bodies is to oversee and uphold minimum standards while maintaining their independence, whereas media institutions bear responsibility for internal accountability through editorial principles and transparent correction mechanisms. Meanwhile, civil society and independent oversight bodies play a crucial role in external monitoring, public scrutiny, and fact-checking.

 

Awad emphasizes that the most effective accountability mechanisms are those that are multi-layered and based on self-regulation. These include clear codes of conduct, independent complaint and review systems, public correction policies, and fact-checking networks, in addition to sustained efforts in media and information literacy that enable audiences to critically assess content—thereby ensuring accountability without undermining freedom of expression.

 

Strengthening Media Governance During Crises

In light of this regulatory vacuum, international approaches emerge as a key reference point for understanding how to manage the media landscape during crises. In this context, Georges Awad explains that UNESCO adopts a normative and facilitative approach based on supporting the development of voluntary, rights-based media charters and ethical frameworks, rather than imposing regulation. This approach relies on engaging governments, media sector actors, and civil society with the aim of reaching shared standards that promote information integrity, media and information literacy, and the safety of journalists, while preserving freedom of expression.

 

He adds that these charters include core commitments to accuracy and verification, the adoption of conflict-sensitive reporting, and efforts to limit misinformation and hate speech, alongside the establishment of accountability and self-regulation mechanisms, the protection of journalists, and the promotion of inclusive representation. According to Awad, these approaches aim to institutionalize responsible journalism, build public trust, and strengthen social cohesion in fragile and crisis-affected contexts, without sliding into censorship or entrenching state control over the media.

 

Translating these principles into the Lebanese context, former MP Ghassan Moukheiber argues that, in light of the weakness of the  National Council for Audiovisual Media and the absence of the National Media Council, there is a need for a collective initiative from all components of the media environment, including human rights bodies, professional syndicates, and alternative associations, to convene a conference that would assume the roles that the Media Council was meant to fulfill. He stresses the importance of acting as though a binding law already exists, through joint efforts to draft a code of conduct that defines the ethical rules governing media performance. While judicial intervention in extreme cases remains useful, he considers it insufficient, as the core solution ultimately lies in addressing political behavior and bridging divisions, given that political polarization is the primary driver of unrestrained media narratives.

 

 

In this context, the need for a clear and effective institutional framework becomes evident, an issue emphasized by Roula Mikhael, who stresses that what is required today is the adoption of a media law and the establishment of an effective National Media Council, based on the conviction that the media plays a fundamental role in supporting Lebanon’s recovery after years of successive crises.

 

She adds that there remains hope for the country to recover, and for the media to be part of this process, through the adoption of the necessary reforms that would enable a new phase of media practice that is more professional and responsible. She explains that the objective is to reach a form of media that keeps pace with this phase without contributing to deepening divisions, incitement, or undermining trust in the state, but rather fulfills its oversight and investigative role in a broader and more effective manner.

 

She concludes by emphasizing that achieving this constitutes a fundamental condition for enabling the media to fulfill its social responsibility, particularly during crises, thus making it a central component of any path toward national recovery.

 

This report was prepared as part of the project “Support to Media Reform in Lebanon to Enhance Freedom of Expression,” with the support of the European Union.