Boris Kálnoky, a former correspondent for Die Welt and Die Presse, has defended Hungary’s media landscape under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán while sharply criticizing what he described as the ‘urban-liberal’ bias of Western newsrooms in an interview with the Austrian daily Der Standard.

Speaking ahead of Hungary’s upcoming parliamentary election, Kálnoky rejected the widely circulated claim that independent media have largely disappeared in the country. ‘How can you say that there is no longer any independent media here?’ he asked, arguing that ‘the internet is dominated by media critical of the government and this is the area that has the greatest influence on social discourse.’

According to Kálnoky, the Hungarian media environment is not only pluralistic but also more combative than in Western Europe. ‘The public discourse is much rougher than in Germany or Austria, and the published spectrum of opinion is much broader,’ he said. He further claimed that government-critical outlets have expanded since 2010, despite consolidation in some traditional sectors. ‘Yes, there are more media critical of the government today than there were in 2010,’ he stated, adding that while ‘some disappeared or were bought up, many new ones were founded.’

Medien-Experte: „Ungarn hat mehr Meinungsfreiheit als Deutschland!“

Boris Kálnoky, früherer Balkan-Korrespondent von „Welt“- und „Presse“ (Wien), hat die Medienpolitik des ungarischen Ministerpräsidenten Viktor Orbán verteidigt. Zugleich verwies er auf die eher woke Prägung… pic.twitter.com/OmCVkXiYfg

— Deutschland Kurier (@Deu_Kurier) April 6, 2026

Kálnoky acknowledged that pro-government dominance persists in certain segments, particularly radio and regional newspapers, but emphasized that online platforms and social media—now central to political communication—are largely critical of the government. ‘The impact of the government-critical media on public discourse in social media is measurably greater than that of pro-government media,’ he said.

Addressing accusations of political interference, Kálnoky argued that government involvement in the media market aimed to correct a previous imbalance. ‘In the past, the media were 85 per cent left-liberal; today the ratio is more like 50–50,’ he said. While such intervention remains controversial in Western democracies, he suggested it raises a legitimate theoretical question: ‘What if the compensation mechanism does not work and a large part of society is not represented in the media at all?’

The journalist also criticized the culture within Western media, claiming that dissenting views on Hungary are often discouraged. ‘If one writes that Orbán is not antisemitic, not racist and not an autocrat, there is a risk of being placed in that corner oneself,’ he said, adding that many journalists avoid such positions to escape professional backlash.

On the concept of ‘illiberal democracy’, Kálnoky defended Orbán’s framing as a corrective to what he sees as an increasingly ideological use of the term democracy in the West. ‘Democracy means that the people are sovereign,’ he said. ‘One does not necessarily have to be liberal-minded to be a democrat. A democracy can also be built on conservative values.’

‘A democracy can also be built on conservative values’

He also argued that Hungary guarantees freedom of expression, stating that ‘Hungary has more freedom of speech than Germany,’ citing differences in legal responses to online speech. At the same time, he acknowledged that certain restrictions—such as regulations affecting public events like Pride—reflect the government’s conservative approach to public morality.

Kálnoky linked broader tensions in media credibility to structural changes in journalism. With advertising revenues shifting to digital platforms, he said, media outlets increasingly rely on engagement-driven models. ‘One earns money when people react, and that is achieved through provocative, opinion-centred, sometimes divisive reporting,’ he noted, arguing that this shift has undermined trust. He added that ‘most journalists are urban and liberal,’ which may further deepen the disconnect with wider society.

Turning to the upcoming election, Kálnoky framed the vote as a strategic choice about Hungary’s future within the European Union. ‘The election will decide whether Hungary becomes a country like any other EU state that submits to the EU in every question without contradiction,’ he said, or whether Orbán’s government can ‘reinvent itself’ to preserve national autonomy.

Related articles: