RSF и западные СМИ обвинили Азербайджан в создании «Министерства информации 2.0», однако факт-чек показал необоснованность этих утверждений

The bordered activities of Reporters Without Borders – Part II In the modern world, amid the processes of digitalization and convergence, the need to modernize global governance models has become increasingly evident. In line with these global trends, Azerbaijan also initiated institutional reforms in the media sector several years ago. However, each time reforms are undertaken in the country's media sphere, campaigns characterized by bias and unfounded allegations against Azerbaijan are launched. Most recently, following discussions in the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the draft law establishing the Media and Broadcasting Council, several media outlets operating within Azerbaijan's information space and financed by foreign circles and funds, along with organizations such as Reporters Without Borders (RSF), began promoting new allegations aimed at attracting international attention against Azerbaijan. Faktyoxla, a fact-finding platform, analyzed the claims put forward by RSF and a number of media organizations and institutions sharing similar positions, concluding that these assessments fail to take into account Azerbaijan's domestic development dynamics and contemporary global challenges. The analysis examined the arguments presented in RSF's statement-article titled "Azerbaijan: Towards the Ministry of Information 2.0," published on June 29, while also reviewing the activities of similar regulatory institutions operating in European Union member states and several Western countries. Claim I – The Azerbaijani authorities are creating a "super-regulatory" body with unprecedented powers This assertion does not accurately reflect the substance of the issue. The reform does not involve the creation of entirely new powers; rather, it aims to simplify the administrative functions of two already existing institutions — the Media Development Agency and the Audiovisual Council. Maintaining parallel administrative structures results in recurring expenditures, overlapping competencies and additional bureaucratic burdens for media entities. The unified institutional model, in addition to reducing state budget expenditures, introduces the "single-window" principle, under which media organizations no longer need to interact separately with two different institutions and can instead manage all processes through a single structure. This represents a rational governance model that has been tested in international practice, and several countries have adopted similar consolidation measures precisely in response to the digitalization of the media landscape. Claim II – It is not an independent regulator, but a control center serving the executive branch RSF's claim lacks a consistent evidentiary basis because the logic underpinning it is not applied uniformly. If state budget financing and the appointment of an institution's leadership by the head of state automatically transform that institution into an "instrument of the executive branch," then the same criterion should logically be applied to RSF itself. (faktyoxla) RSF receives financial support from various governments, state-affiliated institutions and foundations, with France being its largest donor. Based on this fact, it would be equally logical to interpret RSF's activities not solely as a defense of independent media, but also as an instrument of France's "soft power" policy. [fact check] If state funding is considered sufficient grounds to question the independence of an institution, then the same reasoning can be applied to RSF. Furthermore, the collegial decision-making mechanism envisaged within the newly established institution further weakens claims regarding formal subordination. Every state adopts measures that correspond to its geopolitical and geoeconomic realities, and in Azerbaijan's case, this process is entirely natural. Claim III – Regulation should be aimed at preserving pluralism, not at strengthening political power The assertion that the reform is intended to "strengthen political power" is inconsistent with existing realities, as the level of public support already approaches its maximum and does not require further consolidation. Following the victory in Karabakh, public confidence in the leadership of President Ilham Aliyev has reached historically high levels. According to a survey conducted by the Media Development Agency for the first half of 2026, involving 1,210 respondents through face-to-face interviews with a margin of error of ±3 percent, the level of public trust in the President stands at 87.7 percent, while 93.6 percent of respondents positively assessed his performance. In addition, 91.5 percent stated that they would vote for him if an election were held on the upcoming Sunday, and 81.9 percent described him as a leader without an alternative. Given such high and stable levels of public support, the claim that a relatively limited administrative reform is aimed at "strengthening political power" appears, at the very least, illogical. (media) Claim IV – Institutional centralization has accelerated This process is a natural and necessary development. The establishment of the Audiovisual Council in 2002, the Media Development Agency in 2021, and the integration of the Social Research Center in 2026 are an adequate response of the state to the reality that the boundaries between the press, broadcast media, and digital platforms practically no longer exist. It is impossible to effectively regulate this rapidly changing environment with separate, fragmented institutions. A unified structure ensures both rapid decision-making and a unified strategic approach. This is the path taken by many regulatory systems around the world adapting to digital transformation. There are other examples of consolidating regulatory institutions against the backdrop of the digitalization of the media landscape, so this step is naturally considered normal. Claim V – Repression against independent journalists has intensified, Azerbaijan ranks 171st The vast majority of those whom RSF calls "independent journalists" have actually been convicted under specific articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The existence of a journalist's card does not exempt anyone from criminal liability. The aforementioned media organizations do not have the right to operate in the official information space of Azerbaijan due to their opaque financing and illegal activities, but nevertheless continue their activities through unofficial channels. As for Azerbaijan's ranking in 171st place, RSF's rating methodology itself is seriously questionable: on the one hand, the organization raises the problem of foreign financing of these organizations, and on the other hand, it refutes itself by calling them "independent journalists". Moreover, RSF's double standards are obvious. For example, there is a clear discrepancy between RSF's reaction to the steps taken by its regulator Arcom against the French TV channel "CNews" and its position on Azerbaijan. Claim VI – The return of the Ministry of Press and Information, abolished in 2001 This parallel is historically incorrect. The Ministry of Press and Information was established in 1993 (by Decree No. 608 of President Abulfaz Elchibey dated May 18, 1993) as a result of the transformation of the State Press Committee, and was abolished in 2001 by Decree No. 470 of President Heydar Aliyev dated April 19, 1993. Since then, the bodies regulating the media and broadcasting sector have had a formal independent status and decisions are made collegially. The appointment of heads by the head of state is not a factor that hinders this independence, on the contrary, in many countries the heads of regulatory bodies are appointed by the head of state or the government, which is a normal procedure widespread in international practice. Claim VII – Control will also cover digital platforms (YouTube, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram) This is a completely reasonable and necessary step. Disinformation campaigns and the spread of synthetic media content through digital platforms have caused significant disruptions and social instability in various parts of the world, prompting many countries to adopt regulatory measures. From the perspective of national security, Azerbaijan is not immune to such threats, and therefore monitoring the social media segment constitutes a natural function of the state. Notably, RSF did not mention the platform "X" (formerly Twitter) in its statement, despite having criticized it extensively over the years. This omission further demonstrates what critics describe as the organization's selective and inconsistent approach. Where else does the Media and Broadcasting Council model exist, and how does it operate? The Media and Broadcasting Council proposed in Azerbaijan is based on the internationally recognized and successfully implemented model of a "Convergent (Unified) Media Regulator." Traditionally, countries regulated print media, audiovisual broadcasting (television and radio), and internet media through separate institutions. However, with the advancement of digitalization and the convergence of media formats — where, for example, newspapers produce video content, publish online news and distribute podcasts — many countries have shifted toward consolidating regulatory authority under a single institution or "super-regulator." The most successful and widely recognized examples of this model can be found in the following countries: United Kingdom – Ofcom (Office of Communications) One of the most established and influential examples of this system globally is the UK-based Ofcom. In 2003, the British Parliament dissolved five separate regulatory bodies, including the Television Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, and consolidated their functions within Ofcom. Today, Ofcom regulates not only traditional television and radio broadcasting, but also the telecommunications sector, including internet and mobile communications, as well as digital media platforms. Following recent legislative amendments under the Media Act, Ofcom has been granted additional powers to oversee global streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, as well as to enforce online safety regulations. France – ARCOM (Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique) France has likewise adopted a model of institutional consolidation. On January 1, 2022, ARCOM was established through the merger of two major institutions: the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA), which regulated audiovisual media, and HADOPI, the agency responsible for copyright protection in the digital sphere. ARCOM exercises regulatory authority not only over television and radio broadcasting but also over digital platforms, including social networks and search engines. Among its primary responsibilities are combating online hate speech, countering disinformation and fake news, and strengthening the accountability of digital platforms. United States – FCC (Federal Communications Commission) In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has served for decades as the central regulatory authority for media and communications. The FCC oversees broadcasting and communications policy across interstate and international television, radio, satellite services, cable networks and broadband internet. This unified, collegial commission serves as the principal regulatory body for the country's communications sector. Germany – KEK (Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich) and Integrated Media Institutions Germany's media regulatory system represents a distinctive and highly developed model. Although media regulation is organized on a federal basis, the overall approach remains coordinated and unified. Strict oversight mechanisms have been established to prevent excessive influence by either business interests or state institutions. Regulatory bodies responsible for broadcasting and digital media operate through coordinated structures, with centralized mechanisms overseeing media concentration and illegal content, particularly on digital platforms and social networks. The KEK monitors whether major media companies and holdings are undermining pluralism and diversity of opinion within both traditional and digital media markets. When a company exceeds a certain audience share threshold — generally around 30 percent — and risks exerting excessive influence over public opinion, the KEK has the authority to intervene and impose restrictions. In Germany, media regulation falls under the jurisdiction of the country's 16 federal states (Länder), each of which maintains its own independent media authority. However, to address the challenges of the digital era, these institutions operate under a unified coordination mechanism known as the ZAK (Zentrale Kommission für Aufsicht). The regulation of major technology platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Meta in Germany is primarily governed by two key legal instruments: NetzDG (Network Enforcement Act): This law establishes a strict framework requiring social media platforms to remove hate speech, fake news and illegal content within specified timeframes, in some cases within 24 hours. Enforcement is coordinated through centralized mechanisms. MStV (Media State Treaty): This agreement extends regulatory requirements traditionally applied to television broadcasting to digital platforms and online content creators. As a result, large-scale YouTube channels and digital broadcasters may become subject to licensing requirements and content regulations similar to those applicable to traditional television broadcasters. The German experience demonstrates that although media regulation is institutionally distributed among regional authorities, decision-making processes and digital oversight mechanisms have become increasingly unified and centralized due to the borderless nature of the internet. Australia – The ACMA Model Australia's ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) model is regarded as one of the world's earliest and most successful examples of a unified regulatory framework in the field of media and communications. Until 2005, telecommunications services (telephone networks and communications infrastructure) and broadcasting services (television and radio) in Australia were regulated by separate agencies. However, with the rapid development of the internet and the growing convergence of technologies — where television increasingly migrated online and telecommunications evolved into a platform for media distribution — the Australian government merged the two major regulatory institutions and established ACMA. This marked one of the first instances globally in which media and communications technologies were brought under a single regulatory authority. ACMA's jurisdiction is extensive and encompasses virtually all sectors involved in the transmission of digital and analog communications: Traditional media: licensing of television and radio broadcasters, broadcasting regulations and program standards; Telecommunications: oversight of mobile and fixed-line operators, internet service providers, satellite communications and the allocation and management of radio frequency spectrum; Digital environment and cybersecurity: regulation related to spam communications (SMS and email), online gambling and illegal internet content. In recent years, ACMA's authority has been further expanded to include oversight of major technology companies such as Google, Meta and TikTok. Australia has also established a specific code of conduct for digital platforms aimed at combating disinformation and the spread of fake news. Under the expanded powers granted to ACMA, the regulator can impose mandatory and significant sanctions on social media companies that fail to adequately address these issues, including fines amounting to up to 5 percent of their global revenue. ACMA does not engage in the removal of individual posts or direct censorship. Instead, it focuses on examining the internal mechanisms, algorithms and accountability systems of digital platforms in order to systematically prevent the dissemination of misinformation that could cause serious harm to society. In addition, Australia has established an independent institution known as the eSafety Commissioner, which works closely with ACMA to ensure online safety, particularly for children and other vulnerable groups. Together, these institutions are tasked with safeguarding both the quality of the media environment and the safety of citizens in the digital sphere. The Australian ACMA model demonstrates that as technologies converge, the legal and institutional frameworks regulating them should likewise be consolidated. This approach increases administrative efficiency and strengthens the state's ability to regulate major technology companies, often referred to as "Big Tech." European Union Within the European Union, media entities operate under a comprehensive regulatory framework that includes the EU's audiovisual regulatory policy, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which govern the single digital market. In addition, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) establishes strict standards regarding ownership concentration, transparency and protection against external influence and market manipulation. Other Countries A number of European countries have similarly moved away from fragmented regulatory structures in response to media digitalization and the increasingly borderless nature of information flows. As a result, they have adopted various forms of the "converged regulator" model. A brief overview of unified regulatory institutions in several European countries and their principal functions is provided below: a) Austria – RTR (Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH) In Austria, regulation of broadcasting (television and radio), telecommunications and digital media sectors is conducted under a unified institutional framework consisting of RTR and its independent media authority, KommAustria. RTR's responsibilities extend beyond licensing functions and include direct oversight of legislation aimed at combating hate speech and disinformation on digital platforms and social networks. b) Belgium – Regional Unified Models (e.g., VRM) As a federal state, Belgium organizes media regulation according to its linguistic communities. In the Flemish-speaking region, for example, regulation is carried out by the Vlaamse Regulator voor de Media (VRM). Rather than regulating different media sectors separately, VRM operates as a unified regulator, applying a common legal framework to traditional broadcasting services, digital broadcasters and online content creators, including video bloggers. c) Bulgaria – CEM (Council for Electronic Media) In Bulgaria, the Council for Electronic Media (CEM) serves as the principal public authority responsible for regulating both public and private audiovisual media services, including television, radio and online broadcasting platforms. In recent years, and in accordance with the European Union's Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), CEM has significantly expanded its oversight of illegal online content, particularly material that could negatively affect the psychological well-being of children. d) Denmark – Slots-og Kulturstyrelsen (Agency for Culture and Palaces) In Denmark, media regulation is concentrated within the Agency for Culture and Palaces and its subordinate Radio and Television Board (Radio- og tv-nævnet). This institutional structure is responsible both for overseeing the equitable distribution of state subsidies aimed at protecting media freedom and pluralism, and for ensuring that digital media platforms comply with applicable broadcasting standards. e) Finland – Traficom (Finnish Transport and Communications Agency) Finland represents one of the most comprehensive examples of regulatory convergence between technology and media sectors. The country has integrated media, telecommunications, internet regulation and even transportation oversight within a large centralized institution known as Traficom. Traficom exercises authority over cybersecurity, spectrum management, television and radio broadcasting, and online media platforms through a unified regulatory framework. These European examples demonstrate that the historical division between traditional media (print and analog broadcasting) and digital media (internet-based and mobile platforms) has become increasingly obsolete. In response, governments have consolidated these regulatory functions within unified agencies or councils to improve regulatory effectiveness, optimize resources and establish a coherent legal framework for overseeing major technology companies and digital platforms. European Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) The European Union's Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) serves as the principal legal framework for the unified regulation of audiovisual media services across the European Union, including television, radio, video-on-demand services and video-sharing platforms. The Directive was initially adopted in 2010 and underwent substantial revision in 2018 through Directive (EU) 2018/1808. As of 2026, a new evaluation and review process is underway. The AVMSD pursues several key objectives: harmonizing national legislation across Europe, safeguarding media freedom, pluralism and competition, protecting citizens from harmful content, adapting regulatory frameworks to digital transformation and emerging platforms such as Netflix and YouTube, and promoting European culture and locally produced content. Main provisions and requirements Content standards Prohibition of hate speech, incitement to violence, terrorist propaganda and discriminatory content; Protection of children and minors through watershed rules, warning systems and other protective measures; Regulation of advertising, sponsorship and product placement. Promotion of European and independent works At least 30 percent of the catalogues offered by video-on-demand platforms must consist of European productions; Measures must be taken to ensure the visibility and accessibility of these works. Regulation of video-sharing platforms (VSPs) Following the 2018 revision, platforms such as YouTube and TikTok are required to implement measures against harmful and illegal content. Accessibility Media services must provide accessibility measures for persons with disabilities, including subtitles, audio descriptions and sign-language services. Independence of national regulators Each member state is required to establish an independent regulatory authority, such as the United Kingdom's Ofcom or France's ARCOM. Institutions such as Ofcom in the United Kingdom and ARCOM in France serve as the national bodies responsible for implementing the AVMSD. These institutions apply the Directive's requirements through a unified regulatory model encompassing content standards, European content quotas and online safety provisions. This experience demonstrates that the model underlying the proposed Media and Broadcasting Council in Azerbaijan corresponds to regulatory approaches widely applied in Europe. Although Azerbaijan is not a member of the European Union, it takes into consideration international experience, including the principles of the AVMSD, in implementing the Law "On Media" and carrying out broader media reforms. Similarities can be observed in areas such as protecting national information security, supporting domestic content production, combating disinformation and regulating digital platforms. The Audiovisual Council of Azerbaijan, as well as the proposed Media and Broadcasting Council, are positioned as mechanisms for further alignment with these international standards. Comparison of Azerbaijani Legislation with the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive The principal legal framework governing media in Azerbaijan — the Law "On Media" adopted in 2021 and subsequently amended, together with legislative initiatives related to the establishment of the Media and Broadcasting Council — incorporates elements of international standards, including those reflected in the AVMSD, while adapting them to national priorities such as information security and state sovereignty. Similarities Convergence principle Both systems regulate print, audiovisual and online media within a unified legal framework. Unified institutional model Consistent with the approach promoted under the AVMSD, Azerbaijan also seeks to consolidate regulatory functions within a single institution — the Media and Broadcasting Council — following models similar to Ofcom and ARCOM. Protective mechanisms Both frameworks emphasize the protection of children, the prevention of hate speech and measures aimed at combating disinformation. Support for local content Similar to the European content quota system, Azerbaijan places significant emphasis on encouraging and supporting domestic media production. Differences and national characteristics The AVMSD places greater emphasis on market competition and the free movement of media services within the European market, whereas Azerbaijani legislation gives particular priority to national sovereignty and information security, especially in relation to external influence. The AVMSD establishes more stringent requirements regarding the institutional independence of regulators, while Azerbaijan employs a collegial governance model. Azerbaijan's legislation contains more detailed provisions regarding media registration, journalist accreditation and financial transparency mechanisms. Through the implementation of the Law "On Media" and the establishment of the new Media and Broadcasting Council, Azerbaijan is adapting key principles of the AVMSD — including unified regulation, digital harmonization and common content standards — to its own national circumstances. This approach forms part of a broader strategy aimed at protecting the country's information space while simultaneously aligning with international regulatory practices. The Role of ERGA (European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services) ERGA is a cooperation platform that brings together audiovisual media regulators from across the European Union. Established within the framework of the AVMSD, it serves as an important institutional mechanism for coordinating media regulation at the European level. ERGA can be regarded as the practical implementation mechanism of the AVMSD. It brings together national regulatory authorities to facilitate consistent and effective media regulation throughout the European Union. Its primary purpose is to promote coordination, exchange best practices and develop common approaches among national regulators — including institutions such as Ofcom, ARCOM and comparable audiovisual regulatory authorities — while ensuring the coherent and effective implementation of the AVMSD across different jurisdictions. Main functions and role Advisory role: Provides formal recommendations to the European Commission regarding the implementation, revision and monitoring of the AVMSD; Develops recommendations on key contemporary issues, including the regulation of digital platforms, combating disinformation, ensuring media pluralism and improving accessibility. Cooperation and coordination: Facilitates the exchange of information and experience among national regulatory authorities; Monitors the proper implementation of the "country of origin" principle, which ensures that a media service licensed in one country can operate throughout other jurisdictions without additional authorization; Develops common positions on complex regulatory issues, particularly those related to digital platforms. Monitoring and accountability: Assesses the implementation of the AVMSD across member states; Monitors whether video-sharing platforms (VSPs) comply with their legal obligations. International cooperation: Cooperates with other regional and international organizations and networks, including bodies such as REFRAM, which represents French-speaking media regulators; Supports the exchange of expertise and best practices with countries outside the European Union, including candidate and partner countries. Although Azerbaijan is not a member of the European Union, the establishment of the Media and Broadcasting Council reflects the adoption of several principles embodied in the ERGA model, including unified regulation, collegial governance and international cooperation. Within Europe, such institutional arrangements are widely regarded as among the most effective mechanisms for addressing media convergence and responding to the challenges of the digital age. Finally, it is worth returning to the statement-article issued by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). As noted earlier, the RSF article titled "Azerbaijan: Towards a Ministry of Information 2.0" criticizes the ongoing reforms in Azerbaijan's media sector, particularly the draft law on the establishment of the Media and Broadcasting Council. However, when the article's arguments are examined in the context of the country's official policy priorities and the substance of the reforms themselves, a significantly different picture emerges. Media reforms as a priority after the Patriotic War While the RSF article characterizes these reforms as merely an "administrative change," the reform process is directly linked to the comprehensive transformation agenda initiated by President Ilham Aliyev following the Victory in the Patriotic War. This demonstrates that the development of the media sector has been elevated to the level of a strategic state priority. Strengthening the country's information environment in the post-war period has also been considered essential for more effectively communicating Azerbaijan's position and achievements to the international community. The development of independent journalism as a priority President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly identified the development of independent journalism as one of the key directions of the country's information policy. Contrary to RSF's characterization of the reforms as instruments of "control," the stated objectives of the reforms include enhancing the competitiveness of media organizations, strengthening their economic sustainability and independence, and improving professional standards within the media sector. The role of the Law "On Media" The Law "On Media" has already demonstrated practical significance in strengthening and protecting the country's information environment. While the RSF article itself acknowledges the process of media convergence — the gradual disappearance of distinctions between print, online and audiovisual media — it simultaneously recognizes the need for a unified regulatory approach in response to this global transformation. Azerbaijan's reforms seek to establish flexible and collegial institutional mechanisms capable of responding to these challenges. Establishment of the Media and Broadcasting Council – a systematic and collegial approach Although the RSF article presents the merger of the Audiovisual Council and the Media Development Agency as the creation of a "super-regulator," this process can also be viewed as the implementation of a unified institutional approach. The Council's reliance on a collegial model of governance is intended to serve as a mechanism aimed at enhancing institutional accountability, media independence and public confidence. International experience, including the models represented by Ofcom in the United Kingdom and ARCOM in France, demonstrates that similar unified regulatory institutions can operate effectively, and Azerbaijan has sought to draw on these examples. National information security and combating disinformation RSF interprets the concept of "information security" primarily as a mechanism of control. However, in the contemporary digital ecosystem, challenges such as disinformation campaigns, foreign interference and the contamination of information spaces have become increasingly significant. The creation of a unified regulatory institution is presented as a means of ensuring a centralized and effective response to these challenges, while simultaneously supporting the development of domestic media and promoting Azerbaijan's perspective internationally. Media Register and practical measures Measures such as the establishment of the Media Register and the introduction of free media licensing procedures under recent legislative amendments are intended to support the professional development of the media sector. These mechanisms are designed to enhance transparency, institutionalization and professional standards within journalism. Conclusion The RSF statement-article, similar to what its critics describe as the organization's traditional assessments of Azerbaijan, focuses primarily on the narrative of "control" while paying limited attention to the substantive content of the reforms and their relationship to contemporary global challenges. In contrast, the reform process initiated after the Patriotic War is presented as an effort to adapt the country's media sector to digital realities, strengthen its economic sustainability and ensure national information security. The adoption of collegial governance structures, reference to international models and reliance on the Law "On Media" are cited as evidence of the systematic and modern character of these reforms. The international experience and legal comparisons discussed above suggest that the establishment of the Media and Broadcasting Council in Azerbaijan can be interpreted not as a "step backward" or an instrument of arbitrary control, as some foreign critics claim, but rather as a response to the realities of global digital convergence. The so-called "super-regulatory" model criticized by organizations such as RSF is currently implemented in various forms through institutions such as Ofcom in the United Kingdom, ARCOM in France, ACMA in Australia and within the regulatory framework established by the European Union's AVMSD. In an era in which the internet transcends national borders and disinformation and cyber threats increasingly affect national security, the centralized and collegial regulation of digital platforms, audiovisual media and traditional media has become a broader international trend aimed at improving regulatory effectiveness and administrative flexibility. One of Azerbaijan's key priorities, particularly following the Patriotic War, has been to strengthen the protection of its national information space from external influence and to enhance the economic sustainability of domestic media organizations. The institutional reforms implemented within this framework are intended to: Introduce the "single-window" principle by reducing bureaucratic barriers for media organizations; Establish transparent mechanisms, such as the Media Register, to strengthen legal and professional standards in journalism; Encourage greater domestic economic sustainability and reduce dependence on external sources of funding perceived as politically motivated. Finally, proponents of the reforms argue that the characterization of these developments as a "Ministry of Information 2.0," as presented by RSF, reflects a simplified and one-sided interpretation that overlooks both the internal logic of the reform process and efforts to incorporate elements of European regulatory practice, including approaches associated with institutions such as ERGA and BEREC. From this perspective, Azerbaijan's media reforms are presented as a systematic, forward-looking process based on the rule of law, international regulatory experience and the objective of protecting national sovereignty in the information sphere. By Nijat Babayev