The latest public exchange between Prime Minister Edi Rama and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has once again brought media freedom to the centre of public debate in Albania. Following the publication of the 2026 World Press Freedom Index, in which Albania ranked 83rd out of 180 countries, Rama publicly challenged RSF’s assessment and promoted an AI-based media monitoring analysis claiming that opposition voices dominate media coverage in the country. A few days later, he expanded the argument through a second public intervention directed at RSF, citing a larger dataset of more than 106.000 articles and arguing that the findings prove that Albania does not have a “captured” media environment. Isa Myzyraj, Chair of the Association of Journalists of Albania, has done a detailed methodological critique of this AI-based monitoring and demonstrates that the data does not measure what it claims.

This is not the first time such an approach has been used. Similar reactions have previously been directed at local and international media freedom organizations, including the SafeJournalists Network, in one example when concerns have been raised regarding the governance of the public broadcaster.

Criticism of reports, rankings and assessments should be welcomed in any democratic society. No international index is beyond scrutiny, and debate over methodology, evidence and conclusions is both legitimate and necessary. However, the current dispute is not merely a methodological disagreement. It reflects an attempt “to construct an alternative narrative to the one that independent international and domestic organizations have documented for years regarding the state of media freedom and freedom of expression in Albania”, argues Blerjana Bino, SafeJournalists Network’s researcher in Albania.

At a time when Albania is advancing in its European Union accession process, media freedom remains one of the country’s most sensitive democratic vulnerabilities. The concerns repeatedly raised by media freedom organizations are also reflected, in different forms, in European Commission reports, the EU negotiating framework, and the broader monitoring architecture accompanying accession negotiations. It is therefore unsurprising that media freedom has become a politically contested issue.

The Prime Minister’s response appears aimed not only at questioning RSF’s conclusions but also at challenging a broader body of criticism concerning the Albanian media environment. By relying on large datasets, artificial intelligence and “share of voice” metrics, the debate is shifted away from structural concerns and towards a narrower discussion about visibility. The implication is that if opposition politicians are frequently quoted, if criticism of the government is widespread and if opposition actors are highly visible across television and online media, then claims of media capture must be exaggerated or unfounded.

At first glance, this argument appears persuasive. Yet it rests on a confusion between visibility and media freedom.

The data presented by the Prime Minister may show how often opposition representatives are quoted, how visible political actors are in public debate or how much criticism is directed at the government. What they do not show is whether the media system itself is captured or operates independently.

Media capture cannot be understood simply by looking at whether opposition voices appear on television or are quoted in news reports. Rather, it concerns the broader conditions under which journalism operates. A media system becomes vulnerable to capture when ownership is concentrated and closely linked to political or economic interests; when financing lacks transparency; when state advertising and public contracts create dependencies; when regulatory bodies fail to operate independently; when access to information is selective; and when journalists face pressure, intimidation, lawsuits or economic insecurity. As Bino argued for BIRN Albania in this article, authored by Nensi Bodgani. Capture also manifests itself through the stories that are never pursued, the investigations that are abandoned before publication and the editorial choices shaped by fear of political or financial consequences. These are precisely the structural factors examined by international media freedom assessments and scholarly research on media capture.

The timing of the current debate is also significant. The exchange with RSF took place as Albania moved into a new phase of its EU accession process following the approval of the Interim Benchmark Assessment Report (IBAR) and discussions surrounding the next stages of negotiations under the Fundamentals cluster. Media freedom, pluralism, freedom of expression, the safety of journalists and the independence of institutions are not peripheral issues in this context. They are among the democratic standards against which Albania’s progress will continue to be assessed.

Against this backdrop, the effort to challenge media freedom assessments appears aimed at something broader than methodological clarification. It seeks to establish a competing narrative in which criticism of Albania’s media environment is presented as exaggerated, politically motivated or disconnected from empirical reality. Large datasets and artificial intelligence are used to lend authority to this narrative, creating the impression that independent assessments are based on perception while government-backed interpretations are based on facts. See further the analysis of Erisa Kryeziu at Citizens.

At the same time, a parallel debate has emerged between Rama and opposition leader Sali Berisha over television airtime and political visibility. The Democratic Party has published its own AI-based monitoring claiming that government representatives receive significantly more airtime in television news programs than the opposition. The result is a public argument about who appears more frequently on television and online platforms. As Albania moves forward in its EU accession negotiations, the central question remains unchanged: whether journalists can operate independently, safely and without political or economic pressure; whether media ownership and financing are transparent; whether regulatory institutions function independently; and whether citizens have access to diverse, reliable and independent sources of information. The political leaders and decision makers ought to focus on these structural issues.