Reporters Without Borders rank : 137/180 (2025)

Index Freedom House : 10/100 (2025)

Corruption Perceptions Index (Transparency International) : 173/180 (2025)

These rankings collectively reflect a media environment characterized by structural fragility, weak institutional safeguards, and high levels of corruption and political interference.

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression in Libya remains severely restricted, with journalists facing intimidation, sustained pressure from state authorities and armed actors, and widespread self-censorship. As journalist Intissar Al-Barassi notes, there has been no meaningful expansion of the margin of freedom in recent years; instead, public expression has increasingly receded due to fear and a perception of futility. She argues that since 2014, persistent pressures have reshaped the media into political instruments serving dominant actors.

Similarly, Reda Fhelboom, head of the Libyan Organisation for Independent Media (LOFIM), observes that no significant improvement has occurred compared to the previous year. He highlights the continued detention and military trial of journalist Salhine Zerouali in Benghazi under amendments to military procedures and counterterrorism laws that allow civilians to be tried in military courts, with limited transparency surrounding the proceedings. Although no new arrests were reported, restrictions persist, and cases of defamation and hate speech on television and social media have increased. Despite documented violations by the General Authority for Monitoring Media Content, enforcement remains slow, reinforcing structural weaknesses such as fragmented governance, militia influence, and limited judicial independence that continue to undermine meaningful freedom of expression. While there has been limited progress—reflected in a slight improvement in Libya’s ranking by Reporters Without Borders and ongoing discussions around legal reform—structural challenges persist.

Media Laws (recent evolutions)

No new media laws have been released in 2025. Journalism in Libya continues to be regulated primarily by the Publications Law (Law No. 76 of 1972), legislation that predates modern media forms and fails to address the complexities of radio, television, digital media, or social platforms, leaving journalists without legal protections or clarity on basic issues such as accreditation, work permits, and operational rights.

Pluralism

The Libyan media landscape is pluralistic in appearance, particularly in television, where multiple political currents are represented. Yet this plurality reflects political fragmentation rather than genuine independence. Most channels are either government-funded or aligned with dominant political and military actors, shaping partisan narratives that reinforce polarization. As Al-Barassi notes, many outlets claim independence while remaining structurally tied to power centers, resulting in biased coverage and weak professional standards.

This fragmentation is also geographic. Fhelboom observes that western and eastern media openly criticize each other’s authorities, with Tripoli offering a relatively wider margin of expression than the east or south. However, this variation does not indicate substantive freedom; rather, it reflects a divided media sphere in which outlets function as instruments of competing power structures.

Local municipal radio stations continue to cover citizens’ daily concerns despite aligning with dominant authorities in their areas, while private commercial radio has largely abandoned political reporting in favor of entertainment to protect advertising revenue. Independent media remain scarce, and print journalism has nearly disappeared. The polarized nature of this environment was evident in coverage of the killing of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, where outlets framed the event along factional lines, with only Al-Wasat TV demonstrating comparatively higher professional standards. The Libyan media system reflects characteristics of polarized pluralism within a fragmented state context.

Censorship & self-censorship

Drawing on the writer and journalist Saad Al-Asha’s assertion that “self-censorship lies in its consequences… in avoiding a losing battle with society,” freedom of expression in Libya can be understood as constrained by an interaction between social pressure and state practice. Al-Asha argues that, unlike states that actively safeguard freedom of expression against societal norms, the Libyan state tends to conform to prevailing public opinion under the rubric of “public morality,” thereby reinforcing self-censorship. This dynamic is particularly evident with regard to socially sensitive issues, which successive governments since the fall of the Gaddafi regime have largely avoided addressing. These authorities operate primarily as interim governments lacking coherent long-term projects, prioritizing short-term political goals over public interest or sustained positive social change.

By contrast, political issues are subject to direct and severe repression. Journalists and critics who attempt to expose corruption or express opposition to either of the rival governments face arrest, torture, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, and defamation. The detention and torture of economic journalist Ahmed Al-Senussi, following his publication of documents alleging corruption within the Ministry of Economy of the Tripoli-based government, exemplifies this pattern, as reported by both Human Rights Watch and Al-Quds Al-Arabi. In eastern Libya, repression has been even more extensive, with cases of enforced disappearance affecting not only journalists and media professionals but also members of parliament, according to Human Rights Watch reports.

Disinformation and Misinformation

Libyan media remain heavily affected by disinformation and misinformation, particularly in politically sensitive and high-profile cases. As Fhelboom notes, despite numerous training workshops provided to journalists and the establishment of the General Authority for Monitoring Media Content to combat hate speech and misinformation, many outlets continue to rely on unverified information circulated through social media. This practice has contributed to the widespread dissemination of false or misleading reports, particularly in major political and security incidents, such as the reported killing of Chief of Staff Omar Al-Haddad and the case of blogger Khansa Mujahid, where local and even regional media reproduced unverified claims originating from anonymous or politically motivated sources. According to Fhelboom, such reporting not only misled public opinion but also complicated investigative processes and allowed politically funded outlets to instrumentalize false narratives for strategic messaging.

Similarly, Al-Barassi observes that fact-checking and anti-disinformation initiatives have emerged over the past five years, often funded by international donors. These projects contributed to raising public awareness about manipulation, fake news, and digital deception, and led to the establishment of several fact-checking platforms. However, most initiatives were short-term and lacked financial sustainability, limiting their long-term structural impact.

Recent 2025 reports by international organizations indicate that misinformation in Libya remains closely tied to political polarization, weak editorial standards, and the absence of strong institutional verification mechanisms. Media outlets frequently prioritize speed and political alignment over fact-checking, while digital environments—particularly social media—serve as primary information sources for journalists, amplifying unverified narratives. Although monitoring bodies and civil society organizations have documented violations and issued warnings, enforcement remains slow and fragmented, and no comprehensive national strategy against disinformation has been institutionalized.

Access to Information

There is currently no law guaranteeing the right of access to information in Libya unlike other countries in the region such as Tunisia. Journalists argue that recently formed governmental institutions have failed to introduce meaningful reforms to facilitate access to information or to enact legislation protecting journalism and strengthening media independence. She further notes the absence of regulatory measures addressing publication restrictions, accreditation procedures, or the legal status of independent journalists.

Echoing these concerns, (LOFIM) stresses that effective access to information remains largely nonexistent in practice, despite a governmental circular issued by the Government of National Unity promoting transparency in the publication of official data. In reality, most public institutions continue to withhold information from journalists and media outlets. Only a limited number of bodies—such as the Anti-Corruption Authority and the Financial Crimes Investigation Agency—have demonstrated relative openness and cooperated with civil society organizations by providing data for investigative reporting.

Ongoing political division and institutional uncertainty have intensified journalists’ vulnerability, placing them under suspicion by authorities in both eastern and western Libya. In this context, journalistic practice is marked by caution and constrained by insecurity, while the absence of a unified journalists’ union further weakens collective professional protection.

Journalists’ Security

As of 2025, journalists in Libya continue to face serious security threats, including arbitrary arrest and detention, judicial harassment, threats and intimidation, physical assault, and the confiscation of equipment by both state and non-state actors. Enforced disappearances remain a significant concern, particularly in eastern Libya, alongside widespread impunity for violations against media workers. These risks are exacerbated by political fragmentation, the presence of armed groups, and restrictive legal frameworks that enable authorities to suppress critical reporting. International monitoring organizations have consistently documented these abuses, noting that the absence of accountability and effective legal protections has created a climate of fear that severely undermines independent journalism and freedom of expression (Reporters Without Borders, 2024; Human Rights Watch, 2025; ARTICLE 19, 2024).

Media Business Models

In Libya, the business models of mainstream and independent media diverge significantly and are strongly shaped by political fragmentation, insecurity, and weak market structures. Mainstream television channels and major media outlets typically operate through opaque funding arrangements linked to political actors, armed groups, or affiliated business elites. Their revenues derive largely from politically aligned advertising, patronage networks, or direct government support, rather than from audience-based or market-driven income. As a result, these outlets prioritize political influence and narrative control over commercial sustainability, which severely limits editorial independence.

By contrast, independent media outlets—many of which operate digitally or from the diaspora—function largely outside conventional commercial frameworks. They rely primarily on donor funding, grants from international organizations, project-based support, and limited digital advertising. While this funding structure affords greater editorial autonomy, it also renders these outlets financially fragile and highly vulnerable to disruption or closure. Civil society–based media organizations, such as the Libyan Organisation for Independent Media, generally operate as non-profit entities focused on advocacy, training, and the protection of press freedom rather than profit generation. Similar funding patterns characterize online and expatriate-hosted news platforms such as Libya Herald and Local Libya, which depend on donor support, civil society partnerships, and collaboration with international NGOs to sustain their operations. International monitoring organizations consistently emphasize that the absence of a stable advertising market, combined with legal uncertainty and persistent security risks, continues to obstruct the development of sustainable and independent media business models in Libya.

Media literacy : development and challenges

Efforts to enhance media literacy in Libya have been led mainly through projects funded by international organizations, which, despite producing useful materials and training initiatives, have struggled to achieve sustained progress. These programs often repeat similar activities year after year and have faced obstacles such as limited cooperation from governmental institutions, which undermines their ability to engage formal education systems and broaden civil society effectively. At a more professional level, Libyan civil society organizations such as the Libyan Organization for Independent Media and the Libyan Center for Freedom of the Press have undertaken monitoring and capacity-building initiatives aimed at improving journalistic quality and promoting ethical standards in media practice. For example, these groups have documented professional violations, advocated for dialogue on establishing a media code of ethics, and raised awareness of ethical reporting principles, as part of broader campaigns for media reform (ARTICLE 19, 2025). However, these efforts have frequently stalled due to a lack of sustainable funding or increasing political and security pressures that restrict civil society activity. The absence of a robust media literacy framework further compounds the challenges faced by journalists and citizens seeking to navigate an environment marked by weak press freedom, entrenched legal limitations, and persistent threats to free expression in Libya.

Gender and media

Female journalists in Libya operate within a highly constrained professional environment shaped by insecurity, political polarization, and entrenched social norms. While women remain present in newsrooms and media platforms, their participation is often precarious, and their professional advancement is limited by harassment, threats—both online and offline—and the absence of effective institutional protection. As Al-Barassi argues, the marginalization of women from meaningful political participation has directly affected media agendas. Despite the existence of formal gender quotas, women’s representation remains largely symbolic and is frequently determined by regional or tribal power-sharing rather than merit, resulting in limited influence and visibility. This marginal role is reflected in media coverage, where issues related to women’s rights and gender equality are rarely prioritized. In particular, coverage of gender-based and domestic violence—despite numerous cases involving women and children, including fatal incidents reported in 2025—has been sporadic and superficial. The failure of media institutions to address these issues critically mirrors broader structural constraints, including weak legal protections, social stigma, and political disincentives, which together marginalize both female journalists and gender-related issues within Libya’s public sphere.

Coverage of the environmental issues

Environmental issues remain peripheral within Libyan media, with no specialized environmental outlets and few formally trained environmental journalists. According to Fhelboom, topics such as pollution, oil-related environmental damage, groundwater contamination, and climate change receive limited sustained coverage, contributing to weak public pressure on state institutions.

Intissar Al-Barassi notes that until recently, environmental reporting remained largely awareness-based and avoided investigative depth. However, when journalists began examining environmental violations involving influential actors, coverage encountered pressure and attempts at restriction. Journalist Hindia Al-Oshaibi similarly describes earlier difficulties accessing official environmental data, often relying instead on local associations and informal sources. While international interest in climate issues has recently encouraged more investigative approaches, engagement remains fragile and inconsistent.

From an international perspective, this situation contrasts with frameworks promoted by UNESCO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which emphasize environmental journalism as central to accountability, transparency, and public participation in environmental governance.

Coverage of the migrations topic

Journalists in Libya face significant structural, political, and professional challenges when covering migration issues, resulting in limited, selective, and often distorted reporting. As Al-Barassi notes, state and pro-government media tend to frame migration from the perspective of dominant authorities, privileging security narratives and at times justifying harsh practices as part of “state duty.” Migration is rarely prioritized within editorial policies, and in-depth humanitarian or rights-based reporting remains marginal.

Journalist Hind Al-Oshaibi further observes that coverage is generally weak and shaped by stereotypical portrayals of migrants as criminals, threats to sovereignty, or a societal burden. Issues affecting migrant women and children—particularly their living conditions, vulnerabilities, and integration challenges—are largely neglected. Practical reporting barriers compound these biases: access to detention centers or informal migrant settlements is highly restricted, and journalists face difficulties obtaining permissions, safe access, or reliable documentation, sometimes encountering financial demands for basic access to sources or locations.

One of the well-known journalists and activists emphasizes the political sensitivity of migration due to the involvement of both governmental and non-governmental actors. He argues that the issue is genuinely burdensome for the country, affecting multiple aspects of daily life, yet local journalists face significant risks when attempting comprehensive coverage. While international media often highlight documented abuses and violations—which are real and serious—such reporting may overlook the broader structural and socioeconomic dimensions of the crisis. The cessation of donor-funded independent projects that previously enabled more balanced reporting has further narrowed the space for nuanced coverage. Within a polarized and securitized media environment, migration reporting thus remains constrained by political interests, public hostility, limited institutional transparency, and safety risks for journalists.

AI development and use in the media sector

Although still emerging, AI is beginning to reshape the disinformation ecosystem. The dynamics described above regarding disinformation are increasingly intertwined with the unregulated use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Libyan newsrooms. As journalist Al-Barassi notes, AI has not been formally integrated into editorial workflows, despite its growing informal presence in journalistic practice. This has created a fragmented environment in which lower-level journalists rely on AI tools without consistent oversight, while senior editorial structures often lack the capacity to assess AI-assisted content.

While Fhelboom argues that AI use in practice remains largely instrumental and politically driven. It is frequently employed to generate content or images deployed in partisan attacks, or to create fictitious accounts through which politically aligned narratives are disseminated as part of ongoing media warfare. In the absence of regulatory frameworks or structured professional training, AI becomes embedded within the same polarized information ecosystem described earlier.

Consequently, rather than mitigating misinformation, AI tools are often absorbed into existing patterns of political contestation, amplifying manipulated or synthetic content—including fabricated images and coordinated narrative campaigns—and reinforcing the broader disinformation dynamics that characterize Libya’s fragmented media landscape.