The power of definitions: how legal categories shape access to minority language media

In Latin America, access to MLM is largely structured through the category of indigeneity. Indigenous peoples are widely recognised in constitutional and legal frameworks, with specific rights related to language, culture, and communication. As a result, media access is closely tied to being recognised as indigenous. In turn, groups that do not fall within the category of indigenous peoples – such as Afro-descendant communities, Roma, or other linguistic minorities – remain less visible.

The country cases illustrate this dynamic in different ways. At one end, in Brazil, weak and fragmented recognition corresponds to very limited media presence. Although the Constitution recognises indigenous peoples, media rights are not systematically institutionalised. Indigenous radio initiatives exist, but they are often local, short-lived, and dependent on NGOs or external funding rather than stable state support.

Argentina shows emerging but unstable recognition, reflected in project-based media initiatives. The 2009 Audiovisual Communication Services Law enables indigenous communities to access licences and reserves spectrum for non-profit actors, including Pueblos Originarios. However, in practice many indigenous radio stations operate with limited resources and irregular funding, which makes long-term sustainability uncertain.

In Colombia, Indigenous languages have co-official status within their territories, and community media play a key role in cultural transmission. Access is tied to territory, so media provision depends on where communities are located. However, this is starting to change. Following a 2016 Constitutional Court decision, cable operators must now include the regional channel Teleislas in their offer across the country, based on general principles like equality and non-discrimination.

Mexico has a stronger legal framework, which enables more institutionalised media, though still unevenly. The legal system recognises indigenous languages as national languages and supports indigenous and community media through specific regulatory categories. This has led to the development of a relatively extensive network of indigenous radio stations, but disparities remain in funding, infrastructure, and geographic coverage.

Bolivia represents the most extensive case of formal recognition, with 36 co-official languages and a strong emphasis on linguistic and cultural diversity. The state actively promotes indigenous media, including public and community broadcasting. However, in practice, Spanish continues to dominate, and many smaller languages have limited or only symbolic presence in the media landscape.

Across these cases, a clear pattern emerges: access to media depends heavily on inclusion within the category of indigeneity. This has led to an interesting phenomenon that can be described as strategic identification, where groups align themselves with the indigenous category in order to gain access to rights. For instance, Afro-descendant communities in Mexico or Colombia have mobilised to be included in frameworks similar to those applied to indigenous peoples. This has led to some results but not full integration into existing systems of media support.

Revivalist communities – such as the Muisca in Colombia – illustrate another form of strategic identification, where groups reclaim indigenous identity and language and use this as a basis to demand cultural and media rights.

These developments highlight that the boundaries of recognition and legal categories are not fixed, but continuously negotiated.

In Europe, the picture is markedly different. Instead of a single dominant category, there is a fragmented and hierarchical system of recognition, with an intertwined web of partly overlapping categories such as “national minorities”, “ethnic groups”, “ethnic or national minorities”, “autochthonous national communities”, etc. The ECRML plays a central role in structuring this complexity. For a start, it supports only those languages of Europe which are “traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State’s population; and […] it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants” (Article 1[a]). In this way the Charter sets apart historically rooted languages from new languages. Furthermore, there is a distinction between Part II and Part III languages, with different levels of obligation. Article 7(1)d within Part II only contains a very general obligation to facilitate the use of regional or minority languages “in speech and writing, in public and private life” which may also cover media. In turn, Part III includes sector-specific articles, including a dedicated media provision (Article 11) with various undertakings on television, radio, audio and audiovisual works and newspapers. This system leads to a hierarchy of visibility, where some languages receive much more attention in monitoring and policy-making.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has undertaken extensive commitments under the ECRML, covering 17 languages under both Part II and Part III. Yet monitoring reports consistently point to the absence of regular minority language broadcasting and the prevalence of symbolic or tokenistic content. This case illustrates that recognition without institutional capacity does not translate into meaningful media presence.

Croatia and Hungary occupy intermediate positions. In both countries, a relatively broad set of languages is covered under Part III (7 in Croatia and 8 in Hungary). The monitoring reports reveal uneven but nevertheless identifiable media provision across these languages, especially if compared with Part II languages.

Austria and Slovenia show how selective recognition leads to differentiated outcomes in favour of the recognised languages. In both cases, the system of minority protection is based on a territorial model. In Austria, Hungarian, Slovenian, and Burgenland-Croatian benefit mostly from media provision, primarily through public broadcasting. Within the designated bilingual areas of Slovenia, Hungarian and Italian benefit from strong institutional support, including in the media. Outside these areas, however, access is much more limited, illustrating how territorial frameworks can both enable and constrain media presence.

The United Kingdom highlights the importance of governance structures in shaping the media landscape. While several languages benefit from Part III protection (Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, and – more recently – Manx-Gaelic and Cornish), their media presence varies significantly across devolved administrations. Welsh, supported by a robust institutional and policy framework, enjoys the most extensive media provision.

Finally, Serbia stands out as a case where formal recognition is combined with relatively strong institutional structures, including national minority councils with competences in the media field. This has resulted in a comparatively high and sustained level of MLM provision.

What do these two regional perspectives tell us?

First, legal recognition matters. It shapes the opportunity space within which MLM can emerge. Without recognition, media initiatives are more likely to remain marginal, fragmented, or dependent on external support. Second, recognition is not enough. The existence and sustainability of minority language media depend on a range of additional factors, including institutional capacity, governance structures, policy frameworks, and resource allocation. Third, and perhaps most importantly, legal definitions act as gatekeeping mechanisms. They largely determine which languages become visible in the media and which remain absent. In Latin America, this gatekeeping function operates primarily through the category of indigeneity. In Europe, it takes the form of a differentiated and hierarchical system of recognition within national legal frameworks and under the ECRML.

Understanding this dynamic is essential for any effort to promote linguistic diversity in the media. If legal frameworks define the boundaries of visibility, then expanding access requires not only better policies, but also a critical reflection on the categories through which diversity itself is recognised.