Public support for media in Morocco is officially designed as a tool for strengthening the sector, preserving journalistic employment, and promoting professional information. In reality, it mainly functions as a stabilization mechanism for already established media, sidelining a new generation of actors who are active in the digital field.
The criteria for accessing public support constitute the first barrier. Requirements regarding revenue, legal structure, payroll, or seniority mechanically exclude independent media, digital pure players, and recent editorial projects. These often operate with small teams, hybrid models, and limited resources, which are incompatible with the required administrative standards.
Alongside this formal barrier is a deeply conservative institutional logic. The system is based on a classic view of the press, inherited from the print era, where size, publication regularity, and financial stability take precedence over editorial innovation or real impact on the public. As a result, a highly followed online media outlet that is economically fragile remains invisible to support mechanisms.
The issue of editorial independence is never far off. For many small players, accessing public aid entails increased exposure to forms of indirect pressure, whether administrative, economic, or symbolic. This perception, whether founded or not, deters some media from undertaking steps deemed risky for their freedom of expression.
The paradox is all the more striking as it is often these small media outlets that invest in innovative formats, investigative journalism, or fact-checking, addressing growing public needs. Yet, they operate in an ecosystem where public aid plays neither a role in seed funding nor protection against economic precariousness.
In the long term, this imbalance poses a central question for media pluralism in Morocco. Public support concentrated on a few large groups contributes to freezing the landscape, to the detriment of voice diversity and the sector's ability to renew itself. Without profound reform of eligibility criteria, the system risks reinforcing the inequalities it claims to correct.
