Die Grüne Alternative (Greens)
EU RANK: 18 (Tier 1: Top Performance)
Die Grünen are a progressive, environmentalist and pro‑European party. In the 2024 National Council election they won 8.2% of the vote and 16 seats, losing around ten seats compared to their previous high but remaining a significant actor on the centre‑left. After serving in government with the ÖVP until 2024, they are now in opposition again, outside the post‑election ÖVP–SPÖ–NEOS coalition.
Disinformation and alternative media
The Greens rely mainly on mainstream media, their own website and social media, and a small ecosystem of liberal or niche outlets; they lack a centralised, partisan media infrastructure comparable to that of FPÖ or parts of the ÖVP. Their communication focuses on climate policy, civil liberties, and pro‑EU positions, and is typically framed in policy‑driven rather than conspiratorial terms. There are no documented Green‑aligned channels systematically producing disinformation or large‑scale conspiracy content.
In online spaces, the party does participate actively, but monitoring of Austria’s digital echo chambers places far‑right and conservative‑populist networks, not the Greens, at the core of toxic and misleading content flows. Overall the Greens appear on the low‑risk end of the DMI spectrum regarding disinformation and alternative media use.
Foreign influence and external alignments
The Greens are strongly pro‑EU and emphasise multilateralism, human rights and environmental diplomacy. Their positions are firmly within mainstream Western alignments, and they advocate robust responses to authoritarian regimes and foreign disinformation campaigns, particularly those connected to Russia.
There is no evidence of special reliance on or cooperation with foreign state‑aligned media or actors that would raise DMI alarms. Instead, Green positions on sanctions, climate diplomacy and digital regulation broadly support EU‑level efforts to curb external influence on democratic processes.
Media capture, advertising and public service media
The Greens’ historical media footprint is modest compared to Austria’s large Volksparteien and far‑right actors; they have not controlled large advertising budgets or extensive media holdings. During their time in coalition with the ÖVP, they held portfolios but did not dominate media or finance‑related ministries, and the key advertising‑capture controversies remained centred on ÖVP practices.
Programmatically, the Greens advocate strong public service media, transparency in state advertising, and safeguards against political interference in ORF governance. They are often cited as part of the political camp that seeks to resist media‑capture trends rather than to extend them, though any party in government inevitably participates in Austria’s broader patronage‑coloured system.
Corruption, litigation and institutional integrity
The Greens are not associated with the major corruption and litigation cases that have shaped the Austrian landscape since 2015. Their leadership did not feature in the Ibiza scandal, the BVT raid, the Kurz investigations or the Grasser case, and there are no high‑profile criminal proceedings against Green officials in the period covered by your litigation overview.
As a smaller party with limited access to patronage networks, they generally present a lower structural corruption risk than the large governing parties. The main DMI concern is indirect: whether participation in coalitions with parties implicated in integrity scandals might, over time, erode their capacity and willingness to push for stringent reforms.
Press freedom, harassment and treatment of critical media
The Greens consistently frame themselves as defenders of media pluralism, journalistic independence and public service broadcasting. They have opposed efforts by right‑wing actors to weaken ORF, criticised attacks on individual journalists and supported measures to reinforce media‑freedom protections at national and European level.
There are no documented campaigns by the Greens to delegitimise critical outlets or to organise harassment of reporters. If anything, they are often targets, rather than sources, of toxic discourse in far‑right online environments.