MediaAcT

Index | Editorial | Birds-eye view | Opening the toolbox | Zoom-in on the newsroom | Media landscapes
0
Hot debate: who controls the med
The involvement of the EU −
highly disputed, highly praised
gueST eSSAy By herTA dÄuBler-gMelin
From the outset, the Report on Freedom and Plurality of Media in the
EU by the High-Level Expert Group (HLG) – installed by EU-Commissioner
Neelie Kroes, published in January 2013 after hearings and
conferences with media houses, journalists and lots of media and legal
university experts – was and is the object of discussions and disputes.
This is exactly what the EU-Commissioner and the HLG intended.
The current discussions show just how necessary are the report and
its 30 recommendations, addressed to the EU’s member states, parliaments,
media enterprises and journalists.
Most of the member states and especially the Irish presidency
highly praised the broad concept of the report and the recommendations,
emphazising that media are more than economic services under
EU competence to set and monitor competition laws. The Presidency
underlined the paramount importance of free and pluralistic media
as a basic right to every European citizen, guaranteed in the European
Convention of Human Rights and in the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights. Accordingly the EU includes the principle of free and pluralistic
media, as pillars of the EU’s free and democratic society, as an
important element into the EU’s foreign policy and into the EU ‘aquis
communitaire‘ to be accepted by countries wishing to join the EU as
member states. Furthermore, these values commit the EU to monitor
the freedom and plurality of media as preconditions to free and fair
European Parliament elections.
The report addresses concerns on free and pluralistic quality journalism
that exist in most of EU member states. A quite widespread
problem is that of mostly print media in the era of increasing Internet
use, which leads to economic problems and threats the quality journalism
by poor pay and bad working conditions, especially less time for
thorough research and mature editorial comments. Throughout the
EU there is increasing concern that the exponential growth of individual
use of the Internet may confer additional importance on free and
pluralistic media (private or public interest, print or digital) as the sole
platform enabling collective information on important issues as well
The report of the high-level group (hlg) on Media Freedom and pluralism was published
on January 21, 2013, by the european commission. The report presents recommendations
on media freedom, pluralism and the role of the eu. The group was established
in October 2011 by neelie kroes, the Vice-president of the european commission,
and is chaired by professor Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, the former president of latvia.
Members of the consortium are professor herta däubler-gmelin, former german Federal
Minister of Justice, luís Miguel poiares pessoa Maduro, professor of european
law at the european university institute and Ben hammersley, Journalist and editor at
large at Wired uk.
as open discussions, between the interests and opinions of individuals
and groups constituting society.
The report additionally mentions the variety of dangerous threats
to media freedom and pluralism that exists in some member states (e.g.
political or economic interference by the state, interference by powerful
advertising customers and companies, misuse of journalism by the
media). Consequently, depending on each state’s degree of interest in
guaranteeing the freedom and plurality of media, the EU involvement
is either highly disputed or highly praised. A key issue is the question
of media self-regulation vs. intervention of legal instruments. Media
companies claiming real or imaginary capabilities of self-correction,
under the pretext of undue political influence (state censorship) fight
against the imposition of national laws, European regulation or public
‘watchdog’ institutions.
The report and the recommendations by the HLG emphasise selfregulation
as the most important guarantor of free media, but insist
that constitutional state laws are important to preserve the standards
when self-regulation does not work. That is why member states and
the EU are bound to monitor and, if necessary, intervene if standards
required are not adequately met. The report recommends the use of
soft law: media oriented self-regulation instruments, such as transparent
codes of ethics and independent media councils (comprising
representatives of media enterprises, journalists, ombudsmen and citizens)
with sanctioning powers.
The report doesn’t dictate instruments but further suggests that national
parliaments should, as prerequisites for making public subsidies
(EU or national) to media and grants to journalists, publicly discuss
annual reports on the situation of freedom and plurality of media,
which would in turn be monitored by EU institutions, mainly the
European Parliament, in a regular overview.
In the near future, the European Parliament will publish its own
report, including the HLG recommendations. Both aim to secure, by
European law, the freedom and pluralism of media in the EU.