MediaAcT

Recommendations

Info

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.
ia? Self-regulation vs. co-regulation not appropriate we are concerned by some aspects of the report dealing with an increased role of media councils which could ‘impose fines, order apologies and remove journalistic status’ following complaints by citizens. The right of reply could be obtained by ‘simple request of citizens [and] published with the same relevance as the original coverage’. we are surprised by such a proposal because it is an unclear extension of the competence of the media councils. As you know, there is no single ‘journalistic status’ in the EU, so how could it be removed? furthermore, media councils are a matter of self-regulation: they do not exist in all European countries and we wonder how and why the European commission would ‘monitor’ such bodies ‘to ensure that they comply with European values’ – which need to be better defined anyway. such a strong stand may have been generated by the cases of spectacular misbehavior of a small group of journalists in the Uk last year, however we do not find appropriate to make the ‘leveson’ issue an EU issue because there is no ground for it. The report’s wording on the role of media councils makes us think of the hungarian Media Authority, which is – in the mind of EfJ – an authoritarian system set up to serve the government in fighting freedom of the media. These are sensitive and controversial points that are not accepted by many journalists‘ organisations in Europe. Arne König, President, European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) http://europe.ifj.org/en From left to right: Herta Däubler-Gmelin, former German Federal Minister for Justice and Member of the High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the EC in charge of the Digital Agenda, and Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, former President of Latvia and Chair of the High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism . The report and its recommendations on media and journalism were discussed controversially in blogs, by journalists’ federations and in international media. As quoted on the website of the Commission, “The mandate of the group was to draw up a report for the Commission with recommendations for the respect, protection, support and promotion of pluralism and freedom of the media in Europe.” (Photo: EC) Report of the High-Level Group: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/ sites/digital-agenda/files/HLG%20Final%20Report.pdf We don’t need new media regulation The high-level group has missed a golden opportunity to address the real challenges and to support an independent press that promotes democracy and cultural diversity throughout the world. we are quite taken aback by the report’s recommendations. The EU does not have legal competence under the treaties to harmonise substantive media laws such as defamation. Any notion of harmonised rules of the game, monitored by the EU, is anathema to press freedom – the very thing the group was to protect. Independent press councils and self-regulatory bodies or press ombudsmen exist already in most EU countries and operate according to national cultural and social mores. Journalists follow codes of ethics and high professional standards are already adapted to the digital environment. we don’t need new media regulation, however; what we need are the right conditions for the long term viability of quality journalism and professional media. Angela Mills Wade, Executive Director, European Publishers Council (EPC) http://epceurope.eu/ 1 Index | Editorial | Birds-eye view | Opening the toolbox | Zoom-in on the newsroom | Media landscapes
Page 1 and 2: MediaAcT Final Research Report How
Page 3 and 4: ZOOM-In On ThE nEwsrOOM 24 CRiTiCAl
Page 5 and 6: A right royal tussle between press
Page 7 and 8: Leveson’s plan caused an instant
Page 9 and 10: Photograph: photocase/pauliestroj M
Page 11 and 12: ple, in the Netherlands). In Jordan
Page 13 and 14: media? First, via a message, which
Page 15 and 16: Online OFFline Example 4: Productio
Page 17 and 18: OFFline Example 12: External Tools
Page 19 and 20: sources of information by attaching
Page 21 and 22: against freedom of information. The
Page 23 and 24: Action! By TOBiAS eBerwein how medi
Page 25 and 26: Critical or hypocritical journalist
Page 27 and 28: the High-Level Group - even though
Page 29 and 30: according to Jari Väliverronen, th
Page 31 and 32: services should play a major role i
Page 33 and 34: First, there is a second and potent
Page 35 and 36: What we see is that although there
Page 37 and 38: Table 1: Democracy index average by
Page 39: playing an active role in fighting
Page 43 and 44: Boguslawa Dobek-Ostrowska, Poland W

MediaAcT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?