EUROPEAN
COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW
(VENICE COMMISSION)
UNIDEM
Campus Trieste Seminar
“THE ROLE OF MEDIA FREEDOM AND PLURALISM IN STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY”
Trieste, Italy, 24 – 28 January 2005
“The Role
of International Organisations
in
promoting Freedom of the Media –
Council of
Europe and European Union”
Mr Mark D.
COLE
Mainz
Media Institute
(Germany)
|
REPORT
LECTURE
I. Introduction___________________________________________________ 3
II. International Organisations______________________________________ 3
III. Generally: How Council of Europe and EU
play a role for freedom
of the media___________________________________________________ 4
IV. Specifically: The Council of Europe________________________________ 4
1. General____________________________________________________ 4
2. Art. 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights_________________ 5
3. Other Conventions related to the
Freedom of the Media_______________ 5
4. The Committee of Ministers and
the Parliamentary Assembly____________ 6
a) Committee of Ministers (CM)___________________________________ 6
b) Parliamentary Assembly_______________________________________ 7
5. The Media Division___________________________________________ 8
V. Specifically: The European Union_________________________________ 9
1. General____________________________________________________ 9
2. Primary and Secondary
Legislation_______________________________ 9
3. European Court of Justice_____________________________________ 10
4. European Commission, Parliament
and Council_____________________ 11
5. Cooperation with the Council of
Europe__________________________ 12
VI. A brief Summary and Outlook___________________________________ 12
Introduction
A democratic state needs functioning and stable institutions and must
be based on the rule of law. But apart from a strong parliamentary legislature,
an executive bound by human rights and an independent judiciary, the fourth power
– in time – might be most influential:
the media, a free, independent and responsible media. There are several
reasons for this.
The perspective the electorate gets of the politicians to a large
degree is the one perpetuated by the media. The figure a politician gives
in public appearances, especially on the screen, answers his chances to be a
leading political head. Only very few interested persons amongst the voters
have or use the opportunity of getting a personal impression or dealing with
party politics by following internal discussions and papers. Most information
is drawn from newspapers and other media, especially television. Whereas text
and photos in a newspaper are still, the moving image has not lost any of its
attraction in terms of presenting a – supposedly – “real” image of a person.
The suggestive strength of electronic media is reason for its popularity and
influence and at the same time its danger if abused.
Even though the myth of Kennedy winning the presidential run
against Nixon simply due to the first big television debate is strongly
doubted by serious research, there remains a truth behind it. Politicians that
can “play the music” of television are most certainly in an advantage today.
One and a half minutes is the most one usually gets to deliver statements via
TV news, which is why the overall impression and not mainly the contents of the
statement decides on how convincing it is.
Freedom of expression and the media just as the freedom of assembly can
be categorized as communication human
rights. Especially in a time of change or during times of crisis when
critical questions for society need to be decided, the latter, the right to
gather with others and protest “with one’s own hands and legs” is the most
important of the communication rights and its use is a sign of democratic
behaviour. However, in settled times in a democracy it is the media that play
the role of a “public watchdog”. And
even in times of crisis success of one or the other side usually depends on the
way they manage to be “on air” and paint a certain picture of the situation.
The public watchdog-role is essential and indispensable for a society, which is
why a closer look at the promotion of this role by international organisations
is well worth while.
International organisations are set up based on the free conviction of
participating states that working together in specific areas makes it easier to achieve certain common goals.
In this respect, both the Council of Europe and the European Union are each
worldwide unique – and at the same
time very different – examples for international organisations.
The Council of Europe is a
success story in promoting peace and especially human rights in its member
states and by achieving this, it is the result of the vision of political
leaders that wanted to build a new and better Europe on the ashes of the Second World War. With
the European Convention on Human Rights [correctly:
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms],
but especially with the significant power the European Court of Human Rights has given these rights by its
jurisprudence, the Council of Europe has created an unchallenged role model of
international human rights protection. Here, with the directly applicable human
rights and the possibility of direct individual applications in Strasbourg
after exhausting local remedies, the member states not only have to accept
decisions according to which they have to award reparation or just satisfaction,
but in many instances they also significantly have to adapt national law to
resolve inconsistencies with Strasbourg Case Law. This does not only apply to
“young or incomplete democracies”, but also to well-established member states
in areas where one would not have expected a judgement accusing such a state of
a human rights violation (cf. last year’s case of Caroline of Hanover).
With the other, in many perspectives even more significant
international organisation, the European
Union, there are many reasons for making it a very unique and specific
example of an international organisation. It is not yet a (federal) state, but
more than just a loose confederation or even a simple agreement of cooperation
between states. The German Constitutional Court in its famous “Maastricht-Decision”
created a new intermediate: not a “Staat”, not a “Staatenbund”, but a “Staatenverbund” to show that
extra amount of supranational jurisdiction that the EC has via the right to
enact regulations and directives and to take decisions. The 80.000 pages of
acquis communautaire is a state-like or more volume of laws. And with the
approaching constitution for Europe the
foundation of the EU will be even more laid in cement. Significantly, this
major step forward for the EU is connected closely with the introduction of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
Union, finally making the system of human rights protection within the EU
more visible than just having a court including them in its jurisprudence.
Generally: How Council of Europe and EU play a role for freedom
of the media
There are several levels on which Council of Europe and European Union
have effect on the freedom of the media. At first, and foremost, it is what one
could call the „constitutional“ level, i.e. the protection of the freedom of the media
as a human right and part of a legal framework. But there is also a second
legal level, one may call it „secondary“ law. In the context of the EU these are regulations
and directives, but also within the Council of Europe you find other agreements
between the member states referring to the media apart from the Convention.
Apart from these approaches, both EU and the Council of Europe work
intensively on media freedom-related issues at a political level. The EU has an Information Society and Media
Commissioner and an explicit audiovisual media policy, the Council of Europe
covers these aspects in its Media Division. And last, but very definitely not
least, it is the everyday work and cooperation that both organisations seek with
partner institutions in the member states in promoting freedom of the media by
training of professionals, by holding training seminars or by supporting
national authorities and non-governmental organisations in their work.
Specifically: The Council of Europe
General
Within the European context, the Council of Europe is a kind of “first
step”. It is not only an organisation by itself, but at the
same time a condition for entering the European Union and it delivers
the key to its entrance hall. All new member states from Middle and Eastern Europe started their efficient transformation with
membership in the Council of Europe. Many of them in less then a decade have
now moved on to be members of the EU. Foremost, this needs to be remembered:
membership in the council means ratification of the European Convention on
Human Rights and thereby joining an external control mechanism.
The effects of the Council of Europe’s work in regard to freedom of the
media do not only apply to members but also to the candidates for membership
because the upholding of democratic standards and human rights protection is
quintessential for application. And there are only very few states on the
European continent that do not want to be at least member of the Council, in
order to attach ties to the other European states which has significant
economical consequences.
Art. 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights
Art. 10 of the Convention is the essential
right for the protection of free expression, free press and broadcasting,
free media in general. It is not only the broad range of protection granted by
the wording and the narrow possibilities for limitations by governments. It is
also and mainly what the European Court of Human Rights has made of the
article in the past decades. The protection of the freedom of the media and the
possibilities for limitations is an ongoing process. Obviously, this has especially influence on the member states in which freedom
of expression and of the media – for whatever reasons – are not very
strongly protected. It is certainly no surprise that in the past years many of
the violations of Art. 10 ECHR referred to cases in Turkey and there specifically consequences of
utterances by Kurdish representatives.
However, no member state – not even the most settled democracy – has
been excluded from being punished by the Court for not resisting the
temptation of abridging the freedom of speech, be it in the case “Observer
and Guardian”, “Bladet Tromso”, “Oberschlick” or other cases.
This can also sometimes mean that the Court emphasises other rights
stronger and re-judges the balance between Art. 10 and
these other rights, such as it happened last year in the now famous “Caroline
of Hanover”-Decision against Germany for not protecting the princess’ private
life against disturbances by the yellow press sufficiently. In many similar
cases the Court’s decision has lead to a re-definition of the extent of the nationally guaranteed freedom of the
media according to the guidance from Strasburg.
Other Conventions related to the
Freedom of the Media
The Human Rights Convention is not the only convention of the Council
of Europe dealing with or promoting the freedom of the media. Some others deal
with issues that also have effect on the media and try to ensure that the work
of the media is neither limited in an uncontrolled or unjustified way, nor is
the consumer’s right to inform himself from the sources he chooses.
One convention that only entered into force last year,
is the Cybercrime Convention. This is
the first international instrument that establishes standards for violations of
human rights by crimes committed via the Internet or similar media. However, by
agreeing on common standards and making it more obvious to see if a state goes
far beyond these standards, it also indirectly ensures that such legislation of
the member states is not used to infringe the free speech potential of the
internet. Remarkable about the Cybercrime Convention is the fact that it was
prepared and signed not only be Council of Europe-member states but also the
USA, Canada, Japan and others which underlines the necessity and sensibility of
international – global – cooperation in questions related to global media such
as the internet.
A very significant convention that additionally has a close connection
to an EC directive is the Convention on
Transfrontier Television. Again, this is mainly aimed at the free exchange
of information and ideas by encouraging the cross-border circulation of
television programmes. By doing so and by also establishing common rules for
taste and decency and other programming standards but also by clarifying the
right of advertisement as a commercial aspect of television, the Convention
adds to the extension of the freedom of broadcasting. It is a very good example
to show the reason and positive effect of Council of Europe’s work parallel to
the EU because by the Convention and its amending protocol an EC-wide standard
is now applicable in a far larger geographical area.
The Committee of Ministers and
the Parliamentary Assembly
The two main bodies of the Council of Europe are both active on a
political level in supporting freedom of the media.
Committee of Ministers (CM)
The Committee of Ministers is
responsible for overseeing the execution of the Court’s decisions and it
actually clearly points out if states ignore their homework dictated by
Strasburg.
Additionally, there are a large number of Recommendations that the Committee has passed in the course of the
years and that also determine the work of the Media Division. The following
examples show the variety of political explanations expressed in the Council of
Europe, always being aware that the Recommendations are not legally binding,
but send clear signals to governments and other actors of civil society.
Examples are:
- Rec(2004)16 to
member states on the right of reply in the new media environment
This is a very recent example (15.12.2004) of how the Committee of
Ministers deals with current media related issues, in this case recommending
that in all states a right of reply should be introduced in domestic law or
practice on a general basis.
- Rec(2003)13 to
member states on the provision of information through the media in relation to
criminal proceedings
“Desirous to enhance an informed debate on
the protection of the rights and interests ... of media reporting relating to
criminal proceedings, and to foster good practice ... while ensuring access of
the media to criminal proceedings.” This shows the motivation of the Recommendation which is followed by a
list of principles that should guide action to be taken or reinforced by the
member states in order to balance the conflicting interests in such cases
whilst holding up the freedom and right to inform about criminal proceedings.
- Rec(2000)23 to
member states on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for
the broadcasting sector
“Highlighting the important role played by the broadcasting media in
modern, democratic societies…” this Recommendation underlines the importance of
regulatory authorities controlling the media are independent and safe against
governmental interference.
- Rec(99)1 to
member states on measures to promote media pluralism
This is a much-referred to and very important Recommendation that
opened up the field for discussion of national and also international
concentration tendencies: “States should promote political and cultural
pluralism by developing their media policy in line with Article 10 ECHR”. It
contains a very extensive regulatory mechanism that also suggests the
possiblity of specific national authorities. Maybe you also want to consider
under “VII. Scientific research: member states should support scientific
research and study in the field of media concentrations...” – this will be important
for our workshop this afternoon.
- Rec(96)10 to
member states on the guarantee of the independence of public service
broadcasting
The title of this Recommendation speaks for itself. It has helpful
advice as a guideline for national legislation, which e.g. was helpful in
connection with the difficulties that occurred in Serbia when re-designing the media law.
Apart from Recommendations, the Committee also regularly adopts Resolutions on, for example, the
follow-up to ECHR judgements by the member states [see above and again an
example ResDH(2004)38 – Freedom of expression cases
concerning Turkey: General Measures, in which it “encourages the Turkish
authorities to consolidate their efforts to bring Turkish Law fully into
conformity with the requirements of Art. 10”].
Parliamentary Assembly
Not only the Committee of Ministers, also the Parliamentary Assembly frequently brings forward Recommendations that contain proposals
addressed to the Committee. After the adoption by the Committee the implementation
lies in the responsibility of national governments. Resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly are again a different
form of expressing viewpoints on specific issues.
The following examples give an overview of their relevance to freedom
of the media.
- Recommendation 1589 (2003) Freedom
of expression in the media in Europe
In this Recommendation the Parliamentary Assembly recalls its decision
“to exert, through the general rapporteur on the media, moral and political
pressure on governments which violate freedom of expression in the media”. This
refers especially to violence against journalists. Under
para. 9 the Recommendation reads: “Even the most advanced new
democracies still face difficulties in ensuring genuinely independent public
service broadcasting and a proper balance between government and opposition”.
Further, in para. 13 it expressly addresses the “Berlusconi-issue”.
The Recommendation stresses the need for continuing monitoring and asks
the Committee of Ministers to urge all European states, inter alia, to stop
immediately all forms of harassment, to revise media legislation according to
Council of Europe-standards and – by doing so it helps avoid ethnic conflicts
and therefore is especially relevant in the young democracies in Europe – “to
abolish restrictions on the establishment and functioning of private media
broadcasting in minority languages”.
The Committee of Ministers reacts as follows, which can be shown on
Recommendation 1641 (2004) on public service broadcasting. In that Recommendation
the Parliamentary Assembly emphasises the necessity of strong and independent
public service broadcasters in the member states. The Committee passed this on
to the governments and it also expressed its agreement with the contents.
Two examples for resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly are:
- Resolution 1387 (2004) Monopolisation
of the electronic media and possible abuse of power in Italy
In extensive and clear wording the Parliamentary Assembly expresses its
worry about the situation in Italy and the potential threat to democracy there.
It includes a clear vote against the “Gasparri Law” and also criticises that
the situation of the public broadcaster RAI is contrary to the principle of the
above mentioned Recommendation 1641 (2004). It directly asks the Italian
government for action, partly by amending the “Gasparri Law”. Also interesting
is the passage in para. 13 where it demands from the Venice Commission to give
an opinion on the compatibility of the Italian legislation with the standards
of the Council of Europe in the field of freedom of expression and media
pluralism.
- Resolution 900 (1988) Access to the audiovisual media during election
campaigns
At a very early stage, before the iron curtain dropped, this
Recommendation was passed. The very recent events in the Ukraine can be used as an example again to show that
this is an ever current subject. In the Resolution the Assembly had invited the
member states’ governments to ensure that “equality of opportunity [in the
media] is clearly established during election for all political parties”
The Media Division
The Steering Committee on the
Mass Media (CDMM - Comité directeur sur les moyens de communication de
masse) coordinates the
“activities
of the Council of Europe in the media field [which] are aimed at promoting
freedom of expression and information, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the free flow of information at
the pan-European level via the existence of a plurality of independent and
autonomous media, while ensuring respect for other fundamental rights” [mission
statement on website].
The Media Division of the
Council of Europe uses the expertise of a number of expert panels and also
has a Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television monitoring developments
connected to this specific instrument [e.g. most recently a Recommendation
concerning the protection of minors from programmes with pornographic content,
11./12.10.2004].
The specialist groups and panels so far consisted of the following:
- MM-S-DB: Group of Specialists
on the Democratic and social implications of digital Broadcasting
- MM-S-FR: Group of Specialists
on freedom of expression and other fundamental rights
- MM-S-OD: Group of Specialists
on on-line services and democracy
- AP-CV: Advisory
Panel on convergence
- AP-MD: Advisory
Panel on media diversity
- AP-IP: Advisory
Panel on intellectual property
- AP-MT: Advisory
Panel on media and terrorism
The work of these experts supports the CDMM in taking well-founded
positions and developing action recommendations for the Committee in form of
normative texts or other initiatives. The AP-MD can serve as an example,
because I have been involved in that panel’s work. Here, a small group of experts
within the past couple of years has prepared two reports on “Media diversity in
Europe” and “Transnational media concentrations in Europe” which where
subsequently adopted by the CDMM and contained valuable data and conclusions as
to what has to be expected in view of technological development and what action
needs to be taken to ensure media freedom in such an environment. The reports
were made broadly accessible and have been basis for discussions within the
Council of Europe and the member states.
Only a few days ago the CM adopted the mandates of new groups of
specialists which will now be:
- MM-S-IC: Group of Specialists on freedom of expression
and information in times of crisis
- MM-S-MD: Group of Specialists
on media diversity
- MM-S-PSB: Group of Specialists
on public service broadcasting in the Information society
- MM-S-IS: Group of
Specialists on Human Rights in the Information Society
The programme for Assistance and
Technical Co-operation in the media field is situated within the Steering
Committee and covers a multitude of issues such as rights and responsibilities
of journalists, regulation of the media etc. and has been active in support of
new and potential member states. Legal expertises on new draft laws were
produced in this context by the Media Division as much as training seminars,
workshops and others. Many of the activities such as conferences are organised
jointly with institutions in the member states. This support of the work of
regional institutions cannot be cherished enough as it often is the academic
and non-governmental organisations that lay basis for work protecting media
freedom, such as e.g. the drafting of ethics codes.
In this context the foundation and ongoing support of the European Audiovisual Observatory by the
Council of Europe can be mentioned. The Observatory is a joint research institution that
monitors all relevant media developments in Europe, presents data and figures and analytical
research on important questions. Regularly a news magazine (“Iris”) and
special issues are published (e.g. this month on “Political Debate and the Role
of the Media – The Fragility of Free Speech”).
Specifically: The European Union
General
It is impossible in this context to cover all relevant areas in which
the EU is active with regard to the media. There will be a focus on the
freedom, i.e. human rights aspect, notwithstanding that a large share of the
activities are based on the economical
aspect of the media but at the same time in one way or another contribute
to a free media landscape to the benefit of the consumer.
One also needs to point out initially that there is a certain problem
in view of jurisdiction related to media.
The European Community can only be active if expressly powers have been
conferred to it by the member states in the founding treaties (principle of
conferral). In these treaties one will not find a specific provision concerning
the media. Moreover, there are several aspects that clearly show the
subject-matter media as being a domaine réservé of the member states, because
on the one hand the EC’s activities concerning culture can only be of
supporting nature and not with the aim of harmonising. On the other hand, the
EC has to take into consideration in all its activities the diversity of cultures
of its member states, i.e. not aim at a uniform European culture. However, the
EU obviously does have certain competences concerning the media, because these
at the same time are services which means that the
fundamental freedom applies to them. Also, the protection of the freedom of the
media as a human right has significance in the context of the EU, too.
Primary and Secondary Legislation
Apart from the relevance of the services provisions in the EC Treaty
most interesting is Art. 6 para. 2 of the EU Treaty
(in future: I-9) according to which human
rights as provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and the
constitutions of the member states are respected by the EU. This very general
approach that had already been developed by the Court of Justice, but also meant that there was no “visible”
list of human rights, has been recently changed significantly. First, the EU’s
bodies proclaimed a Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the Union – a human rights listing based on the
Council of Europe’s Convention. This so far non-binding Charter to which the
institutions have committed themselves will in future become part of the new Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
Then Art. II-71 will provide for freedom of the media
which has to be respected by the EU. But it also has consequences for the
member states. Already in the last treaty revision a provision had been
inserted according to which all member states have to respect the human rights
and basic democratic rules otherwise – at least in theory – their membership
rights can be suspended (Art. 7 TEU, in future I-59). Admittedly, all this
looks like a double safety net, because all EU member states are already bound
directly to the Convention on Human Rights via their membership in the Council
of Europe. But on the other hand, this international law obligation is
strengthened by a directly applicable provision within the supranational
organisation EU.
Based on the relevant provisions in the Treaties, the EU has passed a
large number of secondary legislation dealing
with the media. Most important, also here, is the Television without Frontiers-Directive which is the equivalent to
the above mentioned Convention on Transfrontier Television. The provisions that
had to be transformed into national law cover such areas as protection of
minors, jurisdiction, advertisement regulation etc. The fact that a
European-wide minimum standard and harmonisation was introduced made it easier
for the broadcasters to act transnational and it also supported the development
of European productions and their screening. There is a constant monitoring of
the fulfilment of the obligations from the directive and currently a revision
of the directive is discussed in view of the emerging convergence of the
different electronic media.
The standardisation and
liberalisation of most of the telecommunications and networks market has
had a direct effect on the work of media producers such as television programme
providers. Some of the effects of this development have not only positive
effects but can also create a danger for the freedom of the media, such as the
increasing concentration on the market. However, there are safeguards against
this and, generally spoken, the development of the media as initiated in many
aspects by the EU’s activities have been helpful to create strong dual
broadcasting systems with a wide variety and diversity of contents which in
turn is a plus for freedom of the media and the media’s function. Many other
directives such as the data protection directive, intellectual property
directive and others would have to be considered in a more broad examination of
the media sector, but not in this context.
European Court of Justice
Once again, this Court that has
extensively used and understood its means to extend the interpretation of many
facets of European law.
Especially in view of the human rights, as mentioned above, the Court
decided that even without written provisions the EU is bound to such rights.
Specifically addressing freedom of the media, the Court also pointed an
important direction. Although it clearly stated that television is a service
and therefore the freedom to provide
services applies, in the decision Familiapress and following ones it
also underlined that the basic rights
are a way of justifiably limiting this fundamental freedom. For example the
safeguarding of plurality in the media may lead to a limitation of the freedom
as long as this is proportional.
The Court has also interpreted the freedom of expression in a
broad way and, e.g. in the Connolly case, upheld the possibility for a
Commission officer to be critical in public of the Commission’s work. However,
in that decision the Court again also drafted the limitations that can
be set up against such utterances.
In sum, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice also helped
strengthen and broaden the freedom of the media.
European Commission, Parliament
and Council
Although the normative texts with direct effect for the member states
are passed by the Council of the European
Union and the European Parliament on initiative of the European Commission, it is the latter that additionally has a
semi-executive function similar to governments of member states. It is within
the Commission’s different portfolios that the media are subject of everyday
work. The Commissioner for Information
Society and Media is in charge for all policy action in regard of the
Television without Frontiers directive, the activities concerning new media and
very generally overseeing the “audiovisual policy” of the EU. But also the Internal Market and Competition Commissioners are of
importance for the freedom of the media, the first because he takes action
against infringements of the right to provide services across borders. The
latter in many ways – at least from the perspective of the consumer’s right to
information – helps promote the media freedom.
The competences of the Commission in the competition sector with the antitrust and mergers examination are
often used to ensure broader access to media contents. This could be seen
recently in the cases referring to the broadcasting of sports rights, earlier
the cases dealing with music licensing, but also the examination of agreements
between major players on the field e.g. referring to non-compete arrangements.
Even more obvious, the support of media freedom applies to the mergers section.
Even though the protection of media pluralism in view of diversity of opinions
is left to the member states’ regulation, the regulations prohibiting the abuse
of dominant market power lead to activities especially in the media sector
because the companies here are usually of such a size that they fall under
European jurisdiction [e.g. Sony/Bertelsmann]. Although the European
Parliament continuously supports the idea of introducing a European pluralism
control also in regard of media diversity in competition law cases, the
official member states’ and Commission’s position remains unchanged that this
is a matter of the national states [cf. recently White Book on Services of general
interest].
However, a critical word at this point should also be possible. With
the state-aid rules the Commission
has also been frequently challenging the funding
of public broadcasters in Europe.
Although it has been explicitly stated and added as a protocol to the Treaties
that the public broadcasters have a very special function in upholding
pluralism of opinions and showing minority programmes, in some instances the
demand from the Commission seems to stretch the competition rules a bit far. Recently,
the clear definition of the activity of public broadcasters and a transparent
procedure of allocating the funding may seem to be insufficient still, as the
example of examination of the online-activities of Germany’s public broadcasters suggests.
On a political level there
is a lot of activity, too. Let me – as above – just pick out a few examples.
The Council of Ministers in 1998 agreed on the first cross-media-applicable
“Recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity”, which is
currently being revised. The Commission – if applicable – in guidelines
explains its understanding of certain issues, one example of relevance being
here the application of the services provisions to the installation of
satellite dishes in private households, a right often disputed by house owners,
but very important especially in view of media for minorities or foreigners. A
recent example for the Commission taking a viewpoint in a politically sensitive
area referred to the freedom of the press in candidate countries and dates from
last October. In a report it stated that there are still problems in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey which is why a more progress needs to be
achieved before membership is possible. In its work, the Commission also
cooperates closely with national bodies such as the European Regulators Group
or with expert committees that are hired for support in specific questions. The
amount of research that is initiated on behalf of the Commission supports the
understanding of freedom of the media.
Finally, the Commission oversees the distribution of funds coming from
the MEDIA programme that supports
the production of European works. This financial support is added by setting up
information exchange mechanisms between European producers.
The EU and the Council of Europe are not only active in very similar
ways in the field of the media. There is also a framework for close cooperation
in which Joint Programmes are set
up. These promote democracy and the respect for human rights including freedom
of the media in Europe. Most of these joint programmes are
country-specific and are related to the young democracies in Middle and Eastern Europe. A concrete example mentioned above is the
Joint Programme on “Media in Serbia” where since 2001 there have been numerous
expertises, workshops and conferences organised by both institutions. This
shows the hand-in-hand-approach of the two organisations.
A brief Summary and Outlook
The activities of both Council of Europe and European Union are
manifold concerning the freedom of the media. Both of them strongly enhance
this right and ensure its continuous expansion. The instruments used are legal
and political. Harmonisation and creation of minimum standards is one way of
ensuring respect for the sensitive fourth power, the media. Political pressure
in cases of member states significantly hindering the work of a free media adds
to this.
There are also other significant international
organisation operating in this context. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) – “in
order to ensure a high level of commitment with the norms and standards
accepted by the participating States” [mission statement on the website] – the
position of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media was established
1997. This position is used to highlight structural and individual problems and
everyday harassment journalists encounter in their work.
And another important question is how the work of the organisations
arrives at a national level, but in conclusion to the international
organisations work it has been shown that Council of Europe and European Union
have not by chance put a focus on the work promoting freedom of the media and –
this should be positively remarked – have been very successful in doing so!
Dr. Mark D. Cole
Mainz Media Institute
Kaiserstr. 32, 55116 Mainz
Germany
Tel.: +49
6131 / 144 92 53
Fax: +49 6131 / 144 92 60
cole@mainzer-medieninstitut.de
www.mainzer-medieninstitut.de
