EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY
THROUGH LAW
(VENICE COMMISSION)
REPORT
ON Challenges faced by journalists
in preserving their editorial independence
in a media environment
by Mrs Deirdre Kevin (Expert, Germany)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction. 3
2. Legislative and regulatory framework supporting
journalistic practice. 4
a. The Freedom of Expression. 4
b. Freedom of Information. 5
c. Controlling the quality and ethics of media output 6
Self-Regulation. 6
Defamation and libel laws. 7
Broadcasting codes and licensing criteria. 7
3. Legislative and regulatory framework for the protection
of media pluralism.. 8
a. Competition policy. 9
b. Media ownership legislation and licensing. 10
Media ownership restrictions. 10
Transparency of ownership. 10
Licensing of Broadcasters. 11
4. The impact of ownership. 11
a. Media as business. 11
b. Media as political tool 11
c. Self-censorship. 12
d. Foreign ownership. 12
5. The influence of authorities and political organisations. 14
a. Public service broadcasting not always independent 14
b. State ownership and state support of media outlets. 14
c. Political ownership of the media. 15
d. Political actors and authorities put pressure on the
media. 16
e. Pressure regarding protection of sources. 16
6. The status of journalists. 17
a. Professional: Journalistic integrity and expertise. 17
b. Employee status. 17
c. Status as “citizens” and issues of safety. 19
7. Conclusions and recommendations. 19
Challenges faced by journalists in preserving their editorial
independence in a media environment characterised by inter alia media
concentration, financial pressure on journalism, and close ties between the
business and political sphere.
There can be no press freedom if
journalists exist in conditions of corruption, poverty or fear.
A fundamental aspect of citizenship concerns the access to
information regarding political and societal developments and the opportunity
to hear a variety of opinions concerning these developments. The role of the
media as fourth estate is to provide information, to report on events, to
provide fora for debate and consideration with access to these discussions by
all groups in society, and to fulfil the role of watchdog on public affairs via
the process of investigative journalism. Such power also brings responsibility with
regard to standards, ethics and truth. This paper will outline the context in
which journalism operates, indicate challenges faced by journalists in their
daily work with reference to a variety of examples throughout Europe, illustrate ways in which these
challenges are being addressed, and suggest recommendations. Examples cited
here are referenced to reports from a variety of international organisations,
NGOs, and journalism associations.
The legislative, regulatory, economic and political context
of the media environment has significant influence on the practice and output
of journalism. The relationships between the media and politics, and those
between the media and business tend to be rather complex. Government, politicians, authorities, organisations and companies need
the media in order to publicise policies, explain policies, gain support for
their parties, or (in the case of companies) to sell their products. They also
need access to the media to respond to crises, scandals, business scandals or
problems with products in relation to danger to consumers or the environment.
The media, in turn, also needs the co-operation of these groups in order to
receive information, and to write stories. As businesses, the media needs
resources including capital investment and revenues such as advertising fees.
In some countries they may receive subsidies, tax relief, or access to state
funded facilities. However, while there may be larger, richer industries that
lobby their interests or support political parties, no industry has the same
ability as the media to impact upon the political process or to influence
public opinion. This makes it harder for there to be a clear relationship
between media interest and political powers. It makes it more difficult to regulate
or impose limitations on the media and also encourages attempts to “control”
the media via a variety of means.
Gandy
(1982) described this as a relationship of reciprocal exchange wherein the
journalist has access to reliable, usable information and the politicians have
controlled access to their target audiences. The formal approach involves press
conferences and press briefings where the official statement of government,
ministry or political party is presented to the public. The informal processes may
involve information being given to one outlet over the others (scoops), or
‘off-the-record’ information from political actors. Scoops may be provided in
return for cooperation on particular issues, or holding off on particular news
stories. It is natural that “rules of the game” are required in order for this
relationship to function. However, it is also important that a strong and
mutually respected ethical and legal framework exists to ensure the
dissemination of truthful information and to guarantee journalistic
independence.
Unfortunately,
there are many examples of obstacles, challenges and other methods of media
control affecting journalism practice that will be outlined below. In recent
decades the development of ‘spin-doctor’ tactics by political actors and the
sophistication of public relations activities of both authorities and
commercial companies make this process even less transparent. The relationship
between media and business interests is also a complex issue, particularly as
media outlets themselves tend to be business interests. Media production, in
particular broadcasting and programme production, tends to be a very expensive
business, requiring large capital investment. Industry, business, governments
and government agencies are principally the sources of capital and advertising
revenue for the media. In recent years, the media, particularly the press
industry, has been confronted with an economic crisis, partly due to
competition with online media, and particularly regarding advertising.
Digitisation and globalisation have ensured a massive increase in market
players and in platforms for the dissemination of information and
entertainment. The German FAZ has in recent years lost between 40-50% of
its advertising revenue (for jobs, cars, apartments etc.) when this revenue
moved to Internet websites (Stock, 2003). Economic pressures can also impact on
media freedom and the practice of journalism, an issue dealt with in more
detail below under section six. Furthermore, as the media has developed and
expanded with ever more transmission possibilities, the trend globally has been
for an increasing focus on the entertainment aspect above that of the
informational. Public service broadcasters competing with private, and the
traditional press competing with so many other possibilities for a family’s
media spend also succumb to the phenomenon of “dumbing down” in the media.
Certain topics and issues may seem of less interest to the consumer, as
opposed to the citizen, leading to a reduction in investigative
journalism and coverage of political affairs.
Various
legislation interpreted by the judiciary system via case law provide the
official legal context for the practice of journalism. Media legislation and
regulation, ideally overseen by an independent (of political interest) body,
complemented by public service broadcasting laws, statutes and codes, and a
functioning system of self-regulation form the basis of the framework for
ethical standards and quality journalism practice.
Central to
the practice of journalism and an essential aspect of human rights for all
citizens is the freedom of expression. At the international level this is
protected under the following declarations, conventions, and charters:
Art.
19 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights rules
that
Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The
European Convention on Human Rights states in
Art. 10.1 that
Everyone
has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to
hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states in Art. 11 that:
1.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas
without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 2. The
freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
The Freedom
of Expression is legally protected in most European countries, generally
incorporated within national constitutions (in the case of the UK
through the Human Rights Act of 1998). Many countries also have specific Acts
relating to freedom of expression, or freedom of the press, or freedom of the
media, (Austria, Sweden, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg), while others have
additional or extended constitutional articles relating to media freedom
(Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia). Media freedom is also
frequently mentioned in the context of media legislation (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia) (for more detail see Kevin et al 2004). The legislation contains
exemptions regarding public or national interest, which allows authorities some
leeway regarding the way in which information is reported. These systems can
only be judged in practice, i.e. as the result of judicial decisions and
implementation. In this context the work of the European Court of Human Rights
(balancing issues such as freedom of establishment and pluralism on the one
hand, balancing freedom of protection and public interest with issues of
privacy and national interest on the other) has been vital in guiding
the judiciary. The reality of the day-to-day pressure on journalists can
assessed with relation to information provided by media professionals and NGOs
regarding their actual freedom, as detailed here.
A system ensuring freedom to
access information is necessary for the media to carry out its function as the
fourth estate. Most Council of Europe member states have implemented such a
freedom through legislation. For EU countries the incorporation of the EU
Directive on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector
information (2003/98/EC) is also required. The Acts include exemptions and
classifications of certain documents, and most systems have an appeal and
complaints mechanism. There are, however, a variety of problems concerning implementation of this
freedom according to a report by Banisar (2006),
with just a few countries receiving positive
evaluations regarding their implementation of the freedom of access to
information: Finland, Estonia, France and Iceland. For others problems included: a lack of public awareness and awareness/training of public
officials (Albania, Armenia, Belgium, BiH, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden); a lack of
regulations/implementation of regulations on procedures (Armenia, Belgium, Italy, Kosovo, Moldova).
Specific
problems with the process included: the denial of
requests/ failure to respond to requests without grounds (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Spain); claims
by journalists that they have received false information (Armenia); the incorrect/
inconsistent classification of documents (Armenia, BiH, Kosovo, Lithuania,
Romania, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine); pro-government journalists receiving
preferential treatment (Azerbaijan, Russia); and a belief that request for
information can damage good relations with authorities (in the Netherlands,
NGOs and media professionals are of this opinion).
The administration of the
process was criticised with regard to a poor appeals mechanism (Belgium, Czech
Republic, Georgia, Turkey, United Kingdom); slow implementation and take-up
(Croatia, Germany, Kosovo, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, United
Kingdom);and excessive fees (in Ireland
since the introduction of fees in the Amendment Act of 2003 the overall usage
of the Act declined by over 50 percent and requests for non-personal
information declined by 75 percent; in Germany certain agencies are planning to
introduce fees; Romania); and a lack of legislation on protection of personal
data (Kosovo, Montenegro, Turkey).
In the case of the United Kingdom the former Lord Chancellor proposed reforms in November 2006 to the
Freedom of Information Act on the grounds of costs, which he claimed have been
driven up by the high level of requests from journalists.
The job of the Government is not to provide page leads
for the papers, but information for the citizen. Freedom of information was
never considered to be, and for our part will never be considered to be, a
research arm for the media.
These proposals proved very
controversial, reflecting a lack of understanding of the media’s role in
informing the public, and a public consultation was carried out regarding the
proposals. The
Constitutional Affairs Select Committee of the Parliament has recently (July 2007) stated that the proposed reforms were “unnecessary, unpopular and
undesirable”.
There is generally a distinction between the regulation of
broadcasting and that of the press, wherein in the case of the latter, the
content and establishment of newspapers and periodicals are generally more free
and less regulated. Press journalists, however, tend to be situated between two
extremely different methods of control: the laws concerning defamation and
libel, which in many countries remain under the criminal code; and systems of
self-regulation, an internal industry oversight of activity with varying
degrees of success and credibility in different countries. For broadcasting
organisations, the existence of licensing criteria, and broadcasting codes (a
central part of media legislation) all serve to provide a more comprehensive
framework for regulating content and ethics. Added to this are certain content
provisions of the European Union Television Without Frontiers Directive (and
the proposed Audiovisual Media Services Directive), and the European Convention
on Transfrontier Television of the Council of Europe.
A
self-regulatory model is the general approach to oversight of the way in which
journalists perform in relation to sourcing and reporting news. While
preserving ethics, such a system is intended to reduce the extent to which
individuals take the more expensive route of going to court over issues of
libel, defamation or the publication of false or private information.
International organisations representing journalists (International Federation
of Journalists, IFJ and the European Federation of Journalists, EFJ) have codes
of ethics and standards, as do the journalism unions at the national level.
These codes relate to standards in accuracy, fairness, honesty, respect for
privacy, and also the obligation to uphold the high standards of the profession
by avoiding plagiarism, defamation or the acceptance of bribes. Many outlets
also have individual editorial policies, systems for standards, codes of ethics
etc. In general a system is in place where an independent body (Press Council,
Ombudsman etc.) oversees the operation of self-regulation and will adjudicate
between a media outlet/ journalist and the subject of a report whether that be
an authority, company or individual. The success of such a self-regulatory
system depends on the adherence to codes of the professionals, on the
commitment and independence of the body that supervises compliance, and in many
cases these systems are less than perfect.
The existence of defamation and libel laws is necessary for
the protection of the reputation of individuals and entities and also in
ensuring truthful reporting. However, the nature and enforcement of these laws
is frequently problematic. In many countries these issues remain part of the
criminal or penal code rather than the civil code, implying the threat of
prison sentences. Prison sentences and fines
for defamation and insults to a person’s dignity or religious feelings are
common in Poland (RSF 2006). A recent attempt by the Romanian Parliament in 2006
to eliminate prison sentences for libel was over-ruled by the Constitutional Court (IREX 2007). While the Romanians
are failing in their efforts to change this, in other countries the use of
these laws has become more problematic.
In the 1990s, the cases brought against journalists did not make it to
court. Now a lot of cases have made it court, and there are a lot of sentences
against journalists. There are already actual precedents that people go to
jail, which is unacceptable in any civilized country.
According
to the IREX (2007) report, in Macedonia libel is still
under the criminal code, but is no longer a penal crime with threat of jail but
rather of fines. However, experts claim that the real problem with regard to
the law is the level of influence on the courts and corruption that affects the
legal outcomes, ensuring that journalists rarely win libel cases.
Media legislation creates the framework for licensing and
supervision of content of broadcasting and establishes which authorities are
responsible for these tasks. In most European countries independent media
regulatory authorities RAs have been established to carry out this work. The
remit of these authorities, the strength they have regarding sanctions, and
their levels of political independence or freedom from interference varies
widely.
Broadcasting codes either form part
of the media law, or are developed by the RAs based on principles outlined in
the media law. In the UK for example the broadcasting code addresses issues
such as: the protection of minors, issues of harm and
offence, the incitement to commission of crime, religious programmes,
impartiality and accuracy and undue prominence of views and opinions, the
conduct of media during elections and referenda, fairness, privacy,
sponsorship, advertising and product placement. National media laws generally
also, as a minimum, reflect the Television Without Frontiers Directive of the
EU and/or the European Convention on Transfrontier Television of the Council of
Europe both of which address: advertising, sponsorship, the protection of
minors and human dignity, and the right of reply.
The licensing criteria used by RAs for allocating radio and
television licences have, in many cases, included issues such as journalism ethics, practice and independence.
Examples include the assurance that the licence applicants will: support
the journalistic and creative independence of journalists (Cyprus); commit
implementing journalistic and
professional codes of conduct including the correct and unbiased presentation of information and respect for personal
dignity and the right to privacy (Greece, Lithuania, Portugal);
guarantee the independence and
pluralism of opinions represented as well as honesty of the information
provided in programmes providing general or political information (France); guarantee the right to party
political broadcasts during electoral periods, in compliance with
constitutionally and legally stipulated terms (Portugal); ensure the political neutrality of the station
(Slovenia). In relation to journalism status and employment the licensing
criteria in Cyprus also requires that the terms of employment of editors and
other employees of the station is set by collective bargaining and collective
work contract.
The
strongest phase of regulation of media content with regard to ‘political
pluralism’ and diversity of opinion, occurs during election campaigns, and is
relevant to both the press and the broadcasting sectors: to ensure ‘free and
fair elections’, ensure that candidates and parties receive an appropriate fair
share of media coverage and to provide a system of ‘right of reply’. The
process of election campaign coverage is usually monitored by regulators or
other authorities to ensure that the media carries out its duties according to
the rules laid down regarding election campaigns, and the systems in place vary
between countries.
The role of
RAs in the protection of pluralism varies dependent on their remits and their
resources for monitoring content (advertising, EU quotas, content that
contravenes broadcasting codes, election coverage), with some doing systematic
monitoring and others reviewing only on the basis of complaints.
‘Political’
pluralism is about the need, in the interests of democracy, for a range of
political opinions and viewpoints to be expressed in the media. Democracy would
be threatened if any single voice, with the power to propagate a single
viewpoint, were to become too dominant.
Pluralism
of the media is a two-fold concept, relating to both the diversity of ownership
of media outlets (external) and also the diversity of output or content of
media outlets (internal). Arguments for consolidation of the media industry
apply to the potential economies of scale that a company can achieve: a large
media firm may more easily be able to provide (or indeed preserve) an
additional outlet; resources, material, and
administration can be shared. These issues are sometimes taken into
account by competition authorities in dealing with mergers and takeovers of
media enterprises, when trying to strike a balance between economic benefit,
and the need to preserve a competitive plural media sector. Some of these
actual economic benefits, for example, the sharing of resources and sources may
also cause a certain reduction in the plurality of information.
Media ownership is frequently
concentrated in many European states. Legislation has often been introduced
after the development of the market structure, as was the case with many of the
former soviet states where capital and business arrived from the west before the
arrival of democracy and legislation. The companies came from the mature
markets of the west where they had already reached their boundaries of growth.
The horizontal concentration of newspapers or radio stations, or local
television can lead to a limit in choice regarding content and plurality of
voices. Where a media organisation reaches a large proportion of the audience
through its outlets, and has thus a potentially strong influence on political
opinion, it becomes a player in the political process with the potential to
hold politicians to ransom on particular issues not least that of media
regulation. On the other hand, media concentrated in the hands of people close
to political interests do not serve the function of fourth estate. Media owned
by industry sectors can also lessen criticism of the private sector.
At the
European level, Article 10bis of the European Convention on
Transfrontier Television states that:
The Parties, in the spirit of co-operation and mutual
assistance which underlies this Convention, shall endeavour to avoid that
programme services transmitted or retransmitted by a broadcaster or any other
legal or natural persons within their jurisdiction, within the meaning of
Article 3, endanger media pluralism.
Although
there are no specific provisions on media pluralism in the proposed AVMS
directive of the EU, there are some general references to this in the preamble
such as:
Audiovisual
media services are as much cultural services as they are economic services.
Their growing importance for societies, democracy – in particular by ensuring
freedom of information, diversity of opinion and media pluralism – education
and culture justifies the application of specific rules to these services; ....the instruments chosen by Member States should contribute to
the promotion of media pluralism.
The
following sections are not intended to analyse in detail the various mechanisms
for regulating media markets, but merely to provide an overview and highlight
issues of concern.
Competition
policy at the national level generally tends to treat the media in the same way
as other industries without noting its role as a cultural good. Notable
exceptions to this include: Austria and Germany where the thresholds of
turnover requiring intervention in a merger or take-over are much lower than
for other industry sectors; in Austria, Germany, Ireland, Spain and the United
Kingdom the Ministers responsible may request a special intervention on the
grounds of pluralism, a public interest test, or the merger/acquisition may
require the approval of the minister (Germany).
The European Commission Directorate General for Competition regulates mergers and
anti-competitive behaviour, also in the media sector. Unlike in several Member
States (as noted above), the competition approach does not distinguish the
media industry as having any particular characteristics in comparison with
other industries (i.e. democratic and cultural roles). The competition acquis
is based on Article 31 (State monopolies of a commercial character), Articles
81-85 (Rules applicable to undertakings), Article 86 (public undertakings and
undertakings with special or exclusive rights) and Articles 87-89 (Rules
applicable to State aid) of the EC Treaty. It has been argued that decisions
taken by the EC Competition in the media field have had a positive effect on
pluralism in the media market. However, EU competition policy focuses mainly on
the common market, the EU market (and intervention mostly dependent on EU wide
thresholds), and so does not impede companies from having substantial interests
(within national ownership boundaries where they exist) in the media sectors of
a variety of European Union countries. While major companies offering services
on a pan-European basis are somewhat controlled, the major European media
companies (News International, Springer Verlag, Bertelsmann, Central European
Media Enterprises, Scandinavian Broadcasting Services, Ringier Group, etc.)
have been able to buy up media assets all over Europe (see Kevin et al 2004,
for more detail). It is certainly difficult for the EU to, in parallel, promote
strong companies in Europe to offset US and Asian competition, while at the same time working to
promote democracy and pluralism.
Ownership of the press tends to be treated in a light
regulatory way, mainly via competition law. There are some exceptions to this
in France and Italy. Horizontal media concentration in
the television sector is controlled in a variety of ways combining different
ways of measuring the influence of an owner/ company on the market: by limiting
ownership (capital or voting) shares (Cyprus,
Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia,
Hungary, Malta); by limiting market
shares (audience / listeners) (Germany, Norway); by
limiting capital share and licenses
(Austria Greece); by
limiting capital share and voting share
(Slovak Republic, Spain); by limiting licenses and audience share (Czech Republic); by examining capital share, voting share and audience reach
(Norway); by examining capital
share, audience share, and licensing procedure (Belgium Walloon); licensing
with cross media or media operator restrictions (Ireland); by examining licenses, share of system and revenue share
(Italy); by examining voting
rights, audience reach, capital share and license limit (France).
In several countries there are
vague or no restrictions: there is a vaguely defined
restriction based on dominant position in Poland; none or
few restrictions in Belgium
Flanders); and no
restrictions at all in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden,
United Kingdom. In several countries, while there may be general legal statements
prohibiting monopolisation of the media, or the creation of a dominant
position, there are no/few provisions to limit ownership: Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Sweden. Hence, some of these systems are lacking in definition regarding
thresholds, outside of general competition law. In many EU member states cross media ownership
restrictions do not exist, for example in Spain, Belgium, Latvia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Portugal or Sweden (for more detail see Kevin et al 2004).
Despite few
restrictions on media ownership in Nordic states and the fact that the markets
tend to be very concentrated, journalists and media freedom analysts insist
there is no threat to media freedom in these states, and this is due partly to
political and cultural traditions of debate, openness and discussion. Unfortunately
their Baltic neighbours followed a similar laissez faire attitude with
regard to regulation, but the culture of openness and media freedom was not
there. Many Scandinavian media companies operate here, alongside US companies,
all of which are involved in media markets throughout Eastern and South Eastern Europe, joined by
German, French, Swiss and British companies. The positive and negative effects
of this are outlined below (section 4).
Central to the proper implementation of such measures is the
transparency of ownership, an issue addressed in a variety of ways: the
disclosure of ownership structure to licensing (Austria) or government
authorities (Lithuania); the notification of changes in ownership structure to
media authorities (Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovenia); the
annual publication of identity of
owners and ownership structure (Austria, Luxembourg, Portugal); the publication
of a statement on editorial line (Austria); the existence of a mass media
register detailing owner, publisher, shareholders etc. (Slovenia); a registry
for private terrestrial television (Spain); or via a
review of programme output following change of ownership (UK, regarding
radio). However, one of the main problems noted in many countries with regard
to ownership is a lack of transparency. It is relatively easy to hide true
ownership with the use of other names, subsidiaries, and holding companies.
Without a clear picture of ownership, it is difficult to implement the limits
outlined above.
The criteria for awarding broadcasting licences in various
European countries include inter alia several that are intended to
promote pluralism of opinion. The decision-making process on applications for
broadcasting licences is expected to: promote
diversity of opinions/ plurality of information (Austria, France,
Slovakia); avoid allowing any person, or group of persons, to have control of, or substantial interests in, an
undue number of sound broadcasting services (Ireland); prevent
achievement, by the applicant, of a dominant
position in mass media in the given area (Ireland, Malta, Poland,
Slovakia, France); examine the ability and commitment of the applicants to
safeguard pluralism in their
programmes and broadcasts and ensure the greatest possible access to them
(Cyprus); promote the transparency of
ownership (Czech Republic, Slovakia); promote multi-culturalism and
services for minorities/ cultural exchange (Czech Republic, France, Ireland).
As noted in the introduction,
an important source of revenue and capital for the media includes advertising
revenue from business, industry and government. The IFJ (2006) noted that in
the Serbian media there is a dependence on advertising revenue from big
companies and the government, so if journalists report critically about
business and government they often risk damaging the interests of the outlet,
which can lead to them losing their jobs. A survey carried out by the OSCE
(2003) with newspaper journalists from a range of countries revealed that an
average of 25% of journalists believed that advertisement influenced the
editorial line of their newspapers.
Make a list of, say, five of the greatest
advertisers, and then try to find critical comments on them. I am afraid that
the list of critical comments would be even shorter than the list of the
advertisers.
Large industry sectors such
as shipping, oil, energy, are frequently the owners of media enterprises. A
company involved in shipping, oil, and real estate publishes newspapers in Latvia.
Another involved in activities including oil and petroleum products, shipping,
banking, real state, media, hotels, and leisure owns TV stations in Greece. Spain, Portugal and France also have examples of large industry sectors investing in the media.
The Orkla Media Group (until recently operating in media markets of Norway,
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine) is owned by
Orkla SA, a company involved in industry, chemicals, food, and investments
(Kevin et al 2004). In Turkey the
banking, insurance energy, and construction sectors have media interests
(Pekman 2005). It is unlikely that such rich industries enter the media sector
in the interests of democracy and freedom of expression.
Media owners frequently have links to political interests,
an issue with direct impact on the quality of journalism and editorial
independence. One should not ignore the power that certain media moguls can
wield in the western mature democracies. The role of the best-selling newspaper
in the UK, The Sun, in election
results over the years has been well documented. Party leaders and Prime
Ministers alike have the required meetings with the head of News Corporation,
owner of The Sun and The Times, in the run-up to election period.
News Corporation describes itself as a
“diversified international media and entertainment company with operations in
eight industry segments: filmed entertainment; television; cable network
programming; direct broadcast satellite television; magazines and inserts;
newspapers; book publishing; and other. The activities of News Corporation are
conducted principally in the United States, Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Basin.
News International recently added a couple of Latvian private television
channels, Dow Jones, and the Internet company Myspace.com to its portfolio.
The IREX (2007) report outlines several ways in which media
outlets are used as political tools: the sense of threat that journalists often
feel that prevents them from “publishing news and articles not in accordance
with the political preferences of media owners” (Albania); the use of media as
a political tool by rich businessmen who are not interested in audience, profit
and indeed quality and can recruit the best journalists because of their
resources (Romania). Such investment of businessmen in the media purely for
political reasons was heightened in 2006 in Russia, with a view to the
up-coming elections, when a range of outlets - the private television channel
REN-TV and the major national newspapers Kommersant, Gazeta, Izvestia,
and Komsomolskaya Pravda – became “notably more government friendly”
after they were bought out by businesses interests (such as Gazprom, the
state-controlled gas monopoly) supportive of the state authorities.
In a climate of influence on content, and fear of
repercussions from political or business interests, journalists and editors
frequently practice self-censorship, or avoid certain topics completely, for
example in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia (IREX 2007). Such
self-censorship can occur in relation to the perceived interests of the owners
(Romania), or to that of business interests
or advertisers. In 2006, the owner an independent daily paper in Croatia sacked eight editors as they had
published an article concerning the owner’s “shady financial operations” (IREX
2007). Examples are also cited where experts feel that journalists and editors
practice self-censorship in order to encourage favours or receive other
benefits (Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina), rather than due to fear or
economic disadvantage.
Foreign ownership of the media has developed in several
ways: the direct investment/purchase of existing press and broadcasting outlets
or the establishment of new media outlets in a particular territory; the
establishment of broadcasters outside the country but targeted at the country;
the shares of foreign channels received via transnational broadcasting. The
expansion of European (and US) companies into the former soviet states largely
came as a result of these companies having reached limits on their growth in
their home countries due to media concentration restrictions and the stability
of market shares at home.
The first example is the most commonly understood form of
foreign ownership of the media and is of particular significance in the new
democracies of the east. Foreign investment in the media was considered vital
in the early 1990s in order to introduce capital technology and know-how into a
previously state controlled sector. Media experts in these countries tend to
see this development as having been both a blessing and a curse; the investment
and know-how brought development and stability but, on the other hand,
investment in foreign media can be considered a purely speculative act based on
economics rather than any interest in enhancing the democratic systems. Most
companies: German, Norwegian, American, have invested in the media in countries
right across the region and critics claim this power has prevented the
development of local strong media enterprises.
The
encroachments by Western media groups have prevented or made difficult the
development of independent or nationally-based media groups in these countries.
From the perspective of foreign companies, they have always
claimed that their involvement in media outlets in the post soviet states had a
positive influence on democracy as these owners based abroad had no interest in
influencing the political and economic policies of the countries. They had no
other financial interests in other industry sectors and no links to political
parties. To an extent this is certainly true, although the development of media
policies, and also the activities of these organisations within the media
sector does imply some interest in certain political and economic developments.
Foreign investors certainly brought expertise, and in many cases
efforts were made to ensure journalistic independence. For example, several
foreign media companies who have been very active in the press sector, the Norwegian Orkla-group, the German based WAZ-Mediengruppe and the Axel
Springer Verlag Group voluntarily introduced internal rules to protect their
writing staff from outside pressure and to separate managerial and editorial
responsibilities (OSCE, 2003). A similar system exists in the Dutch media
whereby Editorial Statutes are established within media outlets with the
intention of providing journalists protection from interference in content and
editorial decisions. Unfortunately the economic, speculative aspect of
investment does eventually win out. For example the Orkla media Group, Orkla
ASA, (with newspapers, magazines, radio, television, digital media and direct
marketing businesses in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Poland,
Lithuania and Ukraine) sold its media companies in 2006 to Mecom, an investment
fund managed by David Montgomery, the former editor of the UK Daily Mirror.
This company has been buying up several media groups in Europe. The European
federation of journalists expressed its concerns that the standards of
independent journalism may be put under pressure by the new company, with what
they term more “hard-nosed” business concerns. The EFJ said it planned to seek
assurances from Mecom regarding editorial independence across the group’s range
of titles in nine countries in Western and Eastern Europe with regard to both
the traditions of works councils and also the editorial codes, the “publishing
principles” (IPI 2006). There have unfortunately in the case of other foreign
companies been many accusations that staffs are not treated in the same way as
the staff of the home based media outlets (see also section six below).
The
main problem for the Polish press sector is its independence. Foreign companies
are trying to impose their Western management in a completely different
environment. Laws protecting journalists are weak and large media groups take
advantage of this. For example, foreign publishers deny the role of
organisations representing journalists, set low wages and royalties, and avoid
signing collective employment agreements.
The second
approach of targeting a particular country with broadcasting services has led
to many controversies in relation to content and standards, and advertising
codes. In the Baltic States the broadcasting (satellite) of channels of the (UK
based) Modern Times Group in 2004 owned the strongest channel in Estonia, the
second strongest channel in Lithuania, and the third strongest in Latvia. While
the reception of further foreign commercial broadcasting may add to the
diversity of programming available, it is questionable as to whether this may enhance
pluralism in the area of political opinion. In the Netherlands, the foreign owned RTL channels have almost 30% of market share, while
in Sweden the channel of the Modern Times Group (UK
based), TV3 has a 10% share. The SBS Broadcasting channel, Kanal 5, also
targets the Swedish audience from the United Kingdom, implying a total foreign interest in the market of about 20%.
Problems have arisen with regard to differences in the approach to advertising
(much more strictly regulated in Sweden
than the UK particularly regarding children’s programming) due to the country of
origin principle of the Television Without Frontiers Directive. This may be
addressed under the revised EU directive, the Audiovisual Media Services
directive, which allows authorities to intervene where they feel channels are
trying to circumvent the country of origin principle.
Transnational
broadcasting is also a significant way in which foreign owners can influence
national media landscapes and advertising revenues. For many smaller countries
historic and linguistic links are reflected in the media landscapes. In
Ireland, UK based channels have approximately 40% of audience share, while in
the press sector UK based press outlets have at least a 25% market share.
Russian channels and periodicals have significant market shares in the Baltic
countries. In Luxembourg where the citizens have a multi-lingual state,
television channels of German and French origin have almost 42% of the audience
share, with the only national channel having around 12%. In Austria, German based television channels have a market share of almost 25%.
In Malta the Italian Mediaset is the third player in the market with a 13%
audience share, while the Italian Public Service Broadcaster RAI has around 5%.
Greek Cypriots consume Greek media, while several of the national channels are
local versions of Greek TV stations. The television audience of Slovenia also views German, Austrian, Croatian and Italian television (total
22% market share). The fragmentation of the markets has growing implications
for advertising revenues, and resources of local broadcasters.
There are different ways in which we can consider that the
government, or the state has ownership interests in, or the possibility to
exert control over, the media. While many countries have developed a form of
public service broadcasting, the funding and political independence is not
guaranteed. In Spain in 2004, employees of the PSB TVE, set up
their own Independent Advisory Council (known as the Anti-Manipulation Council)
in response to what was described as political pressure on the broadcaster from
the former Government and allegations that the broadcaster was ‘too close to
the government’, while the incoming socialist government promised to introduce
certain reforms to the PSB TVE. Many PSBs have access to advertising revenue
and this places them in direct competition with commercial broadcasters regarding
audience rating, thus encouraging a commercialisation of content on PSBs. The
status of PSBs, their remit and role within the media landscape, and also their
independence, and funding needs to be ensured. In Latvia and
Hungary media experts and media professionals frequently express concerns that
the legislation and the implementation of laws are not strong enough to secure
the status and independence of public service broadcasting (Kevin et al
2004).
In many COE states, large sections of the media are either
owned by, or heavily subsidised by the state. This
is often more significant at local level where regional administrations still
finance or subsidise local media leading to journalism that simply reflects
press releases of regional government, or political pressure being placed on
outlets, or to self-censorship
being much more prevalent at state owned and regionally subsidised media (Croatia, Bulgaria, Ukraine) (IREX 2007). In the case of Russia, in 2006 the regional authorities
spent $0.5 billion in subsidising regional and local media as regards the costs
of printing, paper, office rent, and communications. Experts suggest that it is
frequently the case that authorities offer subsidies to independent media in
exchange for loyalty, with some accepting and some rejecting these offers (IREX
2007).
The Russian media system is being hampered by censorship,
and not just in the state controlled media. According to experts many topics
are ‘forbidden’ such as: critical information about
the president and the security services; information about opposition to the
central authorities; and coverage of certain events that central authorities do
not like (IREX 2007). In 2006 a new mode of setting the media agenda was
observed. One could call it ‘spin’ but the system is rather more effective when
one also controls many of the outlets. As reported by Radio Free Europe, a
document was leaked with the headline "Themes for Media Reaction" for
the period 11 January through 15 January and published by a Moscow newspaper
on 19 January. The specific theme in this document concerned an attack on the Moscow synagogue.
Aside from the substance of the response to this, which was the governments desire to crack down on
anti-Semitism, the language in the document raised concerns regarding how the
Kremlin hoped to structure public debate. The press report claimed that this
document indicated the desire to achieve other political goals such as
attacking the reputation of the opposition, increasing pressure on the media
and limiting the Internet, and destroying "any thought of a possible
change" of those in power. The document itself translated to state that
the themes should be "the main theme in all the mass media, in the first
instance on television and the leading print publications....Proposals as to
the forms of materials will be worked out separately......it is useful twice a
day to give oral instructions to [these] channels on the further treatment of
the theme."
Watergate would not be possible in Russia today unless it was approved by authorities.
The most famous and controversial example of political
ownership of the media concerned the Italian case during the Berlusconi ‘era’.
At that time, the Italian broadcasting
system involved a unique combination of economic, political and media power in
the hands of one man, the former premier Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. As head
of government he put pressure on the PSB RAI, a channel with an audience share
of 49.5%. At the same time his own company (owned by his family’s company,
Fininvest) Mediaset had an audience share of 41.3%. At the time the Committee
on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe stressed that the fact that the Italian Government was, directly or
indirectly, in control of all national television channels raised serious
concerns about the plurality and independence of the media (Kevin et al 2004).
Following his exit from power he was sanctioned for repeated abuse of rules on
broadcasting time during the April 2006 parliamentary election campaign.
The trend continues in new EU member states. In Romania, one of the most powerful media
owners in Romania is Dan Voiculescu, president of the
Conservative Party. According to experts “he uses his four television stations
and several publications to “sell” a good image of himself and his party” (IREX
2007). There are many examples of political ownership of the media, and
interests in media business. On one level, this has emerged from the tradition
of partisan press, where newspapers were aligned to particular parties (and
today still exhibit political ideology preferences). Political and religious
groups in Malta have ownership interests in a range
of media outlets, a development that was a reaction to state controlled
broadcasting and was intended to enhance pluralism. In an age where all
political voices should have equal access, such investment should no longer be
necessary.
There
are a variety of other ways that politicians and authorities can put pressure
on the media. This is carried out with both “carrot” and “stick” measures.
Positive means include help with subsidies and preferential access to
information in return for loyalty, as outlined above. Pressure can involve the
boycotting by politicians and government officials of certain journalists and
media outlets (Bosnia and Herzegovina), the firing of relatives of journalists
who work in the public sector (Albania), and criminal charges not related
to journalism (IREX 2007). Examples include an Armenian journalist sentenced to
over three years in prison for allegedly avoiding military service by
falsifying documents.
“Reporters are often prosecuted for
activities not connected with their professional activity - other felonies are
being ‘discovered’ with [sic] them…”
Investigations and raids based on alleged tax infringements
are common: the recent €12m fine on Top Media, owner
of Albania's most popular TV station, considered by media freedom experts to be
due to the channel’s criticism of government; and the closing down
(perhaps temporarily) of an international award winning newspaper in Croatia in
June 2007 after the government blocked its bank account because of an alleged
unpaid VAT debt.
In many countries journalists
are coming under increasing pressure to reveal sources of information. This has
been a particular problem in France with an increase in searches of media offices and the homes of
journalists (RSF 2006), and also in Germany where there have been several
recent controversial cases of the intelligence
services and police spying on the media in order to discover journalistic
sources and where several journalists were prosecuted for “complicity in
disclosing state secrets” (RSF 2006). This follows on from the Constitutional Court judgement of 2003 that the surveillance by authorities of journalism
communications (particularly telecommunications) did not constitute a breach of
constitutional liberties. Surveillance could be allowed on a case-by-case basis
depending on the seriousness of a crime under investigation, balancing the
freedom of the press against the efforts to fight crime (Kevin et al 2004). Two
opposition parties in the German parliament, the FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen,
are attempting to push forward a new law to protect journalists from
prosecution for “complicity in disclosing state secrets.” The International
Press Institute (2006) reports other instances of phone tapping and
surveillance in the Netherlands where authorities believe journalists to have obtained classified
information about organised crime, and other cases of journalists going to prison
after refusing to reveal sources. In Lithuania, a newspaper was raided by state security agents who confiscated the
hard drives of newsroom computers. The newspapers were investigating alleged
political corruption, and the Government
agents claimed that the articles contained classified information. Similar
events occurred in Portugal in relation to two journalists investigating a paedophilia ring, who
were accused of publishing the phone numbers of public figures under
investigation (IPI 2006).
The concept of editorial independence is not simply a
freedom that should be given to media professionals but also is reliant upon
the journalists themselves. In other words, issues such as education and
self-regulation are important contributors to the development of journalism
ethics. Alongside the systems intended to ensure high standards of journalism
practice outlined above (under section 2.3), the issue of education and training
is vital. There is an old debate regarding the virtues of journalism studies
and degrees as opposed to the ‘learning on the job’ approach. Graduates of
journalism programmes are often considered in the industry as being unprepared
for the real world of reporting and that courses focus too much on the
theoretical rather than the practical practice of journalism. On the other
hand, courses dealing with the sociology of journalism – explaining the role of
journalism in society, and those covering media ethics and laws could be
considered a vital aspect of preparation for the profession. Regardless of
whether journalists have university or on the job training, these two
approaches should at least ensure a basic grounding in journalism ethics.
Financial pressure, alongside the expansion of the media systems in the
post-soviet states and the former Yugoslavia with an increasing demand for
journalists, has led to a lowering of standards and expertise with these
positions frequently filled by under qualified people. Respondents to the IREX (2007) research in Serbia and
Montenegro claimed that experienced journalists are being laid off in favour of
young journalists who are not properly qualified, because their labour is
cheaper. Examples of this are given in reports in relation to many European
countries.
“In many cases the reason for poor
reporting in the regions was the lack of skills and poor professional
qualification. A person just does not understand that he should have asked the
other side. Some journalists say that they have to fill 10 pages, and they have
to do it quickly, so we were told the story and we wrote it.”
Of
major concern is the nature of employment enjoyed by many journalists. An
International Federation of Journalists 2006 report (IFJ/ILO 2006) revealed
worrying statistics regarding the employment status of journalists. The report
was based on the result of surveys in the industry and the respondents
explained how this issue impacts on journalistic integrity. The insecure
situation with regard to employment can often lead to a fear of job loss, which
in turn leads to “timid reporting”. For example, journalists in Croatia indicated that those on short term
contracts frequently focus on “lighter topics” in order to avoid conflicts. The
business approach also often has a negative impact on “critical and investigative reporting”. In 2004, research data (SEENPM/
Peace Institute) showed
that over 50% of journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina had no contracts with their
employers. An OSCE (2003) survey of press journalists showed that those
represented in a works council ranged from a high of 93% of German respondents,
to 53% of Romanian journalists, and 47% of British journalists.
As
regards editorial independence, there are seldom agreements at the national or
regional levels between journalist associations and media publishers, though
some exist in individual media outlets Given this lack of security there is a
strong possibility for journalists to be subjected to pressure from employers
and owners (SEENPM/ Peace Institute, 2004). The OSCE (2003) survey of press
journalists asked whether journalists had ever been put under pressure not to
write on or report on certain topics. Those claiming they had ever been put
under pressure by editors were on average 25%. Regarding pressure not to
publish or write on a topic coming from business or political interests 30% of UK respondents had this experience;
while 54% of Romanians had this experience.
Experts
claim that low salaries in Albania encourage journalists to accept bribes and
produce commissioned stories (IREX 2007), and that they are unlikely to oppose
the editorial policy of their media outlet when most do not have work contracts
and the labour market is very mobile (SEENPM/ Peace Institute, 2004). Journalism
product known as “Advertorials,” or
“commercial materials,” are very common in Russia
where in many regional newspapers, reporters are paid for published materials
(often at higher rates than that for independent reporting). Also, the majority of graduates of
journalism departments take PR jobs or jobs at the state media where salaries
are somewhat higher (IREX 2007). Similarly in the Ukraine, articles composed of “non-transparent paid-for copy”, is said to be a major problem for both
commercial and political reasons, due to both the “cynicism of media owners and
journalists and the low professional level and poor education of most
journalists” (IREX, 2007).
Such issues
do not just arise in the “new” European democracies. In the OSCE report from
2003, a German union representative claimed that the economic pressures on the
media are a threat to journalism. Publishers are lobbying for a relaxation of
laws in order to consolidate, they are cutting back on staff and administration
which impacts on quality, and they are focusing attention on East European
markets where they hope for a higher return on capital than is possible in the
national market (OSCE 2003). Regarding these markets, for example, in Hungary and Poland, the EFJ (2003) expresses concern regarding foreign publishers
creating less favourable working conditions than in their home companies,
paying low wages and hence discouraging professionalism. The IFJ (2006) reports
also shows examples of full-time employees (in Denmark and Germany) being required to carry out a variety of tasks (e.g. photography and
editing), implying less time for investigative journalism. Additionally, German
free-lance journalists report that they are not paid adequately for
investigative journalism leading frequently to the production of articles and
stories of “inferior quality”.
Hence it can be concluded
that the re-packaging (or sometimes direct transfer) of public relations
material from business, from government and authorities, or from political
interests into journalistic reports occurs for several reasons: lack of basic
education regarding the fundamental role of journalism in a democratic society
and lack of a grounding in ethics; poor economic circumstances and job
insecurity leading to a reliance on extra income from this work; and
additionally there will always be individuals who despite their awareness of
the ethical considerations, and whether or not they have financial
difficulties, will always be open to corrupt behaviour that furthers their own
economic interests. The media outlets themselves do make efforts to control
this: in Bulgaria some media outlets are attempting to curb this behaviour by
introducing internal rules aimed at limiting the possibilities for receiving
indirect payment (money, products etc.) for favours (IREX 2007); while several
foreign media companies introduced publishing principles (editorial statutes)
at their media outlets (see under 4.4 above).
It goes without saying that
government, authorities and political organisations also need to adhere to
rules and legislation on political communication, in particular regarding
political advertising. A recent case in Germany whereby a government ministry paid an advertising agency to produce
audio clips and newspaper articles for distribution to the media highlights
this problem. The material was widely used and often without clear reference to
the source. Major criticism was directed both at the ministry as both political
advertising and “product placement” (Schleichwerbung) are prohibited
under German law, and also at the journalists and editors who did not adhere to
high journalism standards when reproducing this material.
A further important issue is the journalist’s status as a
citizen as regards safety, physical attacks on journalists, the level of
protection by authorities against attacks and public reaction to attacks. It
has been noted (IREX 2007) that in many countries physical attacks on
journalists and such violations are increasing and do not cause any public
outrage or discussion (Armenia and Russia for example). The same IREX report
quoted Romanian experts as saying:
“The authorities do not treat
journalists as citizens that need protection. The general hostility towards
media is becoming the indifference of the law-enforcement officers when an
individual journalist is attacked.”
Additionally, experts in Russia and Bulgaria claim that such crimes are not
vigorously prosecuted. There are additionally many
examples of violent attack on journalists conducting investigative journalism
regarding corruption or organised crime, for example in Ireland, Slovenia,
Sweden (Kevin et al, 2004), Bulgaria (RSF 2007), and also those involved in
investigating terrorist groups, for example in Spain and Greece (Kevin et al,
2004). In a range of countries journalists enter dangerous waters when they
attempt to investigate political or business corruption. An analysis from the
Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations showed that all journalists
murdered in Russia since the 1990s were investigating cases of corruption (IREX 2007).
“The
free and independent position of the media is never won permanently, neither is
media pluralism. Efforts will always be made to exploit the media for personal
or political purposes, to create media monopolies in order to raise profits, to
concentrate content to what sells the best or to sweeten, change or ignore
content to favour the owners, the authorities, the sources or others. The
struggle to make favourable conditions for freedom of expression and
information is therefore an important and never-ending story in all societies.
Positive results are vital to the maintenance and development of our
democracies.”
The legislative protection of freedoms (of expression, of
the press, of access to information) is frequently undervalued by a lack of, or
by poor implementation of the law. The processes and regulations related to
access, to the categorisation of documents, and decisions to release
information should be clear and consistent, and non-discriminatory, and should
not involve excessive fees.
The freedom to carry out investigative reporting and the
freedom to criticise political and economic interests should not be hampered by
the abuse of libel and defamation laws. Such laws should be part of the civil
rather than criminal code and the burden of proof should rest with the
complainant.
The pressure on journalists to release details regarding
sources of information, and the increasing level of surveillance being carried
out on journalists and media outlets via phone-tapping and seizure of computers
has been noted as particularly worrying by a range of international journalism
organisations and NGOs. On World Press Freedom Day the statement of the World
Association of Newspapers addressed these issues claiming that governments and
state authorities should:
“....guarantee the right of journalists to protect their confidential
sources of information, as a necessary requirement for a free press.....make
electronic surveillance of communications dependent on judicial authorisation,
control or review, to protect the imperative independence and confidentiality
of newsgathering …..abstain from prosecuting journalists who published
classified information. In free societies, courts have held that it is the job
of governments, not journalists, to protect official secrets, subject to the
common sense decisions that editors normally make against, for instance,
endangering lives.”
A true separation of the state from the media does not exist
everywhere and this concept is central to, indeed a requirement for, the
freedom of expression. Although it appears in many forms from subtle to
explicit political or state ownership and control of the media, or interference
in content, this is a threat to democracy and should be addressed in a common
resolution or a convention from the Council of Europe.
Of great relevance to the concept of journalistic
independence is the development of professionalism and ethics. Professionalism
involves both the understanding of the role of journalism in society and an
understanding of the process and rules of the game for fair, truthful, accurate
reporting. The journalists themselves need to have a solid understanding of
their own rights and responsibilities and this should be achieved by education,
training and the existence of internal ethical rules. This must be supported by
a strong credible self-regulatory process, overseen by an independent body.
A wide range of organisations, NGOs and journalist
associations are at work trying to improve expertise, ethics, employment
security and media freedom throughout Europe, gathering information, which has been cited in this
paper. The work of such organisations should be supported and protected.
An insecure economic and employment status leads to a
reduction in quality of journalism, to a frequent economic dependence on PR
work for the very institutions, organisations and business interests that the
media is supposed to critically assess, and to a fear and insecurity that
undermines investigative journalism and criticism. While all media outlets are
not in a position to provide secure full time employment for all journalists,
the rights of association and representation, the right to a contract and
reasonable pay, and the provision of internal rules on ethics and editorial
independence should be guaranteed.
Media
companies should be aware of their important role in society and adopt a
socially responsible policy, in line with international conventions and core
labour standards. This policy should be focused on developing freedom of
expression, training and improving working conditions of media professionals.
The inclusion of criteria addressing issues of journalistic
freedom and ethics, and issues of employment status, in the process of
licensing of broadcasters, is a tool that is currently under-used, and could be
used to further promote journalistic independence. The freedom given with a
licence to broadcast should be accompanied by the responsibility to implement
editorial statutes and to administer fair employment policies.
Competition law addressing mergers and take-overs in the
media sector should include some form of “public interest” evaluation. Media
owners should in some form be obliged to support the development of expertise,
the instilling of ethics and the introduction of editorial statutes, and
compelled to publish this information occasionally. In this way they can both professionalize
the quality of work and defend outlets and journalists from accusations of lack
of professionalism. They can also be called to account if editorial agreements
are broken by exerting pressure on journalists.
The transparency of ownership
is a key to the implementation of media ownership legislation and central to an
understanding of the allegiances and interests of media owners. Media outlets
should be obliged to register and occasionally publish the details of ownership
interests.
The
up-to-date collection and public access to economic information on providers
and operators (turnover, audience share, etc) are absolutely necessary. Only on
the basis of appropriate data is it possible to determine if media pluralism is
vibrant or endangered. Such data should be collected and used in monitoring and
as the basis for regulation and controls of media concentrations.
Further study needs to be carried out to more clearly map
the underlying weaknesses in the legal, political and economic systems that
undermine media freedom. Every country has a different context of political and
cultural tradition, a different experience of historical change, and also
different levels of technological and economic development.
References
Banisar, D.
(2006): Freedom of information around the world 2006: a global survey of
access to Government Records laws. Available online:
http://www.freedominfo.org/documents/global_survey2006.pdf
retrieved August 2007.
Council of Europe (1989, 2002): European Convention on Transfrontier
Television.
Strasbourg, 5.V.1989. Text amended according to the provisions of the Protocol
(ETS No. 171) which entered into force, on 1 March 2002. Available online:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/132.htm
Retrieved September 2007.
Council of Europe (2003): Media
Diversity in Europe. Report prepared by the AP-MD. Media Division, Human Rights DG.
Available online:
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Media/HAPMD(2003)001_en.pdf
Retrieved September 2007.
Doyle, G
(2003): Media Ownership: the economics and politics of concentration in the UK and European media. London: Sage.
European
Commission (2007): Legislative Proposal for an Audiovisual Media Services
Directive (AVMSD), updated version May, 2007.
Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/modernisation/proposal_2005/avmsd_cons_may07_en.pdf
retrieved September 2007.
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) (2006): Media
Power in Europe: the Big Picture of Media Ownership. Available online: http://www.ifj.org/pdfs/EFJownership2005.pdf
retrieved September 2007.
European
Federation of Journalists (2003): Eastern Empires. Foreign Ownership in
Central and Eastern
European
Media: Ownership, Policy issues and Strategies. Brussels June 2003. Available online:
http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?index='1690'&Language='EN'
Retrieved August 2007.
European
Parliament (2004): Report on the risks of violation, in the EU and
especially in Italy, of freedom of expression and information (Article 11(2) of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights)2003/2237(INI))
Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Johanna L.A. Boogerd-Quaak. Available online:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2004-0230+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language='EN')
Retrieved August 2007.
European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (2006): Political
advertising: case studies and monitoring. EPRA 2006/02. Strasbourg: EPRA Secretariat. Available online:
http://www.epra.org/content/english/press/papers/Political_advertising_final-3.pdf
retrieved August 2007.
Gandy, O.
(1982): Beyond agenda setting: information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Gramstad,
S. (2003): Anti-Concentration Measures to Ensure Diversity and Pluralism of
Media Structures – The Example of Norway. Paper for Round Table on Media Pluralism, Zagreb, Croatia, 28 November 2003.
International Federation of Journalists /International
Labour Organisation (2006):
The changing nature of work : a global survey and case study
of atypical work in the media industry. Available online: http://www.ifj-europe.org/pdfs/ILOReport070606.pdf
retrieved August 2007.
International Press Institute (2006): IPI World Press
Freedom Review 2006. Available online: http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/freedom.html
retrieved September 2007.
International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) (2007): MSI
Europe and Eurasia: The Development of Sustainable
Media in Europe and Eurasia 2006/2007. Available online: http://www.irex.org/programs/MSI_EUR/index.asp
retrieved August 2007.
Kevin, D (2004): Report for the European
Parliament Committee for Citizens Rights, Justice and Home Affairs: Media Ownership Legislation, Media Landscapes and Ownership in the 25
Member States of the European Union. Completed with: Ader, T., Fueg, O.C., Pertzinidou,
E., Schoenthal, M. Düsseldorf: European Institute for the Media. Available
online: http://www.epra.org/content/english/press/papers/European%20Citizen%20Information%20Project%20Final%20REPORT.pdf
Retrieved September 2007.
Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media (2003): The Impact of
Concentration on Professional Journalism. Eds J. v Dohnanyi and C.
Möller. Vienna 2003. Available online:
http://www.osce.org/publications/rfm/2003/12/12244_102_en.pdf
retrieved August 2007.
Pekman, C. (2005): The problem of regulating media
ownership: the global framework and the Turkish case. In Communication Policies in the European Union and Turkey: Market Regulation,
Access and Diversity.
Eds. Kevin, D and Gencel-Bek, M. Ankara University: Ankara.
Reporters Without Frontiers (RSF) (2006): Press Freedom
Index 2006. Available online: http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique='639'
retrieved August 2007.
Reporters
without Borders (RSF) (2007): Freedom of the Press Worldwide in 2007.
Available online: http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_en_bd-4.pdf
retrieved September 2007.
SEENPM/ Peace Institute (2004): Media Ownership and its Impact on Media Independence and Pluralism. Ljubljana: SEENPM/
Peace Institute. Available online: http://www.mirovni-institut.si/media_ownership/index.htm
retrieved August 2007.
Stock,
W. (2003): The Phenomenon of
Increasing Media Concentration: Instruments of Criminal Law and Other
Instruments in favour of Protecting the Diversity of Opinions - National
Results, Current Discussions in Germany. Paper prepared for the Republic of Austria International Media Symposium October 2003.
World
Association of Newspapers (2007, May 3rd): Press under surveillance. Available
online: http://www.worldpressfreedomday.org/
retrieved September 2007.
