With Prof Herta Däubler-Gmelin (left) and Prof Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, receiving their report
I am delighted to have read over the weekend, and to have been officially presented today, with a keenly awaited report into the practice of media freedom and pluralism in the European Union. The lead author is Prof. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga. (The other members were Professor Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Professor Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa Maduro and Ben Hammersley).
It is remarkably wide-ranging; it touches on the work of many of my Commission colleagues.
It is also highly political and addressed quite a few legally complicated issues. So, while I would say it is an essential round of evidence gathering and thought leadership, the appropriate next step is a very serious and EU-wide political debate, including public consultation. I want to hear what you think! Send your feedback to CNECT-TASKFORCE-MEDIA at ec dot europa dot eu
After recent events concerning media freedom and pluralism, for example in Hungary but really in quite a few Member States, many – including indeed many journalists – complained that the EU was not doing enough, and does not have sufficient powers to act to protect freedom and pluralism. On the other hand, I am also aware that there are risks to freedom and pluralism from having too much power, or acting too much. And that is exactly why I would like a political debate, with all stakeholders contributing.
The report contains recommendations for consideration by a number of Commissioners on matters such as appropriate EU powers in this field, regulator independence, competition and media pluralism, journalist codes of conduct and net neutrality.
There’s be a more detailed Commission reaction once we’ve received more feedback and pushed the political debate forward. Report available here.
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
Certainly this is an interesting report. I’ve read the Key Findings / Recommendations and when time allows I will read the whole report.
One recommendation that could case a lot of discussion is the following one:
Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status. The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values.
This raises some questions.
What are European values? Are journalist forbidden to promote contrary values? I guess we do not want to impose that kind of values. The authors mean that values such as honesty and truth should guide the media, and I agree. But when it’s about social values, it would be an Orwellian beast. Also in the same report, European values are defined as “freedom and pluralism”, and sure those are important things, but I don’t want to forbid media to voice anit-freedom and anti-pluralism articles. In short, talking about values will make some people uncomfortable.
Also, this recommendation puts a lot of power in the hands of a Media Counsil. I am not convinced that in practice the counsil will always be very plural. A counter-power (checks and balances) should be created, of such a counsil should not be given such powers alltogether. And no, supervision by the EC doesn’t count, it only makes things worse.
Good luck. All of us depent on high-quality journalism, and I guess this is an important topic, even if one holds the opinion that government should not be involved in monitoring or regulating the press, like I tend to do.
Mrs. Kroes, I didn’t hear your voice while the Hungarian opposition radio Tilos called for the extermination of all Christians. I hear your biased voice now, when the same opposition is crying Antisemitism, lack of freedom and oppression.
While Mrs. Neelie Kroes is acting like defending media freedom, in fact it is exactly the opposite.
Leading Romanian opposition satellite channel OTV has been indefinetly silenced today by the Mrs. Kroes’s fellow Romanian Liberals and Socialists, who are governing Romania.
If someone from a liberal gang is silencing opposition media, that is good did in Mrs. Kroes’s view.
SHAME ON YOU. EUROPE IS A JOKE.
Jakým právem se zase EU instituce chce míchat do národních záležitostí ?
The Hungarian Media Authority today, on January 24 2013, closed down the last 3 frequencies outside Budapest of the only opposition radio station, Klubradio.
Altogether, the government behind the Authority shut down access to Klubradio in 11 locations in the last two and a half years.
In the Budapest frequency, the Authority does not comply with the court orders granting Klubradio a permanent frequency.
http://www.klubradio.hu/cikk.php?id=16&cid=152159
The chronology of the government-forced shutdown of Klubradio in Hungary.
October 14, 2011 – Ajka, Balatonfüred, Keszthely, Pápa and Veszprém,
November 27, 2012 – Esztergom és Tatabánya have been shut down.
January 24, 2013 – Gyöngyös, Kecskemét & Debrecen – order has been issued to shut down Klubradio.
With this order, Klubradio will no longer be able to broadcast outside Budapest.
In Budapest, it gets 2-month extensions only, despite several court rulings in Klubradio’s favor.
LA PRENSA: UNA FLOR MUY DELICADA
“La libertad de prensa es una flor muy delicada” Este es el título del blog de Neelie Kroes, la vicepresidenta de la Comisión Europea que ha presentado el informe de varios expertos que pretenden unificar criterios y normas, e incluso sanciones, a los países europeos y medios de comunicación que incumplan la la libertad de prensa y la pluralidad informativa.
Aunque su post personal está abierto a los comentarios y sugerencias de todo el que desee opinar, no ha podido evitar que los editores europeos se hayan echado las manos a la cabeza. Ya se sabe que todo lo que huela a control de la prensa es mejor dejarlo abierto o sometido a la propia autorregulación de los medios y de los periodistas, que deben aplicar sus propias reglas éticas y profesionales.
La excusa que ha llevado a realizar este sesudo informe es la situación que vive Hungría con el acoso y derribo de algunos medios de comunicación por parte del gobierno.
Es cierto que hay una desigualdad en la libertad de prensa, incluso entre los países de nuestro continente.
En nuestro país, afortunadamente, no tenemos un problema para que la información que recibimos sea libre y plural. Y si no lo es, será por los condicionantes que se autoimponen determinados medios de comunicación que pueden estar sujetos a intereses económicos y financieros y que les impide expresarse con libertad en determinados asuntos.
Lo demás, como cualquier empresa o ciudadano, tiene que estar sometido a los tribunales ordinarios y punto. Por ello creo que este informe que presenta la Comisaria no llegará a nada.
Se ha cruzado este hecho con el de la reciente portada “fallida” de EL PAÍS y que fue objeto de una doble página de disculpas por parte de sus directivos. De todo lo que se explicó en la información sobre la portada falsa de Hugo Chávez me quedé con lo que creo que sirvió de detonante para que el director de EL PAÍS diera marcha atrás y recogiera el 70% de la tirada del diario y volviera a imprimirla: Fueron los lectores quienes a través de las redes sociales les alertaron de que se habían equivocado, demostrándole al medio de comunicación que le habían vendido gato por liebre.
No es la primera vez que un diario cambia su portada ante las protestas de sus lectores.
Recuerdo una de EL PERIÓDICO que no llegó a imprimirse porque en las redes sociales la consideraban racista y el director tuvo que modularla y dar explicaciones.
Eso no nos debe llevar siquiera a pensar que los lectores son los que deben hacer o deshacer portadas de los diarios, pero sí a reflexionar que el control que ahora se puede ejercer sobre las informaciones de los diarios es superior al de hace tan solo unos años.
La relación entre diarios y lectores es una relación de confianza, que se basa en los principios éticos de sus periodistas, no de los medios, dado que éstos no pueden tener ética puesto que son instrumentos y no sujetos, sin embargo es deseable que las reglas y principios de las que se dotan las empresas periodísticas se hagan públicas, al igual que debe saberse quien hay detrás del organigrama empresarial de los medios para conocer a qué intereses responden.
Con eso bastaría para que todos estuviéramos más tranquilos, incluso la Comisaria preocupada por la delicada flor de la prensa. Con eso y con que los medios cuenten la verdad, si no es así ya están los tribunales.
I find it disgusting and outrageous that the vice president on the anti-Eastern European agenda has no reaction whatsoever on the closure of OTV opposition television in Romania by the Liberal-National Socialist coalition.
I am also disgusted by the apartheid policies by Dutch authorities against Eastern European citizens, not allowing Romania and Bulgaria to join the Schengen treaty.
Eastern European citizens are treated as second class European citizens, and have comparable rights to those (for example) of the Australian citizens in Europe. The citizens of Bulgaria and Romania need to apply for work permits in the Netherlands, in the exactly same manner as the Australian citizen spokesman of Mrs. Neelie Kroes.
Then, may I ask, what is the purpose of the EU if we are treated as foreigners in Europe?
In my opinion, EU is a bad joke.