The agenda of the workshop is available here, and more detailed information can be found on the workshop website.

Overall, the document was well received and it inspired a discussion about media policy recommendations targeted at promoting media freedom and independence. Due attention was afforded to the need to amend and change the laws regulating the media. Participants expressed the view that the relevant laws should include a more precise definition of what constitutes electronic publications, broadcasting concessions and licenses, as well as new services related to the increased number of platforms enabled by new technologies.

Participants agreed that media self-regulation should be established and strengthened in all media organisations and sectors of the media market. The functioning of the independent regulator, the Agency for Electronic Media and its Council, should be improved through the Agency’s internal reorganisation, and more precise criteria should be developed for the evaluation of the programmes supported by the Fund for the Promotion of Pluralism and Diversity of Electronic Media – a form of state subsidy, intended to stimulate the production of audio and audiovisual programmes that promote pluralism and media diversity at local and regional levels. It was also suggested that the non-profit media sector should become eligible for such programmes and concessions. The public role of the newly established self-regulatory body, the Croatian Council for Media, needs to be enhanced and further developed. The Ministry of Culture was also invited to strengthen its human capacities in media policy, in order to better coordinate agents, initiatives and democratic discussions on the media policy and the announced changes of media laws.

The current situation of the public service broadcaster (PSB), the Croatian Radio Television, was discussed in the light of the announced changes of the Croatian Radio and Television Act (2010).  It was stressed that the current management crisis at the Croatian Radio Television should be promptly resolved in order to enable the operator to adequately execute its role as a PSB.  It was noted that discussions on media policy in Croatia frequently become discussions on public service broadcasting, while there are many problems concerning the commercial media sector that need to be highlighted (i.e. issues of transparency of media ownership, labour rights, journalistic ethics, content quotas, etc).

It was emphasised that, during the last twenty years or so, media policy actors in Croatia focused on legislative changes, while the key problem always stood in the implementation of laws. There is still a number of legal amendments that need to be made; i.e. there is a lack of systemic approach to the non-profit media sector, there are deficiencies in the definition of electronic publications, of audiovisual activities, etc. Digitalisation opened many possibilities for the development of the Croatian media sector, but the recession caused its delay and the lack of response from media policy actors. There is also a deficiency of strategies for new (digital) media literacy programmes, the participants of the discussion group concluded.

For more information on the discussion group you may contact Jaka Primorac.

The first session started with a presentation of the findings of the Greek case study report on the most important challenges facing nowadays the media in Greece by Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, the scientist in charge of the Greek MEDIADEM research team. It continued with a presentation of the main elements of a draft law on the reorganisation of the public service broadcaster ERT by Dr. Athanasios Tsevas, Lecturer at the University of Athens and member of the expert committee set up to formulate suggestions on a new model for ERT’s governance. His presentation was followed by that of Dr. Alexandros Oikonomou, Lawyer at the National Council for Radio and Television, who talked about the current state of the migration to digital terrestial television with a focus on the newly adopted legal provisions mandating the legal separation of content providers (i.e. broadcasters) from digital terrestrial network operators. Mr Giannis Mandalidis, Newsroom Deputy Director at Lambrakis Press SA, then took the floor to talk about the impact of the internet and the economic crisis on the business model of the Greek press, both in the online and the offline environment.

The second session opened with a presentation by Dr Evgenia Siapera, Lecturer at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, who discussed the current dynamics of journalism in Greece, based on Bourdieu’s theory,^[1] and the challenges it faces due to technological convergence and market consolidation. The final presentation of the panel was that of Paschos Mandravelis, journalist at the daily newspaper Kathimeri, on the work of a drafting-law committee concerning the protection of privacy and the secrecy of communications in the online environment in which he participated.

All presentations were followed by lively discussion in which speakers exchanged opinions and views on the issues discussed and the challenges that the Greek media policy should address in order to promote media independence and the media’s role in fostering public dialogue.

The agenda of the workshop is available here (in Greek).

For more information on the workshop, you may contact Anna Kandyla.

^[1] Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant L. J. D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

The researchers also took part in ‘open lessons’ with students of the Department of Journalism of the Yerevan State University (YSU) and of the Yerevan State Linguistic University (YSLU). Professors of journalism, media professionals and the most active bloggers in Armenia participated in the training sessions. The presentations were systematically followed by vivid discussions that often arose from practical cases brought about by the participants. The seminar proceedings will be published in a book (in Armenian). The organisers consider that the seminar will be influential in setting up a new curriculum for the Yerevan State Linguistic University in the coming academic year.

These include Entereurope, a portal specialised in news related to European integration, Culturenet, a portal on culture and cultural events in Croatia, Kulturpunkt, the portal of the Croatian independent cultural scene, Booksa, a portal dedicated to books and publishing, Civilnodruštvo.hr, a portal offering news on civil society organisations and initiatives, and Alfa portal, a portal dedicated to the popularisation of science.

Information about the Croatian case study report was also published on a Bosnian portal dedicated to accounting and finance, Revicon.

In December 2011, the “Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Contribution” (Rundfunkbeitragsstaatsvertrag) received final approval by the legislature. All sixteen state parliaments (Länderparlamente) enacted a new funding regime for Public Service Broadcasting in Germany, proposed by the sixteen state governments (Landesregierungen). The new legislation marks a fundamental shift. It places an obligation on every household and company to contribute to public service broadcasting. The pre-existing legislation provided that the fee was only to be paid on the basis of an actual device – a television set, radio or a computer- following notification by the holder. The new regime links the fee to the private flat or a company, irrespective of any device.

The Interstate Treaty was adopted to ensure the future basis of the public service broadcasters’ financial foundation as it was assumed that a growing number of persons obliged to notify their broadcasting receivers did not adhere to the previous law. In addition, the new law shall mirror the new user behaviour. Online content in the form of news websites and on-demand videos provided by public service broadcasters has partly replaced traditional TV consumption. This development was not reflected in the previous licence-fee regime: the monthly fees for computers were distinct from the fees for TV-sets.

The new legislation provides for a unified monthly contribution of 17,89 Euros, payable by every private household or company from 1 January 2013 onwards. The number of persons living in a household or the number of technical devices allowing for the receipt of broadcasting or audiovisual services do no longer determine the fee. Exception clauses temper the financial burden as regards specific private households and companies either by excluding them from payment or by reducing their contribution. This counts for financially disadvantaged groups relying on social welfare, persons with disabilities and companies working in charity sections or other socially important non-profit areas. An incremental and moderate increase in the contribution is applicable to any other company. The number of employees determines the actual amount of the payment. For instance small (up to 49 employees) and medium sized (up to 249 employees) companies are to pay three and five full fees of 17,89 Euros respectively.

Concerns have been expressed regarding data collection during the first years of the application of the new system. Generally, every household or company is obliged to inform the competent regional public service broadcaster about its existence. Moreover, the competent public service broadcasters are to receive and evaluate in an initial period of two years all resident data from public authorities (i.e. city councils and city administrations). The broadcasters will thus be able to adjust the payments and the data transferred from the notification procedure to the existing data on registered households in any given town. The information provided will be restricted to basic data and will only be used to find legally obliged households. While this procedure ensures justified payment on the one side, the data protection implications cannot be denied.

The contribution of 17,89 Euros will presumably be stable during a four year period (2013-2016), according to the Commission Determining Financial Needs (Kommission zur Ermittlung des Finanzbedarfs, KEF). The Commission is an independent body of sixteen experts with the mandate to establish the financial needs of the public service broadcasters.

The German version of the “Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Contribution” (Rundfunkbeitragsstaatsvertrag) can be downloaded here (in the form of the 15^th Interstate Treaty amending the Interstate Treaties on Broadcasting).

It is a dismal future that awaits the printed press. The growth of the Internet cannot be considered the only cause of its decline[1] but there is no point denying that the development of Internet-based media services has only made a steep slope more slippery for the print business. In Belgium, the French-speaking newspapers have identified the public service broadcaster (PSB) as an unfair competitor on the tense market of online press and advertising. While the Internet activities of private broadcasters are seen as a mere continuation of existing competition, the fact that the PSB admittedly relied on public funding to support its online presence allegedly causes a distortion of market conditions. To that argument, the PSB retorts that its remit includes a duty to develop its presence on the Internet and that its websites are nothing more than the continuation of its previously existing activities. In the last days of 2011, a tribunal ruled in favour of the PSB, bringing a provisional end to a dispute that started at the beginning of 2010.

In January 2010, RTBF, the French-speaking PSB, re-branded itself as RTBF.be as part of its strategy to increase its online presence. The Association of Belgian French-speaking newspapers (JFB) reacted by sending an official letter to the PSB requesting that it renounces its ‘online written press activities’. Following a suggestion from the French Community Minister for the Audiovisual, the parties attempted to reach an agreement through mediation. After RTBF launched another website dedicated to culture, the discussions came to an abrupt end. In September 2010, the JFB took the matter to the court, seeking an injunction that the PSB immediately cease all ‘online written press activities’ and online advertising.[2]

The use of that surprising notion might illustrate a certain state of confusion in the media market, where technological lines that separated audiovisual and written communication have definitely become blurred. To be sure, the concept of ‘online written press’ is entirely absent from the legal and regulatory framework.[3] More importantly, it remains hard to link those words with any actual practice. Whether you are a print or audiovisual company, going online necessarily means that you will be doing something that will to a certain degree differ from your traditional craft. Since the Internet is by design a multimedia platform, the content of a website combines text, images, sound and video. As a consequence, the online press resorts to words, pictures and videos.[4] The websites of the PSB and of the newspapers show a number of obvious similarities, and the same observation remains true if one compares their respective activities on social networks. All media editors face the same challenge of adapting to a fast-changing technological context and they do so by exploring and adopting the formats of the web, the social networks and the mobile applications.

Before the court, the newspapers argued that, even if they were prepared to admit a ‘certain presence’ of the public service media (PSM) on the Internet, RTBF’s existing online activities were exceeding the boundaries of its legal remit. JFB also argued that the PSB’s online activities infringed European Union rules on State aids and competition,[5] but the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to decide on that dimension of the dispute. The main discussions thus turned around the definition of the mission of the PSM in the online era.

To relate the Belgian situation to the broader European context, one should remember that a solid consensus has emerged among European institutions on the democratic importance of the PSM in the online environment. Protocol 29 to the Treaty on the European Union expressed adhesion to the notion that ‘the system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism”. In November 2010, the European Parliament insisted on “the fundamental role of a genuinely balanced European dual system in promoting democracy, social cohesion and integration and freedom of expression, with an emphasis on preserving and promoting media pluralism, media literacy, cultural and linguistic diversity and compliance with European standards relating to press freedom” and emphasised “the need to maintain strong and vibrant independent public service broadcasting, whilst adapting it to the requirements of the digital age’.[6] In an April 2011 draft resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, it is underlined that the PSM ‘through its content and services remains of utmost importance in the new dynamic media environment. Fundamental changes in the media reinforce public service media’s vital role in supporting such non-commercial objectives as social progress, public interest and ability to engage with democratic processes, intercultural understanding and societal integration” and Member States are reminded of their “commitment to firmly support the remit, funding, editorial and organisational independence of public service media operating on any relevant platform.’[7] Moreover, in a statement made on December 6, 2011, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights insisted that ‘well-functioning PSM can be decisive in the protection of human rights, particularly freedom of expression, and can provide space for all voices in society, not least for minorities, children and other groups which tend to be marginalised.’[8]

At the Belgian level, no public authority had taken side in the dispute between JFB and RTBF. However, in the June 2011 report that concluded the first workshop of the General States of the Information Media,[9] the appointed experts wrote the following: ‘the mission of the PSB must be reinforced by an updated definition of its remit. On the one hand, it is recommended to support the digital developments of the PSB. On the other hand, these developments call for a clarification of the framework in which they take place, both from the point of view of competition and of the public interest. (…) The experts recommend that the use of public funding for the digital developments of PSB be submitted to an assessment of their impact on the private sector. By virtue of the principle of precaution, it might be wise to forbid or limit advertising on PSB’s websites and mobile services.’[10]

It is law (1997 Statutory Decree on RTBF) and a management contract negotiated between the RTBF and the French Community Government that define the remit of the PSM. The mission of the PSM consists mainly in the production and broadcasting of audiovisual services but extends to accessory activities. The current management contract runs from 2007 to 2012 and notably provides that the RTBF shall develop an Internet offer that serves as a reference in the French Community of Belgium; that it shall develop non linear media services; that it shall broadcast and promote its services online; and that it shall maintain updated information webpages that constitute an extension of its news programmes. Consequently, after a detailed analysis, the tribunal decided that none of RTBF’s online activities could be considered as exceeding its broadly-defined legal remit. The tribunal observed that every section of the RTBF’s websites could be linked to its main public service remit either directly (i.e. the reproduction of broadcast programmes) or indirectly (i.e. the extension and development of topics included in the public service remit). The judges also confirmed that RTBF could legally use part of its public funding for such accessory activities. Finally, the tribunal admitted that the management contract authorises RTBF to include advertising in its digital platforms.

In sum, one may say that it is the breadth of the future-proof provisions of the management contract, agreed upon in 2006, that convinced the tribunal to decide in favour of the PSM. As the current agreement ends in 2012, it remains yet to be seen how influential the court’s decision will be in the course of the negotiations of the new management contract.

Pierre-François Docquir, Research team of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)

You may leave a comment with the author.

[1] See for instance, with statistics on France, http://www.erwanngaucher.com/mobile/Le-web-m39a-tuer-Le-gros-mensonge-de-la-presse-papier,4838.media?a=769.

[2] The RTBF is funded by the French Community. Additionally, it may draw up to 30% of its income from advertising.

[3] The notion of “press” is of importance in the Constitution as it commands constitutional protection (Arts 19, 25 and 150). Interestingly, the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) maintains that it should apply only to the printed press and not to the audiovisual media. This position is the object of much controversy in legal scholarship and judiciary practice.

[4] It is worth noting that recital 28 of the AVMS Directive excludes the websites of the printed press from the notion of audiovisual media service. One could argue that this non-binding consideration is at least debatable. For a regulatory body whose remit concerns the audiovisual media services, to identify which online activities – or even what section of a website – it should regulate, is not an easy task. See for instance Belgian CSA’s public consultation on the perimeter of regulation of AVMS (http://csa.be/consultations/16). See also the background papers prepared by EPRA (European Platform of Regulatory Authorities) at http://www.epra.org/content/english/index2.html.

[5] In February 2011, the European Commission has been seized of a complaint by the newspapers.

[6] European Parliament Resolution of 25 November 2010 on public service broadcasting in the digital era: the future of the dual system (2010/2028(INI)).

[7] Draft declaration of Committee of Ministers on PSM governance, Council of Europe (April 2011 – MC-S-PG(2011)002rev4).

[8] “Public service media needed to strengthen pluralism”, http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=199. This Declaration of the Commissioner for Human Rights was accompanied by an “Issue Discussion Paper on public service media and human rights”, which is a 27-page article that promotes a human-rights approach to public service media – an approach its authors describe as transformative for the public service media (see https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1881537).

[9] The General States of the Information Medias (Etats généraux des medias d’information) are a broad consultative process held by the Parliament of the French Community. See http://egmedia.pcf.be/.

[10] Translation from French. Report, p. 26. See http://egmedia.pcf.be/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Rapport-atelier-1.pdf.

In more detail, MEDIADEM researchers talked about the nature and scope of the project’s comparative reports, which is the next item on the research agenda. Project partners presented their preliminary observations on the issues that emerge as important for media freedom and independence from a comparative perspective. The presentations provided the basis for lively discussions on how the evaluation and analysis of variable (as well as common) patterns of media policy-making and regulation affecting the media’s freedom and independence could be best approached. Throughout discussion emphasis was put on the need to take the challenges posed by technological developments and the financial crisis into account. The meeting proceeded with a discussion about the compilation of policy briefs on the basis of the findings of the project, and the means to employ in order to reach out to the broader media policy community.