View the article ‘MEDIADEM highlights lack of media freedom’ published in TheDaily.SK (in English) on 11 March 2013.

The aim of the conference was to present MEDIADEM’s research findings and to put forward succinct policy recommendations for the development of free and independent media in contemporary democratic societies in Europe. The conference gathered over 140 representatives of the broader European media policy community, the media and its professionals, and civil society associations active in the field of the media.

The conference started with the welcome address of Dr Philipp Stiel of the Representation of the Free State of Bavaria to the European Union and Dr Simon Schunz, research programme officer at DG Research and Innovation, European Commission.

The first session was devoted to MEDIADEM’s main comparative research findings. It began with a description of the project by Dr Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, research fellow at ELIAMEP and MEDIADEM’s scientific coordinator, which set the scene for the presentations and the two roundtables that followed. Dr Psychogiopoulou explained the scope of the research that was carried out, stressing MEDIADEM’s interest in the media as agents of information and debate that facilitate public discourse in a democratic society. Under this perspective, media policy, for the purposes of MEDIADEM’s research, has been understood, she explained, as the whole range of policy approaches, strategies and tools that are employed (or not employed) to shape the media in a way that promotes their role as facilitators and carriers of public discourse. The analysis has then adopted an institutional dimension, focusing on the contribution of distinct actors at different levels and through different processes on policy formulation and implementation that may benefit or act to the detriment of media freedom and independence. The concept of freedom and independence, she further noted, upon which the whole project was based, sought to cater for all the different types of pressures facing the media: pressures stemming from ownership, finance, the media’s need for access to information, legal rules and judicial practices, among others.

The second presentation was that of Professor Fabrizio Cafaggi of the European University Institute, and Dr Federica Casarosa, researcher at the European University Institute, on fundamental rights and media regulation. The presenters made an overview of the findings of the comparative report The regulatory quest for free and independent media concerning the structure of European Union (EU) competences for the protection of media freedom and independence, the constitutional foundations of regulatory alternatives, the implications of adopting an integrated notion of media as a basis for regulatory intervention, and the different forms of regulation (public and private) adopted in the 14 MEDIADEM countries. As regards the latter, Prof. Cafaggi highlighted that the boundary between public and private regulation is not neat and that there is limited regulatory coordination even at the national level. Regulatory coordination within both public and private regulation at a European level could be effective in protecting fundamental rights in media activity, he noted. Dr Federica Casarosa talked about the independence of the media regulatory authorities vis-à-vis the government in the countries covered by the project and about the increasing role of European and national courts in addressing and solving media related issues while ‘filling’ regulatory gaps.

Professor Epp Lauk of the University of Jyväskylä presented MEDIADEM’s main comparative findings in relation to journalistic autonomy and freedom of expression. She noted that today’s fast changing media environment has blurred the definition of who is a journalist, albeit a universally accepted definition has never existed. In the countries examined, she noted, a status-based (usually linked to membership in a professional association) or an activity-based definition is generally followed; only in few countries (Belgium, Croatia and Italy) the law provides for a definition of ‘professional’ journalists. She then discussed the concept of ‘journalistic autonomy’ as a central value of professional behaviour and a precondition for independent journalism, and elaborated on the factors that support or constrain this autonomy across the MEDIADEM countries. As regards external pressures coming from the sphere of politics, these occur through state involvement in the media and through the relationships established between politicians and journalists and play out differently from country to country. Economic factors and market pressures, although universal, also have a variable impact. The influence of factors stemming from journalists’ immediate environment (newsroom and news organisation, relationship with peers, everyday working routines, etc.) or from within the profession (e.g. ethical rules) on journalists’ autonomy is quite noticeable across the countries examined. Overall, she concluded, the protection of the autonomy of the individual journalist is a pan-European concern and measures that aim at balancing the competitive nature of the job market and the commercial or other interests of media organisations should be considered.

The presentation of Dr Dia Anagnostou, senior research fellow at ELIAMEP, focused on the findings of MEDIADEM’s comparative analysis on the freedom and independence of public service media (PSM). She explained that two key issues influence and shape the nature and function of PSM at present: the relationship with the state and the government of the day, and the relationship with, and pressures from the commercial media, which have intensified with the advent of online technology. In the present context of market competition, PSM are called to reassert their rationale and purpose, and generally justify their existence. She then drew attention to the effectiveness of legal and institutional provisions in guaranteeing the independence of PSM from the government and dominant political forces. These pertain to the remit of PSM, their management and supervisory control structures, and their financing. She highlighted that the independence of PSM must be understood as a contingent outcome of on-going processes of supervisory control and negotiation among a variety of public and private actors, within the constraints and safeguards of the existing governance and financial arrangements.

Dr Andrej Školkay, director of the School of Communication and Media, and Dr Juan Luis Manfredi, senior lecturer at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, presented the project’s comparative findings with respect to media freedom and independence in the new media services environment. Dr Školkay pointed out the lack of a legal definition of new media in most, if not all EU countries and at the EU level. Therefore, the research that was carried out, he explained, focused on the following new media tool: blogs, online-only news portals and the online versions of the traditional media. The analysis shows that there is an urgent institutional need to regulate the behaviour of professionals and non-professionals in the online world. In fact, due to the lack of statutory regulation, regulation comes from the individual media owners with the establishment of codes that can sometimes be particularly restrictive. On the other side, court decisions act as a form of indirect state regulation, adopting, for instance, in cases concerning freedom of speech and libel/defamation either a ‘hard approach’ to new media services (i.e. an approach similar to the one followed for the traditional media) or a ‘soft approach’ (i.e. considering that new media services do not have an equal status with traditional media, and thus have no or limited duties). Any regulatory answer for new media services, they concluded, needs to be in support of free media and independent journalism.

In the discussion following the presentation of MEDIADEM’s comparative findings, comments and issues were raised concerning the role of publicly-funded media in the new media environment, technological convergence and its effects on the regulation of PSM, the independence of PSM and regulatory authorities, the tensions between European level regulation and national competences in the field of the media, and the contribution of self-regulation and ethical codes of conduct to the promotion of professional standards in online and citizen journalism, among others.

The meeting continued with two roundtables. The first roundtable focused on the ‘role of state and non-state actors in promoting media freedom and independence’ and was chaired by Mr Peter Kramer, Brussels representative of the Association of European Journalists. Dr Rachael Craufurd Smith, senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, presented the findings of the project concerning the major constraints that affect the operation of free and independent media in the countries reviewed, and discussed the project’s policy recommendations targeting national stakeholders for addressing these constraints in practice. These are: a) supporting a co-ordinated, evidence-led, open and transparent policy development process; b) ensuring effective compliance with international guarantees of freedom of expression and information; c) mitigating inappropriate political influence on appointments to the public service media and the media regulatory bodies and on the allocation of public funds; d) up-dating regulatory rules and structures in the light of convergence; e) supporting a balance between  public service and commercial media; f) monitoring and controlling excessive media ownership; and g) developing quality journalism and supporting media literacy.

Professor Wolfgang Schulz of the Hans-Bredow Institut for Media Research emphasised the close link between regulatory independence and media freedom and discussed the connection between the recommendations advanced by MEDIADEM concerning the independence of media regulators and the indicators of regulatory independence coming out of the INDIREG study which he coordinated. He highlighted that cultural differences impact the way in which independence is demonstrated in practice and noted that transparency is important but is not a panacea for all ills. EPRA Chairman, Jean-François Furnémont, supported MEDIADEM’s recommendations about the need for more coordination between independent regulators in Europe, yet expressed doubts as to the optimum regulatory design for such cooperation. He regretted the absence of a requirement for the independence of regulatory authorities in the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive and expressed the hope that this failure will be corrected on the occasion of the next review. Mr Tobias Eberwein, scientific officer at the Erich Brost Institute for Journalism in Europe, discussed the link between MEDIADEM’s recommendations targeting media accountability and the findings of the MediaAct project. He noted that alongside traditional instruments of media accountability (such as press councils), new online accountability instruments (such as journalists’ blogs and comment’s pages) are gaining presence – yet their significance and impact on journalists’ accountability differ among countries.

The second roundtable was dedicated to the ‘role of the European Union and the Council of Europe in promoting media freedom and independence’. It was chaired by Dr Maja Cappello, EPRA vice-chair. It started with a presentation of MEDIADEM’s policy recommendations for the EU and the Council of Europe by Professor Fabrizio Cafaggi, who noted that media freedom and pluralism in the rapidly changing media environment form the object of increasing attention by the EU institutions. Blurring boundaries between markets point to the need of adopting an integrated notion of media where new and conventional media are considered as part of the same regulatory field. At the same time, regulatory fragmentation across countries should be addressed by way of coordination rather than integration. Overall, principle-based, rather than ‘command and control’ regulation, is more suitable to address the fast changing dynamics of the sector. Turning to professional regulation, Prof. Cafaggi noted that an activity-based definition of professional journalism fits better with technological progress. He argued that any regulation addressing professional journalists should be able to capture the distinctions between professional journalism, non-professional journalism, public speech, private speech etc.

Mr Björn Janson, head of Media Division of the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe, discussed the implications of the adoption of a new notion of media by the Council of Europe and the challenges the Council of Europe faces in implementing existing standards in the new media ecosystem. In this context, the issue of safeguarding pluralism and diversity in the online world as well as defining journalism will soon be addressed. He further noted that the work of the Council of Europe supports the use of soft law but the lack of implementation remains an obstacle. Dr Panayotis Voyatzis, referendaire at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), referred to the measures adopted by the ECtHR to enhance the implementation of its own judgments, in particular to the practice of pinpointing the individual and general measures that should be taken by the member states in order to implement the court’s case law. Mr William Horsley, media freedom representative of the Association of European Journalists, talked about the potential for coordination of the journalistic profession at the European level in light of the MEDIADEM proposals. He elaborated on the current assaults on the practice of journalism and the challenges facing the profession, noting that European institutions are often perceived as unresponsive to journalists’ legitimate demands for protection. In this context, he noted, more efforts should be made in closing the gap between the jurisprudence of the ECtHR concerning free speech and the protection of journalists and the implementation of its judgments. As regards the EU, he observed, some coordination of the competition and human rights competences of the EU (but not regulatory coordination) would be welcomed. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, for instance, could be mandated to ensure that within the EU member states a proper monitoring process for the protection of human rights in media activity is established.

Ms Lorena Boix-Alonso, head of unit G.1 Converging Media and Content, DG CONNECT, European Commission, discussed MEDIADEM’s recommendations targeting the European Commission. As regards the role of the EU in the field of fundamental rights, she argued that the EU impact assessment system works quite well in promoting human rights ‘mainstreaming’. On the proposal that the European Commission lead a reflection on the independence of public media regulators, she highlighted that the European Commission recognises the importance of the issue, mentioning that the initial proposal of the European Commission for the AVMS Directive included an article on independent regulatory authorities, which did not make it to the final text. She welcomed the MEDIADEM’s recommendation for a stronger role for the EPRA in coordinating public regulators and for more coordination between EPRA and the European Regulators on Electronic Communications (BEREC). Professor Pier Luigi Parcu, director of the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom at the European University Institute, supported MEDIADEM’s recommendation on the adoption of a technology neutral approach to media regulation, noting, however, that first, a definition of what constitutes the media should be established. He suggested that the principles of competition policy be revisited to capture the complex dynamics of new media, through, for example, the incorporation of pluralism considerations in competition analysis or the forbidding of holding a dominant position in media markets (and not just the abuse thereof).

Mrs Nicola Frank, head of European affairs at the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), discussed the concept of public service media in the digital environment. She welcomed MEDIADEM’s recommendation on the shift from public service broadcasters to PSM which enjoy a broad remit also in the online and multi-platform world. In this context, she referred to the EBU’s Declaration on the Core Values of Public Service Media, which builds around the principles of universality, independence, excellence, accountability and innovation, and to the efforts made by the EBU to assist its members in these areas. The final panelist was Mr Ross Biggam, director general of the Association of Commercial Television, who argued, inter alia, that moving from ‘command and control’ to principles-based regulation while ensuring better coordination among the EPRA members can create some space (and appetite also among commercial media operators) for private regulatory solutions. Self-regulation, he noted, can at the same time benefit freedom of expression and broadcasting standards which may ultimately attract more users and thus protect broadcasters’ commercial interests.

The agenda of the conference is available here.

View the list of participants to the conference.

For more information concerning the conference you may contact Anna Kandyla.

Credits: kmardahl/ Creative commons

The increasing role of electronic media in news and, more generally, in content production is changing the scope and boundaries of the journalism profession and the instruments deployed to regulate the activity. Historically, journalism has primarily been self-regulated. The limits of public legislation, mainly driven by the constitutional constraints posed by the freedom of expression, have created different models of national private regulatory regimes across Europe. Media regulation is a multilevel architecture and national legal systems still play a primary role in designing rules concerning news production. Self-regulation reflects national approaches and varies according to legal and social regulatory cultures. Within the private sphere, different forms of regulation have been implemented reflecting the changing balance between the profession, the industries and the new players which have emerged after the Web revolution. The development of new media poses the following important challenges to that regulatory framework: the criteria to be used to define journalism; the distinction and the boundaries between professional and non-professional journalism; the distinction between commercial and social/not for profit content production. This essay examines these challenges looking at practice and litigation in European countries, identifying the different conflicting interests generating this litigation and the (private) regulatory responses. It will explore the differences between professional and industry regulation both within and across media: looking at the national and European or transnational regulatory scope of these regimes.

Fabrizio Cafaggi & Federica Casarosa, Research team of the European University Institute (EUI), ‘Private regulation, freedom of expression and journalism: Towards a European approach?’ EUI Working Papers, Law 2012/20. Available at: http://www.mediadem.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/WP-LAW-2012-20.pdf.

You may leave a comment with the authors.

The workshop was opened by Dr Rachael Craufurd Smith, senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, who set out the three main themes for discussion: looking forward to independence; the scope for further devolution; and language and culture policies in devolved nations. She also presented the policy suggestions for the development of free and independent media in the UK drafted by the UK MEDIADEM team. A keynote speech was then provided by Ms Birgitta Jónsdóttir, member of the Icelandic Parliament and chairperson of the International Modern Media Institute (IMMI), discussing the implementation of Iceland’s Modern Media Initiative, a catch-all freedom of expression law-based project that aims to make Iceland a global safe haven for investigative journalism, and the impact the Initiative has made on EU policy.

After lunch, a panel consisting of Dr Sebastian Müller of the University of Bielefeld and Mr Bart van Besien of the Université Libre de Bruxelles considered ‘The reflection of regional and cultural diversity in devolved powers: lessons from abroad’. Dr Sebastian Müller provided insights into the balance of power in relation to the media between the 16 states (Länder) and the federal state in Germany. Mr van Besien discussed the differences between the Dutch and the French media systems in Belgium.

The panel was followed by a presentation from Dr Daithi Mac Sithigh from the University of Edinburgh titled ‘Four tongues worthy – devolution and language in the UK’. Dr Mac Sithigh considered the inconsistencies in language law and policy in the UK, and discussed how the distribution of regulatory competences can affect the realisation of language rights.

Professor Philip Schlessinger of the University of Glasgow concluded the workshop by setting out some of the questions and issues surrounding the media in Scotland that will need to be discussed in the upcoming debates on independence.

The agenda of the workshop is available here.

For more information you may contact Yolande Stolte.

Photo by BNS/H.Rebane

On 7 December 2012, the Chair of Journalism of the University of Tartu held a conference on media policy, focusing on the quality of news journalism and media literacy issues. The conference, organised in the framework of the MEDIADEM project, experienced windfall interest and participation.

The conference aimed at triggering wide discussion on how professional journalism can be preserved when the business model of news media is in crisis, mainly due to the overabundance of information online and marketing communication. What kind of journalism does the public need? What could be the appropriate policy response? Three panels sought to address these questions.

The keynote speaker, Prof. Halliki Harro-Loit, University of Tartu, argued that the quality of journalism reflects the quality of democracy in a country. As regards media freedom, she noted, Estonia has a very high level of media freedom which does not, however, translate into an equally high level of freedom of expression. Discussion in the first panel focused on news organisations’ perspective of journalism. It revealed that the standard of professional journalism is higher in larger media organisations than in local media houses. Quality journalism might have generally survived in the first round of the economic recession but it is likely to deteriorate in the future. Interestingly, journalists appeared ambivalent in their perceptions of their professional autonomy: while some panelists said they feel rather autonomous in creative work, others argued that lack of resources and the work overload undermine journalistic autonomy.

The second panel discussed the role of non-journalistic actors in media affairs. Urmas Loit, lecturer at the University of Tartu, stressed the need for actual state support of quality media performance, such as through media content regulation. Panelists argued that the media in Estonia act, for the most part, responsibly and no state interference is needed. An ongoing public debate on media quality is, however, needed to stimulate media accountability.

The third panel dealt with media literacy and education. The keynote speaker, Kadri Ugur, researcher at the University of Tartu, argued that media policy could be related to the ability of the audiences to comprehend news media content. Panelists shared the view that media education at schools is necessary in order to develop informed and competent citizens for whom the media serves as a tool for exercising democracy.

The second-year students of journalism and communication at the university shot a video newsreel (with English translation). The audio files of the presentations and impromptus from the conference shall be released (in Estonian) later in January 2013.

The agenda of the event is available in Estonian and English.

For more information you may contact Urmas Loit.

View the article ‘Υπερσυγκέντρωση και διαπλοκή’ (over-concentration and interweaving interests), published in Efimerida Twn Syntaktwn (in Greek) on 12 December 2012.

View the article ‘Ελλιπής η ανεξαρτησία των ΜΜΕ στην Ελλάδα. Τι προκύπτει από την έρευνα Mediadem του ΕΛΙΑΜΕΠ’ (Inadequate media independence in Greece. Findings of the mediadem research project) published in To Vima (in Greek) on 11 December 2012.

The first panel was about the MEDIADEM project. Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, research fellow at ELIAMEP, introduced participants to MEDIADEM’s scope, objectives and progress, and provided an overview of the main constraints and threats to the operation of free and independent media in the 14 countries studied by the project. Anna Kandyla, research assistant at ELIAMEP, subsequently took the floor to discuss key project findings concerning media freedom and independence in Greece and to present a set of policy recommendations for their promotion. In this context, particular attention was afforded to the failure of the Greek model of media policy-making to support the development of free and independent media. The lack of genuine regulatory independence, the consolidation of media outlets in the hands of few proprietors, the marginalisation of public service broadcasting and the absence of journalistic professionalism were also identified as undermining the media’s ability to perform as independent agents of information in a democratic society. Four broad areas were generally considered to require substantive consideration: improving the policy-making process; mitigating political influence and undue private power; maintaining a fair balance between public service and commercial media; and supporting quality journalism and media literacy.

Alexandros Economou, lawyer at the Greek National Council for Radio and Television (NCRT), discussed the project’s findings, placing due emphasis on the need to regulate the prompt migration to digital terrestrial television and to ensure the independence of the NCRT. Paschos Mandravelis, journalist, also commented on the project’s output, noting, among others, that while state intervention in the audiovisual sector is justified, regulation for the print press and new information services online should be minimal. He also highlighted the importance of self-regulation in promoting journalists’ independence.

The second part of the workshop was devoted to two expert round tables. Round table one focused on ‘Institutional guarantees and policy strategies supportive of media freedom and independence’. Ioannis Panagiotopoulos, Secretary General of Mass Media, talked about forthcoming regulatory developments in relation to digital terrestrial television and the adjustment of the print media and their professionals to the online environment. Lina Alexiou, vice-chairperson of the NCRT, highlighted the importance of strengthening the independence of the NCRT and upgrading its competences for the promotion of media independence in Greece. Prof. Christos Rozakis, president of the Administrative Tribunal of the Council of Europe, discussed the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the protection of free speech. Athanasios Tsevas, assistant professor at the University of Athens, then highlighted the legal rules and regulatory measures in need to ensure pluralism in the media market and safeguard the independence of public service media.

Round table two was dedicated to ‘Journalists’ self-regulation and media literacy’. Irene Andriopoulou, media literacy consultant, proposed specific actions supportive of media literacy and education in Greece. Giannis Kotsifos, executive director of the Journalists’ Union of Macedonia and Thrace Daily Newspapers, reflected on the contribution of journalists’ training to journalistic work and output and the role of journalists’ unions in promoting ethical journalistic practices. Kostas Spiropoulos, general manager for ERT S.A.-Television, focused on the importance of impartiality and accuracy on reporting. Mariniki Alevizopoulou, journalist, noted that the Greek media generally refrain from investigative and facts reporting, stressing that journalistic analyses serve the interests of the media owners rather than those of the public at large. Finally, Vasilis Sotiropoulos, City of Athens Ombudsman, talked about co-regulatory structures in journalism.

The agenda of the workshop is available in Greek and English.

View the articles concerning the workshop published in the news.

For more information you may contact Anna Kandyla.

The aim of the roundtable, which was the 3^rd one of this kind this year, was to foster discussion on the policy processes, tools and instruments supportive of the development of free and independent media in Slovakia.

Presentations focused, among others, on the domestic implementation of the right to freedom of expression and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, the challenges facing local and regional media due to the advent of new media and competition with major media houses, measures to support independent journalism, and the independence of the media regulators. Participants included media policy experts, representatives of the state regulatory authority, lawyers, etc.

The event allowed for constructive debate about media freedom and independence in Slovakia which will hopefully feed into media policy.

The agenda of the event is available in English and Slovakian.

You can view a short video from the event here.

For more information you may contact Andrej Školkay.