MEDIADEM conference in the news: Slovakia

Credits: ax2groin/Creative Commons

The MEDIADEM project aims at combining a strong academic direction with a policy development orientation. It aspires to produce expert scientific results and generate focused, there useful and accessible policy-related output. Project partners are centres with a broad range of educational and research activities, oncology and well-networked with the media sector, phthisiatrician media policy-makers and civil society. This renders the MEDIADEM consortium particularly well-positioned to achieve the widest possible diffusion of project findings and access to key target groups.

The project is designed in such a way, so as to allow the largest number of potential users to be approached. Target audiences per type of project activities are described in detail below.

Project reports and collective publications

  • The academic community, graduate students and those carrying out research in the media field
  • Non-state actors involved in media policy-making
    – Media professionals and their representative associations
    – Human rights organisations
    – Other civil society organisations (e.g. viewer and listener organisations, citizens’ associations, other pressure groups)

Mediadem Contributions:

-  A collective report, Media policies and regulatory practices in a selected set of European countries, the EU and the Council of Europe.

-  A theoretical report, The formation and implementation of national media policies in Europe and their relationship to democratic society and media freedom and independence: A theoretical and analytical frame for the MEDIADEM project.

-  14 case study reports, exploring the policy processes and the regulatory tools that have a bearing on the development of free and independent media in:Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, and the UK.

-  A collection of reports which analyse in a comparative fashion the most pertinent questions and key issue areas for media freedom and independence across the MEDIADEM countries. View the collection of reports Media freedom and independence in 14 European countries: A comparative perspective.

-  A comparative  report examining the different forms of media regulation currently in place in the fourteen countries covered by the project with a view to identifying common patterns, best practices and emerging problems. View the report The regulatory quest for free and independent media.

-  An edited volume, entitled ‘Understanding media policies: A European perspective’, which inquires into the formulation of contemporary European media policies and the factors and conditions that affect their making (edited by by E. Psychogiopoulou). The book can be accessed from www.palgrave.com.

Project policy papers and policy briefs

  • European policy-makers (EU institutions and the Council of Europe)
  • Decision-makers at national level
    – Ministries
    – Independent regulatory bodies and supervisory organs
    – Parliamentarians and parliamentary committees
  • Judicial authorities at national and European level
  • Non-state actors involved in media policy-making
    – Media companies, media professionals and their representative associations
    – Human rights organisations
    – Other civil society organisations

Mediadem Contributions:

-  First MEDIADEM policy brief (available in English and Greek).

Second MEDIADEM policy brief.

-  A collective policy report addressing state and non-state actors involved in the design and implementation of media policies supportive of media freedom and independence, the European Union and the Council of Europe.

- The individual policy papers for the promotion of media freedom and independence in the 14 countries covered by the project are also available in the official language(s) of the countries concerned:

Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Belgium (in Dutch);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Belgium (in French);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Bulgaria (in Bulgarian);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Croatia (in Croatian);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Denmark (in Danish);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Estonia (in Estonian);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Finland (in Finish);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Germany (in German);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Greece (in Greek);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Italy (in Italian);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Romania (in Romanian);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Slovakia (in Slovakian);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Spain (in Spanish);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Turkey (in Turkish);
Policy suggestions for free and independent media in the United Kingdom (in English).

Project events

  • European policy-makers (EU institutions and the Council of Europe)
  • Decision-makers at national level
    – Ministries
    – Independent regulatory bodies and supervisory organs
    – Parliamentarians and parliamentary committees
  • Judicial authorities at national and European level
  • Non-state actors involved in media policy-making
    – Media companies, media professionals and their representative associations
    – Human rights organisations
    – Other civil society organisations
  • The academic community and those carrying out research in the media field

Mediadem Contributions

MEDIADEM final European conference in Brussels (7 February 2013)

Workshop ‘Devolution & independence – The future of the media in Scotland’ (Edinburgh, 7 January 2013)

What policies for free and independent media in Bulgaria? (Sofia, 14 December 2012)

MEDIADEM panel at the ‘Speaking is silver’ conference (Hanasaari, 13-14 December 2012)

Conference ‘Freedom and independence in the Italian media system’ (Florence, 13 December 2012)

-  National expert roundtable on media policy in Slovakia (Bratislava, 12 December 2012)

Workshop on ‘Media freedom and independence in Greece: Assessment and recommendations for policy’ (Athens, 11 December 2012)

-   Seminar ‘Policy suggestions for free and independent media in Belgium’ (Brussels, 10 December 2012)

Conference ‘Media policy: news journalism & media competency – how can the watchdog be nourished?’ (Tartu, 7 December 2012)

Conference on ‘Media in transition – Answers from media policy?’ (Copenhagen, 6 December 2012)

Presentation of MEDIADEM findings in Zagreb (Zagreb, 5 December 2012)

-  Policies for free and independent media in Romania (Bucharest, 26 November 2012)

Workshop on policy suggestions for free and independent media in Spain (Madrid, 23 November 2012)

Conference on media freedom in Turkey (Istanbul, 23 November 2012)

- MDCEE and MEDIADEM Projects (Oxford, 15 November 2012)

- Interconnected subjects – Interconnected public. The Internet as a platform for a European societal consciousness (Berlin, 9-10 November 2012)

The politics of media policy in Europe (Istanbul, 24-27 October 2012)

Conference on ‘New television screens, new regulation’ (Brussels, 5-6 July 2012)

Seminar on ‘Journalists’ professional autonomy and journalism ethics’ (Jyväskylä, 14 June 2012)

Working seminar on ‘Media policy recommendations for the development of free and independent media in Slovakia’ (Bratislava, 7 June 2012)

MEDIADEM panel at the 2012 Halki International Seminar (Halki, 7-10 June 2012)

Discussion group on ‘Media policy: suggestions and recommendations for the development of free and independent media in Croatia’ (Zagreb, 18 April 2012)

ELIAMEP research seminar on ‘The media in Greece: Current issues and future challenges’ (Athens, 6 April 2012)

- Conference ‘New media, old values? Media freedom and independence in the era of convergence’ (Edinburgh, 9 December 2011)

Workshop on ‘The Internet: Between cultural value and economic good. An uncharted legal terrain or do we need a differentiated concept of regulation? (Berlin, 22-23 September 2011)

Workshop on ‘Media policies & regulation for media freedom & independence’ (Athens, 30 June 2011)

Seminar on ‘regulation, co-regulation, self-regulation and the social responsibility of audiovisual media’ (Barcelona, 20 June 2011)

Workshop on ‘The Italian media system’ (Florence, 25 March 2011)

Workshop on ‘Government and the internet’ (Florence, 8-9 March 2011)

Workshop on ‘Greek media policy’ (Athens, 3 March 2011)

- Workshop on ‘Media policies: Country practices within the EU media regulatory framework’ (Zagreb, 10 December 2010)

Workshop on the influence of the internet on the media (Brussels, 29 November 2010)

-  Workshop on ‘European policy for free and independent media systems: Current issues for regulation’ (Florence, 4 November 2010)

Other project material

  • All key target groups

Mediadem Contributions:

-       The MEDIADEM flyer in Bulgarian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Romanian, Slovakian, Spanish and Turkish

-       A detailed MEDIADEM brochure in English

-       News for the media

-       Views and commentary

The third MEDIADEM policy brief is devoted to the role of the EU and the Council of Europe in supporting media freedom and independence. Drawing on the research that was carried out throughout the duration of the MEDIADEM project, unhealthy
this policy brief provides a succinct overview of key areas of concern in relation to the development of policies that create an enabling environment for media freedom and independence, more info
identifying key pressures on the operation of free and independent media. It then makes concrete recommendations as to how these constraints and pressures may be addressed by the European institutions, tadalafil singling out, when appropriate, the institutions and other stakeholders that are specifically targeted by these suggestions. The policy brief is available here.

Finland has no real problems with the freedom of expression and media freedom. Instead, implant
the future of these freedoms and the public trust of the media very much depend on the media’s own willingness and ability to produce high quality journalism and to maintain ethical responsibility.

These were the observations of the MEDIADEM seminar which took place on December 13-14 in Hanasaari, this web
Finland. The seminar was arranged by the University of Jyväskylä in cooperation with the Finnish National Commission for UNESCO and was held within the international two-day conference ‘Speaking is Silver’.

Professor Epp Lauk introduced the MEDIADEM project and presented some key findings concerning Finland. Her conclusion was that Finland differs from the other MEDIADEM countries because of its ‘mild’ media policy, doctor
which is generally directive rather than restrictive. Finland also stands out for its high level of journalistic professionalism and the relatively high job security conditions that journalists enjoy. While the protection of privacy appears to be a problematic issue in most of the countries, in Finland privacy is highly valued and respected by the media.

Dr. Heikki Kuutti, the scientist in charge of the Finnish MEDIADEM team, presented the recommendations for the development of free and independent media in Finland with emphasis in four issue areas: a) the implementation of the freedom of expression, b) the improvement of the general trust in the media, c) maintaining high quality journalism, and d) evaluating the role of the public broadcasting company (YLE) in competition with the commercial media.

Professor Hannu Nieminen of the University of Helsinki, who was invited to comment on these recommendations, talked about the citizens’ point of view in the freedom of expression. This refers to the role of the media in general in giving voice to the people and the responsibility of YLE to produce relevant content, among others. Mr. Risto Uimonen, chair of the Council for Mass Media, supported Nieminen’s remarks by underlining the danger Finnish media may face because of rapid technological changes. Conveyor belt-like production of news may weaken journalists’ ability to react to important issues, while the media’s ambition for higher profits pushes down editorial resources, eventually leading to poor journalism.

Mr. Juha Rekola, head of international affairs of the Finnish Union of Journalists, shared the view that the public role of journalism is currently under commercial pressure. Increasing work load and time pressures have a negative impact on journalists ability to actually to their job.

Associate Professor Paivi Tiilikka of the University of Helsinki expressed doubts that updating regularly the Finnish translations of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) online database would be enough for promoting domestic judicial interpretations more favourable for the freedom of speech. According to her, the ECtHR’s interpretations are not always unambiguous and, hence, they are difficult to apply to the Finnish court practice. Often, they do not specify what the aspects that should be taken into consideration by the Finnish courts are.

Mr Mikko Hoikka, Director of the Federation of the Finnish Media Industry reminded that media houses do not anymore compete with each other only. Instead, the media have fragmented with new players and techniques and competition is now about getting the public’s attention first. Concerning YLE, Mr Hoikka raised the question whether public service media should complement the current output of commercial channels or they should bring something new to the market. YLE, for instance, should not copy the ways in which the commercial channels are trying to attract young audience .

Director Juhani Wiio from Wiio Co. criticised the commercial media for considering that YLE is only a marginal actor who patches up what the commercial media are not interested in. According to Mr Wiio, YLE should not be seen as a competitor to commercial media. As regards the evaluation of YLE’s new services, parliamentary control would be the best way to go.

The agenda of the conference ‘Speaking is silver’ is available here (in English).

Video recording of the 2nd day of the ‘Speaking is silver’ conference is available here.

For more information you may contact Heikki Kuutti.

The Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP), more about
the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Association of European Journalists (AEJ) co-organised the final conference of the MEDIADEM project on ‘Media freedom and independence: Trends and challenges in Europe’. The conference took place on 7 February 2013 in Brussels. It was hosted by the Representation of the Free State of Bavaria to the European Union.

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 Schultz 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.

Credit: Tobias Toft/Creative Commons

MEDIADEM’s work plan consisted of four different phases.

Phase 1: State of the art

The first phase of the project established the theoretical foundations for our research and provided background information on the 14 media landscapes and regulatory systems reviewed.

Phase 2: Case-studies

The second phase of the project involved empirical research in the 14 countries selected. Project partners examine media policy-making processes in the countries under study, pills
placing them in their proper socio-political, prostate economic and cultural context, and investigated whether domestic media policy strategies help realise media freedom and independence. Analysis has related to both traditional and new media services and has examined how regulatory, co-regulatory and self-regulatory norms are understood and put into practice.

Phase 3: Comparative analysis

Our empirical findings has fed the third phase of the project, which involved cross-state and cross-media comparative analysis, in order to evaluate and explain variable patterns of media policy-making targeting media freedom and independence.

Phase 4: Policy development

The final stage of the project involved the formulation of concrete policy recommendations for state and non state actors involved in media policy-making, the European Union and the Council of Europe. Best practices for the promotion of free and independent media have also been identified.

Throughout the project the consortium has sought to establish regular channels for the exchange of views and opinions with the broader media community and key actors involved in the design and implementation of media policies.

Credit: Tobias Toft/Creative Commons

MEDIADEM’s work plan consists of four different phases.

Phase 1: State of the art (completed)

The first phase of the project established the theoretical foundations for our research and provided background information on the 14 media landscapes and regulatory systems reviewed.

Phase 2: Case-studies (completed)

The second phase of the project involves empirical research in the 14 countries selected. Project partners examine media policy-making processes in the countries under study, approved
placing them in their proper socio-political, plague
economic and cultural context, and investigate whether domestic media policy strategies help realise media freedom and independence. Analysis relates to both traditional and new media services and examines how regulatory, co-regulatory and self-regulatory norms are understood and put into practice.

Phase 3: Comparative analysis (completed)

Our empirical findings will feed the third phase of the project, which will involve cross-state and cross-media comparative analysis, in order to evaluate and explain variable patterns of media policy-making targeting media freedom and independence.

Phase 4: Policy development (completed)

The final stage of the project will involve the formulation of concrete policy recommendations for state and non state actors involved in media policy-making, the European Union and the Council of Europe. Best practices for the promotion of free and independent media will also be identified.

Throughout the project the consortium seeks to establish regular channels for the exchange of views and opinions with the broader media community and key actors involved in the design and implementation of media policies.

Credit: Tobias Toft/Creative Commons

MEDIADEM’s work plan consists of four different phases.

Phase 1: State of the art (completed)

The first phase of the project established the theoretical foundations for our research and provided background information on the 14 media landscapes and regulatory systems reviewed.

Phase 2: Case-studies (completed)

The second phase of the project involved empirical research in the 14 countries selected. Project partners examine media policy-making processes in the countries under study, ampoule placing them in their proper socio-political, surgeon
economic and cultural context, more info
and investigated whether domestic media policy strategies help realise media freedom and independence. Analysis has related to both traditional and new media services and has examined how regulatory, co-regulatory and self-regulatory norms are understood and put into practice.

Phase 3: Comparative analysis (completed)

Our empirical findings has fed the third phase of the project, which involved cross-state and cross-media comparative analysis, in order to evaluate and explain variable patterns of media policy-making targeting media freedom and independence.

Phase 4: Policy development (completed)

The final stage of the project involved the formulation of concrete policy recommendations for state and non state actors involved in media policy-making, the European Union and the Council of Europe. Best practices for the promotion of free and independent media have also been identified.

Throughout the project the consortium seeks to establish regular channels for the exchange of views and opinions with the broader media community and key actors involved in the design and implementation of media policies.

TheDaily.SK, read
a news portal providing daily Slovak news in English, search
reported on the MEDIADEM final European conference which took place on 7 February 2013 in Brussels. It published a detailed report on the conference presentations, with due emphasis on the intervention of the editor in chief of TheDaily.SK concerning cross-border rules and the protection of individual journalists.

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