A free and pluralistic media to sustain
European democracy

The Report of theHigh Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism

Professor Vaira Vīķe‐Freiberga (Chair)
Professor Herta Däubler‐Gmelin
Ben Hammersley
Professor Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa Maduro

January 2013

‘The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.’
Article 11.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European UnionTable of Contents
Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations

p. 3

The High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism

p. 9

1. Why media freedom and pluralism matter

p. 10

1.1

The democratic function of the media

p. 10

1.2

The public function of the media

p. 11

1.3

Defining media freedom and pluralism

p. 12

1.4

Diversity

p. 14

1.5

Challenges to media freedom and pluralism at Member State level

p. 15

2. The role of the European Union

p. 17

2.1

Recent EU Actions with regard to media freedom and pluralism

p. 18

2.2

EU competences in protecting media freedom and pluralism

p. 19

2.3

Cross‐border issues within the Single Market

p. 21

2.4

Competition and concentration

p. 23

2.5

Promoting European values beyond EU borders

p. 24

3. The changing media landscape

p. 26

3.1

The impact of new technologies

p. 26

3.2

Changing business models

p. 28

3.3

Changing nature of journalism

p. 29

3.4

Changes in how people relate to media

p. 30

4. Protection of journalistic freedom

p. 32

4.1

Rights of journalists

p. 32

4.2

Responsibility of journalists

p. 32

4.3

Who is covered by journalistic rights and responsibilities?

p. 34

4.4

Enforced self‐regulation

p. 35

5. Media Pluralism

p. 37

5.1

Public service broadcasting

p. 38

5.2

European coveragep. 39

Annex A ‐ What we are building on

p. 41

Hearings

p. 41

Written contributions

p. 42

Documents

p. 44

2

Summary of Key Findings andRecommendations
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the High Level Group (HLG) on MediaPluralism and Freedom, chaired by Professor Vaira Vīķe‐Freiberga with Professor Herta Däubler‐
Gmelin, Professor Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa Maduro and Ben Hammersley. The remit of theGroup was to provide a set of recommendations for the respect, the protection, the support andthe promotion of pluralism and freedom of the media in Europe.
The HLG recognises that a free and pluralistic media is crucial for European democracy. But there
are currently a number of challenges which can potentially restrict journalistic freedom or reduce
pluralism, whether through political influence, undue commercial pressures, the changing media
landscape with new business models, or the rise of the new media. At the same time, themisconduct of some journalists, which has recently come to light, also has the potential toundermine the sector’s credibility and, as a consequence, long term viability.
The HLG acknowledges that the main responsibility for maintaining media freedom and pluralism
lies with the Member States. However, the European Union also has an important role to play.
Beyond cross‐border issues which arise in the Single Market, including competition policy issues,the EU also has a role in upholding the fundamental rights of EU citizens.
In addition, as argued in this report, the EU must also act in this area when necessary to uphold
the rights of freedom of movement and to protect the democratic sphere necessary for thefunctioning of EU democracy, in case this might be threatened by restrictions on media freedom
and pluralism in one of the member states.
Recommendation: The EU should be considered competent to act to protect media freedom andpluralism at State level in order to guarantee the substance of the rights granted by the Treaties
to EU citizens, in particular the rights of free movement and to representative democracy. The
link between media freedom and pluralism and EU democracy, in particular, justifies a more
extensive competence of the EU with respect to these fundamental rights than to others
enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In addition, the EU must act in those areas where common rules in the Single Market may benecessary to prevent distortions in the functioning of the media arising from divergent Member
State laws and impacting on media freedom and pluralism.
Recommendation: For improving the functioning of the Single Market, further harmonisation of
EU legislation would be of great benefit. Currently, the existence of divergences between
national rules can lead to distortions in the framework of cross‐border media activities, especiallyin the online world. It would be particularly important to adopt minimum harmonisation rules
covering cross‐border media activities on areas such as libel laws or data protection.

3

Recommendation: European and national competition authorities should take into account the
specific value of media pluralism in the enforcement of competition rules. They should also take
into account the increasing merging of different channels of communication and media access inthe definition of the relevant markets. In addition, the High Level Group calls upon the European
and national competition authorities to monitor with particular attention, under competition
policy, new developments in the online access to information. The dominant position held bysome network access providers or internet information providers should not be allowed torestrict media freedom and pluralism. An open and non‐discriminatory access to information by
all citizens must be protected in the online sphere, if necessary by making use of competition law
and/or enforcing a principle of network and net neutrality.
Recommendation: National competition authorities need to make (or commission) pro‐active
regular assessments of individual countries’ media environments and markets, highlighting
potential threats to pluralism. At the EU level, there should be pro‐active market assessment
under competition policy in the form of a sectoral inquiry.
Within the EU, more must be done to ensure that citizens can critically engage with media. In
addition, there is a need to develop a more engaged public debate at EU level.
Recommendation: Media literacy should be taught in schools starting at high‐school level. The
role media plays in a functioning democracy should be critically assessed as part of national
curricula, integrated either with civics or social studies.
Recommendation: EU political actors have a special responsibility and capacity in triggering
European news coverage. The Presidents of the EU institutions should regularly organiseinterviews with a panel composed of national media from across the EU. This format would havethe advantage of not only increasing national coverage of EU affairs but also making thatcoverage more pluralist, since the interviews to be broadcast or printed in the different Member
States would include questions from journalists from other Member States.
The EU should not only act to protect media freedom and pluralism within its own Member States
but also beyond its borders, in particular where the EU has clear responsibilities such as withregards to trade and enlargement.
Recommendation: Media freedom and pluralism should play a prominent role in the assessmentof accession countries. A free and pluralist media environment must be a pre‐condition for EU
membership.
Recommendation: The EU should raise the issue of journalistic freedom in all international fora
where human rights and democracy are discussed, including as part of trade/partnershipagreements and in the context of provision of aid.
To be able to fulfil a more pro‐active role, the EU needs to be able to access up‐to‐date
information on the state of media freedom and pluralism in the Member States (monitoring), as
well as developing a deeper knowledge of this rapidly‐changing sector.

4

Recommendation: To reinforce European values of freedom and pluralism, the EU should
designate, in the work programme and funding of the European fundamental rights agency, amonitoring role of national‐level freedom and pluralism of the media. The agency would thenissue regular reports about any risks to the freedom and pluralism of the media in any part of the
EU. The European Parliament could then discuss the contents of these reports and adopt
resolutions or make suggestions for measures to be taken.
Recommendation: As an alternative to the mechanism suggested in the previous
Recommendation, the EU could establish an independent monitoring centre, ideally as part ofacademia, which would be partially funded by the EU but would be fully independent in its
activities.
Recommendation: To evaluate the manner in which media consumption patterns are changing,as well as their social impact, comprehensive longitudinal studies are needed at the EU level.
More broadly, the EU should provide sustainable funding for academic research and studies on
the changing media environment, in order to provide a solid academic basis for policy initiatives
in this field.
The rise of new technologies and of new business models, along with accelerating changes tojournalism as a profession, require on‐going adaptations to the regulatory framework. Such
adaptations, in turn, must be based on effective monitoring of the changing media environment, if
any new interventions are to produce the desired effect.
Recommendation: Any new regulatory frameworks must be brought into line with the new
reality of a fluid media environment, covering all types of journalistic activities, regardless of thetransmission medium.
Recommendation: Journalist and media organisations should adapt their codes of conduct andjournalistic standards to the challenges posed by a rapidly changing media environment. In
particular, they should clearly address questions of source verification and fact checking, as wellas transparently regulating their relationship with external sources of news.
In view of the increasing role of the internet as a source of information, the end‐users of suchservices need to be informed about the application of any filtering, selecting or hierarchicalordering of the information they receive. In addition, they should have the right to object to theautomatic application of such filtering algorithms, should they so choose.
Recommendation: In order to give complete transparency as to how individualised a service is,services that provide heavily personalised search results or newsfeeds should provide thepossibility for the user to turn off such personalisation, temporarily for an individual query, or
permanently, until further notice.
Recommendation: Channels or mechanisms through which media are delivered to the end user
should be entirely neutral in their handling of this content. In the case of digital networks, Net
Neutrality and the end‐to‐end principle should be enshrined within EU law.

5

Given the pressure of new business models and the competition of new technologies for
spreading information, there is a growing need to provide more, and better focused, support forthe creation of content (rather than just its distribution) and high quality journalism.
Recommendation: There should be streamlining and coordination of support and funding for
quality journalism, as already exists in several EU countries. Europe‐wide awards should be madeavailable for talented journalists and those having made significant breakthroughs. An additional
study should be commissioned on possible new forms of funding for quality and investigative
journalism, including making use of new technologies such as crowdfunding.
Public non‐profit media have a special role to play in maintaining pluralism and democratic values.
There may be a debate, however, about the right balance between privately‐owned and public
service or state‐supported media, especially about the proportion of resources allotted to public
service broadcasting, or the extent of state support for other media.
Recommendation: Any public funding should only be available for media organisations which
publish a code of conduct easily accessible to the public (including on their site).
Recommendation: Any public funding to media organisations should be given on the basis ofnon‐discriminatory, objective and transparent criteria which are made known in advance to all
media.
Recommendation: In order to build up cadres of professional journalists competent to operate ina rapidly changing media landscape, or to offer them the possibility to do investigative
journalism, journalistic fellowships should be offered to both entry‐level and and mid‐career
candidates who could take leave from their media organisations. Universities and research
centres should set up positions for journalists in residence under such fellowships to be fundedby the EU. The selection of the journalists would be done by the academic and scientificinstitutions themselves. The fellowships would be particularly valuable for investigative
journalism, or for training journalists to mediate between complex subjects such as science,technology, finance or medicine and the wider public.
Recommendation: The provision of funding for cross‐border European media networks (including
such items as translation costs, travel and coordination costs) should be an essential componentof European media policy. Support for journalists specialised in cross‐border topics should be
included in such funding.
Recommendation: Attention is called to national journalism schools and university professors forthe possibility of applying to the Jean Monnet programme to support curricula and teaching on
coverage of European issues. The Commission should be especially pro‐active in informing
journalism schools of this possibility and consider this area one of the priorities in the selection
procedure under such a programme.
Recommendation: There should be a provision of state funding for media which are essential forpluralism (including geographical, linguistic, cultural and political pluralism), but are notcommercially viable. The state should intervene whenever there is a market failure leading to theunder‐provision of pluralism, which should be considered as a key public good.
6

Clearly, recent events have highlighted that in a number of countries there is a need to develop
the overall framework in which the media operates, with regard to media councils or regulators. In
addition, media organisations themselves must show clearly how self‐regulation is applied in theirorganisation.
Recommendation: To ensure that all media organisations follow clearly identifiable codes ofconduct and editorial lines, and apply the principles of editorial independence, it should be
mandatory for them to make them publicly available, including by publication on their website.
Recommendation: All EU countries should have independent media councils with a politically andculturally balanced and socially diverse membership. Nominations to them should betransparent, with built‐in checks and balances. Such bodies would have competences toinvestigate complaints, much like a media ombudsman, but would also check that media
organisations have published a code of conduct and have revealed ownership details,
declarations of conflicts of interest, etc. Media councils should have real enforcement powers,
such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal ofjournalistic 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.
Recommendation: A network of national audio‐visual regulatory authorities should be created,on the model of the one created by the electronic communications framework. It would help insharing common good practices and set quality standards. All regulators should be independent,with appointments being made in a transparent manner, with all appropriate checks andbalances.
Recommendation: Any public ownership of the media should be subject to strict rules prohibiting
governmental interference, guaranteeing internal pluralism and placed under the supervision of
an independent body representing all stakeholders.
Media freedom requires a robust framework for protecting journalistic freedom in all Member
States, which represents a special case of the general right to freedom of expression.
Recommendation: All EU countries should have enshrined in their legislation the principle ofprotection of journalistic sources, restrictions to this principle only being acceptable on the basisof a court order, compatible with the constitution of that country.
Recommendation: Access to public sources and events should depend on objective, non‐discriminatory and transparent criteria. This ought to be notably the case with regard to press
conferences, with electronic means used to broaden out these events to a wider audience wherepractically possible.
Since rights carry responsibilities, journalists have the professional obligation to provide accurate
information and must always be responsible and accountable for their output.

7

Recommendation: Member States should ensure that appropriate instruments are put in place
for identifying those responsible for harming others through the media, even in the online space.
Any internet user‐data collection necessary for this purpose, however, should be kept
confidential and made available only by a court order.
Recommendation: Compulsory damages following court cases should include an apology andretraction of accusations printed with equal positioning and size of the original defamation, orpresented in the same time slot in the case of radio or TV programmes. In addition to this and toa legally‐imposed right of reply, it should become accepted as responsible practice among news
media to also publish retractions and corrections of wrong and unverified information on thesimple request of citizens providing justifications to the contrary. Any such retractions andcorrections should be published with the same relevance as the original coverage when thecorrection of the potential harm done by such false information so justifies. Any public funding
should be conditional on the inclusion of such provisions in the code of conduct of the media
organisation.
The HLG believes that the EU can, and should, have a bigger role in supporting media freedom andpluralism in the EU and beyond. The recommendations in this report should be understood as anencouragement to develop the overall EU framework, ensuring that high quality media cancontinue to contribute to European democracy across the EU.

8

The High Level Group on
Media Freedom and Pluralism
The High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism was established by European Commission
Vice‐President Neelie Kroes in October 2011. The group was chaired by the former President ofLatvia, Professor Vaira Vīķe‐Freiberga. The other members were Professor Herta Däubler‐Gmelin,
Professor Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa Maduro and Ben Hammersley.
The remit of the Group was to provide a set of recommendations for the respect, the protection,
the support and the promotion of pluralism and freedom of the media in Europe. The Commission
had invited the group to analyse and provide recommendations on issues such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•

limitations to media freedom arising from political interference (state intervention or
national legislation)
limitations to media independence arising from private and commercial interference
the question of the concentration of media ownership and its consequence for media
freedom/pluralism and on the independence of journalists
existing or potential legal threats to the protection of journalists' rights and theirprofession in Member States
the role and independence of regulatory authorities
existing or potential measures in favour of quality journalism, ethics and media
accountability, within the respective competences of national, EU and international
authorities.

This Report presents the findings of the Group and its recommendations.
The members of the Group have drawn up the recommendations in this Report independently. They
do not represent a particular organisation or any particular interest and are acting here in a personal
capacity.
The Group would like to thank the Secretariat of DG Connect for the support received in drawing up
this Report. They would also like to thank all the individuals and organisations which have provided
input to the Group, either in written submissions or by providing evidence in person. A full list ofthese inputs is contained in Annex A.

Professor Vaira Vīķe‐Freiberga (Chair)

Professor Herta Däubler‐Gmelin

Ben Hammersley

Professor Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa Maduro91. Why media freedom and pluralism
matter“Freedom of the press is essential to a democratic society. To uphold and protect it, and to respect
its diversity and its political, social and cultural missions, is the mandate of all governments.” 1

1.1

The democratic function of the media

The scope and focus of this report is on the crucial role that free and pluralistic media play in thepreservation and good functioning of democracy.
A fundamental principle of democratic systems is that equal rights are accorded to all citizens,with the possibility of their direct or indirect participation in collective decision‐making, especiallythrough free elections, the choice of political representatives and the power to hold elected
officials accountable. If citizens are to exploit these rights to the fullest, however, they must havefree access to information that will give them sufficient basis for making enlightened judgements
and informed political choices. 2 If not, control over the flows of information and manipulation of
public opinion can lead to a concentration of power, the ultimate form of which is seen in
authoritarian and totalitarian systems, which use both censorship and propaganda as tools forstaying in power.
Historically, the concept of media freedom has evolved in parallel to the fundamental humanrights of freedom of conscience and of expression. Media freedom has gone hand‐in‐hand withthe evolution of democracy, while the degree of control and censorship of the press and othermedia has been in direct correlation with the degree of totalitarianism in a country’s form ofgovernance. With the kind of chequered past of authoritarian or totalitarian rule that Europe has
experienced within the last 100 years, it is small wonder that its citizens should feel extremely
sensitive about any possibility of relapse in terms of political control of the media. The debates
surrounding a number of recent resolutions passed by the European Parliament attest to thislegitimate concern. Given Europe’s history and the memory of dangers of totalitarianism andauthoritarianism, maintaining and preserving the democratic function of the media is a special
responsibility.
Democracy requires a well‐informed, inclusive and pluralistic public sphere; the media are, to alarge extent, the creators as well as the “editors” of this public sphere. In this they become theholders of considerable power and may come to assume the status of a “fourth estate” withinsociety. At the same time, the public service aspect and democratic function of media can comeunder threat either through political interference, undue commercial influence, or increasingsocial disinterest and indifference on the part of the general public.

1

European Charter on Freedom of the Press, 2009
O’Neil, 1998, quoted in Andrea Calderaro & Alina Dobrev, 2012, ‘Exploring the current state of media pluralism and media
freedom in the European Union – Political and Social Aspects’

210The role media plays in a democratic society requires strong protection, but also carries with itequal responsibilities. The public must never forget that media are purveyors of information, notof absolute truths. They should not be seen as sacred cows that are beyond criticism and areaccountable to no one. The media are part and parcel of the overall social fabric of society andmay either help or hinder communication and mutual understanding between different parts of it,
fostering or suppressing democratic debate, as the case may be. There is no doubt that media
should be free from political censorship and from any political requirement to fit allcommunication within a strict ideological framework. At the same time, the democratic functionof media may also be undermined by poor quality journalism and a lack of journalistic integrity. It
is thus as important for media to strive to be objective, truthful, unbiased and high‐quality, as it isfor them to enjoy maximum freedom from undue outside pressures.
In setting up objectivity as one of the defining criteria of media quality, it must be rememberedthat media can never be fully objective. Back in 1964, in his ground‐breaking book “Understanding
the Media: The Extensions of Man”, Marshall McLuhan famously pronounced that “The Medium isthe Message”. This implies (among other things) that any channel of information transmission
inevitably adds an element of “noise” to the original signal. With respect to the message conveyed
by the media, subjective aspects are always present and bias often permeates different narrationsof the facts. Thus, taking daily news as an example, a newspaper, radio or TV station will make its
own subjective selection as to what items are to be included as “news”, and which are not, and it
will include a slant on each item included as well as an editorial element of interpretation, minimal
or extensive, as the case may be.
There is also a long‐standing tradition for certain media, especially the written media, to embracea political editorial identity. This kind of slant is accepted as a legitimate expression of the diversityof opinion, if done in a transparent manner and respecting the distinction between fact andopinion. As in the parable about the blind men and the elephant, the inability of any one source tolay claim to Absolute Truth is what makes it so important to guarantee a pluralistic media
environment, where a variety of slants on reality have a chance to be expressed. Democracy
requires an environment where not only different versions of the facts can be contrasted andtested by citizens, but where differing emphasis and coverage given to those facts and events may
be found.

1.2

The public function of the media

The public role of the media in a democratic society applies to the news sector above all others,
since the quality of the news received will affect the ability of citizens “to contribute to andparticipate in the decision‐making processes which concern them. This applies to local, national orinternational governance models as well as to other specific communities.” 3
Responsible and high quality media can also challenge abuses of power and hold politicians
accountable. In this context, a special mention should be made of the public role of investigative
journalism. It frequently (but not always) investigates cases involving abuse of power or the theftor misuse of public funds, whether those of governments, or of public companies and3

Council of Europe, 2011, ‘Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on a new notion of media’11corporations. Where both internal and external controls have been insufficient to prevent theoccurrence of abuses of power, this type of journalism is of high importance as a mechanism forensuring compliance with the rule of law, proper use of public funds, safeguarding public safety,
exposing misleading statements, and protecting democracy itself, at different levels ofgovernment, from different forms of private and public corruption. High quality investigative
journalism can thus serve an important watch‐dog function in protecting the interests of society,but obviously it cannot replace the need for criminal investigations and the due process of law.
Furthermore, investigative journalism should not assume only the narrow, often sensationalist
form of the exposé, but it should also embrace a wider range of topics, including deeper
investigations that aim to explain complex ideas and processes to the general public.
As noted above, media do not only have to be free and independent, they also have to bepluralistic, as well as inclusive, offering a wide range of different views and opinions and reflecting
the diversity of a country’s population. The concept of pluralism embraces both cultural andlinguistic pluralism, taking account of the needs of minorities, reflecting geographical diversity as
well as local and regional priorities. A key function of media, therefore, is to protect local cultures(whether national or regional), and, with them, Europe’s cultural diversity.
While their primary function remains to serve the national public of individual member states, themedia can also be expected to contribute to a wider pan‐European public sphere. Only the latter
will be liable to genuinely support the democratic exercise of the powers that the European Union
already holds, whatever our view on the precise nature and extent of those powers.
This, however, should not blind us to the fact that the quality of the information conveyed to theordinary citizen may vary widely, even where the press and other media are free from censorshipand other forms of political control or influence. The content of the message and its degree ofcorrespondence to anything resembling an “objective truth” may be (and frequently is) impairedby the more or less subtle or direct economic pressures exercised by the owners of the media, as
well as by their advertisers. The professional qualifications and integrity of the journalists creating
the content of the message, as well as adequate working conditions, also have a substantial
impact on the quality of the information conveyed. Not all journalists are equally able or willing toanswer to the high expectations of objectivity placed upon them by a hopeful and trusting public.
Indeed, not all journalism is intended to be entirely objective in the first place.

1.3

Defining media freedom and pluralism

The concept of media itself, as a collective term for all forms of non‐official public means ofproviding information, is historically a relatively recent one. Ever since the invention of theprinting press, the printed word developed as the only medium of public expression (next to theage‐old power of the spoken word), although its physical embodiments kept changing over the
centuries from pamphlets, broad‐sheets, Almanacs and the like, to newspapers and magazines as
we know them today. Radio ‐ as an auditory medium of communication ‐ only entered the scene
during the first part of the 20th century; and TV ‐ as an audio‐visual medium ‐ in the decadefollowing the end of World War 2. Electronic media, especially the internet ‐ combining as they do
all three (written text, audio and visual elements) ‐ have become serious players on the scene only
since a few decades before the turn of the millennium. With the accelerating rate of change inboth communication hardware and software, it is to be expected that the media landscape will
12

continue to undergo rapid and even radical changes within the next five years and beyond, theprecise nature of which is impossible to predict at the moment.
The concept of media freedom is closely related to the notion of freedom of expression, but not
identical with it. The latter is enshrined in Europe’s fundamental values and rights: “Everyone has
the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive
and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless offrontiers.” 4 Beyond freedom of expression, however, media freedom also implies special rights,
protections and responsibilities for journalists’ media activities. These include for example theright to protect sources, protection from harassment or threats and freedom from undue
commercial pressures.
These special rights carry with them special responsibilities as well. It goes without saying thatjournalists have to conform to the law of the land, including criminal law, as long as the law is itself
compatible with the protection of democracy and fundamental human rights. Responsibilities also
include adhering to legal principles such as protection of individual rights and freedoms, forexample in respect of libel or protecting the right of reply for those covered in media stories, aswell as following certain ethical standards, for example in relation to how political radicalism is
portrayed in the media.
Media responsibilities also include adhering to any tools of self‐regulation for the profession, suchas, for example, abiding by relevant charters. In online media, traditional types of media
accountability instruments, such as ethical codes, ombudsmen and press councils, are increasingly
complemented by instruments involving the audience users' comments, media users' blogs andsocial media (such as Twitter or Facebook).
There is a close relationship between media freedom and media pluralism: “Media freedom iscloser related to independence of media from government/authorities control and media
pluralism is closer related to independence of media from private control and disproportionate
influence of one or few economic, social and/or political powers.” 5
While many concerns regarding media pluralism have focused on media ownership, the concept ofpluralism is broader:“Media pluralism is a concept that goes far beyond media ownership … It embraces many aspects,
ranging from, for example, merger control rules to content requirements in broadcasting licensing
systems, the establishment of editorial freedoms, the independence and status of public service
broadcasters, the professional situation of journalists, the relationship between media andpolitical actors, etc. It encompasses all measures that ensure citizens’ access to a variety of
information sources and voices, allowing them to form opinions without the undue influence of
one dominant opinion forming power.” 6
There is an internal and an external dimension to pluralism, where internal pluralism refers topluralism within a particular media organisation. Thus many countries require the public service
4

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 11
Andrea Calderaro & Alina Dobreva, July 2012, ‘Exploring the current state of media pluralism and media freedom in the European
Union – Political and Social Aspects’
6
EU Media Futures Forum, Final Report – September 2012, ‘Report for European Commission Vice‐President Neelie Kroes’
513

broadcaster to reflect a wide range of political views and interests of minorities or other parts ofthe population. External pluralism refers to the media landscape as a whole, for example in termsof the number of different media providers active in any given country. Where all newspapers in acountry, for example, are in the hands of the same owners, this has the potential of becoming aserious threat to the variety of opinions expressed in the public sphere. In such a situation, only
the strictest adherence to the editorial independence of each paper can preserve media pluralism(as well as freedom).
Media ownership can thus create significant challenges to pluralism if owners use their economic
power to restrict journalistic freedoms or interfere with the exercise of responsible journalism. On
the other hand, in a free market economy, owners must have the ability to determine the strategic
direction of their companies, exploit available commercial opportunities and remain competitiveand profit‐making. An essential element of pluralism is that it does not imply complete neutrality
or a lack of opinion. In fact, having an editorial line is an essential part of the role of editors, aslong as this line is made transparent to staff and to the consumers. An editor of a newspaper has
the right ‐ if not even a responsibility ‐ to establish a clear editorial line, which should be as
explicitly and clearly stated as possible.
Media pluralism may also depend on the level at which the media operates: one needs to take
into account media concentration at different levels. One could also consider that the absence ofEuropean news coverage constitutes a lack of pluralism as it affects democracy at both theEuropean and national levels, notably by hindering the political accountability of both State andEuropean political actors.

1.4

Diversity

The media landscape in Europe is characterised by significant diversity. Within each country, it has
evolved through history and local political and market conditions, and reflects a country’s specificculture. It also reflects local demographics, for example in historically multi‐lingual countries suchas Belgium or in countries with more recent minorities speaking a different language, such as theRussian‐speaking minorities in the Baltic States, or Arabic or Turkish‐speaking minorities in several
Western European countries. This diversity must be taken into account, but so must our common
past, whose different dark moments have led us to a shared belief in certain values and the EU’s
role in upholding them.
Different countries also have very different institutional and regulatory frameworks. In somecountries public service media and private profit–oriented media each play their respective roles
in a dual system. This dualistic system, often guaranteed by national constitutional rules, is deeply
entrenched in the political culture of some countries. The way in which a particular national
regulatory framework is supported by and supportive of national political culture is a factor thatmust be given due regard by EU regulators. This is so even if there might sometimes exist tensions
with EU competition rules, advertisement regulations, or new media implications. Theintervention of EU regulators must take into account the specific national context and, inparticular, be mindful of the extent to which different political cultures may require different
media regulatory frameworks so as to better protect media freedom and pluralism in thatparticular state.

14

In some countries, there is a long‐standing and recognised role for the media within the legal
framework. There is an established self‐regulatory framework with independent press councils orcomplaints commissions, with a clear responsibility for a regulator or regulators to set theframework for certain types of media or for all media. In other countries, this framework is far lessdeveloped.
Within this context, it is crucially important not to confuse rules with values. The different politicalcultures or realities in different Member States may result in the same rule having very different
consequences for the protection of the values of media freedom and media pluralism. For
example, qualified parliamentary majorities are often required for the appointment of members ofmedia councils or regulatory authorities, with the purpose of guaranteeing the representation of adiversity of viewpoints in such bodies. But where a single political party may end up holding such a
qualified majority by itself, such a well‐meaning rule will not necessarily guarantee diversity andthe protection of media freedom and pluralism. It may even lead to the opposite result, byentrenching representatives of a single political view in a dominant position in such bodies, andsystematically excluding the holders of differing views.
For this reason, safeguarding media freedom and pluralism cannot be achieved simply by adopting
a specific set of common rules, necessary as they are. Rules necessarily must be adapted todifferent political cultures and they need to be implemented in a way which firmly keeps the aimof media freedom and pluralism at the forefront. In addition, promoting media freedom andpluralism requires furthering a certain political culture, as well as enhancing media quality. Rules
may be necessary but they are not sufficient.
It is in this complex setting that any new initiatives taken at the level of the European Union forthe promotion of media freedom and pluralism must, first and foremost, focus on commonly
accepted fundamental values, and exercise great care in respecting the national context within
which any new regulations will have to be applied.

1.5

Challenges to media freedom and pluralism at Member State level

While media freedom and pluralism have been universally accepted as fundamental to thecommon values prevailing within the European community, in practice a whole range of potential
challenges to them have been documented in recent reports and systematic studies. These include
issues highlighted by recent court cases, official enquiries and national as well as European
parliamentary debates:•

Media legislation being implemented in such a way that freedom of expression is restricted,
with significant concern over possible political influence on the setup and membership ofMedia Councils, as well as the influence of politicians on public service broadcasting, forexample through the appointment system;•

Libel/defamation laws potentially being used to restrict the freedom of the press to reporton possible misconduct by public and private figures, or – conversely – to muzzle politicians
and prevent them from freely expressing their opinions;15

•

Excessive influence of media owners or advertising clients on politicians and government
and the covert manipulation of political decisions in favour of hidden economic interests;•

The concentration of ownership of commercial media and the influence this might have inthe political space, whether concentration of ownership in the hands of ruling politicians,
concentration of all media in a country within the hands of a single owner, or (especially
dangerous in the case of small countries) concentration of all media in the hands of foreign
owners;•

The effect of media concentration and changing business models in reducing the quality ofjournalism (investigative or otherwise), restricting the degrees of editorial freedom and theerosion in the quality of working conditions and job security for journalists;•

The lack of media ownership transparency and opacity of funding sources;•

The corruptive influence on society of some journalists resorting to criminal activity in theirsearch for sensational (and profit‐making) stories, including widespread and systematic
bribing of policemen, prosecutors and other public officials, undue harassment of publicly
known figures and gross infringements of individual rights to privacy (such as phone
tapping) and freedom of movement;•

Potential conflicts of interest arising from journalists’ closeness to business interests.

Given that infringements on, or abuses of, media freedom and pluralism may take such a wide
variety of forms, the question of regulation or lack of it has taken on a particular urgency of late.
Thus, in debates at the level of the European Parliament, as well as at the Council of Europe,
concerns have been expressed about the ability of the European Union to ensure compliance with
its values within its own borders. At the same time, at the national level, serious failings havecome to light in some countries as to the ability of the media industry to comply with its avowedcommitment to self‐regulation. The weakness of national self‐regulating bodies, even in countries
where they had, until now, been considered as highly successful, has been highlighted during theLeveson Inquiry in the United Kingdom. 7
Before addressing the nature of possible steps to remedy this situation, the High Level Groupwould like to emphasise that its remit is not to review and assess the situation in the different
Member States, which is already in progress through various inquiries, court cases and research
reports. While strongly welcoming all actions taken to address any concrete challenges to media
freedom and pluralism, the focus of this report will be to make broader, long term
recommendations which can ensure that these kinds of cases are challenged effectively in future,
if necessary at a European level.

7

For further details on and the findings of the Leveson Inquiry, see: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/
16

2 The role of the European UnionMedia freedom and pluralism have recently been prominent issues in the European debate, with aheightened focus on possible challenges. Given the important role media plays as part of afunctioning democracy ‐ by creating transparency, by having the ability to challenge those inpower and by helping to develop informed citizens – these concerns go to the heart of ‘theuniversal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom,democracy, equality and the rule of law’ 8 on which the European Union is based.
Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that freedom andpluralism of the media should be respected as essential elements of the common vision of ademocratic Europe. This means that the EU has a responsibility to observe its adequate
implementation and to actively defend basic democratic values, including media freedom andpluralism:“media freedom and media pluralism are part of the rights, freedoms and principles enshrined in
the Charter and in the ECHR and firmly rooted in the national constitutional traditions of theMember States, and, as such, form a normative corpus that already had and will potentially have arole in the interpretation and application of European law.” 9
Legally, the Charter is addressed to the EU institutions, with due regard for the principle ofsubsidiarity, and to Member States only when they are implementing EU law. 10 While this implies
that matters relating to media are predominantly dealt with at the Member State level, there are anumber of areas where either the existence of cross‐border activities or the protection ofEuropean democracy is bound to interact with the operation of national frameworks. This has
been emphasised during intense debates in the European Parliament, despite the respected
predominance of Member State competences in this field. Apart from specific concerns regarding
the situation in certain countries, the HLG notes an increasing recognition of the European Union’srole in upholding the fundamental rights of Europe’s citizens. Clear appeals have been made for
the European Union to intervene in media issues even at State level, by making use of its
competences in areas such as competition policy or free movement provisions to compensate forits more limited jurisdiction in the area of fundamental rights.
In even broader terms, it must be recognised that the internal market and the space for freedom,security and justice within the EU creates a common social and political space that requires media
freedom and pluralism to be guaranteed equally throughout it. These are also necessary elements
for an effective democratic legitimacy of the powers exercised at the European level itself. Therecan be no genuine democracy at the EU level if media freedom and pluralism are not guaranteed
throughout the European political space.
8

Consolidated Treaties of the European Union, Preamble
Elda Brogi & Paula Gori, 2012, ‘Legal analysis/perspective on the EU instruments to foster media pluralism and media freedom
in European Union competencies in respect of media pluralism and media freedom’10
Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 51, para. 1
917

In case of severe challenges to freedom and pluralism in a Member State, the European
institutions can go beyond acting as a general moral compass. For one thing, they can alert therespective member state, if necessary by naming and shaming. As the efficacy of this approach
may be open to question, depending on the resonance such an assessment has for the public in
the particular Member State, additional tools, such as the threat to withhold certain funding,might be used to reinforce a negative assessment.
In cases where there is clear interference with the democratic function of media, the EU has an
obligation to intervene directly with the country in question. In extremis, the EU can make use of
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which allows the Council, acting by qualified
majority, to decide to suspend certain rights of a member state found in serious and persistentbreach of EU values enshrined in the Treaty.
It is, however, obvious that Article 7 can only be used in extraordinary circumstances. The
extremely high threshold for its application, its political nature and special procedure, all make itparticularly contentious as well as difficult to apply. Hopefully, Article 7 should mostly act as adeterrent for Member States not to engage in particular egregious violations of fundamental
rights. On the other hand, it does remain available as a "last recourse" instrument when aMember State's activities are no longer in compliance with the EU basic values stated in Art. 2
TEU.

2.1

Recent EU Actions with regard to media freedom and pluralism

Given the strictly circumscribed nature of EU competences, the HLG notes with satisfaction the
broad range of EU activities engaged in of late. First of all, EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes and thegovernments of some member states have been engaged in an intensive dialogue concerning legal
and regulatory actions to which serious objections have been raised. Such dialogue should always
be the first step in searching for a solution, and its efficiency has been shown by the willingness ofgovernments to take active steps to bring the national situation in line with EU values.
Before intervening in any way, however, a clear assessment of the existing situation is always
necessary. This may take a variety of concrete forms, so long as regular, systematic and non‐political assessments are provided for. Along these lines, the HLG notes the founding of the Centre
for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom in Florence in December 2011, entrusted with generating
policy studies and papers on issues related to media freedom and pluralism (for instance, a special
study of EU competencies in this regard). Independent of the type of institutional infrastructure,
the funding of research projects such as MEDIADEM (European media policies: valuing andreclaiming free and independent media in contemporary democratic systems) is to be greatly
encouraged, as these offer valuable, in‐depth scholarly analyses. 11
While recognising the difficulties inherent in such a mission, the HLG strongly encourages the EU
Commission to pursue activities in this direction. This is to be seen as a long‐term commitment,
which will require, among other things, the development of a monitoring tool for assessing risks
11

Along the same lines, one might mention specific studies such as MediaAct (Media accountability and transparency in Europe)and Media and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe (MDCEE), or the funding of a study on "Indicators for Media Pluralism in
the Member States ‐ Towards a Risk‐Based Approach"18

for media pluralism in the EU Member States and identifying threats to such pluralism. One such
Media Pluralism Monitoring (MPM) tool has already been developed and is available online, butmust be considered as a first effort which still needs considerable improvement. It has been
criticised for being too cumbersome to apply and indeed has not been up and running so far. A
pilot project of the European Parliament has been submitted and evaluated positively. Pending
final agreement, the MPM could be put in practice in 2013.
An EU Media Futures Forum has also been created, to reflect on the impact of technologicaldevelopments on European media industries, resulting risks and opportunities for these industries
as well as for consumers/citizens, and the emerging new business models. The goal of thisreflection is to assess which overall policy framework is most conducive to respond to thesedevelopments so as to foster a pluralistic media sector and quality journalism in the future.
The “No disconnect strategy” may also be briefly mentioned, created as it was to uphold the EU'scommitment to ensuring that internet and other information and communication technology (ICT)
can remain a driver of political freedom, democratic development and economic growth.
In addition, the Commission also provides direct support to a number of media organisations. Suchsupport includes partial funding of a European TV network and of EURANET (radio network), a
grant to Euronews, support to a network of press publishers (Presseurop.eu) and seminars andtraining events for journalists (through the European Journalism Centre) 12 , as well as funding foraudiovisual programmes (cinema and broadcasting). 13

2.2

EU competences in protecting media freedom and pluralism

It should be noted that Article 7 is not the only legal basis empowering the Union to act for theprotection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the media at a national level. The relationshipbetween both media pluralism and media freedom and existing competences and areas of actionof the Union allow, if not require, EU actions in the protection of fundamental rights in this area ofthe law. This is a natural consequence of the developments highlighted above, in particular thestrong link between media freedom and pluralism and both free movement and democracy at the
EU level itself.
EU competences with respect to media freedom and pluralism have been already partly
recognised and exercised in the area of the internal market, in particular free movement
provisions. Certain national policies that restrict media pluralism and/or violate media freedom
are naturally bound to also hinder the exercise of free movement to that Member State by media
companies or journalists. If, in a particular Member State, the licensing of a media company is not
subject to objective and non‐discriminatory criteria, or if such a company may be subject toarbitrary sanctions for whatever reason (including, by definition, related to the content of its
media activities), such State actions must be considered as restricting the right of establishment.
In the same way, if journalists are regularly intimidated, threatened, subject to censorship or toundue criminal prosecution in a Member State, that may be interpreted as likely to hinder the freemovement of other journalists to that Member State. Such restrictions, in turn, may then belegally objected to. This reasoning can be extended to the rights arising from European citizenship,
12
13

For more details see European Commission, 2008, ‘Communicating Europe through audiovisual media’
For details on the MEDIA Programme, please see http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/about/index_en.htm
19

in particular the right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States. 14 It isarguable that a case of systematic restriction of media freedom and pluralism in a Member State
must be considered as having “the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine
enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of theUnion”. 15 The legal argumentation for this is contested, but it is worth noting that it is there. It
must also be recognised that restrictions on media freedom and media pluralism are restrictions
on the economic activity itself that is the object of protection by the economic free movement
provisions.
The second ground for EU action is the intimate relationship between a free, open and pluralist
media space at the national level and the exercise of democracy at the European level. The
democratic legitimacy of the European Union is achieved in different ways, but a core component
is representative democracy at the EU level, as required by Article 10 TEU. This is realised, in thefirst place, by the right granted, by the same provision, to all European citizens to participate in
the elections to the European Parliament. This fundamental right would be compromised in any
Member State where media freedoms are curtailed or media pluralism compromised, for thiswould deprive citizens of their right to form informed opinions. While the treaties clearly foresee
for elections to the European Parliament to take place at the national level, it is equally clear thatthey must conform to common EU values and democratic principles. Any flaws in the electoral
process at the national level, including restrictions on media pluralism and freedom, are bound tocompromise the EU democratic process itself. The same could be said of the right given to all
European citizens to vote in local elections. The substance of this right will be affected where suchelections might be influenced by restrictions imposed on media freedom or the lack of media
pluralism.
The protection of the right to vote in European elections, however, is not the only dimension of EU
democracy required by the Treaties. It also requires an open, free, informed and plural politicaldebate that supports such elections, as well as the permanent accountability of the European
Parliament and other EU institutions to the citizens. A free, open and pluralist political space must
be ensured not only in the context of elections, but as part of the permanent process ofaccountability inherent in democratic representation. This process, in turn, must be supported bya free and pluralistic media in each member country. Seen in this light, the democratic
requirements of participation and representation stated in the Treaties give authority to the Union
to act at a national level, whenever the challenges to media freedom and pluralism are serious
enough to put into question the very democratic legitimacy of the Union.
This, as is well recognised, does not mean that the Union has a general jurisdiction over statemeasures susceptible of impacting on media freedom and pluralism. Its competence andjurisdiction must remain within the framework of the arguments advanced above. The thresholdfor potential intervention is high, yet such power to act at the EU level must exist, in order toprotect those EU rights to which media freedom and pluralism are instrumental. Several proposals
put forward in this report for different types of EU action follow from this understanding.
Given the serious questions that have been raised about interference by political authorities in thework of journalists in a number of countries, be it by restricting access to public advertising
14

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 20, para. 2 a)
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 March 2011, C‐34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national del’emploi (ONEm), not yet published, para. 42.

15

20

funding, preferential treatment for government‐friendly journalists or through the excessive useof libel provisions, there is also a need to monitor the situation at the European level. This
becomes particularly relevant when there is significant conflict at the national level, involving theinstitutions which are supposed to safeguard journalistic rights (such as a disputed selection
mechanism for members of a Press Council). There is also a need to assess and share goodpractices across the EU, but there is currently no mechanism to do this.
With due regard to the arguments advanced above, the HLG presents the following
recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The EU should be considered competent to act to protect media freedom
and pluralism at State level in order to guarantee the substance of the rights granted by theTreaties to EU citizens, in particular the rights of free movement and to representative
democracy. The link between media freedom and pluralism and EU democracy, in particular,
justifies a more extensive competence of the EU with respect to these fundamental rights than toothers enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Recommendation 2: To reinforce European values of freedom and pluralism, the EU should
designate, in the work programme and funding of the European fundamental rights agency, amonitoring role of national‐level freedom and pluralism of the media. The agency would thenissue regular reports about any risks to the freedom and pluralism of the media in any part of the
EU. The European Parliament could then discuss the contents of these reports and adopt
resolutions or make suggestions for measures to be taken.
Recommendation 3: As an alternative to the mechanism suggested in the previous
recommendation, the EU could establish an independent monitoring centre, ideally as part ofacademia, which would be partially funded by the EU but would be fully independent in its
activities.
Recommendation 4: All EU countries should have independent media councils with a politicallyand culturally balanced and socially diverse membership. Nominations to them should betransparent, with built‐in checks and balances. Such bodies would have competences toinvestigate complaints, much like a media ombudsman, but would also check that media
organisations have published a code of conduct and have revealed ownership details,
declarations of conflicts of interest, etc. Media councils should have real enforcement powers,
such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal ofjournalistic 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

2.3

Cross‐border issues within the Single Market

Culture and media are traditionally areas which are not treated at the European level, but in thecase of culture, the Treaties specifically stipulate that the role of the Union is to support andsupplement Member State action. However, ever since the creation of the Single Market, the EU
has been legislating on all aspects of cross‐border trade in services and goods, including media
products.

21

In a context where media can circulate, broadcast and be online across borders, the capacity ofstates to effectively regulate them is seriously affected. Mutual interpenetration means that how
any one state regulates media is likely to impact on the situation in other states. If one EU country,
for instance, has extremely lax rules for registering media stemming from third countries, thissituation may force other EU countries to accept such media, even if they do not even operate in
the country where they are registered. Or again, content that is legally published online in one
Member state can become the object of a libel suit in another State. A Single Market without
common and uniformly‐enforced rules can open the door to phenomena such as “libel tourism”,
i.e. choosing the most favourable jurisdiction within the EU for a particular lawsuit.
The 'Audiovisual Media Services Directive' (AVMSD) was adopted with the purpose of enabling theinternal market in audiovisual media services. It introduces a set of harmonised rules applying
throughout the EU, notably concerning advertising and promotion of European works, andcontains a provision to address possible circumvention cases for cross‐border channels. The
AVMSD extends to all audiovisual media services the country of origin principle. This means thateach service must comply with the rules of the country in which its provider is located. The
enforcement of the rules is the responsibility of that Member State.
Yet despite the AVMSD, many differences persist between national media environments, in effectfragmenting the Single Market. Issues such as libel law, perceived lower supervision of fulfilmentof requirements and the differences in legislation relating to taxation, financial subsidies (such as
discounts on postal distribution fees) or data protection, for instance, can all influence location
choices of media outlets, among other things. Problems which require a common answer may
thus be generated, but their solution would require a degree of harmonisation that needs to take
into account each country’s right to formulate its own rules.
Another area where there is a need for some degree of harmonisation is in defining thecomposition and role of regulators. At the moment, Art. 30 of the AVMSD only requires thecooperation of the 'competent independent regulatory bodies'. It should be noted that regulators
exist only for audiovisual media, but not for the press sector, which is subject to self‐regulation. If
a regulator were to cover all media, it should be specified that its role has to be different
according to each kind of media.
Recommendation 5: For improving the functioning of the Single Market, further harmonisation of
EU legislation would be of great benefit. Currently, the existence of divergences between
national rules can lead to distortions in the framework of cross‐border media activities, especiallyin the online world. It would be particularly important to adopt minimum harmonisation rules
covering cross‐border media activities on areas such as libel laws or data protection.

Recommendation 6: A network of national audio‐visual regulatory authorities should be created,on the model of the one created by the electronic communication framework. It would help insharing common good practices and set quality standards. All regulators should be independent,with appointments being made in a transparent manner, with all appropriate checks andbalances.

22

2.4

Competition and concentration

Competition policy ‐ and its implementation ‐ is also a field where the EU has clear competence.
“Empirical observations show that there is a natural tendency to concentration in media
markets,” 16 through concentration of media resources in the hands of few owners, as well as theintensification of cross‐ownership, by holding shares and participations in different companies.
This raises questions as to how to maintain a pluralistic environment in markets in general, and insmaller markets specifically. 17
The level of assessment of market concentration also matters. While many media organisations
operate in the Single Market, where each individual organisation is likely to have a small market
share overall, most media markets are still essentially national, strongly delineated by nationalboundaries, although foreign ownership is high in some countries. Foreign ownership can becomea significant issue in small countries, especially if there is an agenda to use media power tomanipulate public opinion. The concentration in the national media market is thus the level whichshould usually be the key metric for market concentration assessments.
Concentration of ownership needs to be considered not only with respect to specific media
sources (such as press), but across different media and in relation to distribution channels,
whether for traditional media (for example, newspaper kiosks) or for new media (for example,
broadband connectivity).
Digital intermediaries, such as search engines, news aggregators, social networks and app storesshould be included in the monitoring of the sector. The increasingly important role they play ineither improving or restricting media pluralism should be considered, especially as they start
producing content. However, care must be taken to distinguish between media that publish
original work directly, and services that allow users to republish or link to other peoples’ work.
While competition can contribute to pluralism, it does not necessarily do so, for it may well lead toa more uniform, homogenised offering in terms of content. In setting competition policy,
authorities need to look at market concentration not only as an issue related to competition, butalso related to pluralism. In doing so, media consumption also has to be taken into account whenmeasuring Media Pluralism. 18
Recommendation 7: National competition authorities need to make (or commission) pro‐active
regular assessments of individual countries’ media environments and markets, highlighting
potential threats to pluralism. At the EU level, there should be pro‐active market assessment
under competition policy in the form of a sectoral inquiry.

16

Giovanni Gangemi, 2012, ‘Exploring the current state of media pluralism and media freedom in the European Union – Economic
Aspects’
17This is not necessarily dependent on country size, for example shared language might to some extent enable cross‐borderpluralism.
18
See OFCOM, 2012, ‘Measuring Media Plurality’ and Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom, 2012, ‘EU competences in respectof Media Pluralism and Media Freedom’23

Recommendation 8: European and national competition authorities should take into account the
specific value of media pluralism in the enforcement of competition rules. They should also take
into account the increasing merging of different channels of communication and media access inthe definition of the relevant markets. In addition, the High Level Group calls upon the European
and national competition authorities to monitor with particular attention, under competition
policy, new developments in the online access to information. The dominant position held bysome network access providers or internet information providers should not be allowed torestrict media freedom and pluralism. An open and non‐discriminatory access to information by
all citizens must be protected in the online sphere, if necessary by making use of competition law
and/or enforcing a principle of network and net neutrality.

2.5

Promoting European values beyond EU borders

Given the importance of fundamental values such as media freedom and pluralism for the EU,these also need to be enforced for new entrants to the Union. The issue of media freedom andpluralism is thus crucially relevant to accession negotiations. Here, the European Union has a lever
to enforce minimum standards. As accession criteria stipulate that a country must be ready toadopt the full acquis, this also entails monitoring and ensuring media freedom and pluralism.
The Commission is now giving a higher profile to media freedom and civil society development in
the current accession negotiations and provides political support to dialogue between
governments and media. The Commission is also setting concrete requirements based on bestpractices, which was not the case for the accession of the twelve previous countries. 19
There is also provision of guidance, sometimes in cooperation with the Council of Europe, tocandidate and potential candidate countries (e.g. Albania), including guidance on draft Media
Laws. This goes beyond the scope of the AVMS Directive (for instance guidance on Public Sector
Broadcasters' regulation), but remains limited to audiovisual media. The Commission has alsoorganised seminars in the Western Balkans on specific issues related to media freedom andpluralism (for instance, on independence of Public Sector Broadcasters in 2009).
As one of the key champions of democracy in the world, the EU must push for the protection ofjournalistic freedom and media pluralism in its international activities. While European countries
have certainly not always been paragons of virtue in this respect, the EU has a responsibility topromote agreed European human rights standards and enforce regulations which are now being
developed in the international sphere. These standards are not only part of the EU internal
identity but also part of how the Union represents itself to the outside world. As such they should
inform its external relations and be promoted in its external policies, making support for countries
conditional if necessary. Pressure should continue to be put on some countries (for example
though the Generalised System of Preferences ‐ GSP+ ‐ instrument) to improve the freedom andsecurity of journalists.
The HLG also welcomes the support given to a large number of projects with civil society
organisations aimed at increasing the professional capacities of journalists, providing urgent
19

Presentation of Mr Andris Kesteris in the 3rd HLG meeting24

protection needs and promoting freedom of expression in law and in practice through theEuropean Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).
Recommendation 9: Media freedom and pluralism should play a prominent role in theassessment of accession countries. A free and pluralist media environment must be a pre‐condition for EU membership.
Recommendation 10: The EU should raise the issue of journalistic freedom in all international
fora where human rights and democracy are discussed, including as part of trade/partnershipagreements and in the context of provision of aid.

25

3. The changing media landscape
The European – and global ‐ media environment is changing and will continue to do so for theforeseeable future. Change can be beneficial, as in opening up new ways of accessing andinteracting with different forms of media. At the same time, there remains a need to safeguard
media freedom and pluralism and ensure that high quality journalism continues to fulfil its
essential democratic function.
The changes to the media landscape are a mix of intertwined factors. New technologies are one of
the key drivers of this change, already having a profound impact on the media. They are driving
the creation of new forms of media (for example dissemination and filtering mechanisms such as
internet search engines), changing media consumption patterns and how people relate to media(for example putting a greater emphasis on instant mobile access) and inter‐mixing different
channels of communication (TV, radio, internet, press). These technologies, the media
marketplace and the changing of the journalistic profession will continue to reshape the media
landscape, albeit not in any predictable way. While the recommendations made in this Reportcannot claim to foresee the future, they are intended to be adaptable to this changing landscapeand help media face these challenges.
Recommendation 11: Any new regulatory frameworks must be brought into line with the new
reality of a fluid media environment, covering all types of journalistic activities, regardless of thetransmission medium.

3.1

The impact of new technologies

The expansion of the digital world has led to the emergence of new media, opening up a wide
range of sources and opinions to citizens everywhere. At the same time, new technologies aretransforming traditional media business models, with many media organisations struggling tosurvive financially. This has led to increasing pressure for rationalisation and consolidation within
the older members of the industry, potentially impacting on pluralism. What matters most of all isthe quality of sources: a large number of homogeneous and low quality sources of unverified
opinion does not increase pluralism. It should be noted that we do not imply that the new media
are necessarily more homogeneous, nor of a lower quality, than the old. We merely note that thismay become the unwanted outcome of a financial crisis within media in general, as they transition
between differently structured business models.
Responsible journalism, subject to the rules of freedom of media, today is and increasingly will be
displayed by internet – the medium of the future. Every user of the internet may by now publish
news and opinions, being neither privileged nor bound by journalistic rules and professional
ethics, but acting simply on his or her right of freedom of expression and the rules and limitations
resulting out of that fundamental right. This right, however, is a very robust one, being equally
guaranteed by national constitutions of member states, the European Convention of Human
Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
26

The internet also means that there are far lower barriers of entry for new media organisations or
indeed individuals (though it cannot be excluded that new barriers may emerge in the online
market). This can lead to different concentration trends in different media, with traditional media
consolidating and new media expanding. But the sheer increase in new media does not guarantee
pluralism: “despite the technological change, the question about whether the increase in thenumber of sources and the overcoming of scarcity is really enlarging the market and countering
concentration is far from being resolved.” 20 A tendency seems to be emerging whereby two
opposing trends can be noted: higher concentration on mass media of broad appeal and amultiplication of small media targeted at niche markets.
There are also a number of new issues which need to be taken into account in the debate aroundmedia pluralism and new technologies, including availability/access, net and internet neutrality,
the changing nature of delivery of media content (e.g. connected TV), frequency allocation andinternet censorship.
In addition, the new media environment increases the importance of ‘gate‐keepers’, digitalintermediaries who are the access route to the internet (for example search engines and social
networks); whose personalisation of content risks creating a “filter bubble” for the reader ‐ orinternet service providers, who have the ability to arbitrarily censor citizens’ connections to theinternet. For these actors, only the EU has the effective capacity to regulate them, given its role incompetition policy and the transnational character of these actors.
New formats also change how people relate to information. Increasing filtering mechanisms makeit more likely for people to only get news on subjects they are interested in, and with theperspective they identify with. There are benefits in empowering individuals to choose what
information they want to obtain, and by whom. But there are also risks. This new reality will
decrease the role of media as editors and interpreters of information. It will also tend to create
more insulated communities as isolated subsets within the overall public sphere. Cass Sunstein,for example, raises concerns that the internet will enable people to be less engaged in society,given the increasing capabilities for personalised filtering and the decreasing presence of “general‐interested intermediaries” (such as newspapers). 21
Such developments undoubtedly have a potentially negative impact on democracy. Thus we may
come to read and hear what we want, and nothing but what we want. It is clearly not possible toforce people to consume media they do not wish to: that would be equivalent to propaganda,
brainwashing or neural programming. The concern is people forgetting that alternatives do exist
and hence becoming encapsulated in rigid positions that may hinder consensus‐building in society.
Recommendation 12: In order to give complete transparency as to how individualised a service
is, services that provide heavily personalised search results or newsfeeds should provide thepossibility for the user to turn off such personalisation, temporarily for an individual query, or
permanently, until further notice.

20

Giovanni Gangemi,2012, ‘Exploring the current state of media pluralism and media freedom in the European Union – Economic
Aspects’21
Cass Sunstein, 2009, “Republic.com 2.0″
27

Recommendation 13: Channels or mechanisms through which media are delivered to the end
user should be entirely neutral in their handling of this content. In the case of digital networks,
Net Neutrality and the end‐to‐end principle should be enshrined within EU law.

3.2

Changing business models

The whole media industry, and specifically the profit‐oriented media, is in a process of change,
with new business models being developed across the whole sector. The financial viability of
traditional media business models is clearly under pressure, as seen by current developments inthe printed press and the changing role of advertising spending. Advertising revenue isincreasingly targeted on the internet, mainly for the benefit of digital intermediaries, meaning
media are virtually required to provide some form of online offer.
Financing news media through sales alone has become increasingly challenging: “Hard news isperhaps the hardest to make profitable. It is increasingly instant, constant and commoditised …
With rare exceptions, making money in news means publishing either the cheap kind that attracts
a very large audience, and making money from ads, or the expensive kind that is critical to a small
audience, and making money from subscription. Both are cut‐throat businesses.” 22The changing funding model constitutes a significant challenge for quality journalism (news,
investigative). In many, but not all, EU countries this type of journalism is increasingly suppressedor replaced by less expensive free‐lancing, with journalists working under deteriorating or evendegrading working conditions and having insufficient resources to pursue stories in depth. Moreand more news is provided by agencies.
Investigative journalism and news media need to be supported by a wider range of funding
sources. Globally, there are some examples of philanthropy financing critical journalism. The
possibility to exploit new technologies to access funding, such as, for example, to obtain
crowdfunding, should not be underestimated. The public sector might contribute to thisdiversification of funding through prizes and awards. At the same time, in countries where publicfunding constitutes an important part of advertising revenues, there is a need to ensure that thisfunding is distributed in a transparent and equitable manner, reflecting not only numbers ofreaders but actively supporting responsible journalism and pluralism. Furthermore, allocation of
public funding should be conditional on media outlets making public the ethical codes on which
they base their conduct.
As indicated above, new media can also contribute to additional tension between media seen as abusiness and media seen as a 'public service', with certain public service obligations potentially
imposed on commercial operators, e.g. certain types of content in commercial TV. This raises aquestion of balance: what restrictions and conditions can be imposed on commercial operators
without reducing their ability and willingness to provide the service.

22

The Economist, June 9th 2012; Non‐news is good news28

Recommendation 14: There should be streamlining and coordination of support and funding for
quality journalism, as already exists in several EU countries. Europe‐wide awards should bemade available for talented journalists and those having made significant breakthroughs. An
additional study should be commissioned on possible new forms of funding for quality andinvestigative journalism, including making use of new technologies such as crowdfunding.
Recommendation 15: Any public funding should only be available for media organisations which
publish a code of conduct easily accessible to the public (including on their site).
Recommendation 16: Any public funding to media organisations should be given on the basis ofnon‐discriminatory, objective and transparent criteria which are made known in advance to all
media.

3.3

Changing nature of journalism

It would be too easy to conclude that new technology is the only driver of change in the media
industry. Trends which can potentially challenge the quality of journalism are clearly of great
importance. The media needs to deliver high quality journalism which is credible, trustworthy andentertaining. At the same time, the journalistic profession should also reflect the diversity in thegeneral population and media outlets must be encouraged to reflect the diversity of the
population in their newsroom and on‐screen (see for instance the Media4Diversity initiative).
As part of fulfilling its role in democratic societies, high quality journalism in the future will have towork even harder to help people sift through masses of information and understand increasingly
complex developments. Thus the quality of journalism and its capacity to contextualise the news
will acquire ever greater importance. This will require more high quality professional training ofjournalists and an improvement in their working conditions, especially in those countries where
the status and social/working conditions of journalists have altered significantly in recent years,
making it harder to make a living from journalism alone.
The new media environment landscape also reinforces the trend towards freelancing, in partdriven by new technologies, in part by funding problems, with media companies relying less onhighly trained staff and more on content provision that can come from a wide range of people, notnecessarily just journalists. High quality journalism is bound to suffer by this. Upholding highjournalistic standards within the framework of the new media opportunities will require treating
the contributions of non‐journalistic persons ‐ witnesses, interested citizens and others ‐ aspotentially welcome additions, but not as substitutes for high quality journalism.
These challenges make it even more important for journalists and their associations themselves touphold and strive to achieve the highest ethical and journalistic standards. The new challenges
faced by certain media and journalists can never justify lower journalistic standards on issues suchas evaluation of sources or fact checking. The new forms of journalism should be accepted andwelcome as reflective of our current society, but should not be allowed to evade the core values ofjournalism.

29

The rise of new media is also changing the nature of journalism. A particular impact is that borders
between different types of media are becoming more fluid. A single journalistic outlet might use
the same material to write an article for the print press, reflect in a blog, tweet and prepare a clip
for TV. These new environment and forms of transmitting content are also putting time pressure
for delivering the news, often leading to more relaxed journalistic standards.
News has become more of a commodity, with pan‐European/global press agencies providing more
and more news content. While this might be more commercially efficient, it can also reduce theamount of critical content, with newswire articles generally being simply reproduced without
contextualisation, verification of sources or any attempt to provide an editorial view.
Recommendation 17: In order to build up cadres of professional journalists competent tooperate in a rapidly changing media landscape, or to offer them the possibility to do investigative
journalism, journalistic fellowships should be offered to both entry‐level and mid‐career
candidates who could take leave from their media organisations. Universities and research
centres should set up positions for journalists in residence under such fellowships to be fundedby the EU. The selection of the journalists would be done by the academic and scientificinstitutions themselves. The fellowships would be particularly valuable for investigative
journalism, or for training journalists to mediate between complex subjects such as science,technology, finance or medicine and the wider public.
Recommendation 18: Journalist and media organisations should adapt their codes of conduct
and journalistic standards to the challenges posed by a rapidly changing media environment. In
particular, they should clearly address questions of source verification and fact checking, as wellas transparently regulating their relationship with external sources of news.

3.4

Changes in how people relate to media

In this report, the role the media play in a functioning democracy has been repeatedly highlighted.
The media quite literally form the major locus of interaction between citizens and the political andeconomic driving forces active in any society. When all is said and done, it is the citizens (asreaders, listeners or watchers) who remain the ultimate target and end‐user of media activity,
while their level of participation and engagement in society is, to a large measure, shaped by theability of the media to awaken and maintain their interest in a variety of issues. If reports
produced by the media are superficial, unprofessional, visibly biased or just plain boring, citizens
will “turn off” and disengage from topics that may have important consequences for them.
As evidenced by every‐day observation as well as scholarly studies, new media formats arechanging how people relate to information at an ever accelerating rate. One of the aspects of thatchange is the deluge of information available at the touch of a finger‐tip, which many individuals
find stimulating, others addictive and still others overwhelming, if not depressing. Traditionally,
the editorial page of newspapers used to set the tone in drawing attention to topics deemed
important. By now, the electronic media are offering both general and individualised filtering
mechanisms that either completely screen out unwanted elements or – just as important –present news items in a hierarchically ordered way. This makes it possible for people to get only
the news or information that they are interested in, presented with the perspective that they
identify with. The principle as such is nothing new, as most people have always had certain pages30

of the newspaper that they turn to first, as well as pages that they simply turn over and never lookat. In the electronic media, it is clear that filtering mechanisms can save the users a great deal ofwasted time and aggravation and become a form of empowerment in their relation to flows of
information. What may pose certain risks is the hidden nature of such filtering, that is, its forced
imposition without the user being aware of it.
While on‐going developments may liberate some people from the tyranny of having their news
filtered through the convictions and prejudices of someone else, they may also decrease thepresence of “general‐interested intermediaries” such as newspapers and the public role ofjournalists as editors of the public sphere. This will, in a certain sense, increase information costs
for citizens and may render more difficult the treatment of complex facts. Instead of broadening
the mind, it may serve to reinforce existing prejudices.
Some fear that filtering mechanisms on the internet, given their increasing capabilities for
personalisation, might tend to create more insulated and less engaged communities within thegeneral public. In our view, the only way this might differ from what has always existed, would be
if the internet truly kept people away from minimal face‐to‐face social interaction. The other sideof the coin is that the internet has opened up vast opportunities for sharing views in bilateral (orextended) exchanges or chat rooms, which have become a substitute for the old‐fashioned gossip
that used to take place over the fence or in the market‐place. The only drawback – and it is aserious one – is that the exchange of gossip, innuendo or idle chatter is not quite the same asserious journalism.
Information isolation and fragmentation, together with an inability to check and evaluate sources,
can have a damaging impact on democracy. At present, research is still unclear on the extent towhich these new formats will promote greater decentralisation or, actually, more centralisation on
how news are gathered and edited. What is abundantly clear, however, is that a well‐educatedpublic will be more resilient to withstand whatever negative influences they may encounter.
Media literacy and the ability to perform a choice and critical evaluation of information sources istherefore something that the citizen of tomorrow will need as much as basic and digital literacy.
Recommendation 19: Media literacy should be taught in schools starting at high‐school level. The
role media plays in a functioning democracy should be critically assessed as part of national
curricula, integrated either with civics or social studies.
Recommendation 20: To evaluate the manner in which media consumption patterns arechanging, as well as their social impact, comprehensive longitudinal studies are needed at the EU
level. More broadly, the EU should provide sustainable funding for academic research and studies
on the changing media environment, in order to provide a solid academic basis for policy
initiatives in this field.

31

4. Protection of journalistic freedom
Journalistic freedom, as its main instrument of expression, lies at the very heart of a free andpluralistic media environment. Journalists must be able to work in an environment which allows
for free expression and provides the journalist with the assurance that they can work free frompressure, interdictions, harassment, threats or even actual harm. The right of journalists to protect
their sources and to conduct probing investigative journalism into all areas of power – be it
political or economic – is an essential component of such journalistic freedom. This implies
protection of journalists and their findings against unconstitutional infringement. Their rights alsocome with responsibilities: journalists must conduct themselves with due regard to the laws of theland, taking responsibility for their conduct and output.

4.1

Rights of journalists

One of the fundamental rights of journalists is to be able to protect their sources. This should not
only include the people who have been the source for a particular story. The working spaces ofjournalists and the self‐researched material should also be protected from search and seizure. The
only permissible exceptions to these rights must be sanctioned by judges, acting in line with theEuropean and State’s fundamental rights and constitutional provisions.
To fulfil their democratic role, journalists need equal and open access to public events anddocuments where there is a clear public interest, for example in relation to data, information anddocuments released by governments. Access to this information should be non‐discriminatory andthere should be transparency on what criteria are used for deciding on access to 'public' or'official' events such as press conferences, with electronic means used to broaden these events
out to a wider audience.
Recommendation 21: All EU countries should have enshrined in their legislation the principle ofprotection of journalistic sources, restrictions to this principle only being acceptable on the basisof a court order, compatible with the constitution of that country.
Recommendation 22: Access to public sources and events should depend on objective, non‐discriminatory and transparent criteria. This ought to be notably the case with regard to press
conferences, with electronic means used to broaden out these events to a wider audience wherepractically possible.

4.2

Responsibilities of journalists

Journalists have to comply with the law of the land in accordance with the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of media. This requires clear legal regulation about the rights of citizens
being wrongfully mentioned or even damaged or intentionally defamed, ranging from the right tocounter‐state wrong news or articles to the right of revocation and adequate compensation. Casesof intentional and damaging defamation, constituting a crime according to the penal code of theland in compliance with the constitution, require clear regulation not allowing any grey zones.
32

The rise of the internet also raises a range of additional regulatory issues. One key challenge is thatit creates legal uncertainty – there is a global internet but only national rules for now andpresumably for the predictable time to come. As this can lead to individual journalists feeling
restricted by the most restrictive legal system, EU–wide harmonisation of the cross‐border issues
raised in this area is required.
This harmonisation not only refers to rights and obligations of journalists (regardless of the media
outlet used by them), but also to rights and obligations of non‐journalist users of the internet. As
mentioned, these users are covered by the human right of freedom of expression; unrestricted
access to the internet offers a new dimension of freedom of expression for normal citizens, which
has to be acknowledged, protected and guaranteed. But it also creates new challenges in theseparation of private and public speech and by maximising the possible harm done to others byfalse and even malicious statements diffused through the internet.
This is why a fair legal regulation is necessary, balancing the new dimension of freedom of
expression and the justified rights and interests of other citizens. Access to personal data ofinternet users, which may be necessary to protect the fundamental rights of other individuals,
should be only by court order, and for specific purposes, such as citizens` civil action following
severe damages, or criminal prosecution in compliance with the penal code.
A crucial part of the responsibility of journalists and media organisations is to provide a right ofreply in situations where unverified and incorrect information has been published or broadcast.
Where such information has been defamatory in addition to being misleading, there needs to bean apology and a public reversal of accusations, presented in precisely the same format, size andpositioning as the original misinformation or defamation. Media should abandon the deplorable
practice of a page one “splash” headline providing the libel and a page eighteen “news in brief”
story providing the apology. In addition to reacting to court decisions, responsible media should
also adopt, as part of their code of best practice, the voluntary retraction of incorrect, unverified,misleading and potentially damaging information simply at the request of individuals providing
credible information to the contrary.
Recommendation 23: Member States should ensure that appropriate instruments are put in place
for identifying those responsible for harming others, even in the online space. Any internet user‐
data collection necessary for this purpose should be kept confidential and made available only bya court order.
Recommendation 24: Compulsory damages following court cases should include an apology andretraction of accusations printed with equal positioning and size of the original defamation, orpresented in the same time slot in the case of radio or TV programmes. In addition to this and to alegally‐imposed right of reply, it should become accepted as responsible practice among news
media to also publish retractions and corrections of wrong and unverified information on thesimple request of citizens providing justifications to the contrary. Any such retractions andcorrections should be published with the same relevance as the original coverage when thecorrection of the potential harm done by such false information so justifies. Any public funding
should be conditional on the inclusion of such provisions in the code of conduct of the media
organisation.

33

4.3

Who is covered by journalistic rights and responsibilities?

Determining who should be considered as a journalist or what organisation can be considered tobe (news) media has become more difficult within a changing media landscape. Next to full‐timejournalistic professionals, one now finds significant levels of freelancing, and an internet which
offers unprecedented opportunities for individuals (whether part of the media or not) to express
their opinions. Yet the privileges afforded to journalism as a profession become very difficult to
defend, if the net is cast too wide and includes practically everybody who has an opinion toexpress or a fact to proclaim. The word “journalism” would lose all meaning, if it came to identify
everyone who can hold a pen or type on a keyboard. As it is, the numbers of people involved inwriting or expressing what could be considered a ‘journalistic’ opinion in the variety of media
which now exist (printed press, interactive radio, TV, blogs, social networks etc.) is definitely
increasing geometrically, even as most of them do not consider themselves to be journalists.
In order to effectively protect the rights of journalists, but also to regulate and define theircorresponding duties and responsibilities, it is essential to have some means of identifying them. If
not, any decisions concerning “journalists” can become simply vacuous. This identification is
becoming increasingly complicated, not just for courts and regulators, but also for the public atlarge. In the rapidly changing context of multiple media formats and types of journalists, defining
the nature of speech might be one possible way out of this dilemma. This approach is sometimes
adopted by the courts, by asking whether the text in question may be qualified as a form ofjournalism or not.
Possible other approaches include a process of accreditation or certification, which has been thepath followed by many professions as their status in society was developing. In the Middle Ages,
guilds and crafts established demanding and lengthy periods of apprenticeship before a person
could call themselves master of a trade or craft. Highly specialised professions, such as the law or
medicine, still require lengthy periods of formal education, followed by internships in a practicalwork setting, before a person is allowed to practice that profession. For good journalism, however,
the knowledge and skills required are not necessarily such as can be encompassed only byfollowing a given curriculum in a “School of journalism”. The ability to write or speak well, plus
specialised education in fields such as science or economics, may be more useful to someone
wishing to report on these topics to the general public.
Membership in a professional association is certainly a simple and convenient method of
identifying who should be considered a “card‐carrying” journalist. It can be made immune topotential manipulation by political systems by requiring that only senior members of theprofession sit on accreditation boards. This would (in principle) prevent political forces fromrestricting access to the profession for more critical voices, provided, of course, that members of
the profession themselves not become the instruments of political manipulation. This solution,
however, is difficult to apply outside the traditional news sphere. It will continue to be challenged
by the variety of new formats in which news are delivered and journalist intervene, such as
twitters, blogs or tweets, a situation further aggravated by the cross‐border nature of new media.
A narrow definition of a journalist as a person for whom journalism is a full‐time profession, is also
open to challenge. Freelancers will often mix different types of activities, including traditional
journalistic work, as well as doing related work such as chairing or contributing to events andconferences, or writing specific pieces to order for a commercial purpose. Many bloggers will only34

be occasionally remunerated for their work, even if they spend a significant part of their time onjournalistic activities such as writing and editing their own (and others’) contributions.
Remuneration by itself thus cannot be taken as the defining marker for journalism. Much social
good (including writing and editing) is done by people who work for free.
Self‐identification might be one way forward, but can be easily discredited by only a few cases ofdishonesty and malfeasance. It is also far from clear how such a system might be monitored andverified, and by whom. Clearly, here is one area where a broad and continuing debate, including
all stakeholders, will still be necessary for some time to come.
Within the shifting sands of the current media environment, the HLG regrets to refrain fromoffering any firm and consensual definition of either journalism or journalists. What it does
recommend is continued debate among all stakeholders on the question, so as to reach at least
temporary and pragmatic formulations that may serve as guidance to courts.

4.4

Enforced self‐regulation

There is an understandable preference in media organisations for some form of self‐regulation as
opposed to regulation from outside, because of the ever‐present danger of censorship interferingwith the democratic principle of the freedom of the press. The recently released Leveson report inGreat Britain, however, has offered overwhelming evidence as to the multiple ways in which this“self‐regulation” has not just been interpreted as “no regulation”, but has led to gross abuses ofjournalistic privileges, the breaking of elementary ethical standards, and even activities subject tothe criminal code. That this should have happened in a country with such long democratic
traditions, and one that had been often cited as exemplary with regard to freedom of the press, isclearly a blow to the prestige of media owners and to that of the journalistic profession.
Until now, the main concern about regulation had been directed to the institutional set‐up of
independent press councils, the ways in which their members are selected, the scope of suchbodies and questions about the enforcement of their decisions. The results of several recent
studies have made it clear that an inherent pro‐journalist bias can be as unwelcome as bias causedby political conviction or economic interests. Most importantly, there seems to be no ready‐madeinstitutional model at hand that could serve as the universal blue‐print for every country andsituation. It is abundantly clear that the same institutional set‐up can produce completely different
results, depending on the whole matrix of local legislation, but mostly on contextual differences
due to local culture, ingrained customs and interpretations of ethical norms.
The gross abuses revealed in the Leveson enquiry have led its author to propose much more
stringent institutional supervision, where the media would be much more closely monitored,
become far more accountable to the public and be subject to heavy fines in the case of infractions.
That judge Leveson’s recommendations should have been rejected out of hand by some politiciansin high office, is not very reassuring. If nothing else, this resistance by itself underscores the urgent
need for supervisory bodies that can and do act, instead of being supervisory in name only.
Nevertheless, there may well be EU countries that decide to remain within the framework of self‐
regulation, rather than instituting new structures or practices. In that case, there still remains aneed to build in more effective checks and balances, as well as mechanisms of enforcement for35

ensuring adherence to self‐regulatory codes of conduct. Mere lists of pious desiderata without any
provision for their enforcement are as good as useless in protecting the values that they claim to
uphold.
Because the trust that the general public places in the media is an asset to them, media
organisations themselves should justify this trust by being more proactive in matters of self‐
regulation. Each media outlet should follow clearly identifiable codes of conduct and editoriallines, and it should be mandatory for them to publish these on their website or to state explicitly
where the organisation follows common international codes of conduct and ethical guidelines.
While there must be flexibility in the choice of the code of conduct an organisation decides tofollow, a number of key domains can be identified in which the position of the organisation should
be set out, including:
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

A clear enunciation of the ethical principles it has decided to follow;
An explicit affirmation of the principle of editorial independence;
Transparency in divulging final ownership along with a listing of other media interests heldby the same owners;
Potential conflicts of interest between outlets belonging to the same owners should be
noted;The general working terms and conditions for their journalists should be available forpublic scrutiny, including the proportion of full‐time workers as against levels of free‐lancing;
Any commitment to pay a ‘fair wage’ should be publicised;
In case of a change in ownership, the rights of those journalists differing from the new
editorial line should be stated;
Policies on training and qualifications, if any, should be clearly enunciated;
Adopted approaches to, and/or available statistics on, workplace diversity, including
ethnicity (where appropriate) and gender should be available on demand.

The HLG is well aware that all this information is not of the type that could be simply included, forexample, on a newspaper’s masthead. The point is that it should be available in the public domain(on demand, if necessary), through whatever technical means are chosen to make this possible.
Recommendation 25: To ensure that all media organisations follow clearly identifiable codes ofconduct and editorial lines, and apply the principles of editorial independence, it should be
mandatory for them to make them publicly available, including by publication on their website.

36

5. Media Pluralism
Pluralism is critical to the media environment for the media to perform their challenge andrepresentation functions effectively. Pluralism needs to be considered in the widest possible
sense, both within individual media organisations and across the whole media landscape. As
indicated earlier, internal pluralism (within an organisation) prevails when a range of opinions isreflected in the news coverage of an organisation. In many countries, the publicly fundedaudiovisual media are required to reflect a wide range of opinions in their coverage, especially so
before elections. External pluralism (across the media landscape) prevails when a range ofdifferent opinions is reflected through a variety of different media outlets. It is essential, especiallyin light of the rise of new media, that pluralism be considered across all different types of media,
not simply focusing on one medium, such as newspapers. Pluralism is crucial for encouraging
quality journalism and thus standards are needed to ensure that pluralism is maintained in thechanging media environment, but the responsibility for ensuring it is not at all the same forinternal and external pluralism.
The Council of Europe has long been active in this domain and has already established a wide
range of criteria necessary to promote media pluralism, including the following:“Prerequisites for real rather than nominal media pluralism [that] include either in combination orin some cases isolation the following features:• A legislative framework establishing limits for media concentration;• An adequate monitoring system (circulation or revenues);• An adequate system for enforcement;• Pro‐active measures that positively support media pluralism e.g. encouraging the production ofdiverse content and granting financial support to increase pluralism;• Self‐regulatory instruments such as editorial guidelines and statutes setting out editorial
independence;• Transparency;• Independence of regulatory authorities.” 23
It is evident that a number of the prerequisites for media pluralism overlap with those for media
freedom, which this report has addressed in earlier sections. In addition, pluralism is rather moredifficult to define in any prescriptive sense, since implicit in it is the notion of quantification. There
are neither objective nor quantifiable criteria for determining just how many different view‐points
should be represented out there in the public space, in other words – just how much pluralism isenough. Neither, in our opinion, should there be any attempt to set arbitrary quantitative
thresholds for the desirable level of pluralism, which could not avoid being grossly subjective, as
well as impossible to apply uniformly across the whole of the EU. Instead, the focus should be on
eliminating all those influences that present obstacles to a pluralism reflecting the actual state of23

David Ward, January 2005, ‘Media Concentration and Pluralism: Regulation, Realities and the Council of Europe’s Standards in
the Television Sector’37

affairs in any given country or society, as well as fostering values deemed important to thatsociety, but not sufficiently represented in the existing media environment.
Assuming the absence of political or governmentally imposed limitations on pluralism (as an
obvious precondition), the biggest danger of reducing the variety of view‐points expressed comesfrom considerations of commercial profitability. If only privately‐owned media were to be present
in a country, then the whole media landscape would risk becoming more and more reduced tothose outlets and those contents that bring in the biggest profits. While this is perfectly in accord
with free market principles, in no way does it guarantee that the democratic values embraced by
the European Union will be defended on the basis of profitability alone.
Reliance on the profit motive alone could have particularly devastating effects on the cultural andlinguistic diversity of the European Union. Countries with smaller populations, and especiallylinguistic groups with smaller numbers of speakers, would risk disappearing entirely from thepublic space, if international media conglomerates as owners were to decide that catering to themwould reduce their profit margins too much. As it is, measures are already in place to ensure thatmedia within the EU must include a given proportion of European content in their programming.
Exactly the same argumentation leads to the need for measures at the national level designed toprotect national or regional languages and cultures, thus contributing to cultural diversity as oneof the core European values.
Among the tools for ensuring media pluralism, public service media take on a special place, towhich we now turn in the following section.

5.1

Public service broadcastingNot‐for‐profit media (such as public service broadcasters) play an important role in maintaining
media pluralism, although marked differences exist in their operation between the North andSouth of Europe, as well as between East and West. In countries where public service broadcastinghas been thoroughly institutionalised over several decades, it was established in order to support
civil society, serve as a tool for distance education, as an agent of enlightenment, and as a means
for strengthening national cohesion. 24
Traditionally, public service broadcasters have constituted a critical component of pluralism byproviding a range of opinions, including catering to minority interests. They may be particularly
important in smaller markets where it may not be possible for several private broadcasters to becommercially viable. However, public service broadcasters can also restrict pluralism if theirprivileged position restricts market access for private operators and reduces the number ofcommercially viable providers.
There is an on‐going debate in several European Union countries about the level of government
support that public service broadcasters should be allowed to receive, as well as about the funding
mechanisms (for instance direct grants versus obligatory subscription fees) to be used. One
country (Portugal) has even started proceedings to privatise public service broadcasting, by“contracting out” the services it is meant to provide. This is interpreted by some as an innovative
24

Invited remarks by Dr. Gregory Ferrell Lowe, Continuity Director, RIPE International Initiative for PSB Development(www.ripeat.org), delivered in Riga, Latvia.
38

way out of situations where government budgets have become severely restricted, but by others
as a contradiction in terms, for how can “public” remain public, if you decide to privatise it?
As regards Public Service Broadcasting, the 'Amsterdam Protocol' annexed to the EU Treaties
acknowledges the important and positive role of these broadcasters for democracy and pluralism
and sets at the same time some limits to the national funding systems. These have been further
developed in the Commission's Communication on state aid rules applying to Public Service
Broadcasters. At the same time, it is evident that public ownership of the media is notsynonymous with government propaganda (as it clearly is in many non‐democratic countries) andthe editorial and artistic independence of Public Service Broadcasters must rigorously berespected by the governments in power.
Recommendation 26: There should be a provision of state funding for media which are essential
for pluralism (including geographical, linguistic, cultural and political pluralism), but are notcommercially viable. The state should intervene whenever there is a market failure leading to theunder‐provision of pluralism, which may be considered as a key public good.
Recommendation 27: Any public ownership of the media should be subject to strict rules
prohibiting governmental interference, guaranteeing internal pluralism and placed under thesupervision of an independent body representing all stakeholders.

5.2

European coverage

In the context of the current economic and financial crisis and the steps the European Union has
taken to address it, the need for democratic legitimacy at the EU level has become an even greaterpriority. The democratic legitimacy of the European Union is closely dependent, however, on theemergence of a public sphere which is informed about European issues and able to engage indebates about them. This requires, in turn, adequate media coverage of European issues andpolitics.
The political challenges the Union has faced in tackling the crisis have also highlighted the extent
to which the European dimension of certain issues has been insufficiently internalised in thenational public spheres. This insufficient Europeanisation of national politics has affected bothnational debates on EU issues and decision‐making processes at the EU level. In the long run, itrisks undermining both national democracy and European democracy as a whole.
The very idea of promoting a European public sphere, the possible emergence of European media,
increased European awareness within the national public spheres, or increased national coverageof European affairs, is still controversial in many quarters. More importantly, there is a fear thatpolicies to increase European coverage by the media would be guided by some particularconception of the value of European integration, rather than just encouraging broader discussions.
This does not mean, however, that the Union and its Member States should abstain from any
policy or action aimed at promoting increased media coverage of EU affairs. On the contrary, inthe same way that EU and State actions (including funding) may be necessary to promotepluralism at the State level, it is equally appropriate for the Union and its Member States toundertake actions to promote pluralism in the form of increased coverage of EU affairs.

39European coverage means more than just the coverage of European Council meetings orCommission activities. It requires a deeper understanding by media of the European dimension ofmultiple national policies, even when these are being covered at a national level. It also requires
for genuinely European politics to be more closely followed and reported on, but this requires
both human and infrastructure resources, including high‐quality investigative journalism. In thecase of small countries, or those particularly hard‐hit by the prevailing financial and economiccrisis, such resources may simply not be available.
Among possible concrete measures that might offer a partial remedy to this situation, theEuropean Commission could explicitly and emphatically include journalism in the existing Jean
Monnet Programme. 25 Higher Journalism Schools, Universities with Journalism programmes andtheir Professors could then respond to the calls for proposals published every year by theCommission. This would be valuable in increasing their opportunities to address cross‐borderissues and broaden the pool of those with special competencies in EU affairs.
Recommendation 28: The provision of funding for cross‐border European media networks(including such items as translation costs, travel and coordination costs) should be an essential
component of European media policy. Support for journalists specialised in cross‐border topics
should be included in such funding.
Recommendation 29: Attention is called to national journalism schools and university professors
for the possibility of applying to the Jean Monnet programme to support curricula and teaching on
coverage of European issues. The Commission should be especially pro‐active in informing
journalism schools of this possibility and consider this area one of the priorities in the selection
procedure under such a programme.
Recommendation 30: EU political actors have a special responsibility and capacity in triggering
European news coverage. The Presidents of the EU institutions should regularly organiseinterviews with a panel composed of national media from across the EU. This format would havethe advantage of not only increasing national coverage of EU affairs but also making that coverage
more pluralist, since the interviews to be broadcast or printed in the different Member States
would include questions from journalists from other Member States.

25

More information on the Jean Monnet Programme:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong‐learning‐programme/doc88_en.htm
40

Annex A ‐ What we are building on
Hearings
On the importance of journalism, and journalists, the HLG met Mr. Aidan White, former General
Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, and now Director of the Ethical Journalism
Network, to discuss rethinking of what journalism should be in a converging environment. The
emphasis was put on ethics and values of journalism and the importance of trust in media.
To liaise with the European Parliament, the HLG met with Members of the EP preparing or
following the report on "EU Charter: standard settings for media freedom across the EU". The
Parliamentarians (Ms. Renate Weber, Ms. Kinga Göncz, Mr. Rui Tavares, Mr. Cornelis de Jong and
Mr. Marek Migalski) exposed their views on various issues that should be at the heart of theirreport: notably the necessity of monitoring media freedom and pluralism, the importance ofindependent Public Service Broadcasters, media concentration, self‐censorship, theimplementation of the European Charter of Human Rights, and quality media.
To link with the fundamental work of the Council of Europe in respect of fundamental rights andmedia freedom, the HLG had an exchange of views with Mr. Andris Mellakauls, Chair of the CoE
Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI). The HLG was informed of thenumerous Recommendations on Media Affairs issued by the CoE, amongst which the recent ones
on a new notion of media (2011) and on public service media governance (2012).
To learn more about how the EU deals with media freedom in candidate and potential candidate
countries, the Members had a meeting with Mr. Andris Kesteris principal adviser on civil society
and media affairs at the European Commission.
The HLG Members met representatives of various media associations: they held a meeting withthe participants of the European Newspapers Association (ENPA) general assembly who informed
them of their main activities and current concerns, notably in respect of the role of publishers andtheir editorial responsibility, media concentration and pluralism, as well as on some national
specific issues. Similarly, the Members heard representatives of the main broadcasting
associations. They spoke with members of the Association of European Public Broadcasters (EBU)
on the role and importance of Public Service Media for society, quality journalism, independenceof the governance and funding issues. Conversations with representatives of the Association ofCommercial Televisions (ACT) related to regulatory issues and independence of the media, as wellas to their relationships with internet players and the importance of commercial TVs in funding
content. Representatives of the Association of European Radios (AER) raised issues related toaccess to frequencies, advertising revenues and access to content.
While in Riga, the HLG had the opportunity to meet media practitioners active in a small market:
Mr. Dimants (Chair) and Ms. Dulevska (Vice‐Chair) of the National Electronic Media Council(NEPLP) emphasised the challenges of a small country on the outer border of the European Union,
notably in respect of cultural diversity, regulation and education. Mr. Dzintris Kolāts, Director of41

the News service of the Latvian Public Television (LTV) spoke about the responsibilities, challenges
and financing mechanisms for Public Service Broadcasters, describing a very difficult situation
linked to insufficient funding, which makes it hard to fund original content. Mr. Jānis Siksnis,
representative of the Latvian Public Radio described what he called a "special niche in the national
information space", describing challenges linked to new platforms, media fragmentation, national
dialogue and cultural heritage; he also described a situation where lack of funding makes
journalists leaving their job and hampers the development of new digital platforms. Still in Riga,
the Members of the HLG had the opportunity to hear Ms. Una Klapkalne, Executive director of the
National News Agency LETA and Ms. Aija Brasliņa, Editor in chief of the Baltic News Service (BNS
Latvia). They explained the difficult situation of news agencies in small markets characterised by avery limited profitability, mainly due to the small size of the market, highlighting a lack of well‐trained journalists to work in agencies and the very limited copyright on news agency material.
The representative of BNS, a news service present in three countries however sees foreign
ownership as facilitating independence.
To build their expertise on media studies, the Members of the HLG invited several academics topresent the results of their studies. The "European Media Policies Revisited: Valuing & Reclaiming
Free and Independent Media in Contemporary Democratic System" research project (MEDIADEM)
was presented by its coordinator, Dr Evangelia Psychogiopoulou. The aim of this European
research project is to examine the factors that promote or hinder policy development for media
freedom and independence. Professor Susanne Fengler gave a presentation on the project "Media
Accountability and Transparency in Europe" (MediaAct) which involved key results from acomparative study on Media Self‐Regulation in 14 countries. Ms. Amy Brouillette, lead researcher
and editor of the study 'Hungarian Media Laws in Europe', published by the Centre for Media &Communication Studies (CMCS) of the Central European University answered the questions of theGroup Members on the comparison between various situations in the EU. While in Florence, theMembers also met Prof. Parcu, director of the Centre for Media Freedom and Pluralism in the EUI,
and his team, who presented the work undertaken by the CMPF in relation to EU competencies in
the field of media. They also had the opportunity to meet and discuss with Prof. Lawrence Lessig,
specialist of copyright law and internet governance who gave a presentation on the importance ofindependence to resist corruption, as well as Prof. Matthew Hindman, specialised in politicalcommunication and (especially) online politics.

Written contributions received by the HLG
Association of European Radios (AER)"Radio in the EU ‐ General Overview, Media Pluralism ‐ How Commercial Radio Contributes"
Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS)
Response to “Comments on the Study of the Central European University’s Center for Media andCommunication Studies on the Hungarian Media Laws”
Coalition for Ethical Journalism, Aidan White"Transparency, Accountability and Responsibility in the Age of Convergence"42

Community Media Forum Europe
Input from the community media sector
http://www.cmfe.eu/policy/first‐mapping‐of‐community‐media‐in‐europe
European Broadcasting Union
EBU urges Portuguese PM to shelve "reckless" plans for RTP ‐ Press release, 05 Sep 2012
http://www3.ebu.ch/cms/en/sites/ebu/contents/frontpage‐news/news‐2012/ebu‐urges‐
portuguese‐pm‐to‐shelv.html
European Broadcasting Union"Editorial Principles & Guidelines – A model for the Members of the European Broadcasting
Union" A Letter from Ms. Ingrid Deltenre, Director General
European Broadcasting Union"Media Freedom and Pluralism in Europe ‐ Public Service Media"
Executive Summary
European Newspaper Publishers' Association (ENPA)"Preserving pluralism in a rapidly changing media market" ‐ position paper ‐ October 2011
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/measuring‐plurality/responses/ns‐
annex‐enpa.pdf
The Global Reporting Initiative
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines & Media Sector Supplement
https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/sector‐guidance/media/Pages/default.aspx
Hungarian Europe Society, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Eötvös Károly Public Policy Institute andthe Standards (Mérték) Media Monitor
Joint position paper to the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism created by theEuropean Commission on the Hungarian Media Law and its Application – and Executive summary
http://tasz.hu/files/tasz/imce/2011/jointpospaperhes_hclu_ekpp_smm_jan._19..pdf
National Media and Infocommunication Authority – Hungary
Hungary’s new media regulation (extract): Examples from European Union member states similar
to the most important criticized provisions of the new Hungarian Media regulation,
http://mediatanacs.hu/dokumentum/2791/1321457199hungary_new_media_regulation_eng_web.pdf
Open Society Foundations.
"Mapping Digital Media in the European Union"
A report for the High‐Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Mapping_Digital_Media_EU_2012121
7_0.pdf

43

Open Society Media Program"Transparency of Media Ownership in Europe"
A report for the High‐Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism (in conjunction withwww.access‐info.org)
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Transparency_Media_Ownership_Eur
ope_20121217_0.pdf
Open Society Foundations, Media policy and research program"Mapping Digital Media, Journalism, Democracy and Values – Hungary"
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/OSF‐Media‐Report‐Hungary‐02‐16‐
2012‐final‐WEB.pdf
South East European Network for Professionalization of MediaInternational Partnership Mission on Press Freedom to Hungary – Report, November 14‐16, 2011

Documents
In addition to the various contributions received by the HLG, the following documents were
examined:
Attacks on the Press in 2011
A Worldwide Survey by the Committee to Protect Journalists
2012
Committee to Protect Journalists, New York
http://cpj.org/attacks_on_the_press_2011.pdf
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
European Union, 2000, 2000/C 364/01
Commission Recommendation of 20 August 2009 on Media literacy in the digital environment fora more competitive audiovisual and content industry and an inclusive knowledge society(2009/625/EC).
Published in OJ L 227 of 29.8.2009, p. 9–12
http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009H0625:EN:NOT
Commission staff working document: Media pluralism in the Member States of the European
Union
SEC(2007) 32
16 January 2007
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/media_pluralism_swp_
en.pdfCommunicating Europe through audiovisual media
Communication to the Commission, SEC(2008)506/2, 24.4.2008
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/comm_audiovisual_media_en.pdf

44Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of theEuropean Union
http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:SOM:EN:HTML
Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the Desirability of International Standards dealing
with Forum Shopping in respect of Defamation, “Libel Tourism”, to Ensure Freedom of Expression(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 July 2012 at the 1147th meeting of the Ministers’
Deputies)
Council of Europe
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1958787&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorInt
ranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383
Defending media freedom
European Parliament Seminar on Media Freedom in the EU Member States Brussels, 8 May 2012
Speech by Neelie Kroes Vice‐President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital
Agenda ‐http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/335&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Defending media pluralism in Hungary
Vice‐President Neelie Kroes' blog post
January 5th, 2012
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie‐kroes/media‐pluralism‐hungary/
Deterrence of fraud with EU funds through investigative journalism in EU‐27
STUDY
Margo Smit, director Vereniging van Onderzoeksjournalistenco‐authors: Brigitte Alfter, Mar Cabra, Annamarie Cumiskey, Ides Debruyne, Marcos García Rey,
Rafael Njotea, Albrecht Ude
European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control. Brussels, © European Union, 2012.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201210/20121002ATT52809/2012100
2ATT52809EN.pdf
Digital: News Gains Audience but Loses Ground in Chase for Revenue
By Kenny Olmstead, freelance journalist Jane Sasseen, Amy Mitchell, and Tom Rosenstiel of PEJ
The State of the News Media 2012
The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/digital‐news‐gains‐audience‐but‐loses‐more‐ground‐in‐chase‐for‐revenue/
Digital news Report 2012
Reuters Institutehttp://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Other_publications/Re
uters_Institute_Digital_Report.pdf

45

EC Hungary Opinion Must Address Press Freedom, Says EFJ
European Federation of Journalists
16 January 2012
http://europe.ifj.org/en/articles/ec‐hungary‐opinion‐must‐address‐press‐freedom‐says‐efj
Empowering Society A Declaration on the Core Values of Public Service Media
European Broadcasting Union
June 2012
http://www3.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Knowledge/Initiatives%20‐%20Policy/Initiatives/v3__WEB_NEW_GRAPHIC_LINE_Lettre_declaration_valeurs_PMS_EN.pdf
EU competences in respect of Media Pluralism and Media Freedom
July 2012, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (draft version)
EU Media Futures Forum
Report for European Commission Vice‐President Neelie Kroes
Final Report – September 2012
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/forum/report.pdf
Executive summary – June 2012
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/forum/exec_sum.pdf
European Charter on Freedom of the Press, 2009http://www.pressfreedom.eu/en/index.php
European Initiative for Media Pluralism
Defending Media Pluralism Through a New Instrument of Participatory Democracy
http://www.mediainitiative.eu/topics/the‐campaign‐a‐european‐initiative‐for‐media‐pluralism/
European Media Policies Revisited: Valuing & Reclaiming Free and Independent Media in
Contemporary Democratic Systems (MEDIADEM)
Research Project: policy briefs and reports
http://www.mediadem.eliamep.gr/project/summary/
European Parliament resolution of 25 September 2008 on concentration and pluralism in the
media in the European Union (2007/2253(INI))
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/textes_adoptes/definitif/2008/09‐
25/0459/P6_TA(2008)0459_EN.doc
European Parliament resolution of 7 September 2010 on journalism and new media ‐ creating apublic sphere in Europe (2010/2015(INI))
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegistreWeb/search/resultDetail.htm?language=EN&reference=P
7_TA(2010)0307&lg=EN&fragDocu=FULL
European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2011 on media law in Hungary
P7_TA(2011)0094
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/textes_adoptes/definitif/2011/03‐
10/0094/P7_TA(2011)0094_2_EN.pdf
46

European Parliament resolution of 10 May 2012 with recommendations to the Commission on theamendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non‐contractual obligations(Rome II) (2009/2170(INI))
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=‐//EP//TEXT+TA+P7‐TA‐2012‐
0200+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
Exploring the current state of media pluralism and media freedom in the European Union –Economic Aspects
Giovanni Gangemi (July 2012), in European Union competencies in respect of media pluralism andmedia freedom, Policy Study, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (draft version)
Exploring the current state of media pluralism and media freedom in the European Union –Political and Social Aspects
Andrea Calderaro & Alina Dobreva (July 2012), in European Union competencies in respect ofmedia pluralism and media freedom, Policy Study, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom(draft version)
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists” –Submitted to the European Commission
The Evaluation Partnership (TEP), with Economisti Associati and European Journalism Centre
FINAL REPORT, February 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/mobility/erjo_part1_report.pdf
PART 2 ‐Statistical Review ‐ FINAL REPORT
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/mobility/erjo_part2_report.pdf
Freedom of Expression and the Media: Standard‐setting by the Council of Europe(I) Committee of Ministers© European Audiovisual Observatory, 2011
http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/IRIS‐themes‐series2011‐1.html
Freedom of Expression and the Media: Standard‐setting by the Council of Europe,(II) Parliamentary Assembly© European Audiovisual Observatory, 2011
http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/IRIS‐themes‐series2011‐2.html
Governing the European Audiovisual Space: What modes of governance can facilitate a European
approach to media pluralism?
Fabrizio Barzanti, Department of Law – European University Institutehttp://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/23914/RSCAS_2012_49.pdf?sequence=1
Hungarian Media Laws in Europe
An Assessment of the Consistency of Hungary’s Media Laws with European Practices and Norms
Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS)
Central European University
2012
https://cmcs.ceu.hu/sites/default/files/field_attachment/news/node‐27293/Hungarian_Media_Laws_in_Europe.pdf
47

Human rights and a changing media landscapeCommissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe
Council of Europe Publications
December 2011
http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Activities/themes/MediaFreedom/MediaLandscape2011.pdf
Indicators for independence and efficient functioning of audiovisual media services regulatory
bodies for the purpose of enforcing the rules in the AVMS Directive"
Study commissioned by the European Commission – DG Information Society
Hans‐Bredow‐Institut für Medienforschung an der Universität Hamburg
Final report ‐ February 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/regulators/final_report.pdf
Independent study on "Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk‐
Based Approach"Study commissioned by the European Commission – DG Information Society
Final report and Media Pluralism Monitoring Tool ‐ 2009http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/pluralism/study/index_en.htm
Insult laws: Insulting to press freedom
A Guide to Evolution of Insult Laws in 2010
Published by the World Press Freedom Committee and Freedom House, 2012
http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Insult%20Law%20Report.pdf
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 March 2011, C‐34/09, Gerardo Ruiz
Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), not yet published
Legal analysis/perspective on the EU instruments to foster media pluralism and media freedom
Elda Brogi & Paula Gori (july 2012), in European Union competencies in respect of media pluralism
and media freedom, Policy Study, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (draft version)
Leveson report
An enquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the Press
November 2012
Executive summary
http://www.official‐documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0779/0779.asp
Volume 1
http://www.official‐documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_i.asp
Volume 2
http://www.official‐documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_ii.asp
Volume 3
http://www.official‐documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_iii.asp
Volume 4
http://www.official‐documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_iv.asp
Mapping Digital Media:
Open Society Research Project48

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/issues/media‐information
Measures to protect and promote respect for human rights with regard to search engines
Council of Europe ‐ Committee of Experts on New Media (MC‐NM)
Document prepared by the Secretariat
MC‐NM(2011)14_en ‐ September 2011
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/mc‐nm/MC‐
NM(2011)14_en%20HR%20and%20search%20engines.asp
Measures to protect and promote respect for human rights with regard to social networking
services
Council of Europe ‐ Committee of Experts on New Media (MC‐NM)
Document prepared by the Secretariat
MC‐NM(2011)15_en
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/mc‐nm/MC‐
NM(2011)15_en%20HR%20and%20social%20networking%20services.asp
Measuring media pluralism in the convergence era: The case of News Corp’s proposed acquisitionof BSkyBDavide Morisi, MSc in Media, Communication and Development
Published by Media@LSE, London School of Economics and Political Science ("LSE"), 2012
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/mediaWorkingPapers/MScDissertationSeries/2011/7
4.pdf
Measuring media plurality
Ofcom’s advice to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport
19 June 2012
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/measuring‐plurality/statement/statement.pdf
Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy Choices and Regulatory Challenges
Rachael Craufurd Smith and Damian Tambini(2012) 4(1) Journal of Media Law 35–63
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/Innovation‐and‐Governance/Tambini‐and‐Craufurd‐Smith‐‐‐Measuring‐Media‐Plurality‐in‐the‐UK‐.pdf
Media Accountability and Transparency in Europe
Research Project: policy briefs and reports
http://www.mediaact.eu/project.html
Media and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe ‐ MDCEE
Interdisciplinary research project launched in October 2009 and funded by the European ResearchCouncil
http://mde.politics.ox.ac.uk/
Media Concentration and Pluralism: Regulation, Realities and the Council of Europe’s Standards in
the Television Sector
David Ward, UNIDEM Campus Trieste Seminar, January 200549

http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2005/CDL‐UDT%282005%29004‐e.pdf
Media Pluralism ‐ What should be the European Union’s role?
Issues Paper for the Liverpool Audiovisual Conference
European Commission, Information Society and Media Directorate‐General, July 2005
http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/modernisation/issue_papers/ispa_mediaplur_en.pdf
Media Power in the 21st Century
Rachael Craufurd Smith, Damian Tambini, Davide Morisi
LSE Media Policy Project: Media policy brief 7Media Pluralism and Media Powerhttp://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/MPP/Policy‐Brief‐7‐Media‐Pluralism.pdf
Motion for a resolution on freedom of information in Italy
European Parliament ‐ B7‐0094/2009
14.10.2009
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B7‐2009‐0094&secondRef=0&language=EN&format=PDF
Motion for a European Parliament resolution on the EU Charter: Standard settings for media
freedom across the EU(2011/2246(INI))
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/libe/projet_rapport/2012/496665/LIBE_P
R(2012)496665_EN.doc
News Plurality in a Digital World
Robin Foster
July 2012
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/item/article/news‐plurality‐in‐a‐digital‐
world.html
Non‐news is good news
The Economist, June 9th 2012
Measuring Media Plurality
OFCOM, 2012
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/measuring‐plurality/statement/statement.pdf
OSCE media freedom representative welcomes Constitutional Court decision in Hungary,concerned over silencing of independent radio
OSCE Press release
21 December 2011
http://www.osce.org/fom/86551
Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on a new notion of media, Council of Europe, 201150

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835645&Site=CM
Republic.com 2.0
Cass R. Sunstein
Princeton University Press, 2009
The Citizens' Right to Information: Law and Policy in the EU and its Member States
Alexander SCHEUER, Attorney‐at‐law, General Manager EMR, et alStudy requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home
Affairs.
European Parliament 2012
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/fr/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&fi
le=75131
The Hungarian Media Environment
Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda
European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee
9th February 2012
http://europa.eu/rapid/press‐release_SPEECH‐12‐80_en.htm?locale=en
The Medium is the Message
Marshall McLuhan, 1964
To Tell You the Truth
Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary
2008 International Federation of Journalists
http://ethicaljournalisminitiative.org/pdfs/EJI_book_en.pdf
Using the Internet to Save Journalism from the Internet
Prof. Bruce Ackerman, in Arguing about Justice
UCL, Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 2011
YouTube & News A New Kind of Visual News
July 16, 2012
Pew Research Center Study
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/youtube_news51