Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Pluralism and concentration in the media'
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, access to information, acquisition of property, dissemination of information, pluralism in the media, restriction on competition

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/19

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Pluralism and concentration in the media’

(2000/C 140/07)

On 25 February 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Pluralism and concentration in the media’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted an initial opinion on 23 November 1999.
Following the decision of the plenary assembly to send the opinion back to the Section, the Section
adopted a revised opinion on 9 March 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Decaillon.

At its 371st plenary session held on 29 and 30 March 2000 (meeting of 29 March) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 97 votes to 23, with 14 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. General comments

The European media industry has entered a new phase
1.1.
in its development since the publication of the 1992 Green
Paper on pluralism and media concentration and the Com-
mission’s thinking on media ownership in the internal market.

1.2.
The traditional range of media services (TV, radio and
press) has expanded over recent years to include new digital
broadcasting (terrestrial, satellite and cable) and network
(Internet, multimedia) services, widening the choice available
to the European public considerably. These changes in the
media landscape have been accompanied by increased links
between sectors. As convergence is increasing, a parallel
development is taking place as part of globalisation, in terms
of alliances and mergers between media owners, telecommuni-
cation firms and IT operators.

1.3.
In view of this globalisation and these market develop-
ments, the Committee invites the European Institutions to
consider the need to publish a communication setting out
guidelines and legal instruments that, with consideration given
to the basic rights on freedom of expression, freedom of the
press and freedom of media as well as the different media
situations and different legal and cultural traditions in the
Member States, can help to ensure that European public access
to multiple, independent media services is not hampered.

In its December 1997 Green Paper on the convergence
2.1.
of the telecommunications, media and information technology
sectors, the European Commission acknowledges the growing
number of alliances and mergers in the new information
industry. While defending the principles of free competition,
the Commission states its aim to oppose the abuse of dominant
positions and restrictive agreements on the telecommuni-
cations, media and IT markets.

2.2.
In the area of merger control, the Commission states
its intention to safeguard, through the enforcement of compe-
tition law, consumer interests by securing a diverse supply of
information sources, authorising mergers to encourage the
establishment of strong European media companies, but also
intervening to prevent agreements between operators that are
likely to restrict competition, and thus limit the final con-
sumers’ choice.

2.3.
Competition law often covers only the economic and
financial aspects of mergers in the new media industry. The
Committee, however, believes that cultural and social aspects
must also be taken into account in order protect the interests
of the European public and the rich diversity of the media
landscape.

In the light of these new sources of information and
1.4.
entertainment, and since information is more than just a
commercial product, the Committee would stress the need to
defend the basic rights of individuals, such as freedom of
access to information and opinion, to protect minors, and to
preserve human dignity, especially that of women.

2.3.1.
That is why the Committee believes that the appli-
cation of Community competition law in the field of the
information society should take into account not only purely
economic aspects, but also the protection of pluralism in
information, while safeguarding the freedom of the press
recognised in the constitutions of the Member States.

The issues dealt with in this opinion fit into a context
1.5.
that is in a state of major and constant flux, and the Committee
has borne this fact in mind in the comments that follow.

2.4.
The European institutions should support the wealth
and diversity of culture, in its linguistic and ethnic forms in
particular, that are present in the various countries of the
European Union.

C 140/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

2.5.
Laws in the Member States generally prescribe open-
ness in media ownership, just like in other businesses, in order
to preclude monopolies and oligopolies. It should therefore be
noted that the European Commission in cooperation with
Member States has the possibility to exchange such infor-
mation in order to get an international perspective on holdings
and technical or commercial agreements between audiovisual
groups or operators providing access to the various networks,
including the Internet.

2.6.
The Committee also calls for consideration to be given
to technological developments in the information society.
Here, a distinction must be drawn between digital broadcasting
services, which fall within the realm of traditional rules on
media ownership, where such rules exist, and on-line services,
for which competitive market rules must be given free rein to
guarantee equal access for operators to networks and systems,
and the consumers’ right to a diverse range of content.

2.7.
As the Commission’s draft directive has not been
adopted, the Committee would welcome the drafting of a
communication, to establish guidelines and legal instruments
designed to preserve pluralism with regard to the economic,
social and cultural organisation of the industry.

2.8.
The Committee would refer back to its two opinions
of 14 September 1994 (1) and 23 February 1995 (2). The main
recommendations made in those opinions must be extended
to cover the new digital broadcasting services (terrestrial,
satellite and cable), and nascent network audiovisual and
information services (Internet and multimedia), to:

— encourage commercial radio and television stations and
digital broadcasters to give greater consideration to diver-
sity of opinion, pluralism and the broadcast of cultural and
educational programmes, not least for minorities;

— promote the development of public television and radio
stations as a source of independent information and of
cultural, educational and light entertainment programmes,
which should be accessible to all European citizens;

(1) Opinion of the ESC on the Green Paper on Strategy options to
strengthen the European programme industry in the context of
the audiovisual policy of the European Union (COM(94) 96 final);
OJ C 393, 31.12.1994, p. 25.

(2) Opinion of the ESC on the Communication from the Commission
to the Council and the European Parliament — Follow-up to the
consultation process relating to the Green Paper on Pluralism and
Media Concentration in the Internal Market — An assessment of
the need for Community action (COM(94) 353 final); OJ C 110,
2.5.1995, p. 53.

— maintain pluralism and prevent companies from abusing
dominant positions in several sectors (digital and terrestrial
television, radio, press, audiovisual and information ser-
vices on the Internet, multimedia publishing) on one or
more national markets or within the same language area;

— promote pluralism and prevent companies already abusing
a dominant position in one national media sector from
attaining a similar situation in another EU Member State;

— safeguard editorial

independence throughout the media
from internal and external pressure,
including pressure
from governments, in order to improve the quality and
reliability of information;

— introduce appropriate legislation and competition rules to
prevent companies from acquiring monopoly rights to
in particular regarding
retransmission and catalogues,
sport-related information and film catalogues;

— recommend that before a media company that is already
active in one media sector is allowed to operate in
another media sector, all its holdings and cross-ownership
arrangements are disclosed in full;

— promote training and objective information for the most
vulnerable sections of the public, to enable them to access
and recognise media industry content, particularly the
information circulated on the Internet;

— clarify the editorial responsibility of Internet operators,
drawing a clear distinction between website editors, who
should — without any exceptions — be held liable for
content, and technical intermediaries (carriers and hosts),
who should be exempt from liability for content they have
not prepared, as suggested by the European draft directive
on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce in the
single market;

— draw up a European media code of good conduct. In
addition to the control of media company power, this code
should provide for the analysis of consumer requirements,
bearing in mind,
the maintenance and
safeguarding of the freedom of information and opinions,
the protection of minors against violent and pornographic
programmes and their restriction on grounds of human —
particularly female — dignity and the prohibition of the
glorification of war and crime;

in particular,

— recommend the ‘labelling’ of information and entertain-
ment sites on the Internet, in order to protect Internet
users from illegal content. The Committee hopes to prepare
an own-initiative opinion on this matter during this year,
thus enabling it to clarify these ideas.

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/21

2.9. Genuine coordination to guarantee pluralism

2.9.1.
In view of the swift advent of Internet audiovisual
and information services, access, regulations and the associated
pluralism safeguards are all issues that should be addressed.
The remit of regulatory bodies present in the majority of the
Member States should be extended to cover the Internet, with
a view to protecting basic individual rights in the same way as
for the traditional media. Community level coordination may
also prove beneficial, as explained in 2.3 above.

2.9.2.
The audience criterion mooted by the Commission
in its early findings should be seen as additional to the other
criteria generally included in national legislation, where such
legislation exists, relating to admissible percentage holdings in
media companies.

2.9.3.
Portal sites, Internet access points provided by oper-
ators up- and down-stream of the Internet, and often belonging
to major communications, publishing and IT-groups, mean-
while tend to concentrate available information and favour
supply from partners or sites within the same group. It is
therefore important that consumers are made aware of the
freedom of choice that is offered by electronic programme
guides and the technical option of ‘zapping’ from one portal
site to another, in order to avoid the risks to pluralism and
diversity of information.

2.9.4.
On the subject of financial resources, current market
analysis shows that in some countries advertising facilities are
heavily dominated by the handful of groups present
in
the audiovisual and new information and communication
technology sectors. The Committee notes that in the long run
this situation could prove prejudicial
to local radio and
television stations. The net result of this dominance combined
with the portal sites described above could be to limit or even
skew the final consumer’s choice.

Finally, an analysis of pluralism and concentration in
2.9.5.
the media would be incomplete without taking into account
the digital revolution in television and the associated channel
packages. This major technological development raises a
variety of issues such as the allocation of frequencies, likely to
favour first-comers, and the increased power of operators
controlling vast arrays of channels (although the channel
package does enhance pluralism). This raises the issue of
decoders, as although they are now open to various packages
of scrambled channels they are linked to payment, which
could generate guaranteed incomes deriving from market
position.

2.9.6.
In the same vein, the imminent advent of digital
radio also deserves a mention, as although it marks a positive

step forward technically (radio quality, stability of reception,
means of delivering urgent safety messages, etc.), it looks likely
to involve higher levels of investment than those currently
required for radio using frequency modulation, particularly at
regional or local level; the radio landscape could end up the
poorer as a result.

2.9.7.
Still in the area of broadcasting, the Committee notes
that satellite broadcasting is controlled by groups, which are
able to finance this international resource and therefore are
not subject to national regulations. The Committee would
point out that there is very little political coordination of
satellite launches yet. The Committee would like to see political
coordination within the EU to remedy that situation.

2.9.8.
The Committee underlines the importance of the
basic and applied research measures listed in the fifth RTD
framework programme (1998-2002), with a view to improv-
ing the operability, ease of use and accessibility of future
information products and services. This research and its
applications are strengthening linguistic and cultural diversity,
contributing to the development and enjoyment of European
cultural heritage, stimulating creativity, improving education
and training systems and furthering socio-economic and
technological models that enable the presentation of infor-
mation.

2.9.9.
Finally, the Committee hopes that the findings of the
United Nations Development Programme report on Internet
access will be evaluated in the light of the EU’s structural
policies and external negotiations, ACP agreements in par-
ticular.

3. Proposals

Against a backdrop of globalisation and digital conver-
3.1.
gence, the issue of media pluralism and concentration raises a
large number of questions. The Economic and Social Com-
mittee will attempt to outline some answers.

3.2.
On the question of media ownership rules, the Com-
mittee would recommend identifying common parameters in
the national criteria currently in force and adding others such
as audience and resource control. It should, however, also be
noted that all such parameters must
take into account
differences in legal, especially constitutional, and cultural
traditions in all Member States.

3.3.
Taking the above point one step further, the Committee
would recommend that Member States consider whether
current national media ownership rules (licence schemes,
frequency allocation, audience-based thresholds, investments,
etc.), where such exist, should be extended to the new digital

C 140/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

broadcasting services (terrestrial, satellite and cable) in order
to prevent the eventual risk of abusive mergers. There should
also be coordination at European level, particularly in the
event of very strong international growth.

The Committee would also recommend that the Com-
3.4.
mission coordinate the national media regulatory bodies,
following in the footsteps of the contact committee set up in
the DG concerned to manage the ‘Television without Frontiers’
directive. This would enable the flexible, rapid and practical
examination of draft agreements, questions relating to fre-
quency allocation and any matters relating to access to
scrambled channels requiring a decoder, which should work
for other channel packages, etc.

3.5.
As for Internet audiovisual and information services,
the Committee would like Internet users to benefit from
safeguards on pluralism and diversity. In view of the rapid
development of these services, the Committee asks the Euro-
pean Commission to draft a recommendation addressed to the
Member States, inviting them to consider whether national
regulations on the audiovisual sector should be adapted to
information. Member States
cover these new sources of
should also be invited to share information on these eventual
developments within the informal networks that are men-
tioned in point 3.4.

In its opinion (1) on the Council Recommendation on
3.6.
‘the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and
information services’ of 24 September 1998, the Committee
urged that national media regulatory bodies ensure the
measures in the recommendation are applied strictly in the
Member States. The Committee would, however, also like to
stress that the measures in the recommendation, must be
applied with respect and consideration for the legal, consti-
tutional and cultural traditions in the different Member States.

3.7.
Consideration must also be given to ‘portal sites’,
which tend to funnel and standardise the information available,
to ensure such sites are not used to corner access to infor-
mation sources or financial resources linked to advertising.
One option would be to extend the powers of Member State
regulators to cover these new services so as to promote
pluralism and diversity in information, with Commission-level
coordination.

idea may be to introduce a ‘European label’ to denote quality
of information and professional standards for information and
entertainment sites, by means of industry self-regulation, in
order to safeguard pluralist and independent information and
to outlaw illicit content. On this point it is worth mentioning
the responsibility of news agencies, with particular regard to
their codes of conduct.

3.9.
On the subject of editorial responsibility in the media,
the Committee recalls the 19 January 1999 recommendations
of the Council of Europe. The Committee notes that the issue
of independence of media editors and journalists by means of
‘editorial statutes’, in order to prevent owners or shareholders,
as well as external bodies like governments, from influencing
the
information content,
Member States; sometimes through constitutional legislation,
sometimes through self-regulatory agreements. To ensure a
high quality of information, it is advisable for media pro-
fessionals (e.g. media companies, owners, editors and journal-
ists) to adopt ethical standards (e.g. code of good practice, code
of ethics). It is also important that all media professionals are
provided with training in order to take on that responsibility.

is solved differently throughout

The Committee takes the view that

3.10.
the current
existence and growth of local radio, with frequency modu-
lation, makes for pluralism and greater accommodation of
local sociological circumstances. It would, however, invite the
Commission and the Council to pay attention to whether the
arrival of digital radio will have an impact on the pluralism of
local radio and diversity of information in local radio, due to
heavier financial investments required by local operators.

As for the possible social consequences of company
3.11.
mergers and acquisitions in the area of the media and related
technologies, Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 states that where
employees’ representatives have a legitimate interest regarding
a Commission decision on the compatibility of a merger or
acquisition with the Treaty of Rome they may be heard by the
Commission. This procedure is rarely used. It would surely be
worthwhile conducting a training and information campaign
to enable national union bodies or European works councils
to use the opportunity provided by Regulation (EEC)
No 4064/89 to make their voices heard more clearly by the
Commission.

3.8.
Furthermore, the profusion of information sources on
the Internet, and difficulties in identifying their origins, can
confuse the public. Solutions must therefore be found quickly
to enable the public to identify the information available. One

4. Conclusion

(1) OJ C 214, 10.7.1998, pp. 25 and 29.

4.1. With the challenge of the information society and the
need to safeguard basic individual rights such as freedom of
expression and freedom of information and opinion, and to

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/23

protect minors and human — particularly female — dignity,
the Economic and Social Committee proposes that the Euro-
pean Institutions prepare guidelines that take account of the
requirements of pluralism, respecting the differences between
the Member States. Such guidelines could be designed to
complement competition law by focusing on the social
dimension and cultural diversity of the media.

4.2.
This communication would be designed to comp-
lement competition law by focusing on the social dimension
and cultural diversity of the media. It would help to guarantee
the pluralism of media content and programmes and its
guidelines would show the operators of large communications
groups the way to preserve the diversity and wealth of content
accessible to the public.

Brussels, 29 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following proposed amendment, which was supported by more than a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected by
the Committee at its plenary session:

Point 3.11

Delete the last two sentences:

Reasons

The last two sentences should be deleted as there is no need — or justification — for special training and information
campaigns directed to national union bodies or European works councils.

Results of the vote

For: 35, against: 71, abstentions: 15.