Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Cosa dice la UE sui media italiani

Intestazione del documento:
REPORT
on the risks of violation, in the EU and especially in Italy, of freedom
of
expression and information (Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights)
(2003/2237(INI))
Vediamo, ora se qualcuno può obiettare che non si parli di censura, ma
di rischi di violazione per la libertà d'espressione e di informazione.
Dal Garzanti: Censura = 2 controllo esercitato dall'autorità pubblica su
mezzi d'informazione, testi scritti, spettacoli, al fine di accertare
che essi non contengano elementi pericolosi per l'ordine costituito od
offensivi per la religione, o contrari alla morale: censura preventiva,
repressiva; un film tagliato dalla censura | ufficio dei funzionari
addetti a tale controllo
Ecco invece cosa dice la risoluzione di Strasburgo a proposito della
situazione Italiana
Situation in Italy
56. Notes that the level of concentration of the audiovisual market in
Italy is currently the
highest within Europe and that while Italian television offers twelve
national channels
and ten to fifteen regional and local channels, the market is
characterised by the duopoly
between RAI and MEDIASET where both operators together account for
almost 90% of
the total audience share and collect 96.8% of advertising resources, as
against 88% for
Germany, 82% for the United Kingdom, 77% for France and 58% for Spain;
57. Notes that the Mediaset group owned by Silvio Berlusconi is the
largest private
television and communications group in Italy and the world, which
controls (inter alia)
television networks (RTI S.p.A.) and advertising franchise holders
(Publitalia '80), both
of which have been formally found to hold a dominant position in breach
of national
law (Law 247/97) by the Communications Regulatory Authority (decision
226/03)2;
1 Reported by ABC on 11 March 2003.
2 The Mediaset group controls:
- television networks (Canale 5, Italia 1 and Rete 4 in Italy and the
Telecinco group in Spain
- a cable television network (Telepiù),
- satellite television (coming under Mediadigit) and terrestrial digital
television networks,
RR\531697EN.doc 17/17 PE 339.618
EN
58. Notes that one of the sectors in which the conflict of interests is
most obvious is
advertising, given that in 2001 the Mediaset group was in receipt of
two-thirds of
television advertising resources, amounting to a total of € 2 500
million, and that the
main Italian companies have transferred much of their investment in
advertising from
printed matter to the Mediaset networks and from Rai to Mediaset1;
59. Notes that Silvio Berlusconi, since his appointment to the post of
President of the Italian
Council of Ministers in 2001, has not resolved his conflict of interests
as he had
explicitly pledged, but on the contrary has increased his controlling
shareholding in the
company Mediaset (from 48.639% to 51.023%), thereby drastically reducing
his own
net debt through a marked increase in advertising revenue to the
detriment of
competitors' revenues (and ratings) and, above all, of advertising
funding for the written
press;
60. Regrets the repeated and documented instances of governmental
interference, pressure
and censorship in respect of the corporate structure and schedules (even
as regards
satirical programmes) of the RAI public television service, starting
with the dismissal of
three well-known professionals (Enzo Biagi, Michele Santoro and Daniele
Luttazzi) at
the sensational public request of the President of the Italian Council
of Ministers in
April 2002 - in a context in which an absolute majority of the members
of the RAI
board of governors and the respective parliamentary control body are
members of the
governing parties, with this pressure then being extended to other media
not in his
ownership, leading inter alia to the resignation of Ferruccio de
Bortoli, editor of
Corriere della Sera, in May 2003;
61. Notes, therefore, that the Italian system presents an anomaly owing
to a unique
combination of economic, political and media power in the hands of one
man - the
current President of the Italian Council of Ministers, Silvio Berlusconi
- and to the fact
that the Italian Government is, directly or indirectly, in control of
all national television
channels;
62. Notes that in Italy the broadcasting system has been operating in
extralegal
circumstances for decades, as repeatedly recognised by the
Constitutional Court, and in
- advertising concerns (Pubitalia '80 in Italy and Publiespaña in
Spain),
- companies with a link to television broadcasting (Videotime, RTI
Music, Elettronica Industriale,
Mediavideo),
- companies producing and distributing television products (Mediatrade,
Finsimac, Olympia),
- a fixed telephony company (Albacom),
- an Internet portal (Jumpy S.p.A.),
- a cinema distribution company (Medusa, which controls the retailer
Blockbusters),
- investment and financial services groups (Mediaset Investment in
Luxembourg and Trefinance),
- an insurance company (Mediolanum),
- a construction company (Edilnord 2000),
- a football team (AC Milan),
- the Arnoldo Mondadori Editore publishing house, which includes Italy's
largest publisher of books and a
wide range of magazines,
- the 'Il Giornale' newspaper (owned by his brother, Paolo Berlusconi)
and the 'Il Foglio' newspaper (owned
by his wife, Veronica Lario),
1 For example, in 2003 Barilla invested 86.8% less in newspaper
advertising and spent 20.6% more on adverts on
the Mediaset networks and Procter&Gamble 95% less in newspaper
advertising and 37% more on the Mediaset
networks; even a public company like the Wind telephone operator cut its
advertising expenditure in newspapers
by 55.3% and increased it on Berlusconi's networks by 10%; furthermore,
in 2003 Rai lost 8% of its advertising
resources to Mediaset, making for an € 80 million loss in earnings.
(Source: Corriere della Sera, 24 June 2003).
PE 339.618 18/18 RR\531697EN.doc
EN
the face of which the efforts of the ordinary legislator and the
competent institutions
have proved ineffective in re-establishing a legal regime; RAI and
Mediaset each
continue to control three terrestrial analogue television broadcasters,
despite the fact that
the Constitutional Court in its judgement No 420 of 1994 has ruled it
impermissible for
one and the same entity to broadcast over 20% of the television
programmes transmitted
domestically on terrestrial frequencies (i.e. more than two programmes)
and has found
the regulatory regime under Law No 223/90 to be contrary to the Italian
Constitution,
despite being a 'transitional regime'; nor did Law No 249/97
(establishing the
Communications Guarantee Authority and rules on telecommunication and
radio and
television systems) abide by the prescriptions of the Constitutional
Court which, in its
judgement 466/02, declared the constitutional illegitimacy of Article
3(7) thereof,
'insofar as it does not provide for the establishing of a hard-and-fast
deadline, in any
event not exceeding 31 December 2003, by which the programmes
transmitted by
broadcasters exceeding the limits referred to in paragraph 6 of Article
3 must be
broadcast exclusively via satellite or via cable';
63. Notes that the Italian Constitutional Court declared in November
2002 (Case 466/2002)
that '...the present Italian private television system operating at
national level and in
analogue mode has grown out of situations of simple de facto occupation
of frequencies
(operation of installations without concessions and authorisations), and
not in relation
to any desire for greater pluralism in the distribution of frequencies
and proper
planning of broadcasting... This de facto situation does not therefore
guarantee respect
for external pluralism of information, which is an essential requirement
laid down by
the relevant constitutional case law... In this context, given the
continued existence (and
aggravation) of the situation which was ruled illegal by Judgment No 420
in 1994 and
of networks considered 'surplus' by the 1997 legislature, a final
deadline must be set
that is absolutely certain, definitive and hence absolutely binding in
order to ensure
compatibility with constitutional rules'; notes that, nonetheless, the
deadline for the
reform of the audiovisual sector has not been respected and that the law
for the reform
of the audiovisual sector has been sent back by the President of the
Republic for a new
examination by the Parliament due to the non-respect of the principles
declared by the
Constitutional Court1;
64. Notes also that the guidelines laid down for the sole concessionary
of public service
broadcasting by the Parliamentary committee for the general guidance and
supervision
of broadcasting services, along with the numerous decisions adopted by
the
Communications Guarantee Authority (responsible for enforcing laws in
the
broadcasting sector) certifying breaches of law by broadcasters, are not
respected by
broadcasters themselves who continue to grant access to the national
television medium
in an essentially arbitrary manner, even during electoral campaigns;
65. Hopes that the legislative definition contained in the draft act for
reform of the
audiovisual sector (Article 2, letter G of the Gasparri law) of the
'integrated system of
communications' as the only relevant market does not conflict with
Community
competition rules within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty or
with numerous
1 See the judgements of the Constitutional Court of 10 July 1974 (Nos
225 and 206) and 28 July 1976 (No 202)
on Law No 103 of 14 April 1975 (GURI, 17 April 1975, No 102), the
negative opinion from the Constitutional
Court, in its judgement of 21 July (No 148), which criticised the lack
of anti-trust legislation and the resultant de
facto and de jure creation of monopolies and oligopolies. The
Constitutional Court, Judgement No 826/88,
Judgement of 1994 (No 420, GURI No 51, 14 December 1994) and Judgement
466/2002.
RR\531697EN.doc 19/19 PE 339.618
EN
judgments of the Court of Justice1, and does not render impossible a
clear and firm
definition of the reference market;
66. Hopes also that the 'system for assigning frequencies' provided for
in the draft Gasparri
law does not constitute mere legitimisation of the de facto situation
and does not
conflict, in particular, with Framework directive 2002/21/EC, Article 7
of the
Authorisation directive 2002/20/EC or Directive 2002/77/EC, which
specify, inter alia,
that the assigning of radio frequencies for electronic communication
services must be
based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate
criteria;
67. Highlights its deep concern in relation to the non-application of
the law and the nonimplementation
of the judgements of the Constitutional Court, in violation of the
principle of legality and of the rule of law, and at the incapacity to
reform its
audiovisual sector, as a result of which the right of its citizens to
pluralist information
has been considerably weakened for decades; a right which is also
recognised in the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights;
68. Is concerned that the situation in Italy could arise in other Member
States and the
accession countries if a media magnate, such as Rupert Murdoch, chose to
enter into
politics;
69. Regrets that the Italian Parliament has yet to adopt a regulation
resolving the conflict of
interests of the President of the Italian Council of Ministers, which is
what Silvio
Berlusconi had promised to do within the first hundred days of his
government;
70. Considers that the adoption of a general reform of the audiovisual
sector could be
facilitated if it contains specific and adequate safeguards to prevent
actual or future
conflicts of interest in the activities of local, regional or national
executive members
who have substantial interests in the private audiovisual sector;
71. Hopes, moreover, that the draft Frattini law on conflict of
interests will not stop at de
facto recognition of the premier's conflict of interests, but will
provide for adequate
mechanisms to prevent this situation from continuing;
72. Regrets that, if the obligations of the Member States to ensure
pluralism in the media
had been defined after the 1992 Green Paper on pluralism, the current
situation in Italy
could possibly have been avoided;
Recommendations
73. Notes that the European Community already has competence in a number
of policy
areas and avails itself of policy tools with direct relevance for media
pluralism, such as
the rules on free access for societies to important events in the
Television without
Frontiers Directive, rules on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
access to
application program interfaces (APIs) and electronic programme guides
(EPGs) in the
Access Directive, on Must-Carry in the Universal Service Directive, on
the use of an
open API for digital interactive television services and platforms and
on the
1 For the characteristics of substitutability of the reference market
see the judgments Continental Can, case 6/72,
Hoffman La-Roche, case 85/76 and Ambulanz Glöckner, case C-475/99; for
the lack of a sufficient degree of
substitutability of the reference market see judgments United Brands,
case 27/76 and Ahmed Saeed, case 66/86.
PE 339.618 20/20 RR\531697EN.doc
EN
harmonisation of standards in order to achieve full interoperability of
digital television
on the level of the consumers in the Framework Directive;
74. Stresses that these tools need to be understood as core elements of
the Community’s
policy to safeguard media pluralism and thus need to be applied,
interpreted and further
developed by the Commission with a view to strengthening these measures
in order to
combat horizontal and vertical media concentration in traditional as
well as in new
media markets;
75. Calls, therefore, on the Member States and the Commission to
safeguard pluralism in
the media and to ensure, in accordance with their powers, that the media
in all Member
States are free, independent and pluralist;
76. Calls on the Commission to submit a communication on the state of
media pluralism in
the EU as soon as possible including:
(a) a review of existing measures and practices, both in the Member
States and at
European level, designed to encourage political and cultural pluralism
within or
between editorial offices, including with regard to content, and promote
an analysis
of any shortcomings, acknowledging the economic challenges to
guaranteeing
pluralism on smaller and specific markets like local or small country
regions,
(b) a thorough examination of the possibility of action based on its
existing
competencies and its obligations to ensure a high level of protection of
human
rights,
(c) an examination of the measures which should be taken by the Member
States and
those which should be taken by the European institutions,
(d) an examination of the use of appropriate instruments, including the
use of
non-binding instruments during a first stage which could then lead to
binding
instruments if insufficient action is taken by the Member States, and
(e) a consultation procedure on a possible action plan of measures to be
taken at the EU
level or by the Member States to ensure an adequate level of pluralism
across the
European Union;
77. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive to
safeguard media
pluralism in Europe in order to complete the regulatory framework, as
requested in its
resolution of 20 November 2002;
78. Considers that the protection of media diversity should become the
priority of EU
competition law, and that the dominant position of a media company on
the market of a
Member State should be considered as an obstacle to media pluralism in
the European
Union;
79. Emphasises that legislation should be adopted at European level to
prohibit political
figures or candidates from having major economic interests in the media;
considers that
legal instruments should be introduced to prevent any conflict of
interest; calls on the
Commission to submit proposals to ensure that members of government are
not able to
use their media interests for political purposes;
RR\531697EN.doc 21/21 PE 339.618
EN
80. Calls, therefore, on the Commission also to examine the following
issues for inclusion
in an action plan on measures to promote pluralism in all EU sectors of
activity:
(a) the revision of the television-without-frontiers directive to
clarify the obligation of
the Member States to promote political and cultural pluralism within or
between
editorial offices, taking into account the need for a consistent
approach across all
communications services and media forms;
(b) the establishment of EU-wide minimum conditions to ensure that the
public service
broadcaster is independent and free from interference by the government,
as
recommended by the Council of Europe;
(c) the promotion of political and cultural pluralism in journalism
courses so that the
views held within society are adequately reflected within or between
editorial
offices;
(d) an obligation on the Member States to make an independent regulator
(such as the
telecommunications or competition regulator) responsible for monitoring
media
ownership and equal access and with the power to undertake
own-initiative
investigations;
(e) for the establishment of a European 'Working Party' composed of
independent
national media regulators (see, for example, the Article 29
data-protection group);
(f) rules requiring the transparency of the ownership of the media, in
particular, in
relation to cross-border ownership and for the publication of
information on
significant interests in the media;
(g) a requirement that information on media ownership collected in the
national
markets be sent for comparison to a European-wide body, such as the
European
Audiovisual Observatory;
(h) an examination into whether divergent national regulatory models
create obstacles
in the internal market and whether there is a need for the harmonisation
of the
national rules restricting the horizontal, vertical and cross ownership
of the media
to ensure a level playing field and, in particular to ensure an adequate
supervision
of cross-border ownership;
(i) an examination of the need to introduce in the EU Merger Regulation
a 'pluralism'
test and lower thresholds in relation to media mergers, or whether such
provisions
should be included in the national rules;
(j) guidelines on the way the Commission will take public-interest
concerns such as
pluralism into account when applying competition law to media mergers,
(k) an examination into whether the advertising market distorts the
conditions of
competition in the media sector and whether specific controls on the
advertising
market are needed to ensure equitable conditions of access;
(l) a review of the 'must carry' obligations in the Member States on
PE 339.618 22/22 RR\531697EN.doc
EN
telecommunications operators to carry the public service broadcasters,
the market
trends and whether further measures are needed to promote the
distribution of the
public service broadcasters;
(m) the establishment of a general right of EU citizens applicable to
all media to reply
to inaccurate information, as recommended by the Council of Europe;
(n) an examination into the need to reserve sufficient digital
transmission capacity for
public service broadcasters;
(o) a scientific study on the impact of the new communication
technologies and
services on media concentration and pluralism;
(p) a comparative study on national rules relating to political
information - in particular
in the context of elections and referendums - and equal and
non-discriminatory
access for different groupings, movements and parties to the media, as
well as the
identification of best practices in this field to guarantee the right of
citizens to
information, to be recommended to Member States;
(q) possible specific measures which should be adopted to assist the
development of
pluralism in the accession countries;
(r) the establishment of an independent body in the Member States, such
as a Press
Council, consisting of external experts, to oversee disputes over
reporting by the
media and journalists,
(s) measures to encourage media organisations to strengthen editorial
and journalistic
independence and high standards of quality and ethics through editorial
statutes or
self-regulatory means;
(t) the promotion of works councils in media organisations, and in
particular, in
companies established in the accession countries;
81. Recalls that the Commission’s action should, however, be based on
the principle of
proportionality laid down in the last paragraph of Article 5 of the
Treaty establishing the
European Community, which stipulates that any action by the Community
shall not go
beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty;
82. Calls for the preparation of an annual report on pluralism which
assesses the diversity of
the content (internal and external) in relation to the political and
cultural preferences of
the public, assesses editorial independence, and analyses the impact of
concentration of
ownership on diversity; and for pluralism in the media to be
specifically included in the
annual report of the EU network of independent experts on human rights;
83. Calls on the Commission to provide clarification of the Altmark
ruling to the
broadcasting sector and to prepare a draft directive under the
codecision procedure on
the conditions for validation of funding;
84. Asserts that any legal or administrative measures instituted by a
Member State and
affecting the pluralism of the media or the freedom of expression and
information, as
well as the absence of action by a Member State to protect these
fundamental rights
RR\531697EN.doc 23/23 PE 339.618
EN
could fall within the scope of Article 7(1) or Article 7(2) of the
Treaty on European
Union;
85. Considers that, where Parliament has political misgivings regarding
media diversity and
pluralism in one of the Member States, it should have the possibility of
independently
initiating procedures to investigate the matter before using, as a last
resort, its right of
initiative under Article 7(1);
86. Calls for the inclusion of a specific provision in the Constitution
for Europe on the need
to ensure pluralism in the media;
87. Urges Member States to incorporate in their national constitutions
an active duty to
promote respect for freedom and diversity of the media, implementing in
more detailed
form what was laid down in this respect in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the
European Union in December 2000 in Nice; considers that, in order to
guarantee that
this duty is carried out, an independent court should be empowered to
examine
legislation and regulations in this field for conformity with the said
provisions of the
constitution;
88. Invites the Italian Parliament to:
- accelerate its work on the reform of the audiovisual sector in
accordance with the
recommendations of the Italian constitutional court and the President of
the
Republic, taking due account of the incompatibility with Community law,
as
identified by these authorities in the Gasparri Bill;
- to find a genuine and appropriate solution to the problem of a
conflict of interest of
the President of the Italian Council of Ministers who also directly
controls the
principal provider of private and, indirectly, public television, the
main advertising
franchise holder and many other activities connected with the
audiovisual and media
sector,
- to take measures to ensure the independence of the public service
broadcaster;
89. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council,
the Commission, the
Council of Europe and the governments and parliaments of the Member
States and the
accession countries.
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 Dal Garzanti: Censura
*ROTFL*
Qui quando si parla di "censura" non si parla di un controllo pubblico
sul contenuto dell'informazione (cioe' il vietare o meno lo spettacolo
ai minori di 14 o 18 anni) :)
Ma d'altronde se avessi preso la definizione corretta per il contesto
avresti fatto una chiara figura di merda :)
-Stefano

 wrote in message
news:40B31C00...@people.it

Questo si che è arrampicarsi sugli specchi, eh.
Vai così, alla grandissima.



Ride per non piangere.
Per me SDC e' un programmino scemo che risponde in automatico sui NG, questa
volta si e' in incastrato e' uscita la risposta di emergenza il ROTFL
appunto.
Saluti Cad Ali'
--
http://www.hyperlinker.com/spg/
-
http://www.hyperlinker.com/spg/spg_it_1.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------

 Ride per non piangere.
In compenso, si può ridere di lui in abbondanza: basta guardare cos'è
stato capace di combinare nel thread gemello: "Freedom House: in Italia
c'è meno libertà di stampa".
Spettacolo puro, altro che il Circo Orfei.


 addetti a tale controllo
"rapporto sui rischi" non significa dimostrare che i media italiani sono
SOGGETTI a censura. Puoi tu, o qualcun'altro, dimostrare che i media
italiani sono sotto un REGIME CENSORIO? Perchè, a parte la criticabile
questione di santoro luttazzi & co, il documento da te riportato parla
solo del conflitto di interessi di berlusconi, e non di altre evidenze di
censura o controllo da parte del governo dei media.
Raffaele
-- 
Raffaele Castagno
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 censura o controllo da parte del governo dei media.
Scusami, tantopessapé, negli ultimi cinque anni, hai vissuto in Italia o
in Papuasia?


 Qui quando si []
Vuoi per caso ventilare la possibilita' di esserti letto tutta
quell'inutile pappardella, ste', oppure hai preso un pezzo a caso e
l'hai commentato a caso, giusto per apparire un annoiato cazzaro?
 
-- 
Nadja Jacur


 l'hai commentato a caso, giusto per apparire un annoiato cazzaro?
Leggiti il thread gemello, è uno spettacolo.
Riferimenti alla censura nei documenti europei prima negati e poi
quotati, versioni del documento in inglese che non gli si aprono (rotfl)
versioni in italiano che appaiono per incanto, accuse al parlamento
europeo di essere una banda di cazzari e via dicendo.
Gli sto facendo riscoprire il suo lato comico. Lo stile è quello dei
fratelli De Rege.


o in Papuasia?
....disse il bue all'asino..
-Stefano

 ....disse il bue all'asino..
Perché conosci anche buoi ed asini papuasi, ora?


per rivoltare la realtà dei fatti...
Una realta dei fatti che non sai mostrare in modo diverso che con delle
sterili chiacchere :)
-Stefano

 sterili chiacchere :)
Ho ottenuto ciò che volevo: mostrare il lato clownesco di persone in
malafede assoluta.


 internazionale di controllo sulla liberta' di stampa"? :)
Eh già, caro mio.
Poteva essere altro che una ONG? 
Puoi risponderti da solo. Sarò sempre lì, non temere.


Poteva essere altro che una ONG?
Si. :)  Un organismo come l'ONU formato da nazioni :)
-Stefano

 Si. :)  Un organismo come l'ONU formato da nazioni :)
E che dice l'ONU all'articolo 19 della dichiarazione dei diritti
dell'uomo?


 dell'uomo?
Nulla che c'entri qualcosa con un fantomatico quanto fantasioso
"organism internazionale di controllo sulla liberta' di stampa" :)
Complimenti per l'ennesima figura di merda caro Aber Rock :)
-Stefano

 Complimenti per l'ennesima figura di merda caro Aber Rock :)
Se lo dici tu ;)))))
Ti piacerebbe, caro mio, ma non č cosě.
