Debate: European Media Freedom Act
Date: TUESDAY, 12 MARCH 2024
Speaker: Věra Jourová
Language: EN

I want to react to several speakers. First of all, there was a question mark over the role of journalists – of course, to inform the citizens, to be our eyes and ears from the battlefields. Unfortunately, we have wars very close to us and journalists are risking their lives to do their job and to give us trustworthy information. And this is the main reaction why I wanted to say it: keep us, the politicians, in power and under control, helping the citizens to understand what we do in politics. I think that this is this is a very key role and I think we want too much from the media.  It was already in discussions before in this House, we want so much from the media and we do so little to create workable conditions for them, including elementary safety. So I think by this Media Freedom Act, we are correcting this imbalance of powers, because I think that most of us are aware that the weaker the media, the weaker the democracy. A few comments on Mr David, who is not here anymore, on disinformation. Indeed, we have definitions about disinformation which pose a risk to our democracy, to our elections and to our safety. And if he wants to read another definition of disinformation, he could read some of Putin’s military papers, because this is in Russia’s military doctrine that they will use this information as their weapon against European democracies. So it is comment number one. On the comment of Ms Bocskor – who is not here anymore again, so I’m sorry she didn’t wait for the answer – she interpreted this law or she called it a ‘Brussels censorship law’ or something like that. This law is a threat only to those, mainly on the political scene, who want to turn the media into Kremlin-style propaganda. It is a threat to those who want to use the power of the state, also financial one, to make the media dependent on them. I said at the beginning that by developing this law, we were inspired by real problems in several Member States. Hungary was one of the inspirational sources for us exactly because of these issues. I want to react to Ms Tomc. She said she does not trust me. I regret that, but I want to remind us of the situation when Prime Minister Janša and his ministers were publicly attacking concrete journalists, as if giving the blessing to the society to continue this. If politicians start attacking journalists, this is the example for the country. If politicians call journalists public enemies, this is also a very, very difficult situation for democracy. I would like to remind us of the moment when the Slovenian state agency, the public service Press Agency, had to start crowdfunding to remain alive. Because the state didn’t want to finance it, because the agency was not comfortable for the politicians. So these were my reactions on the Slovenian situation in the media. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to switch into my language because I want to speak Czech about the situation in Slovakia. I will be short. Pane předsedající, ráda bych řekla k situaci na Slovensku, že sledujeme zejména situaci médií a novinářů. Připomínám, že je to země, kde došlo k vraždě Jána Kuciaka právě proto, že byl velmi schopným novinářem, který dokázal pracovat s veřejnými informačními zdroji a pokrýval korupční kauzy spojené i s politickou sférou. Dnes tady hovoříme o zákoně o svobodě médií, a když pomyslím na situaci a vývoj na Slovensku, tak se mi chce říci, že včera bylo pozdě. Takže my sledujeme situaci. Nové zprávy o tom, že se má změnit fungování veřejnoprávní televize, jsou jednou z těch věcí, které – myslím si – zaslouží naši pozornost, nejenom Komise, ale každého, kdo rozumí tomu, že v každé zemi by měla být opravdu silná média veřejné služby a ne média, která budou sloužit jako hlásné trouby strany a vlády.