Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consolidate an objective framework for granting broadcasting licences in the areas of cable and satellite TV and analogue and digital broadcasting markets, on a basis of transparent and fair criteria, in order to establish a system of pluralist competition and prevent abuses by companies enjoying monopolies or dominant positions;.
Regrets the fact that the new directive on audiovisual media services confines itself to establishing an obligation on Member States to ensure the independence of the national regulatory authorities and does not offer a better definition of those authorities' role;. Reminds the Commission that on several occasions, it has been asked to draw up a directive that would aim to ensure pluralism, encourage and preserve cultural diversity as defined in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, signed in Paris on 20 October , as well as to safeguard access for all media companies to the technical elements that can enable them to reach the public in its entirety;.
Document stages in plenary. PE Committee on Culture and Education. Urges the Commission and the Member States to safeguard media pluralism, to ensure that all EU citizens can access free and diversified media in all Member States and to recommend improvements when needed; 2.
Firmly believes that a pluralistic media system is an essential requirement for the continued existence of the democratic European social model; 3. Notes that the European media landscape is subject to continuing convergence, as regards both the media and the markets; 4.
Highlights that the concentration of ownership of the media system creates an environment favouring the monopolisation of the advertising market, introduces barriers to the entry of new market players and also leads to uniformity of media content; 5. Points out that the development of the media system is increasingly driven by profit-making and that, therefore, societal, political or economic processes, or values expressed in journalists' codes of conduct, are not adequately safeguarded; considers, therefore, that competition law must be interlinked with media law, in order to guarantee access, competition and quality and avoid conflicts of interests between media ownership concentration and political power, which are detrimental to free competition, a level playing field and pluralism; 6.
Calls, therefore, both for a balance between public and private broadcasters - in those Member States where public broadcasters presently exist - and for the interlinking of competition and media law to be guaranteed in order to strengthen the plurality of the media; emphasises that public media broadcasters are also increasingly driven by profit-making, often raising questions relating to the appropriate use of public funds; 7.
Believes that the main objectives of public authorities should be to create conditions that ensure a high level of media quality including those of the public media , secure media diversity and guarantee the full independence of journalists; 8. Calls for measures to improve the competitiveness of European media concerns in order to make a significant contribution to economic growth, to be fostered also through raising the level of awareness and knowledge of economic and financial issues among citizens; 9.
Highlights the growing influence of third-country media investors in the EU, especially in the new Member States; Calls for the consistent application of competition legislation at European and national level in order to ensure a high level of competition and enable new competitors to enter the market; Takes the view that EU competition law has helped to restrict media concentration; nevertheless stresses the importance of independent, Member State supervision of the media and urges, to that end, that media regulation at a national level be effective, clear, transparent and of a high standard; Welcomes the Commission's intention to develop specific indicators to evaluate media pluralism; Calls for further indicators, in addition to media pluralism, to be drawn up to as criteria for analysing the media, including its orientation as regards democracy, the rule of law, human and minority rights and professional codes of conduct for journalists; Underlines the need for ensuring access to information for disabled people; Suggests in this respect the creation of independent media ombudsmen or comparable institutions in the Member States in which they do not already exist; Recognises that self-regulation has an important role in ensuring media pluralism; welcomes existing industry initiatives in this area; Encourages the creation of a charter for media freedom to guarantee freedom of expression and pluralism; Calls for media freedom to be respected and for media reporting to comply consistently with the ethical code; Stresses the need to institute monitoring and implementation systems for media pluralism based on reliable and impartial indicators; Stresses the need for the EU and Member State authorities to ensure journalistic and editorial independence by appropriate and specific legal and social guarantees, and points out the importance of creation and of uniform application in Member States, and all markets where EU-based media companies operate, of editorial charters to prevent owners, shareholders, or outside bodies such as governments, from interfering with news content; Calls on the Member States to ensure through appropriate means a suitable balance among political and social sensibilities, in particular in the context of news and current affairs programs; Suggests that for private-user-generated content in commercial publications and channels, ethical codes of conduct and terms of usage should be encouraged and royalties, commensurate with its commercial value, should be introduced; Welcomes the dynamics and diversity brought into the media landscape by the new media and encourages responsible use of all the new technology such as mobile TV as a platform for commercial, public and community media; Suggests clarifying the status of weblogs and sites based on user-generated content, assimilating them for legal purposes with any other form of public expression; Supports the protection of copyrights at the level of online media, the third parties having to mention the source when taking over declarations; Recommends the inclusion of media literacy among the European key competences and supports the development of the European core curriculum for media literacy while underlining their role in overcoming any form of digital divide; Maintains that the purpose of media education must be, as is laid down in Council of Europe Recommendation , to provide citizens with the means of bringing critical interpretation to bear on, and utilising, the ever growing volume of information being imparted to them; considers that this learning process will thus enable citizens to formulate messages and select the most appropriate media for communicating them, and hence to exercise their rights to the full where freedom of information and expression is concerned; Urges the Commission, in adopting a European approach to media literacy, to pay sufficient attention to standards of critical content assessment and exchanges of best practice in this connection; Calls on the Commission to commit itself to promoting a stable legal framework with a guaranteed high standard of protection of pluralism in all the Member States; Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consolidate an objective framework for granting broadcasting licences in the areas of cable and satellite TV and analogue and digital broadcasting markets, on the basis of transparent and fair criteria, in order to establish a system of pluralist competition and prevent abuses by companies enjoying monopolies or dominant positions; Calls on the Commission to take into consideration the issues arising from the unethical usage and commercial misuse of user-generated content; Reminds the Member States that a balance must always be sought, in the decisions of the national regulatory authorities, between their duties and freedom of expression, the protection of which is ultimately the responsibility of the courts; Reminds the Commission that on several occasions, it has been asked to draw up a directive that would aim to ensure pluralism, encourage and preserve cultural diversity as defined in the Unesco Convention on cultural diversity, as well as to safeguard access for all media companies to the technical elements that can enable them to reach the public in its entirety; Calls on the Member States to support high-quality public broadcasting services which can offer a real alternative to the programmes of commercial channels and can, without necessarily having to compete for ratings or advertising revenue, occupy a more high-profile place on the European scene as pillars of the preservation of media pluralism, democratic dialogue and access to quality content for all citizens; Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support greater co-operation between European regulatory authorities and to intensify the formal and informal discussions and exchanges of views between regulatory authorities in the broadcasting field; Encourages the disclosure of ownership of all media outlets to help achieve greater transparency regarding the aims and background of the broadcaster and publisher; Recommends that the regulations governing state aid are devised and implemented in a way allowing the public service and community media to fulfil their function in a dynamic environment, while ensuring that public service media carry out the function entrusted to them by Member States in a transparent and accountable manner, avoiding the abuse of public funding for reasons of political or economic expediency; Asks the Commission to take due account of the Unesco Convention on cultural diversity and the above-mentioned Council of Europe recommendation, when making a decision about the necessity of a revision of the EC Broadcasting Communication; in the event that the Commission decides to revise the existing guidelines, asks that any measure or clarification proposed is assessed as far as its impact on media pluralism is concerned and duly respects Member States' competences; Recommends that the Commission use the process of revising the EC Broadcasting Communication - if it considers it necessary - as a way to strengthen public service broadcasting as an important guarantor of media pluralism in the EU; Considers that, in order to enable the public audiovisual media to fulfil their task in the era of digital technology, it is necessary for them to develop new information services and media over and above traditional programmes and to be able to interact with every digital network and platform; Welcomes the implementation in certain Member States of provisions requiring cable television providers to include state-run channels and allocate a section of the digital spectrum to public providers; This should also include adequate funding for new services as part of the public service broadcasting remit; Additionally, Member States should remain responsible to decide on frequency allocation to serve the specific needs of their societies in particular with respect to safeguarding and promoting media pluralism; Recommends during the revision of the Telecom Package to retain and, where necessary, to extend must-carry rules; Draws attention to its resolution of 13 November on the interoperability of digital interactive television services 6 , as interoperability is of fundamental importance for media pluralism; Calls for a balanced approach to the allocation of the digital dividend to ensure equitable access for all players, thereby safeguarding media pluralism; Is concerned about the dominance of a few large online players, which restricts new market entrants and thereby stifles creativity and entrepreneurship in this sector; At the same time the products aim to satisfy various consumer needs: for instance, political dailies and weeklies provide not only news, views, analysis, and background information but entertainment content as well.
Different consumer needs are satisfied by different content, so this content can form different product markets as follows:. Nevertheless, precise distinctions among media content are, in many cases, nearly impossible.
Defining relevant product markets runs into difficulties, as interpreting product substitution and aggregating production and consumption this way involves much more uncertainty than the traditional methods of measuring media products and services. Additionally, one must decide whether to treat as equivalent the same amounts of time spent listening to radio news, watching television news, and reading news in newspapers. Since listening to the radio is generally a background activity, it is hard to accept that they are equivalent.
But if they are not, it is difficult to aggregate different consumption figures measured by time spent. The market for news and opinion needs more regulation than entertainment markets, suggests Robinson , p. One can say that the Council of Europe has put emphasis on protecting media pluralism instead of focusing directly on regulating media concentration at a common European level. Although there are different angles, media pluralism is seen mainly as pluralism of media content.
That is, the diversity of media content marketed and available to the general public is the central concept of the term. The variety of viewpoints available to the public is closely linked to the number of independent media outlets in a given market, and a variety of program formats is best achieved by reliance on competitive markets.
Nevertheless, the FCC rejects the notion that promotion of competition through antitrust would ensure adequate viewpoint diversity. Policy objectives like ensuring media pluralism; protecting freedom of expression; and fostering reflection in the media of diverse views and opinions that characterize a democratic society have been supported by a different set of instruments in the field of media concentration regulation that reach far beyond the scope of general competition law.
The wide variety of regulatory measures is based mostly on traditions and mirrors a common belief that competition law antitrust legislation , regardless of its own merits in maintaining and developing media diversity, cannot replace specific national controls.
In a converged environment with full choice, however, the imbalance will change. But the conclusion that new times need new regulation seems valid: interconnectivity among networks and maintaining support mechanisms for universal connectivity constitute primary goals for regulation in the digital age.
Besides, as we are witnessing, sector-specific media concentration rules have been abolished in some European countries in recent years European Commission— DG information society and Media, a. These two things demonstrate that times have truly changed, and that the conventional wisdom, which takes for granted the need for sector-specific concentration measures in the media, no longer helps by itself.
The same ceilings in local radio and television were lowered in the United States by the FCC after the Telecommunications act of was passed. Cross-media restrictions are tending to loosen in other countries as well.
When preparing legislation on cross-border television in the s, many experts and MPs argued for covering media concentration in the EU directive, and the same is true for the Council of Europe Convention on cross-border television, but in the end, these efforts failed. The Green Paper outlines three possible options on the regulation of media concentration at Community level:. Nevertheless, it was not an easy outcome, as debates within the College of Commissioners and among the directorate Generals lasted for years.
Council regulation as a tool for legislating media concentration was ruled out from the very beginning, and the two proposals on a media concentration directive that were tabled in the mid s did not have the backing necessary for passage by the Commission.
Consequently, efforts at legislating media concentration at Community level were phased out by the end of the s Doyle, Attempting to reconcile these conflicting objectives, we arrive at a gray zone of regulation: optimal regulation of media concentration at a common European level simply does not exist in a normative sense, due to irreconcilable differences in the regulatory process, so there are only different kinds of options.
This conflict was even mirrored in the approaches of different directorates-General of the European Commission toward regulating media concentration at EU level until the mids Harcourt, Although the need for common regulation on media concentration is not questioned publicly by Member states in the European Union, direct regulatory tools are not applied at the Community level. On the one hand, Member states strive to incorporate their own regulatory vision at the EU level and are not keen to arrive at a consensus.
On the other hand, Member states seem reluctant to give up their own regulatory power on media concentration for political reasons: one can say that political elites in nation-states are reluctant to cede even a part of their sector-specific regulatory power on media concentration to the Community.
Member states obviously have broad power in taking measures and promoting the non-market part of the national media scene, and in exercising this power they exert influence on concentration of the audiovisual media in general. Of course, during the tiresome process of preparing the long-awaited amendment to the TWVF directive and while working on the audiovisual Media services directive, which was finally adopted at the end of European Parliament and the Council, , the topic was discussed in some sense, but it was clearly outside the center of debate.
The DI is applied in the market of news and public affairs and counts the number of media outlets in local markets. For the national markets of news and public affairs, there are multiple sources available to the general public, and the FCC believes that no governmental regulation is needed to preserve access to them FCC, , pp. These weights represent the relative importance of each medium to the public, and they are used to aggregate independently owned media outlets as sources in the local news market.
It provides us with guidance, informing us about the marketplace and giving us a sense of relative weights of different media. Owen , who regards the present media ownership rules of the FCC as strictly unconstitutional, welcomes the DI as an important step toward measuring media concentration in a more sensible way.
He supports using the DI to count voices in a given market, but he sees serious flaws in its construction. In the end, his criticism outweighs his support, and he rejects the use of the DI.
Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. The economic, social, cultural and political structures are … Expand. His research focuses mainly on contemporary media policy and he has published articles in a number of … Expand. View 1 excerpt, cites background. Since the s these and other corporations have utilized a strategy called … Expand. View 2 excerpts, cites background. If one wanted to measure the historic level of multimedia industry concentration in Mexico, it would not be necessary to use statistics, financial analysis, viewer ratings, or other evaluation … Expand.
Highly Influenced. View 4 excerpts, cites methods and background. The Situation and Trends of the U. Media Industry. Since the s, the. United States has served as a laboratory for studying the combined effects of economic, political, technological, and sociological forces on the structure and behavior of media … Expand. From to , there were a number of significant changes, such as increased audience fragmentation and new media technologies, which impacted the television industry and continue to threaten the … Expand.
Hollywood versus the Internet: the media and entertainment industries in a digital and networked economy.
0コメント