Media freedom in Europe: “The whole system of checks and balances is falling apart”

“Media and technology are tools. It takes a concerted effort of a people to decide how to use them. There are a few problems today, manifest in the Maghreb, but also discernible in Europe, whereby governments are building regulating frameworks and using them to weaken the media and prevent it from speaking freely, as in Hungary and Italy, for instance.”

These words, spoken by Leon Willems of Press Now, summarise succinctly the debate on Media Freedom in Europe that took place on 8 May at the TransEuropa Festival in Amsterdam.

Other participants in the debate organised by the civil society organisation European Alternatives were Thomas Bruning of the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ), Eric Karstens of the European Journalism Centre, Judith Sargentini, MEP for the Dutch green party GroenLinks, and Marietje Schaake , MEP for the Dutch social-liberal party D66.

(from left to right) Lorenzo Marsili (Director of European Alternatives), Leon Willems (Press Now), Judith Sargentini (MEP GroenLinks), Thomas Bruning (NVJ), Marietje Schaake MEP D66) and Eric Karstens (European Journalism Centre) (photo credit: European Alternatives)

Should the EU intervene?

The discussion addressed media freedom concerns in EU countries and raised the question of whether or not EU institutions should intervene to redress the situation.

Notwithstanding their different backgrounds, the panellists seemed to share Willems’ pessimistic view of the current state of media freedom in the European Union.

Italy and Hungary are the most obvious targets of criticism and Willems went as far as to assert that “by media ownership standards, Italy cannot even be considered as a European country anymore.”

But while Italy’s system of media ownership tells a tale of power and money, Hungary’s outlook is much darker, because the shift it reveals in the political system represents a much clearer and more immediate threat to democracy, Sargentini explained.

“The ruling party in Hungary holds two thirds of Parliament. This means that it can change the constitution, which it did. The media law, passed recently, is constructed out of two elements. First, the constitution of a political board to oversee the media, made up of nine members close to the government. Secondly, the imposition of balanced and ethical broadcasting practises. But what is balanced? As far as the Hungarian government is concerned, if a media organisation uses a harsh tone against the ruling party, or questions family values, its reporting is deemed unbalanced.”

The situation in Italy and Hungary raises criticism and is even the subject of ridicule in the rest of Europe, but the threat to media freedom hardly ends here.
As Willems pointed out, other countries are establishing regulatory frameworks that are curtailing the independence and pluralism of the media, such as the decision taken by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy to make the nomination of the public media regulation board a prerogative of the head of state.

Same rules for all?

Moderating the debate, European Alternatives director Lorenzo Marsili said that considering the values promoted by the European Union, one could have been hoped that it would play a more active role in enforcing the protection of human rights and media freedom in Europe.

In the case of the Hungarian media law however, this hope was ultimately deceived.  The Commission criticised the Hungarian move, but it was also quick to withdraw its reservations after only a small number of changes were introduced, even though the media law still poses a serious threat to media freedom in the country.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán promised that Hungary’s media law would be amended if it proves incompatible with EU legislation (photo credit: European Parliament)

“Candidates to club membership need to abide by the club’s rules, whereas existing members simply adjust the rules according to their wishes or flatly ignore them. Member states are not willing to criticise one another because they are afraid that it might turn against them and to find themselves in the focus of criticism. So the whole system of checks and balances is falling apart”, said Sargentini.

The Media Pluralism Monitor is a good illustration of this situation, whereby member states mutually protect one another from unfavourable judgment.

According to Karstens, this monitoring tool looked very promising because it took into account many aspects of the European media landscape and highlighted its pluralism and diversity of content. The European Parliament initiated the project and formally asked the Commission to adopt it. “But the Commission has yet to make use of it. For the time being, it doesn’t dare to do so, since its outcome would strongly tarnish Italy’s image.”

Political alliances also seem to deter the European Commission from acting. “Vivian Reding, the former Commissioner for Information Society and Media, belongs to the Christian Democrat parliamentarian group, which links her to [the French President Nicolas] Sarkozy and [the Italian Prime Minister Silvio] Berlusconi. Years ago, the parliament instructed her to come up with a law against centralised media, such as Berlusconi’s empire, but she never complied. She simply would not go against political allies”, said Sargentini.

This situation leads to paralysed European politics, and in Schaake’s opinion, Europeans should not merely accept this. “People should act. Citizens of the Netherlands, for instance, should call the [Dutch Christian Democratic party] CDA and tell its members: we love your family values, but we don’t like your alliance with Berlusconi’s party and the fact that you are shielding it from criticism”.

The role of the media

For Bruning, a strong, independent media is the best tool to redress these political failings. “I think that one of the most important and most influential elements in the Arab spring is the presence of Al-Jazeera and Al Arabiya in North Africa and the Middle East. Ten years ago, there was no independent media whatsoever in these countries. More than social media, it is the existence of these news networks that has brought change. Without a strong media, you cannot say much about what’s going wrong in your country,” he concluded.

It is precisely at this point that the vicious circle is being closed.

The ICT revolution is posing a serious challenge to news organisations and forcing them to adopt creative measures in order to remain financially viable and strong. State authorities could help them in defining and implementing such measures but today’s political attitude towards media freedom in Europe generally shows disregard to best practices.

The risk is also that state economic intervention might endanger the independence of the media and lead to state interference in matters of content,” Schaake noted, and thereby effectively jeopardise media freedom in Europe.

Closing of the debate, Marsili pointed out that Turkey – a candidate for European membership – is holding 60 journalists in prison for political reasons. Europe used to be a beacon of hope for countries with democratic aspirations and to take advantage of this position to pressure governments into liberalising their political, judicial and media systems.

By allowing its own member states to adopt anti-libertarian measures, the European Union is losing its high moral grounds.

As Karstens put it, “As long as we don’t have the capacity to make member states comply with best practices, we have much less opportunity to influence other countries.”

Posted on May 25, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under analysis, events.