Media pluralism - who, or what do you trust?
I ask the question, as I do not suppose many people would volunteer two Euro commissars, one a Swedish Social Democrat and one a Luxemburger Christian Democrat. They are, however, looking into whether we have enough it....
The opening shot notes: "...the notion of media pluralism is much broader than media ownership; it covers access to varied information so citizens can form opinions without being influenced by one dominant source. Citizens also need transparent mechanisms that guarantee that the media are seen as genuinely independent".
It then outlines a three step process, firstly a working paper on rules on ownership, regulation country by country etc (available here as a pdf file, and littered with typos it is too) and using 2004 data, then, 'An independent study on media pluralism in EU Member States to define and test concrete and objective indicators for assessing media pluralism in the EU Member States'. And finally 'A Commission Communication on the indicators for media pluralism in the EU Member States (in 2008), on which a broad public consultation will take place. This could lead to an evaluation of the opportunity for applying the media pluralism indicators, for example through a further study'.
What emerges from the tour d'horizon of the various national regulatory frameworks is that ours is the most complicated when it comes to cross ownership, and the Cypriots are the most paranoid about ownership - there is a 5% limit on either print or broadcast ownership by non-EU nationals. So I guess we will not be seeing the Nicosia Sun any time soon.
In order to dig ourselves out of the Eurospeak, there is a handy roadmap provided by Ms Reding, the Luxemburger of this duo, with whom I have crossed swords before when she revealed her ignorance of pricing mechanisms in the mobile ‘phone market. For this we have her speech to the Liverpool Audiovisual conference in 2005. And it starts off quite well:
“I am determined to find the best possible, future-proof balance between a light burden on industry, in order to boost Europe’s competitiveness and to encourage successful cross border services”.
Forgetting quite how heavy light EU burdens are for the time being, that sounds quite acceptable. However, Ms Reding has a useful wedge: “the pursuit of undisputed public policy objectives, such as protection of minors or the fight against racial hatred”. (my emphasis). This is something of a red herring, given that each country has its own laws on those issues already. And here comes the sting in the tail: “It is the duty of the Commission to propose a framework under which these shared European values are protected”. Shared European values. Public policy objectives. Where might they end up taking us?
The opening shot notes: "...the notion of media pluralism is much broader than media ownership; it covers access to varied information so citizens can form opinions without being influenced by one dominant source. Citizens also need transparent mechanisms that guarantee that the media are seen as genuinely independent".
It then outlines a three step process, firstly a working paper on rules on ownership, regulation country by country etc (available here as a pdf file, and littered with typos it is too) and using 2004 data, then, 'An independent study on media pluralism in EU Member States to define and test concrete and objective indicators for assessing media pluralism in the EU Member States'. And finally 'A Commission Communication on the indicators for media pluralism in the EU Member States (in 2008), on which a broad public consultation will take place. This could lead to an evaluation of the opportunity for applying the media pluralism indicators, for example through a further study'.
What emerges from the tour d'horizon of the various national regulatory frameworks is that ours is the most complicated when it comes to cross ownership, and the Cypriots are the most paranoid about ownership - there is a 5% limit on either print or broadcast ownership by non-EU nationals. So I guess we will not be seeing the Nicosia Sun any time soon.
In order to dig ourselves out of the Eurospeak, there is a handy roadmap provided by Ms Reding, the Luxemburger of this duo, with whom I have crossed swords before when she revealed her ignorance of pricing mechanisms in the mobile ‘phone market. For this we have her speech to the Liverpool Audiovisual conference in 2005. And it starts off quite well:
“I am determined to find the best possible, future-proof balance between a light burden on industry, in order to boost Europe’s competitiveness and to encourage successful cross border services”.
Forgetting quite how heavy light EU burdens are for the time being, that sounds quite acceptable. However, Ms Reding has a useful wedge: “the pursuit of undisputed public policy objectives, such as protection of minors or the fight against racial hatred”. (my emphasis). This is something of a red herring, given that each country has its own laws on those issues already. And here comes the sting in the tail: “It is the duty of the Commission to propose a framework under which these shared European values are protected”. Shared European values. Public policy objectives. Where might they end up taking us?
Labels: EU fun and games
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 6:27 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
I'm sorry, my eyes glazed over when I stood on the foothills of the mountain of Eurospeak, so I thought I would mention something equally stupefying.
Obama has entered the race and brought with him a fresh bag of narcoleptic platitudes. This, for example: "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.
"We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans." That was so sharp and stimulating, if someone had given me a shot of an amphetemine, I might have woken up.
Fair enough. I had to read through those multiple heaps of hooey.
It is all rather depressing that 'warmth' and image goes down a lot better than properly focused ideas with electorates the world over. Sigh....
No reference to Danish cartoon-publishing, I note.
They are obviously struggling over what to think about t'interweb. (Have they read that seminal case Guido v Ireland, I wonder?)
Interesting to note that the UK TV advertising market is substantially bigger than the German. We obviously lap it up.
I confess I had to *remind myself* what deontology is...
I don't think this goes down particularly well with electorates, Croydonian. I think they simply don't read it. The EU comes out with an acre of pretentious, meaningless rubbish and the citzens of EU countries recognise it for what it is and don't read it. The Komissars and the PR army get to look busy and have endless papers and press releases they can point to as proof of their industry. Blah blah blah.
The regulation of the EU is often demanded by big business to protect them from the competition of the little chaps or of foreigners (i.e raising barriers of entry). Ref.: The Ideachannel is currently showing online Milton Friedman's The Tyranny of Control, where he makes a similar comment.
All this Blah blah blah is necessary for hiding the real agenda.
I must say I think Colin has a point and it isn`t just here.The contant wish to conceal and obfuscta eis one of the most distinctive features of the EU.
MEGO
(My eyes glaze over as well Verity)
perhaps I am idealistic, but I thought that the reason for all this hot air was the utopian ideal of creating jobs for useless bureaucrats.
The EU can't
afford more unemployment.
If you are all really bad, I may yet do a number on an epic EU survey on understanding etc of the single market. The UK does, depending on how you look at it, very well / badly...
I too think Colin has a point.
Croydonian,
"If you are all really bad, I may yet do a number on an epic EU survey..."
Are we all so bad?
Maybe or maybe not but unfortunately we are very curious to read about your epic EU survey.
Officially, all countries are doing very well with the planning of the EU. Naturally, purely by coincidence, a major news magazine in Germany carries a cover story claiming that communism is working after all. Proof: "Red China's rapd rise - China conquers the world market with methods of planned economy"
Don't laugh about the stupidity of journalists. These poor chaps have never been trained in clear thinking. Ten seconds of thinking suffice to find evidence disproving their hypothesis.
"Madness is rare in individuals but the rule in groups, parties, people and times." (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Colin,
Your wish is my command. A little diappointing that Chinese tale - I had always been led to believe that Spiegel journalists were fairly heavyweight thinkers / writers by the standards of the mainstream press.
Colin
Communism is indeed working, it was never intended to benefit the common man, it was a system of control invented by central bankers (jewish ones) why did banks fund the Russian and Chinese communist revolutions?
its all about control.
And before anybody jumps on my neck I am not an anti semite.
Mr soloman who is fitting a new hall carpet for me this week is not part of some grand conspiracy.
Zac Goldsmith and the other Rothschilds are.
I'm not *entirely* convinced PH....
Zac's mother was certainly born goyische, as was his grandmother, and I cannot find any evidence that either converted. Culturally and by self identification, yes - but would he get Israeli nationality if he sought it, on that basis?
Interesting question, because being Jewish is a uterine descendency. No question. That's it. If your mother is/was Jewish, you're a Jew. If not, not.
Croydonian,
Your wish is my command. A little diappointing that Chinese tale - I had always been led to believe that Spiegel journalists were fairly heavyweight thinkers
I am sharing your view. And thanks.
Peter,
Communism is indeed working, it was never intended to benefit the common man,
I agree if you view it from the hidden agenda instead of the stated goals. However, I am not sure about your banker conspiracy theory. Maybe you have more hard facts to support the theory? I am always eager to learn.
With regard to Jewish influence in communism, it is a known fact that many communist leaders were of Jewish origins. But does this make it a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world?
An evolutionary scientist, Professor Kevin MacDonald, has written three books and several articles about Judaism from an evolutionary perspective. He claims that it is a successful ethnic strategy and that the Jewish model can help the West to survive.
I haven't formed an opinion on his thesis yet because it is quite a lot of work to read his three books on that topic. Maybe some readers have read them and are able to provide us with more insight about the validity of his claim?
Kevin MacDonald's hypothesis that Judaism is a successful survival strategy for an ethnic minority is in complete agreement with Verity's argument that "being Jewish is a uterine descendency".
» Post a Comment