Back in June, we asked you how we can best guarantee a healthy media in Europe. We had some interesting comments and suggestions sent in; some bemoaning the influence that media tycoons like Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi have over national politics, others arguing that independent media cannot surive without wealthy owners to prop them up. Recently, regular Debating Europe commenter Christos picked up on this issue over on his blog, arguing that Europe needs “pan-European” media if it is to ever truly “break the voices of the monopolies, the propagandists and those blinded by nationalism.”
Christos suggested that pan-European media would be the first step towards a European demos:
Once you receive regularly the news of other countries with a more unbiased perspective, then not only [do] you have a better judgement but you also understand what the people in another EU country are going through, how they deal with the crisis and what solutions or ideas they are putting forward.
Is Christos right, or is it too idealistic to think that pan-European media will ever be possible? For one thing, what about the language barriers between different European countries?
We had the chance to interview several MEPs on this issue at the Pan-European Forum on Media Pluralism and New Media in Brussels, and we put some of your questions and comments to them (including from Christos). We began with the following suggestion sent in by Catherine:
The first step has to be to tighten strongly the right to monopoly. Look at the insane way Rupert Murdoch was able to exploit the situation through his money and the power that gave him… What we need is a press and media service that gives a wide view on all matters political.
We put this comment to Andrew Duff, British Liberal Democrat MEP and president of the Union of European Federalists, to see how he would respond:
Andrew Duff was adamant that media, like all other areas of the European economy, was vulnerable to monopolies. Therefore, he argued, the EU should step in to legislate on the issue in order to uphold the single market:
We are going to have to have a directive on media pluralism that will apply the same competition rules to the press and to the media as apply to all the other sections of industry. And, if we did that, it would be extremely controversial to put in place, but it would severely embarass at least these press barons like Murdoch and, indeed, Berlusconi.
However, we had a counter-point sent in from Nikolai, who argued that breaking up monopolies would not solve the problem:
The reason media plurality is under threat is that traditional media (print) is simply not profitable as an independent operation. Even if we limit Murdoch and his ilk to ownership of x number of titles, those remaining will need either a very rich sponsor to back a money losing operation [or] the titles will either cease, merge or become part of a stable of titles under one owner.
We asked Andrew Duff to respond to this point. If you broke up the media empires of people like Rupert Murdoch, would it ultimately just hurt media independence?
We also spoke to Claude Moraes, British Labour Party MEP and the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in Europe. We put Nikolai’s point to him and asked him to respond:
Well, Nikolai is right. Printed media is massively declining. In fact, there’s going to be a tipping point where printed media is going to just practically disappear, and we’re almost getting to that tipping point. But, unfortunately, the print media in some countries, like the United Kingdom and one or two other countries, is still extremely powerful. Because it’s not the number of people that are reading the print media, it’s how the print media dominates the agenda of broadcasting media and, indeed, digital media. It’s the quality of the stories and the ideas that then feeds into the psychology of a whole nation. So, print media is still incredibly important until we get to that tipping point.
Not everybody may be happy about the amount of political influence wielded by some media magnates, but do we really have a choice if we want to keep media independent of government? Dobrinka, for example, puts the point even more forcefully than Nikolai, arguing that media pluralism has always been under threat (and not just print media).
Media pluralism… is always under threat. It is [simply] that media are not profitable as independent operations. Media independence is a dream.
We put Dobrinka’s comment to Judith Sargentini, Dutch GreenLeft MEP and leader of the GreenLeft delegation, and asked her to react. Is media pluralism really under threat in Europe, or is this just business as usual?
Finally, we took the following comment from Christos, who called for:
More European media, channels, radio, newspapers, blogs, magazines, independent from any national control and their elites. There are many young journalists and bloggers that think outside their “national box” and see things in a more “pan-European” way.
Again, we asked Judith Sargentinin for her view. Should we have pan-European media in Europe? And how could it be achieved?
What do YOU think? Would pan-European newspapers, radio stations and TV channels help create a common European demos? Or is such a dream too idealistic? Would the linguistic and cultural barriers simply be too difficult to overcome? Should the EU intervene to break up big media empires and encourage greater competition? Or would this risk harming freedom of speech and media independence? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.
Big media means banner farm. Let’s buikd our own not big new media!
Of Course, EU Should.
What Harms the “freedom of speech and media independence” is, precisely, The permissiveness with the “Big Media Empires”.
Too many languages… With the accepance of English as a primary one, something can be done. There is Eurosport… Why not Euronews, Eurobusiness, Euroculture…?
Certainly should have better labeling, like cigarettes. For example, ‘this newspaper, tv news, radio news or documentaries etc., should contain words to this effect, ‘The following reports/comments are presented in a manner designed to facilitate harmony between the ruled and the rulers’ and are not necessarily and quite often not, factual’
….pj
He who controls the “verb” controls history… I should add, controls the way the present understands history, and itself…new media cannot be made, they will evolve and yes what EU parliament could do is highlight links, that are not obvious, between big money, governments and the media… Then let the citizens judge.
Thank you Mrs Sargentini for your comment. You definitely got a point. But I have suggested in my blog years back to have a new pan-European TV channel with an name like (this is imaginary and just for an example) EUTV. But instead of broadcasting in one language, it could be something like the euronews and have EUTV Svenska, EUTV Deutch, EUTV Slovensko, EUTV Portugues, EUTV Espagnol etc…. Or simply if you’d like to have more European news or issues in our national media and in our national languages, I would also add that why not movies documentaries tv series and other tv programs from other EU countries translated (either subtitled or dubbed) in our national languages. Why keep watching American tv series and not European? In that was we could give jobs in our actors, directors, cartoonists, tv producers and others over here in our side of the Atlantic and boost the European tv and film industry.
here are some links on the issue. Thank you.
http://eblanademocraticmove.blogspot.ie/2010/10/pan-european-tv-channel-more-european.html
http://eblanademocraticmove.blogspot.ie/2010/10/more-on-idea-of-pan-european-tv.html
And who would pay for this hypothetical EUTV? Funded by governments, like some monstrous euro-BBC, I suppose?
What Harms the “freedom of speech and media independence” is, precisely, The permissiveness with the “Big Media Empires”….
Europe -and so The W@rld- need to Promote REAL Free Media and narrow the chances of Big Media Conglomerates to Getting Bigger, destroying (“acquiring”) The Independent Ones (which, perhaps, could receive balanced Public Financing).
Living in Ukraine and watching by the day the how EU is literally losing the interest of the Ukrainian public, there is an argument for EU news directly from the EU being broadcast in Ukrainian (or Russian).
I say this because the EU, quite frankly, is absolutely hopeless at reaching Ukrainian society. It wastes its time trying to go via governments past and present to reach the Ukrainian public, and now pumps Euro millions into Ukrainian civil society which also fails desperately to connect with the Ukrainian public.
That money, for all the good it currently does, may as well be spent on an EU media outlet in Ukraine that communicates in a language all Ukrainians can understand. The level of English here is simply not high enough to engage the majority of society in anything other than Ukrainian or Russian.
Therefore, aside from the EU’s concerns over Ms Tymoshenko, you would draw an absolute blank from almost all Ukrainians over anything else the EU says about or actually does within Ukraine – and it does a fair bit, either individually on in concert with partners such as UNDP for example. It’s just hardly anybody here knows, because EU communication here is beyond abysmal. It is worse than that to be honest but forum decorum prevents using a crude expletive that would adequately sum it up.
However, Ukraine is not a bubble or sat behind an iron curtain any longer. Internet penetration is fairly high and rising. Amongst the 80+ TV channels I have BBC News 24, an Israeli news channel, Russian news channels and a plethora of local, regional and national channels taking both a supportive and highly critical line against the current government.
Ukrainian social networks and forums are extremely active and very occasionally something the EU said or does unrelated to Tymoshenko will get some discussion. Such instances though are as rare as a believed sighting of a unicorn wearing spotted silk underpants, designed by YSL.
If this is the case in Ukraine, I have no reason to believe it would be any different in Slovakia, Latvia or anywhere else.
If the EU wants to generate bottom-up support for the EU project, then there is no alternative other than direct communication from the bottom-up. It has to avoid communication to the masses via sovereign governments and civil society.
Websites, easy to navigate or not, is simply not enough!
I think a society governed by «property» is both intrinsically and utilitarianly inferior to a society governed by the «polis». The middle age in The West was worse than the roman «rule of law» or the greek «democracy». ANY society where societal decisions are determined by «property» will be both «less productive» and «less free» than a free society. Media empires are both societal in nature, since they form public opinion and shape cultural (thus societal) identities and, since they are «empires», they are based on property. The opinions of Rupert Murch are important not because he is intelligent, cult or creative: the opinions and decisions of Rupert Murdoch are important bbecause he owns the media. Media empires thus impersonate much of what is wrong about the way our societies have been evolving: towards a «rule of property», and away from the rule of the intelligent, the rule of the educated or the «rule of the many»; of pluralism; of democracy. Media empires, more than any other empires should be borbiden. It should be TABU!
The European tax payers together with the EU….. We spend way too much in policies like CAP, we could spend less on them and invest in media, innovation etc. We pay too much to have two parliaments one in Strasbourg one in Brussels. All those little unnecessary stupid red-tape regulations. We pay taxes for “national” media only to be brainwashed by the likes of Murdoch… Time to change all that and put our money where it matters….
well said Rui.. Could not agree with you more…
Well, as I’ve said in my book, symbolism is the only role government should have with regards to business. To step in and break up monopolies, not bail them out.
So, the first, absolutely. The latter…
New media, I’d say, is showing us the way in this regard. They also appease (wrong word, soothe =) all concerns and fears of those anti-advertising.
@Davo ;p There is EuroNews =)
pj..what do you mean by the quite often not factual? and the ruled is especially socialistiic
how about letting ppl govern themselves. yea, in fact, laws used to curtail smoking, begging ..the veil even but .. are completelyuseless.
helena, isn’t that ..dnt they already do that?
Investigative journalism.
or maybe that’s what you meant.
Rui your italicizing democracy is insulting. in fact, Atheneian democracy ..if you will, the current one is corrupt? that wasn’t
A Free society is one where you can own property. socialism has failed and so capitalism is failing now too
Third way policies remain viable. but the politics have changed (equally, thx to Obummer (
Rupert Murdoch is a hero n i like the Wsj. =)
i am sry to see yourself much like pj here ..you fall bk on taboos. socialism is that, forbid everything, laugh at differences
Take I don’t believe in taboos,
everything should be freely discussed.
The first thing that comes to my mind is a quote from Johnny Cash:
“…That the nation was really conscious of itself as a nation.
Railroad tracks crossed the land as did telegraph wires.
Public opinion and great ideas were now reflected on a national basis.”
That’s when the United States, after the Civil War, really became a nation.
Let us now reflect our public opinion and our great ideas on a national (European) basis. So, pan-European media: YES!
Pan European media is the one good solution to the major disfunction of news and information currently dividing our States. Just as long as we don’t end up with the kind of propaganda we see across the US, where the corporations and advertisers choose the message we receive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA&feature=related
Political information and news has become the propaganda of the wealthy one percent. And how they do it is, they withdraw advertising if you don’t spread their views and lies to the people in order to keep them from taking the lions share of the world finances.
What the Rupert Murdoch’s won’t tell the people or, come to that any Capitalist media, is this, we have been taken to the cleaners by more than paying out our tax money to bankers who simply pay themselves bonus after bonus with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ9H63Vx4-k
And what you will not here on any news channel either in the US or here. Because they are all following the same ruinous economic policy and they don’t want you to realise what is happening in real terms.
http://rdwolff.com/content/are-obama-romney-different-economic-policy
I was being or trying to be, diplomatic. By quite often not factual, read, pure and utter propaganda. I personally believe that the state should not be allowed to interfere in adult individual choices where those choices do no harm to others, for example, taking drugs, should not be a criminal offence. I do believe in rules though but not rulers (or leaders etc) and those rules to be within a socialist framework. Socialism has not failed, it has never been fully implemented. Everywhere socialism has been attempted, it has been targetted, attacked and deliberately sabotaged by organised crime, also known as capitalism. What we managed to achieve in Europe was social democracy, the best of capitalism tempered by the best of socialism. That lasted until the forces of organised crime (the US regime) found itself with the time to focus its attention on social democracy (post the fall of the USSR) What we now have ir the worse aspects of both capitalism and socialism, with very little democracy. The intent of organised crime is to remove all traces of socialism or social justice. Citizens should be standing up against these economic terrorists. The reason this is not happening (generally speaking) is due to the success of their propaganda that is delivered by their news&entertainment media, which they own and/or control. All that most people need, is a home, some furnishing, food and a few services, how easy should that be? Why all the bs?…pj
I was being or trying to be, diplomatic. By quite often not factual, read, pure and utter propaganda. I personally believe that the state should not be allowed to interfere in adult individual choices where those choices do no harm to others, for example, taking drugs, should not be a criminal offence. I do believe in rules though but not rulers (or leaders etc) and those rules to be within a socialist framework. Socialism has not failed, it has never been fully implemented. Everywhere socialism has been attempted, it has been targetted, attacked and deliberately sabotaged by organised crime, also known as capitalism. What we managed to achieve in Europe was social democracy, the best of capitalism tempered by the best of socialism. That lasted until the forces of organised crime (the US regime) found itself with the time to focus its attention on social democracy (post the fall of the USSR) What we now have ir the worse aspects of both capitalism and socialism, with very little democracy. The intent of organised crime is to remove all traces of socialism or social justice. Citizens should be standing up against these economic terrorists. The reason this is not happening (generally speaking) is due to the success of their propaganda that is delivered by their news&entertainment media, which they own and/or control. All that most people need, is a home, some furnishing, food and a few services, how easy should that be? Why all the bs?…pj
Basically concentration of power in a democracy is unacceptable. That’s why no commercial or corporate power should control information and culture just as no state or political power should. Citizens are to be free to share, communicate and conceive information within their community at the benefit of their society.
The interaction and blend with the global picture serves as an enrichment and base for local progress and exchange. The media in our world has a critical social, cultural, political and economic function. Further more the media must uphold the values that underlie structures of citizenship in democratic societies and in particular, respect for human rights, culture, equality, diversity and pluralism.
Hence, the concentration of media power in the hands of ever fewer operators poses a direct threat to democracy and pluralism since it can potentially interfere with the public’s right to know by limiting the sources of information, restrict freedom of expression by limiting or controlling the available channels and manipulate public opinion by controlling content.
This threat is compounded by the proliferation of cross ownership structures that create unethical conflicts of interest particularly in cases where news media own, or are owned by, non-news businesses. Europe should prevent the formation of dominant positions in the market, control media concentration and cross-ownership trends that can result in the monopolisation of the information society.
Trying to come out of the banking crisis we already learned that we should ensure that the logic of the market and the drive for profit does not prevail over the needs of society. Our aim should be that the development of the information society is to be progress in the real sense and thus it is essential that we maintain therein the kind of media that will be instrumental in supporting citizenship in a modern democracy and not be confronted with a “fait accompli”.
Standards should be established to ensure and safeguard fair, unobstructed and non-discriminatory access for all broadcasters to a platform and service infrastructure so that media barons do not become ‘the gatekeepers’ to our civil society.
Just a short comment. Euronews does exist, as do various other initiatives such as EUobserver, European Voice. None of them are too well known or successful so far.
The question is not whether we need it, the question is what we’ll need to make it work.
…
Does the EU have a “pan-Europe” media plurality?
No, it does not. But, yes, it must.
An EU-funded centre of excellence for media plurality would set a precedent for other world regions.
Not another policy group, an actual live, breathing, brimstone crunching news outlet. One that reviews existing news media sentiment, in order to better reflect an EU outlook, outside of the officially sanctioned certitudes.
In other words, the EU needs a BBC, without the political interference. Scary bit. But answer me this: would the GFC have been as bad if journalists were allowed to do their job, and do their job properly?
Count the cost. Estimate the alternative. Oh, that’s right, no one has, it’s called the GFC.
…