Two major threats to media freedom exist across Europe today. One is the attempt by state authorities to dominate the media market. The other is the trend towards commercialisation and monopoly. Both these tendencies undermine freedom of expression – and are good reasons for strengthening public service media.
Media pluralism is necessary for the development of informed societies where different voices can be heard. However, in several European countries there is little genuine media freedom and therefore limited space for pluralism. Independent television and radio channels are denied licences, and critical newspapers are prevented from buying newsprint or distributing their papers.
Other state controls are more discrete. By buying advertising space solely in “loyal” media, governments can signal to businesses to follow their lead, which means that independent media are effectively boycotted. The increase in bureaucratic harassment and administrative discrimination is also of concern.
The concentration of media ownership in the private sector is yet another problem. If the mass media are dominated by a few corporations, the risk for bias and interference with editorial independence increases.
In Italy, for example, while Silvio Berlusconi was prime minister he was simultaneously the biggest shareholder of the largest private television company (through Fininvest, which owns nearly 39% of the shares of Mediaset), resulting in egregious governmental interference in the media and raising serious questions about the distribution of power in society.
The need for pluralism in the media was emphasised in a Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation which called on member states to ensure that a sufficient variety of media outlets provided by a range of different owners, both private and public, are available to the public.
Public service media promotes quality
I have noted that where there is strong, independent public service media there is often good quality, ethical journalism. Being independent – including from advertisers – such media can encourage good investigative journalism and knowledge-based content.
Yet, in many countries in Europe the value of public service media is being questioned – even to the extent of campaigns conducted against them. This is unfortunate.
In the digital age, the media landscape is becoming broader and more interactive. The consequence of this is the transformation of the concept of public service broadcasting into public service media (PSM), which has a wider scope in terms of services and includes both traditional media and new media.
Well-functioning PSM can be decisive in the protection of human rights, particularly freedom of expression, and can provide space for all voices in society, not least for minorities, children and other groups which tend to be marginalised. This requires that governments abstain from efforts to undermine Internet freedom.
Monopoly tendencies must be stopped
Monopoly tendencies must be systematically countered. There is a need for further studies on media pluralism and the functioning of public service media across Europe today. These should be followed by a wider public debate about the promotion of independent and useful public service media, including their mandate, organisation and funding – as well as their accountability.
This discussion must also include the steps necessary to ensure that the potential of Internet-based social media will be fully exploited in the service of the public.
Thomas Hammarberg
Further reading:
Issue Discussion Paper on media pluralism and human rights
Issue Discussion Paper on public service media and human rights