In view of the sanctions against Russian TV channels, the EU needs to build an effective mechanism into its legislation to defend itself against audiovisual propaganda content. This is one of the recommendations of a study on the implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), discussed on Monday 14 November in the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture (CULT).
“The Council of the EU has decided, as part of the sanction measures, to suspend the transmission of the content of several [Russian state-controlled] channels, [but] they’re very exceptional measures”, summarised the co-author, Mark D. Cole. “Shouldn’t that be included in the normal media law regulatory measures of the AVMSD?”.
For better derogation mechanisms
According to the “country-of-origin principle” contained in the AVMSD, a channel established in a third country falls under the authority of the Member State whose retransmission satellites it uses. For Mr Cole, this raises questions: “third-country providers fall into the EU Single Market […] without the EU being able to ensure that the editorial standards that we apply to our own AVMS providers are also guaranteed for them”.
Furthermore, according to the text, a second Member State may block content, in particular if it identifies a security risk. A useful, but little applied derogation, the researcher pointed out. For example, “Russian-language channels directed at the minorities in the Baltic States […] proved to be a dangerous incitement to hatred” and rebroadcasted from Sweden, triggered these exemptions in 2015. “The problem is that it is a multi-step procedure and it takes quite some time to fulfil”, Mr Cole deplored, arguing for “faster and more direct possibilities to derogate from the country-of-origins when there is a danger”.
Finally, he stressed that nothing prevents the content from being disclosed through other channels, in particular on the Internet. This is a pitfall which, in his view, should be reviewed in a forthcoming revision of the directive. “The changed realities [including the war and the technology] do make it necessary to reconsider [...] institutional structures and the cooperation on European level”, he concluded.
AVMSD versus regulations
The study also notes potential conflicts with other European legislation, including the Media Freedom Act. However, for Mr Cole, “the AVMSD is and should remain the centrepiece of audiovisual content regulation at the EU level” because it is “media-centric” and, as a directive, it allows Member States to maintain flexibility.
Lastly, the analysis examined the rules on video-sharing platforms and the promotion of European audiovisual content.
According to Petra Kammervert (S&D, German), rapporteur on the dossier, the CULT Committee’s report on the subject, to be presented in November, will contain similar findings (see EUROPE 13050/27).
To read the study: https://aeur.eu/f/42d
And the recommendations: https://aeur.eu/f/42e (Original version in French by Hélène Seynaeve)