The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) held, on Tuesday 31 January, a hearing on the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). While the legislation has laudable objectives, it needs to be improved to deliver on its promises.
Independence of the Board
The independence of the European Board for Media Services thus continued to raise questions (see EUROPE 13105/20, EUROPE 13069/23).
“Its independence and tasks are well-defined in the law, and the Board is not a new authority overseeing the press, deciding on self-regulatory standards or ethics”, said Marie Frenay, member of the cabinet of European Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová.
Renate Schroeder, Director of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) also defended the Committee. The text states, for example, that it is the media service providers “who are to take appropriate measures to guarantee the independence of individual editorial decisions, [...] that means that neither the Commission, nor Member States, nor the Board will impose anything concrete to the media [as regards content]”.
EU rules
Another irritating point is the very need for media regulation at EU level (see EUROPE 13073/25). “What is a problem in one Member State might be a solution in another Member State. This act needs to be the surgical tool to address problematic situations without disturbing systems that already work very well”, summarised Ramona Strugariu (Renew Europe, Romanian).
While agreeing, Ms Frenay recalled that “no country is immune to threats [and that] problems in the media in one single Member State can have an impact for the whole EU”.
Political capture
Finally, “political capture” came up in the conversation. Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, German) asked how the EMFA could “deal with situations where we have crossed all the red lines”, such as in Hungary, where the media is being manipulated by the ruling party.
Ms Frenay argued that the provisions of the text should be seen in a complementary way: Hungary could, for example, be subject to infringement proceedings for its lack of fairness in the allocation of public advertising revenues or independence of the public media.
Towards a strengthening of the text
While the Commission has advocated for “an agreement in the European Parliament before the next elections”, a consensus seems to be crystallising around the need to improve the text. “We need clearly articulated obligations with legal binding force across the EU to avoid any discretionary power of Member States as to how to implement them”, summarised Renate Schroeder, calling for stronger measures on the protection of sources, allocation of advertising budgets or media ownership.
Finally, at the request of Vladimír Bilčík (EPP, Slovakian), Ms Frenay outlined the contours of the ‘Package for the Defence of Democracy’, scheduled for the end of May. This will include “legislation about transparency measures of entities funded by or linked to third countries that are influencing the democratic debate” as well as a “review of the Democracy Action Plan”. (Original version in French by Hélène Seynaeve)