The European Parliament’s Committee on Culture (CULT) adopted, on Thursday 7 September, its position on the ‘European Media Freedom Act’ (EMFA) with 24 votes in favour, 3 against and 4 abstentions.
“We strengthened the [European] Commission’s proposal to significantly safeguard media independence and protect journalists while at the same time not weakening our unique cultural differences”, welcomed rapporteur Sabine Verheyen (EPP, German) after the vote.
Independence
To promote the sector’s independence, MEPs have tackled a number of fronts. First and foremost, their report stresses, the national media regulatory authorities, as well as the ‘European Board for Media Services’, must be independent... including for those inside the Berlaymont building, the headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels.
“The Commission is nothing that flies high over everything. It’s also politically influenced”, Ms Verheyen told EUROPE, adding that the legislation must be able to withstand changes of government.
As for the independence of the public media, MEPs want them to have a multiannual budget to prevent political interference and increase predictability. They are proposing as well to review the rules for audience measurement and to cap the public advertising revenue that can be allocated to a single medium, digital platform or search engine.
Transparency and editorial freedom
The CULT report also strengthens transparency requirements, asking media of all types to publish the identity of their owners and those who benefit directly or indirectly, as well as their public financial support (including from a third country) and their advertising revenue. They will be required as well to declare any potential conflict of interest or attempt to interfere.
The final version of the agreed text also clarifies the role of publishers in editorial decisions. “The publisher has the right to define, together with the editorial team, the general line of the newspaper. But he should never influence every single article and dictate what can be written or not”, explained the rapporteur.
This approach differs from her draft report, which gave greater rights to publishers, who are legally responsible for content published in certain EU countries (see EUROPE 13170/27). “There is a solution that is applicable in all the Member States even where they have different legal systems”, she defended.
Source protection
As for the protection of sources, in particular against the use of spyware, the ‘Verheyen’ report takes up the position of the Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE), which has exclusive competence in this area. Thus, the use of such software could only be justified as a last resort and on a case-by-case basis, and if ordered by an independent judicial authority as part of an investigation into serious crimes (see EUROPE 13225/23).
This approach differs from that of the EU Council, which wants an exception on the grounds of “safeguarding national security” (see EUROPE 13206/1).
“Privilege” for the media
Finally, to protect media content on digital networks, the text maintains and strengthens the provision on “media privilege”. If finally adopted, it would oblige the very large platforms to wait 24 hours before deleting the content of a recognised media outlet that violates its terms of use. However, civil society organisations fear that this will complicate the fight against disinformation.
“There are many safeguards. It’s not that we open up let’s say a blank cheque for everyone”, Ms Verheyen defended, listing the various criteria to be met in order to qualify.
“This piece of legislation is not an ‘anti-disinformation’ law, this is a media freedom law. If we want to tackle disinformation, we need other instruments. The DSA is the instrument against illegal disinformation structures”, she added, pointing out that the aim of the measure is to prevent a situation in which “the house rules of platforms overrule media regulation”.
A cascade of amendments
Although Ms Verheyen’s report finally won a clear majority, it was only after lengthy negotiations and 1,237 amendments summarised in 53 compromise amendments. In fact, the rapporteur’s initial position had been deemed lacking in ambition, both by associations and by her colleagues (see EUROPE 13170/27).
“I was never against some of the aspects civil society brought in”, Ms Verheyen assured EUROPE. If she admits that she was “quite careful in the beginning”, this was to ensure that the text was “balanced” and respected the EU’s limited competences in media matters.
However, in her view, an ambitious position that is not “legally sound” runs the risk of turning EMFA into a “public relations measure” that will be taken to the Court of Justice of the EU by Member States that oppose it, such as Hungary and Poland.
The report will be put to the vote at the European Parliament’s plenary session in early October.
To see the compromise amendments (all adopted): https://aeur.eu/f/8h5 ; https://aeur.eu/f/8h6 (Original version in French by Hélène Seynaeve)