Brussels, 04/04/2000 (Agence Europe) - Globalisation and digital convergence raise new questions for the media in terms of pluralism and freedoms, questions which, through an own initiative, the European Economic and Social Committee (ESC) felt it necessary to give an opinion. The rapporteur was the French Unionist Joel Decaillon. The February plenary session, given the dossier, sent it to the specialised section due to the impressive number of amendments introduced by the two members of the employers group: Sture Lindmark and Clare Caroll (see EUROPE of 2 February p.14). Following the work carried out by the section, a revised opinion was drafted and presented last week to the plenary session. It was adopted, with an amendment by Sture Lindmark, by a large majority: 97 for, 23 against and 14 abstentions.
"This is a compromise text that aims to guarantee pluralism and insure the respect for the freedom of the press, media by nature competitive," commented Joel Decaillon when presenting it during the session. "We need a European thought framework for the development of the Internet and it is also necessary to guarantee to surfers their right to information and free expression." Thus to fight against the possible risks of abusive mergers, the Committee puts forward three strong ideas, he added:
1. As for Internet audiovisual and information services, the Committee would like Internet users to benefit from safeguards on pluralism and diversity. In view of the rapid development of these services, the Committee asks the European Commission to draft a recommendation addressed to the Member States, inviting them to consider whether national regulations on the audiovisual sector should be adapted to cover these new sources of information;
2. Consideration must be given to the phenomenon of "portal sites," which tend to funnel and standardise the information available, to ensure such sites are not used to corner access to information sources or financial resources linked to advertising. The only solution according to the Committee: to extend to powers of Member State regulators to cover these new services so as to promote pluralism and diversity in information, with Commission-level coordination;
3. To enable the public to identify the information available, to introduce a "European label" to denote quality of information and professional standards," through self-regulation of the industry for information and entertainment sites to guarantee pluralism and independent information and fight against illicit content.
The issue of independence of media editors and journalists is treated differently according to the Member States, the Committee hopes that the professionals and the media (media companies, owners, editors, journalists) adopt the ethical standards (e.g. code of good practice, code of ethics) to guarantee the quality of information.
During the debate, Edoardo Bagliano (employers group, Italy) warned "against the social and political consequences of the mergers' and felt that "the ESC opinion is a clear signal in this direction." Bernando Hernandez Bataller (group of various interests, Spain) declared that "the rapporteur gave a lesson of flexibility, tolerance and balance. The merger of the media is both at and economic level, but also at a socio-cultural level that must take into account the citizens needs." On the other hand, Kenneth Walker (employers group, Britain) found "this document worrying in different aspects: it borders on censorship." He also added: "the Commission has not decided what the European citizens can and cannot see. It is intolerable in a free society!" Tripping him, Rainer Franz (same group, Germany) asked a question over the introduction of a label of quality and professional ethics "who should have the right to evaluate such a quality." Sture Lindmark (employers group, Sweden), who introduced a series of amendments in February, this time stated that "the document is a good document. This opinion is very important as it concerns democratic values that are supposed to be spread by the media." However, he added, "I am worried as the opinion to not sufficiently respect the freedom of the press and expression."
In conclusion of the debates, Joel Decaillon announced: "This opinion being in no way coercive. It proposes codes of good conduct and self- regulation, offers a framework for identifying new media and for the key-word that is guaranteeing pluralism."