BFMI: Give teeth to the European Media Freedom Act!
In an opinion piece published by Euractiv, BFMI Director Antoinette Nikolova highlights several shortcomings of the upcoming European Media Freedom Act, including the non-binding nature of key provisions on editorial independence, ownership transparency and state advertisement. Nikolova states that this is a particular concern for countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, where authoritarianism is on the rise.
Seen from Berlin, the European Media Freedom Act currently under negotiation does not need to give the European Commission any authority on media regulation, but countries in Eastern Europe and EU hopefuls in the Balkans want legislation with teeth, writes Antoinette Nikolova.
The European Media Freedom Act is in an advanced stage of the legislative process. This legislation is critical in promoting a free and independent media landscape, and ensuring that journalists and media publishers can work independently, without fear of reprisals from illiberal-minded governments with authoritarian tendencies.
The proposed changes include creating a European Media Board as a regulator, harmonizing rules and procedures, promoting editorial independence, and ensuring fair funding for public broadcasting.
If the Media Freedom Act is approved, it could disrupt the playbook of authoritarian regimes that have controlled public service media and improve the media environment for journalists and media publishers. The outcome of this discussion is highly anticipated, as it could have a significant impact on media freedom in Europe.
At this stage of the legislative process, civil society must insert appropriate protections to ensure that not only large mainstream media but also local, civic and alternative media benefit from privileges under the new regime. The law should provide benefits to both small and alternative media.”
It is also crucial to ensure that regulations leave no room for harmful interpretations.
Those of us who work in countries ranking among the last in Europe according to the media freedom index, we know how governments can distort a law and turn it upside down in their favour, especially when EU regulations leave room for such counterfeiting.
As the Bulgarian saying goes, it’s like “the Devil reading the Bible”.
Among the professional community, there is a growing concern that key regulations to ensure media freedom will not be binding and legally enforceable.
The proposed legislation relies on voluntary action and media self-regulation from media outlets and authorities. Key issues, such as media ownership, transparency of media funding and editorial independence, are listed in the non-binding recommendations.
This is particularly problematic for countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans which often lurch toward authoritarianism.
There is a need for credible safeguards in countries having problems with the rule of law in general. It is essential that these regulations be mandatory and enforceable to protect media freedom and prevent undue influence from those in power.
Having said this, binding regulations also may be subject to harmful interpretations by governments.
For example, the independence of the proposed European Board is uncertain, as it will rely on the national regulatory authorities that comprise the Board.
Some Western European and Baltic countries may resist giving too much authority to such Board, particularly if they are already performing well in terms of media freedom.
Many journalistic and press-freedom associations are advocating for the EU law to have teeth to protect media from political and commercial interests.
Our Balkan-focused organization sees a genuine risk that unilateral political influence could impact the Board’s decisions, posing a serious risk to all member states.
An important safeguard could be mandatory consultation between the national authority and the European Media Authority in all national procedures. Where appropriate, the European Commission should be able to veto a decision made by a national authority.
Furthermore, we urge the Board to consult with civil society organizations and not just national authorities and stakeholders.
Lastly, we recommend that the Commission issues guidance not only for cross-border matters but for all issues within the scope of the Media Freedom Act.
The main opponent of that proposal is Germany. As a country with a federal system with 14 media authorities at the state level, this influential EU member says the Commission should not be involved in issuing opinions.
Simultaneously, Ireland and Hungary push for the inclusion of wording to specify that opinions issued by the board should not be legally binding. Hungary is particularly vocal in its defence of state competence on media issues.
The other crucial risk factor is the push for non-binding transparency of ownership and of the funding sources, as well as of restrictions on ownership concentration.
Needless to say what would happen if these rules were left on a voluntary basis in most Balkan countries or Hungary for example.
The proposals for editorial independence also lack safeguard against state interference. Of course, the government does not need to pick up the phone to guarantee the loyalty of publishers. They use much more sophisticated machinery to do that. The EU should not produce naïve legislation counting on self-regulation in Eastern Europe.
Another matter of concern are the provisions on state advertising and audience measurement methods. Maybe in possible in some EU countries that such advertising doesn’t cause biased reporting, but we have evidence that it does in others. Measurement methods may work in some countries, or be completely biased in others.
Additionally, the European Media Freedom Act currently lacks requirements for countries outside the EU, although several of them are on their way toward accession.
Clearly, alignment with the European Media Freedom Act should be a conditionality for EU accession. EU funding should also be made conditional on progress on media freedom and alignment with the Act, as part of the EU acquis.
