• Save
Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk Based Approach
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk Based Approach

on

  • 858 views

Prof. Dr. Peggy Valcke (KU Leuven, ICRI - IBBT) ...

Prof. Dr. Peggy Valcke (KU Leuven, ICRI - IBBT)

A Definition of Pluralism in the Media Sector – Comparing Results of EU projects
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom
European University Institute, 27 April 2012.

More info at: http://cmpf.eui.eu/events/definition-of-pluralism.aspx

Statistics

Views

Total Views
858
Views on SlideShare
842
Embed Views
16

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 16

http://cmpf.eui.eu 16

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk Based Approach Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk Based Approach Presentation Transcript

  • Independent Study on Indicators forMedia Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk Based Approach Prof. Dr. Peggy Valcke (KU Leuven, ICRI - IBBT)A Definition of Pluralism in the Media Sector – Comparing Results of EU projects Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom European University Institute, 27 April 2012
  • Context mid-1990s: “the directive that never was”  focus on media ownership/concentration  shows political sensitivities about issue But: media pluralism recurrent concern of EP  various resolutions, Mikko report... EU three-step approach to media pluralism 1. Commission Staff Working Document (Jan. 2007) 2. Study (2008-2009) 3. Communication (abandoned) Monitoring! 2
  • Objective of the Study « Develop practicable monitoring tool to detect threats to pluralism with differentiated sets of indicatorscovering pertinent legal, economic and socio-cultural considerations » 3
  • Purpose of Such Tool  Enhance transparency about media pluralism in Member States  Provide evidentiary basis for decision-makers“Monitoring should ensure a much more substantive,evidence-driven debate compared with the past, able topinpoint real concerns and lay to rest misplaced fears.”  NO harmonisation of policies, concepts, regulation... Diagnosis, no therapy 4
  • Required Features of the Tool Neutral  Does NOT prescribe remedies / dictate level of risk-appetite / defend ideology Holistic/Comprehensive  Covers various segments of ‘media market’ (print & audiovisual, private & public)  Broad notion of media pluralism (internal, external, political, cultural, ownership...) Risk-based  Risks include lost opportunities Objective  Relies on quantitative measurements to largest possible extent EU-standardised  Common set of indicators with identical border values (but: regard for national specificities through ex ante- and ex post profiling) Evolving  Possibility to include emerging – future risks at later stage Practical - User-friendly  As simple as possible, but as sophisticated as necessary 5
  • Main Features (& impact on design) Neutral Monitoring Tool Compatible with different normative approaches, diverging regulatory cultures It does NOT:  prescribe remedies  dictate level of risk-appetite  defend ideology 6
  • Main Features (& impact on design) Holistic / Comprehensive Covers various segments of ‘media market’ (print, audiovisual, online – public, private, community media...) For first time, brings together a host of previously disparate concerns to offer a multi-faceted approach to media pluralism (internal, external, political, cultural, geographic...) – cf. CoE’s broad notion of media pluralism 7
  • Main Features (& impact on design) Risk-based Does not measure actual level of media pluralism, nor best practices, but threats to pluralism Risks include lost opportunities (e.g. low availability of broadband networks in rural areas) 8
  • Main Features (& impact on design) Concrete / Objective Relies on quantitative measurements to largest possible extent Methods for calculation and border values are transparent 9
  • Main Features (& impact on design) EU-standardised Common set of indicators with identical border values But: regard for national specificities through ex ante- and ex post profiling; infra 10
  • Main Features (& impact on design) Evolving Tool is flexible: possibility to include emerging / future risks at later stage, as well as new indicators SMART-test = method applied to select « first tier » from « second tier » indicators in current MPM  Specific: indicators have sufficiently precise meaning & direct link with media pluralism  Measurable: they can be expressed in quantitative or qualitative score  Achievable/attainable: data can be obtained at reasonable cost  Result-oriented: reliable border values can be defined over which there is broad consensus  (Time-bound: data can be collected frequently enough to inform the progress and influence the decisions) Second tier indicators may be included in MPM at a later stage (e.g. when relevance has grown, data or measurement methods have become available). 11
  • Main Features (& impact on design) Practical / User-friendly As simple as possible, but as sophisticated as necessary Detailed User Guide Open for use by wide range of stakeholders Cost factor: try to recycle existing data 12
  • Presentation Study Team
  • Existing Monitoring SystemsUS:Diversity Index – Noam Index: concentrationEurope:Permanent monitoring systems:  With possibility of taking action, for example:  Germany: “Vorherrschende Meinungsmacht” (http://www.kek-online.de)  Belgium (FR): “significant position” (http://www.csa.be/pluralisme)  Merely mapping excercise (no sanctions), for example:  Belgium (NL): annual report on media concentration ( http://www.vlaamseregulatormedia.be/)  Netherlands: media (concentration) monitor (http://www.mediamonitor.nl/)Permanent news monitoring systems, e.g.:  Netherlands: “DNN” (the Dutch News Monitor: http://www.nieuwsmonitor.net/)  Belgium (NL): Electronic News Archive (now MEDIAMON; http://www.nieuwsarchief.be/) 14
  • Definition of Media Pluralism in the Study Starting Point (1): CoECouncil of Europe, Explanatory Memorandum toRecommendation No. R (99) 1 on measures topromote media pluralism...the notion of “media pluralism” should be understoodas diversity of media supply, reflected, for example, inthe existence of a plurality of independent andautonomous media (generally called structuralpluralism) as well as a diversity of media types andcontents (views and opinions) made available to thepublic. Therefore both the structural/quantitative andqualitative aspects are central to the notion of mediapluralism. 15
  • Definition of Media Pluralism in the Study Starting Point (1): CoEExplanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R(99) 1 on measures to promote media pluralism[...] The concept of pluralism is comprised of two features.Political pluralism, which is about the need, in theinterests of democracy, for a wide range of politicalopinions and viewpoints to be represented in the media.Democracy would be threatened if any single voice withinthe media, with the power to propagate a single politicalviewpoint, were to become too dominant. Culturalpluralism, which is about the need for a variety of cultures,as reflects the diversity within society, to find expression inthe media. 16
  • Definition of Media Pluralism in the Study Starting Point (2): EU"Broad term embracing a number of aspects, such asdiversity of ownership, variety in the sources ofinformation and in the range of contents available inthe different Member States. […] Ensuring mediapluralism implies all measures that ensure citizens’access to a variety of information sources, opinion,voices etc. in order to form their opinion without theundue influence of one dominant opinion formingpower.”(EC Staff Working Document 2007) 17
  • Structure Media Pluralism Monitor 6 risk domains (> traditional descriptions of media pluralism) 6 Risk Domains geographical pluralism in the basic domain media cultural pluralism in the pluralism of media media ownership and control political pluralism in the pluralism of media media types and genres 18
  • Structure MPM Basic domain  Free speech, independent supervision, media literacy Pluralism of media ownership/control  High (ownership and audience) concentration in terrestrial TV / radio / newspapers / Cable/Sat/DSL-TV / magazines / internet content provision / book publishing; high concentration of cross- media ownership; vertical integration (bottlenecks in distribution); transparency of ownership structures Pluralism of media types  Lack of/under-representation of/dominance of media types or genres: financial parity, audience parity, distribution of public interest channels (must carry), public’s access to certain content (e.g. events list, short news reporting)  Lack of sufficient market resources to support range of media; lack of sufficient resources to support PSM 19
  • Structure MPMo Cultural pluralism domain: • Insufficient representation of European, national or world cultures, insufficient proportion of independent and in- house production in audiovisual • Absence or insufficient representation of various cultural and social groups in the media (content & HR) • Insufficient system of minority and community media…o Political pluralism domain: • Political bias in media (during election campaigns); Politicisation of media ownership / control; Editorial independence; (In)dependence of PSM and news services; Pluralism of distribution systems; Citizen activity in online media 20
  • Structure MPMo Geographical pluralism domain: • High centralisation of national media systems; Insufficient system of local and regional media (including different types of ownership, investment, access to networks and platforms) • Representation of local and regional communities (content & HR) • Dominance of a limited number of information sources for local issues • Insufficient access to media and distribution systems due to geographic obstacles (PSM, broadband, newspaper distribution) 21
  • Structure MPM Risks are measured through 3 types of indicators (> ToR / holistic approach)  LEGAL: assess existence and effective implementation of legal / regulatory safeguards against certain threats to media pluralism (including co/self-regulation)  SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC: assess social, geographic, demographic factors having impact on / posing threats to media pluralism  e.g. employment, audience preferences, access of public to data about political affiliation of media owners, availability of certain media content…  ECONOMIC: assess economic factors having impact on / posing threats to media pluralism  e.g. ownership/control of media, industry structure, consolidation and concentration trends, geographic distribution, revenue distribution, financing, state aid, audience and advertising shares 22
  • Structure MPM Covering 3 risk areas (> traditional value chain)  Supply  Distribution  Use Scored on basis of 3 border values (> risk-based approach)  Red: high risk – need for action  Orange: medium risk – attention point  Green: low risk – no need for action 23
  • Outcome: Media Pluralism Monitor 24
  • 25
  • MPM: StatisticsArea / Domain Distribution Supply Use TotalCultural pluralism in the media 2 40 2 44Basic domain 10 1 11Geographical pluralism in the media 5 17 3 25Pluralism of media types and genres 3 15 3 21Pluralism of ownership and control 8 20 28Political pluralism in the media 3 32 2 37Total 21 134 11 166 Socio-Type / Domain Economic Legal demographic TotalCultural pluralism in the media 6 13 25 44Basic domain 11 11Geographical pluralism in the media 6 7 12 25Pluralism of media types and genres 12 7 2 21Pluralism of ownership and control 15 13 28Political pluralism in the media 16 21 37Total 39 67 60 166 26
  • Example of Score Sheet 27
  • Example of Score Sheet 28
  • Example of Report Sheet RISK PROFILE PLURALISM OF OWNERSHIP & CONTROL: INDICATORS PER O1.1 O10.2 RISK O1.2 4 O10.1 O1.3 O1 High ownership concentration in terrestrial 4 television O9.2 3 O2.1 O2 High ownership concentration in radio O9.1 3 O2.2 O3 High ownership concentration in newspapers 2 O4 High ownership concentration in O8.3 O2.3 Cable/Sat/ADSL/TV 2 O5 High ownership concentration in magazines O8.2 O3.1 1 O6 High ownership concentration in internet 1 content provision O7 High ownership concentration in book O8.1 0 O3.2 publishing O8 High concentration of cross-media ownership O7.3 O3.3 O9 High vertical concentration O10 Intransparency in ownership structures O7.2 O4.1 HIGH RISK O7.1 O4.2 MODERATE RISK O6.3 O4.3 LOW RISK O6.2 O5.1 O6.1 O5.2 SCORE O5.3 29
  • Example of Report SheetRISK PROFILE PLURALISM OF OWNERSHIP & CONTROL: OVERALL HIGH RISK MODERATE RISK RISK SCORES LOW RISK SCORE O1 High ownership concentration in terrestrial televisionO10 Lack of transparency in ownership structures O2 High ownership concentration in radio O9 High vertical concentration O3 High ownership concentration in newspapersO8 High concentration of cross-media ownership O4 High ownership concentration in Cable/Sat/ADSL/TVO7 High ownership concentration in book publishing O5 High ownership concentration in magazines O6 High ownership concentration in internet content provision 30
  • Case Study: Ownership Domain Overview E-indicators:  Ownership concentration in TV / radio / newspapers / Cable/Sat/DSL-TV / magazines / internet content provision / book publishing  Audience/readership concentration in TV / radio / newspapers / Cable/Sat/DSL-TV / magazines / internet content provision / book publishing  Cross-media concentration: number of sectors in which top 8 firms/owners are active Method:  Top 4 (alternatively: Top8 or HHI) Data Sources:  National official sources, International official sources, Industry Associations, and Trade yearbooks and statistical publications in media and advertising 31
  • Case Study: Ownership Domain Overview L-indicators:  RS against high concentration in TV  […] in radio / […] in newspapers / […] in Cable/Sat/DSL- TV / […] in magazines / […] in internet content provision / […] in book publishing  RS against high concentration of cross-media ownership: […] radio-TV / […] print-audiovisual  RS against high vertical integration: […] bottlenecks in distribution / […] advertising & media  RS for transparency: […] towards public, […] towards regulator 32
  • Case Study: Ownership Domain Methodology (quantitative & qualitative):  How to check the existence (E) of such safeguards: Answer the questions below and fill in the scoring grid.  (O1.2) E.1. Does the media legislation contain specific thresholds or limits, based on objective criteria, such as number of licences, audience share, circulation, distribution of share capital or voting rights, turnover/revenue, to prevent a high level of horizontal concentration of ownership and/or control in the terrestrial television sector?  E.2. Can a high level of horizontal concentration of ownership and/or control in the terrestrial television sector be prevented via merger control / competition rules  How to check the effective implementation (I) of such safeguards: Answer the questions below and fill in the scoring grid.  Supervision – monitoring  Procedural aspects (objective, transparant)  Enforcement – sanctioning  Evidence of non-compliance 33
  • Case Study: Ownership Domain Score: E.1.-E.2. Result for E 1 or more + + no + - I.1. – I.5. Assessment Result for I 3 or more + No severe implementation problems + Less than 3 + Severe implementation problems - E I Score (Select the correct option in the drop-box) - N.A. Non-existing + - Existing, non-effective + + Existing and effective 34
  • Case Study: Political Pluralism Domain Methodology (quantitative & qualitative)1. Main measurement methods:  Case studies (including document analysis); e.g. P3.2: examining political affiliation of major 4 media owners in terms of market share; P4.1: case study on labour relations in media sector (presence and strength of representative organisations of media professionals and media employers)  Media programs monitoring (content analysis - standardized samples, e.g. P2.2: level of partisanship and political bias during election campaigns)  Audience surveys2. Panel of Experts – as standard evaluation mechanism3. Standardized sampling method re media outlets and sample period (e.g. C6.2: representation minorities and women on screen) 35
  • Calculation of Average Scores Start YES NO # High Risk = 0YES # Low Risk /Total NO NO YES > 75% # High Risk > 1 NO # High Risk = 1 YES # High Risk /Total > 40% Green Orange Red 36
  • Interpretation of the ‘Rose’ or ‘Radar’ Risk assessment and selection of indicators was done at ‘high level’:  Can we, on the basis of ‘experience’ – drawing from academic literature, the existence of regulatory safeguards and/or policy discourse – conclude that a specific situation is widely accepted as a relevant risk for media pluralism today?  “SMART”-test  No relevance test for user (fear of manipulation) But some may be more (or less) relevant for country A than country B (cf. preliminary test of MPM by AGCOM) 37
  • Interpretation of the ‘Rose’ or ‘Radar’ Necessary to interpret results  With respect for interaction between indicators  On the basis of national characteristics (e.g. developing / mature media markets, small / large numbers of ethnic minorities, high / low population density in urban areas…)  “Guidelines for interpretation” (User Guide)  “Ex post profiling”  Except for: population size and GDP/capita 38
  • Ex Ante-Profiling 39
  • Ex Ante-Profiling Why? Take into account national specificities How? Border values are adjusted for small / large markets to combine effects of population and GDP per capita  2 Variables:  Population: large > 20 mio.; small < 20 mio.  GDP/capita: high > 23,500 Euro; low < 23,500 Euro  4 Options:  Large population and high GDP/capita: default border values  Large population and low GDP/capita: border values are multiplied by 1.20  Small population and high GDP/capita: border values are multiplied by 1.25  Small population and low GDP/capita: border values are multiplied by 1.33  For a selected number of indicators (mainly economic indicators: e.g. concentration ratios in ownership domain, audience and financial parity in media types & genres, proportions between local & national in geographic pluralism) 40
  • Concluding remarks Work in progress! First step in developing uniform approach towards monitoring media pluralism in EU (NOT towards regulating media pluralism) Realistic balance between:  Demands of comparability between MS & taking account of national specificities  Practicability & comprehensiveness Innovative: risk-based & multi-disciplinary (combination of indicators based on law, economics and social science) Potential to provide evidentiary basis for defining priorities and policy actions 41
  • Concluding remarks How to finetune the prototype?TESTING! => EU funding for implementation?Confrontation with insights from other projects / outsideEurope:  Dimensions of media pluralism?  Growing importance of measuring actual USE  Comprehensiveness versus feasibility?  Risk-based approach?  Methods?  Cross-media assessment? Increasingly important in light of convergence (recycling of content) => Weighting coefficient for different media?  Impact of Internet? 42
  • Thank you for your attention! peggy.valcke@law.kuleuven.be Study / media monitoring tool / preparatory country reports available on the Commissions Media Taskforce website:http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/pluralism/index_en.htm (or in print via Lulu.com)NEW LL.M. IP-IT KU Leuven – University of Brussels http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/psiml/ 43