The main threats to Pluralism (or... Pluralism is a virus)

The main threats that were identified (by Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk-Based Approach) in several domains from a legal/regulatory perspective are:

Basic Domain:

• insufficient legal safeguards to protect freedom of expression;

• the regulatory system contains rules restricting free speech to such an extent that media pluralism is threatened;

• insufficient legal safeguards to protect freedom of information;

• the regulatory system contains restrictions on access to official information;

• when access to the journalistic profession is not open, the regulatory system that prescribes who may practice journalism contains requirements that are not transparent, subjective, disproportionate and discriminatory;

• the regulatory system does not contain guarantees against compulsory disclosure of journalists’ sources;

• the regulatory system cannot guarantee the editorial independence of the media;

• in case of change of ownership, the regulatory system does not grant journalists social protection;

• the regulatory system cannot guarantee access to events for news reporting for journalists;

• the regulatory framework does not sufficiently guarantee the independence of the regulatory and/or competition authorities;

• the media regulator has no effective monitoring and sanctioning power;

• there is no (representative) press council or comparable body monitoring journalistic activities;

• the Member State does not take active measures to promote media literacy among different groups of population.

Pluralism of Media Ownership and Control:

• the regulatory framework cannot prevent undue concentration of ownership and/or control in media (of various kinds);

• the regulatory framework cannot prevent undue forms of cooperation between media companies;

• the competition rules do not take into account specificities of the media sector to the detriment of media pluralism;

• there is no effective monitoring and sanctioning of anti-concentration rules;

• the regulatory framework cannot ensure transparency of ownership/control of media;

• the regulatory and institutional system creates high entry barriers, hampering the entry and impeding the growth of potential new entrants, thereby stifling the market and innovation.

Pluralism of Media Types and Genres:

• absence of or insufficient protection of certain media types;

• absence of or insufficient protection of certain media genres;

• disappearance of some media genres from the free-to-air TV;

• absent or insufficient funding of PSM;

• insufficient engagement of PSM in new media;

• lack of, or unclear, definition in law of the PSM’s remit.

Political Pluralism in the Media:

• the regulatory framework cannot prevent excessive or exclusive representation or promotion of the political beliefs and ideology of the governing party (-ies) in the media;

• the regulatory framework cannot prevent excessive journalist and editorial preference and positive/propagandistic coverage of selected political parties and ideological opinions;

• the regulatory framework system cannot prevent absent or insufficient media representation of particular political or ideological opinions and positions in society, including minority or legal but extremist ideas on the political spectrum;

• the regulatory framework does not guarantee fair allocation of media space to political opposition groupings,

• the regulatory framework does not provide adequate remedies to react against misrepresentation in the media (such as a right of reply);

• the regulatory framework cannot prevent excessive presence of media financially dominated and managed by political figures, political parties;

• the regulatory framework cannot prevent excessive political pressure on programming due to political ownership and/or pressure on specific media outlets at national /local level;

• the regulatory and institutional system cannot prevent the absence of particular political groups and ideological communities from public debate and elections (voting) resulting from underserved and underrepresented minority points of view in the media.

Cultural Pluralism in the Media:

• the regulatory framework contains insufficient guarantees for a fair representation of the different national, European and world cultures;

• the regulatory framework contains insufficient guarantees for original programming (in-house and/or independent production), which is considered to contribute to cultural diversity;

• the regulatory framework contains insufficient guarantees for a fair representation in the mainstream media of the various cultural and social groups (religious, linguistic, ethnic minorities, as well as communities based on gender, age, disabilities, sexual orientation), in particular in PSM, both in its governing bodies and in the programmes;

• the regulatory framework contains insufficient incentives for the creation and viability of alternative media, in particular minority and community media, serving ethnic, religious, linguistic and other special interest groups in society;

• the regulatory framework does not remedy entry barriers for minority and community media arising from denial of access to infrastructure, marginal reach; there are no specific policies endorsing investment in minority and community media, nor public support measures aiming at compensation of disadvantaged position of minorities as

media producers and media users;

• there are no policies to enhance access to media content by groups with special needs in society.

Geographical Pluralism in the Media:

• the regulatory framework contains insufficient guarantees to prevent underrepresentation in the media of certain local and regional communities;

• the regulatory framework is too weak to safeguard and/or support the presence of local and regional media (by ensuring the presence of independent media outlets serving local and regional communities, by ensuring the local and regional character of these media by prohibiting or limiting networking or affiliation arrangements;

supporting investment in local and regional media, remedying bottlenecks or barriers for local and regional media to access cable networks or other platforms);

• insufficient access to media and distribution systems due to geographic factors, for example: absence of universal coverage of PSM channels and services;

• the regulatory framework does not contain any safeguards for the existence and/or functioning of journalists and media executives from local and regional communities;

• the regulatory framework does not contain any safeguards for the representation of local and regional communities in public service media;

• the regulatory framework does not contain any safeguards for local and regional production.

Distribution:

• there are no regulatory safeguards to ensure that the public has access, via electronic communications networks, to broadcast channels that are considered to be in the general interest;

• the regulation/competition laws cannot prevent abusive behaviour, cannot remedy a lack of competition in electronic communications markets and cannot prevent the abuse of control over digital bottlenecks;

• there are no effective regulatory safeguards to solve severe interoperability problems;

• there are no special policies to promote the wide distribution of media and lower the threshold for citizens to consume these media, e.g. via libraries;

• there are no special measures promoting internet/broadband access in underdeveloped/remote areas or for citizens not served under normal market conditions;

• there are no special measures to prevent that certain segments of the population (e.g. in remote areas) are not served by the distribution systems under normal market conditions.