EU Policy in the Area of Communications - Assignment Example

EU Policy in the Area of Communications Outline and discuss the reasons for a paradigm shift in European communications since the 1980s. Include examples from a country of your choice: for instance, how have these changes impacted Germany, Spain, Poland or Denmark? Prior to and until the second half of the 1980s, public broadcasting corporations held dominance over the radio and television airwaves, largely because of the latter’s acknowledged mandate to serve the public interest. By the second half of that decade, however, one European state after another opted to adopt the “dual broadcasting system”, which allowed private broadcasters to operate side by side and with the same access and privileges as the public broadcasting corporations (Inter Nationes, 1996). Admittedly, the dual broadcasting system had best served the interests of the viewers and listeners in Europe for the last 20 years. Wagner described the European broadcasting system as reliant on two pillars, namely public broadcasting on the one hand, and commercial broadcasting on the other hand (1999). In Germany, for instance, commercial broadcasters are known more for provocative and commercial programming such as reality shows, and public broadcasters are thought to offer a more diverse choice of news, current affairs, and cultural programs (Open Society Institute, 2005). Rather than compete with one another, the two parts complement and balance each other, although at one time public broadcasting corporations made it difficult for commercial broadcasters to operate, and after liberalization commercial broadcasters seek to marginalize public broadcasters by raising issues about their public or mixed funding. The qualification of public funding as state aid should be rethought, since programme autonomy and funding stability as basic principles for public broadcasting, as upheld by legislators and courts (Wagner, 1999). There should be a happy equilibrium sought between open market competition and public service imperatives, between politics and economic interests as they are served by the media (Commission Staff, 2007). 2. Critically discuss the Broadcasting Without Frontiers Directive and indicate how this impacts one European country of your choice. You can reflect on how and why some countries maintain more strict regulations than are necessary to comply with the Directive. The Television Without Frontiers Directive (TVWFD) is generally regarded as the cornerstone document on which European audiovisual policy is built, the general purpose of which is to guarantee that the public’s access to information, the protection of its cultural diversity, and the effective protection of its impressionable youth against morally corrupting media content (EBU, 2004). As set forth by the TVWFD, access to information is to be enforced such that all citizens may enjoy on free television the major sports and cultural events, or at least the public extracts featuring highlights of such events, that are of high public interest. Also, the Directive mandates Member states to ensure freedom of reception and retransmission in their jurisdiction of television broadcasts from other Member states, except when the broadcast “seriously and gravely” threatens to impair “the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular those that involve pornography or gratuitous violence” (Council of European Communities, 1989, p. 23). The rules imposed to the Directive are apparently too liberal and absolute, in favor of the free exchange of information, and too restrictive in the matter of Member states exercising their discretion to control the entry of harmful informational broadcast content. This is not to say that there is no high level commitment to the Directive, but particular circumstances may call into question the wisdom of an absolutist approach in the Directive’s interpretation. For instance, Germany has gained a reputation for its hardline stance against racial hate speech to uphold the personal dignity right protected by Article One of the German Basic Law. This is for good reason: “Suppose a nationalist government takes power in one of the new Member States and the German broadcasting authorities doubt that its broadcasting authority will clamp down on neo-Nazi programming … and show a documentary of David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier…” (Bignami, 2004, p. 129), then conceivably Germany may ban such broadcast within its jurisdiction. 3. Analyse and discuss the reasons for the failure or success of transnational broadcasting projects in Europe. Include in your answer some reflection on the experience of a country of your choice. The success or failure of transnational broadcasting in Europe would largely be determined by how the differences in regulations and conventions could be resolved in favor of a happy middle ground all parties could live by. The technology governing international broadcasting is in large part determined by the availability of satellite (specifically direct broadcasting by satellite, or DBS) receivers and convergence technology, independent of the need for terrestrial or cable transmission. The increased opportunities for transnational advertisement, technical feasibility of which has been available sine the late seventies and early eighties, have through the years met up with several restrictions; for instance, then West Germany blocked plans for Luxembourg satellite to beam television commercials into his country, and at another instance the Dutch parliament considered totally disallowing entire foreign television programs containing advertising targeting Dutch audience. Major concerns included conflicting advertising regulations on sponsorship, message content and regulation enforcement, as well as consideration of the strong influence broadcast advertising has on the household consumers. This was, however, true in the eighties. In the last 15 years, however, a notable increase in transnational advertisement in the EU, in particular via television broadcasting, mainly due to the growth of commercial channels, the establishment of organizations such as the European Broadcasting Union, and refinements to the Television Without Frontiers Directive to protect the interests of children and guard against abuse of broadcasting access. Furthermore, greater European integration, aside from paving the way for a more liberal perspective, has also increased competition between international networks, and between local agencies and international networks, enhancing the need for sponsorships and thus advertisements (Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi & ESADE, 2009). 4. Critically discuss the EU’s opposition to the global liberalisation of trade in cultural products at the WTO. Include in your answer a discussion of why Hollywood is so interested in the European market. The European Union opposes the global liberalisation of trade in cultural products on the basis that cultural trade is more consequential than the exchange of ordinary commodities, a position it strongly supports with France and Canada against the United States. Together, the EU, France and Canada are of the position that cultural industries should altogether be exempt from the provisions applicable to more basic commercial goods, because culture should be regarded not merely as commercial items but as patrimony. “Distinct national political cultures embody divergent conceptions of the nation and the proper duties of the state. Some societies may be more prone to involve the state in cultural affairs for political reasons, especially in cases where there are perceived threats to a sense of national identity.” (Grasstek, undated, p. 6) The Grasstek study goes on to observe that in the case of Canada and the European Union, there is the case of multilingual, multicultural bodies wherein the state performs an active and positive role in the promotion of national values and the safeguarding and protection of minority cultures. In contrast, the United States is a more open and assimilationist society. There is a strong aversion, even constitutional prohibition, against the government performing any active role or taking a positive stance on the matter of cultural identities other than to protect every individual’s right to the enjoyment of their own cultures, and deep respect for freedom of expression which precludes the establishment of censures and safeguards against the free flow of information, cultural or otherwise. Hollywood, which is on its very face a commercial undertaking more than agent of cultural propagation, would be interested in the European market for its latent demand of its cultural products (i.e. motion pictures), as well as US-canned musical recordings and television productions (though not necessarily from Hollywood). 5. Analyse and discuss concepts of European identity. The European Union is a multinational and multicultural, at the same time a “multi-political and multi-economical entity” with a “deep thought background” (Ying, 2009, p. 152). Historically, the existence of regional entities commonly does not encroach upon the member nations’ laws, leaving intact their respective self-determination, way of life, and cultural development. Membership in the European Union entails much more than that. It involves giving up of a large part of a member state’s sovereignty, the freedom to write its own laws and determine its own policy. In a model like no other, the European Union in breaking down national borders, mainly for the purpose of creating a common market, but in the process also creating a setting for a common identity. The question is, whether or not the new European identity is assumed at the expense of the member states’ own national uniqueness. A viable and realistic European cultural identity cannot countenance a single ideal, because the attainment of the ideal as imagined by Euroscepticists connotes stagnancy, whereas social development is always dynamic. The European identity resides in the reality of its present integration already now having been achieved through economic, social and ecological unity, and merely lagging behind politically in establishing democratic government and citizenship (Van der Zweerde, 2009). To the slogan “unity in plurality”, Van der Zweerde envisions the European identity as one of “plurality in unity”, where European civil identity will not be unitary and homogeneous, but heterogeneous and diverse in perceptions, preferences and ideals, “plural, not as a first step towards unity, but in its core,” and “divided, but not along national lines” (p. 5). More than this, the European identity will eventually amount to more than just the sum of its part, to develop an added dimension not in substitution to, but in complement with, the national cultures and identities that make up the Union (Trandafoiu, 2006). 6. Critically discuss European telecommunications policy. Include some reflection on the implementation of this policy in any European country. For instance, why has the EU penalised both Spain and Portugal regarding the implementation of this Directive. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2426, mandates the safety, security, and confidentiality of private data obtained in the course of providing public electronic communication service to the public subscribers (Statutory Instrument, 2003). As to the retention of data generated or processed inconnection with publicly accessible electronis communications services, the formally adopted Directive of 2006 requires that Member States ensure communications providers must retain, for a period of at least 6 months to at most 2 years, necessary data for the purpose of investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, within the definition of the national law of each Member State. The mandatory compliance with this Directive has been thought to interfere with the workings of local laws already meant to address the same concerns. In the UK, for instance, there is already in place a system of voluntary data retention as contained in Part 11 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 (OPSI, 2001). Part 11 of this statute already specifies the retention of communications data by fixed line and mobile telephone service providers as well as internet service providers. These include the data identifying the users of the service, data identifying which services were used and when used, and the parties contacted. To its credit, the Directive allows for flexibility in the implementation of its provisions, to better harmonize with the current legal systems of the Member States, subject to notification to the Commission, but with the understanding that such national legislations should not fall short of the Directive’s mandates. Those countries which had no such laws of their own would best adopt the Directive provisions. On the other hand, those with data retention systems to a more extensive degree than the Directives would be free to observe their own laws to serve the intended purposes. 7. Analyse and discuss media change in Eastern Europe. Reflect on how these changes fit with the European integration project. Fierce criticism has dogged European broadcasting, for being unable to sufficiently present equal opportunity for airing of the wide spectrum of viewpoints and perspectives on cultural and political matters. The slew of negative critiques mostly coincided with the accession of the fledgling democracies of the Eastern and Central Europe, where public service broadcasting is still heavily politicized, and commercial broadcasting caters to the interests of the new elite. For instance, the leadership of public broadcasting companies are largely determined by the ruling dispensation, and power changes likewise initiate a round of leadership overhauls that install favored individuals that curry to the mainline political stand. On the other hand, the new political leadership are usually themselves the economic elite that own the commercial broadcasting stations, or at lease coalesce with them. Thus, public service, objectivity, and solid investigative journalism are marginalized (Dragomir, 2008; Open Society Institute, 2008). Broadcasting in Eastern and Central European countries is proven by empirical study to have been “re-politicized” under “a new political malaise with no precise name – nationalism, nepotism, corruption, clientelism…It is not an ideological coherent movement, for it is about resource capture by elites of different stripes” (Open Society Institute, 2008, p. 9). Democracy is not easy to handle, nor is it a one-size-fits-all proposition. Differences in culture, economic development, and political evolution would tend to influence the working model of democracy that will be viable for each nation. Initial inconsistencies are to be expected of emerging democracies still experimenting with their new freedoms in the vacuum by a former autocratic center. In the meantime, television broadcasting throughout Europe could be seen as the tool for hastening change, aside from being an end in itself. “Over the past decade, public service broadcasting has made visible progress toward more independence and balanced coverage in the news in Central and Eastern Europe” (Dragomir, 2008, p. 23). Both the World Bank Report and the Monitoring Report of the Open Society Institute describe a distinct distancing from State structures, from being mere mouthpieces to truly delivering objective and professional broadcast journalism. There is still a long way to go, but the effort towards integration provides both strong means and impetus towards hastening the change process (Legvold, 2001). 8. Discuss the degree to which Communications policy is shaped by national factors rather than European directives. Include in your answer examples of two contrasting country’s policies. The integration of the European Union has been generally effected through the issuance of directives in the various aspects of unification. The directives are regulations in the form of coded provisions that describe the desirable and generally mandatory behaviour concerning the particular area of interest, which Member states are expected to comply with pursuant to their obligations as such. In 1989, the Television Without Frontiers Directive (TVWFD) was promulgated to enhance and govern the free flow of information through open exchange of broadcast television programs throughout the EU. The two decades since then have seen vast changes in both the technical and social spheres of broadcast communications such that changes have become imperative. There were also the rigidity of some rules such that some Member states could not relevantly apply the letter of the law, and thus saw it fit to improvise in the application. For instance, while editorial independence for public broadcasting corporations have been deteriorating under the TVWFD for Albania and Poland, that for the Czech Republic has succeeded in significantly raising the quality of its output (Open Society Institute, 2008). For this reason, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) was created to amend the TVWFD, modernising it and making it more responsive to the needs of the present (European Commission, 2010). There is a change in the regulatory style (if it may be called that) adopted by the AVMSD compared to its predecessor. The regulations are noticeably less rigid and detailed and are more flexible, allowing for a graduated level of “strictness”. Users have different preferences and degree of control over on-demand audiovisual media services, therefore only a basic tier of rules would be relevant to them. Furthermore, countries are given greater discretion in determining whether or not to restrict the broadcast of material they consider unsuitable in their respective jurisdictions. Also, service providers are subject only to the rules that are enforced in their country of origin, providing them greater legal certainty and helping develop new business. There are several other ways the new Directive allows for greater decision leeway; however, the rules protecting children from adult content or advertisements for “unhealthy” food and drinks, and those addressing quality standards in television advertising to protect consumers, children, and human dignity have become stricter. The new rules also strongly encourage the use of subtitling and audio description to enhance access for the sight and hearing impaired (European Commission, 2010). Finally, the new Directive requires governments to encourage self-regulation in particular areas, and in others combined with government co-regulation, but only where the legal system allows. The important role of national independent regulators is also acknowledged, where such regulators cooperate closely among themselves and the Commission on issues of jurisdiction (Europa, 2010). In considering the query as to the degree to which Communication policy is shaped by national factors vis-à-vis European directives, this position states that the Directives and national factors are not, by their natures, exclusive nor contradictory. As the AVMSD provisions have shown, directives well formulated allow for strict regulation to be limited to the few truly and absolutely undesirable elements such as harmful content directed at children. In fine, succeeding fine-tuning of Directives are being designed to hew more closely to the realities of national factors, thus enhancing the effectiveness of their implementation and the chances that the desired results shall be achieved within the context of each Member state’s circumstances. References Bignami, F 2004 “The Challenge of Cooperative Regulatory Relations after Enlargement”, Law and Governance in an Enlarged Europe: Essays in European Law, Bermann, G A & Pistor, K, eds., Hart Publishing, Oxford, England Commission Staff 2007 “Media Pluralism in the Member States of the European Union”, Commission Staff Working Document, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 16 Jan 2007. Accessed 20 May 2010 Council of the European Communities 1989 Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, Official Journal L 298, 17/10/1989, pp. 23-30. Accessed 20 May 2010 >http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0552:EN:HTML> Dragomir, M 2008 “Television Across Europe: Central and Eastern Europe”, World Bank Report. Accessed 20 May 2010 Dühr, S & Nadin, V 2007 “Europeanization through transnational territorial cooperation? The case of INTERREG IIIB North-West Europe”, Planning Practice & Research, Aug2007, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p373-394 Europa 2010 “Audiovisual Media Services Directive”, Eur-Lex. Accessed 20 May 2010 European Broadcasting Union (EBU) 2004 Current review of the Television without Frontiers Directive, European Broadcasting Union. Accessed 20 May 2010 European Commission 2010 “Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) What’s new?” Audiovisual and Media Policies. Accessed 20 May 2010 Grasstek, V undated Treatment of Cultural Goods and Services in International Trade Agreements. Accessed 19 May 2010 Hearn, J 2004 “Tracking ‘the Transnational’: Studying Transnational Organizations and Managements, and the Management of Cohesion”, Culture and Organization, Dec 2004, vol. 10, issue 4, pp., 273-290 Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) 2001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, accessed 18 May 2010 Inter Nationes 1996 Broadcasting Law in Germany. German Law Archive. Reproduced by Dannemann, G, 1998. Accessed 18 May 2010 Legvold, R 2001 Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, Volume I: Institutional Engineering./ Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, Volume II: International and Transnational Factors. Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec2001, Vol. 80 Issue 6, p188-188 Open Society Institute 2005 “Television across Europe: Regulation, Policy and Independence Summary” EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program. Accessed 18 May 2010 Open Society Institute 2008 “Television across Europe: More Channels, Less Independence”, EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program. Accessed 18 May 2010 Pridgen, D. 1985 “Satellite Television Advertising and the Regulatory Conflict in Western Europe.” Journal of Advertising, 1985, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p23-56 Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2426, The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Accessed 18 May 2010 Trandafoiu, R. 2006 “The Whole Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: An Investigation into the Existence of European Identity, Its Unity and Its Divisions”, Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture, Oct 2006, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p91-108 Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi & ESADE 2009 Advertising Summary. The Single Market Review Series. Europa, The European Commission, and Internal Market. Accessed 18 May 2010 Van der Zweerde, E 2009 "’Plurality in Unity’: European Identity and European Citizenship”, LIMES, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p5-25. Wagner, M A 1999 “Competition Regulation, State Aid and the Impact of Liberalization”, Liberalization and Public Service Broadcasting, London. Accessed 18 May 2010 Ying Wang 2009 “On the Significance of Culture Construction of European Identity”. Review of European Studies, Dec 2009, Vol. 1 Issue 2, p152-155 Read More