Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-05-Speech-2-241"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000905.13.2-241"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Commission has set itself the short-term task of defining what a European audiovisual work is. I am very interested by this definition, which naturally complements today's discussion.
The effect of the “Television without Frontiers” Directive has been that a large percentage of national works are still broadcast in each country, without managing to have these works circulated between countries. The aim of defining European audiovisual works must therefore be to achieve the circulation of these works. In this context, we agree that the cultural diversity that is advocated today is not a simple addition of the respective identities of each Member State, but the exchange and circulation of these identities. However, the circulation of works, like the origin of their funding, will probably be insufficient to define the European audiovisual work.
The issue of the work’s content concerns us all. What content can define a work, if it is not content founded on a pluralist approach to production? Partnerships are necessary for current and future audiovisual creation, but hegemonic strategies and monopolies are counter to creation itself. There is nothing more dangerous than the current concentrations of operators who have both the broadcasting capacity as well as archives of material.
At a time of digital revolution and technological change, Mr Veltroni's excellent report clearly shows the economic and cultural need for a European audiovisual policy.
I would like to end by emphasising the essential points of this report. What could protect diversity and pluralism better than a “universal service”? What would ensure free access to information, entertainment and knowledge? Public television is not a monopoly and should not be one. One of the goals of the public service, however, is the general interest, and for this reason it must be valued. Public television channels are developing autonomously in each Member State, pursuant to Protocol 32 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, but they are agreed on taking on similar tasks, such as information, innovation, room for exchange and integration etc.
All that remains is to make their funding transparent, not so much to conform to rules on competition as to enable public service to really diversify its activities and enrich its services. To put it plainly, not to die off in the digital age, but to perpetuate the accomplishment of its goals which should, it seems to me, constitute guidelines for the Community audiovisual policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples