Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-18-Speech-1-063"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Media2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021118.4.1-063"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-11-18-Speech-1-0642
lpv:speaker	lp:Reino Paasilinna2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue/Finlands Socialdemokratiska Parti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no need for a dictatorship that relies on military force in the information society if in the same hands there is a self-perpetuating mega-power, a mighty conglomerate that represents the media, the economy and political control. That is twenty-first century dictatorship. If a country’s leader has influence over two national television channels, for example, and therefore virtually all viewers, and under his or her control there is a continually present, manipulative and mesmerising force oozing out of those channels, what we have is an information society oligarchy. This goo can also bring the competition to a halt. When the media drip in every home continually feeds a touted leader’s achievements by means of the results of massive Gallup polls then it is a matter of a new machine, a kind of perpetual motion that keeps itself going with a sense of its own legitimacy. Just look at what is happening in Italy, a country I hold in high regard. My own basic point of view is this: the more concentrated media communications are the broader the range of rights journalists must have in their work. It is also wrong to say that a public service is always a monopoly. Not at all: it is controlled by a motley collection of social forces. In certain applicant countries the government might intervene, in which case it is not a public service but government-run television. Competition and markets do not always engender freedom or pluralism either: sometimes it is the opposite. The situation can worsen as a result of concentration. Neither will free commerce necessarily ensure diversity. The markets may be self-regulating, but they just apply other sets of rules that are based on a mutual understanding and are undemocratic. Commissioner Reding, we are calling on you to draft a directive on the concentration of media communications, and its effect on culture, diversity, freedom of speech and the rights of journalists. Commissioner Monti, we are calling on you to investigate whether the rules on competition have been contravened and a dominant market position has been abused, and, Commissioner Bolkenstein, on you to clarify whether concentration, convergence and the new media have a negative impact on the Internal Market. Finally, Commissioner Vitorino, please look into the matter of whether or not our citizens’ democratic and cultural rights are being implemented. We would furthermore like to ask the Commission why it does not draft the directive that we have all been hoping for. The European Convention must also discuss this."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph