Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.8.2-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive is, without doubt, one of the success stories of the European Union. In 1989, when the first text was adopted, there were only about 50 television channels in Europe. Today, there are 50 times that many. The audiovisual landscape has been changed radically by satellite, cable, digital, the Internet and the mobile telephone. New media, new broadcasting methods and new services have appeared. There is therefore a crucial and urgent need to revise and extend the directive. Mrs Reding has announced that she will present these proposals to us in autumn. I take advantage of this occasion to congratulate her on her commitment to European television and to thank her for the attention she has clearly given to professionals from the sector. I invite her to pay attention to the three parts of this report, to our thoughts on the application of Articles 4 and 5, to the paths we propose for the revision of the Directive and to the significant problem posed by media concentration.
With regard to Articles 4 and 5, the results are good and these measures must be upheld. They are the minimum standards satisfying the most people and it is advisable not to downgrade them, even if pressure is growing to reduce regulation. We can, however, propose improvements when it comes to defining the concepts of ‘independent producer’ and ‘work’ or to establishing a more standardised grid of the results of the Member States, for example. Revising the directive is not easy. We must find the right balance so that the audiovisual sector does not become a purely commercial sector to the detriment of cultural diversity. At the same time, however, we must not hinder the development of a sector in the throes of a continuous technical revolution, which is very important for our industries and for our jobs.
The standards laid down by the directive are minimal as it is, and they have not always prevented a slide towards commercialism and mindlessness in certain Member States. Unfortunately, the numerous interviews I have been able to have demonstrate that the general mood is such that the level of regulation will decrease under the combined pressure both of the industries and advertising and also of a number of Member States. That is why, together with my colleagues, I call for the legal basis chosen to be one that allows this text to be overseen by the Committee on Culture and Education. Without wishing to create hostilities, I am afraid that another committee might tackle this text from a more commercial than cultural angle. The proposals that I am submitting are not intended to deviate from the principles of the current Directive, which is based largely on self-regulation and which is not overly prescriptive. It does not deviate, either, from the two previous reports by our institution, including the one by my fellow MEP, Mrs Hieronymi.
This revision of the Directive must enhance a number of fundamental principles: free movement of European television broadcasts, free access to exceptional events, promotion of European works and recent independent productions, protection of minors and public order and protection of consumers thanks to the identification of content providers and to transparency in advertising and the right of reply. It must also promote the movement of national works in every country of the Union. We produce a great deal. We exchange too little among Europeans. We must remedy this shortcoming. We must also encourage European content to be shown on television. That can of course be promoted through the Media (Plus) programme.
I would also like us to address the definition of what a work is. The ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive indicates what it is not. It is not information. It is not advertising. Yet is it reality TV, for example? I would prefer – as would a number of professionals – an actual definition. I could also emphasise the role of public services. They must be able to carry out their remit. How can we help them to do this? I regret that my fellow MEPs have not followed my proposal for a European Public Audiovisual Service Charter.
I would also like to invite the Commission to find the means to protect the diversity of television property and to prevent all excessive media concentration. Media pluralism is essential in democracy; since the Union keeps telling us that we cannot legislate in that area, it must at least help the Member States to lay down more stringent rules. On Tuesday 13 of next week, we are going to hold a seminar on this important issue, in Manchester. Since Mrs Reding is listening to us, I would like her to inform us of the developments envisaged by the Commission at this stage of the work, in particular on issues relating to advertising, to the field of application of the directive, to the support measures for the production of European and independent works and to the organisation of the regulation. What about adapting the country of origin principle and the principle of media pluralism?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples