Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-22-Speech-1-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080922.23.1-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like first of all to congratulate Mrs Marianne Mikko on her excellent report. The Commission shares many of the views expressed in this report. We are convinced that this resolution sends a very positive signal in favour of media pluralism to all interested parties, including Member States and European institutions, including the Commission.
Safeguarding democracy and plurality of expression – as you have said – is essential. We must maintain a good balance between the objectives of the diversity of voices in the media and the competitive strength of the media. However, earlier and intensive consultations indicated that it would be politically inappropriate for the Commission and the European Union to harmonise media ownership rules or media pluralism. Subsidiarity is effectively a strong consideration here, and a one-size-fits-all measure or model would not suit the variety of situations.
This is the reason why I think that it would be a mistake to over-regulate the very lively blogosphere. Nevertheless, I agree with you that certain legal obligations imposed on the press, such as respect for copyrights or the right of reply, must in any case be respected by websites. Putting user-generated content sites on an equal footing with any other forms of public expression seems to us to be a desirable aim. Conversely, creating a rigid and special status for blogs seems counter-productive and in contradiction to the genuine spirit of the internet.
The Commission agrees with Parliament that the European Community’s competition rules themselves can only partially ensure the pluralism of the media. This is exactly the reason why media pluralism is regarded as a legitimate public interest by Article 21 of the EC Merger Regulation. Therefore, Member States may take appropriate measures to protect media pluralism by implementing additional rules beyond the Merger Regulation. They must, however, apply national and EC law.
However, as regards competition rules, I would like to nuance a little your statement on the harmful character of the concentration of ownership on media pluralism. Europe’s media companies, including the written press, must be strong enough to withstand competition at global, international level. We are against over-restrictive rules on media ownership which could reduce the competitiveness of EU companies. Situations are not comparable from one Member State to another. There is a real diversity of situations.
I am, of course, in favour of more transparency of ownership and of complete information being available to the public regarding the aims and background of broadcasters and publishers. This is a
condition to attaining more authoritative and reliable media.
As you insist in your resolution, public service broadcasters are an indispensable element for media plurality. This is why the Commission thinks that their public-service missions must be clearly specified and their funding ensured; otherwise great uncertainty will ensure.
In this respect, Ladies and Gentlemen, we all agree that the definition of the public service remit is, in principle, a matter for Member States, rather than the Commission, to decide. Member States also decide the means of financing public service broadcasting, as indicated in the Amsterdam Protocol. In this context, the Commission’s role is to minimise distortion of competition between all types of media. The Commission also appreciates your position on codes of conduct and self-regulation as instruments to support media pluralism."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples