![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This comment examines the definition of ‘media’ under the recently-proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and highlights its potential flaws, while pointing to possible considerations for future improvement. Notably, the narrow service-based approach to defining ‘media’ under Article 2 EMFA appears to be in conflict with the functional approach to defining media under European and international human rights law. Additionally, a lack of transparency and safeguards regarding how the criteria of ‘editorial independence’ is to be assessed, especially under Article 17 EMFA, is problematic. The risk that such decisions are made based on commercial and/or political considerations rather than established standards of media freedom must be avoided, especially when platforms are to assess editorial independence.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU’ COM(2022) 457 final (hereinafter: ‘EMFA proposal’).
2 See, for example, European Broadcasting Union, ‘European Media Freedom Act: Striking the right balance' (16 September 2022) <www.ebu.ch/news/2022/09/european-media-freedom-act>; and Damian Tambini, ‘The democratic fightback has begun: The European Commission’s new European Media Freedom Act’ (Inforrm, 2 October 2022) <https://inforrm.org/2022/10/02/the-democratic-fightback-has-begun-the-european-commissions-new-european-media-freedom-act-damian-tambini/>.
3 See EMFA proposal, s 1 (Rights and duties of media service providers and recipients); s 5 (Requirements for well-functioning media market measures and procedures); and art 17 (Content of media service providers on very large online platforms).
4 See for example, European Federation of Journalists, ‘EFJ welcomes European Media Freedom Act but calls for strengthening’ (16 September 2022) <https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2022/09/16/efj-welcomes-european-media-act-but-calls-for-strengthening/>; Natali Helberger and others, ‘Expert opinion on draft European Media Freedom Act for stakeholder meeting 28 February 2023’ (DSA Observatory, 29 March 2023) <https://dsa-observatory.eu/2023/03/29/expert-opinion-on-draft-european-media-freedom-act-for-stakeholder-meeting-28-february-2023/>; Joan Barata, ‘Protecting media content on social media platforms’ (Verfassungsblog, 25 November 2022) <https://verfassungsblog.de/emfa-dsa/>; and Dirk Voorhoof, ‘Will the EU Media Freedom Act (EMFA) be able to strengthen the protection of journalistic sources?’ (2023) 28(1) Communications Law 16.
5 See Luca Bertuzzi, ‘Media exemption ruled out in DSA negotiations, but could return’ Euractiv (24 November 2021) <www.euractiv.com/section/digital-single-market/news/media-exception-ruled-out-in-dsa-negotiations-but-could-return/>.
6 EMFA proposal, art 2(1).
7 This comment only seeks to examine the definition of media under the EMFA proposal, and for an in-depth discussion of the notion of media, there is a rich literature: see, for example, Peter Coe, Media Freedom in the Age of Citizen Journalism (Elgar 2021); Damian Tambini, Media Freedom (Polity 2021); András Koltay, ‘The Concept of Media Freedom Today: New Media, New Editors and the Traditional Approach of the Law’ (2015) 7(1) Journal of Media Law 36; and Jan Oster, ‘Theory and Doctrine of “Media Freedom” as a Legal Concept’ (2013) 5(1) Journal of Media Law 57.
8 EMFA proposal, p 1.
9 EMFA proposal, art 2(1).
10 ibid art 2(2).
11 EMFA proposal, recital 7 (‘the definition of a media service should be limited to services as defined by the Treaty and therefore should cover any form of economic activity. This definition should exclude user-generated content uploaded to an online platform unless it constitutes a professional activity normally provided for consideration (be it of financial or of other nature). It should also exclude … services that do not have the provision of audiovisual or audio programmes or press publications as their principal purpose, meaning where the content is merely incidental to the service and not its principal purpose’).
12 Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, recital 56.
13 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities, art 1.
14 EMFA proposal, p 5.
15 EMFA proposal, art 4(1)(b).
16 Damian Tambini, ‘What is Journalism? The Paradox of Media Privilege’ (2021) European Human Rights Law Review 523.
17 Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Media Pluralism and Human Rights’ CommDH (2011)43, s 1.2.
18 See, for example, Delfi AS v Estonia [GC] App no 64569/09 (ECHR, 16 June 2015) para 113; and Case C-622/17 Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija (Opinion of Advocate General, 28 February 2019) para 44.
19 See, for example, OOO Regnum v Russia App no 22649/08 (ECHR, 8 September 2020) para 67.
20 See, Case C–345/17 Sergejs Buivids v Datu valsts inspekcija (14 February 2019) para 65.
21 EMFA proposal, s 3 and recital 53.
22 Recommendation Rec(2004)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the right of reply in the new media environment (15 December 2004), preamble.
23 Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)15 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns (7 November 2007), preamble.
24 Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on a new notion of media (21 September 2011).
25 ibid para 50.
26 ibid para 11.
27 ibid.
28 Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on principles for media and communication governance (6 April 2022).
29 Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age (17 March 2022). See also, Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership (7 March 2018), and Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries (7 March 2018); and Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on electoral communication and media coverage of elections campaigns (6 April 2022).
30 See, Delfi AS v Estonia [GC] App no 64569/09 (ECHR, 16 June 2015) para 113. See also, Magyar Jeti Zrt v Hungary App no 11257/16 (ECHR, 4 December 2018) para 27; and OOO Informatsionnoye Agentstvo Tambov-Inform v Russia App no 43351/12 (ECHR, 18 May 2021) para 51.
31 High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, A Free and Pluralistic Media to Sustain European Democracy (European Commission 2013) 11.
32 Case C-622/17 Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija (Opinion of Advocate General, 28 February 2019) para 44.
33 Recommendation No R (2000) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information (8 March 2000), appendix.
34 Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists and other media actors (13 April 2016), para 4.
35 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 – Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, CCPR/C/GC/34 (12 September 2011) para 44.
36 Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary [GC] App no 18030/11 (ECHR, 8 November 2016) para 168.
37 Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v Ukraine App no 10090/16 (ECHR, 26 March 2020) para 87.
38 ibid para 87.
39 Rebechenko v Russia App no 10257/17 (ECHR, 16 April 2019) para 25.
40 Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary [GC] App no 18030/11 (ECHR, 8 November 2016) para 166.
41 Cengiz and Others v Turkey App nos 48226/10 and 14027/11 (ECHR, 1 December 2015) para 52.
42 Case C-73/07 Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy (16 December 2008). See Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, art 9.
43 Case C-73/07 Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy (16 December 2008) para 56.
44 ibid para 58.
45 ibid para 61.
46 Case C–345/17 Sergejs Buivids v Datu valsts inspekcija (14 February 2019).
47 ibid para 21.
48 ibid para 55.
49 ibid.
50 ibid 60.
51 EMFA proposal, art 17(1) (‘Providers of very large online platforms shall provide a functionality allowing recipients of their services to declare that: (a) it is a media service provider within the meaning of Article 2(2); (b) it is editorially independent from Member States and third countries; and (c) it is subject to regulatory requirements for the exercise of editorial responsibility in one or more Member States, or adheres to a co-regulatory or self-regulatory mechanism governing editorial standards, widely recognised and accepted in the relevant media sector in one or more Member States’).
52 EMFA proposal, art 17(2).
53 EMFA proposal, recital 33.
54 EMFA proposal, recital 33, provides some suggestive guidance, referring to Reporters Without Borders’ Journalism Trust Initiative standards and ‘other relevant codes of conduct’ (VLOPs ‘may rely on information regarding adherence to these requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of the Journalism Trust Initiative or other relevant codes of conduct’).
55 Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on public service media governance (15 February 2012).
56 Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on public service media governance (15 February 2012).
57 See Damian Tambini, Media Freedom (John Wiley & Sons 2021).
58 See Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) art 24(5).
59 See EMFA proposal, recital 33 (‘Guidelines by the Commission may be useful to facilitate an effective implementation of such functionality, including on modalities of involvement of relevant civil society organisations in the review of the declarations, on consultation of the regulator of the country of establishment, where relevant, and address any potential abuse of the functionality’).
60 See EMFA proposal, art 8. The Board will replace the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA), established by Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), art 30b.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Theresa Seipp
Theresa Seipp is a PhD Candidate at the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam; Dr. Ronan Ó Fathaigh is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam; and Dr. Max van Drunen is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam.