Search Results

One of the challenges of Europeanization as an innovative research agenda is the identification of mechanisms through which domestic public policy is Europeanized. In Chapter 2, Radaelli identified two types of mechanisms, vertical (these include European Commission (EC) directives, European Court of Justice (ECJ) decisions, and EC competition decisions) and horizontal (suggestion of best practice through European level policy forums). This chapter elaborates on these mechanisms by considering the case of media market regulation in the European Union (EU), arguing that Europeanization of this policy area can be understood by looking at the interplay between the two mechanisms. An examination is made of vertical mechanisms in the section ‘The Impact of ECJ Decisions on National Regulation’, and of horizontal mechanisms in the section ‘Vertical Europeanization via EC Merger Policy’; together these sections provide an overview of ECJ and competition decisions. The section on ‘The Commission and New Modes of Governance’ overviews how policy ideas travel through European-level forums; last, the ‘Conclusion’ looks at how Europeanization has driven the convergence of national media policies.

This chapter discusses the democratic justification for media freedom. The approach taken towards the media in relation to extreme speech is distinguished from that taken towards the individual. The media may require some protection to pursue its watchdog function when reporting speech that is illegal when advocated by an individual. However, some restraints may be imposed on the media in relation to extreme speech that is legal when spoken by a citizen. This chapter has approached the issue from one particular angle: the justification of media freedom by reference to its democratic functions and how this may permit some regulations that enhance those goals.

This chapter analyzes the framework of media regulation in the UK, which gives appropriate attention to the increasing significance of developments emanating from Europe. It discusses the nature of regulation; the agenda in the European Union; and regulation of the media in the nation state.

This chapter seeks to identify a meaningful, overarching rationale for regulation of the media, to clarify — or replace — what has been the nearest thing as yet to serve as a guiding principle, the concept of ‘the public interest’. It discusses competition law and the public interest in media regulation; the seductive charms of choice; resolving the tensions between competing rationales; citizenship as the public interest; the Communications Act 2003 and the ‘public interest’; and citizenship, the public interest, and the media.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the development and influence of broadcast media. It then describes how three ongoing phenomena — technological convergence, globalisation, and horizontal and vertical integration — form the vital context for discussion of media regulation in the modern era. It considers the power of the media and the significance of the claim of freedom of communication. Finally, the chapter introduces the vision of the legal and constitutional context for media regulation that informs much of the rest of this book.

This chapter argues that while the media cannot be insulated from technological and commercial change, with good management it should be possible to maintain, in a modernised and sustainable form, those aspects of it that are most highly valued. The key task now facing would-be institutional architects is to design new institutional structures that hold back the tide in places and rise through the waves in others. The key to success in this respect is building upon foundations sufficiently deep and strong to support a structure in the turbulent waters above. In this context, it may be that the law and its constitutional basis in democracy offer a solid base upon which to build; it may be far from perfect, but may be the best available option, or indeed, in effect, ‘the only game in town’.

This chapter considers principled arguments regarding the regulation of the media and justifications for regulation. It begins by looking into some practical realities associated with the future of the institution at the heart of the UK's public service broadcasting (PSB) tradition — the BBC. It discusses the BBC Charter Review, which may offer an insight into future policy on PSB. It draws some preliminary conclusions based on the four rationales for media regulation: effective communication, diversity, economy, and public service.

This chapter offers a brief overview of the historical legal framework for regulation prior to the Communications Act 2003 before going on to identify the key reforms and to consider their impact on power and accountability in the regulatory regime and some significant developments since. The emphasis is on regulatory design, the location of regulatory power, and accountability in its exercise. The overall objective is to consider whether the Communications Act 2003 in general represents any significant advance on what went before.

This chapter deals with some of the main lines of argument in the contemporary debates concerning pluralism and diversity. It begins by distinguishing between media pluralism and media diversity, the former being more commonly used in European debates and the latter in American debates. Pluralism is often discussed as a highly abstract value, but never really properly defined. The most established framework for an operational definition of media pluralism is based on a dichotomy between media structures and content. The chapter also talks about the main problems involved in media pluralism. These include arguments regarding the assumed relationships between its components, and debates that have been wrongly assigned as disputes over the extent of media system regulation.

This chapter shifts the focus from predominantly structural regulation of media markets to the activities of the media, and those who regulate them, from the perspective of accountability. It discusses aspects of accountability; formal power and informal influence; complaints and ‘standards’ in broadcasting; the Press Complaints Commission; and the Advertising Standards Authority.

Chapter 4 brings into focus various structural threats to journalism, including monopoly control over media infrastructures, the loss of public interest protections, digital divides, and the “Facebook problem.” It examines how monopolies—from platforms to traditional conglomerates and broadband cartels—threaten the entire news media system. The chapter goes on to provide an overview of why media policy matters for journalism and how different ownership structures affect media content. It then concludes with an in-depth discussion of Facebook’s relationship to journalism and the different schools of thought on how we should rein in monopolies.

This chapter explores the significance of the book’s empirical and normative study of the interface between European data protection regulation and professional journalists, artists, and both academic and non-academic writers within the contemporary online media. The study has elucidated practical attempts at regulating professional journalism through a contextual rights-balancing paradigm, argued that this should be generalized to other traditional publishers, and proposed that it be systematically developed through co-regulation and strategic enforcement. It is contended that, notwithstanding the rise of new online media, an examination of the regulation of traditional publishers still has strong significance in and of itself. These actors continue to possess disproportionate information power and perform a vital role in distilling, explaining and putting new information and ideas into the public realm. The themes of the book may also contribute to thinking on new online media regulation. Whilst such media often does not orientate itself towards a public discourse, some kind of contextual balancing (even if often internal to default data protection norms) remains necessary. Co-regulation, encompassing not just platforms but also users, could also play some role in specifying that (albeit stricter) balance. Finally, not least given the severe resource constraints of Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), strategic enforcement is likely to be necessary in this context also. Through engagement with both traditional and new media, data protection is becoming a holistic regulator of the information ecosystem, thereby highlighting its importance within contemporary society.

This chapter explores the legislative interface between data protection and the professional journalistic media under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Like the Data Protection Directive (DPD), the GDPR mandates that States adopt derogations ‘necessary’ for reconciling two competing fundamental rights. However, broadly mirroring the situation under the DPD, there remain considerable differences at local level. Northern European countries have tended to set out wide and deep derogations for journalism, whilst Southern and Eastern Europe have often stipulated that this activity adhere to strict data protection standards. These differences map on to broader cultural fissures as regards attitudes to individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power differences in society. Nevertheless, these outcomes are slightly more balanced than under the DPD. In particular, almost half the States have set out partial statutory limits to the supervisory powers of the Data Protection Authority here. Approximately one-third of States also continue to formalize a co-regulatory connection between statutory and self-regulation. However, a widespread problem has emerged concerning the statutory treatment of media/news archiving. In sum, although the GDPR mandates derogations here, only around one-third of European Economic Area (EEA) States have explicitly provided that the journalism regime can apply to public interest archiving which is subject to its own default regime in the GDPR.

This chapter explores the approach European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) should take to their role vis-à-vis the professional journalistic media under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Such an approach must take into account the contextual trend within European Court of Human Rights case law, the growth of a stricter Court of Justice of the European Union data protection jurisprudence, and continuing severe resource constraints. In the area of standards, DPAs should endorse a broad construction of the journalistic derogation that encompasses news/media archives but should also promote a specific and structured approach to contextual balancing within this derogation. Such detailed standard-setting raises acute sensitivities. Therefore, guidance should be formulated through a co-regulatory process which adopts the GDPR’s code of conduct provisions as a broad guideline. Enforcement remains even more delicate, potentially very expensive, but nevertheless vital. A strategic co-regulatory approach is appropriate here too. DPAs should encourage self-regulatory monitoring mechanisms and, in cases where these meet the criteria laid down in the GDPR, should defer to them other than when particular systematic or serious issues arise. If such criteria are not satisfied, DPAs need to deploy their powers proactively across the board. Finally, where no self-regulatory mechanism exists, DPAs must independently ensure a proportionate response to all complaints and issues that arise. Media regulation rightly remains largely within State jurisdiction. Therefore, the European Data Protection Regulation should avoid coercive intervention here. Nevertheless, it should play a valuable ʻsoftʼ role through drafting non-binding guidance and promoting information exchange, dialogue, and cooperation.

Drawing on the results of both a questionnaire and a public domain website review, this chapter explores the enforcement stance and track record of European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) vis-à-vis the professional journalistic media under the Data Protection Directive. Approximately 80 per cent of DPAs accepted that they possessed regulatory powers in this regard and over 60 per cent reported having undertaken some enforcement. However, the number who conceptualized their powers to be partial was far higher than that set out in statutory law and half the DPAs which did report enforcement had only intervened in relation to one or two often quite diffuse areas of data protection. The website review verified enforcement for 40 per cent of the DPAs and confirmed that activity had often focused on data linked either to specific privacy interests (especially where sensitive data was involved) and/or data whose safeguarded treatment underpinned critical socio-economic relationships (e.g. national identification numbers). In general, action had been very patchy, with a notable absence of intervention even in relation to issues that only raise limited free speech concerns such as avoiding or rectifying significant inaccuracies. This patchiness could not be fully explained by statutory law (which often remained quite prescriptive), the general need for contextual rights balancing, limited resourcing, or the need for an interface with self-regulation. Nevertheless, enforcement was strongly and positively correlated with the stringency of local law. Relationships with DPA resources were more mixed although there was a significant positive association between enforcement and the per capita human resources available to a regulator.

Since the arrival of the PT (the Workers’ Party) to central power in Brazil (2002), the issue of mass media regulation became a hot topic in the country's political debate, due to the historical commitment of some of the party's sectors to a so-called agenda of media-democratization. This chapter addresses 1) the impasses of this agenda until now (as we are in the midst of a third PT presidential administration); and, 2) the media-democratization issue in itself, in particular its possible inherently self-deceptive nature.