Search

Published online: 16 September 2022 The Study on Media Plurality and Diversity Online investigates the value of safeguarding media pluralism and diversity online, focusing on (i) the prominence and discoverability of general interest content and services, and on (ii) market plurality and the concentration of economic resources. With a focus on Europe, the project is funded by a tender from the European Commission to produce a study on Media Plurality and Diversity Online and involves four partner universities: CMPF (EUI); CiTiP (Centre for Information Technology and Intellectual Property) of KU Leuven; the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR/UvA); imec-SMIT-Vrije Universiteit Brussel. The purpose of the assignment was to describe, analyse and evaluate the existing regulatory and business practices in the two areas mentioned above, and finally to elaborate some policy recommendations. Data were collected from the database of the Media Pluralism Monitor (CMPF) and through desk research, online consultations and interviews with stakeholders. The contractor was able to call on a network of national experts across the Member States to support this work.

Privileges that aim to enhance journalist and media freedom can also undermine it if their administration necessitates gatekeeping of the status of journalist. This article examines this paradox of privilege on the basis of a selective survey of three areas of law: protection of journalistic sources, defamation, and protection of journalists. It argues that there exists a “privilege paradox” whereby journalism and the media need special protection in order to fulfil their democratic function, but that awarding of this privilege can create vectors of control through gatekeeper control of access to the profession. The article shows that journalism privilege can be based on the status of the person of the journalist, or on the genre or activity of journalism through various forms of judicial discretion and also accreditation. There are numerous examples with respect to the award of privileges that incorporate protections for media freedom. As journalism privilege is redefined, a functional notion of journalism will be required, but this is not sufficient for all journalistic and media privileges.

We welcome the JCHR aim of providing certainty and comprehensive protection for individuals’ rights, in light of the upcoming deployment of the NHSX Contact Tracing system. Clarifying the available safeguards would allow the public to better understand the functioning of the NHSX application, the consequences for their rights, and the remedies at their disposal. Further, as emergency situations may require rapid and bold responses, and protections of rights enshrined in law should be strengthened accordingly: in turn, public scrutiny and enforcement of rights would be enabled to keep pace with such rapid developments. Likewise, we reject Matt Hancock’s communication to the JCHR that a Bill is unnecessary as sufficient safeguards are present in Data Protection legislation and other general policy commitments; they are not. Data protection regulations leave a scope for differing protections and approaches, as they are not tailored to the situation at hand. On the other hand, public confidence would benefit greatly from a more specific approach which ensures particularly high protections.\ud Having said that, we are concerned about a number of issues raised in the current text of the draft Digital Contact Tracing (Data Protection) Bill. \ud We have divided those concerns into three groups:\ud Missed Opportunities: we believe the Bill overlooks certain risks, whose potential for undermining public trust is significantly high;\ud Overlaps and Coordination with the GDPR: we find that some provisions enshrined in this Bill are at risk of overlapping, conflicting or not properly coordinating with the current data protection regime;\ud Other Areas for Improvements: finally, we cover certain aspects of the Bill which could be improved upon, in order to better attain the purposes of this Bill.\ud Each of these groups entails a number of issues, each (i) introducing the clause or clauses being discussed, (ii) briefly analysing the issues being raised, and (iii) recommending suitable changes to the Bill. With this, we hope to contribute to ensuring that the Joint Committee on Human Rights Bill can really provide citizens with choice, control and confidence over the Government use of their personal data. Please note that these concerns and considerations are not exhaustive. We would thus welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the JCHR with a view to furthering and enhancing their work on technological responses to COVID-19.

Unless we see take action on online child protection, legal uncertainty and disputes will continue and we run the risk of excessive legislation being enacted in response.

Debate about the Internet and democracy has evolved from starry- eyed hope (Rheingold 1995; Tambini 1998), through critical realism (Zittrain 2008; Howard 2006; Sunstein 2001), to despair (Barocas 2012; Morozov 2011; Kreiss 2012). Recent elections have called into question the promise of the Internet to provide expanding resources for information and deliberation (Tambini 2000). Growing numbers of commentators argue that the Internet agora has been displaced by the monopolized Internet of “surveillance capitalism” in which a small number of immensely powerful platform companies (Zuboff 2015) provide integrated services of targeted propaganda and misinformation undermining campaign fairness by rewarding richer campaigns and those that are increasingly able to bypass existing regulatory frameworks. In recent elections, data- driven campaigns, supported by surveillance technologies that game privacy protection to profile voters and target their weaknesses have been widely criticized. (Barocas 2012; Kreiss 2012, 2016; Howard and Kreiss 2009; Tambini et al. 2017). Some, including Epstein (this volume) go so far as to claim that powerful intermediaries such as Google and Facebook can and do influence the outcome of elections. At the same time, the shock results of votes in the UK referendum and US elections led in 2016 to widespread questioning of the role of social media, which was seen as responsible for distributing fake news (Allcott and Gentzkow 2017; Tambini 2017), using manipulative psychometric profiling (Cadwalladr 2017), and undermining authoritative journalism (Bell, this volume; Allcott and Gentzkow 2017, 211) and ultimately the fairness and transparency of elections. This chapter examines the charge against the social media in recent elections, with a focus on the question of dominance: whether the powerful position of a few platforms in political campaigning— and particularly Facebook— is undermining electoral legitimacy. The focus will be on the UK, which has particularly high levels of online and Facebook use, and the referendum in 2016 and general election in 2017, which offer useful contrasting examples of recent campaigns. This chapter draws on interviews conducted with campaigners on the state of the art in targeted campaigning during the referendum in 2016, and a study of online ads used in the 2017 election conducted in collaboration with the grassroots group Who Targets Me.

It has now been confirmed that 21st Century Fox, the Film and TV entertainment business controlled by the Murdoch family, wishes to acquire the 61% share of Sky plc (formerly BSkyB) that it does not already own. This proposed expansion of the Murdoch media business raises numerous issues which would engage public interest legislation.

Campaign regulation aims to ensure that elections are free and fair and not captured by a narrow range of interests. Since 1883, the UK has had legislation1 on its statute books that limits candidates’ spending on political campaigns. Broadcasting legislation ensures impartiality and fairness in elections, and rationing of air time. This policy brief examines the impact of social media on these rules.

An apparent proliferation of inaccurate and misleading news stories has led to calls for new policy interventions, from fact checking by social media companies to new laws imposing fines for posting or sharing fake news. This raises some difficult issues in media policy. Is this a new problem? Is so called ‘fake news’ distinct from longstanding problems with accuracy or objectivity in journalism? Is the controversy rather a response to the scale of current political changes, and their impact on various interested parties? Are there fundamental changes going on in our Western media systems which undermine traditional journalistic crafts of fact checking and verification, and incentivise more emotionally resonant content, at the expense of quality, reliable journalism?

This briefing paper provides information, analysis and recommendations regarding future EU policy developments on the protection of minors in the digital age to support the CULT Committee’s deliberations. Focusing on developments since 2012, it identifies recent policy developments at EU level, evaluates existing EU initiatives and instruments, and recommends further action by the European Commission and other stakeholders.

The Leveson Inquiry should recommend use of a broad range of policy instruments to regulate media power and pluralism: not just press self-regulation but also those that deal with the root cause of media capture of politicians: media ownership and concentration There is no infallible policy prescription but the approach should be holistic; looking at both internal and external plurality of the media, and ensuring maximum transparency of ownership for citizens and consumers. To protect citizens and enhance certainty for industry, fixed ownership limits should be (re)-established for media mergers and a regular review of the market carried out by an independent media regulator to assess media plurality and concentration of media power and influence. Politicians should play no role in deciding individual cases involving media competition or plurality issues.

Communications consumers in the UK do not switch provider enough, and when they do they sometimes do so irrationally. As the government conducts a welcome review of the landscape of consumer representation in the UK, they should be aware that there is an ongoing, permanent need for consumer representation that is specific to the communications sector. The government’s proposals, by shifting consumer advocacy to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, are likely to result in an increase in costs to the public purse. Within the current model Ofcom and its consumer panel receive almost half their funding from the private sector. If the body is moved to Citizens Advice, the proportion met by public funding will be higher. The fast changing, technical complexity of the communications sector makes a consumer representative particularly important. Consumer advocacy in communications will be most efficient if it is within Ofcom, but has much more effective operational independence from it.

This article considers the rationales for, and techniques used to promote, media pluralism. It examines why structural regulation is so controversial, with specific reference to the uncertainties surrounding cause and effect in the media field and the technical and economic complexity of media markets. The paper then considers how UK strategy in the field has evolved over the last thirty years, increasingly reliant on the 'media plurality' test incorporated in the Enterprise Act 2002. It suggests that a radical re-appraisal of the test is necessary in light of the perceived risk of political intervention and the length and uncertainty surrounding the two investigations that have taken place to date. The paper examines the innovative 'share of reference' test developed by Ofcom in the News Corporation/BSkyB takeover bid and contrasts it with techniques employed in the United States and a number of European countries. It suggests that, of the various forms of measurement that can be employed in this context, consumer exposure appears best able to address converging media markets and provide, an admittedly indirect, indication of media influence. It similarly suggests that fixed ownership limits, though currently out of fashion, provide a relatively clear and effective form of control, reducing potential concerns over agency capture and political influence. It concludes by identifying certain areas where further co-ordinated research is desirable and notes the potential role that could be played by the European Union in this context. The Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union.

As the neo-liberal marketization of citizenship and the resulting processes of individualization proceed, debates on citizenship tend to flounder in outmoded ideological oppositions. By examining concrete cases and processes that accompany contemporary practices of citizenship, this volume brings analytical clarity to contemporary debates about citizenship. The state, the market and the forum are analysed as competing fields of citizenship practice, and it is their complex relationship which helps us to understand the role and function not only of the debate on citizenship, but of the institutions and practices of citizenship itself in the contemporary world.

The current crisis in global banking, markets and economies has reminded us all of the importance of financial and business journalism. It has also raised a set of profound questions as to the quality of that form of reporting. Why didn’t we know this was coming? Did the journalists fail to put the financial system under proper scrutiny? Are they equipped to deal with the continuing complex story? Is this representative of a wider problem with the news media? This pamphlet seeks to address some of these questions

Can the Internet regulate itself? Faced with a range of 'harms' and conflicts associated with the new media – from gambling to pornography – many governments have resisted the temptation to regulate, opting instead to encourage media providers to develop codes of conduct and technical measures to regulate themselves. Codifying Cyberspace looks at media self-regulation in practice, in a variety of countries. It also examines the problems of balancing private censorship against fundamental rights to freedom of expression and privacy for media users. This book is the first full-scale study of self-regulation and codes of conduct in these fast-moving new media sectors and is the result of a three-year Oxford University study funded by the European Commission.

As logical as the existence and role of Public Service Broadcasters seemed to be in the era of broadcasting monopolies, it is equally natural today to question public involvement in the media. Is there still a need for public broadcasters? What are their cultural obligations, political role and remit in the dual European media market? Which changes will new media, the Internet and digital technology bring, and what impact will they have on the media market? What is the role of governments and parliaments in relation to the public broadcasters, and what are the implications of EU regulation of the media market? Do the public media really make a difference, or are they dinosaurs threatened with extinction in the new and unfamiliar media landscape of modern Europe? These are the questions addressed in this book, which has been commissioned by the European Broadcasting Union as one of its contributions to the debate on the future of broadcasting.