Press release
How to modernise European television rules
Culture - 12-06-2006 - 18:27
Should European advertising rules allow product placement in TV programmes? Should blogs, online video games or private videos be considered media services to be regulated by EU law? Will children be sufficiently protected? At a public hearing on Thursday and Friday, co-organised by 6 parliamentary committees, MEPs heard different views on the scope and content of a proposed update to the Television without Frontiers directive.
The draft legislation aims to modernise the current directive, last updated in 1997. It reflects both rapid development in audiovisual technology and advertising. The Commission's intention is to create a level playing field for public and private broadcasters and independent producers. The proposal widens the scope of the directive, reduces regulation on advertising and seeks to introduce common rules on product placement. "The proposal goes in the right direction, but there is a need for clarification and for amendments", said rapporteur Ruth Hieronymi (EPP-ED, DE).
"European content policy is much more than a network of regulatory systems", said Michael Holoubek, Professor for Law at the University of Economics and Business Administration in Vienna. "Either we are going to have an economic and cultural or purely commercial approach."
Scope and regulation
Timothy Suter, from the UK Office of Communication, welcomed the removal of some advertising rules, but thought the scope was being widened too much: "This goes beyond modernisation," he said, arguing that blogs, online video games or private videos would also be included: "We might then have different regulation for online and offline games (…) All these services are the opposite of mass media." No-one could disagree with protecting the vulnerable, he said, but "top-down regulation as suggested by the Commission might threaten our ability to regulate".
Patrice Duhamel, Director General of France Televisions, said the "revision is absolutely necessary." He welcomed the expansion of the directive's scope as well as the separation of advertising and editorial content. He called on MEPs to take into account the specific role played by public broadcasters.
Advertising and product placement
"We don't want more advertising, but advertising which better meets consumers' needs", said the President of IP-Network/RTL, Walter Neuhauser. "Consumers no longer need to be protected from advertising since they can switch over or off." He wanted to extend the 12-minute upper limit for adverts per hour to 15 minutes.
Jim Murray from European Consumers' Organisation said there were good things about advertising, but that: "More and more we are swimming in a sea of commercial communication." Advertisers would be colonising previously ad-free areas, Mr Murray complained, "in order to persuade us to want more and to consume more". He wanted the 12-minute rule to be maintained and better enforced.
"Some modest regulation is needed", said Christina Kallas of the Federation of Scriptwriters in Europe, warning against product placement on the US model, where a show such as 'The Contender' contained 626 paid "inserted products" per hour. By allowing paid product placement, viewers would not have the choice not to watch advertisements, Mrs Kallas insisted: "For Europe we should say No to the integration of products."
Tom Barnicoat, from production company Endemol, disagreed: "There is a real danger that Europe will be left behind... if we don't go ahead with new forms of funding" Allowing paid placement of products in programmes would enable Europe "to take a leading, constructive position… It is not a question whether but how to manage it… American content is arriving in Europe with product integration in television as well as in movies."
Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE, ES) said that product placement "is already taking place in the middle of the EU", with "hundreds of products featured on Spanish TV every day". Heidi Rühle (Greens/EFA, DE) said the revenue from product placement in the US only accounts for 1.3 percent. "Product placement is not going to be a bonanza."
Protecting children
Lucy Cronin of the European Digital Media Association spoke about measures to protect children and human dignity in audiovisual output. Research, she said, had shown that children's consumption of media was changing. The protection of children had become a shared responsibility for parents, schools and new media service providers. She said regulation was "a blunt instrument" and a layered approach was most effective.
Ms Cronin highlighted three public-private initiatives - the French "net+sur" system for labelling safe internet sites, "Think U Know", a UK initiative aimed at educating children and parents for safe use of new media, and German Jugendschutz.net which supports regional youth ministers in implementing internet protection initiatives for minors. She stressed that a mix of solutions was most suitable to the new media environment, giving parents and children greater control over their media consumption.
Pluralism and cultural diversity
Aidan White of the European Federation of Journalists EFJ said that the revision of the directive did not allow for agreed safeguards on pluralism and media ownership. The EU and its Member States, he said, needed to develop a new approach to media concentration, assessing media ownership as an issue that could not be dealt with only by competition law. What was needed was "a wake-up call to the EU" so the issue was not left to local politicians.
Mr White said the current proposal for a revised directive was only a first step. The EFJ was encouraging a stronger approach which did not "give in" to the interests of telecom firms and other new actors in the on-line world. Mr White asked for stricter standards to be met by non-linear operators.
The Culture Committee is due to vote on Ms Hieronymi's draft co-decision report in October, with a plenary first reading due in November or December.
REF.: 20060529IPR08506