El Presidente. − El siguiente punto es el informe de Marianne Mikko, en nombre de la Comisión de Cultura y Educación, sobre la concentración y pluralismo de los medios de comunicación en la Unión Europea (2007/2253(INI)) (A6-0303/2008).

  Marianne Mikko, rapporteur. − Mr President, EU membership has almost doubled since the beginning of 2004. Ensuring the convergence of standards for the protection of democracy and basic freedoms towards the highest existing levels is one of the main post-enlargement challenges. In this context, the report welcomes all initiatives aimed at safeguarding democracy and points out that the media remains an influential political tool which should not be treated solely on economic terms.

The report recognises the decision of the European Commission to entrust determining the reliable and impartial indicators of media pluralism to a consortium of three European universities.

In addition, this report stresses the need to institute the monitoring and implementation systems based on the indicators thus determined. The report also recognises the ongoing efforts of publishers’ and journalists’ representatives to create a charter of media freedom. In addition, the report underscores the need for social and legal guarantees for journalists and editors.

The report advocates the adoption by the multinational enterprises of the best practice for editorial and journalistic freedom in each country where they operate. It expresses concern over lower standards being applied in the Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007.

The development and acceptance of new technologies has led to the emergence of new media channels and new kinds of content. The emergence of new media has brought more dynamism and diversity into the media landscape. The report encourages responsible use of new channels.

Weblogs: I understand and I do not understand the concern of webloggers. My entrance into cyberspace has created rapid reaction among a lot of bloggers. I shall make it clear now that nobody is interested in regulating the internet. That is why I support, as rapporteur, the compromise that has reached common understanding in the PSE, ALDE and Verts/ALE Groups and which underlines the following: ‘encourages an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs’ – full stop. We remain here.

The report acknowledges the challenges posed to the print outlets by the migration of the advertising revenues to the internet, but points out that the new commercial media landscape is dominated by the established public and private media content providers. It also takes the standpoint that the concentration of media ownership is approaching levels where media pluralism is not granted by the forces of the free market, especially in the new Member States.

The report recognises that the public service media needs a sizable and stable market share to fulfil its mission. It points out that, whereas in certain markets the public service media is a leading market participant, it mostly suffers from inadequate funding and political pressure.

The report recognises the need to increase media literacy in the EU, recommends the inclusion of media literacy among the nine basic competences and supports the development of the European core curriculum for media literacy.

Once again, the report welcomes all initiatives aimed at safeguarding democracy and points out that the media remains an influential political tool, which should not be treated solely on economic terms. Freedom of expression is the key of my report – for that I really stand.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − 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 sine qua non 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.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar el jueves 25 de septiembre.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 142 del Reglamento)

  Κατερίνα Μπατζελή (PSE), γραπτώς. – Η συγκέντρωση και ο πλουραλισμός θα συνεχίζουν να αποτελούν το επίκεντρο των συζητήσεων σε εθνικό και κοινοτικό επίπεδο, εφόσον η σημερινή κοινωνία, οι σημερινοί πολίτες δέχονται την άμεση πληροφόρηση και την εικόνα του λόγου από τα ΜΜΕ. Σε αυτό λοιπόν το σκηνικό, η διευθέτηση και οριοθέτηση των ορίων λειτουργίας και παρεμβάσεων των δημόσιων και ιδιωτικών μέσων ενημέρωσης είναι το βασικό ζητούμενο. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, θα πρέπει να διασφαλίζεται η μη χειραγώγηση της πληροφόρησης, η μη διασύνδεση με την πολιτική εξουσία, η οικονομική ανεξαρτησία των μέσων, η διαφάνεια στην χρηματοδότησή τους, οι συνθήκες εργασίας των δημοσιογράφων, αλλά και η ποιότητα και η ποικιλομορφία της ενημέρωσης.

Σε αυτό το "άνοιγμα" του δημοκρατικού διαλόγου διαμέσου των ΜΜΕ ένα νέο μέσο αναπτύσσεται όπως αυτό των ιστολογίων, μέσο που εξατομικεύει την ανταλλαγή απόψεων. Σε πολλές όμως περιπτώσεις σε κρίσιμα ζητήματα - όπως για το περιβάλλον και την κοινωνία - η έκφραση αυτή έχει μετατραπεί σε "συλλογική διαμαρτυρία".

Οι κώδικες αυτορρύθμισης μπορούν σε αυτή την φάση να αποτελέσουν επαρκή βάση για τον αλληλοσεβασμό μεταξύ χρηστών και αναγνωστών χωρίς να τίθεται δέσμευση του δικαιώματος έκφρασης και αντίδρασης από τις δύο πλευρές. Τα ΜΜΕ και οι χώροι διαδικτυακής ανταλλαγής πληροφόρησης διευρύνονται, αξιολογούνται και ρυθμίζονται θέτοντας πάντα ως αρχή την δημοκρατική έκφραση, συμμετοχή και σεβασμό των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων.

  Ivo Belet (PPE-DE), schriftelijk. – Mediapluralisme ligt ons na aan het hart en we staan dan ook achter de grote principes van het verslag. Het is jammer dat we niet over alle punten overeenstemming hebben kunnen vinden.

We onderschrijven volop dat de openbare omroep de ruimte moet krijgen om haar rol te vervullen in een digitale, interactieve mediaomgeving, uiteraard in balans met de commerciële zenders.

Een open discussie over weblogs moet aangemoedigd worden. Weblogs en andere zogenaamde 'user-generated content' dragen op een frisse manier bij tot een veelzijdig medialandschap en spelen een steeds grotere rol in nieuwsduiding.

De kwaliteit van een blog staat of valt echter met de auteur ervan en niet alle bloggers hebben even eerbare bedoelingen.

Opdat weblogs niet zouden verworden tot anonieme bronnen van laster, moeten we nadenken over hoe we omgaan met bijvoorbeeld privacy inbreuken of recht van weerwoord. Maar we mogen als Parlement absoluut niet te betuttelend optreden.

  Adam Bielan (UEN) , na piśmie. – Chciałbym podkreślić potrzebę zapewnienia przez Unię Europejską równowagi pomiędzy mediami prywatnymi i publicznymi w Europie. Ingerowanie w treści informacyjne przez właścicieli stacji telewizyjnych i radiowych narusza standardy demokracji. Pochodzę z kraju, w którym obecny rząd niszczy niezależność mediów. Obserwujemy szereg działań mających na celu podporządkowywanie mediów publicznych ekipie rządzącej.

Wyrażam poparcie dla wszystkich inicjatyw na rzecz obrony publicznych środków masowego przekazu, ponieważ są one narzędziem politycznym o dużej sile oddziaływania. Media publiczne potrzebują dodatkowej ochrony ze względu na brak dostatecznego finansowania i naciski polityczne jakim są poddawane szczególnie w nowych krajach członkowskich.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), skriftlig. – EU-parlamentets utskott för kultur och utbildning verkar lida av sysselsättningsproblem och i sin iver att finna frågor att ägna sig åt skriver man betänkanden som världen hade klarat sig utan.

Betänkandet om mediernas koncentration och mångfald i EU är ett sådant exempel. Det är ett eget initiativ från utskottet och föredraganden föreslog i sitt ursprungsbetänkande en frivillig klassificering av bloggar utifrån författares och utgivares yrkesmässiga och ekonomiska ansvar och intressen. Det finns många invändningar mot en sådan idé, såväl vad gäller genomförbarhet men även, och än viktigare, dess eventuella implikationer för yttrandefriheten.

Förslaget till betänkande har förvisso modifierats under utskottsbehandlingen men innehåller fortfarande mycket onödigt och skadligt.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), kirjallinen. – Moniarvoisuudesta mediassa Kiitän esittelijä Mikkosta mietinnöstä. Aihe on eurooppalaisen yhteiskunnassa tulenpalava: median rooli ja vaikutusvalta. Historia on tehnyt kristallinkirkkaaksi, ettei vallan keskittyminen ole koskaan hyväksi. Ihminen on alati altis sairastumaan valtaan - oli se minkä muotoista tahansa - ja keskitetty valta sairastuttaa koko yhteiskunnan. Tämä pätee myös neljänteen valtiomahtiin, tiedotusvälineisiin.

Unionin keskeisiä tehtäviä on kilpailun takaaminen sisämarkkinoilla. Miksei sama pätisi myös mediaan? Mietinnössä esitetty ajatus kilpailu- ja medialainsäädännön yhteenkutomisesta median omistajakeskittymien ja muun yhteiskunnallisen vallan välisten eturistiriidojen välttämiseksi on perusteltu.

Silti olen enemmän huolissani median kyvystä yhteiskunnallisen hyvän vartijana, koska näidenkin kiinnostuksen kohde on yhä vahvemmin yksinomaan taloudellinen voitto.

Kirkko ei ole aikoihin ruokkinut kansan sormellaosoittelevaa moralismia; homman hoitaa tietynlainen lehdistö, koska synti, häpäisy ja tuomitseminen on sen elinehto. Nerokkaalla tavalla tämä journalismin laji osaa yhdistää moraalittomuuden ihannoinnin ja toisaalta tavattoman kapeakatseisuuden tuottavaksi bisnekseksi: yllytä, tuomitse - ja tee rahaa.

"Sanojesi perusteella sinut julistetaan syyttömäksi, ja sanojesi perusteella sinut tuomitaan syylliseksi." Näiden lauseiden sanoja osoitti tuntevansa hyvin ihmismielen. Milloin media itse herää kysymykseen, saako se toimintatavoillaan lopulta enemmän aikaiseksi yhteiskunnallista pahaa kuin hyvää?

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), în scris. – Pluralismul trebuie sa fie, suntem de acord cu totii, un element vital in ceea ce priveste mass-media. Ca element vital, el trebuie sustinut si, prin adoptarea raportului Mikko, s-a facut un pas important in aceasta directie.

Necesitatea unei piete mass media echilibrate trebuie deasemenea recunoscuta si sustinuta la nivelul Statelor Membre, acestea trebuind sa se angajeze, atat separat cat si impreuna, sa ofere cetatenilor europeni posibilitatea unei informari corecte si variate.

Diversitatea culturala precum si nevoia in continua crestere de integrare a populatiei migrante si a minoritatilor, cumulate cu importanta unei bune informari a populatiei active, se regasesc ca motive prioritare ale crearii unei carte pentru libertatea media. In acest sens, sustin cu convingere recomandarea PE de a sustine serviciile publice de media in directia unei informari alternative celei bazate exclusiv pe criterii comerciale.

Nevoia ca cetatenii Europei sa isi exercite in mod activ drepturile si obligatiile, sa fie informati si capabili de a intelege si critica felul in care sunt informati, trebuie sa ghideze orice masura adoptata in viitor, atat de Institutiile europene cat si de fiecare Stat Membru in parte.

  Toomas Savi (ALDE), in writing. – The report of Marianne Mikko reflects very well on the general tendencies in the media in the European Union, pointing out an extremely important aspect in paragraph 35, regarding public broadcasting services.

In order to maintain sufficient media pluralism and diversity, public broadcasting corporations must also provide programmes that might not gain the highest ratings or advertising revenue. I have always been convinced that if a public service broadcaster becomes extremely popular among the people and profitable for the state, it need not be a public broadcaster at all.

The purpose of the public broadcaster is also to cater for the various needs and interests of the people, who are not always the unexacting audience of private broadcasters that tend to go with the mainstream. The public service broadcasters across the European Union should not neglect high-quality niche programmes in order to compete with privately owned broadcasters.

One of the principles of providing public goods is solidarity. Public broadcasting services should operate in solidarity with viewers of more demanding or fastidious tastes as well.

  Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. – The report concerns an important subject, media diversity, which is an important element in safeguarding democracy and the right of citizens to have access to reliable and independent media. Countries where economic, religious or political interests control the media have difficulties offering their citizens a variety of means of gathering information, which creates large gaps in their ability to absorb information and guarantee free and impartial elections.

Now we in the European Parliament are voting on a report concerning these important issues. We Swedish Social Democrats had really hoped to be able to vote for this report. But as it stands today, we will not do this. There is great purpose in the compromise proposal reached, but there remain several ambiguities, mainly around issues that affect web-blogger status. We do not want to contribute to the European Parliament equating web-blogging with traditional media by questioning and proposing discussions on web-blogs status, as proposed. This is not required for other groups, so why the web-bloggers? However, we share the view, with many web-bloggers, that violations and slander are equally punishable on web-blogs as in other media. Therefore, we will vote against this report.

  Daniel Strož (GUE/NGL), v písemné formě. – Zpráva o koncentraci a pluralitě sdělovacích prostředků v Evropské unii, kterou parlament předkládá z vlastního podnětu, je velmi závažná, potřebná a na mnoha místech přesně popisuje situaci, která už řadu let panuje v České republice. Důrazně z toho místa upozorňuji především na dva aspekty, jež zpráva právem obecně kritizuje a požaduje nápravu. Tím prvním je téměř úplná koncentrace denního tisku v rukou zahraničních, konkrétně německých koncernů, jejichž ekonomické a politické zájmy jdou očividně proti objektivně daným zájmům České republiky, především pak pokud jde o názorovou pluralitu a nezávislost médií. Ta se stala v českém prostředí pouhou fikcí. Realitou je naopak ostře pravicová tendenčnost a bezbřehá manipulace. Druhým aspektem je počínání veřejnoprávní televize, která slouží výhradně zájmům současné pravicové vlády a jejíž zpravodajství i publicistika je natolik tendenční, že o tzv. veřejnoprávnosti už nelze mluvit. Doporučuji proto orgánům a institucím, které se problematikou koncentrace a plurality sdělovacích prostředků v EU zabývají, aby v tomto ohledu věnovaly zvýšenou pozornost právě České republice.