Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT

Universidade do Minho. Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade (CECS)

Universidade do Minho: RepositoriUM

Sousa, H., Trützschler, W., Fidalgo, J. & Lameiras, M. (eds.) (2013)Media Regulators in Europe: A Cross-Country Comparative AnalysisBraga: CECS, University of MinhoISBN: 978-989-97244-7-1This collective e-book, “Media Regulators in Europe: A Cross-country Comparative Analysis”, tries to organize disperse information about state media regulatory bodies in Europe. Thirteen country reports (Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) are presented. These texts give us relevant insights on media statutory regulation and may enable us to draw some empirically-based comparisons.The table presented in the next page offers a synoptic overview of similarities and differences between the thirteen countries, regarding the various dimensions subject to analysis.The research shows that almost all democratic countries under study have independ-ent bodies performing tasks of media regulation, and that they usually have administrative and financial autonomy regarding the state. This leads us to the understanding that states perceive media regulation as an important feature for democracy and for the qualification of symbolic environments, therefore constituting these kinds of external media regula-tion structures. Moreover, there are also cases in which several state bodies intervene, on a systematic and permanent basis, in the media field, leading to a cumulative scrutiny by different bodies, namely observatories.The analysis undertaken in this study demonstrates that several different possibili-ties are drawn in terms of institutional organization and composition, especially in what concerns to mandates’ duration and election mechanisms. A quick look at the table above allows us to conclude that the tendency is for the constitution of collegial bodies, and the exception is of single-running organs of decision. Alternating between nominations by the President, the Government or National Assemblies, members are usually subject to a common rule regarding incompatibility for performing duties in such regulatory bodies: some kind of relationship with media compa-nies. On the other hand, the pre-requisite of experience in any area of the media field is regularly safeguarded by the time members are designated. A comparative overview Helena SouSa, Wolfgang TrüTzScHler, Joaquim fidalgo & mariana lameiraSEditorspp. 192 -195A comparative overviewMedia Regulators in Europe: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Helena Sousa, Wolfgang Trützschler, Joaquim Fidalgo & Mariana Lameiras193 Dimensions of Analysis Legal figureInstitutional organizationEnforcement mechanismsAccountabilityFundingFunctionsConvergent regulatory bodyIndependent  AgencyCollegial bodyRotative system (members)Renewalof mandatesRe-election of membersMedia participationCivil Society participationSanctioning powersParliamentMinistryGovernmentMixedStateFeesPressTVRadioTelecommunicationsYNYNYNYNYNYNYNYesNoAustria••••NA••••••••••Finland••••••••••••••France••••NA••••••••GermanyNA•NANANANANA•NANANA•Greece••••NA•••••••••Ireland••••NA••••••••Italy••••NA••••••••••PolandNA••••••••••••Portugal••••••••••••••SpainNA•NANANANANA•NANANANASwitzerland••NANANANANA••••••••The Netherlands••••NANANA••••••United Kingdom••NANANANA•••••••• Indicators of independence of the regulatory body(ies)A comparative overviewMedia Regulators in Europe: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Helena Sousa, Wolfgang Trützschler, Joaquim Fidalgo & Mariana Lameiras194The place of civil society and media representatives in regulatory bodies’ institutional organization is also an interesting motto for debate. Indeed, as we perceive from the table, both sectors are under-represented, which is more significant in the case of media profes-sionals. These indicators tend to point out a portray of state media regulatory bodies in which there is not a place, at least within the structures of decision-making, for both sectors, redirecting them, in some cases, for structures with advisory functions. National Parliaments seem to be the most common organism to which state media regulatory bodies are accountable to, probably due to the fact that this is where major politi-cal parties are represented. The data clearly indicate that the tendency for funding state media regulatory bodies in the thirteen European countries under study is to have mixed budgets, usually combining public funding with fees imposed to media. Independence of state media regulatory bodies is probably one of the most difficult challenges to embrace and deconstruct in practice.  Our study corroborates our previous conclusion (Sousa et al., 2012: 8) that states have been adopting two major acting lines: either creating autonomous bodies, with financial and administrative independence, or creating (or maintaining) agencies embedded in their own governmental structures. In fact, the European Union has been promoting, on a trans-sectorial basis, the idea of independent bodies of regulation. In the media field, traditional governmental structures that used to support political decision-making and to guarantee media systems surveillance seem to be less prepared to meet challenges emanating from interests’ struggles that move across the media sector, as well as to assure non-interference and miscegenation between political forces and the common good that regulatory bodies are to preserve. Although several changes have been introduced with new technologies and globali-zation, we continuously verify that media content regulation is, in almost all of the cases under review, confined to broadcasting. It seems that digital (r)evolution is building a self-ish one-way road whilst existing media regulatory bodies keep walking in quite comfort-able paths. Convergent regulatory bodies (as in the United Kingdom or in Italy) are not a tendency, as well as having the press amongst the bodies’ competences: this only happens in Portugal and in Italy. This comparative analysis demonstrates the relevance of the nations’ political and administrative characteristics and the countries’ historical background. The issue of decen-tralization is the best example to illustrate this, since there are countries with several regionalized structures of media regulation, namely Germany and Spain. In both cases, vari-ous different bodies are in charge of media regulation. It is also worth mentioning the Italian experience, as it presents regional committees within state media regulation. All in all, achieving democracy is thus seen as a corollary of media regulation along with accountable media due to their role as informers, as providers of a “platform for public discourse and deliberation”, as givers of “voice to a variety of social groups” as well as medi-ators, and also as controllers of “those in power by fulfilling a watchdog function and by holding them accountable” (Trappel & Meier, 2011: 7). A comparative overviewMedia Regulators in Europe: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Helena Sousa, Wolfgang Trützschler, Joaquim Fidalgo & Mariana Lameiras195Some scholars argue that the debate around the concept of media regulation is nowa-days weakened. In fact, the term is inconsistently used across Europe and its meaning is also changing fast. Moreover, these conceptual controversies are even more evident in academic and political discourses. For instance: “In American legal political studies regulation means a form of state influence on economic processes, whereas in Europe the term is generally understood as being used (…) to describe means to achieve public policy objectives” (Hans Bredow Institute, 2006: 11). Our comparative work aims at reflecting about these concerns, since facing different realities and experiences is a fruitful starting point. Although we refer to state-centric national structures, the dynamics and permanent character of sub-national and international links must be taken into consideration at all times. The country reports we have presented open up avenues for a more substantiated theoretical discourse on media regulation. Considering the cases we have examined, it is apprehensible the resilience of the state in times of so-called globalization and erosion of cultural and symbolic frontiers. Media regulation is certainly a highly complex system that goes far beyond top-down statu-tory entities but this model helps us understanding this (still) critical dimension of wider systems and it has the potential to be replicated. If the model is applied in other geogra-phies, new lessons can be learnt.RefeRencesHans Bredow Institute for Media Research at the University of Hamburg (2006) Final Report Study on Co-regulation Measures in the Media Sector.  Study for the European Commisssion, Directorate Information Society and Media, Unit A1 Audiovisual and Media Policies, Tender DG EAC 03/04, Contract nº2004-5091/001-001 DAV BST, available online at http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/coregul/final_rep_en.pdf. Accessed: 18/01/2013.Sousa, Helena, Pinto, Manuel, Lopes, Felisbela, Fidalgo, Joaquim, Jedrzejewski, Stanislaw, Silva, Elsa C., Melo, Ana & Lameiras, Mariana (2012) A Regulação dos Media na Europa dos 27. Universidade do Minho, Braga: Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade, available at http://www.lasics.uminho.pt/ojs/index.php/regulacao_media_europa27/. Accessed: 18/01/2013.Trappel, Josef & Meier, Werner A. (2011) ‘Introduction – Can Media Monitoring Support Democracy?’, pp. VII-XI in J. Trappel & W. A. Meier (eds) On media monitoring: the media and their contribution to democracy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

A comparative overview

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Universidade do Minho: RepositoriUM