EUROPEAN MEDIA AND
COMMUNICATION POLICIES
Professor Tim Raats
2019-2020
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
,European Media and Communication Policies – Course 1 (25/09/2019)
o WHAT IS MEDIA POLICY?
- What are domains that could be part of media policy? What is media policy dealing
with?
• Advertising on television
• Media pluralism
§ Different actors in the market, but also different voices, different opinions
© E.g. All of Flanders newspapers are now controlled by two groups
• The way how people use the media and how the use is
§ It is about skills/ not only about providing access, but also providing skills.
Media literacy has become extremely important including everyone in
society (now shift towards filling in taxes on the web; elder people don’t
know how to use this)
© E.g. taxes online: a lot of older people do not know how to handle this
• General Data protection regulation
§ This field has become highly relevant the last 5years -> it is something we
all need to comply with)
§ Privacy (part of personality) vs. Personal data (how many times you
visited certain website, your habits on the web)
• Spectrum distribution
§ E.g. Attacks in Brussels: lot of problems with cell phone connection, the
different departments that had issues connecting => showed complexity
spectrum distribution
• Technical aspects
§ Radio frequency, the whole debate on spectrum-distribution. March 23
attacks in Brussels, there were a lot of problems with mobile connections.
4G, 5G and how you create a regulation around these different types of
distribution
• Net neutrality:
§ Everything on the internet should be with the same amount of speed and
access
© Discussions going on: it seems super important, but when you are in
discussion with for example, Telenet, the do extreme investments in
equipment so we can watch Netflix. Telenet says this is not fair,
because Netflix doesn’t pay for the distribution
,• Competition policy: extent to which dominant players can use their dominant power
(Europe: you can be dominant, but from moment this dominant company misuses
power, EU commission has power to put stop at this) -> Google cannot abuse their
dominant position.
§ à split the company etc.
§ Anti-competitive behaviour
© A lot of small say: we want to be able to broadcast football
tournaments and all the small ones buy it all together. Facebook and
Eurosport (Discovery Chanel), no than you’re becoming a cartel;
© E.g. 2 imagine that the government says that they want to boost the
Gameworld, videogame industries
• Discussions on fake news (platform regulations)
§ Because the way nation-states reaction to this is the same way how the
responded-on terrorist movements and so on.
• Copyright directive: different opinions on what it is, what to do with it in online
environment (how to settle online distribution, how to pay everyone equally)
(example: Nothing hill => actual director didn’t get paid => while making movie they
didn’t anticipate on new media, platforms, .. that are not part of contract)
§ This has been debated since the 1920’s. different opinions on what
copyright is. Huge discussion going on how to settle all the rightsholders.
Famous debate from the maker of Nothing hill, the producer did not get any
euro for this, because there was no clear rule how to distribute this on the
internet. Europe had to deal with the new copyright regulation
• Cybersecurity
• Public broadcasting
,o What is media policy? 2.0
- Policy making= process that concerns the interaction (process that is part of
policymaking; there will be lobbying, court, sector council => multitude of players and
interest) between different actors, institutional structures (EU parliament, National
government, NGO) objectives that they pursue (what they want, how they do it,
…) within which they work and the objectives that they pursue
• Interaction: it won’t be actor one that says now this will happening, now, it is with
lobbying and so one. An interaction with a multitude of players
• Institutional structures: national government, NGO
• Objectives they presume: what do they want to protect? And how do they do this?
- Media policy: ‘a systematic attempt to foster certain types of media structures and
behavior and to suppress alternative modes of structure and behavior’
• You want that everyone has access to tele broadcasting, but you also want to
protect minors against specific content. It’s about fostering, but also suppress
alternative modes of structure and behaviour and that balance is difficult
§ Ex: to what extend should Facebook regulate some content? Mass-
shootings and so one. On the one hand you need to protect your citizens,
anti-racism, on the other hand: freedom of speech.
• Example => you want everybody having access to television, but you also want to
protect for example minors against specific content; results in rules
• Example: to what extent should Facebook (on the one hand, protection of citizens
vs. Freedom of speech, universality, having risk of Facebook regulating too much
content, regulating in self-censorship; on the other hand, freedom of speech)
• “Media policy refers to the variety of ways in which interested participants seek to
develop both formal and informal mechanisms to shape the conduct of media
systems”
§ Not only about formal objectives and rules, also about informal objectives -
> influencing specific players to make sure that they will not broadcast
negatively about you
§ Also, about informal mechanisms, influencing specific players to make sure
that they will not broadcast negative news about you as the dominant
political party.
ð In other words, it’s about policies developed to protect citizens, to protect companies,
to boost those companies, but simultaneously to oblige companies to comply with
certain rules and also oblige citizens to do the same
,ð It’s not always clear who’s participating, on what circumstances, some voices go
louder than other voices, how do you make sure that every opinion is heard
• “Decisions about media are made in the most transparent and accessible ways with
an emphasis on expert advice, open discussion and public participation” (cited in
Freedman 2008: 31)
• “Policymaking in which a range of views is sought, the evidence is considered
carefully and a decision is reached based only on the merits of the specific situation.
Special interest are held at bay while the public interest remains paramount” (cited
in Freedman, media policy fetishism)
• Both definitions are not good ones!
- Media Policy:
• Never ideal, not per se mechanical, technocratic, administrative. Dynamic,
unforeseen
• Ideology driven: cf. Serving the views of government in specific context
§ Example: in the 1980s ideas was the plural delivery and liberalization of the
media markets = increases plurality and diversity: there are very different
views on how to regulate internet
§ Other example: different tv stations: US has an enormous amount of
different stations, but almost all of them offer the same content
• Result of power positions, unequal negotiation positions, lobbyists, conflictual, yet
idea that it is a view on consensus: ultimately every idea is a consensus,
compromise -> there are many factors that played important role or that impeach
this (Often there are factors playing along that we do not see in the actual outcome.
It also means that their factors that implied this thing)
§ Example of how policy is also a compromise: VRT management contract
negotiations: has many symbolic aspects
© Not always rational: for example, Belgium 2019 Netflix tax -> not
always rational: time constraints: the Flemish Netflix tax: In Flanders
we have a Netflix tax; players like Netflix, amazon and Disney Plus
have to pay a levy to support us. It seems very logical, but it wasn’t
the best outcome, because they didn’t have time anymore. The
minister of media must land that tax to show that he nailed the big
companies. That resulted in the fact in the lesser option, he could
have used more analysis and so one. That is something that you do
not read. You do not see that. There is a lot behind it. Things are
negotiated in partner deals
© Path-dependency and context dependency: Flemish Netflix tax
based on other taxes but made it difficult to fit with our own existing
legislation
© Emotional aspects: anticipating to new governments: self-fulfilling
prophecies: this is the case of Flanders
© Theory and practice: PSB in Poland and in Flanders
, § Other example: Flanders Film Festival (Oostende: always wanted
government money, but never got it => they need to move their date if they
want government money: in October there is Ghent festival)
© The Flanders films fond gets money to make film festivals. There is
one festival in Ostend that never got governance money. But the
FFF said that they would get it, when you change the date. So, the
Ostend film festival and Ghent festival where competing for the
same movements, but now Ostend needed the money, so they
changed to the first month. They wanted to grow. What’s behind it,
is the conflict of balancing different interests
• “Policymaking (…) as a battleground in which contrasting political positions fight for
material advantage […] This struggle occurs throughout the policy process […]”
(Freedman 2008: 3)
• “Media policy […] is a deeply political phenomenon” (Freedman 2008: 1)
• There is no such thing as an ‘ideal’ policy outcome, nor perfect policymaking
process; always unforeseen dysfunctions -> policy should be flexible and dynamic;
Yet: problem of ad hoc policies…
§ “Media policymaking ‘is not and can never be the tidy creation of ideal
situations. Compromises and trade-offs are endemic’ (Garnham, N. 1998:
210)
• The definition of a policy problem is already ‘political’: “How a policy issue area is
identifies is political … because it determines who participates in decision making,
the rhetorical frames and operational definitions used, and the resources, and
goals, considered pertinent” (Braman, S. 2004: 154) -> Either we define cultural
Diversity, plurality, freedom, as a challenge or policy objective, or we don’t
§ For the flemished national party, having a quota for Dutch language songs
on the radio is very important, you need to appreciate the Dutch language.
Lot of these policy-aspects are symbolic. Some things are policy problem in
one thing but not in another
§ The private broadcasters have seen that not having advertising and
everyone would go to the public channels, because there is no
advertisement
§ The importance of non-discussion making. Why are governments retraining
from getting action here? Discussions that are not being discussed. Why it
is a problem for VRT that they get money for televion series in preview. And
then government said that it was paid with taxpayers. Why the train has a
first class than? Advertisement regulation in children program is
problematic, but why billboards in school can just go one?
§ Why are some policy problems considered a problem: ideology, path-
dependency -> cf. public broadcasting and independent production sector
in Flanders?
§ Why are some things not considered a problem? -> e.g. public broadcasting
and radio advertising in Flanders? Attention for what Freedman calls the
media policy silences and non-decisions making (in media policy): the
things that are not discussed, that are never seen as a problem; not doing
anything can also be seen as a form of policy
,• = dynamic and changing over time: what is considered a problem now, not
automatically problem in a few years
§ Changing: racism; freedom of speech; boundaries of what is offensive and
what is not
§ Changing because of technological changes: spectrum scarcity no longer
needed, new arguments for PSB
§ New challenges: how to regulate smart cars?
§ Privacy and personal data have become trade-off => but we get along with
it
§ Currently UK adopted rules on fatty food that contain sugar: this evolves (in
80s we didn’t talk about this)
§ Reflecting diversity= completely different issue for Australian public service
broadcasting
• = what a policy problem is, is dependent on different contexts (film support policies:
different for IS than for a European country)
§ Adversatives are no longer allowed to make advertise for products with a lot
of sugar. Maybe ‘quality pork’ will also go away within a few years.
• = not only formal policy discussions, but also informal (WTO: green room meetings)
• = combination of (different) instruments for tackling similar policy problems
Think about supporting European film production -> different wats to tackle it
§ When you want to reach a specific policy outcome, you need a lot of
initiatives. If you want to boost television, you open up the market, allow free
movement of services. In the 80’s policymakers said if we stay doing this,
the dominance of the VS will kill us. à we need a European television
industry à a lot of new televisions stations à bought cheap American
programs à these programs became expansive à VS rich
© What should have been done: taxes, independent production. You
often need the combination of measures
Ex: tv-drama, a lot of discussion have been going on the
success of Danish-tv-drama (Borgen, Bridge), these are very
good television series and that became a model for the other
European series. They looked at Denmark and saw that the
Danish invested in export-content. If you only do that, that’(s
only a very small part of the process
© You boost your tv-industry in Flanders, you need to do it on a
different way in Walloons
Walloon have a bigger competition to the French. If you want
to boost the Flemish production industry. It must be very
substainable. You need co-productions and money from
somewhere else. It makes the budget bigger and a bigger
ROI.
• = based on conflict striving towards consensus: outcome= compromise
• Public broadcasting: no universal model: different models depending on context:
system of plural broadcasting delivery
,o Policy, regulation and governance:
- Media policy is about the media principles and the behaviour one wants to achieve,
e.g. cultural diversity and identity, cohesion
- Media regulation is about the specific laws and rulemaking
• E.g. European regulation on competition, national laws, directives = what comes
out of the policy
- Media governance relates to (1) MLG and (2) multi-stakeholder approach and
considering (3) new regulatory mechanisms such as soft law, co- and selfregulation,
combination of institutions and institutional levels, combination of mechanics, soft law
(white or green papers EU commission; provide context and highlight important issues
that are up for debate in the future) as well as (4) formal and informal policy
mechanisms/negotiations
• Relates to the combination of the institutions and those levels, the combination of
mechanisms, co-regulation
o Multi-level governance: tensions and ambiguities
- Tension between cultural, social and economic objectives
- Tensions between sector specific rules: harmonization of copyright, advertisement
rules, EU content quota, child protection and horizontal/transversal regulatory
frameworks as, e.g. competition policies, foreign trade, etc.
- Tensions between MLG levels: local, regional, national, transnational, world level
- Tensions between centralisation and decentralisation
- Conflicting interests of multi-stakeholder field
,o How do we approach media policy?
- Focus 1: I, I and I mix
"Profound commitments to policies are generally due to a mix of ideological factors (in
the form of ideas and examples), interests (as defined by politics and economics), and
institutions (as they shape constraints and opportunities) (Bhagwati, 1993:17)
• Ideas, Interests and institutions. You have to include the focus on interest and ideas
and institutions. The position of one individual is highly important in explaining the
impact
• Ideas and ideologies:
Cultural, economic, social, fairness, openness, pluralism, diversity
• Interest:
Lobby, who defines, who participates in policy process, who is left out?
How big/small is multi-stakeholder field defined? How inclusive?
• Institutions and instruments:
Rules, regulatory framework and institutions
+ but: individual matter!
ð include all these (fourth one: individuals)
- Focus 2: historical trajectory, path-dependency
• A historical focus
- Focus 3: a comparative perspective: different classifications of media systems
• Hallin and Macini categorization
• We need to understand why there are so many differences. Why is a subsidy in
Wallonia different from Flanders? Why are some decisions taken in large markets
and vice versa? How to categorise different countries. Some have a more open,
liberal take, where others have a more interventionalist approach
• Small versus large state categorization
§ Characteristics of small states: What is considered small, based on what
categories?
© Categorizations are often problematic: difficult to compare, context-
dependence, even within small states for example, there are
significant differences: Latvia – Luxembourg?
, European Media and Communication Policies – Course 2 (02/10/2019)
o Dimension/ tensions of media policymaking:
- Different actors who want to reach a consensus on topics, the public and business
(economic interest). That’s why you have different perspectives on the same matter.
- Conflict and attempt to reaching consensus => never rational process and ideal
outcome (some of them relate to different levels of media politics) (There are a lot of
tensions and different levels on policies, the cities, communities, country level,
supranational level and then the international level)
- The interest: economic, public, cultural, … -> how everything is translated is a political
thing -> That makes it very political, timing and so on
- Path-dependency: decisions are made, and they create lock-in: e.g. Belgium (highest
percentage cable) -> for us satellite television never really important, from beginning
we offered much more opportunities
• E.g.: Belgium invest in lots of cable infrastructure, that also has repercussions for
future media policy, because we have cable, satellite tv was not necessary. So,
we already had a lot of possibilities for a lot of different stations
• That’s why it’s very difficult to make comparison between different states
- Difference: policy (ideas and process that, regulations (how translated in specific rules;
e.g. increase circulation audio-visual in Europe) and governance (come up in 2000,
important because no longer governments alone but whole web of institutions that all
together influence media-policy)
• Regulation: how it is translated in different rules and so on
• Policy; the idea
• Governance; end 90’s became extremely important. A whole web of institutions,
different interest, that all together influence the media policy
§ What is also important is the non-decision making, the things that are not talked
about? What is the question that we not asking?
- Perspective to look at these developments
• I, I and I mix
• Focusing on different classifications of states, difference in scale and that scale
you need to look at the Ideas, Interest and Institutions and make a fourth one:
individuals
o Recap:
- Media policy as a field of conflict, an ultimate compromise
- Different tensions, different interest, different levels of policymaking
- What a media policy problem is, is highly political, ideological, often symbolic, and evolving ->
+ path-dependency
- Difference between policy, regulation and governance
- Shift towards multi-level governance, characterized by different tensions
- Approaching media policy by focusing on different classifications of states, differences in scale
and by using the I, I, and I mix
