Statutory media self-regulation : beneficial or detrimental for media freedom?

TL;DR: In the wake of the British phone hacking scandal of the News of the World, which proved some limits to the model of media self-regulation, a growing number of experts have suggested a statutory recognition of this model by law to improve its performance as discussed by the authors.

Abstract: In the wake of the British phone hacking scandal of the News of the World, which proved some limits to the model of media self-regulation, a growing number of experts have suggested a statutory recognition of this model by law to improve its performance. At first sight a statutory recognition seems an oxymoron, as the model of media self-regulation – a voluntary system of media regulation independent from public authorities – was originally developed by media professionals themselves to limit state interference in the field of media. Hence, the article explores how statutory recognition is compatible with the concept of media self-regulation. After clarifying the relationships between media regulation, self-regulation and media freedom, the article investigates whether statutory recognition is beneficial or detrimental for media freedom. To answer it, this article draws a distinction between democratic countries and countries in democratic transition. It is argued that statutory media self-regulation in non-democratic countries is problematic because of the risks of transforming self-regulation into a compulsory system controlled by political interests. In democratic countries, statutory media self-regulation can make this voluntary system more effective, for instance by limiting the number of media outlets that decide to abstain from it. However, when statutory recognition is used by state authorities not as a reward but as a punishment for media, it leans towards a two-speed protection of media professionals according to their respect for professional standards or a lack thereof, which is not compatible with the universal nature of freedom of expression.

Summary

Introduction

• Media self-regulation - a system developed voluntarily by media professionals to ensure respect for their professional and ethical guidelines - has become increasingly popular in Europe.
• “An act of Parliament could also force the industry to form a self-regulatory entity, and at the same time, pre-establish key institutions, in order to increase accountability and responsiveness.
• Building upon scholarly debates in the field and based upon a range of expert interviews and fieldwork in press councils and international organisations, this article considers whether and, if so, to what extent public authorities should recognize and support media self-regulation.
• But even when its goal is to safeguard the right to freedom of expression, legislation affecting the media often creates bureaucratic obstacles and loopholes for abuse by those implementing it.
• Thirdly, media self-regulation is beneficial for media freedom because it strengthens people’s fundamental right to receive accurate and pluralistic information enabling them to have informed opinions and to engage in the democratic debate.

The risk of “privatization of censorship”

• Whilst a view of self-regulation is that taking regulation out of the hands of governments is beneficial for media freedom, another perspective is that a lack of legal protection and unclear boundaries might contribute to suppressing free speech.
• There is a growing tendency for some governments to promote the concept of media self-regulation in order to restrict media freedom from inside and in more subtle manner than through media laws.”.
• Regardless of the fact that a decision of a press council has not yet been turned against a media outlet in a national court, the ECHR certainly has taken into consideration the question of respect for journalistic ethics in its rulings (Oetheimer, 2006).
• The ECHR has not, however, based subsequent judgments on this case-law, and took a different approach in the case Kasanova v. Bulgaria (2011).

Conclusion

• This article demonstrates that there are arguments in favour and against media self-regulation in a media freedom perspective.
• Statutory recognition may also bring incentives for media to take part in the voluntary system of media self-regulation.
• In democratic countries, the danger is less visible.
• But the dangers of the cure must be weighed against the dangers of the disease; every definition of an abuse invites abuse of the definition.

Full text

RSCAS 2014/127
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom
Statutory media self-regulation:
beneficial or detrimental for media freedom?
Adeline Hulin

European University Institute
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom
Statutory media self-regulation:
beneficial or detrimental for media freedom?
Adeline Hulin
EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2014/127

This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Additional reproduction for other
purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s).
If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the
working paper, or other series, the year and the publisher.
ISSN 1028-3625
© Adeline Hulin, 2014
Printed in Italy, December 2014
European University Institute
Badia Fiesolana
I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI)
Italy
www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/
www.eui.eu
cadmus.eui.eu

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS), created in 1992 and directed by Brigid
Laffan since September 2013, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research and to
promote work on the major issues facing the process of integration and European society.
The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes and
projects, and a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised
around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European
integration and the expanding membership of the European Union.
Details of the research of the Centre can be found on:
http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/
Research publications take the form of Working Papers, Policy Papers, Distinguished Lectures and
books. Most of these are also available on the RSCAS website:
http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/
The EUI and the RSCAS are not responsible for the opinion expressed by the author(s).
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF) Working Paper Series on 'Freedom and
Pluralism of the Media, Society and Markets' benefits from contributions from the CMPF’s fellows as
well as from leading scholars and experienced practitioners interested in and focused on the subject
matter. The Working Papers Series aims at assessing theoretical issues, specific policies, and
regulatory questions.
The Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom is co-financed by the European Union. This
initiative is a further step in the European Commission’s on-going effort to improve the protection of
media pluralism and media freedom in Europe and to establish what actions need to be taken at
European or national levels to foster these objectives.
The aim of the EUI Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom is to enhance the awareness of the
importance of freedom and pluralism of the media, to contribute to its protection and promotion and to
develop new ideas among academics, policy makers, regulators, market stakeholders, journalists, and
all other directly involved professionals who take part in the public debate.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in "Rscas 2014/127 statutory media self-regulation: beneficial or detrimental for media freedom?" ?

At first sight a statutory recognition seems an oxymoron, as the model of media self-regulation – a voluntary system of media regulation independent from public authorities was originally developed by media professionals themselves to limit state interference in the field of media. Hence, the article explores how statutory recognition is compatible with the concept of media self-regulation. After clarifying the relationships between media regulation, self-regulation and media freedom, the article investigates whether statutory recognition is beneficial or detrimental for media freedom. To answer it, this article draws a distinction between democratic countries and countries in democratic transition. 

Q2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Rscas 2014/127 statutory media self-regulation: beneficial or detrimental for media freedom?" ?

A recent expert report on the future of media self-regulation in France ( Sirinelli, 2014: 54 ) emphasizes the dilemma: on one hand, a recognition of the system by state authorities appears as an essential pre-condition for its creation ; on the other hand, state intervention risks giving any new structure an appearance of non-independence, which could be the main reason for its failure.