|
< back to issues: television without frontiers
Issues
Speech delivered by Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman of the European
Publishers' Council at the World Museum, Liverpool on Tuesday 20 September
2005
1. Once upon a time, the Future was reliable. Sometimes
intimidating, often exciting. Irritating perhaps in its uncertainty
- but dependable as a horizon you would never quite reach... The
Future has changed. As Paul Valéry, the great French poet, once put it,
"the trouble with our times is that the future is no longer what it used
to be".
For us in the media that change has been radical since, say, 1997. The
future of information technology has overtaken us, "internet surfers". We
rode the big wave, tumbling into its rip tide, not knowing where we would
arrive, gasping for breath, sometimes drowning. Now, less than a decade
later, we inhabit a brave new world of ubiquitous texting, email, search
engines, portals, blogs (a word not yet in my spell check by the way…), a
galaxy of satellites, shoals of servers, a veritable "info sans
frontières".
Who could have foretold that, in this communications flood tide, would
come the aggressive rhetoric of democracy, controversial warfare,
suicidal terrorism, taut religious tension, maverick globalisation…and
profound political uncertainty within Europe? We are living through not
one but three apparently concentric revolutions: First the techno-info
with instant news and universal access… Second, deep changes to the
very identity and sustainability of democracy… and, third,
the confrontation of cultures or the ' Clash of Civilisations' if
you agree with Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington. And simultaneously, as
Europeans, we are making an urgent reassessment of what we mean by and
want from "Europe".
2. I speak as the Chairman of the European Publishers' Council a grouping
of 29 Chairmen and Chief Executives of major European media groups who,
though we may be commercial rivals, keep in close touch on matters of
common interest. We publish newspapers, books, journals and magazines - in
print and online. Many of us are also television and radio broadcasters.
Our immediate concern is the international operation of all the media -
old and new - through an appropriate balance of regulation, self
regulation and de-regulation.
The thoughtful papers on the legislative issues before this audio visual
conference were close to completion, I guess, at the end of May when
France rocked the European Union by saying "Non" - a surprise apparently
to everyone except the French voters themselves!
In France the mainstream media - television, radio, newspapers and
magazines all promoted a "yes" vote. Meanwhile, out of sight of the
politicians at least, although the writing was on the wall from the
opinion polls, an "information frenzy" was underway, as many citizens and
some journalists blogged side by side to enhance and promote a new-found
freedom of expression. The web served as a political forum - an
"electronic republic", for those who considered themselves distant from
tired television formats or paternalistic print media.
A similar internet and SMS mini revolution had previously taken place in
Spain during the very short time between the terrorist bombs of March 2004
and the general election a few days later. It may have been instrumental
in the change of the Spanish government. I wonder what these experiences
in France and Spain say to the politicians who still seek to impose rules
to safeguard diversity of opinion and to control the ownership
of
newspapers and television channels.
3. We need to take a step back…to start from a new beginning. We need to
review not just the regulatory framework of the media, but its very
fundamental purpose. For what we do know is that the future will bring
convergence of media, old and new, linear and non-linear: Television,
radio, print, movies and the internet will blend together, distinguished
mainly by the hardware we use for access. If we are to preserve the
intrinsic freedom of the internet, should we not ensure that convergence
brings similar and greater freedoms to television too…? Here's the
problem:
The conference papers deal with future regulation but are based largely on
a previous, important law: "The Television without Frontiers Directive",
which was born in the days of greater certainty about the needs of
citizens… and the role of the media. Some of the Directive's principles -
like the country of origin - are still valid and we should be careful to
preserve that. But many of the current assumptions about new regulation
are not founded on a sound basis by which to plan the future.
In 1989 Europe had borders and technologies that you could readily define
for legislation. Television, radio, newspapers, magazines and books were
clearly distinct entities. Not so today. Convergence with the internet has
changed all that. Can we really plan the future from an "audiovisual"
past?
It may be tempting to do so because we experience the new media on a
screen - whether a PC, a mobile, a PDA… but we must not fall into the trap
of allowing our regulatory thinking to treat the new media like television
just because we see them on a screen. Websites, blogs, text messages… they
all spring from the same soil as publishing - books and newspapers… that
is with few barriers to entry and business models fundamentally different
from television. You cannot regulate the content of the Net as if it were
TV. It was reassuring to hear Fabio Collasanti saying this afternoon that
the Commission "does not intend to regulate the internet". We must
therefore refine this debate so we all understand what the Commission
intends.
A young woman in Liverpool or Lisbon may watch a television programme
today and it is regulated by European rules, some legal, and some self
regulatory. A young man may listen to the radio in Madrid or Mannheim and
that too is regulated by his government. But the same pair may then go to
their computers or mobile devices and watch a film or listen to a radio
relay or a television programme from a country where no such regulation
exists.
If those same young people were to read the remits for this conference,
they might be surprised to see so little recognition of this universality
of the Web. No uniquely European legislation can ignore or prevent that
universality. They would both, I suspect, regard any new legislation as
premature.
Publishing and now the Internet do not operate in a regulatory vacuum.
What is illegal on printed paper is illegal online. Publishers - and the
advertisers who support us -subject ourselves also to Self-Regulation, an
important and well-tested part of our operation, even though this is still
viewed with mistrust by some in government. And again in self-regulation
we practise the principles of country of origin.
4. The media are at the very heart of Europe. We provide thousands of
jobs. We keep the peoples of Europe informed. We entertain them. We help
educate them. It is through the media that the very idea of the Community,
the Union of nations, has grown and flowered (however much, on occasion,
some politicians may express their doubts!). We contribute to vital causes
like nature conservation, global warming, healthy diets for children and
the celebration of our cultural heritages.
But to play those roles properly, we must be able to exercise the freedom
of speech - whether in print, or increasingly online - whether through the
written word, sound, photographs, video or info-graphics …independently,
free from government control - and to do so profitably.
Profitability is particularly important when the landscape is changing so
fast. We strive to deliver sensible self-regulation and appropriate
protection for our consumers but we must operate on level fields of
competition. Therefore we do not welcome constrictive legislation, nor
well meaning but negative constraints at a time when change, opportunity
and competitiveness are prime considerations. Quality, independence and
profit go hand in hand.
5. Competition is fierce and unbalanced. Conventional broadcast television
audiences have shrunk dramatically in many countries, our classic printed
newspaper market is declining, while use of the internet is soaring. In
ten years time I'm confident that today's media and entertainment
corporations will still be providing branded content and services, but
their business models, revenue streams and key relations with advertisers,
consumers and competitors will be dramatically different. Household names
will compete alongside blogging consumers and new 'techno-entrepreneurs' -
providing a new generation of content, products and services through a
never ending array of digital broadband interactive devices.
We need the space and time to allow these markets to evolve without the
inhibition of premature intervention and regulation.
Change is never easy, and the current opportunities are immensely
challenging as we in the media face competition from newcomers on the
internet. They seek to compete head on with traditional news and
information providers, including, of course, the incumbent publicly funded
broadcasters, who themselves seek new ways to extend into new media, as we
heard today from Mark Thompson, who set out the BBC's ambitious plans for
the future. The concept of 'public service' is enshrined in the TV without
Frontiers Directive but we must be careful that publicly funded media also
obey the rules of fair competition, and remain distinctive from the
commercial players - if they are to justify receiving the privilege of
state funding into the future.
6. Let's not forget that across the ocean is the United States, a massive
player globally in all media, where, by the way, the concept and financing
of public television is completely different from the state-funded
European model.
Simply in terms of advertising revenues, newspapers in the US out-perform
Western Europe by 39%; magazines by 23%. American television and radio
out-gun Europe by 58%. There is an equally high disparity between EU and
US advertising spend on the internet: EU ad spend in 2004 reached 2.8
billion Euros while in the US ad spend in 2004 was already 7.75 billion
Euros. Any further regulatory restrictions on advertising, on its content,
the amount, the format... will further limit European competitiveness.
Advertising is our major source of income. We face the biggest shift ever
in advertising revenues, as consumer attention turns from traditional
media to the internet and mobile. There is a new confidence in the
internet now, attracting real money, in stark contrast from five years ago
after the dot.com crash. The quest for information, products and services
takes us beyond the borders of Europe, outside our regulatory framework.
We are now part of the global communications and content markets. An old
fashioned approach to regulation is as obsolete as Windows 95 or floppy
disks - remember them?!
7. The Television without Frontiers Directive carries an obsolete ban on
prescription pharmaceutical advertising - which is also banned in the
press in Europe. This may seem a marginal example of an advertising ban.
It is not. In the US in 2004 the advertising market for direct-to-consumer
pharmaceutical products was worth 2.8 billion US dollars and is predicted
to rise by 2008 to 3.8 billion US dollars. But these are advertising
revenues which are not available to European media. And it's not just
about money…it's a question of people having the freedom to use their
media and get information about all the products in the market.
8. Many people are concerned about ads for alcohol but, if we want to cut
down on drunkenness, let's look to and cure the social causes. It's the
same with certain types of food, or ads which reach children. Some people
have suggested complete bans during "children's" television programmes. Is
this really sensible, when we know that such ads will swiftly move
elsewhere, that the kids will find them on the internet or even on their
play stations… but coming from outside EU jurisdiction? There are methods
to protect them by adding filters to computers. But surely this is the job
of parents or the schools, not of governments to introduce over-arching
bans or blocking mechanisms with uniform rating systems. That is the thin
end of censorship.
You may feel that I'm over-reacting. We all know that word censorship. Few
of you here will have direct experience of it. I have.
For 12 years I worked as an Editor on a newspaper in Lisbon under the
regime of President Salazar who you may remember retained power for over
35 years! Not only my editorial content was checked and sometimes blacked
out, but so was the content of much of the advertising...
9. Why are we as commercial media uneasy about government intervention in
controlling our affairs?
Politicians come to power under the spotlight of the media who give them a
platform... I know, I was Prime Minister of Portugal in the 1980s so I
have been both politician and media man... As you can see I didn't manage
to hang on quite as long as Salazar… When they come to power politicians
soon realise those same commentators who contributed to their rise can,
and sometimes do, unseat them. Politicians are nervous of the media,
jealous even, and their natural instinct is to try to exercise control as
well as blaming the media for their own failures. But they dare not use
outright force, so they hedge the media round with small restrictions - a
let here, a hindrance or two there.
You have heard of Ling Chi? A method of execution in China for perhaps
a thousand years until, I'm told, 1905! Yes, Ling Chi : death by a
thousand cuts...
The European Commission exists to harmonize, to improve the internal
market and in the process we do feel sometimes that we are subject to a
cutting and slicing of our freedoms, our opportunities and our
competitiveness. It is no surprise to this ex Politician that the
Commission is sharpening the pencils on its desk. What is vital is that
any change that is under even preliminary discussion must be subject to a
rigorous regulatory and economic Impact Assessment…Not just of the
individual trees in the forest, but of the global forest itself. Why? So
that the potential impact on the freedom of expression and existing
systems of self-regulation is taken fully into account alongside the
economic and structural aspects. If issues are dealt with, prematurely,
one by one and our competitiveness is reduced bit by bit, we suffer a
version of Ling Chi. Once freedoms are cut it is almost impossible to
retrieve them. I would ask our politicians to make haste slowly.
10. I am sure that as editors, parents, politicians, business people, you
will share my concern. After 50 years of relative peace in Europe, we are
faced with unprecedented insecurity in and outside the European Union. We
ourselves have a role in interpreting and helping us all to understand
what is happening in this clash of religions and cultures. We must prevent
the growth of disillusion and distrust. We need to communicate not just
with information but with knowledge and understanding.
And we must do this at a time when the very principles underlying
democracy may be under threat - as governments nobly struggle to counter
terrorism. We the media must fight for the fine principles reiterated by
President Thomas Jefferson at his inauguration in 1801 -
"the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press, the freedom of the
person under the protection of habeas corpus and trial by juries
impartially selected…"
In the months to come, we shall measure the actions of our governments
against those words.
I began by doubting whether there is much in the past that could help us
plan for this uncertain future.
It would be nonsense to try to impose on content providers regulation
appropriate to a past age. Our governments must recognise that Europeans
are actually consumers worldwide.
We must preserve the fundamental freedom to provide our media services
throughout the European Union when they comply with the laws of the
country of origin. We should all put greater trust in Self-Regulation, as
the only sensible way to complement the general law…and to cope with the
speed and complexity of "information without frontiers".
Rigorous Impact Assessments must always be central to any discussion about
the need for further regulation.
I started by expressing concern that we had been almost overtaken by the
Future. I have, I hope, made clear that, until we better understand the
changes we are living through right now, new regulation would be premature
and ill advised. Let us first fully comprehend the Present. Till then let
me join Lennon and McCartney and
"Whisper words of wisdom:
Let it be, let it be…."
back
to top
|
