Amy Brouillette (AB): The idea for this project actually came from a comment made by the Swedish Ambassador to Hungary. In December 2010 and January 2011, the Hungarian Government addressed the international criticisms of its new media laws by listing specific examples of similar legislation from 20 European and EU-member states. The Swedish Ambassador objected to the Hungarian Government’s description of online media regulation in Sweden, as well as to the Government’s overall portrayal of the level of media freedom in Sweden. So we decided to enlist experts in each of the 20 countries cited by the Government in these two statements to conduct what is, in essence, a fact check of these examples—although what it became was a far more in-depth fact check than what we would normally see from organizations like factcheck.org in the U.S., for instance.
We also felt quite strongly that as a research center, we could contribute important information to what has become a key and ongoing international policy debate over the conformity of Hungary’s new media laws to European norms. And the examples cited by the Government provided a perfect template to explore this issue.
TCW: And in your opinion, what are the major points or threats to a free media posed by the current legislation? Is there a real danger of censorship?
AB: As this study shows, what is unique about Hungary’s media laws is that all media sectors are regulated by a single body – a body which, according to critics, lacks political independence. The Media Authority has an extremely broad regulatory scope over all media—public, private, print and online press—as compared to other systems considered in this study in which different media are regulated by different laws and by different regulatory bodies. In the case of print and online press, in other countries in this study, these media often are self-regulated by an independent press council and the courts. Under Hungary’s new laws, the Media Authority can impose rather serious fines on the print press, for instance, for violations to a set of content regulations that many experts have indicated are both vaguely defined and unnecessary, as the print press in Hungary had previously been governed by certain provisions in the criminal code (on hate speech) and the civil code (on libel and defamation). The concerns raised by many opponents is that the Media Authority’s power of the print and online media in particular will enable that regulatory body to punish media that is critical of the Government, which would threaten the print media’s essential watchdog role.
The Media Authority also has control over tendering and licensing, which—as this study shows—is a unique feature of Hungary’s regulatory system as compared to other European systems examined in this study. So in other words, in Hungary the same body that is responsible for issuing, assessing and awarding broadcasting licenses is also responsible for monitoring and sanctioning all media. This has been a key concern for free-press advocates who say this gives Hungary’s Media Authority an unprecedented level of control over the country’s media landscape. Already we have seen that these concerns raised by critics are warranted. In December 2011, the Media Authority was heavily criticized by domestic and international free-press groups after it awarded the frequency currently used by the liberal radio station KlubRadio to an unknown company when KlubRadio’s license came up for renewal.
TCW: Very interesting Amy. Could also share with us if at some point of the process you thought you could receive some pressures or get into trouble because of the findings published by the report?
AB: As you know, there has been a lot of international criticism of Hungary’s new media laws, so any research on the topic is unavoidably “political.” In many countries, however, debates about media regulation are often very heated and very political—as they should be: media freedom is a critical public issue and it should inspire robust and lively public debate. As a research center, however, it is our role to contribute to the ongoing discussions and debates on media policy and media freedom, whether related to Hungary or elsewhere. So while we were certainly aware of the political sensitivity of this particular study, we were actually far more concerned with ensuring that the study provided accurate and informative research that could be of use to policy makers and the public.
TCW: On the other hand Amy, and playing a little bit to the devil’s advocate: don’t you think edia should also be subject to some sort of regulation. Because what we see in many countries is that the private capital and the factual powers are colluded with media outlets in a way that is not healthy for society or democratic values but only for their own particular agendas. I can think of Fox News in the USA, Murdoch in the UK; Latin America also provides several examples of this. So, in your opinion, how should the arrangements be done in this regard? Should people like Glenn Beck be always allowed to go on national television and say a lot of lies? How to define where are the limits?
AB: The short answer to this question is that media should be regulated in the most minimal manner possible so as not inhibit the free exchange of ideas and information. The media—and in particular the print press—are a core institution of democratic societies that provide a key check on governmental power, a check which ideally is meant to help create a more informed citizenry and a healthy democracy. This goes back to Milton’s marketplace of ideas, which in many ways forms the basis of our notion of the press as the Fourth Estate. Of course, theories on press freedom were developed during the much simpler age of the print press and before the advent of broadcast media, the 24-hour news cycle, FOX News, Glen Beck, and the Internet. Nowadays, it is generally accepted – even among the most ardent free-press advocates – that some regulation of broadcast media is legitimate and even necessary, given this media’s greater reach and impact on public opinion. However, such regulations generally should be limited to certain areas—incitement to hatred, for instance—as outlined in numerous international protocols and by an immense body of case law established the European courts. But when we are talking about print press there generally is, as there should be, a different standard. The print press are very different media from broadcasting, and in order to fulfill its traditional “watchdog” role, the print press should be subjected to the least restrictions of all media. Obviously the regulation of print is now more complicated, as traditional newspapers move to online platforms. This is really the key challenge in terms of media regulation today—how to regulate the Internet. But as we see in many countries, attempts to regulate the flow of information through the Internet nearly always fail.
As to whether Glen Beck should be able to go on national television and lie, in reference to your question above, the answer to that is a resounding yes. As the US Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases, all speech, even (and especially) the most abhorrent and offensive speech, should be tolerated, as the right to freely express one’s self is the basis of a free and open society. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, which is thankfully not limited to those with whom we happen to agree. Meanwhile, the alternative—media censorship—is far worse than tolerating the incoherent, albeit dangerously misinformed, ramblings of the likes of Glen Beck.
TCW: Well Amy, we just would like to remind our readers that they can find the full report in the web page of the CEU Center for Media and Communication Studies (http://cmcs.ceu.hu/), and to thank you for this very interesting interview!
0 comments:
Post a Comment