What can a media privilege look like? Unpacking three versions in the EMFA

ABSTRACT

The media privilege has been one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). However, it is important not to assess the drawbacks of the media privilege in isolation, but in relation to the other available alternatives. In this comment, we lay out and critique how the European Parliament and Council build on the Commission’s proposal for a media privilege in the EMFA. We focus on three key questions: how is media content treated differently, who qualifies as media, and who decides who qualifies as media?

KEYWORDS:

• EMFA
• media privilege
• platforms
• content moderation

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Laurens Naudts and Theresa Seipp for their valuable feedback. All errors remain ours.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU’ COM(2022) 457 final, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0457> (EMFA Commission Position) recital 31–32; ‘European Media Freedom Act: Protect Media to Preserve Democracy’ (EBU 2023) <https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/News/Position_Papers/open/2023/20230118-EBU-position-EMFA.pdf> accessed 9 November 2023; Charis Papaevangelou, ‘“The Non-Interference Principle”: Debating Online Platforms’ Treatment of Editorial Content in the European Union’s Digital Services Act’ (2023) 38 European Journal of Communication 466 <https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231231189036> accessed 9 November 2023.

2 Council of the European Union, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU – Mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament’, 2022/0277(COD), <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10954-2023-INIT/en/pdf> (EMFA Council Position); European Parliament, ‘Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 3 October 2023 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU’, P9_TA(2023)0336, <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0336_EN.html> (EMFA Parliament Position).

3 Natali Helberger and others, ‘Expert Opinion on Draft European Media Freedom Act for Stakeholder Meeting 28 February 2023 – DSA Observatory’ (29 March 2023) <https://dsa-observatory.eu/2023/03/29/expert-opinion-on-draft-european-media-freedom-act-for-stakeholder-meeting-28-february-2023/> accessed 9 November 2023.

4 EMFA European Parliament Proposal art 17(2); EMFA Council Position art. 17(2).

5 ‘Policy Statement on Article 17 of the Proposed European Media Freedom Act’ EU DisinfoLab (January 2023), <https://www.disinfo.eu/advocacy/policy-statement-on-article-17-of-the-proposed-european-media-freedom-act/> accessed 9 November 2023.

6 European Commission Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Digital Services Act: Application of the Risk Management Framework to Russian Disinformation Campaigns (Publications Office of the European Union 2023) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/764631> accessed 4 November 2023; ‘The Commission Sends Request for Information to X under DSA’ (European Commission, 12 October 2023) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_23_4953>.

7 Doris Buijs, ‘Article 17 Media Freedom Act & the Digital Services Act: Aligned or Alienated?’ DSA Observatory (25 November 2022) <https://dsa-observatory.eu/2022/11/25/article-17-media-freedom-act-the-digital-services-act-aligned-or-alienated/> accessed 9 November 2023.

8 Paddy Leerssen, ‘An End to Shadow Banning? Transparency Rights in the Digital Services Act between Content Moderation and Curation’ (2023) 48 Computer Law & Security Review 105790 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000018> accessed 9 November 2023.

9 Mike Isaac, Katie Robertson and Nico Grant, ‘Silicon Valley Ditches News, Shaking an Unstable Industry’ The New York Times (19 October 2023) <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/technology/news-social-media-traffic.html> accessed 9 November 2023.

10 Max van Drunen, Natali Helberger and Ronan Fahy, ‘The Platform-Media Relationship in the European Media Freedom Act’ Verfassungsblog (13 February 2023) <https://verfassungsblog.de/emfa-platforms/> accessed 9 November 2023.

11 This of course is not an issue that is exclusive to the media privilege. Andrew T Kenyon and Andrew Scott (eds), Positive Free Speech: Rationales, Methods and Implications (Hart Publishing 2020); Damian Tambini, Media Freedom (John Wiley & Sons 2021); Jan Oster, Media Freedom as a Fundamental Right (Cambridge University Press 2015) <https://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781316162736> accessed 21 May 2019.

12 Theresa Seipp, Ronan Ó Fathaigh and Max van Drunen, ‘Defining the “Media” in Europe: Pitfalls of the Proposed European Media Freedom Act’ (2023) 15 Journal of Media Law 39 <https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2023.2240998> accessed 9 November 2023; Joan Barata, ‘Protecting Media Content on Social Media Platforms: The European Media Freedom Act’s Biased Approach’ Verfassungsblog (25 November 2022) <https://verfassungsblog.de/emfa-dsa/> accessed 9 November 2023.

13 EMFA European Parliament Position recital 16, art 2(2).

14 Seipp, Ó Fathaigh and van Drunen (n 12).

15 EMFA Commission position art 17(1); EMFA European Parliament position art 17(1).

16 Euronews English Live (Euronews, 2023) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pykpO5kQJ98> accessed 9 November 2023.

17 Croatian Radio-Television v Croatia [2023] ECtHR 52132/19.

18 ‘Media Pluralism in the Member States of the European Union’ (Commission 2007) <https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/media_pluralism_swp_en.pdf> accessed 9 November 2023.

19 Francisco R Cádima, Carla Baptista, Marisa Torres Da Silva and Patrícia Abreu, Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia & Turkey in the Year 2021: Country Report: Germany (European University Institute 2022) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2870/765008> accessed 9 November 2023; Louiselle Vassallo, Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia & Turkey in the Year 2022: Country Report: Malta (European University Institute 2022) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2870/32312> accessed 9 November 2023.

20 EMFA European Parliament Position art 17(1).

21 Hannes Cools, ‘Towards Guidelines for Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI in Newsrooms’ Medium (10 July 2023) <https://generative-ai-newsroom.com/towards-guidelines-for-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-in-newsrooms-55b0c2c1d960> accessed 11 August 2023.

22 Natali Helberger and others, ‘A Freedom of Expression Perspective on AI in the Media’ (2020) 11 European Journal of Law and Technology <https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/752> accessed 23 February 2021.

23 EMFA Commission, Council, European Parliament Position art 17(1).

24 EMFA Council Position rec. 33, art 17(6).

25 EMFA European Parliament Position art 17(6).

26 EMFA European Parliament Position art 17(1).

27 EMFA European Parliament Position art. 17(1b).

28 EMFA European Parliament Position art 17(1b).

29 EMFA European Parliament Position art 17(1c); EMFA Council Position art 17(1c).

30 EMFA European Parliament Position art 17(1d).

31 EMFA European Parliament Position art 17(1e).

32 EMFA European Parliament Position rec 33.

33 ‘CEN Workshop Agreement Journalism Trust Initiative’ (European Committee for Standardisation 2019) CWA 17493 <https://www.cencenelec.eu/media/CEN-CENELEC/CWAs/ICT/cwa17493.pdf> accessed 9 November 2023.

34 EMFA European Parliament Position rec 33.

35 These also get to broader questions about whether the media should have special rights in the first place.

36 Anna Wójcik, ‘EMFA and Its Uphill Battle for Media Freedom and Democracy in the EU’ Verfassungsblog (14 June 2023) <https://verfassungsblog.de/emfa-and-its-uphill-battle-for-media-freedom-and-democracy-in-the-eu/> accessed 9 November 2023.

37 EMFA European Parliament Position art 7(2a), 25(3cd).

38 EMFA Council Position art 17(6).

39 EMFA European Parliament Position rec 22–23, art 11.

40 Justin Borg-Barthet, Benedetta Lobina and Magdalena Zabrocka, ‘The Use of SLAPPs to Silence Journalists, NGOs and Civil Society’ (European Parliament 2021) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2021)694782>.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

M. Z. van Drunen

M. Z. van Drunen is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Information Law. His research focuses on the regulation of technologies used to automatically gather, produce, and disseminate news and other political information.

C. Papaevangelou

C. Papaevangelou is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Information Law. His research explores the implications of the novel EU platform regulatory framework for the relationship between news media organisations and platforms.

D. Buijs

D. Buijs is a junior researcher at the Institute for Information Law. Her research explores interrelated topics such as platform governance, safety of journalists and online freedom of expression regulation.

R. Ó. Fathaigh

R. Ó. Fathaigh is a senior researcher at the Institute for Information Law, and specialises in fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and privacy.