When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took office in December 2019, she established a “new push for European democracy” as one of her six policy priorities. After the European Parliament elections that ended on Sunday, one of the biggest threats to democracy still needs to be adequately addressed: the risks confronting Europe’s media sector.
To be sure, EU lawmakers have taken important steps to help safeguard the media. The Digital Markets Act, limiting the power of the largest digital platforms as “gatekeepers,” and the Digital Services Act, making them more transparent and accountable, entered into force in 2022.
The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, focusing on the development of “trustworthy” AI, and the Media Freedom Act, designed to protect the media from political or economic interference, have also been passed.
However, the challenges the media face remain formidable. Business models were upended by the Internet, causing publishers to slash the total number of journalists; for example, 60 percent of US newspaper jobs have vanished since 1990.
At the same time, online media have not fully compensated for such cuts. With the advent of AI, this trend could go into overdrive, with most journalists outside of public broadcasting losing their jobs. Meanwhile, oligarchs rule over the media landscape in many countries and disinformation spreads like wildfire.
Bold action to safeguard and strengthen free, independent journalism has become urgent. A strong media sector is a pillar of any democracy — as the EU’s Democracy Action Plan recognizes.
However, for the EU, implementing enacted legislation over the next five years is not enough. The rule of law and AI guidelines do not feed journalists.
The EU’s leaders must signal that they take the sustainability of the news media seriously. To this end, the next European Commission should mandate a “media industrial policy” and regroup related resources toward a directorate-general for democracy and media, overseen by a dedicated “democracy commissioner.”
Industrial policy does not equal state control, and it need not cost a lot. It should be viewed as the coordination of public-sector efforts to enable a strategic domain to transform itself. Europe has done this for many industries, often to great effect. A successful media industry policy would emphasize five priorities.
First, it would foster regulation that maximizes the effect of legislation. While the recent acts are crucial, and should be transposed into national laws, it is up to regulators — including telecommunications and competition authorities — to nurture an information ecosystem that reflects a better balance between media organizations and digital platforms.
For example, platforms should be forced to incorporate “trustworthiness indicators” into their algorithms — a step they agreed to, in principle, six years ago. This would slow the spread of fake news and boost audiences of quality content, in turn leading to higher advertising and subscription revenue for publishers and broadcasters.
Second, while research and development related to AI is relatively well-funded, the media industry requires targeted, creative thinking from all sides.
The EU’s Media and Audiovisual Action Plan, still in the early stages of implementation, aims explicitly to foster more innovation in the industry. It includes the News Initiative, which bundles together EU actions to strengthen the news media sector. Taking these efforts further would not necessarily cost more.
For example, the EU issues a yearly call for “journalism partnerships,” which are cross-border collaborations between news media organizations, focusing on innovative business models or newsroom transformations.
However, this program — which is significantly oversubscribed — receives just 6 million euros (US$6.5 million) in annual funding. Funding procedures in other European Commission directorates-general should require all EU proposals relevant to the news media to be colabeled “news.”
Third, the media industry relies essentially on advertising and subscriptions. More diverse financing, including public support for innovation, is needed, but that should not include subsidizing journalists’ salaries, which would distort media ethics.
In supporting the media sector’s transformation, public procurement, philanthropy and new forms of investment also have a role to play. Public agencies should shift their advertising budgets toward quality media. Philanthropy can correct market failures and complement EU programs.
As for investment, reducing the cost of capital via sovereign funds could attract impact investors and help safeguard the media from oligarchs. The InvestEU program should include a dedicated “news” track.
The fourth priority is structural transformation. Within the EU and beyond, a few large platforms dominate the information and advertising ecosystem. By comparison, news publishers — which tend to confine their operations to a single country or even locality — are tiny. An uncoordinated army of dwarves battling an oligopoly is not sustainable.
A better approach would entail organizations sharing some costs — especially as they shift from variable costs, such as printing and physical distribution, to fixed expenses, such as editors’ salaries, IT and product launches. This could be done through cooperation, or even consolidation.
While mergers within a national or local context can raise risks for pluralism and jobs, cross-border deals could strengthen all brands involved, preserve jobs and reduce the influence of national governments.
To facilitate this process, competition regulators could set targets related to pluralism — for example, preserving diverse brands as conditions for merger approvals — and encourage newsroom transformation when allowing state aid.
Lastly, individual and collective skills must be upgraded. Journalists must be able not only to deal with AI, but also to make the most of innovations in information technology and marketing. Cross-border cooperation also requires institutional skills, including expertise in crucial areas of change, not least AI. As these imperatives lie at the crossroads of education and research, public support is appropriate.
During the next EU mandate, most independent media are likely to die or shrink, one way or another, but if EU leaders do their jobs right, plenty can be reborn in a more resilient form.
Paolo Cesarini is director of the European Digital Media Observatory. Christophe Leclercq, founder of Euractiv Media Network, is chair of Europe MediaLab. Maria Joao Rodrigues, a former member of the European Parliament, is president of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
RSS