“Media diversity: a core element of true democracy”
[01/10/07] Governments often complain about the mass media in their
own country; they feel that their messages are distorted and unfairly
criticized. True, there are media outlets which are not very serious and
professional. However, this problem should not be exaggerated and is not a good
excuse for draconian interventions or state control. Instead governments should
promote a media policy which encourages voluntary self-discipline and allows for
a wide variety of media voices. This is what democracy requires; it also
enhances further democratization.
Editors and other media representatives should take careful note of criticism
levelled against the quality of some their reporting. Improved training of
journalists and a developed system of self-regulation, including codes of ethics
and press councils, is of paramount importance.
However, the main media problems are these: too little meaningful information is
circulated and too few voices are heard.
Though the internet has created new possibilities for a more democratic dialogue
on political matters, the mass media will surely continue to function as the
main messenger of common interest news and as the key arena for public debate.
All over the world, governments and strong business interests dominate media
production, not least on the television side. This is to some extent inevitable
in view of heavy investment costs. However, this makes it even more essential to
encourage competition and take steps to democratize media structures. A minimum
requirement is that there is transparency about who is behind the various media
It is sometimes said that the consumers act as a corrective. Media outlets which
are too propagandistic tend not to be read, viewed or listened to. However, when
there are no or very few alternatives, the problem largely remains. The
increased possibility to tune into foreign radio transmissions or satellite
television does help but it is still not a realistic option for many because of
language and other barriers.
Some principles are particularly essential in democratic media policies: that
governments and parliaments encourage genuine competition; that the official
public service media act impartially and in the interest of all people in
society; and that governments are transparent and allow access to their own
There are governments and parliaments in Europe which have actively subsidized
smaller media, often those run by minorities, in order to secure a broader
output. Other governments, however, have actively undermined media they have
felt negative about and thereby sabotaged free competition.
The way wave lengths for television and radio are allocated is a test which some
governments have failed. State agencies deciding on this should work according
to agreed, objective criteria and not discriminate against more independent
Another problem in some countries is that the government buys advertisement
space only in the “loyal” media, signalling to business companies to follow
their lead, with the consequence that independent media in reality are
A number of other discriminatory measures have been taken against independent
media; some of them obviously intended to push these into bankruptcy. Repeated
defamation charges in court and obstacles to buying print paper, printing or
distributing the papers are some examples. Such actions must be seen as
violations of freedom of expression.
It is important that there are real alternatives. I asked once the Ombudsman in
one of the former Soviet states what reform he would consider as the most
important for human rights protection in the country. His answer was: a truly
independent TV channel! This, in his opinion, would be the most efficient way of
promoting an open, free debate and an honest monitoring of problems in society.
Second: the role of “official” media
They should operate in an impartial manner in the interest of the population at
large. They could indeed be an essential counter weight to the business driven
The “public service” media – often financed from tax money or other common
resources – should of course not be used as propaganda instruments for certain
politicians. Their independence and impartiality are of paramount importance and
ought to be protected through agreed guidelines and an appropriate procedure of
Third: the transparency of the public authorities
Media culture is considerably affected by the attitude of the authorities
towards journalists asking for data, also on sensitive matters. The media have a
legitimate interest in requesting information about government decisions and
actions. They can serve as representatives of citizens who have the right to
know how their elected leaders act on their behalf. Open access to government
information is therefore a democratic principle of high priority.
It is not enough that ministers are generous in giving interviews. There should
be legal affirmation of the right of citizens, including journalists, to obtain
written documents and other information from the authorities. Exceptions from
this transparency rule should be regulated strictly and allowed only for the
protection of legitimate state secrets.
These problems are still more acute in transition countries where news and
political information previously were firmly controlled by those in power.
However, there is a need to discuss these questions all over Europe: Do we have
a genuine competition in the media market? Do the public service media play the
role it should? Are governments genuinely transparent?
of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on promoting freedom of expression and information
in the new information and communications environment
This Viewpoint can be re-published in newspapers or on the internet without
our prior consent, provided that the text is not modified and the original
source is indicated in the following way: "Also available at the
Commissioner's website at