During the July Plenary, the European Parliament will debate the question of media concentration, on the basis of two reports drafted, on behalf of the Cultural Committee, by Ben Fayot, vice-president of the Committee (S-L) - in respect of the written press - and by Dieter Schinzel (S-A) - in respect of the audiovisual ledia. We publish hereunder an article by Ben Fayot.

Media concentration and pluralism of opinions

Parliament has several times expressed its concern at the growing tendency towards greater concentration of ownership in the written press as well as in the audiovisual sector in Europe over the last few years.

Following the considerable and lively debate that has taken place over many years on a national level, as well as the numerous attempts to fight against abusive concentrations of ownership, European parliamentarians have started asking themselves what is needed to safeguard pluralism in the fqce of the vast restructuring and concentration of the European media landscape.

Of course, the difficulties involved are multiple. They come in several varieties:

- how can a sector undergoing rapid change be judged? In particular, at what time does concentration of ownership become dangerous for pluralism?

- what practical measures can be introduced on a Community level to complement the steps already taken on a national level?

- what should be done in such an extremely diverse economic sector which will not impose too much bureaucratic interference?

Corporate mergers are an economic fact of life which cannot be called damaging a priori. It's only when put in the context of their market that they may result in monopoly or quasi monopoly situations that are dangerous for pluralism. Companies sometimes stress that merger and concentration of ownership are the only way in which a newspaper title or television station can be saved. In general, the professionals in the sector are extremely reticent about any Community action to prevent abusive concentrations, over and above the current national regulations.

Nevertheless, even given these constraints, some action is appropriate.

As regards the written press, the Commission needs to take into account the requests of the companies concerned on VAT rates, on safeguarding sufficient advertising revenues (especially when faced with increasing challenge from the audiovisual sector), as well as on the distribution structures which should benefit from public aid if appropriate.

For audiovisual media, the central point of the measures concerns the harmonisation of national controls on concentration of ownership. Even if a number of countries have taken steps to prevent an abusive concentration of ownership, their initiatives are often very different and do not leave room for a European policy on a market which is nevertheless more and more international in nature. Moreover, the 1989 regulation on corporate concentrations and mergers hardly applies to the media given that the thresholds set are too high.

On the other hand, the EP calls for a European media code that would define the journalistic principles that are to be respected by editors, directors and journalists.

Parliament would also like to ensure the independence of journalists by a framework directive. At the same time open government, along the lines of the USA's "Freedom of Information Act" would be a very positive step.

Of course, the EP would be very happy to receive all the information that the Commission has on this subject in order to be able to evaluate regularly the impact of concentration of ownership as well as the measures to be taken.

One must hope that the relevant parties, economic as well as political, understand the interest of a European regulation which is flexible but nonetheless solid enough to allow the media as a whole to develop and to continue to ensure their basic mission of public service in democracy.

Ben Fayot, MEP