An additional part or version of this document is available.

CM(2006)229corrE  / 26 January 2007 

Ministers’ Deputies
CM Documents

CM(2006)229 20 December 20061
——————————————

985 Meeting, 31 January 2007
5 Media


5.1 Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC) –

Abridged report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 28 November to 1 December 2006)

——————————————

1. The Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC) held its 4th meeting from 28 November to 1 December 2006 in Strasbourg. The meeting was chaired by Mr Matthias TRAIMER (Austria) for the first day and by Mr Karol JAKUBOWICZ (Poland) for the remainder of the meeting. The agenda of the meeting as adopted appears in Appendix I.

Items requiring a decision by the Committee of Ministers

2. Media pluralism vis-à-vis media concentration: By decision of 24 November 2004, the Committee of Ministers, in the follow up to its monitoring procedure concerning freedom of expression and information, instructed the Steering Committee on Mass Media (CDMM), which subsequently became the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC), to look into this issue.

Further, the Ministers participating in the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, March 2005) requested that the Council of Europe continue to monitor the development of media concentration in Europe, with a view to suggesting any legal or other initiatives which it may consider necessary in order to preserve media pluralism.

In response, the CDMC prepared a draft Committee of Ministers Declaration, looking at the risks to democracy or to democratic processes that might result from media concentration to an extent that could give media groups the power to separately or jointly set the agenda of public debate or shape public opinion.

The Committee of Ministers is invited to examine the draft Declaration on protecting the role of the media in democracy in the context of media concentration (cf. Appendix II) with a view to its adoption2.

3. Media pluralism and diversity: In addition to the above-mentioned instructions from the Committee of Ministers, the 7th Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy also requested that the Council of Europe examine the question of cultural diversity in light of the phenomenon of media concentration in the digital environment and to revise, if necessary, Recommendations Nos. R (99) 1 on measures to promote media pluralism and R (94) 13 on measures to promote media transparency.

In response, the CDMC and its subordinate Group of Specialists on Media Diversity (MC-S-MD), prepared a draft recommendation updating the two instruments, given that transparency of media ownership is vitally important for the purposes of assessing and ensuring media pluralism. Having regard to the Ministers’ decisions, in revising these texts, the CDMC took account of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions which attaches considerable importance to international and regional co-operation with a view to its implementation.

The Committee of Ministers is invited to examine the draft Recommendation on media pluralism and diversity of media content (cf. Appendix III) with a view to its adoption3.

4. Public service media: The Ministers participating in the above-mentioned Ministerial Conference also requested that the Council of Europe examine how the remit of public service broadcasting organisations should be developed and adapted by member states to suit the new digital environment, and to formulate any legal or other proposals which it may consider advisable for this purpose.

In response, the CDMC and its subordinate Group of Specialists on public service broadcasting in the Information Society (MC-S-PSB) prepared a draft Recommendation which includes guiding principles for adapting the remit of public service media in the information society. The CDMC’s proposed approach is vital for public service media and consistent with the views expressed by Mrs Viviane REDING, Member of the European Commission responsible for Information Society and Media.

The Committee of Ministers is invited to examine the draft Recommendation on the remit of public service media in the information society (cf. Appendix IV) with a view to its adoption3.

5. Media and new communication services literacy: The CDMC took note of the results of the 2006 Pan- European Forum on Human Rights in the Information Society “Empowering children and young people” which took place in Yerevan on 5 and 6 October 2006, in particular the lines of action envisaged at the Forum and the general rapporteur’s report. These documents contain useful practical guidance for the implementation of the Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2006) 12 on empowering children in the new information and communications environment. The CDMC was also informed of action taken by Turkey in this connection.

The Committee of Ministers is invited to take note of the above-mentioned lines of action and the general rapporteur’s report and bring them to the attention of member states (cf. Appendices V and VI).

6. Relevance vis-à-vis the Warsaw Summit Action Plan: Having regard to the message from the Committee of Ministers to Committees involved in intergovernmental cooperation (CM(2005)145 revised), the CDMC would underline that the action referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 contributes to the implementation of part I, section 3, of the Action Plan adopted by the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, May 2005), by reference respectively to items 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the Action Plan adopted by the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy . Further, the action referred to in paragraph 5 contributes to the implementation of part II, section 5, of the Warsaw Summit Action Plan and items 20 and 23 of the Kyiv Action Plan.

7. Terms of reference of subordinate bodies: The CDMC examined the state of progress of the work of its subordinate bodies and prepared draft terms reference for their future work, with a view to ensuring that, subject to the necessary resources being made available, the Action Plan adopted by the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy and confirmed by the Warsaw Summit Action Plan, be fully implemented. The Committee of Ministers is invited to approve the terms of reference of the groups of specialists (cf. Appendix VII).

Items submitted to the Committee of Ministers for information

8. White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: The CDMC examined a background paper prepared with a view to its contribution to the White Paper and containing relevant standards developed to date. In the light of its discussions, and following an exchange of views with Mr Ulrich BUNJES of the Council of Europe Directorate General IV – Education Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport, the CDMC offered its further cooperation in the preparation of the White Paper.

9. Implementation of the Warsaw Summit Action Plan: In response to the Committee of Ministers’ request of 28 September 2006 that committees involved in intergovernmental co-operation at the Council of Europe supply appropriate information on what has been, is being and will be done in pursuance of the Warsaw Summit Action Plan and to conduct a critical evaluation of the work carried out in recent years, the CDMC examined a draft reply, and asked the Bureau to finalise the text in the light of its discussions and of further contributions to be submitted by members of the Steering Committee, so that it can be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers within the set timeframe (first quarter of 2007).

10. Recommendation 1773 (2006) of the Parliamentary Assembly: The CDMC took note of the decision of the Committee of Ministers of 29 November 2006 concerning the Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation on the 2003 guidelines on the use of minority languages in the broadcast media. It asked the Secretariat to synthesise comments provided by members with a view to the Bureau finalising the response and transmitting it to the Committee of Ministers by 1 April 2007, as requested.

11. Internet Governance/Information Society: The CDMC took note of the Council of Europe’s participation in the United Nations sponsored global think tank, the Internet Governance Forum, which took place in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006. It also took note of the current and projected Council of Europe contributions to the follow-up to the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), in particular with regard to action lines C8 on “Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content”, C9 on “Media” and C10 on “the ethical dimension of the Information Society”. The CDMC reiterated its support for an active Council of Europe participation in these fora and in the Internet Governance Forum.

12. Possible future mechanism: The CDMC held a first exchange of views on a possible future mechanism for promoting respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The CDMC considered that the proposal merited further consideration. It asked the Secretariat to develop further the paper prepared for this first discussion and decided to resume discussions of this item at its next meeting.

13. Co-operation with other bodies: The CDMC also took note of work being carried out by other Council of Europe bodies of relevance to its own work (ECRI, DH-DEV, DH-MIN, DH-S-AC, CAHDE, CD-CULT). As regards in particular the Group of Specialists on Access to Official Documents (DH-S-AC), the CDMC expressed its view that the group of specialists should base its approach on the broad definition of official documents contained in Recommendation Rec(2002)2 and have regard also to Recommendation No. R (81) 19.

14. Other issues: In addition, the CDMC took note of the work being carried out by the Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television, and considered inter alia cooperation and exchanges with other countries and organisations, and targeted cooperation programmes in the media field.

15. Elections: Finally, the CDMC elected Matthias TRAIMER (Austria) as its Chairperson, Ms Delia MUCICA (Romania) as its Vice Chair and Ms Elfa GYLFADÓTTIR (Iceland) and Mr Andris MELLAKAULS (Latvia) as members of its Bureau.




APPENDIX I

Agenda

1. Opening of the meeting

2. Adoption of the agenda

3. Decisions of the Committee of Ministers of interest to the work of the CDMC

4. Follow-up to the monitoring procedure of the Committee of Ministers on freedom of expression and information

5. Work programme for the CDMC in 2007

6. Working methods of the CDMC

7. Draft instruments submitted by the Groups of Specialists for consideration by the CDMC

8. Implementation of Council of Europe standards on media and freedom of expression

      (a) Implementation of non-binding instruments prepared under the authority of the CDMC

      (b) Discussion of a possible future mechanism for promoting respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

9. Internet governance

      (i) Possible follow-up of the Council of Europe to the Internet Governance Forum (Greece, October 2006)

10. Copyright in the context of the work of the CDMC

11. Intercultural Dialogue

12. Work of the CDMC’s subordinate bodies and consideration of their future work and possible extension or revision of their terms of reference

      (i) Terms of reference for the groups of specialists
      (ii) Group of Specialists on freedom of expression in times of crisis (MC-S-IC)
      (iii) Group of Specialists on media diversity (MC-S-MD)
      (iv) Group of Specialists on public service broadcasting in the Information Society (MC-S-PSB)
      (v) Group of Specialists on human rights in the Information Society (MC S IS)

13. Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television (T-TT)

14. Information on the work of, and co-operation with, other Council of Europe bodies, of interest to the CDMC

      a. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

      b. Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

      c. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)

        - Group of Specialists on access to official information
        - Committee of Experts for the Development of Human Rights
        - Committee of Experts on Issues relating to the Protection of National Minorities

d. Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE)

      e. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)

      f. Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE)

15. Assistance and Technical co-operation programmes being implemented by the Media Division

16. Co-operation and exchanges with other countries and organisations, in particular neighbouring regions of Europe

17. Other information of interest to the work of the CDMC

      a. Results of the 2006 Pan-European Forum on Human Rights in the Information Society

      b. Follow-up to the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society

      c. Report on the Finnish Presidency of the European Union

18. Administrative and budgetary Matters

19. Elections

20. Dates of the next meetings

21. Items to be included on the agenda of the 5th meeting of the CDMC

22. Other business

23. Abridged report

APPENDIX II

Draft Declaration of the Committee of Ministers
on protecting the role of the media in democracy
in the context of media concentration

The Committee of Ministers,

Reiterating that media freedoms and pluralism are vital for democracy, given their essential role in guaranteeing free expression of opinions and ideas and in contributing to peoples’ effective participation in democratic processes;

Recalling the need, in the context of democratic processes, for diverse views to be expressed and presented to the public and for genuine and lively political debate on matters of general interest, helping people to be better or more fully informed in the context of their democratic participation, as well as the crucial role of the media in achieving these aims and in the functioning of a democratic and participatory public sphere;

Recalling, in this context, the Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on the freedom of expression and information of April 1982, its Recommendation No. R (99) 15 on measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns and its Declaration on freedom of political debate in the media of February 2004;

Noting that globalisation and concentration leading to the growth of multinational, including European, media and communications groups are fundamentally changing the media landscape and bringing about opportunities in respect, for example, of market efficiency, diversification of offer and consumer-tailored content, but also the ability to support media outlets which do not turn a profit, finance start-up costs of new media outlets and create jobs;

Noting, however, that these changes also pose challenges in particular as regards preserving diversity of media outlets in small markets, but also in respect of the existence of a multiplicity of channels for the expression of plurality of ideas and opinions and to the existence of adequate spaces for public debate in the context of democratic processes;

Aware, in this context, that a plethora of media outlets in a situation of strong media concentration does not by itself guarantee a diversity of sources of information or that various ideas or opinions can be expressed and presented to the public;

Concerned that media concentration can place a single or a few media owners or groups in a position of considerable power to separately or jointly set the agenda of public debate and significantly influence or shape public opinion, and thus also exert influence on the government and other state bodies and agencies;

Conscious that the above-mentioned position of power could potentially be misused to the detriment of political pluralism or the overall democratic process;

Aware also that the concentration of media ownership can entail conflicts of interest, which could compromise editorial independence and the media’s important role as public watchdog, and noting the importance of editorial statutes in this respect;

Concerned that policies designed to promote solely the competitiveness of media systems and market efficiency, tending to reduce ownership-related restrictions, can ultimately be detrimental to the common interest if, as a result, there are no longer sufficient independent and autonomous channels capable of presenting a plurality of ideas and opinions to the public, in order to ensure the existence of adequate space for public debate on matters of general interest;

Mindful of the necessity to preserve those channels and a pluralistic public sphere, in the interest of democracy and democratic processes;

Conscious of the opportunities offered by the development of new communication services and of phenomena such as multimedia, alternative media, community media and consumer-generated content on the Internet, but aware also that their opinion-shaping impact is often dependent upon their content being carried in or reported by mainstream media;

Recalling also the Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on human rights and the rule of law in the Information Society of May 2005, which notes that information and communication technologies provide unprecedented opportunities for all to enjoy freedom of expression, but also pose many serious challenges to that freedom, such as state and private censorship;

Noting that it emerges from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights that, as ultimate guarantors of pluralism, states should take positive measures to safeguard and promote a pluralist media landscape to serve democratic society;

Acknowledging, in this respect, that most democratic societies, which are based on the rule of law, have adopted measures to sustain, promote and protect media pluralism, including through market regulation comprising competition law and, where appropriate, sector-specific rules taking into account democratic principles and values;

Recalling also the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendations No. R (94) 13 on measures to promote media transparency, No. R (99) 1 on measures to promote media pluralism, No. R (96) 10 on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting and Rec(2000)23 on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector, and its Declaration on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting in member states of 27 September 2006,

Alerts member states to the risk of misuse of the power of the media in a situation of strong concentration of the media and new communication services, and its potential consequences for political pluralism and for democratic processes and, in this context:

I. Underlines the desirability for effective and manifest separation between the exercise of control of media and decision making as regards media content and the exercise of political authority or influence;

II. Draws attention to the necessity of having regulatory measures in place with a view to guaranteeing full transparency of media ownership and adopting, if appropriate and having regard to the characteristics of each media market, with a view to preventing such a level of media concentration as could pose a risk to democracy or the role of the media in democratic processes;

III. Highlights the usefulness of regulatory and/or co-regulatory mechanisms for monitoring media markets and media concentration which, inter alia, permit the competent authorities to keep abreast of developments and to assess risks, and which could permit them to identify suitable preventive or remedial action;

IV. Stresses that adequately equipped and financed public service media, in particular public service broadcasting, enjoying genuine editorial independence and institutional autonomy, can contribute to counterbalancing the risk of misuse of the power of the media in a situation of strong media concentration;

V. Stresses that policies designed to encourage the development of not-for-profit media can be another way to promote a diversity of autonomous channels for the dissemination of information and expression of opinion, especially for and by social groups on which mainstream media rarely concentrate.

APPENDIX III

Draft Recommendation Rec(2007)…
of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on media pluralism and diversity of media content

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on … 2007
at the …meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and fostering economic and social development;

Recalling Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5), which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers;

Recalling its Declaration on the freedom of expression and information, adopted on 29 April 1982, which stresses that a free flow and wide circulation of information of all kinds across frontiers is an important factor for international understanding, for bringing peoples together and for the mutual enrichment of cultures;

Recalling its Recommendation Rec(2000)23 on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector and its explanatory memorandum, which stress the importance of the political, financial and operational independence of broadcasting regulators;

Recalling the opportunities provided by digital technologies as well as the potential risks related to them in modern society as stated in its Recommendation Rec(2003)9 on measures to promote the democratic and social contribution of digital broadcasting;

Recalling its Recommendation No. R (99) 1 on measures to promote media pluralism and its Recommendation No. R (94) 13 on measures to promote media transparency, the provisions of which should jointly apply to all media;

Noting that, since the adoption of Recommendations No. R (99) 1 and No. R (94) 13, important technological developments have taken place, which make a revision of these texts necessary in order to adapt them to the current situation of the media sector in Europe;

Having regard to its Declaration on cultural diversity, adopted on 7 December 2000, and to the provisions on media pluralism contained in the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ETS No. 132);

Bearing in mind the provisions of the UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions, adopted on 20 October 2005, which proclaim the sovereign right of states to formulate and implement their cultural policies and to adopt measures to protect and promote intercultural dialogue and the diversity of cultural expressions, in particular, measures aimed at enhancing the diversity of the media including through public service broadcasting;

Reaffirming that media pluralism and diversity of media content are essential for the functioning of a democratic society and are the corollaries of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Considering that the demands which result from Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms will be fully satisfied only if each person is given the possibility to form his or her own opinion from diverse sources of information;

Recognising the crucial contribution of the media in fostering public debate, political pluralism and awareness of diverse opinions, notably by providing different groups in society – including cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious or other minorities – with an opportunity to receive and impart information, to express themselves and to exchange ideas;

Recalling the importance of transparency of media ownership so as to ensure that the authorities in charge of the implementation of regulations concerning media pluralism can take informed decisions, and that the public can make its own analysis of the information, ideas and opinions expressed by the media;

Reaffirming that, in order to protect and actively promote the pluralistic expressions of ideas and opinions as well as cultural diversity, member states should adapt the existing regulatory frameworks, particularly with regard to media ownership, and adopt any regulatory and financial measures called for in order to guarantee media transparency and structural pluralism as well as diversity of the content distributed;

Recalling that the efforts expected from all member states in this field should take into account the necessary editorial independence of newsrooms, the stakes, risks and opportunities inherent to the development of new means of communication, as well as the specific situation of each of the audio-visual and written media that these measures affect, whether it be print and on-line press services, or radio and television services, whichever platforms are used for the transmission;

Bearing in mind that national media policy may also be oriented to preserve the competitiveness of domestic media companies in the context of the globalisation of markets and that the transnational media concentration phenomena can have a negative impact on diversity of content,

Recommends that governments of member states:

      i. consider including in national law or practice the measures set out below;

      ii. evaluate at national level, on a regular basis, the effectiveness of existing measures to promote media pluralism and content diversity, and examine the possible need to revise them in the light of economic, technological and social developments on the media;

      iii. exchange information about the structure of media, domestic law and studies regarding concentration and media diversity.

Recommended Measures

I. Measures promoting structural pluralism of the media

1. General principle

1.1. Member states should seek to ensure that a sufficient variety of media outlets provided by a range of different owners, both private and public, is available to the public, taking into account the characteristics of the media market, notably the specific commercial and competition aspects.

1.2. Where the application of general competition rules in the media sector and access regulation are not sufficient to guarantee the observance of the demands concerning cultural diversity and the pluralistic expressions of ideas and opinions, member states should adopt specific measures.

1.3. Member states should in particular envisage adapting their regulatory framework to the economic, technological and social developments taking into account, in particular, the convergence and the digital transition and therefore include in it all the elements of media production and distribution.

1.4. When adapting their regulatory framework, member states should pay particular attention to the need for effective and manifest separation between the exercise of political authority or influence and control of the media or decision making as regards media content.

2. Ownership regulation

2.1. Member states should consider the adoption of rules aimed at limiting the influence which a single person, company or group may have in one or more media sectors as well as ensuring a sufficient number of diverse media outlets.

2.2. These rules should be adapted to the size and the specific characteristics of the national, regional or local audio-visual media and/or text-based media market to which they would be applicable.

2.3. These rules may include introducing thresholds based on objective and realist criteria, such as the audience share, circulation, turnover/revenue, the share capital or voting rights.

2.4. These rules should make it possible to take into account the horizontal integration phenomena, understood as mergers in the same branch of activity – in this case mono-media and multi-media concentrations –, as well as vertical integration phenomena, that is, the control by a single person, company or group of some of the key elements of production, distribution and related activities such as advertisement or telecommunications.

2.5. Furthermore, member states should review on a regular basis the established thresholds in the light of ongoing technological, economic and social developments in order not to hinder innovations in the media field.

2.6. Whether they are, or are not, specific to the audio-visual and written media, the authorities responsible for the application of these rules should be vested with the powers required to accomplish their mission, in particular, the power to refuse an authorisation or a license request and the power to act against concentration operations of all forms, notably to divest existing media properties where unacceptable levels of concentration are reached and/or where media pluralism is threatened. Their competences could therefore include the power to require commitments of a structural nature or with regard to conduct from participants in such operations and the capacity to impose sanctions, if need be.

3. Public service media

3.1. Member states should ensure that existing public service media organisations occupy a visible place in the new media landscape. They should allow public service media organisations to develop in order to make their content accessible on a variety of platforms, notably in order to ensure the provision of high-quality and innovative content in the digital environment and to develop a whole range of new services including interactive facilities.

3.2. Member states should encourage public service media to play an active role in promoting social cohesion and integrating all communities, social groups and generations, including minority groups, young people, the elderly, underprivileged and disadvantaged social categories, disabled persons, etc., while respecting their different identities and needs. In this context, attention should be paid to the content created by and for such groups, and to their access to, and presence and portrayal in, public service media. Due attention should also be paid to gender equality issues.

3.3. Member states should invite public service media organisations to envisage the introduction of forms of consultation with the public, which may include the creation of advisory structures, where appropriate reflecting the public in its diversity, so as to reflect in their programming policy the wishes and requirements of the public.

3.4. Member states should adopt the mechanisms needed to guarantee the independence of public service media organisations vital for the safeguard of their editorial independence and for their protection from control by one or more political or social groups. These mechanisms should be established in co-operation with the civil society.

3.5. Member states should define ways of ensuring appropriate and secure funding of public service media from a variety of sources – which may include licence fees, public funding, commercial revenues and/or individual payment – necessary for the discharge of their democratic, social and cultural functions.

4. Other media contributing to pluralism and diversity

Member states should encourage the development of other media capable of making a contribution to pluralism and diversity and providing a space for dialogue. These media could, for example, take the form of community, local, minority or social media. The content of such media can be created mainly, but not exclusively, by and for certain groups in society, can provide a response to their specific needs or demands, and can serve as a factor of social cohesion and integration. The means of distribution, which may include digital technologies, should be adapted to the habits and needs of the public for whom these media are intended.

5. Access regulation and interoperability

5.1. Member states should ensure that content providers have fair access to electronic communication networks.

5.2. In order to promote the development of new means of communication and new platforms and reduce the risk of bottlenecks that block the availability of a broad variety of media content, member states should encourage a greater interoperability of software and equipment, as well as the use of open standards by the manufacturers of software and equipment and by the operators of the media and the electronic communications sectors.

5.3. This result should be obtained by means of improved co-operation between all interested parties, supported, if necessary and with the aim of not hindering innovation, by the relevant authorities.

5.4. Member states should ensure that their regulatory bodies and other relevant authorities have the necessary skills in order to assess how economic and technical developments will affect the structure of the media and their ability to perform their cultural role.

6. Other support measures

6.1. Member states should take any financial and regulatory measures necessary to protect and promote structural pluralism of audio-visual and print media.

6.2. These measures may include support and encouragement aimed at facilitating the digital switchover for traditional broadcast media, and, where appropriate, the digital transition for print media.

II. Measures promoting content diversity

1. General principle

Pluralism of information and diversity of media content will not be automatically guaranteed by the multiplication of the means of communication offered to the public. Therefore, member states should define and implement an active policy in this field, including monitoring procedures, and adopt any necessary measures in order to ensure that a sufficient variety of information, opinions and programmes is disseminated by the media and is available to the public.

2. Promotion of a wider democratic participation and internal diversity

2.1. Member states should, while respecting the principle of editorial independence, encourage the media to supply the public with a diversity of media content capable of promoting a critical debate and a wider democratic participation of persons belonging to all communities and generations.

2.2. Member states should, in particular, encourage the media to contribute to intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, so as to promote mutual respect and tolerance and to prevent potential conflicts through discussions.

To this end, member states should:

– on the one hand, encourage the media to adopt or strengthen a voluntary policy promoting minorities in their internal organisation in all its branches, in order to reflect society’s diverse composition and reinforce social cohesion;
– on the other hand, in order to take into account the emergence of new means of communication resulting from dynamic technological changes, consider taking actions in order to promote digital media literacy and to bridge the so-called “digital divide”.

3. Allocation of broadcasting licences and must carry/must offer rules

3.1. Member states should consider introducing measures to promote and to monitor the production and provision of diverse content by media organisations. In respect of the broadcasting sector, such measures could be to require in broadcasting licences that a certain volume of original programmes, in particular as regards news and current affairs, is produced or commissioned by broadcasters.

3.2. Member states should consider the introduction of rules aimed at preserving a pluralistic local media landscape, ensuring in particular that syndication, understood as the centralised provision of programmes and related services, does not endanger pluralism.

3.3. Member states should envisage, where necessary, adopting must carry rules for other distribution means and delivery platforms than cable networks. Moreover, in the light of the digitisation process - especially the increased capacity of networks and proliferation of different networks - member states should periodically review their must carry rules in order to ensure that they continue to meet well-defined general interest objectives. Member states should explore the relevance of a must offer obligation in parallel to the must carry rules so as to encourage public service media and principal commercial media companies to make their channels available to network operators that wish to carry them. Any resulting measures should take into account copyright obligations.

4. Support measures

4.1. Support measures for the creation, production and distribution of audio-visual, written and all types of media contents which make a valuable contribution to media diversity should be considered. Such measures could also serve to protect and promote the diversity of the sources of information, such as independent news agencies and investigative journalism. Support measures for media entities printing or broadcasting in a minority language should also be considered.

4.2. Without neglecting competition considerations, any of the above support measures should be granted on the basis of objective and non-partisan criteria, within the framework of transparent procedures and subject to independent control. The conditions for granting support should be reconsidered periodically to avoid accidental encouragement for any media concentration process or the undue enrichment of enterprises benefiting from support.

5. Raising awareness of the role of medias

5.1. Member states should support the training of media professionals, including on-going training, and encourage such training to address the role that media professionals can play in favour of diversity. Society at large should be made aware of this role.

5.2. Diversity could be included as an objective in the charters of media organisations and in codes of ethics adopted by media professionals.

III. Media transparency

1. Member states should ensure that the public have access to the following types of information on existing media outlets:

– information concerning the persons or bodies participating in the structure of the media and on the nature and the extent of the respective participation of these persons or bodies in the structure concerned and, where possible, the ultimate beneficiaries of this participation;
– information on the nature and the extent of the interests held by the above persons and bodies in other media or in media enterprises, even in other economic sectors;
– information on other persons or bodies likely to exercise a significant influence on the programming policy or editorial policy;
– information regarding the support measures granted to the media;
– information on the procedure applied in respect of the right of reply and complaint.

2. Member states should prompt the media to take any measures which could allow the public to make its own analysis of information, ideas and opinions expressed in the media.

IV. Scientific research

1. Member states should support scientific research and study in the field of media concentration and pluralism and promote public debate on these matters. Particular attention could be paid to the effect of media concentration on diversity of media content, on the balance between entertainment programmes, and information and programmes fostering the public debate, on the one hand, and on the contribution of the media to intercultural dialogue on the other.

2. Member states should support international research efforts focused on transnational media concentration and its impact on different aspects of media pluralism.

APPENDIX IV

Draft Recommendation Rec(2007)…
of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on the remit of public service media in the information society

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on … 2007,
at the … meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles that are their common heritage;

Recalling the commitment of member states to the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Recalling the importance for democratic societies of a wide variety of independent and autonomous media, able to reflect the diversity of ideas and opinions, and that new information and communication techniques and services must be effectively used to broaden the scope of freedom of expression, as stated in its Declaration on the freedom of expression and information (April 1982);

Bearing in mind Resolution No. 1 on the future of public service broadcasting adopted at the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, December 1994);

Recalling its Recommendation No. R (96) 10 on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting and its Recommendation Rec(2003)9 on measures to promote the democratic and social contribution of digital broadcasting, as well as its Declaration on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting in the member states (September 2006);

Recalling Recommendation 1641 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on public service broadcasting, calling for the adoption of a new major policy document on public service broadcasting taking stock of recent technological developments, as well as the report on public service broadcasting by the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Doc. 10029, January 2004), noting the need for the evolution and modernisation of this sector, and the positive reply of the Committee of Ministers to this recommendation;

Bearing in mind the political documents adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, March 2005) and, more particularly, the objective set out in the action plan to examine how the public service remit should, as appropriate, be developed and adapted by member states to suit the new digital environment;

Recalling the UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions (October 2005), which attaches considerable importance to, inter alia, the creation of conditions conducive to diversity of the media including through public service broadcasting;

Conscious of the need to safeguard the fundamental objectives of the public interest in the information society, including freedom of expression and access to information, media pluralism, cultural diversity, and the protection of minors and human dignity, in conformity with the Council of Europe standards and norms;

Underlining the specific role of public service broadcasting, which is to promote the values of democratic societies, in particular respect for human rights, cultures and political pluralism; and with regard to its goal of offering a wide choice of programmes and services to all sectors of the public, promoting social cohesion, cultural diversity and pluralist communication accessible to everyone;

Mindful of the fact that growing competition in broadcasting makes it more difficult for many commercial broadcasters to maintain the public value of their programming, especially in their free-to-air services;

Conscious of the fact that globalisation and international integration, as well as the growing horizontal and vertical concentration of privately-owned media at the national and international levels, have far-reaching effects for states and their media systems;

Noting that in the information society, the public, and especially the younger generations, more and more often turn to the new communication services for content and for the satisfaction of their communication needs, at the expense of traditional media;

Convinced therefore that the public service remit is all the more relevant in the information society and that it can be discharged by public service organisations via diverse platforms and an offer of various services, resulting in the emergence of public service media, which, for the purpose of this recommendation, does not include print media;

Recognising the continued full legitimacy and the specific objectives of public service media in the information society;

Persuaded that, while paying attention to market and competition questions, the common interest requires that public service media be provided with adequate funds for the fulfilment of the public service remit as conferred on them;

Recognising the right of member states to define the remits of individual public service media in accordance with their own national circumstances;

Acknowledging that the remits of individual public service media may vary within each member state, and that these remits may not necessarily include all the principles set out in this recommendation,

Recommends that the governments of member states:

      i. guarantee the fundamental role of the public service media in the new digital environment, setting a clear remit for public service media, and enabling them to use new technical means to better fulfil this remit and adapt to rapid changes in the current media and technological landscape, and to changes in the viewing and listening patterns and expectations of the audience;

      ii. include, where they have not already done so, provisions in their legislation/regulations specific to the remit of public service media, covering in particular the new communication services, thereby enabling public service media to make full use of their potential and especially to promote broader democratic, social and cultural participation, inter alia, with the help of new interactive technologies;

      iii. guarantee public service media, via a secure and appropriate financing and organisational framework, the conditions required to carry out the function entrusted to them by member states in the new digital environment, in a transparent and accountable manner;

      iv. enable public service media to respond fully and effectively to the challenges of the information society, respecting the public/private dual structure of the European electronic media landscape and paying attention to market and competition questions;

      v. ensure that universal access to public service media is offered to all individuals and social groups, including minority and disadvantaged groups, through a range of technological means;

      vi. disseminate widely this recommendation and, in particular, bring to the attention of public authorities, public service media, professional groups and the public at large, the guiding principles set out below, and ensure that the necessary conditions are in place for these principles to be put into practice.

Guiding principles concerning the remit of public service media
in the information society

I. The public service remit: maintaining the key elements

1. Member states have the competence to define and assign a public service remit to one or more specific media organisations, in the public and/or private sector, maintaining the key elements underpinning the traditional public service remit, while adjusting it to new circumstances. This remit should be performed with the use of state-of-the-art technology appropriate for the purpose. These elements have been referred to on several occasions in Council of Europe documents, which have defined public service broadcasting as, amongst other things:

    a) a reference point for all members of the public, offering universal access;
    b) a factor for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, groups and communities;
    c) a source of impartial and independent information and comment, and of innovatory and varied content which complies with high ethical and quality standards;
    d) a forum for pluralistic public discussion and a means of promoting broader democratic participation of individuals;
    e) an active contributor to audio-visual creation and production and greater appreciation and dissemination of the diversity of national and European cultural heritage.

2. In the information society, relying heavily on digital technologies, where the means of content distribution have diversified beyond traditional broadcasting, member states should ensure that the public service remit is extended to cover provision of appropriate content also via new communication platforms.

II. Adapting the public service remit to the information society

a. A reference point for all members of the public, with universal access offered

3. Public service media should offer news, information, educational, cultural, sports and entertainment programmes and content aimed at the various categories of the public and which, taken as a whole, constitute an added public value compared to those of other broadcasters and content providers.

4. The principle of universality, which is fundamental to public service media, should be addressed having regard to technical, social and content aspects. member states should, in particular, ensure that public service media can be present on significant platforms and have the necessary resources for this purpose.

5. In view of changing user habits, public service media should be able to offer both generalist and specialised contents and services, as well as personalised interactive and on-demand services. They should address all generations, but especially involve the younger generation in active forms of communication, encouraging the provision of user-generated content and establishing other participatory schemes.

6. Member states should see to it that the goals and means for achievement of these goals by public service media are clearly defined, in particular regarding the use of thematic services and new communication services. This may include regular evaluation and review of such activities by the relevant bodies, so as to ensure that all groups in the audience are adequately served.

b. A factor for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, groups and communities

7. Public service media should be adapted to the new digital environment to enable them to fulfil their remit in promoting social cohesion at local, regional, national and international levels, and to foster a sense of co-responsibility of the public for the achievement of this objective.

8. Public service media should integrate all communities, social groups and generations, including minority groups, young people, old persons, the most disadvantaged social categories, persons with disabilities, while respecting their different identities and needs. In this context, attention should be paid to the content created by and for such groups, and to their access to, and presence and portrayal in, public service media. Due attention should be also paid to gender equality issues.

9. Public service media should act as a trusted guide of the society, bringing concretely useful knowledge for the life of the individuals and of the different communities in society. In this context, they should pay particular attention to the needs of minority groups and underprivileged and disadvantaged social categories. This role of filling a gap in the market, which is an important part of the traditional public service media remit, should be maintained in the new digital environment.

10. In an era of globalisation, migration and integration at European and international levels, the public service media should promote better understanding among peoples and contribute to intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.

11. Public service media should promote digital inclusion and efforts to bridge the digital divide by, inter alia, enhancing the accessibility of programmes and services on new platforms.

c. A source of impartial and independent information and comment, and of innovatory and varied content which complies with high ethical and quality standards

12. Member states should ensure that public service media constitute a space of credibility and reliability among a profusion of digital media, fulfilling their role as an impartial and independent source of information, opinion and comment, and of a wide range of programming and services, satisfying high ethical and quality standards.

13. When assigning the public service remit, member states should take account of the public service media’s role in bridging fragmentation, reducing social and political alienation and promoting the development of civil society. A requirement for this is the independent and impartial news and current affairs content, which should be provided on both traditional programmes and new communication services.

d. A forum for public discussion and a means of promoting broader democratic participation of individuals

14. Public service media should play an important role in promoting broader democratic debate and participation, with the assistance, among other things, of new interactive technologies, offering the public greater involvement in the democratic process. Public service media should fulfil a vital role in educating active and responsible citizens, providing not only quality content but also a forum for public debate, open to diverse ideas and convictions in society, and a platform for disseminating democratic values.

15. Public service media should provide adequate information about the democratic system and democratic procedures, and should encourage participation not only in elections but also in decision-making processes and public life in general. Accordingly, one of the public service media’s roles should be to foster citizens’ interest in public affairs and encourage them to play a more active part.

16. Public service media should also actively promote a culture of tolerance and mutual understanding by using new digital and online technologies.

17. Public service media should play a leading role in public scrutiny of national governments and international governmental organisations, enhancing their transparency, accountability to the public and legitimacy, helping eliminate any democratic deficit, and contributing to the development of a European public sphere.

18. Public service media should enhance their dialogue with, and accountability to, the general public, also with the help of new interactive services.

e. An active contributor to audio-visual creation and production and to a greater appreciation and dissemination of the diversity of national and European cultural heritage

19. Public service media should play a particular role in the promotion of cultural diversity and identity, including through new communication services and platforms. To this end, public service media should continue to invest in new, original content production, made in formats suitable for the new communication services. They should support the creation and production of domestic audio-visual works reflecting as well local and regional characteristics.

20. Public service media should stimulate creativity and reflect the diversity of cultural activities, through their cultural programmes, in fields such as music, arts and theatre, and they should, where appropriate, support cultural events and performances.

21. Public service media should continue to play a central role in education, media literacy and life-long learning, and should actively contribute to the formation of knowledge-based society. Public service media should pursue this task, taking full advantage of the new opportunities and including all social groups and generations.

22. Public service media should play a particular role in preservation of cultural heritage. They should rely on and develop their archives, which should be digitised, thus being preserved for future generations. In order to be accessible to a broader audience, the audio-visual archives should, where appropriate and feasible, be accessible online. Member states should consider possible options to facilitate the accomplishment of such projects.

23. In their programming and content, public service media should reflect the increasingly multi-ethnic and multicultural societies in which they operate, protecting the cultural heritage of different minorities and communities, providing possibilities for cultural expression and exchange, and promoting closer integration, without obliterating cultural diversity at the national level.

24. Public service media should promote respect for cultural diversity, while simultaneously introducing the audience to the cultures of other peoples around the world.

III. The appropriate conditions required to fulfil the public service remit in the information society

25. Member states should ensure that the specific legal, technical, financial and organisational conditions required to fulfil the public service remit continue to apply in, and are adapted to, the new digital environment. Taking into account the challenges of the information society, member states should be free to organise their own national systems of public service media, suited to the rapidly changing technological and social realities, while at the same time remaining faithful to the fundamental principles of public service.

a. Legal conditions

26. Member states should establish a clear legal framework for the development of public service media and the fulfilment of their remit. They should incorporate into their legislation provisions enabling public service media to exercise, as effectively as possible, their specific function in the information society and, in particular, allowing them to develop new communication services.

27. To reconcile the need for a clear definition of the remit with the need to respect editorial independence and programme autonomy and to allow for flexibility to adapt public service activities rapidly to new developments, member states should find appropriate solutions, involving, if needed, the public service media, in line with their legal traditions.

b. Technical conditions

28. Member states should ensure that public service media have the necessary technical resources to fulfil their function in the information society. Developing a range of new services would enable them to reach more households, to produce more quality contents, responding to the expectations of the public, and to keep pace with developments in the digital environment. Public service media should play an active role in the technological innovation of the electronic media, as well as in the digital switchover.

c. Financial conditions

29. Member states should secure adequate financing for public service media, enabling them to fulfil their role in the information society, as defined in their remit. Traditional funding models relying on sources such as licence fees, the state budget and advertising remain valid under the new conditions.

30. Taking into account the developments of the new digital technology member states may consider complementary funding solutions paying due attention to market and competition questions. In particular, in the case of new personalised services, member states may consider allowing public service media to collect remunerations. Member states may also take advantage of public and community initiatives for the creation and financing of new types of public service media. However, none of these solutions should endanger the principle of universality of public service media or lead to discrimination between different groups of society. When developing new funding systems, member states should pay due attention to the nature of the content provided in the interest of the public and in the common interest.

d. Organisational conditions

31. Member states should establish the organisational conditions for public service media that provide the most appropriate background for the delivery of the public service remit in the digital environment. In doing so they should pay due attention to the guarantee of the editorial independence and institutional autonomy of public service media and the particularities of their national media systems, as well as organisational changes needed to take advantage of new production and distribution methods in the digital environment.

32. Member states should ensure that public service media organisations have the capacity and critical mass to operate successfully in the new digital environment, fulfil an extended public service remit and maintain their position in a highly concentrated market.

33. In organising the delivery of the public service remit, Member states should make sure that public service media can, as necessary, engage in co-operation with other economic actors, such as commercial media, rights holders, producers of audio-visual content, platform operators and distributors of audio-visual content.

APPENDIX V

Council of Europe Pan-European Forum on Human Rights in the Information Society: Empowering children and young people
(Yerevan, 5 and 6 October 2006)

Overview and Action Lines

Overview

The Internet is part of the real world and the technologies and services which it carries form part of the continuum of media. In this context, information literacy is part of media literacy.

These technologies and services are positive tools which should not be feared (especially by adult educators such as teachers and parents) but rather embraced as a means of exercising rights and freedoms.

Media literacy and training are essential in order for children and young people to participate fully and responsibly in the Information Society and in full respect for, and in the exercise of, their rights and freedoms online.

The provision of media literacy should equally target those without or who have limited access to the Internet.

Action Lines

In order to promote the competent use of tools providing access to information, the development of critical analysis of content and the appropriation of communication skills to foster citizenship and creativity, the participants of the Forum, as well as other interested parties, are invited to take note of, and to take any necessary action to implement, the following action lines:

1. Translate into local languages, disseminate and debate at the national, regional and local level Recommendation (2006) 12 on empowering children and young people in new information and communications environment.

2. Encourage “low-tech” means, such as electronic media and the written press, to empower those who do not have or who have limited access to the Internet.

3. Sensitise, raise awareness, and facilitate discussion on the human rights roles and responsibilities of state and non-state actors (as well of children and young people) who impact on children and young people’s use of, and well-being regarding, Internet and mobile phone services and technologies.

4. Integrate human rights education into every discipline of the education and training of children and young people.

5. Update human rights literacy and educational materials with regard to Internet and mobile phone technologies and services.

6. Encourage human rights training and awareness of those (young webmasters) who monitor social networking sites.

7. Introduce a mechanism, such as a clearing house, to collect and report on, as well as to facilitate the transfer of, best practices regarding information and media literacy.

8. Develop strategies to localise and transfer information and media literacy initiatives and best practices.

9.
Share methodologies for sustainable development and for transferability.

10. Insist on human rights ‘proofed’ software and hardware.

11. Develop strategies for peer-to-peer coaching of children and young people.

12. Encourage surveys regarding children’s usage of the Internet, in particular with reference to their motivations and conduct at different developmental ages.

13. Encourage human rights hotlines as a means of informing and empowering users to fully and properly exercise their rights and freedoms online.

14. Encourage a Pan-European media education award based on similarly existing awards and schemes to reward media education best practice.

APPENDIX VI

Council of Europe Pan-European Forum on Human Rights in the Information Society:
Empowering children and young people
(Yerevan, 5 and 6 October 2006)

General Report
Divina Frau-Meigs, General Rapporteur

Table of Contents

Rationale for the Forum, as expressed in the General Rapporteur’s introductory speech

Outdated patterns
A misplaced perception of risk
Empowering tools
From principles to action lines

Rationale for the Forum panel sessions

Key issues arising from the panel sessions: the rationale behind the action lines

An encompassing definition of media literacy as a “journey to empowerment”

      Integration of human rights awareness within media literacy as “stages of connectedness”

State and interstate dynamics as a means of “rebooting life”
Strategies for transferability for “sustainable environments”

Conclusions: The multi-stakeholder approach revisited and enlarged as a means of scaling up

Rationale for the Forum, as expressed in the General Rapporteur’s introductory speech

The keynote speaker, Susanne Krucsay, has insisted on power and pleasure in the use of media and new technologies. I will offer another set of notions for your consideration: risk and trust. They seem to be the two mantras of the industry and the government alike. They underline the obstacles that media literacy (which includes information literacy) has to overcome. Beyond the tiresome feeling of stagnation, full media literacy implies that we all have to cross a mental Rubicon.

A Mental Rubicon

Outdated patterns

Each new technology has emancipated a new constituency of people who eventually become voters. In many countries, mass broadcasting coincided with women’s active participation in civic life and access to the vote. The voting age has also dropped drastically, from 25 to 18. The Internet holds the possibility of reducing the age limit even further as young people are empowered. This may explain the tacit resistance of decision-makers as it makes their chances for election or re-election less predictable.

Yet they are not the only ones to resist in their minds, if not in their words. Most business and civil society actors, and potential agents of change, still function on outdated, and sometimes contradictory, patterns about the child, the family, the media and the ICT sector, and last but not least, the school system.

Outdated patterns about the child have it that young people are either powerless angels or powerful mavericks, when in fact research on media use shows that they tend to be lazy and curious.

Outdated patterns about the family still consider it as a homogeneous unit, with both parents present, united and responsible, when in fact research shows that this “ideal” family has become a minority. Nowadays there tends to be a mix of mono-parental, divorced and recomposed groupings, where the child is often left alone with the media.

Outdated patterns about the media sector tend to “buy” the idea that media are transparent and responsible, when in fact they are rather opaque, acting both as judge and juror in self-regulation schemes, as well as having a vested commercial interest in producing violent and other potentially harmful content. This content is not in demand by children and young people (whose tastes tend to go for action and interaction); it is not free (production and distribution costs matter); and it is not neutral as it thwarts European strife for human rights and uses freedom of expression as a shield for commercial interests.

Outdated patterns about the school system present it as the last barrier against market forces, while it is prey to contradictory pedagogical stances, and to the violence of children who feel “ennui”, the result of the double bind in which they are maintained as the “highbrow” school culture which denies their taste in the “lowbrow” media culture.

A misplaced perception of risk

These outdated patterns are mental and have a negative impact on our perception of risk, which is itself outdated, thus impairing the building of trust.

We are still acting against risk by a mix of regulation and self-regulation policies, with a whole range of self-censorship solutions for media accountability: the family hour, parental warnings, classification and technical filtering. The assumptions about these types of solutions are being belied by the reality of reception and use of the new media that encourage flux and immersion. They do not take into account children’s agency and self-protection.

We are still acting on distorted definitions and perceptions of harmful content, violence and pornography. As a result, the risk of trauma and psychological stress in news is not taken into account. Violence and pornography tend to migrate across borders and media (from TV shows to videogames, and back). Violence today can also be produced by young people who are not just victims but also perpetrators. We still have not come to terms with conflicting theories of effects vs. uses and gratifications, when we should be dealing with the full impact of socialization via full-blown media platforms.

We have placed inordinate expectations on schools in spite of the gaps and discrepancies in missions between schools and the media. The former stands for hard work, evaluation, long-term investment, the latter for fun, play and short term entertainment. The teaching body has been expected to move along swiftly when school is a slow process of transmission that innovates only through appropriate tools (manuals, programs, training). ICTs have often been construed as opposed to less new media when in fact they need to be placed in a continuum when it comes to training and use at least. Children do not notice the difference of medium when they navigate on-line or use their portable telephones in the street, for them it is all about interaction and power. Other spaces apart from schools are needed. These spaces exist but are underused: libraries, media centres, community workshops, not to mention the media themselves, especially portals and self-training devices.

Nonetheless, all over Europe, there is a relative consensus regarding the need to empower children, the need to balance rights of adult expression and commercial expression with children’s rights, the preference for self-regulation and co-regulation rather than censorship or harsh government intervention. The other growing consensus is about media education, to prepare for risk and to foster trust, while keeping the balance of power and pleasure. This mental Rubicon of outdated patterns and lagging mental sets can be surpassed if we create a new covenant and a new social contract. In the country of Armenia, this brings to mind, inescapably, the story of Noah’s Ark.

Noah’s Ark

Empowering tools

Noah did not start from scratch and neither do we. He took on board some useful animals. We can benefit from the existence of a number of documents that make a singular collection of creatures.

We have a unicorn: the European charter on media education4 with clear principles coming from researchers and teachers working in close collaboration. But we need to develop criteria for its implementation.

We have a pair of elephants: the MENTOR modular curriculum proposal, to be published in the MENTOR kit “(Self-)Educating to Media. Media education resources and training kit” ( UNESCO, 2006, in English and French). It works according to 4 key-concepts: production, languages, representations, publics. It offers the 3 C’s of media education: Culture, Criticism, Creativity. It presents 4 manuals: for teachers, for students, for parents, for professionals. The kit comes complete with a glossary, a section on frequently asked questions (FAQ) and a list of resources, worldwide. To this tool, one must add the Council of Europe’s “Handbook on Internet Literacy”5 that has been incorporated into the MENTOR kit.

We have a flurry of doves: the children. They have been mobilised and organised by others and are self-organising. The World Summit on Information Society has shown their capacity for making proposals and their voices heard. They work with International Organisations like UNICEF and UNESCO. Reports like the “Monaco Report” from the Council of Europe (2006) shows that they still have to see their rights protected: the least protected rights are those related to sexual abuse, freedom of expression and opinion, respect for their image and their dignity.

Finally, we have a compass, the perfect navigation tool in these high technology seas: the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Empowering Young People in the New Information and Communications Environment6 that stresses the need for information and media literacy to prevent risk and abuse and to foster trust. The Recommendation, recently adopted by the 46 Council of Europe member states, is a commitment to:

- skill children, to use all contents (positive and negative),
- allow children to exercise their rights,

      - foster principles of autonomy, empowerment, agency and self-determination, and to do all of the above,

- in the spirit of co-regulation and multi-stakeholder partnership.

From principles to action lines

So we have a series of tools, charters, recommendations, kits and some guiding principles. To cross the mental Rubicon and to reach a safe harbour (a Mount Ararat) there remains to define action lines. These action lines are for scaling up all sorts of already existing initiatives and up-coming projects. This is why the three Forum panel sessions were organised in the way they were in the Forum agenda: Panel session 1 dealt with an assessment of the dynamics around childhood and future strategies, Panel session 2 discussed issues of skills for children and their tooling for empowerment, and Panel session 3 looked at interesting practices and examined their transferability for better scaling up.

Rationale for the Forum panel sessions

The rationale for Panel session 1 - “Looking to the future: The potential and challenges for children, young people, and their educators in the information society” - provided a re-assessment of the dynamics around childhood, parenthood and education. It sought to answer questions related to how to minimize the risks for children, how to empower them and how to identify the emerging trends related to on-line and off-line behaviours. It also sought to identify the major actors.

Panel session 1 was moderated by Trond Waage from the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Panel members represented organizations including the Cyberspace Research Unit at the University of Central Lancashire (Joanne Bryce) as well as the fields of information and library science (Frank Huysmans, University of Amsterdam), the future of childhood (Birthe Linddal Hansen, Roskilde University, Denmark) and, of course, the field of media education (Vitor Reia-Baptista, University of Algarve, Portugal).

The rationale for Panel Session 2 - “Looking at the current situation. Skilling, tooling and timing. How do we currently inform and equip children and young people with knowledge and skills in the Information society” - looked concretely at the issue of empowerment, and at the core elements of literacy training programmes. It also sought to identify the integration of human rights in current methods of teaching.

Panel session 2 was moderated by Will Gardner from Childnet International and brought together corporate social responsibility manager of Microsoft France (Isabelle Leung-Tack) and civil society associations such as the Latvian Internet Association (Viesturs Pless), the Slovenian EIP School for Peace (Alenka Begant), representatives of teaching bodies (Alexandra Maier and Marcus Leaning) and the Ministry of Education of Sweden (Ann Katrin Ageback).

The rationale for Panel Session 3 - “Towards meaningful and effective empowerment. Reviewing the best practices and their transferability” - discussed concrete examples of interesting practices, especially those dealing with harmful content via the internet and mobile networks. It also examined how to evaluate the efficacy of empowerment practices and policies, awareness raising, self-regulation and the role of the state. It provided a review of best practices and their transferability across Europe and beyond. It was moderated by Abdelaziz Abid from UNESCO. The participants brought a lot of examples of their various local and national campaigns, like Eva Golovinska, from the State Agency for Child Protection of Bulgaria, Agnieszka Wrzesien, coordinator of the EU Safer Internet Awareness Node and the Nobody’s Children Foundation from Poland, and Zdravka Pejova, an Information Professional from Slovenia.

These sessions brought together moderators from UNICEF, UNESCO and civil society. Participants involved came from industry, government, education and academia. The three panels benefited from the input of five talented young people brought by UNICEF from several countries in Europe – Gor Baghdasaryan (Armenia), Agatha Parasiewicz (Poland), Maneh Tonoyan (Armenia), Tatiana Toporovschi (Moldova), Hanne Wolsgard (Denmark) – who consistently offered their recommendations at the end of each panel session. They provided the audience with a welcome reminder that they are the Generation X regarding the use and consumption of Internet services and technologies.

Key issues arising from the panel sessions: the rationale behind the action lines

A series of issues and suggestions ran through the three Forum panel sessions which helped elaborate the lines of action.

An encompassing definition of media literacy as a “ journey to empowerment”

The subject of media literacy was introduced by Susanne Krucsay in her keynote speech and was explored by other participants in the three panels. They stressed the need for the Internet to be part of the continuum with other media but with the additional function of interactivity. Media literacy was seen as encompassing information literacy. They also stressed that research and experiments had been ongoing since the early 1960s and that the sharing and pooling of existing information and practices, rather than re-inventing the wheel, was of key importance.

The young people’s perspective was presented and moderated by Trond Waage from UNICEF. He recalled the importance of children’s rights (protection, provision and participation) and outlined some major trends regarding children’s use of the Internet: preferring the IT free zone, moving off-line trend, the desire for protection from “noise”, the need for bringing back individual control over time and space. The young people insisted on their use of the technology. They looked for peer relations and community and, to this end, connectedness was of key importance for them. They have a sense of belonging on the virtual networks that feel “real” to them. They need materials designed for their everyday life. They perceive literacy as a way of empowering themselves and of empowering adults. Factors of self-esteem are important. They need time and space for their issues. The issue of well-being as contrasted to addiction came up, with the distinction between strong and weak children.

The involvement of children and young people in the production of teaching material and peer mentoring was outlined by Vitor Reia-Baptista from the University of Algarve, Portugal, who reported on the latest Mediappro research results. This was confirmed by the participating young people too. It was associated with the need to identify the key skills necessary for a media literacy core to be integrated either as a subject per se or to already existing subjects. This core should incorporate both communication skills and information retrieval and production skills. It should be accompanied with guidelines for developing media literacy in schools and homes and for combining low tech/high tech materials as a means of keeping up with technological and content innovations. It must be supported by research, to take into account the context of use and exchange, the teaching methods and the profile of the learners.

The responsibility of media professionals in the production of teaching materials and filtering tools was recognized by Isabelle Leung-Tack from Microsoft. However, this cannot be assumed alone as the private sector has no such legitimacy for undertaking alone the development of criteria for white/black listing and pedagogical skills and content progression and evaluation. Parents, educators, librarians should cooperate together with children to foster greater degrees of responsibility among all actors implicated and ensure that everybody, children and adults alike, can regulate their own access, use and appropriation of the Internet.

This lead to a definition of empowerment: it is a process, related to lifelong learning, a “journey to empowerment” as Will Gardner from Childnet International put it. It was associated with the need to develop self-empowering tools on the Internet, like the game “decode the web”, developed by internet providers. The Handbook on Internet Literacy by the Council of Europe was highlighted. Empowerment was also related to well-being on the internet and to actions of protection, preparation and participation. Children’s practices such as testing, previewing and browsing need to be built on; they relate to experience and relational goods as intangible assets that rest on enduring interpersonal relationships and provide both intrinsic and instrumental benefits. They take into account time spent on the networks and personal relationships, which includes emotions, involvement and responsiveness.

This debate provided the rationale for the action lines about media education:

-Introduce a mechanism, preferably as a clearinghouse or a portal, to collect and report on, as well as facilitate the transfer of, best practices regarding information and media literacy. This should allow the pooling of existing information; it should facilitate the emergence of a core media literacy package, with requirements for skills, competences and evaluations, to be used all across Europe.

-Encourage national surveys regarding children’s usage of the Internet, in particular with reference to their motivations and conduct at different developmental ages. This should help every country to evaluate the state of media competence if not literacy among young people and to use their already acquired know-how and hands-on approach to speed up the acquisition of skills and tools.

-Develop a full research programme on media literacy. This program should aim at producing indicators via research. These indicators need to be refined beyond access and use. Appropriation and indirect appropriation measurements are needed, to evaluate the real efficacy of information literacy. Considering media as relational and experience goods could be key.

-Encourage a Pan-European media education award based on similarly existing awards and schemes to reward media education best practice. This should send a positive signal that media education is not just about negative criticism but also participates in the industrial and cultural development of a country.

Integration of human rights awareness within media literacy as “stages of connectedness”

Their was a strong feeling among participants that education for democratic citizenship refers not only to information for critical thinking and active participation but also about rights. This could be accompanied by a taxonomy of “harmful content” and “risk of harm” (Joanne Bryce/Rachel O’Connell). This suggestion came out of a renewed view of the child as an active producer of content and not just a passive recipient. As a result, a renewed vision of on-line/off-line activities and relations children have developed also needs to be taken into account. The real added-value of the Internet, as an interactive tool, took here its full meaning to capture the scope of children’s and young people’s activities (content production, dissemination and appropriation). This has implications for the protection of their human rights, and their own awareness of the rights and responsibilities it entails for them too.

Exploring, measuring and calibrating risk of harm from online activities and behaviours also requires research and criteria of evaluation. The difficulties in dealing with this issue appeared during discussion on violence in video games. The concerns of adults were mitigated by the children’s stance on their perception of the difference between reality and fiction. The examples of campaigns against cyber-stalking based on humour or suspense brought to the fore the need of finding alternative solutions to censorship, preferably via media education and awareness-raising. In the opinion of a number of members of the audience, regulation would be an infringement on freedom of speech and should be accompanied or replaced by co-regulation, calling on other actors’ responsibilities as well. This relied on a holistic perception of children and young people, taking into account their capacity for self-protection and self-help, their capacity to draw on peer networks. Adults should come as a resource nonetheless and children and young people also called on the authority of adults to “filter” adult attitudes meant to harm them. Social networking criteria, around relational and experience goods, again came to the fore; social connectedness appeared as essential to the well-being and emotional development of children and young people.

This entailed some precautionary tales about the balance between freedom of expression, privacy and children’s rights (protection, provision, participation) that tend to be easily forgotten, especially the latter. Stages of connectedness were called for: for the children to be more aware of their rights but also to be more aware of their infringements on the rights of adults. Conversely adults should be more aware of children’s right to participation at early stages and implementation stages of media education, in schools and in informal settings (including via on-line tools). This was related to concerns over the role of the state in regulation and its potential for censorship, particularly in emerging countries where democratic tools are still fragile and at the stage of early implementation. Examples of such cases of poor practice were provided by the participants of Panel sessions 2 and 3 and the audience. A positive example came from Compas, a manual for human rights education, and from the Safer Internet project as reported by the Swedish Media Council whose slogan suggests that parents should not ask their children “how was their day at school?” but “how was their day on-line”!

This debate provided the rationale for the action lines about human rights education via media education:

- Sensitise, raise awareness, and facilitate discussion on the human rights roles and responsibilities of state and non-state actors (as well of children and young people) who impact on children and young people’s use of, and well-being regarding, Internet and mobile phone services and technologies (i.e. private sector and media). This should improve understanding of these rights, and allow for a better consensus on the balance to be found between freedom of expression, privacy and rights of minors.

- Integrate human rights media education into every discipline of children’s education and training. Media education if it includes issues of access, respect for others, anonymity, copyright, etc. should address human rights concerns and help spread a concrete knowledge of their existence, for children who often have a very abstract and disconnected knowledge of them.

- Update human rights literacy and educational materials with regard to Internet and mobile phone technologies and services. Interactivity and "virtuality" are not disconnected from reality and real-life interactions. So human rights should be transferred to the new technologies rapidly, without lagging behind innovation.

- Encourage human rights training and awareness, especially of young webmasters, who monitor social networking sites. This is in connection to role-modelling and peer-to-peer interaction in the networks, where children tend to rely on the authority of their peers rather than that of adults. Workshops for youth leaders, as potential agents of change, were also proposed, as part of digital inclusion.

- Insistence on human rights proofed software and hardware. The social responsibility of ISPs should be called upon, to think of human rights at the level of design rather than implementation of their products and services.

- Encourage human rights hotlines as a means of informing and empowering users to fully and properly exercise their rights and freedoms online. Hotlines should be different when directed to adults or to children. They should be designed to be “age sensitive” and also to be language sensitive. They should act like instruments of navigation, literally to “orient” the users in making sense of the risks and advantages of the media.

State and interstate dynamics as a means of “rebooting life”

Governments were often mentioned during the sessions, with a general consensus by all participants, including children, that the state remains the ultimate guarantor of human rights protection. The Council of Europe Recommendation on Empowering Young People in the New Information and Communications Environment7 was discussed in the three panels, with action lines in mind. The role of the Council of Europe was perceived as one of leadership and encouragement to create synergies among regions as well as private sector and civic entities, across borders.

The Government’s role is seen as key in minimizing risk to citizens. Media literacy, especially in relation to safe use of ICTs and the promotion of human rights, appeared to be intimately linked with state responsibilities. It should be incorporated in the national school curriculum; it should also empower parents and adults via lifelong training literacy courses for them, starting with teachers. As was stressed mostly in Panel session 2, teachers are an obstacle to quality education if they are not themselves properly trained. The production of a tool kit could also be part of the initial and continuous training of teachers.

States were seen as having a responsibility in changing the training methods of teachers. Technology was seen as less of a problem as pedagogy. More dialogue with the schools and the state, and with the schools and the local community, was called for. Updated and continuous training for teachers was seen as a key to success. To complement teachers, a major role for librarians, especially those in the schools and in communities, was also stressed, especially by Abdelaziz Abid from UNESCO and members of the audience representing the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). They are often the interface of children and information in schools and they understand the status of the materials at hand and have a long-time experience in knowing how to integrate them and make them accessible to children.

The core curriculum could be developed with professionals and young people so that creative software for young people can be produced, with the design of materials connected with their everyday lives. These materials should integrate new content on media education and human rights, as a criterion for quality. The idea of sustainable development was attached to such an integration, as a paradigm in which citizenship, consumer rights and media literacy are key notions to take into account. The role of the state was seen as one of “rebooting” life for people, finding the right scale of interaction and of connectedness for parents and children alike

The state should also foster self-regulatory solutions. Filters, white and black lists, and hotlines for parents and children were mentioned, as well as better collaboration between governments, especially for checking the ethics of international companies and businesses. However the state should stimulate collaboration with other actors, industry and civil society. They should work together in providing those back-up services for scaling up. States were seen as the major promoters of tools and opportunities regarding skills, especially in non-formal settings for the education of children and adults. Reaching out to adults, via awareness campaigns, but also via courses and seminars was seen as essential. Reaching out to children can be done through games; game portals should be targeted for providing tips on how to behave on the Internet. For both types of user, the methods suggested were participatory and based on experiential learning.

This debate provided the rationale for the action lines state and interstate dynamics:

- Translate Recommendation (2006) 12 on empowering children and young people in new information and communications environment into the languages of the 46 Council of Europe member states. The development of core curricula for human rights and media education should be an outcome of this translation. The elaboration of standards for web content developed for children should be another outcome of this general effort.

- Insist on national, regional and local discussion regarding the Recommendation. Appropriation of the document and implementation can stimulate interstate dynamics and provide regional and local solutions and applications.

- Provide access and, in the meantime, encourage “low-tech” means, such as electronic media and the written press, to empower those who do not have or who have limited access to the Internet. The responsibility of the state is to maintain as much equity as possible in access to all regions. But the lack of access should not be an alibi not to provide media/information literacy as low tech tools can provide very basic entry points to the main issues of risk of harm and human rights. Besides, they can correspond better to local learning styles (cinema tradition in some Eastern countries, written press tradition in others, etc.).

Strategies for transferability for “sustainable environments”

Sustainability was also seen as a commitment to the localization of media education, especially in teacher training as “no size fits all”. Transferability was considered as one of the best ways for such scaling up. The point came up via the multiple examples of good practices that were presented, especially in panel session 3. Best practices were identified through existing media literacy programmes of education delivered in various European countries as well as media awareness campaigns. They were provided by NGOs, often in conjunction with the state. The Nobody’s Children Foundation in Poland showed a campaign on child abuse. In Bulgaria, the State Agency on the protection of children created a successful “teenager club” offering computer games without violence, like a driving circuit to teach how to drive. A striking television campaign on “You never know who stands on the other side”, to warn of on-line abuse risks in Poland was also presented.

Transferability was examined from different angles: from different media, from different countries, from different languages. The use of other media was noted as they provide other sources of information for parents and children/young people alike. Interesting examples of campaigns in Slovenia on the television and in the press exemplified the notion that low tech can conveniently complement high tech - traditional media complement new media.

The same possibilities for transfer existed for teaching materials: they can be on paper, as some basic practices and modules can be prepared without highly sophisticated technical support. The issue of direct access can thus be by-passed, until a country can progressively be equipped. What is needed is the transferability of methodologies and the know-how for passing on good practices efficiently beyond their mere translation to another country’s language (Will Gardner). It may imply strategies for “commutation”, for instance asking young people and creative producers to imagine together how the meaning of a media text or an information website would change if one of its elements was modified. What would happen if the producers used a different person/star, another iconography, another language? Such a stance stresses the importance of mapping the professions at the interface between content and local users.

This debate provided the rationale for the action lines about transferability:

- Develop strategies to localise the transfer of information and media literacy initiatives and best practices. It is important to repatriate or to revive existing practices at the local level to preserve linguistic diversity, digital heritage and creativity.

- Share methodologies for sustainable development and for transferability. Translation is not enough, there has to be some kind of “commutation process,” for transfer methods, so that they become “lived-in” by the users. Modifications of this kind require valuing the professions that do creative work in transfer.

-Develop strategies for peer-to-peer coaching of children and young people. Children can be active in translating and transferring practices that they like. On-line, they tend to look at the performance of sites, games, portals and they trust the reputation that other peers have built.

Conclusions: The multi-stakeholder approach revisited and enlarged as a means of “scaling up”

During the three panel sessions, it became apparent that the multi-stakeholder approach recommended by the Council of Europe needed to be both enlarged and refined: enlarged to other actors, refined in the complementarities to be expected.

The participants came away with a renewed sense of the dynamics around childhood. Changes in the image of the children are occurring and their role in culture needs to be reassessed. Young people appeared as competent and curious beings, and as a legitimate actor to be introduced in multi-stakeholder platforms for media literacy. Such introduction should not go without preparation. The importance of making sure that young people’s voices are heard and are not expressed just in “emotional,” terms that undermine their credibility was made clear and underlined, to match the level of preparation of adult experts. The excellent preparatory work done by the local Armenian UNICEF team showed the ease with which young people participated in, and contributed to, the results of the Forum as they consistently came up with their own recommendations. Children and young people need to be part of the implementation process at the design stage, and have full participation in the creation of standards and regulations for them.

The participants also came away with a clear impression that private-public partnerships need to integrate the civic dimension. They should be expressed as public-private-civic partnerships. Civil society appeared as mixed: parents, librarians, teachers, activists, etc. The complementarity of expertise and strategies was quite apparent. These multiple partnerships nonetheless should not erase the fact that everyone needs to remain in their roles and their major functions.

Another actor emerged, implicit in the preparation of the event itself: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs), like the Council of Europe, UNICEF and UNESCO. The Forum was confirmation that IGOs are the fourth partner in this tripartite agreement departure. Their relationships with NGOs needs to be refined as they seem to be a means of interstate dynamics and of successful European and even global governance. There is co-dependence between them. IGOs are emanations of nation-states and their authority, and they can instrumentalize NGOs but, conversely, IGOs can be partly instrumentalized by NGOs as they need them for their expertise and their facilitating culture at the local level. They are in many ways indispensable for their own functioning. Consequently, a dynamic becomes possible that may allow for some normative outputs on issues like human rights, freedom of expression and media education, among many others. In this co-evolution with IGOs, civil society can exert some leverage on national powers, circuitously, by careful monitoring, reporting and the incubation of ideas and practices. The notion of governance via co-regulation meets here the threshold of state sovereignty.

In the end, the participants of the Pan-European Forum came away with the 3P’s and the 3 C’s to take back home. The 3P’s relate to children’s Protection, Provision, Participation. The 3C’s are related to media education’s tenets about fostering Culture, Critical thinking and Creativity. Such are the conditions for empowerment by others and self-empowerment so that, in the long term, people gain autonomy.

APPENDIX VII

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of Specialists on freedom of expression and information in times of crisis (MC-S-IC)

Name of committee

Group of Specialists on freedom of expression and information in times of crisis (MC-S-IC)

Compliance with Resolution Res(2005)47

Yes

Programme of Activities: project(s)

2004/DG2/40 - Standard-setting and policy assistance on topical issues concerning the media

Project relevance

Falls fully under section I.3 of the Action Plan of the Third Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government, incorporating in its entirety the Action Plan adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy. Following up on work carried out to date, the terms of reference of the MC-S-IC will contribute to the full implementation of both action plans.

The work of the MC-S-IC falls squarely within the core values of the Council of Europe, given the importance of freedom of expression and information for democracy and the particular risks it is exposed to in crisis situations. The development of further standards and strengthening of mechanisms for safeguarding freedom of expression are also of relevance vis-à-vis the protection of human rights.

There is political backing (the terms of reference flow directly from and are intended to contribute to the implementation of the above-mentioned Ministerial Conference Action Plan). Work of the MC-S-IC will reinforce and build upon existing Council of Europe standards.

Project added value

Council of Europe is the only organisation that has developed recognised European standards in the field of freedom of expression and information and that continues to update and revise them. These standards are relied upon by other organisations in the context of their own work. Synergies therefore exist and continue to be developed.

Protecting freedom of expression and information in times of crisis remains a challenge that has not been dealt with in a comprehensive way at the European level.

To date, the OSCE has taken an active part in the work of the MC-S-IC; other participants include EBU, ENPA, INSI and Reporters Without Borders.

Financial information

Number of meetings per year: 2 two-day meetings
Number of participants: 9 reimbursed participants on behalf of member states, other member states at their own expense, PACE, CLRAE, Conference of International NGOs, EAO, EC, and up to 15 other participants.

18000 euros for reimbursement of participation in meetings; 8000 for interpretation and 2000 for translation and production of documents.

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of Specialists on freedom of expression and information in times of crisis (MC-S-IC)

1.

Name of committee:

Group of Specialists on freedom of expression and information in times of crisis (MC-S-IC)

2.

Type of committee:

Ad hoc Advisory Group

3.

Source of terms of reference:

Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC)

4.

Terms of reference:

 

Having regard to:

the Political Declaration, the Resolution on freedom of expression and information in times of crisis and the Action Plan adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, March 2005), incorporated as an integral part into the Action Plan of the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe.

Under the authority of the Steering Committee on the media and new communication services (CDMC), and in relation with the implementation of Project 2004/DG2/40 “Standard-setting and policy assistance on topical issues concerning the media”, the Group is instructed to:

i.

finalise draft Committee of Ministers guidelines to member states on protecting freedom of expression and information in times of crisis (cf. items 1 to 3 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

ii.

prepare a draft Committee of Ministers Declaration or other standard-setting instrument on the value of investigative journalism for democracy and the need to protect and promote such type of journalistic work (cf. item 29 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

iii.

draw up a concrete and detailed proposal on the establishment and operation of an informal web-based discussion space and network for the ongoing review by media professionals and other interested parties of the rights and responsibilities of the media and the working conditions of journalists in times of crisis and for the exchange of information and co-ordination of initiatives regarding the media’s contribution to inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue (cf. items 4 and 6 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

iv.

prepare a concrete detailed proposal on the substantive and organisational issues (including selection criteria, jury composition, etc.) for an award for media which have made an outstanding contribution to conflict prevention or resolution, understanding and dialogue (cf. item 7 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

v.

draw up a detailed proposal concerning the responsibilities, working methods and financial implications of a possible Council of Europe coordinator for monitoring the implementation by member states of the texts adopted by the Council of Europe concerning freedom of expression and information in times of crisis (cf. item 8 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

vi.

submit, following consultations with relevant organisations, a concrete proposal for encouraging the training of media professionals with an emphasis on safety issues and on the importance of the professional and independent coverage of crisis situations, be it in the form of a draft strategy paper or of a compendium of good practice in this area with a view to its broad dissemination (cf. item 5 of the Kyiv Action Plan).

 

In pursuing the above objectives, the MC-S-IC will take into consideration the past and ongoing work of the Council of Europe concerning freedom of expression and information in times of crisis and related matters, as well as work done in this area by other organisations. In its work, the MC-S-IC will take into account the changing international situation and will co-operate with other relevant organisations, in particular the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Upon request by the CDMC, the MC-S-IC shall provide advice and assistance to the CDMC and its subordinate bodies on issues concerning freedom of expression in times of crisis and will carry out any ad hoc assignments given to it by the CDMC.

5.

Composition of the Group:

5.A.

Members

 

The Group shall be composed of 9 specialists with expertise in the field of media law and policy, in particular in the above-mentioned issues, to be appointed by the governments of the following member states:
Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Greece, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey.

The Council of Europe budget will bear the travel and subsistence expenses of one specialist from each of the above countries for attendance at meetings of the Group.

Other member states expressing an interest in the work of the MC-S-IC may designate, at their own expense, specialists to participate in meetings of the Group.

5.B.

Participants

i.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

ii.

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iii.

The European Audiovisual Observatory may send a representative to meetings of the Group without the right and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iv.

The Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote and at the charge of the sending body.

5.C

Other participants

i.

The European Commission may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

ii.

The states with observer status with the Council of Europe (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico, United States of America) may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

iii.

The following intergovernmental organisation may send representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

      - Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

5.D.

Observers

 

The following non-governmental organisations may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses :

      - Article 19
      - Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)
      - European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
      - European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
      - European Newspaper Publishers Association (ENPA)
      - European Internet Service Providers’ Association (Euro-ISPA)
      - International News Safety Institute (INSI)
      - Reporters Without Borders
      - The Rory Peck Trust

6.

Working Methods and Structures

 

The MC-S-IC shall undertake the necessary research and consultations with relevant parties. Where necessary, and in order to accelerate progress in its work, the MC-S-IC may organise hearings and/or colloquies, within the limits of its budget.

7.

Duration

 

These terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2007.

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of Specialists on human rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS)

Name of committee

Group of Specialists on human rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS)

Compliance with Resolution Res(2005)47

Yes

Programme of Activities: project(s)

2004/DG2/33 - Standard setting and policy assistance on information society issues (including Internet)

Project relevance

Falls under Section I.3 and II.5 of the Action Plan of the Third Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government. Section I.3 incorporated in its entirety the Action Plan adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy. Following up on work carried out to date, the terms of reference of the MC-S-IS will contribute to the full implementation of both action plans.

The human rights and people-centred approach being followed by the MC-S-IS brings information society and internet-related issues squarely into the core values of the Council of Europe. Moreover, it also falls within one of the highest priority areas of the Council of Europe given the considerable attention being paid by this group to the well-being of children and to their protection from harmful content in an online environment and in the context of related off-line activities.

There is political support (the terms of reference flow directly from and are intended to contribute to the implementation of the above-mentioned 7th European Ministerial Conference Action Plan). Work of the MC-S-IS will reinforce and build upon existing Council of Europe standards.

Further, the CM noted with interest the CDMC message to the effect that the Council of Europe should ensure that human rights feature prominently in discussions on Information Society and Internet governance matters.

Project added value

As an IGO expert group dealing with the impact of the Information Society on rights and freedoms, the MC-S-IS is unique in the Pan-European space in examining new and emerging trends and challenges to human rights, the protection and promotion of children, in addressing the roles and responsibilities of key state and non-state actors (public authorities, media, ICT industry) and in developing their awareness of human rights in the context of the information society.

It will also reinforce the Council of Europe contribution to strengthening human rights and the rule of law in the context of use and abuse of ICT.

The work of the MC-S-IS has already contributed to making the Council of Europe an active and prominent player in international multistakeholder fora (e.g. the UN sponsored global think tank Internet Governance Forum) examining Information Society and Internet governance matters. The Council of Europe should persevere in its efforts to ensure that human rights remain a central issue in such discussions and fora.

Overall, the work of the MC-S-IS should be stepped-up in response to the priorities abovementioned, not least in order to respond to the new communications services remit of the CDMC.

However, the transversal nature of this work should be recognised and more involvement of and contribution from other Council of Europe departments would be desirable.

Financial information

Number of meetings per year: 2 two-day meetings
Number of participants: 8 reimbursed participants on behalf of member states, other member states at their own expense, PACE, CLRAE, Conference of International NGOs, EAO, EC, and up to15 other participants.

16000 euros for reimbursement of participation in meetings; 8000 for interpretation and 2000 for translation and production of documents.

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of Specialists on human rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS)

1.

Name of committee:

Group of Specialists on human rights in the Information Society
(MC-S-IS)

2.

Type of committee:

Ad hoc Advisory Group

3.

Source of terms of reference:

Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC)

4.

Terms of reference:

 

Having regard to:

the Political Declaration and the Resolution on Human Rights in the Information Society adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, March 2005), incorporated as an integral part of the Action Plan of the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe

Under the authority of the Steering Committee on the media and new communication services (CDMC), and in relation with the implementation of Project 2004/DG2/33 “Standard setting and policy assistance on information society issues (including Internet)”, the Group is instructed to:

i.

finalise draft guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of key state and non state actors in the Information Society with particular regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. items 17.i, 19 and 24 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

ii.

prepare a draft Committee of Ministers recommendation updating Recommendation No. R (99)15 on media coverage of election campaigns, taking account of the development of digital broadcasting services, online-media and other electronic communication platforms (cf. item 26 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

iii.

prepare a standard-setting instrument which promotes a coherent pan-European level of protection for children from harmful content when using new communication technologies and services and the Internet, while ensuring freedom of expression and the free flow of information (cf. items 17, 19 and 23 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

iv.

prepare a report on the use and impact of technical filtering measures for various types of content in the online environment, with particular regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, if appropriate, make concrete proposals (e.g. in the form of a draft standard-setting instrument) for further action in this area (cf. items 19 and 23 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

v.

examine the respect for human dignity in the new communication services and, if appropriate, make concrete proposals for further action designed to complement or reinforce existing standards in this area (cf. item 27 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

vi.

prepare a report on emerging issues and trends in respect of, on the one hand, the protection of intellectual property rights and the use of technical protection measures in the context of the development of new communication and information services (and the Internet) and, on the other hand, the fundamental right to freedom of expression and free flow of information, access to knowledge and education, the promoting of research and scientific development and the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions and artistic creation and, if appropriate, make concrete proposals for further action in this area (cf. item 18 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

vii.

follow-up Council of Europe work on Internet governance and on the implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society action lines regarding the media (C9) and the ethical dimensions of the Information Society (C10);

viii.

follow-up Recommendation Rec (2006)12 on empowering children in the new information and communications environment (cf. items 23 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

ix.

develop tools to assist key state and non-state actors in their practical understanding of, and compliance with, human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Information Society in particular with regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. items 19 and 23 of the Kyiv Action Plan).

 

In doing so, the MC-S-IS will take into account the past and ongoing work of the Council of Europe concerning the Information Society, as well as work under way on the same issues in other international fora.

Upon request by the CDMC, the MC-S-IS shall provide advice and assistance to the CDMC and/or its subordinate bodies on the issues related to human rights in the Information Society and Internet and carry out any ad hoc assignments given to it by the CDMC.

5.

Composition of the Group:

5.A.

Members

 

The Group shall be composed of 8 specialists with expertise in the field of media law and policy, in particular in the above-mentioned issues, to be appointed by the governments of the following member states:
Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Malta, Moldova, Slovakia, Ukraine.

The Council of Europe budget will bear the travel and subsistence expenses of one specialist from each of the above countries for attendance at meetings of the Group.

Other member States expressing an interest in the work of the Group may designate, at their own expense, specialists to participate in meetings of the Group.

5.B.

Participants

i.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

ii.

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iii.

The European Audiovisual Observatory may send a representative to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iv.

The Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote and at the charge of the sending body.

5.C

Other participants

i.

The European Commission may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

ii.

The states with observer status with the Council of Europe (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico, United States of America) may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

iii.

The following intergovernmental organisations may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

      - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
      - Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

5.D.

Observers

 

The following non-governmental organisations may send a representative/representatives, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses to meetings of the Group:

      - Europol
      - Alliance for a Media Literate Europe (AMLA)
      - Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)
      - Association of Internet Hotline Providers in Europe (INHOPE)
      - Digital Rights in Europe (EDRI)
      - European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
      - European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
      - European Internet Co-Regulatory Network
      - European Internet Service Providers’ Association in Europe (Euro-ISPA)
      - European Newspaper Publishers Association (ENPA)
      - Europol
      - Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA)
      - Internews
      - The European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC)

6.

Working Methods and Structures

 

The MC-S-IS shall undertake the necessary research and consultations with relevant parties. Where necessary, and in order to accelerate progress in its work, the MC-S-IS may organise hearings and/or colloquies, within the limits of its budget.

7.

Duration

 

These terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2008.

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of Specialists on media diversity (MC-S-MD)

Name of committee

Group of Specialists on Media Diversity (MC-S-MD)

Compliance with Resolution Res(2005)47

Yes

Programme of Activities: project(s)

2004/DG2/40 - Standard-setting and policy assistance on topical issues concerning the media

Project relevance

Falls fully under Section I.3 of the Action Plan of the Third Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government, incorporating in its entirety the Action Plan adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy. Following up on work carried out to date, the terms of reference of the MC-S-MD will contribute to the full implementation of both action plans.

The work of the MC-S-MD concerns pluralism, diversity and social cohesion and integrating all communities and, in consequence, relates closely to the core values of the Council of Europe, both from the angle of the pursuit of genuine democracy and preserving the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, while promoting intercultural dialogue and tolerance.

There is political backing (the terms of reference flow directly from and are intended to contribute to the implementation of the above-mentioned Ministerial Conference Action Plan). Work of the MC-S-MD will reinforce and build upon existing COUNCIL OF EUROPE standards.

Project added value

The Council of Europe is the leading standard-setting organisation in this respect. It. is in a favourable position compared with other organisations with regard to the media sector and media diversity. The normative role of the Council of Europe has a great impact on development in the media sector and promoting its work on media diversity, which in terms of both content and ownership is central to the democratic process, is extremely important.

As an expert group dealing with media diversity, the MC-S-MD therefore has a particular role in developing specific proposals as regards freedom of expression/information and pluralism and examining the threats resulting from media concentration.

The synergies with other organisations or agencies is evidenced by the fact that UNESCO and OSCE participate in the work of the MC-S-MD and that the proposal for a CM recommendation on the UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions came from this group (the recommendation was adopted by the CM on 1 February 2006). Further, in part, the group’s proposed terms of reference are linked to the said UNESCO convention, which proposed additional action through international cooperation at regional level.

To the extent that freedom of expression and media are concerned, this work falls properly with the Steering Committee on Media and New Communication Services and its subordinate bodies.

Financial information

Number of meetings per year: 2 two-day meetings
Number of participants: 12 reimbursed participants on behalf of member states, other member states at their own expense, PACE, CLRAE, Conference of International NGOs, EAO, EC, and up to15 other participants.

24000 euros for reimbursement of participation in meetings; 8000 for interpretation and 2000 for translation and production of documents.

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of Specialists on media diversity (MC-S-MD)

1.

Name of committee:

Group of Specialists on Media Diversity (MC-S-MD)

2.

Type of committee:

Ad hoc Advisory Group

3.

Source of terms of reference:

Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC)

4.

Terms of reference:

 

Having regard to:

the Political Declaration, the Resolution on cultural diversity and media pluralism in times of globalisation and the Action Plan adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, March 2005), incorporated as an integral part into the Action Plan of the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe.

Under the authority of the Steering Committee on the media and new communication services (CDMC), and in relation with the implementation of Project 2004/DG2/40 “Standard-setting and policy assistance on topical issues concerning the media”, the Group is instructed to:

i.

elaborate a detailed proposal for a methodology for the monitoring of media concentration and, if possible, for measuring the impact of media concentration on media pluralism and content diversity (cf. item 9 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

ii.

complete the monitoring of the implementation of Recommendation Rec(2003)9 of the Committee of Ministers on measures to promote the democratic and social contribution of digital broadcasting, and compile a compendium of good practices in member states in this field (cf. item 14 of the Kyiv Action Plan);

iii.

examine the role of the media in promoting social cohesion and the integration of different communities (cf. item 13 of the Kyiv Action Plan) and in particular:

 

      - pay especial attention to the part that can be played in this context by community, local, minority and social media, and prepare a draft standard-setting instrument on possible measures which could be taken in support of these types of media or their contribution;

 

      - prepare a document or standard-setting instrument addressing the ways in which the public in all its diversity can be involved in consultative programming structures;

 

      - examine the importance of independent productions for media pluralism and social cohesion and prepare a report on the subject or a standard-setting instrument on possible support measures for independent productions (cf. also item 12 of the Kyiv Action Plan).

 

In pursuing the above objectives, the MC-S-MD will take into account the results of the work of the AP-MD on media diversity and transnational concentration in Europe and of the MM-S-DB on the promotion of the democratic and social contribution of digital broadcasting, as well as the work on media pluralism and cultural diversity under way in other international fora.

Upon request by the CDMC, the MC-S-MD shall provide advice and assistance to the CDMC and/or its subordinate bodies on issues concerning media diversity, and carry out any ad hoc assignments given to it by the CDMC.

5.

Composition of the Group:

5.A.

Members

 

The Group shall be composed of 12 specialists with expertise in the field of media law and policy, in particular in the above-mentioned issues, to be appointed by the governments of the following member states:
Belgium, Croatia, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

The Council of Europe budget will bear the travel and subsistence expenses of one specialist from each of the above countries for attendance at meetings of the Group.

Other member States expressing an interest in the work of the Group may designate, at their own expense, specialists to participate in meetings of the Group.

5.B.

Participants

i.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

ii.

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iii.

The European Audiovisual Observatory may send a representative to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iv.

The Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote and at the charge of the sending body.

5.C

Other participants

i.

The European Commission may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

ii.

The states with observer status with the Council of Europe (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico, United States of America) may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

iii.

The following intergovernmental organisations may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

      - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
      - Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

5.D.

Observers

 

The following non-governmental organisations may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

      - Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)
      - European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
      - European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
      - European Internet Service Providers’ Association (Euro-ISPA)
      - European Newspaper Publishers Association (ENPA)
      - On-line More Colour in the Media

6.

Working Methods and Structures

 

The MC-S-MD shall undertake the necessary research and consultations with relevant parties. Where necessary, and in order to accelerate progress in its work, the MC-S-MD may organise hearings and/or colloquies, within the limits of its budget.

7.

Duration

 

These terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2008.

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of specialists on public service media in the information society (MC-S-PSM)

Name of committee

Group of specialists on public service media in the information society (MC-S-PSM)

Compliance with Resolution Res(2005)47

Yes

Programme of Activities: project(s)

2004/DG2/40 - Standard-setting and policy assistance on topical issues concerning the media

Project relevance

Falls fully under Section I.3 of the Action Plan of the Third Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government, incorporating in its entirety the Action Plan adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy. Following up on work carried out to date, the terms of reference of the MC-S-PSM (previously MC-S-PSB) will contribute to the full implementation of both action plans.

The work of the MC-S-PSM will focus on the public service media’s contribution to social cohesion and integration of all individuals, to the mutual understanding and tolerance, to the promotion of broader and more active democratic participation of individuals, to the entrenchment of democratic principles and values such as transparency and access to diverse public information, and to a greater appreciation and dissemination of the diversity of national and European cultural heritage.

There is political backing (the terms of reference flow directly from and are intended to contribute to the implementation of the above-mentioned Ministerial Conference Action Plan). Work of the MC-S-PSM will reinforce and build upon existing Council of Europe standards.

Project added value

The Council of Europe is the leading standard-setting body in this respect. While the EU recognises, in the Amsterdam Protocol, that public service broadcasting has to be funded even if this distorts marked conditions, provided that this is in the common interest, it does not develop standards about this fundamental public service. Its importance and role has been highlighted i.a. by the PACE, and there is a need for developing standards that permit the public service remit to be discharged in an evolving technological environment.

Examination of the structural and functional characteristics of public service media is of crucial importance for building a viable public service under the new dynamic conditions of the information society, as a driving force of a pluralist and inclusive democratic system. The interdisciplinary and analytical work, which will be carried out by the Group, represents a unique effort and attaches particular added value to the activity of the CDMC

In the context of its activities, other international organisations (e.g. the OSCE) draw on Council of Europe standards as regards public service media. Consequently, it can fairly be said that there is complementarity and synergies, not duplication, whether within the Council of Europe or vis-à-vis other organisations.

Financial information

Number of meetings per year: 2 two-day meetings
Number of participants: 12 reimbursed participants on behalf of member states, other member states at their own expense, PACE, CLRAE, Conference of International NGOs, EAO, EC, and up to15 other participants.

24000 euros for reimbursement of participation in meetings; 8000 for interpretation and 2000 for translation and production of documents.

Proposed terms of reference of the Group of specialists on public service media in the information society (MC-S-PSM)

1.

Name of committee:

Group of specialists on public service media in the information society (MC-S-PSM)

2.

Type of committee:

Ad hoc Advisory Group

3.

Source of terms of reference:

Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC)

4.

Terms of reference:

 

Having regard to:

the Political Declaration, Resolutions and Action Plan, adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, March 2005), incorporated as an integral part into the Action Plan of the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe.

Under the authority of the Steering Committee on the media and new communication services (CDMC), and in relation with the implementation of Project 2004/DG2/40 “Standard-setting and policy assistance on topical issues concerning the media”, the Group is instructed to:

i

gather information on how member states ensure the legal, financial, technical and other appropriate conditions required to enable public service media to discharge their remit in the information society in the light of relevant Council of Europe standards, and prepare a compendium of best practices with a view to its broad dissemination (cf. item 15 of the Kyiv Plan);

ii

prepare a compendium of best practices of public service media as regards promoting a wider democratic participation of individuals, inter alia with the help of new interactive technologies (cf. item 21 of the Kyiv Plan);

iii

prepare a report on the contribution of public service media in the information society in increasing the transparency of public authorities and facilitating their scrutiny, having regard to the Committee of Ministers Recommendations Nos (81)19 on access to information held by public authorities and (2002) 2 on access to official documents and to on-going discussions concerning a binding Council of Europe instrument and other developments in this field; the report and any further action proposed (e.g. in the form of draft standard-setting instruments) should also address the issue of transparency and accountability of public service media themselves (cf. item 22 of the Kyiv Plan);

iv

prepare a report on the contribution of public service media to the implementation of the Committee of Ministers Recommendation No (97)21 on media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance, examining inter alia how public service media can play a part in promoting social cohesion and integrating all communities and generations, and propose, if appropriate, further action on this subject (cf. item 13 of the Kyiv Plan).

 

In doing so, the MC-S-PSM will take into account the existing Council of Europe texts regarding public service media and the results of the work of the MM-S-DB relating to public service broadcasting in a digital environment, as well as work under way on the same issues in other international forums. The MC-S-PSM will also take into account the ongoing work of the Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE) with a view to possible co-operation.

Upon request by the CDMC, the MC-S-PSM shall provide advice and assistance to the CDMC and/or its subordinate bodies on the issues related to the regulation and practices in the field of public service media in the information society and carry out any ad hoc assignments given to it by the CDMC.

5.

Composition of the Group:

5.A.

Members

 

The Group shall be composed of 12 specialists with expertise in the field of public service media, in particular in the above-mentioned issues, to be appointed by the governments of the following member states:
Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, United Kingdom.

The Council of Europe budget will bear the travel and subsistence expenses of one specialist from each of the above countries for attendance at meetings of the Group.

Other member states expressing an interest in the work of the Group may designate, at their own expense, specialists to participate in meetings of the Group.

5.B.

Participants

i.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

ii.

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iii.

The European Audiovisual Observatory may send a representative to meetings of the Group without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

iv.

The Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote and at the charge of the sending body.

5.C

Other participants

i.

The European Commission may send a representative/representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

ii.

The states with observer status with the Council of Europe (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico, United States of America) may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

5.D.

Observers

 

The following non-governmental organisations may send a representative/ representatives to meetings of the Group, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

      - Article 19
      - Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)
      - European Association for the Viewers Interests (EAVI)
      - European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
      - European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

6.

Working Methods and Structures

 

The MC-S-PSM shall undertake the necessary research and consultations with relevant parties. Where necessary, and in order to accelerate progress in its work, the MC-S-PSM may organise hearings and/or colloquies, within the limits of its budget.

7.

Duration

 

These terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2008.

Note 1 This document has been classified restricted at the date of issue. Unless the Committee of Ministers decides otherwise, it will be declassified according to the rules set up in Resolution Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents.
Note 2 The delegation of the Russian Federation in the CDMC reserved its position in respect of this draft Committee of Ministers declaration/recommendation.
Note 3 The delegation of the Russian Federation in the CDMC reserved its position in respect of this draft Committee of Ministers declaration/recommendation.
Note 4 http://www.euromedialiteracy.eu
Note 5 http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Media/hbk_en.html
Note 6 http://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2006)12&Sector=secCM&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75
Note 7 http://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2006)12&Sector=secCM&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents