www.radiomagazine.net
European Federation of Journalists
Crisis
in
Italian
Media:
How
Poor Politics and
Flawed
Legislation Put
Journalism
Under Pressure
Report of the IFJ/EFJ Mission to Italy
6-8 November 2003
Introduction
The European Federation of Journalists carried out a
mission to investigate the media situation in Italy on November 6-8, 2003, only
weeks before the final adoption of a disputed new communication law, la Legge
Gasparri and before it was dramatically rejected by the Italian President Carlo
Azeglio Ciampi. This mission took place as the Italian Presidency was drawing
to a close and when relations between the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and
his media critics had reached a new low.
In a year when the Prime Minister has faced down many
of the country’s senior judges, over charges brought against him for business
affairs going back many years, he turned against his media detractors and
proclaimed that 81 % of journalists in Italy are against him. There have been
numerous incidents of confrontation involving the Prime Minister, his
supporters and his media critics.
Outside Italy there has been widespread consternation
over the conflict of interest caused by the election of Mr. Berlusconi, one of
Europe’s leading media owners. In his private life he owns three major TV
networks (Canale 5, Italia 1 and Rete Quattro), one newspaper, a book and
magazine publishing house (Mondadori) and a large slice of the advertising
market (through the advertising agency Publitalia). As Prime Minister he is
able to exert undue influence over the country’s public service broadcaster
RAI.
In no other settled democracy in the world has such a
situation ever existed. Press freedom groups, human rights organisations and
journalists both in Italy and abroad, have expressed deep unease at the media
crisis that has developed in Italy. A
selection of IFJ and EFJ public protests in recent months is attached to this
report.
In response to these worries, the International
Federation of Journalists and its regional organisation, the EFJ, in
co-operation with Italian journalists’ groups, decided to investigate.
The origins of the mission that travelled to Italy in
November 2003 lies in a resolution adopted by the EFJ at its 2003 Annual Meeting
in Prague. Journalists called for action because they fear that the situation
in Italy is a serious potential threat to the right to independent and
impartial information. Similar concerns led the European Parliament in October
to launch an inquiry into media freedom throughout the European Union following
a move by the Parliament’s Committee of Citizens’ Freedom and Rights to seek a
specific report on media ownership and independence in Italy alone1.
The crisis in media in Italy is not only of dramatic
importance to Italy, but also to Europe. It has three important dimensions:
(1) The relationship between journalists and
governments;
(2) The editorial independence of journalists;
(3) The concept of public interest in broadcasting and
journalism.
These questions are central to all democracies. In
Europe they have a particular significance in the light of the upcoming
enlargement of the European Union, a development that signals, for a number of
countries, the end of the transition from former corporatist and centralised
forms of government to a democratic framework of pluralist politics based upon
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including free expression
and freedom of the press.
Outside Italy the media crisis is defined almost
universally in terms of the personality of Silvio Berlusconi. However, this is
a superficial analysis that does not adequately explain the context and depth
of the Italian media situation, which has been difficult and complex for many
years.
Successive political administrations of the last 20
years have failed to carry out reforms that would ensure a framework for
independent media that protects the values of independent journalism and access
to information as a cornerstone of democracy.
In no country are media able to play a democratic role
unless there is a consensus within the political community, of every
persuasion, committed to pluralism and press freedom. This requires a readiness
to guarantee a legal and policy framework that ensures editorial independence
at public and private level.
A key feature of creating a viable system in which
media can operate freely is the level of co-operation between government and
media professionals on how best to regulate the affairs of journalism and
media.
The following report seeks to improve the quality of
understanding of the media crisis in Italy among journalists, journalists
unions and civil society. It includes a number of recommendations to take the
debate forward in Italy and within the European Union. Its findings and
recommendations will be submitted not only to the concerned parties in Italy
(government, parliament, media professionals, civil society) but also to the
European Parliament and European Commission as well as all other relevant
institutions including the Council of Europe, OSCE Representative for Media
Freedom, and the UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.
The mission did meet leading figures from all sectors
of media, which helped to provide a better understanding of the legislative and
institutional situation, the economic conditions and gave an opportunity to
assess the quality of independence of journalists. However, despite its best
efforts, the mission was denied a meeting with the Minister of Communication
Maurizio Gasparri or one of his staff. At the highest level an opportunity for
dialogue was refused even after extensive consultations with the staff of the
Prime Minister’s office.
The content
of the draft law on television broadcasting (norme di principio in materia di assetto del sistema radiotelevisivo e della
RAI-Radiotelevisione Italiana Spa, nonché delega al Governo per l’emanzione del
testo unico della radiotelevisione) known as the legge Gasparri, and its
potential impact on the media in Italy, both private and public, has been given
a special focus. This will be a key legal text in the elaboration of
media activity in the coming years. A press conference was also organised by
the FNSI (see press clippings included in annex)
Background Note:
In Italy, the communication system is dominated by big
television and radio companies: the public service broadcaster RAI (three
general television networks, three radio networks, one ‘all news’ digital
network and several specialised network including RAI Education, RAI culture etc.), the major
private broadcaster, Mediaset owned by
Silvio Berlusconi with three general networks and important parts of the
digital terrestial and on line media; the La 7 telecom group (Lombardian
entrepreneurs with reference to Marco Tronchetti Provera-Pirelli); niche TV, a
general channel and MTV channel;
Sky Italia, monopoly of satellite owned by Robert Murdoch. In addition there
are about 1,000 small local TV and radio stations.
Mediaset and RAI together account for about 60% of
media advertisements in Italy and 95% of advertisements for the whole
television sector.
There are about 80 daily newspapers, with a total of
about 5 million daily circulation. However the main dailies are shared by a few
industrial families, who do not have publishing as their core business. Among
the owners are Agnelli of Fiat, De Benedetti, and Caltagiorne. Silvio
Berlusconi also has newspaper interests.
There are some 70,000 registered journalists in Italy,
of which around 13,000 to 14,000 are professional journalists and 16,000
freelances. The others are journalists, but who have no fixed position and for
whom journalism is not the primary source of income.
A Controversial New Law
In July 2002 the President of the Republic Carlo
Azeglio Ciampi issued a stark warning on the need to take prompt action to
frame a law that would safeguard pluralism of information in Italy. He said
that the ‘declarations of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe’
would have to be incorporated into national law within the year, in order to
stress that freedom of expression included ‘the freedom to transmit information
and ideas’. He called for a ‘systematic
intervention’ to regulate the media, in order to safeguard ‘the central public
service role’ provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty, whilst entrusting to the
Regions the task of advancing ‘local identities and cultures’.
In response, the Berlusconi Government proposed a
comprehensive reform of the communications system, which was presented to Parliament
by the Minister for Communications, Maurizio Gasparri, and after a turbulent
passage, was agreed in the autumn of 2003.
On December 16 2003 the President created a sensation
in Italy and around Europe when he rejected to sign this new law into effect.
The Parliament, he said, needed to think again.
This controversial law for reforming the media and
communications landscape, including radio and television, the printed press,
and new electronic media, had long been awaited: the old Mammì Law,2 adopted in
1990 and still in force, had been modified many times by the Parliament and the
Constitutional Court, but was clearly unsuitable for the changing realities in
media. It was out of step with the pace of technological innovation and media
globalisation and was not appropriate to address the changing media scene in
Italy with the arrival of digital broadcasting, so far totally in the hands of
Rupert Murdoch, few and weak national and local alternatives to the duopoly of
Mediaset and RAI and the crisis of advertising on newspapers.
Since July 2003 Rupert Murdoch via News Corporation
has started to transmit the 24 hours pay TV channel Sky. The EFJ delegation met
with SKY management (see below).
Although the Gasparri law was born with the intention
to create a new, more suitable framework for the regulation of a fast-changing
media landscape, it immediately raised fears that it was intended to give more
possibilities for Mediaset to expand.
Its first goal, according to many of those
interviewed, was to avoid the judgement of the Constitutional Court, which had
established December 31st 2003 as the last date for fixing a maximum limit of
two national channels for each of the countries two major TV groups, compelling
on the one hand Mediaset to put its Rete Quattro channel onto satellite
transmission while ordering RAI to broadcast its third channel (RAI 3) without
commercials.
The Gasparri law waives this deadline, and foresees
the practical abolition of existing antitrust rules. Instead, it establishes a
new framework by which any market player may gather up to 20% of market share
across the broad media, information and communication sector defined as the SIC
– the integrated system of communications.
This sectoral definition is immense, covering not just news and general
media, but film and music production, book publishing, all forms of text
publishing, on-line services, advertising and marketing, and the public service
sector including revenue from licence fees.
The creation of a single sector for all economic
activity in the publishing, broadcasting, and information market, says critics,
enables Mediaset – the largest private player and the only one making
substantial profits – to expand its activities.
Under such an imprecise and fluid system, “dominant positions” will be
difficult to identify, they say, and limitation of ownership covers not only
one sector such as TV or radio or the press, but the whole range of economic
services in the information and communication field.
All the old antitrust limits applied to different
sectors – prohibiting more than 20% holdings in the press, or 20% in TV and
radio – are abolished under the Gasparri law, which also changes the criteria
for the appointment of the Board of Directors of RAI. The “independent” role of
the RAI President, now appointed directly by the Minister of Finance, will come
to an end.
The law will have a potentially devastating effect on
media. Observers are worried that while it apparently permits total freedom for
Mediaset, it will maintain government control over RAI, with the possibility of
a move towards possible gradual privatisation. The television landscape will be
locked as it is, with an exception for News Corporation’s Sky Italia, owned by
Rupert Murdoch. There are provisions for some money to the press, although some
believe these are sweeteners to silence opposition.
Some of those interviewed said that the law’s impact
on the digital broadcasting sector could be to increase the number of channels
and thereby provide for pluralism. Most acknowledged that this scenario was
uncertain and in all likelihood was only possible in the long term. It still
remains impossible to predict when the new technology, which makes the switch
from analogue to digital possible, will be used to allow new operators to enter
the market.
In sum, the law promotes a structure and system that
almost all those who talked to the EFJ mission (with the exception of
representatives of the Berlusconi media interests) said was potentially
dangerous for pluralism and press freedom.
The law, passed by the Italian Parliament on December
3, however was not signed into law by the President of the Republic in
December, who made use of his constitutional right to veto this legislation.
Interview:
Antitrust Authority
Giuseppe Tesauro, President of the Italian Antitrust
Authority, told the mission that the concept of the integrated communication
system (ICS) is incompatible with competition law. He said it would create
confusion in terms of defining the market.
The dominant position defined according to the ICS
does not constitute a parameter of antitrust, he says. He says that the Mammi
law has not defined the ‘relevant market’3 either. In other European countries
and within the legal regulations of the European Union, the acquis
communautaire (Article 81 and Article 82 on the abuse of dominant positions),
the tools of antitrust are based on the concept of the relevant market.
In Tesauro’s view the Gasparri law tries to mix a
future technological scenario with the present conditions, which are quite
different. The switching from analogue to digital TV, which will take place in
Italy in 2006, might allow pluralism in information. He says the question of
frequencies belongs to the regulatory field of European Union competition law,
and EU Commissioner for Internal Market would have to confirm whether it is
compatible with competition law.
Interview:
Communications Authority
Representatives of the ‘Autorita per le garanzie nelle
communicazioni’ (Italian Communications Authority) also expressed their
concerns about the difficulty of using antitrust tools measuring dominant
positions in the so-called integrated communications system. President Enzo
Cheli anticipates objections from the European Commission.
Instead, the authority suggests that regulations
regarding convergence should be dealt with at European level, especially when
considering the entry of News Corporation into the Italian market.
However, despite their fears the authority, which was
set up in 1997 charged with responsibility for monitoring respect for
broadcasting legislation and for ensuring pluralism and accuracy in the news
media, has no significant powers and can at most only signal the cases of
evident violation of the laws in force at national and European level.
Interviews: The
Impact of Cross-Ownership
Regarding cross-ownership, the proposed law says that
after 1 January 2009 cross-ownership of media across different sectors of press
and broadcasting will be allowed nationwide.
Although all actors have no objection to the principle
of cross-ownership, Italian publishers fear that under the current media
system, in which Mediaset and RAI are the only main actors4 in the broadcasting
sector and have the main share of the advertisement revenue, it will be much
easier for TV (primarily Mediaset) to buy newspaper groups than vice versa.
Alfredo Del Lucchese, Vice Director of La Repubblica5
says that purchasing broadcasting outlets for print-based groups, even if they
are in an economically healthy position, will be hardly possible. It would be
much more likely for the broadcasting giant Fininvest, which owns Mediaset, to
buy more newspaper groups. However, he does not exclude the possibility for
print media groups to use the partial privatisation of RAI to get a foothold in
TV. Some observers even mention that print groups may set up joint ventures in
the TV sector.
According to Maurizio Belpietro, Director of Il
Giornale, a newspaper controlled by Silvio Berlusconi’s brother (Paolo
Berlusconi)6, the Gasparri Law will allow a modern regulation of the media
market taking account of new technologies and its potential for pluralism. He
told the mission that the market is restricted and limits the development of
the media. He is convinced that cross ownership will be positive, and that
there is no danger that newspaper groups, which are owned by strong industrial
groups, could be bought by Mediaset or RAI. He believes News Corporation or
Italian Telecom could take advantage of the law and enter the market.
With regard to the crucial question of advertisements
and advertisement revenue, according to the legge Gasparri the amount of
advertising allowed will be increased, including at RAI. Currently each single
channel is limited to a holding of 30% of the advertising within the television
sector. The draft law plans to limit each player to a maximum of 20% of
advertising, but within the whole of the “integrated communication system”,
which covers all sectors of media.
The current TV advertisement market is worth around €6
billion, whereas the “integrated communication system” market is valued at €25 billions.
An important aspect of the Italian media market is
that advertising is cheap compared to other European countries, making it
difficult for small broadcasters to earn large revenues. Moreover, newcomers
are restricted because only existing analogue broadcasters are allowed to apply
for digital frequencies (Law 2001/66).
The combination of these factors explain why opponents
to the law fear that it will favour existing broadcasters (especially Mediaset)
who have the advantage of economy of scale and will be able to expand. There
will be few chances for smaller players and independent or alternative media to
emerge.
Emilio Fede, Director of Mediaset’s Rete Quattro, told
the mission that he is convinced that the advertisement revenue is related to
the economic health of a company and that there will be enough for both, press
and broadcasting sector. He said that the crisis in the press is related to the
high costs of the salaries of journalists.
Nevertheless, the concerns of newspaper publishers
have been widely expressed. ‘Accendiamo la tv, senza spegnere la stampa’ (Let’s
switch on the TV without switching off the press), has been the slogan of the
concerted campaign of the Italian Newspaper Publishers Association (FIEG)
against the new law.
Publishers believe the definition of the relevant
market is distorted and extremely large, and they are adamant that dominant TV,
such as Mediaset, will have an advantage in accumulating even more
advertisement revenue. They predict the publishing houses in Italy face an
enormous battle for survival.
Sebastiano Sortino, Director of FIEG, told the EFJ
that advertisement revenues in the Italian TV market account for 53.3% of the
total advertising market against the European average of 29%. Mediaset alone
controls more advertisement revenue than the entire print sector. He says that
a form of advertisement, called tele-promotion, used in television, is excluded
from the Gasparri law, and thus will not be accounted for. According to him
this is not in line with the regulations set out in the European Union’s
Television Without Frontiers Directive.
Alfredo Del Lucchese says that Mediaset through its
advertisement company Publitalia has reached about €2.589 (billion) of
revenues. He says that the law will pose a threat to the pluralism of
information as guaranteed in Article 21 of the Italian Constitution because
under its provisions Mediaset or Fininvest will be able to augment further its
advertisement revenue.
The Crisis in Public Service BroadcastingInterview
with Lucia Annunziata, President of RAI
Italy’s public broadcaster RAI, unusually among
western European broadcasters has been heavily politicised because of the
traditional policy of “lottizzazione’, whereby each of the main political
parties has been assigned its own RAI channel. This has meant that the three
channels have always been characterised as politically aligned – not so many
years ago it was quite normal to think of RAI Uno (Christian Democrat), RAI Due
(Social Democrat) and RAI Tre (Communist) in their political livery rather than
as independent units within an integrated public broadcaster that had
established forms of internal pluralism.
The fragmentation of traditional politics and the
growth of a politically defined private sector have disturbed this particular
model of public broadcasting, causing concern among RAI journalists regarding
the job security as well as their professional and social status.
Since his election there have been incidents whereby
Prime Minister Berlusconi has been critical of individual journalists in their
work. At the same time there is widespread recognition that the old system of
allocating channels to mainstream political parties is over and a modernised
system of public broadcasting is long overdue. Critical to the future is the
question of future funding. It is no surprise, then, that at the heart of the
current media crisis in Italy is the debate about the political and financial
future of RAI.
Journalists and media workers of RAI are among those
most fearful about what the future will bring. The fear is that as finances
become increasingly scarce RAI is likely to be privatised at least partly in
the coming years as many predict under the new communications law.
Lucia Annunziata, the President of RAI (elected by the
opposition) and part of a board with four members from the governmentgovernment
majority, has a reduced level of influence on RAI plicypolicy. She has said
that if the Gasparri Law is adopted she will leave her position as President??.
Though the bill seemingly offers to save public service broadcasting, in
reality there is no certainty regarding the resources to be allocated to it
(advertisement revenue is reduced and there is no mention of a licence fee).
RAI is supposed to have new obligations (i.e. terrestrial digital service by
2006 and two experimental channels immediately), for which no funding has been
earmarked.since
The law also provides a change in the composition of
its board of governors. RAI’s privatisation is to begin before the end of
January, but no one will be able to own more than one per cent of the shares,
which will leave the Minister of Economy in control.
RAI’s board of governors will have nine members –
seven of them named by the Parliamentary Monitoring Commission and two by the Ministry
of Economy.
AnnuziataAnnunziata says that within RAI there is a
fierce battle over the network’s independence from the government. She says so
far this outcome is not clear although she insists, “Italy is not an
undemocratic regime yet”.
The problem in Italy is not related to direct
political influence or restrictions on freedom of the press or free expression,
she says. Instead, it is related to the aggressive market policies of the Prime
Minister, who owns the main private TV stations and to his conflict of
interest.
RAI’s income from the license fee is much less that
enjoyed by public broadcasters in most other European countries. The fee costs
just 93 Euro per Italian household each year. In Germany each household pays
exmaple194 Euro. As a result,??? dependence on advertisement revenue is much
stronger. Lucia AnnuziataAnnunziata says that because Mediaset will have an
enourmousenormous advantage in terms of increasing advertising revenues and
will thereby be in a position to marginalise RAI.
Nevertheless, she puts the RAI crisis into the context
of the general threat facing public service television throughout Europe. She
says public serbiceservice broadcasting is in danger throughout the continent
and its specific role needs to be redefined to refocus public broadcasting and
to rebuild public confidence.redefind
Enzo Biagi, 82, well-known conservative, experienced
journalist, has produced since 1995 a daily five minutes programme ‘Il Fatto’
on RAI 1, but his programme was taken
off the air after criticising the Berlusconi government. RAI management stopped
broadcasting “Il Fatto” in June last year, a decision that rankles with Biagi.
In a telephone interview with the delegation, he said his case shows that RAI
though by law public TV, has become government TV.
Emilio Fede, Director of Rete Quattro, and an open
supporter of Berlusconi responds that the media, both public and private, are
prisoners of political opinion. He is pessimistic for the future. He gives the
example of RAI 3, which has traditionally been influenced by the left. However
as a person of the media who is well aware of the political scene he is aware
too that the passage of the legge Gasparri is vital to his own interests, since
the Mammi law and the Constitutional
Court had warned that Rete 4 should stop transmission or be transferred to
satellite transmission. With good reason he says political influence
increasingly becomes invasive into the work of journalism.
Many of the organised and full time journalists
working at RAI are members of the FNSI which has expressed concern over the
media crisis. It is a preoccupation shared by the umbrella trade unions CGIL,
CISL and UIL who have warned over the deficit of pluralism in the Italian media
landscape and the dramatic situation at RAI, in which criticism and satire has
been taken off the air.
There have been numerous common initiatives between
the FNSI and the three trade unions Cgil, Cisl and Uil, also because RAI has
refused to cover several demonstrations organised by the trade unions in
protest against the reform of the labour law, the pensions and other issues.
Nevertheless, while internal conflict continues the
launching of SKY Italia in July of 2003 shows that the scene is changing and
may radically alter in the next few years. Although still marginal, the new
network is able to take advantage of the polarised and highly politicised media
situation. It claims to practise independent and impartial journalism and
offers a serious challenge to both Mediaset and RAI. So far about 2 million
subscribers have signed up for this pay television option.
The
Crisis in
The
Press and Publishing
While print media offer a range of political views –
the main national dailies being Corriere Della Sera, La Repubblica, La Stampa,
Il Sole 24 Ore, Il Giornale – they all suffer economically from the broadcast
media dominance.
This may ultimately pose a threat to their
independence. The bottom line is profitability for Italy’s press groups, whose
owners are mostly industrialists with business interests in other sectors as
well. The Gasparri law in theory would allow the big print media, which until
now were unable to own TV stations, to expand to the broadcasting market. But
in practice, because of the disproportionate financial resources involved, most
persons interviewed say Mediaset is the only player in a position to take
advantage of the proposed legislation by making print media acquisitions.
While diversity of news and views is generally
respected in the print media, journalists say there have been attempts to
pressure Corriere della Sera. Nevertheless, publishers believe that freedom of
the press continues to be guaranteed, however, they are unsure of the future
and warn that a battle for media markets driven by economic capacity might
threaten the independence and plurality of the press in the long run.
Raffaele Fiengo, member of the editorial committee of
the Corriere della Sera believes that freedom of the press is in danger in the
longer term because of the conflict of interest of the Prime Minister.
According to him the change of the editor in chief of Corriere della Sera in
June might have been influenced by Berlusconi.
He said that the journalists of Corriere della Sera published a
statement that the independence of the newspaper was in danger. ‘Our country is
polluted by Berlusconi,’ he told the mission delegation and said that Gasparri
himself had intimidated finance reporters writing about the new law.
He adds that Corriere della Sera is owned by a group
of industrialists, who all depend under some aspects on government subsidies.
It is administered by a separate trust company, which acts on behalf of the
owners, and which is supposed to provide protection from undue interference.
However, he says that the shadow of the industrial owners is a long one that
may lead to hidden pressure on the editorial policy.
Nevertheless, journalists continue to fight for
editorial control. The editorial committee is allowed to complain regarding
editorial policy and internal rules for freedom of journalists exist on paper,
though it is hard to implement them. Censorship however does not exist.
Pier Luigi Magnaschi, Director of the Italian News
Agency ANSA, which is owned by 37 newspapers from all political groups, says
the agency is objective and does not provide any political views. Up to now
ANSA has not been criticised by any government. He says that ANSA is protected
by statutes and in the editorial board each newspaper has one vote, regardless
of its size. ‘ANSA is an important tool for everybody and can almost be
described as an institution. It is in healthy condition,’ he reports.
Civil
Society and Political Opposition
Generally speaking there has not been much public
interest in Italy in recent years regarding media ownership. The country’s
political culture has contributed to a widespread passivity over media matters.
Over the past 25 years a powerful commercial television sector has been
established, eventually concentrated in the hands of the Berlusconi ‘trust’.
There has been no effective legislation in this area.
At the same time the public broadcasting company, RAI,
subject to direct political influence and its original nature changed, has been
turned into a hybrid entity. The historical political problems have prevented
strong regulation in the media. There has never been any strong political or
civil society movement critical of this state of affairs.
As a result, attempts to change the situation have not
been successful. Three attempts were made in 1995 to bypass the political
stalemate over media and to introduce some anti-trust measures. But in
successive referendums the majority of citizens voted against a proposal to ban
ownership of more than one television channel, against a ban on commercial
breaks in broadcast movies and, finally, in favour of a partial privatisation
of RAI. These public votes have given Berlusconi supporters arguments to say
they work in the public interest.
Only now with the proposal of the new communication
law and the conflict of interest of the Prime Minister, has more opposition
emerged from within political and civil society over the media crisis.
Intellectuals, unions and writers launched a group,
called Article 21 after the last elections in May 2001. It was born out of the
belief that the political opposition was not able to defend the Italian
Constitution including Article 21 on freedom of expression.
Paolo Gentiloni, Member of Parliament and of La Margherita
(Center Left party) says that due to the strong majority and the divided left,
it has not been possible to successfully vote against the Gasparri law. He says
that a left-wing government would draft a new law with the aim to ban any
conflict of interest in the future and to find a balance between the
broadcasting and press sector.
However, the current leadership of the opposition does
not seem to be prepared to organise a united concerted campaign against the
law. With the passage of the vote and the law secured politicians have moved on
to the next issue for which the “House of Freedoms” is sharpening its knives:
pension “reform.”
Conflict
of Interest
Almost all those interviewed admit that in Italy the
conflict of interest involving Silvio Berlusconi is unprecedented at European,
even world level. Prime Minister Berlusconi is head of government and,
simultaneously, the owner of three TV channels, a newspaper, a publishing house
dealing with books and magazines, the advertisement company Publitalia. The
Prime Minister has a wide open space to exert unfair advantages and undue
political pressure on media.
The conflict of interest is not regulated by law. This
is as much the responsibility of the current political opposition that, when
governing from 1996 to 2001, did nothing to avoid the unacceptable mix of
personal and government interests as far as media are concerned.
The present situation – as influential journalists and
publishers’ representatives reported - is already in favour of Mediaset in
particular, which has a dominant position that continues to increase, causing
damage to the press, newspapers and magazines.
At the same time five TV news networks out of six
support the Prime Minister; dozens of senior RAI journalists have been
replaced; and Berlusconi exercises undue influence on the TV landscape, with
the exception of the satellite pay channel Sky News. The banishment of Enzo
Biagi, who told his story to the delegation, of Michele Santoro7, the comedian
Daniele Luttazzi as well as the appointment of Flavio Catteneo, a supporter of
the ruling coalition, as director general of RAI on 27 March 2003 reflect this
undue influence. Anyone refusing to fall
into line with the mainstream control of media faces victimisation is banished.
Nevertheless, Berlusconi supporters insist that charges of undue political
pressures are meaningless. At several occasions recently Berlusconi said that
about 70-80% of all journalists lean to the left and only 20% back the centre-right”.
This would include journalists working for Mediaset.
Lorenzo del Boca, President of the Journalists’
‘ordine’ (Ordine dei Giornalisti) said to the EFJ delegation that for
journalists to fulfil their professional duty it was paramount to defend the
citizens’ right to be informed. In this was under current conditions a daily
fight.
Conclusions
1. It is impossible not to conclude that the media
crisis in Italy is profound and serious. There is a deeply flawed system of
management, a lack of public awareness, an element of political paralysis, and
a deep sense of professional unease within Italian journalism about the future
of media.
2. Nevertheless, the situation has not yet
deteriorated to a level that sees press freedom and the core democratic right
of free expression compromised. Indeed, Italy has a vibrant and plural printed
press, it has a vigorous and robust diverse radio landscape, and the country’s
journalists are able to assert their rights to freedom of speech, whether it
concerns concentration of media ownership or the conflict of interest of the
Prime Minister.
3. The crisis has been exacerbated by the combative
and intemperate style of the Prime Minister who has sought to isolate and
humiliate opponents, both political and media professional, rather than
engaging in a proper debate about the measures needed to create a balanced and
transparent system for regulating media in Italy in line with the standards of
other European democracies.
4. Responsibility for the parlous state of the media
landscape rests with successive governments that have failed to engage in a
public debate and take appropriate action to ensure a proper separation between
the exercise of political power and the operation of mass media.
5. The efforts to resolve the conflict of commercial
and political interest of the Prime Minister in Italy by the establishment of
so-called ‘blind trust’ has not been sufficient to secure public and
professional confidence. Elected persons should be obliged to declare that they
are not qualified to take decisions, where there are clear and specific
conflicting interests.
6. The Italian crisis, however, is unlikely to be
solved only at an Italian national level. While much can be done within the
country, the issues at the heart of the crisis must be also addressed at
European level.
7. Problems of media concentration, dominant market
positions, media globalisation, pluralism, the conflict between commercial and
political interests concern all democratic governments, both within Europe and
around the world. The Italian experience is potentially dangerous in Europe,
because it sets standards that may be followed by new and emerging European
democracies that have still not been able to successfully regulate their own
public and private media landscape.
8. In particular it is clear that increasing
transnational media ownership in Europe (especially in the enlargement
countries) and the lack of models for regulation in the new media landscape
suggest that there is an urgent need for European Union rules on
cross-ownership.
Recommendations
The Mission recommends
1. That urgent actions are needed to carry out further
legal reform of the Italian media landscape. The following measures are
strongly recommended:
* To withdraw the new law on communication and to take
a fresh initiative to define the legal framework for Italian media – this time
involving all media professional groups and Italian civil society.
* To carry out a genuine reform of public service
broadcasting guaranteeing political and editorial independence and financial
autonomy. In particular, urgent action is needed to increase income through the
licence fee, which is at present one of the lowest in the EU. This will help
reduce dependency upon advertisement revenue.
* To adopt clear antitrust rules and media regulation
based upon the number of programmes or products, independent of its technical
means, a definition of relevant markets that takes account of sector of
activity and advertisement revenue.
* To establish a clear mandate for the Anti Trust
Authority and the Communication Authority to independently enforce their
decisions.
* To ensure that advertising in broadcasting
(including tele-promotions) are in line with EU guidelines within the
Television without Frontiers Directive.
* To review cross-ownership rules at national and
European level to ensure that all media have equal access to the media market.
2. That action is taken to ensure a clear separation
between the exercise of political
authority, control of the media and the practice of journalism,
including:
* Legislation, at national and European level, to
prohibit politicians or political candidates from having substantial commercial
interests in the media. A law preventing conflict of interest must be
established. The EFJ should request the European Commission to propose
legislation in this matter.
* A section regulating conflict of interests in the
Italian Communication Law or any other European media law.
* National monitoring organisations and European media
monitoring groups to examine and report on issues related to media ownership
and political activity to ensure that conflicts of interest and potential
conflicts of interest are properly recognised and dealt with.
3. That action
is taken to strengthen editorial and journalistic independence through:
* A ban on censorship imposed on the editorial staff
from outside, either through government, public authorities or private
interests.
* The removal of threats to the exercise of
professional journalism imposed on the editorial staff from internal sources
seking to suppress information on the financial affairs, business or other
activities of a parent company or its business partners or of unfairly
promoting the economic interests of advertisers, sponsors or business partners.
* The establishment of editorial statutes and other
provisions safeguarding the independence of journalists in all European media
including public service broadcasting.
Appendices
I. Terms of reference
II. List of delegation
III. List of people delegation met
IV. EFJ Position Paper on Legislating for a Democratic
Media
V. Press Clippings of press conference, November 7,
2004 (print version only)
VI. Bibliography
I. Terms of
Reference for the EFJ Mission of Inquiry to Italy
Arising from the decision of the 2003 Annual Meeting
of the European Federation of Journalists, the EFJ Steering Committee has
authorised a mission to visit Italy to be organised in co-operation with the
FNSI.
The mission will meet with journalists, senior media
executives, relevant political and civil society experts and figures and will
examine and consider:
1. The current conditions for media pluralism and
independent journalism taking account of concentration of media ownership and
political influence over Italian media;
2. The editorial conditions for independent public
service broadcasting;
3. The legal and regulatory framework for the protection
of pluralism, editorial independence and ethical journalism.
The mission will make a report with recommendations on
further actions needed for
* Reform of the media landscape in Italy,
professionally and legally, particularly concerning broadcasting, to protect
and secure editorial independence and plurality;
* A clear separation between the exercise of political
authority, control of the media market and the practice of journalism ;
* Strengthening editorial freedom and journalistic
independence;
Renewal of solidarity between media unions and
journalists’ groups within Europe and their colleagues in Italy.
II. List of
delegation
Mogens Blicher Bjerregard Danish Union of Journalists
Gustl Glattfelder DJV-Deutscher Journalisten-Verband
Mario Guastoni Syndicat
National des Journalistes (France)
Björn Mansson Finnish
Union of Journalists
Jean-Paul Marthoz Independent
Media Expert (Human Rights Watch)
Juan Antonio
Prieto Federación de
Asociaciones de la Prensa Española
Renate Schroeder European
Federation of Journalists
Aidan White International
Federation of Journalists
Antonio
Velluto Federazione della
Stampa Italiana
Paolo
Serventi Longhi Federazione
Della Stampa Italiana
(Co-ordinator of
the Mission)
III. List of
people met by delegation
Lucia
Annunziata, President RAI
Maurizio
Belpietro, Director Il Giornale
Enzo Biagi, journalist (Telephone conference)
Lorenzo Del
Boca, President, Ordini dei Giornalisti
Dr.
Emilio Carelli and Dr.Tullio Camiglieri, Sky
Prof Enzo
Cheli, President Authority Telecomunicazioni
Emilio Fede, Director of TG4 (Mediaset); (Telephone
conference)
Raffaele
Fiengo, Editorial committee of Corriere della Sera (Telephone conference)
Stefano
Folli, Director of Corriere della Sera (Telephone conference)
MP Paolo
Gentiloni, La Margherita (Center left party)
Giuseppe
Giulietti, Articolo 21
Pier Luigi
Magnaschi, Director Ansa (Italian National News Agency)
Roberto Natale,
RAI Union of Journalists (USIGRAI)
Alfredo Del
Lucchese, Vice Director of La Repubblica
Sebastiano Sortino, Director Fieg (Italian National
Publishers Association)
Giuseppe Tesauro, President of Authority Antitrust
IV. EFJ Position
Paper: Legislating for a Democratic
Media
15/01/2003
Policy Document from the European Federation of
Journalists
1. GENERAL
PRINCIPLES:
1.1 The European Federation of Journalists, the
regional organisation of the International Federation of Journalists
representing more than 280,000 journalists in 31 countries, believes that
professional journalists, organised in free and independent trade unions, play
a key role in the creation and maintenance of a democratic media culture.
1.2 The EFJ/IFJ believes that democracy depends upon
the extension of freedom of expression and social justice worldwide. In the
view of the EFJ/IFJ, democracy depends upon an understanding of the special and
particular role of the media in democratic society.
1.3 The EFJ/IFJ believes that media must respect the
professional and ethical principles of press freedom upon which the freedom of
expression and opinion relies.
The EFJ/IFJ defines press freedom as:
"In line with Article 10 of the European
Convention of Human Rights, the right to publish, editorial independence and
freedom from restraint, which are essential to enable journalists and media
professionals to advance the public interest by publishing, broadcasting or
circulating facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot
make responsible judgments."
The EFJ/IFJ believes this freedom can only be
expressed when there exists:
a) A free, independent and pluralistic media
reflecting diversity of opinion;
b) A free flow of information enabling full democratic
exchange in all communities, whether based on geography, ethnic origins, shared
values or common language;
c) Statutory defence and protection of citizens'
rights to freedom of information and the right to know;
d) Respect for editorial independence and the professional
status of journalists.
1.4 The EFJ/IFJ considers that the treatment of news
and information as a commodity must not override or interfere with the duty of
journalists and media to inform the public.
1.5 The EFJ/IFJ believes in the coexistence of public
service and private broadcasting in order to protect independence, pluralism
and variety in programming to the enrichment of all sections of society.
1.6 The EFJ/IFJ affirms that responsibility for
ethical conduct and maintenance of the highest standards in journalism rests
with media professionals through systems of self-regulation.
1.7 The EFJ/IFJ strongly believes that the law should
not interfere in matters, which are the proper responsibility of working
journalists: namely, the gathering, preparation, selection and transmission of
information;
1.8 The EFJ/IFJ believes that any harmonisation of
media laws at regional level should take the highest standards and best
regulations as a model;
1.9 The EFJ/IFJ calls on the institutions of the
European Union -- the Parliament, Commission and Council -- to ensure that no
legal or policy initiatives are taken without consultation with representative
journalists' organisations.
2. PRIORITIES FOR ACTION AT EUROPEAN LEVEL:
The political institutions of the Europe must protect
the rights of citizens and promote transparency, understanding and
participation in the development of policies designed to strengthen the social,
economic and political cohesion of communities. The special role of media in
this process requires that legal protection for media independence and support
for professionalism in journalism should be of the highest priority.
2.1 The EFJ/IFJ declares that limiting concentration
of ownership/ cross ownership and developing anti-trust legislation at European
level is a precondition for a democratic and independent media in Europe and
should be treated as a priority.
2.2 The EFJ/IFJ considers the implementation of the
principle of editorial independence (editorial statutes) in all European media
as a necessity to guarantee the professional independence of journalists and a
pluralistic press.
2.3 The EFJ/IFJ believes that creating structures for
dialogue to bring together legitimate representatives of workforce and
management to discuss the economic and social development of the media and
practical implementation of laws, policies and standards is essential to
safeguarding a free and democratic media.
3. EUROPEAN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
A European Freedom of Information Act should be
prepared which:
a) Adopts the principles of Freedom of Information
Acts in the United States, Sweden and other countries, and guarantees all
journalists access to information from Community and public authorities (ruling
out exclusive access to such information);
b) Provides protection to public-sector employees, as
in the US Employee Health and Safety Whistleblower Protection Act, and
safeguards reporters' sources of information on criminal or anti-social actions
by public- or private-sector enterprises against any form of
discrimination";
c) Recognises the general obligation to give
information of public interests to journalists applying to both private and
public organisations;
d) Includes protection of internal press freedom
through a framework directive on editorial statutes ensuring editorial
freedoms;
e) Ensures the principle of the application of the
social charter to all media enterprises without any restrictions concerning
journalists.
PROTECTION OF SOURCES:
A European Freedom of Information Act should include
provisions to:
Permit all journalists to maintain professional
secrecy and to protect the identity of sources of information including
researched material;
4. SELF-REGULATION AND ETHICS OF JOURNALISM:
4.1 The EFJ/IFJ believes that codes of ethics or codes
of conduct must be drawn up by the professionals themselves.
4.2 The EFJ/IFJ Code of Conduct provides a code of
ethics adopted by all national representative journalists organisations in
Europe. Therefore, the EFJ/IFJ Code of Conduct provides the basis for a common
European understanding on ethical issues through voluntary adoption of
journalists and publishers. In this area EFJ/IFJ sees no active role neither
for the Commission nor for national governments.
4.3 The EFJ/IFJ calls upon the European Union and the
Council of Europe to encourage editors and management to establish together
with the journalists the application of the rules by which the code shall be
adopted.
5. EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE
5.1 To safeguard editorial independence a European
framework legislation should be introduced in consultation with the
representative professional organisations and social partners to ensure that:
? There is no
censorship imposed on the editorial staff from outside, neither through
government, public authorities or private interests;
? There is no
restriction or impediment to the exercise of professional journalism imposed on
the editorial staff from internal sources with the intention of suppressing
information regarding the financial affairs, business or other activities of
the parent company or its business partners or of unfairly promoting the
economic interests of advertisers, sponsors or business partners;
? Editorial
statutes and other provisions safeguarding the independence of journalists are
introduced in all European media.
6. STRUCTURES FOR DIALOGUE
6.1 The EFJ/IFJ supports the creation of structures
for dialogue between journalists and editors and publishers, both in the
written and audiovisual media in order to promote better understanding and a
common approach on professional, social and economic development of media. The
EFJ welcomes the initiative of social dialogue in the audiovisual sector of the
EU.
6.2 Such structures for dialogue should bring together
legitimate representatives of workforce, journalists and editorial management
to discuss:
a) The economic and social development of the media,
and in particular, the need to limit monopolisation which can threaten
diversity of information sources necessary for the practice of democracy at all
levels in society;
b) The problems of unemployment and job insecurity
whether caused by concentration of mass media ownership or otherwise;
c) The practical implementation of laws, policies and
standards designed to assist in the development of a free and pluralistic
media;
d) Professional, economic and social conditions within
media including:
1. The development of openness and transparency in the
business and social affairs of all media enterprises and the creation of works
councils;
2. The maintenance of independent and recognised
systems of professional training which reflect the need for high quality
journalism, independent and distinct from political and commercial imperatives;
3. Legal recognition of mechanisms for the defence of
freedom of information and independent journalism such as editorial statutes;
4. The creation of secure working conditions within
media enterprises through instruments such as collective agreements, based upon
equality of opportunity and including limitations on exploitation of freelance
and casual labour.
7. ACCESS TO
THE PROFESSION
7.1 Access to
the profession should be free. The professional level of future journalists
should be as high as possible.
7.2 Trainee
journalists must undergo proper training under conditions agreed by publishers
and journalists' unions.
7.3 Appointments are restricted to qualified journalists,
that is, persons who have minimum professional qualifications agreed by
journalists' unions and publishers. Such qualified journalists should be
recognised as such in collective agreements. Employers accept that is the duty
of the media in general and the employer in particular to reflect the society
it serves.
8. CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP
8.1 The EFJ/IFJ believes the process of monopolisation
at a national level and transnational concentration of media ownership reduces
the number of independent sources of information available to the public and
is, therefore, a threat to media diversity and pluralism.
8.2 Therefore, legislation on concentration of
ownership at European level should:
? Harmonise
national laws governing the concentration of media ownership at the highest
level;
? Restrict the
extension of media groups' activities through merger, anti-trust and
cross-ownership legislation;
? Regulate the
activities of Community-based media groups in the accession countries;
? Oblige
transnational media enterprises to disclose the full extent of their global
holdings in each of the countries in which they operate;
? Limit
concentration of media ownership;
? Divest
existing media properties where there are unacceptable levels of concentration.
9. CLAUSE OF CONSCIENCE
9.1 Journalists must have the right to act according
to their conscience in the exercise of journalism. In case of fundamental
change in the political, philosophical or religious line of the employer, a
journalist may put an end to his or her contract, without notice, and be paid
compensation equivalent to what he or she would have received in case of
termination of his or her contract by the employer.
9.2 No journalist should be directed by an employer or
any person acting on behalf of the employer to commit any act or thing that the
journalist believes would breach his or her professional ethics, whether
defined by a code of ethics adopted by journalists collected at national level
or that would infringe the international Code of Principles for the Conduct of
Journalism as adopted by the EFJ/IFJ. No journalist can be disciplined in any
way for asserting his or her rights to act according their conscience.
Brussels, January 2003.
V. Press Clippings of press conference, November 7,
2004
(print version only)
VI. Bibliography
* IFJ Warns Europe of Dangers in New Italian Media
Laws; 24/07/2003
www.ifj.org/default.asp?index=1811&Language=EN
* World Journalists Back Strike by Italian Press: “A
National Crisis, With Global Consequences” -06/06/2003
www.ifj.org/default.asp?index=1666&Language=EN
* EFJ 2003: Resolution on Freedom of Information,
Pluralism and Public Service Broadcasting in Europe. On “Public Broacasting Campaign for All”
Campaign
www.save-public-broadcasting.org/default.asp?index=1780&Language=EN
* Reporters sans frontières:
www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6393
* BBC Online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2950538.stm
* European Journalism Centre
www.ejc.nl/jr/emland/italy.html
* Globalpolicy.org
www.globalpolicy.org/nations/corrupt/2001/0426it.htm
1 On 25 November 2003, the EP Parliamentary Committee
on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs nominated Ms Boogerd-Quaak,
MEP, as a rapporteur on this issue.
2 In October 1984, officials in several Italian cities
shut down his television stations for broadcasting illegally. This spelled
potential disaster for the heavily indebted Fininvest group. Within days, Craxi,
the then Socialist Prime Minister, signed a decree that allowed Mr Berlusconi’s
stations to stay on air. After some parliamentary tussles, this decree became
law. Craxi’s decree did nothing to prevent concentration of ownership. But
neither did the Mammi law (named after Oscar Mammi, the telecoms minister),
passed in 1990. Tailor-made to suit Mr Berlusconi with his three national
networks, it said that no single group could own more than three out of the 12
networks that would be licensed. The coalition government of the day, which
depended heavily on Craxi’s Socialist Party, pushed through this controversial
measure despite the resignation of five ministers in protest. In effect, this
law entrenched the duopoly between Mediaset and RAI.
3 Definition of relevant market (EU
legislation)(http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26073.htm)
The relevant market combines the product market and
the geographic market, defined as follows:
* a relevant product market comprises all those
products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable
by the consumer by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and
their intended use;
* a relevant geographic market comprises the area in
which the firms concerned are involved in the supply of products or services
and in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous
4 Mediaset, together with RAI, control almost
completely the domestic television market, which explains why the term
‘duopoly’ is currently used.
5 With a circulation of 650,000, La Repubblica is the
second biggest daily. Owned by Carlo de Bendetti, its political position is
centre-left.
6 The 230,000 circulation Il Giornale openly supports
the government.
7 Michele Santoro’s programme “Sciusià” was taken off
in July 2002 after he had openly criticed Berlusconi as well as on the ‘Biagi
affair’ itself.
12
European Federation of Journalists Report of Mission to Italy, November 6-8, 2003
You can read also, other acts and
documents from this web site:
Italian Press Syndacate