The OSCE
Representative on Freedom of the Media 28 November 2013
Online media is the future of free speech By Joan Barata Mir
F
reedom of expression and freedom of information are two age-old freedoms originally established and defined by the end of the 18th century. Because the context and reality in which they were conceived, they cannot be compared to our current global communications market and complex public sphere; these freedoms have undergone a perpetual process of reinterpretation and adaptation to the times and technology. Of course, protecting those who express their views at a social club or standing on a wooden box in a park is completely different from protecting the access of citizens to mainstream broadcast media. Even if different regimes and degrees of public intervention are required, what remains at stake is exactly the same: allowing the widest range of voices to be heard and preserving the freedom to form opinions in a democratic society. Freedom of speech protects every citizen’s capacity to reach others through the dissemination of all types of expression and by any means or platform. Journalists are also entitled to particular protections in many different legal environments. However, freedom of expression and freedom of information are universal rights not only in terms of individual reach, but also in terms of applicability to all imaginable means and technologies. These ideas are fundamental to foreseeing the future of free media. Technology will play an essential role in reshaping the public sphere and transforming the conditions for pluralistic and democratic dialogue. It will have the capacity to multiply the number of voices able to disseminate ideas with a global reach. However, as with any other SEE Future, PAGE 8
www.osce.org/fom
Volume 1, Number 1
Freedom is the essence, not just the media By Roland Bless
I
t is a basic truth that no government is immune from interfering with media freedom, some more often or more systematically than others, but it happens across the board. It was probably this simple truth that made the OSCE participating States realize that some outside watchdog might help restrain or, in the best of case, stop governmental interference with free media. This was in the year 1997. We can applaud the decision makers back then for their farsightedness. Now, let’s be honest and ask ourselves, would a similar decision be made in 2013? A sobering “most likely not” would be a fair assessment. So, if the collective wisdom of 1997 seems to have eroded among participating States, what is the order of the day? Let’s do away with some misunderstandings. First, the claim that the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media uses a double standard to analyze media events. Defending free media is not a valueneutral task. Quite the contrary, it means one must adopt a certain bias. Just as police officers don’t clap their hands at the sight of every correctly parked car but hand out a parking citation to one or two out of some hundred cars, the Representative can and must not be expected to praise situations that are good. No! What she needs to do is point the finger at shortcomings and deficiencies. Therefore, the oftenused term double standard is off the mark when it comes to defending media freedom. The severity of the shortcoming is the benchmark, not geographical balance. Second, the belief that media must improve their professionalism before they can be free.
a figure? Defending the very freedom to call for freedom will also improve the quality of media. It is an illusion to think that it could ever be the other way round. Third, the claim that freedom of expression does not extend to the Internet. The dramatic technological changes since 1975 have significantly affected the media landscape and, of course, these new formats of media and media-like content enjoy the same protection as traditional media. How can this obvious fact be challenged? From print to the telegraph, from radio to satellite and the Internet, it was technology that changed the foundations of media. And the trend seems to be for the worse rather than for the better. What is the role of an OSCE Chairmanship in this? It is to respect and defend the independence of the Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Gili Perl/Piktochart Media, because it is the Office’s independence that allows it to Generally speaking, members of highlight where there are problems to the media are not operating on a level remedy. If participating States don’t want playing field with governments. Hence, to react to the recommendations of the we can never condition the level of Representative, so be it. But to suggest media freedom on good behaviour of that the Representative stop fingerjournalists. Freedom must include the pointing is against the very essence of the collective insight that led to the freedom to make mistakes. If there was a level playing field, there establishment of the Office 15 years ago. Against this background, any would not be a need for lengthy court proceedings at the European Court Chairmanship will be confronted with for Human Rights in Strasbourg; there the need to address new phenomena would not be more than two dozen in the world of media. In a consensusunresolved murders of journalists since driven environment, this is not always the year 2000 alone and there would not easy. But one basic assumption did be a record number, meaning well more not change and that is the notion of than 100, journalists in jail in the OSCE freedom. region. How can the 57 countries of the Bless is spokesperson of the Delegation of Northern Hemisphere (all of which Switzerland to the OSCE for the 2014 Swiss have voluntarily subscribed to democratic Chairmanship and a former Director of the OSCE commitments) tolerate such Representative’s Office.
Freedom of expression: From cave paintings to the Internet By Frane Maroević
W
hen our ancestors first took a piece of charcoal, bone or a colorful stone to illustrate the walls of their caves, they clearly wanted to communicate and express ideas. Until the invention of writing and paper, our ability to express ourselves and exchange ideas with an extended audience was limited to direct, oral communication. Paper allowed us to share information. The invention of printing, radio, television and the Internet made this information exchange faster and more widespread. From the beginning of time, technology, innovation and better transport and communication connections gave more and more people the ability to share their
ideas and experiences, stimulating an ever-increasing and inclusive debate. Today through the Internet we are engaged in a global debate with almost 2.5 billion people. It is nothing new that the vast majority of people use this technology to find out the latest gossip on Bruno Mars or engage in a passionate debate on whether Miley Cyrus should have been twerking. Thousands of years ago people gathered in town squares and at markets and met on doorsteps to gossip about well-known local characters. In addition, they exchanged information about events affecting their daily lives – politics, religion, security, health, weather, etc. The invention of printing gave us newspapers through which the issues that affected people’s lives were distributed and shared. Newspapers were followed by the radio, television
and now the Internet. In essence the conversations have not dramatically changed; all that’s changed is that today we are able to have such conversations on a global scale. With each technological advance we find out so much more about our world, we are able to find out in greater detail and speed what is happening in our countries, in our neighbourhood. As Gutenberg’s printing press in the 15th century spurred a greater exchange of ideas, stimulating a renaissance from politics, religion and art, to science and technology, today the Internet is the greatest forum for the exchange of ideas and innovations. The value of this exchange for our development and prosperity is immeasurable. This means that the Internet needs to remain an open and public forum for freedom of opinion and expression. The OSCE participating States
Frane Maroević Senior Adviser
Commentary OSCE/Jonathan Perfect
recognize the value of free expression as a fundamental human right and a basic component of democratic society. They instructed the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media to support them in fully complying with their own principles and commitments on free expression and free media. As technology develops, our basic need and right to freely exchange information and ideas will not change. And we can safely predict that the only thing that will change is the speed and the magnitude of this exchange of ideas.
2
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
28 November 2013
THE MANDATE The Representative will concentrate on rapid response to serious non-compliance with OSCE principles and commitments
T
hrough the efforts of many participating States and people, including the first Representative, Freimut Duve, who championed the idea of a unique body that should be responsible to monitor the organization that founded it, in 1997, that body, the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, was established.
serious non-compliance therewith, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will seek direct contacts, in an appropriate manner, with the participating State and with other parties concerned, assess the facts, assist the participating State, and contribute to the resolution of the issue. He or she will keep the Chairman-in-Office informed about his or her activities and report to the Permanent Council on their results, and on his or her observations and recommendations. Decision No. 193 of the Permanent (4) The OSCE Representative on Freedom Council of the Media does not exercise a juridical 5 November 1997 function, nor can his or her involvement in Establishment of the Office of the OSCE any way prejudge national or international Representative on Freedom of the Media, legal proceedings concerning alleged Mandate of the OSCE Representative on human rights violations. Equally, national or Freedom of the Media international proceedings concerning alleged (1) The participating States reaffirm the human rights violations will not necessarily principles and commitments they have preclude the performance of his or her tasks adhered to in the field of free media. They as outlined in this mandate. recall in particular that freedom of expression (5) The OSCE Representative on Freedom is a fundamental and internationally of the Media may collect and receive recognized human right and a basic information on the situation of the media component of a democratic society and from all bona fide sources. He or she will that free, independent and pluralistic media in particular draw on information and are essential to a free and open society and assessments provided by the ODIHR. The accountable systems of government. Bearing OSCE Representative on Freedom of the in mind the principles and commitments Media will support the ODIHR in assessing they have subscribed to within the OSCE, conditions for the functioning of free, and fully committed to the implementation independent and pluralistic media before, of paragraph 11 of the Lisbon Summit during and after elections. Declaration, the participating States decide (6) The OSCE Representative on Freedom to establish, under the aegis of the Permanent of the Media may at all times collect and Council, an OSCE Representative on receive from participating States and other Freedom of the Media. The objective is to interested parties (e.g. from organizations strengthen the implementation of relevant or institutions, from media and their OSCE principles and commitments as well representatives, and from relevant NGOs) as to improve the effectiveness of concerted requests, suggestions and comments related action by the participating States based on to strengthening and further developing their common values. The participating States compliance with relevant OSCE principles confirm that they will co-operate fully with and commitments, including alleged serious the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the instances of intolerance by participating Media. He or she will assist the participating States which utilize media in violation of States, in a spirit of co-operation, in their the principles referred to in the Budapest continuing commitment to the furthering of Document, Chapter VIII, paragraph 25, free, independent and pluralistic media. and in the Decisions of the Rome Council (2) Based on OSCE principles and Meeting, Chapter X. He or she may forward commitments, the OSCE Representative on requests, suggestions and comments to the Freedom of the Media will observe relevant Permanent Council, recommending further media developments in all participating action where appropriate. States and will, on this basis, and in close (7) The OSCE Representative on Freedom co-ordination with the Chairman-in-Office, of the Media will also routinely consult with advocate and promote full compliance with the Chairman-in-Office and report on a OSCE principles and commitments regarding regular basis to the Permanent Council. He or freedom of expression and free media. In this she may be invited to the Permanent Council respect he or she will assume an early-warning to present reports, within this mandate, on function. He or specific matters she will address related to freedom They recall in particular serious problems of expression and that freedom of expression caused by, inter free, independent is a fundamental and interalia, obstruction and pluralistic nationally recognized human of media activities media. He or right and a basic component of and unfavorable she will report a democratic society and that working conditions annually to the free, independent and pluralistic for journalists. He Implementation media are essential to a free and or she will closely Meeting on Human open society and accountable co-operate with the Dimension Issues systems of government.” participating States, or to the OSCE the Per manent Review Meeting Council, the Office on the status of for Democratic Institutions and Human the implementation of OSCE principles Rights (ODIHR), the High Commissioner on and commitments in respect of freedom National Minorities and, where appropriate, of expression and free media in OSCE other OSCE bodies, as well as with national participating States. and international media associations. (8) The OSCE Representative on Freedom (3) The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will not communicate with and of the Media will concentrate, as outlined in will not acknowledge communications from this paragraph, on rapid response to serious any person or organization which practices non-compliance with OSCE principles or publicly condones terrorism or violence. and commitments by participating States (9) The OSCE Representative on in respect of freedom of expression and Freedom of the Media will be an eminent free media. In the case of an allegation of international personality with long-standing
“
Gili Perl/Easel.ly
relevant experience from whom an impartial performance of the function would be expected. In the performance of his or her duty the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will be guided by his or her independent and objective assessment regarding the specific paragraphs composing this mandate. (10) The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will consider serious cases arising in the context of this mandate and occurring in the participating State of which he or she is a national or resident if all the parties directly involved agree, including the participating State concerned. In the absence of such agreement, the matter will be referred to the Chairman-in-Office, who may appoint a Special Representative to address this particular case. (11) The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will co-operate, on the basis of regular contacts, with relevant international organizations, including the United Nations and its specialized agencies and the Council of Europe, with a view to enhancing coordination and avoiding duplication. (12) The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will be appointed in accordance with OSCE procedures by the Ministerial Council upon the recommendation of the Chairman-in-Office after consultation with the participating States. He or she will serve for a period of three years which may be extended under the same procedure for one further term of three years. (13) The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will be established and staffed in accordance with this mandate and with OSCE Staff Regulations. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and his or her Office, will be funded by the participating States through the OSCE budget according to OSCE financial regulations. Details will
be worked out by the informal Financial Committee and approved by the Permanent Council. (14) The Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will be located in Vienna. Annex to PC.DEC/193 of 5 November 1997 Interpretative Statement under paragraph 79 (Chapter 6) of the Final Recommendations of the Helsinki Consultations By the delegation of France: “The following Member States of the Council of Europe reaffirm their commitment to the provisions relating to freedom of expression, including the freedom of the media, in the European Convention on Human Rights, to which they are all contracting parties. In their view, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media should also be guided by these provisions in the fulfilment of his/her mandate. Our countries invite all other parties to the European Convention on Human Rights to subscribe to this statement. Albania, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Czech Republic, Turkey.”
28 November 2013
3
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
THE REPRESENTATIVES Safeguarding freedom of the media in the OSCE region since 1998 Freimut Duve (1998-2004)
F
reimut Duve is a German politician, human rights activist, writer and journalist. He served as the first OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media from 1998 through 2003. He was born in 1936 in Würzburg. Duve studied modern history, sociology, political science and English literature at the University of Hamburg. Duve was political editor at Stern magazine from 1969 through 1970. From 1970 through 1989 he was chief editor of rororo-AKTUELL, Germany’s leading political pocketbook series, a part of Rowohlt publishing house. While there, the house published the political works of Vaclav Havel and Mario Soare’s manifesto against the dictatorship in Portugal. It also published yearbooks on human rights in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1980’s. He was a member of the Bundestag with the Social Democratic Party from 1980 to 1998 representing Hamburg. Duve won the Hannah Arendt Award for Political Thinking in 1997. His publications include “Kap ohne Hoffnung” (1965), “Die Restauration entlässt ihre Kinder” (1968), “Der Rassenkrieg findet nicht statt” (1970), “Aufbrüche - Die Chronik der Republik 1961-1986” (1986), “Vom Krieg in der Seele” (1994), “Freedom and Responsibility”, four editions of the “Yearbook” (1998/1999 - 1999/2000 - 2000/2001 – 2001-2002), “The Caucasus – Defence of the Future” (2001) and “We are Defending our Future” mobile.culture.container. (2001-2003). Duve is retired and lives outside Hamburg.
OSCE/ Mikhail Evstafiev
“I want to ring an alarm bell about a severe problem. I refer to the murder of a practicing journalist, wherever it occurs, for something he has written. This is the most brutal form of censorship: it is censorship by killing.” – Freimut Duve, speaking before the Permanent Council, 23 April 1998
Miklós Haraszti (2004-2010)
M
iklós Haraszti is a Hungarian writer, journalist, human rights advocate and university professor. He served as the second OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media from March 2004 to March 2010. Haraszti was born in Jerusalem in 1945. Haraszti studied philosophy and literature at Budapest University and in 1996 received an honorary degree from Northwestern University in the United States. In 1976 Haraszti co-founded the Hungarian Democratic Opposition Movement. In 1980 he became editor of the samizdat periodical Beszélo. In 1989 he participated in “roundtable” negotiations regarding the transition to free elections. He was a member of the Hungarian Parliament from 1990 to 1994. Haraszti later lectured on democratization and media politics at many universities. Haraszti has written several essays and books, including “A Worker in a Worker's State” and “The Velvet Prison,” both of which have been translated into several languages. His essays have been published in The New York Times and The Washington Post. He speaks English, Russian and German. Haraszti lives in Budapest and is the United Nations Rapporteur for Human Rights in Belarus.
OSCE/ Mikhail Evstafiev
“The OSCE commitments oblige all participating States to provide safety to journalists, not just for the sake of justice but also for the sake of democracy, which becomes an empty name without fearless fact-finding and discussion by the media.” – Miklós Haraszti, speaking before the Permanent Council, 4 March 2010
Dunja Mijatović (2010-)
D
unja Mijatović of Bosnia and Herzegovina was appointed OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on March 11, 2010. Mijatović is an expert in media law and regulation. In 1998, as one of the founders of the Communications Regulatory Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, she helped create a legal and policy framework for media in a complex postwar society. She also participated in the establishment of a self-regulatory Press Council and the first Free Media Helpline in South Eastern Europe. Mijatović was appointed Chairperson of the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities in 2007, the largest network of media regulators in the world. She held this post until her appointment as the Representative. From 2005 to 2007 she chaired the Council of Europe’s Group of Specialists on freedom of expression and information in times of crisis. In that role, she was instrumental in steering a Declaration on the protection and promotion of investigative journalism through the Council’s Committee of Ministers. She also played a key role in developing guidelines on protecting freedom of expression and information in times of crisis. Mijatović has written extensively on New Media topics. She has also served as a consultant on projects relating to media regulation and new technologies in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. She is a graduate of the University of Sarajevo, University of Bologna, University of Sussex and London School of Economics.
Deutsche Welle/K. Danetzki
“This situation must change and it must change immediately. And to make it happen, all that is necessary is the political will to make it happen.” – Dunja Mijatović, speaking before the Permanent Council, 13 June 2013
4
28 November 2013
@osce_rfom
facebook.com/osce.rfom
youtube.com/user/oscerfom
issuu.com/osce_rfom
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
PHOTOS: OSCE Academy/OSCE/Alexander Kim/Curtis Budden/Firuza Gulomaseinova/Milan Obradovic/Eric Gourlan/Ana Dautovic/Milan Obradovic/Fabiola Haxhillari/Maria Dotsenko/Ilia Dohel/Jonathan Perfect/Fran
Szilard Kovacs/Igor Schimbﾄフor/Bakhtiyor Tukhtabaev/Ihor Sergeiev/Andrew Offenbacher/Oksana Pol
28 November 2013
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
rfom15.org
ne Maroević/Mikhail Evstafiev/Adeline Hulin/Dieter Nagl/Christian Moeller/Dinka Zivalj//Cliff Volpe/Lubo Kotek/Lubomir Kotek/Ayhan Evrensel/iStockphoto/Olga Roşca/Hasan Sopa/Gayane Ter-Stepanyan/Igor Schimbător/
lyuga/Susanna Lööf • SOCIAL MEDIA ICONS: Orman Clark, ISSUU • DESIGN: Gili Perl
5
6
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
28 November 2013
ISSUES Why self-regulation is better than statutory regulation By Marianne Rasmussen
S
elf-regulation is better than in civil courts. While this formulation regulation as a way of government regulation. highlights the need to isolate hate restricting media freedom That’s the view of the OSCE speech by more reasoned speech, it also in a more subtle manner Representative on Freedom of the underlines the importance of media than through media Media, Dunja Mijatović. self-regulation as a way of doing just laws,” Mijatović said. “By “If established properly, self-regulation that – but only if done correctly. misusing the concept of can protect journalists self-regulation, from judicial sanctions and some governments WHAT EXACTLY IS MEDIA SELF-REGULATION? are trying to allow them to be judged for professional mistakes by their transform media peers. Self-regulation can also improve self-regulation into self“Media self-regulation is a censorship. This is not what editorial quality and restore public trust joint endeavour by media self-regulation is about.” in the media,” Mijatović said. OSCE/Adeline Hulin professionals to set up voluntary Rather, self-regulation The Representative’s Office has editorial guidelines and abide by A Eurasia Regional Forum for Media Development is about voluntary worked to promote the concept participant studies the Self-Regulation Guidebook. them in a learning process open compliance to a set of of media self-regulation since its to the public. ethical standards adopted by inception. Among other things, the By doing so, the independent political and economic pressures media professionals. Self-regulatory effort has resulted in two books on media accept their share of faced by media outlets and important bodies should not include government the subject: The Media Self-Regulation responsibility for the quality of ties among politicians, business representatives. The concept of selfGuidebook published in 2008 and, public discourse in the nation, interests and the media. regulation is, thus, part of a broader this year, The Online Media SelfAt its core, the Representative’s discussion about media accountability. Regulation Guidebook. The latter book while fully preserving their Office works toward bringing all And only in a free-media environment reflects the fact that Internet freedom editorial autonomy in shaping stakeholders on board in the effort can media be responsible. has become a focus of the Office. it.” to promote and create awareness The Representative’s Office will The Online Media Self-Regulation about the relevance of self-regulatory continue to promote self-regulation as Guidebook addresses the need to find – Miklós Haraszti, mechanisms among the general the preferred method of holding media solutions for growing concerns related former OSCE Representative on public. Part of this work is to find a accountable for their role as watchdogs to online media and the Internet. Freedom of the Media place for media self-regulation in the of authorities and other powerful Hate speech is an example. The ever-evolving media landscape. stakeholders. This includes addressing Representative believes offensive challenges such as insufficient speech should be handled by “There is a growing tendency Rasmussen is Project Officer in the implementation of self-regulation, encouraging further dialogue – in the for some governments to misuse low public trust in the media sector, Representative’s Office. press, through media ethics bodies or and promote the concept of self-
Do’s and don’ts of the digital switchover
communicate to viewers the rationale • Do oblige providers of transmission both for switchover and for the facilities with a universal service timescale obligation. within which • Do introduce Don’t panic, stay calm and balit is being a moratorium on ance transition: digitalization is pursued. issuing licenses a challenge - do it!” • Do involve for broadcasting By Mike Stone all the main as it allows the onnectivity beyond your wildest regulatory authorities to make plans and system players, broadcasters, producers, dreams. resellers, consumer associations. efficiently use the spectrum. Don’t use That is what the digital switchover Cooperation is key to information a moratorium for political purposes, to promises; access to an unimaginable success. keep independent broadcasters from amount of information brought • Don’t believe that more digital the air. directly into your homes by television • Do guarantee access to the digital channels is a plurality of opinion and and radio. To what extent such networks by existing over-the-air freedom of expression. technology is used to benefit people, broadcasters. The national Public Service • Don’t ignore the need to provide create a truly pluralistic society and Broadcaster (PSB) shall be guaranteed a special support to the vulnerable close the information gap has groups, such as assist them in obtaining place. been a priority of all OSCE • Do use digitalization equipment for digital broadcasting. Representatives on Freedom for expanding the spectrum • Don’t allow the existence of only one of the Media. of available PSB programs. network operator to cause problems for Governments have an Expansion of PSB should have the freedom of competition between indispensable role in the broadcasters and other content clear public service value. digital switchover. • Do keep licenses providers. “They must play their for the transmission facility • Don’t design any state aid that gives roles carefully and use power (the platform) and the undue preference to one commercial wisely if there will be a programming content separate. operator over others. Governments digital dividend,” current Don’t allow licensing become should refrain from facilitating the Representative Dunja a biased and non-transparent transition to digital only to the state-run Mijatović said. In an attempt broadcasters wherever they still exist. process during digitalization. to enlighten national leaders • Do provide that the • Don’t ignore technological neutrality about the potential and procedure for selecting the with respect to the application OSCE/Olga Roşca pitfalls attendant making the composition of the free-to- platforms; be flexible! The digital switchover provides the opportunity to create switch, Mijatović embarked Digitalization will not solve chronic air (social) package remains pluralistic media in all societies. on an aggressive educational transparent and open to public problems in the broadcasting sector program touting the right way such as government interference, criticism. to handle the task. monopolies, structural problems, free-to-air services and transnational • Do consider partnerships among Her Office has prepared a series a weak regulator or public service television programs. The date of governments, broadcasters, network of simple Do’s and Don’ts for the switch-off should be set with caution, operators and the industry as a possible broadcaster. Such problems must be process: solved before digitalization, and parallel so that no part of the population would way of financing digitalization. • Do keep the process of digital to planning for digitalization. be excluded from digital terrestrial • Do encourage people to start to plan switchover based on media laws Don’t panic, stay calm and balance television. for switchover and not to leave it until and policies that would safeguard transition: digitalization is a challenge • Do consider consumer protection the last moment. human rights, including freedom of do it! issues, such as the possibility to migrate • Do reassure people that analogue expression, freedom of the media and between service operators and use televisions will become obsolete and access to information. Stone is a Senior Adviser to the interoperable sets of equipment. that the costs of conversion to digital • Do develop a legislative framework Representative on Freedom of the Media. • Do provide public information television are reasonable. and strategy for digital broadcasting campaigns on digitalization. • Do focus on the public and clearly
C
drafted under the constant scrutiny of the public. The adopted strategy should lead to new legislation introduced to and adopted by the parliament, rather than governmental decisions or presidential decrees. • Do provide a digitalization plan, made by a responsible body (ministry, regulator) involving all concerned parties, including broadcasters and service providers. • Do involve national broadcasting authorities (or national regulators) increasingly in the digital switchover planning and implementation. • Do avoid exclusion of the consumers, and in particular exclusion from
“
28 November 2013
7
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
ISSUES Without access to information states risk meeting the fate of Humpty Dumpty By Deniz Yazici
T
he world is round. One can also argue that a well-functioning democracy is round. In order to simplify the concept of government transparency, one can condense it into simple shapes. In an ideal world, democracy is a perfect circle. At opposite poles you have the government and the citizens. This circle is connected by dotted lines that represent transparency and accountability. The citizenry, at one pole, ought to be able to regulate their government and its representatives, located at the other pole, just as they are governed and represented. In today’s realities however, this is hardly a perfect circle; in fact, it is barely egg shaped. One could argue it more closely resembles Humpty Dumpty – after the fall. If a government does not trust its citizens with the facts, how can one expect the citizens to trust their government? Government transparency is a core democratic principle; and the cornerstone is the public’s right to know and right to access to information. OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović is a strong advocate of the right of access to information, urging governments across the region to adopt good laws and implement them effectively. “We need to change the culture of secrecy and confidentiality for a culture of transparency,” Mijatović said. But what does this mean? The right of access to information is the right of any person to request and receive information from the government and other public bodies, subject only to limited exceptions. This right is twofold; first, it obliges public bodies to disclose certain information
The Internet as a catalyst for free speech By Mike Stone
T
he Internet: unprecedented opportunities, unrelenting challenges. The digital revolution has fundamentally transformed our societies in ways that were unimaginable just 10 years ago. The change is ongoing and hard to grasp. We think differently because of digitalization and act and interact by means previous generations would find incredible. What is more, digitalization has altered the media landscape, adding a whole new dimension. While the press, radio and television remain vital platforms for free speech, the Internet has rapidly become the main marketplace of ideas of our time. “The opportunities for fundamental freedoms brought by the Internet cannot be overstated,” said Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. “Whether users
proactively, for instance, daily activities, finances and policies. Second, it gives all citizens the right to ask public bodies for additional information and, of course, to receive an answer. There are indeed some cases, such as protection of privacy, national security and commercial interests, which allow for minimal exceptions to this right. However, these must be clearly defined by law. Freedom of information has a long history and dates back almost 250 years to when the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 was enacted. Yet, most freedom of information laws have been adopted within the last two decades. There have been many international agreements that protect the right to freedom of information, including Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which makes it clear that the right includes seeking, receiving and disseminating information. “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Freedom of information is also guaranteed by dozens of OSCE commitments, agreed to by all 57 participating States. One such commitment, of the Istanbul Charter for European Security (1999) states in particular: “We [the participating States] reaffirm the importance of independent media and the free flow of information as well as the public’s access to information. We commit ourselves to take all necessary steps to ensure the basic conditions for free and independent media and unimpeded
Gibson Holmes
Humpty Dumpty is an old-time nursery rhyme about an egg that falls off a wall and shatters beyond repair.
trans-border and intra-State flow of information, which we consider to be an essential component of any democratic, free and open society.” Only last year, at the Ministerial Council in Dublin (2012) the same participating States, “recognise that freedom of information and access to information foster openness and accountability in public policy and procurement, and enable civil society, including the media, to contribute to preventing and combatting corruption, the financing of terrorism, and moneylaundering and its predicate offences. We reaffirm our commitment to make our governments more transparent by further developing processes and institutions for providing timely information, including reliable statistics,
which a view to promoting a well informed and responsive dialogue.” Understanding this background, it seems logical that the right to freedom of information is an important element of the circle of democracy. The Representative’s Office has worked to promote the right to access to information since it was established in 1997. Efforts to reinstate this circle have resulted in various trainings of public bodies across the OSCE region, as well as conferences, workshops, publications and numerous legal reviews and other studies. In the ever evolving media landscape, this circle remains a critical component of the right to freedom of expression. Yazici is Assistant Research Officer in the Representative’s Office.
want to debate politics, public issues or agreed on the importance of ensuring popular culture, the Internet renders the openness of the Internet: possible the most inclusive dialogue.” “Participating States should take Although the Office of the action to ensure that the Internet Representative has focused on issues remains an open and public forum for pertaining to the Internet since the early freedom of opinion and expression, 2000’s, Mijatović said some continue to as enshrined in the Universal question the importance of the Internet Declaration of Human Rights, and to as a forum for free speech. foster access to the Internet both in “Time and again my Office’s efforts homes and schools…” in this field are challenged by voices The participating States claiming that the Internet is not a furthermore tasked the Representative pgrandicelli/Flickr communication to “… continue Find recommendations on how to keep platform. This is an active role the Internet free on osce.org/fom. But one thing is certain: utterly puzzling in promoting the Internet will keep and deeply both freedom changing the way people worrying and of expression A broader public debate is needed on communicate and we will have threatens to and access to the these issues among all parts of society, to adapt to it, whether we like it undermine the Internet …” including civil society representatives, or not.” advancement Mijatović cites academia, the authorities and of freedom of a legal study from journalists. expression and freedom of the media 2012 on practices related to freedom “In comparison with the print press online,” Mijatović said. of expression in the OSCE region and even radio and television, the She said that human rights are undertaken by the Representative’s Internet is still in its early teens. There inalienable and therefore neutral Office in order to translate OSCE are no straightforward answers as to regarding technology, stating that the commitments into reality. how freedom of expression and media Mandate of the Representative for this “Its results are worrying as they freedom should be protected online. reason alone calls on her and the Office point to the fact that participating But one thing is certain: the Internet to play the role of media watchdog both States keep adopting laws that will keep changing the way people offline and online. restrict Internet freedom, thereby communicate and we will have to At the OSCE Ministerial Council counteracting their own OSCE human adapt to it, whether we like it or not,” in Sofia in 2004, participating States rights efforts,” she said. Mijatović said.
“
8
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
28 November 2013
ISSUES Open journalism and the open road ahead By Gili Perl and Stella Marceta
M
ore than a 21st century version of letters to the editor, the term ‘open journalism’ captures the ongoing development in which traditional media outlets can not only make available readers’ comments, but also increasingly rely on readers for information, allowing them to set the journalistic narrative. By advocating audience participation, open journalism enables news organizations to revitalize their approach towards the production process. Dr. Tarlach McGonagle, senior researcher for the Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam, said open journalism is “characterized by its interactive, participative and networked features,” which allow for a diverse range of perspectives at different levels in the news production process. This in turn impacts which issues are designated for coverage, “how they are reported and commented on, and how they are subsequently developed in the post-publication stage,” McGonagle said. Thus, open journalism expands participation by allowing various groups to join the debate in the public sphere: “Their engagement transforms news from a product into a process,” McGonagle said. Open journalism also emerges at a time where news organizations have tight budgets; by sourcing the public it “allows people to produce news with little resources,” which attracts new
Journalist safety: A yardstick of democracy
audiences, said Barbara Trionfi, Press Freedom Manager for the Vienna-based International Press Institute. However, like all published works, this will also require regulatory guidelines. At present “there is no legal framework and no international standards” regulating open journalism and user-generated content (UGC), said Trionfi. However, IPI is working with the University of Missouri School of Journalism to develop guidelines for UGC and trying to define standards for readers’ comments, she said. Because not all contributors who generate content are ethically trained and work according to journalistic principles, there will need to be “an editorial process by the news organization so the product delivered to the reader is informative and of journalistic quality,” Trionfi said. She believes that regulation will ultimately be decided at the national level and remain up to local definitions and self-regulation, and that editors will be held responsible for user content. In contrast, McGonagle said that “in principle, open journalism enjoys the same level of legal protection as traditional journalism: the full range of core expressive freedoms and functionally relevant freedoms necessary for journalists to be able to perform their public watchdog role.” These include “the journalistic privilege not to disclose confidential sources, protection against attacks, threats and intimidation,” and protection against search and seizure, McGonagle said. The European Court of Human Rights case law reveals a “strengthening tendency to recognize and emphasize the importance of individual contributions to public debate and the ability of a growing diversity of actors,” such as NGOs and whistle-blowers, “to perform public
watchdog roles,” McGonagle said. In order to guarantee the preservation of current liberties, “it is important to extend relevant functional freedoms traditionally associated with journalism to the widening range of actors acting as public watchdogs,” McGonagle said. According to Trionfi, open journalism will only flourish as much as the local governments allow it to pass censorship and journalistic freedoms remain upheld.
Future
FROM PAGE 1 infrastructure, information networks will be governed and managed by someone. In some areas of the world an open, multi-stakeholder and collaborative approach to Internet governance will allow citizens free access to different communication platforms and the right to disseminate content, services and applications. This will probably be called the Free World, even if at some point the necessary degree of openness, transparency or neutrality of networks will raise discussions and confront different visions. Internet freedom will become an increasingly popular objective in terms of setting international standards, as well as an exportable package for transitioning countries, yet its universal vocation will probably be challenged (paradoxically enough) by the concurring existence of different national visions of it. The current discussion between Brazil and the United States about Internet governance is a clear example. In other cases, some nations will try to preserve and shape the forging of a national identity, hindering the reach of networks and restricting the ability to engage in global discussions. The question is to what extent these
ince the establishment of the Representative’s Office in 1998, not a single year has passed without journalists in the OSCE region having to pay for their work with their lives. The number of journalists killed in the OSCE region during the past 15 years amounts to a staggering 110 and in some areas of the world, the stakes of pursuing journalism remain high. “I wish we could celebrate this anniversary by marking the progress made in advancing the safety of journalists. Unfortunately, this is not the case,” said OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović. “While the situation on the ground has stagnated and in some parts of the OSCE region even deteriorated, what is of equal concern is the tendency of some OSCE participating States to diminish or simply ignore the fact that safety of journalists is
an issue they’re obliged to address.” based International Press Institute. Mijatović said this will remain a key “Just prosecuting them [perpetrators focus area of her Office, recalling the of crimes] in line with the laws of the Representative’s mandate adopted by countries would be a good first step.” consensus in 1997: “He or she will She said a number of additional address serious problems caused by, measures must be taken to advance inter alia, obstruction of media activities journalist safety, namely raising awareness and unfavourable working conditions for on the issue at large, including more journalists.” coverag e of There is a lot of discourse on “If continued attacks against journalist safety by civil society, journalists on harassment, but not journalists themselves.” physical violence the part of the and even murder media. of members of the media cannot be However, media are reluctant to focus interpreted as ‘unfavourable working their reporting inwardly: “There is a lot conditions for journalists’, then I frankly of discourse on journalist safety by civil do not know what ‘unfavourable working society, but not journalists themselves,” conditions for journalists’ means,” Trionfi said. Mijatović said. In some regions, “self-censorship During the course of this year alone, has become the only solution” to her Office has raised attention to stories avoid dangerous reactions to reporting, of journalists receiving sentences of Trionfi said, highlighting the importance up to nine years in prison on dubious of finding ways to protect journalists charges, of a newspaper having a parcel without limiting their editorial freedom. bomb delivered to one of its editorial To this end, “IPI works with its offices and of journalists’ cars being set members to create internal safety on fire. standards within media companies” and “Almost 95% of cases worldwide “measures how media organizations result in impunity,” said Barbara Trionfi, adopt internal codes for journalists’ Press Freedom Manager for the Vienna- safety,” Trionfi said.
PUBLISHER The Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media EDITOR Mike Stone PRODUCTION Gili Perl and Stella Marceta COLUMNISTS Joan Barata Mir, Roland Bless, Mike Stone, Frane Maroević, Marianne Rasmussen,
Deniz Yazici, Stella Marceta and Gili Perl. THE OFFICE Dunja Mijatović (OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media), Andrey Rikhter (Director), Joan Barata Mir (Principal Adviser), Ana Karlsreiter (Senior Adviser), Mike Stone (Senior Adviser), Gunnar Vrang (Senior Adviser), Frane Maroević (Senior Adviser), Michael Unland (Senior Adviser), Nora KovacsIsaac (Adviser), Aidar Botagarov (Adviser),
By Deniz Yazici
S
“
Marianne Rasmussen (Project Officer), Deniz Yazici (Assistant Research Officer), Joanna Jinks (Executive Assistant), Anja Schwabedal (Senior Project Assistant), Maria Sadoyan (Temporary Senior Project Assistant), Jennifer Adams (Program Secretary), Stella Marceta (Intern) and Constance Seignovert (Intern). PRINTING Ferdinand Berger & Söhne GmbH
countries (powerful within the context of the international community) will be able to reject Internet freedom or erect a sort of digital firewall between themselves and the rest of the world. We should not neglect the power of new intermediaries such as big portals, search engines and technology manufacturers to directly intervene in circulation, distribution and access to content and ideas in new platforms. Despite the power that nations hold, physical networks, a few transnational private companies may be the real gatekeepers of the digital world. In many cases the effectiveness of socalled Internet freedom will be in their hands. In a nutshell, new networks and particularly the Internet are at the true forefront of current and future freedom of expression battles. The Internet is, simply put, a platform on which life takes place. Its importance rests on its capacity to provide all kinds of services, from radio to television, to today’s social media. Therefore, freedom of expression should be protected within the Internet to the same extent as it is protected on any other distribution platform or our traditional public square. Barata Mir is Principal Adviser to the Representative on Freedom of the Media.
IFEX
This day marks the anniversary of the 2009 Ampatuan massacre, the single deadliest incident for journalists in recent history, in which 58 people – including 32 journalists and members of the media – were murdered in the Philippines. To date, no perpetrators have been brought to justice.
In lieu of technological and innovative developments, Mijatović said the news production process has rapidly changed in recent years, thinning the line between producers and consumers of news. “To better reflect this situation, the discussion on safety should focus on the ‘act of journalism’ preformed by journalists, as well as bloggers, members of social networking websites and others,” she said. “As has been the case in the past, safety of journalists will remain a yardstick of democracy.” ©2013 THE OFFICE OF THE OSCE REPRESENTATIVE ON FREEDOM OF THE MEDIA Wallnerstrasse 6, 1010 • Vienna, Austria Telephone: +43 1 514 36 6800 Fax: +43 1 514 36 6802