Risposte
Scrive: Horst Keller
Journalist, Germany

1. I am absolutely convinced, that the EP is doing its best in the framework cooperating with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and the OECD in Vienna as well to guarantee and defend the freedom of press and information in spite of certain obstacles created by some post-communist countries, now members of the EU.

2. I’m hesitating to answer to this question. Of course, the existence of a free, plural and independent press is essential for a democratic society. This postulate is, for instance, anchored and one of the the most importand <Articles> (Paragraphs) in the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) after WW II.
My colleagues and myself were bound to consider these ethic normes in our daily journalistic work after WW II. In those days it was fantastic to be a journalist, free and independent, being a member of the so called <Fourth Power> in our democracies. But meanwhile the marked is dictating the rules of what journalism has to be meant in real life.
Due to the inflation of weekly Yellow Press publications, due to the inflation of more or less well educated free lance journalists and due to the progressing concentration of the media markets along with growing interests of economic profits instead of improving the quality of journalistic work and of course in line with cases of corruption, focused on badly payed journalistsn I am personally not very optimistic as far as our profession is concerned.
Moreover I doubt, whether the EU is able or even interested in giving space to meeting the needs of civil society by guarantying an ethically hight level journalism.

4.
I would like to answer to this question very frankly. Of course the democratic societies are obliged to protect their citizens’right of privacy. But firstly we have to ask ourselves: What does it mean, the <right of privacy>? What is <privacy>? Where are the limits? Which groups of persons must possibly be excluded – at least to a certain .extend - from this right? In the last years a lot of cases of violating the private sphere have been brought to the courts. This initiated a broad discussion about the issue of <privacy>. But there is no clear definition yet in this respect. I am afraid, that the European Union cannot do very much more than has already been done. There is and always will be a <grey area> and a <tightrope walk> between commercial and so called publik interests and the legitimate demand of people to get their privacy protected. In my opinion in details this can only be achieved by a kind of ethic code, of course in the framework of general legal rules..

5.
From the very beginning the European institutions do already influence the technological process in the field of the new information media. They do this in two directions: to guarantee and broaden freedom of expression on the one side and to fight against ethic (i.e. pornography) and economic (i.e. <roaming fees) abuse on the other side.

6.
Since the Treaty of Rome 50 years ago the European institutions are permanently trying hard to bridge the gap between a „remote“ and „distant“ Europe and the European citizens living there. Theses efforts were partly successful, partly invain. In my opinion this is a very normal process that can be compared with similar efforts in the member states. Most of the European citizens are very much aware of the fact, that they are enjoying a lot of advantages due to the Interior Marked, the common currency EURO, open borders ect and last but not least the absence of wars in Europe since more than half a century. But the citizens are regarding these advantages as just quite normal and not as the result of the permanent efforts of the European institutions to make Europe more efficient day by day.
If you ask a citizen of Texas for example, he will mostly answer in the first place: „I‘m from Texas“, and secondly he will add: „From the United States“. If you ask a Bavarian, he might say: „Ich bin Bayer“. And then: „Ich bin Deutscher“. And furtheron:“ Natürlich auch Europäer“. The same happens, if you as people in Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg and so on. In the first place our roots are regional and national, more and more in the framework of Europe. Thus an automatical mechanism is working towards an „European citizenship“. In my opinion there is no need neither for administrativ regulations and promotions nor for governmental interference.

______________________________
Scrive: Greek Section of Aej
Athanase Papandropoulos, International Honorary President of AEJ
Isaiah Tsaousidou, International Treasurer of AEJ

1. Please express your judgment on the European Parliament` s commitment to defending the freedom of the press and information
Freedom of the press and giving citizens full and fair information are about guaranteeing citizens a basic democratic right. The European Parliament (EP) must fight to uphold this right around the globe with all the means at its disposal. But it must not be complacent. Even within the European Union (EU), the EP must protect all the democratic rights of the citizens in Europe. But in some of the member states, the Greek AEJ section sees warning developments in the area of media concentration. In Ireland, for instance, Independent Newspapers Ireland –owners of the biggest selling daily The Irish Independent, have a market share of 48%. Even in the Netherlands, which tops the league table of Reporters Without Borders, media concentration is becoming problematic. In the television sector, the public broadcaster NOS and the German commercial operator Bertelsmann jointly control 85% of the market, while just three companies cater for 83% of the newspaper readership.
In Greece, the situation theoretically seems to be better, but this is not true in practice. Three media groups have the control of 80% of the press and television. In Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary around 80% of the press has been bought by Western European media groups. According to our information, the local press is fighting a losing battle to keep their share of the market. Worse still, in the Ukraine, journalists speaking out against the state are still subject to violence attacks. In Poland, a publisher was been ordered to pay 5.000 euros in 2005 because one of his papers was accused of insulting Pope John Pall II.
Citizens are quite rightly asking whether EU officials have given enough thought to the freedom of the press. European official Karin Junker stated that “they couldn’t achieve everything”. Progress has been made nonetheless. Thanks to the EU and the EP there is a law protecting freedom of information in all member states. Official documents have to be comprehensible, readable and publicly accessible. Authorities must give out information about all types of activities including delicate issues such as finance. The field of television also shows signs of improvement. The guidelines “TV without borders” set out conditions for the transmission of TV programmes across the European market: free transmission of TV programmes, protection of cultural variety, protection of minors, the right to reply, advertising rules and sponsorship of European productions are just some of them.
However, many questions remain. Why are rules and regulations limited to television broadcasters? What about radio, print and online media? In the future, how can the critical stance of journalists be guaranteed if the new guidelines lead to a systematic surveillance of telephone and internet data? Only one thing is clear. As long as the sovereignty of culture and media are guaranteed by states, there can realistically be no protection of the freedom of the press at the European level.
In this field, the EP has many things to do, because the mass media are a source of power, their ownership –whatever form it takes– will always bring temptations to abuse of influence. That being so, it is wise for the EP to try to ensure that no society depends too heavily upon a narrow range of owners, which in turn underlines the need for national and international laws to limit concentration of media ownership. Today there is much talk about the emergence of an unprecedented global oligopoly, operating in media markets all over the world and capable of dominating markets for distribution and content rights.

2. The existence of a free, plural and independent press is essential for any democratic society. However, the self-styled “independent” press is often the expression of ideological and principled opinions that can end up crushing the freedom of opinion of citizens. What can the European institutions do to help those media that, on the contrary, give space and voice to the multiple and diverse expressions of civil society?
Journalism is a domain of moral choices, occasionally involving a melodramatic interplay between good and evil, which probably explains why the news media have proved such a fertile source of movie story-lines. According to one authority, Hollywood alone has churned out more than a thousand films which are, in one way or another, about the news business and its ethical challenges.
So the question is not what the European institutions can do to help some media, but what do journalists believe, what is their ethical framework. Several researches found that most journalists agree they are in the business of getting information to the public quickly, but these are wide differences of view about the extent to which journalists see themselves us “watchdogs” on government or other centres of power. This is a highly rated objective among journalists in Germany, Britain and Finland, but much less so in countries that lack a long history of democratic government and a culture of a free press. Nor could journalists really agree on the importance of their role as analysts, or whether they have an obligation to report accurately or objectively.
According to Ian Hargreaves, only 30% of a British sample agreed that journalists are obliged to be accurate and objective. Over 80% in Germany and 40% in Greece accept this obligation. German journalists, who are regarded by their British counterparts as dull and cautious creatures, say they are much less happy about harassing sources, using documents without permission and paying for information. Impersonation is frowned upon more by journalists in Australia than those in other countries.
It is perhaps not surprising, in the light of findings such as these, that there is confusion about standards of behavior in journalism. There simply is no lingua franca of journalistic ethics. Journalism is an occupation, especially in newspapers and magazines, which prides itself upon the absence of regulation and which, by its very nature, is simultaneously trying to tune into and challenge the moral and political reflexes of the societies in which it functions.
It remains to be seen whether convergence of print and co-visual media via the Internet and other digital platforms will result in regulation f the press becoming more like broadcasting or vice versa. What is certain is that we will not achieve high moral standards in journalism by accident. Journalists, expert at putting others under pressure, need to feel pressure themselves. At the very least, journalists should recognize that we need a well informed public debate about journalism, if journalism is to thrive.

3. Democratic societies protect their citizens` right to privacy. In your opinion, has enough been done to this direction in the European Union?
We think that the EU did enough in the direction of protecting citizens` “right in privacy” in the United Kingdom, the “Editors Codes of Practice” –upon which the British Press Complaints Commission bases its adjudication of complaints against newspapers– is a four-page document that gives a good indication of the central ethical standards which journalists in many parts of the world regard as ethically relevant. These are:
*Accuracy and the prompt correction of inaccuracies
*The opportunity to reply to attack or criticism
*Prohibition of invasion of privacy, including by long-lens cameras, except in cases involving genuine public interest
*Harassment is forbidden, except in cases of public interest
*Intrusion upon people suffering grief or shock must be made with sympathy and discretion
*Children should not be bothered at school, or interviewed or photographed without parental consent under the age of 16
*No use of listening devices or phone-taping, except in case of public interest
*Hospitals: journalists should not operate covertly
*Misrepresentation: journalists must not generally seek to obtain information or pictures through misrepresentation or subterfuge. Such information should be removed only with the consent of the owner. Again, there is a public interest exception
*An individual` s race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability is only to be mentioned in stories where directly relevant
*Financial journalism: no use for personal profit of information received. No writing about shares in which a journalist has an interest, without permission of the editor.
The self-regulatory approach of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is important, not least because it is based on a very long tradition of press freedom and as such has been much emulated in recent years within emerging democracies in the Balkans, Asia, Africa and elsewhere. The PCC has also played a key role in developing a global network of self-regulatory press bodies around the Alliance of Independent Press Councils in Europe. These initiatives are not to be confused with the World Association of Press Councils, a body accused by its European enemies of providing a front for state-dominated media organizations, intent upon a censorious global code of ethics for journalists reminiscent of the world information order, promoted in the 1980s by UNESCO.
Viewed from this perspective, the PCC is nobly upholding the liberal traditions of the country which pioneered press freedom. In this spirit, the EU could undertake several initiatives.

4. How far do you think the European institutions can influence technological progress in the information society (Web, Internet, mobile communications), with a view to broadening the guaranteed freedom of expression?
In the Information Society, the continuous flow of information and the speed at which it is transmitted to the public does question the tradition of reporting. Nowadays, there is often no gap between an event and the reporting of it. On the Internet, being first to report an event can mean drawing the complete population of the Web to one` s site, as readers online are much more likely to use different sources of information for their different information needs. In this new environment, journalistic codes of conduct do not necessarily apply to online publications. For online newspapers this is not a problem, as these are largely based on established journalistic standards. For new news-sources that publish only online, this is quite different.
The new media trend may make it necessary to establish some general principals of democratic life in the information society and of social responsibility governing the providers of media content. The EU, in particular, can help to establish a balance between access to the media by different political and social groups. There is also clearly a need for policies that avoid the risk of gradual, long-term erosion of privacy.

5. The European institutions are perceived by citizens as being distant and removed. What should the former do, in your opinion, to bridge the gap between Europe and the civil society and to give a new lease of life to the concept of “European citizenship”?
The EU has enormous work to do for establishing the “European citizenship”. The building block of a democratic society is the individual human being. The better informed, the more independent and the more active, the stronger and richer the democracy. The citizen has societal duties and is guaranteed human rights in order to live a reasonably secure and free life. Free and diverse information of high standards is one of the most important duties of the EU, under a free and responsible press.

___________________________
Scrive: UK Section of the European Association of Journalists
William Horsley, Chairman
Celia Hampton, Secretary

1. European Parliament’s commitment to defending freedom of press and information
The Parliament's main focus is on consumer protection, with all other principles relegated to a subordinate role. Where there is any conflict between freedom of the press and a perceived threat to the consumer's sensibilities, the press is likely to be the loser. For example, in the 2007 debate on the new television broadcasting directive, the Parliament sought a great many extra restrictions on programming and advertising. The Parliament did not make a forthright defence of media freedom after the Commission failed to give clear-cut support to the Danish journalists threatened with death in the Muhammad cartoons row last year.
As to freedom of information, the Parliament's own website indicates a poor grasp of the idea - it is very difficult to find anything. The institution would enhance its reputation by being more open about internal problem issues, such as MEPs' record on over-claiming for expenses.

2. Possible action by EU institutions to encourage truly independent media
No action at EU level is called for because internet offers a medium that is open to all at low cost, with global reach. The new EU law on broadcasting will control some websites to a limited degree, but it will not affect the economics that favour new media outlets on internet. The EU cannot alter those that have driven the older media into the hands of very few owners. Their empires cannot be broken up without confiscation, and merger control can only stop them limiting competition in future.

3. Adequacy of EU action to protect the right to privacy
The EU's data protection law offers strong protection to individuals' private information. Press access to this information, like everyone else's, is limited. The European Ombudsman has intervened where the EU institutions have used the data protection law to suppress access to public information, and this remains a live issue. The European Court of Human Rights has set strict limits on what the press can publish about individuals. The EU has no standing in this connection, and it is hard to see why it should have any.

4. EU influence on technological progress to guarantee freedom of expression
The EU lacks the knowledge and understanding to do anything but harm. It should leave technological progress to industry with as little regulation as possible.

5. Bridging the gap between EU institutions and citizens
The remoteness of the EU institutions from citizens is largely due to the founding treaties that gave sole power of proposal to the Commission and the main power of decision to the EU Council. In Council, power is democratically shared among the member governments, not their populations. The result has been the concentration of influence in the hands of Europe's political elites. They have developed a manner of talking about the EU that few understand. This is actively exclusionary, but past efforts have proved that the EU institutions are bad at explaining the EU. Unless the national governments that bear the duty to inform their citizens are willing to provide translations into plain language, the remoteness will continue.
Above all, the secrecy surrounding treaty negotiations, and now the European Council's sleight of hand in resurrecting the bulk of the EU constitution in the guise of a reform treaty, is calculated to strengthen the impression of remoteness and high-handedness.
The 2001 Laeken Declaration that launched the institutional reform process was formally meant to correct an acknowledged lack of democratic scrutiny of EU institutions, and stop the "creeping expansion of the competence of the Union". But in fact all the EU institutions have actively sought to increase their own powers through a new treaty, and have allowed the negotiations to be carried out in a secretive way. It is no wonder that public trust is still low.
In the UK, citizens have a particular barrier to understanding the European Parliament - few voters know who their MEP is. In all other elections, voting is for named individuals but, in the case of the Parliament, a party list system is used. Given the relatively unimportant role played by political parties at European level, this adds unnecessarily to the gulf that divides the EU from the general public.