Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-18-Speech-1-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021118.4.1-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we were indeed re-routed to Mulhouse and many of us arrived by bus, so please therefore forgive any difficulties I might have in presenting my comments to you.
What surprises me, with regard to competition and pluralism, is that we are essentially looking at this issue from two totally different and contrasting points of view. On the one hand, we are looking at it from the point of view of our countries, the Member States, in which competition can sometimes be very fierce, particularly in Italy, as everyone here knows. On the other hand, we can also look at the issue of pluralism and competition from the point of view of some of the candidate countries; we can even look at the issue of a single source of information which can have an adverse effect on the pluralism called for by Parliament, since it might be thought that, until now, media coverage in these countries depended exclusively on this single source.
The two extremes of the issue of competition are therefore at opposite ends of the spectrum. It is, however, these two extremes that we must take into account if we are to find, at the same time, a balance between pluralism and a degree of concentration. The balance is certainly delicate, but this is also because – and I do not think that we have emphasised this point enough so far in this debate – it is a question of public service. It is not therefore merely a question of competition among the private media because this problem also concerns public service, and we must achieve a balance between the two.
In order to achieve such a balance, perhaps the Commission must reconsider its indecision regarding the need for a directive, something that has been called for by Parliament for several years. The Commission must also re-examine the situation of the media, which has changed beyond recognition in recent years. The last study on this subject was carried out in 1994. We therefore call on the Commission to take note of the new difficulties and to propose a directive.
Perhaps we must also stress the fact that the Treaty of Amsterdam has a protocol on the system of public service broadcasting in the Member States. The protocol is an extract from the Treaty of Amsterdam which lays down, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, that the Member States are responsible for defining and organising these tasks, and for financing them, provided this does not undermine competition. In this area as well, state aid is obviously important and we must highlight and maintain it. That is why all of us here today, and my group in particular, believe that it is necessary to review the need for a directive.
As far as media coverage is concerned, it is impossible to avoid the question of content. A specific characteristic of the market and of competition clearly exists, a specific characteristic relating to content, to creation and which also relates to publishing in particular. Let me remind you of the situation in France – which is of concern to us – where there is concentration in the publishing industry within the new markets which have recently become established. This specific characteristic should be taken into account and we should also stress the urgent nature of this situation.
To sum up, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we hope that what the Charter says on pluralism will be respected by the Convention and that the latter will be able to safeguard this pluralism."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples