Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-540"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100907.33.2-540"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, there can be no free and democratic society without free and pluralist media which guarantee that people are provided with reliable information and a variety of points of view and opinions. Media are for democracy what the bloodstream is for the body. I think this metaphor, taken from the world of medicine, has clear application here. If the circulatory system fails or the bloodstream encounters any obstructions, the body is inevitably weakened and begins to be ill. It is no different with the relationship between pluralism in the media and democracy. If the reliable flow of information fails or encounters obstructions, democracy begins to have problems. This may seem obvious, but perhaps, despite appearances, it is not obvious, since we do not devote as much attention to the problem as it deserves – and this is also true in the Member States.
It is high time the European Union institutions began to devote much more time to this fundamental problem, and I stress what Mrs Kroes said: ‘this fundamental problem’. We should ask ourselves if we are doing enough, and if the EU institutions are doing enough, to guarantee that the greater part of the media is not concentrated in only a few hands. It is also important that no individual entity be able to control different media operating in different areas, such as television, newspapers, Internet and radio. I think the European Union should do much more to introduce regulations which ensure deconcentration in every area of the media market, and not just television. It should be stressed that the boundaries of free speech in commercial media are often set by the interests of their owners and advertisers. A further danger is that the owners of media who are sympathetic to certain political groupings may favour these groups’ point of view.
A problem in Poland is that there is a closed media system, as some commentators call it. All the main mass media speak the same way. Journalists who depart from this main trend, who present a different point of view, are given critical write-ups and are sometimes met with smear campaigns and downright attempts to discredit them. There is, therefore, a problem and a great imbalance in the provision of information and opinion – and the provision of information is a foundation of democratic society. I can mention journalists such as Tomasz Sakiewicz, Jan Pospieszalski, Ewa Stankiewicz and Janina Jankowska, because it can be said they have been facing harassment recently in Poland, even though harassment is a strong word. These people have a fine record in the fight for a free and independent Poland, for a free and democratic society, and for free and democratic media. Now, in Europe, we must remember this and do everything possible to achieve real pluralism in the media market."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples