The amanded Television without frontiers directive
THE AMENDED TELEVISION
WITHOUT FRONTIERS
DIRECTIVE
Television without frontiers directive: it sounds quite like an international organisation providing TVs for poor people. Actually, not at all; this directive emanated from the European Commission in 1984 (but changed until 1989) and came into effect in October 1991.This directive comes within the scope of the broadcasting and audio-visual policy of the early eighties following the Hahn report on Radio and Television Broadcasting in the European Community .It supports that mass media and television are instruments through which the Community could become a 'genuine political' and unification could be advanced. The European Parliament adopted the report which then emphasised on the importance of new technologies in the audio- visual sphere.
This project obviously gave rise to two challenges (stated in the Commission's information paper 1984):
* The harmonisation of television transmission standards,
* Fostering television programme production.
(Richard Collins)
Several forces played a major role in the establishment of such a directive and before stating what were the main issues regarding television without frontiers, it is helpful to explain what that directive is about and why European Institutions decided to set it up. Later on, I will explain how the European Union set up the directive and more generally the whole audio-visual and broadcasting policy dealing with its opponents and the different debates it implied. Eventually, we will analyse the issues raising from the TWF directive and how they have been tackled. That will lead us to the end of the analysis where I will describe the current state of the directive in the European context and will give my opinion about that concern with pleasure.
* The television without frontiers (TWF) as I said above, was created in 1984 but evolved until 1989 and then in the nineties until 1997. It was an assistance from the EU to establish a change in the European media and has been encouraged by the European Council (Richard Rooke, 2002) .
The aim of the broadcasting and audio-visual policy was to create a single Community broadcasting market which could compete with the Giant American :that was a step towards globalization. In the beginning it was difficult for the Commission to adopt the directive and its Member States bargained over the extent of the harmonisation required to create that special new market. The draft of the directive has been subjected to 16 amendments before the Commission finally accepted it.
The directive promotes the objectives of :
Creating a common market broadcasts and programme supply
Promoting independent production and distribution enterprises, and in particular by small and medium sized enterprises.
Stimulating the audiovisual sector in countries with a low production capacity and/or in a restricted language area.
Establishing minimum standards for television advertising and sponsorship, prohibiting the advertising of certain products, including tobacco, and regulating the advertising of alcohol on television.
Establishing a European content quota (and enabling Member States to establish specific language regulations quotas) and protection for the cinema.
Establishing a right to reply.
Protecting minors from undesirable programming, especially violent or pornographic programmes.
(Richard Collins 1, 1993: p 13).
It also protects political pluralism and promotes the harmonisation of copyright rules across Europe which allow artists to survive.
Now we know the content of the directive, we need to know why it has been set up and what the motives were of the Commission who established it.
It is actually quite an ancient subject that, the founder of Europe underlined in the past saying that: 'if we were beginning the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Establishing a right to reply.
Protecting minors from undesirable programming, especially violent or pornographic programmes.
(Richard Collins 1, 1993: p 13).
It also protects political pluralism and promotes the harmonisation of copyright rules across Europe which allow artists to survive.
Now we know the content of the directive, we need to know why it has been set up and what the motives were of the Commission who established it.
It is actually quite an ancient subject that, the founder of Europe underlined in the past saying that: 'if we were beginning the European Community all over again, we should begin with culture'.(Jean Monnet ,-1994-, p 1)
Initially, as I just said before, the idea of reinforcing the European culture through media was the principal motive for creating such a policy about broadcasting and audiovisual sector; but latterly, other motives have been added to that decision in particular the technological aspect of the policy but I will move on to this point later on.
The Community has had an audiovisual policy only since the Council of Ministers formally testified to the importance of 'cooperation to develop Europe's audiovisual capacity' which could 'contribute to a substantial strengthening of a European identity' (Commission of the European Communities, 1990, p 7).
Indeed, communication media play a formative role in society and is not just an information provider: it forms our beliefs and so our cultural identity, develops languages. In this context, television which is the dominant media medium is of crucial importance because the average of adult Europeans spend between 3 and 4 hours each day watching television and the figure for children is even higher. Of equal importance is a policy of balance with regard to the interests of private broadcasting and public service broadcasting (The High Level Group,1997: p 1).
We could also consider two themes which characterised that policy :
* An attempt to create a well functioning, integrated competitive market for broadcasting and the audiovisual.
* An attempt to intervene in the Community's audiovisual and broadcasting markets to redress undesirable outcomes.
Competitive market is about technology, production and distribution:
The harmonisation of television standards means new technology of satellite television which implies that media in Europe will be reorganized . In other words, boundaries of national television networks would be broken up by the new technical facilities and will bolster the creation of wide-ranging transmission area (that is how from France I can watch England's news through the BBC).
Competition will be possible thanks to the abolition of physical and psychological barriers, reduced distances and the exchange of goods, services and ideas. This will bring about economic and social consequences :for instance, goods could be delivered from one country to another across Europe within a short period thanks to teleshopping programmes, and so, different cultures will be confronted through goods exchanges.
Low production countries will be stimulated by the directive as it states and distribution will occur within the whole European territory, not only in the concerned country anymore thanks to competition within small and medium sized enterprises.( Richard Collins, 1993: p 8).
Finally, one of the main motives is probably the incredible source of works the directive provides .Indeed, the industry of audiovisual has become one of the dynamics of the European Union's economy: it employed 950,000 persons into the EU in 1995 and 1,030,000 in 1997. Income from this market is expected to grow by 70% by 2005, and that would be reflected in the creation of more than 300,000 highly qualified jobs during that period (Norcontel ltd: Commission of the European Communities, 1999: p 2).
* This is a 'great expectations' policy but how did the EU set it up?....
Obviously, the directive has not been established within few days, and the new ideas it brought out have been put into effect thanks to different mediums.
Different institutions played a major role in the establishment of the directive and programmes have been set up to provide a well functioning policy such as the MEDIA programmes (MEDIA 92 and MEDIA 95).
Basically, the Community's broadcasting and audiovisual policy focused on three main points:
* Hardware (setting of TV transmission standards)
* Software (production and distribution of films and TV programmes)
* Restructuring and harmonisation of the TV broadcasting market.
Once these objectives are set up, four directorates who mostly influenced the evolution of the policy were in charge to make that policy function.:
. Internal market and Industrial Affairs (DG III)
2. Competition (DG IV)
3. Audiovisual, information, communication and culture (DG X)
4. Telecommunications, information, industries and innovation (DG XIII)
DG III was the lead directorate for the community's most strike initiative in the media field: TWF.(Commission of the European Communities , 1984 a).
The commission harmonised that policy through regular meetings of a co-ordinating group (commissioner meetings) which included vice presidents and commissioners responsible for the directorates.
The action of support for the audiovisual software sector proposed by the Commission resulted in the establishment of the MEDIA 92 later the MEDIA 95 (1990).
This programme was established to promote 'the production and dissemination of audiovisual works throughout the Community. The first pilot phase of the MEDIA programme began in 1988 and launched eleven projects and programmes including the European Film Distribution Office (EFDO) or Broadcasting across the barriers of European language (BABEL);( Richard Collins 1, p18).
The EBU which was created in 1950 for public broadcasters (but still includes few commercial broadcasters) is the institution which regulates subjects linked to the European Broadcasting and audiovisual policy such as:
* The cable system
* Copyright (allowing intellectual property to be traded on-line)
* Media ownership
* Transmission standards
* Convergence (digitalisation of the European countries' networks)
The aim to reach is the digitalisation of all European networks which demands more co-operation between national bodies in the Community. The revised TWF directive has already put in place a Contact Committee which facilitates co-operation.(The High Level Group,1997: p 29)
It deducts 117 members and 80 countries. (Richard Rooke 2002 and Richard Collins 2, 1994: p 120).
* All that the directive provides is not easy to set up. Debates happen and issues arise from it. So what are they and how to tackle it (when it is possible)?
The TWF directive was changed and submitted to 16 amendments which still were rejected by the Commission because it knew them to be unacceptable to the Community's member states. Several Member States objected the draft of the directive:
Denmark
Maintained that the Community had no standing in the regulation of television
France
Wanted more stringent European quota regulation
Belgium and the Netherlands
Wished to retain their powers to regulate access to cable networks within the boundaries of their territories
Greece and West Germany also objected. Between 1986 and 1989, a shift on the emphasis took place as a consequence of bargaining within the Community. That reflected a change from promotion of television as a medium for the development of Community unity to the protection of an anterior diversity and cultural pluralism .Richard Collins 1, 1993: p 12)
One of the main issues was also the Treaty of Rome:
It limits the ability of the EC to exercise jurisdiction in the audiovisual field for it provides only for the exercise of power in the economic domain (except by unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers) and thus has inhibited development of a cultural dimension to audiovisual policy. Therefore, the Commission, the European Parliament and some member States have sought specific cultural powers for the Community either by revise of the Treaty of Rome or latterly, by including a culture article in the Maastricht Treaty (A 128) on European and Political.
That raised identity issues; it was all about preserving a country culture and identity because a common broadcasting and audiovisual policy aiming to compete against the United States implies that ways to reach that goal are certainly the same as the enemy's. Is that to say to develop a European culture, which is a kind of federalism? Certain European countries did not want that and so that brought up debates:
On one hand, liberals want to stimulate competition with the Japanese and American market . Moreover, the provisions reflect the liberals' of the single market by imposing a 10% quota on independent production amongst other things.
On the other hand, dirigistes want more regulation and quotas in order to protect European programmes against American ones. They support that the European audiovisual market is too vulnerable in front of external competition.
Apparently the directive's provisions supported interventionist objectives but none of the provisions were fundamentally important and were even weak.
Obviously, the United States reacted :
Jack Valenti's (President and CEO ,Motion Picture Association of America) response to the directive (cited in Canadian Communication Reports 16, 24 December ):
'The European Community's broadcast directive...aims to impose majority quota on all non-EC material that comes into the European Community television market place - which of course, means an impediment and a barrier to a free marketplace insofar as American programs are concerned. The President of the United States, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade representative have been supportive. They have made it clear to the chancellors of Europe that the imposition of this quotas is an intolerable thing to the US.'
(Richard Collins 1, 1993: p 14).
* Now comes the question: was the directive finally a success or not and how it is positioned in the actual European context...
Actually, Jack Valenti did not have to fear the directive because it completely failed regarding the quotas, USA could still deliver their culture through DVDs, Internet etc... So it was not worse preventing European channels to broadcast American TV programmes even if for France it has been a success regarding the radio (a 40% quota on American-English speaking- music broadcasted on French radios).
Still, despite its intention to create a single European television market, the most important effect of the TWF directive has been to increase competition within the national television markets of Community member States. It has also encouraged technological and regulatory changes over the last decade but it has not been sufficient to create a single market which still does not exist. As there is no consensus in the European Community, there is a plan to establish a new TWF directive.
As far as I am concerned, I think that allowing European Community to compete with the United States in the audiovisual domain is probably one of the best ways ever because of the technological challenge, but quotas are not to be respected and we can see that now, American TV programmes are very present in European broadcasts.
Still in my opinion, the aim to develop a European culture is partly reached but we still tend to be filled with American culture and I think no quotas could fight against it.
'The culture industry will tomorrow be one of the biggest industries...We have to build a powerful culture industry that will enable us to be in control of the medium and its content , maintaining our standards of civilization, and encouraging the creative peoples amongst us'
DELORS (1985)
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Core reading:
Richard Collins 1, (1993)Audiovisual and broadcasting policy in the European Community, .
2, (1994) Broadcasting and audiovisual policy in the European single market, London, Paris, Rome, John Libbey
The High Level Group, (1997) The Digital Age, European Audiovisual Policy.
Commission of the European Communities, (14/12/1999) Proposal for a Council decision, Brussels.
Richard Rooke (2002) Blackboard
Background reading:
Antonio Ca'Zorzi (1989) The public administration and funding of culture in the European
Community, Luxembourg, Office for official publications of the European Communities.
Kenneth Dyson and Peter Humphreys (1988) Broadcasting and new media policies in
western Europe, London and New York, Routledge.
Peter J. Humphreys (1996) Mass media and media policy in western Europe, Manchester
and New York, Manchester University Press.
Internet:
www.europa.eu.int
www.ebu.ch
- 1 -
Politics of the EU 2202097 BA
