The ‘Television Without frontiers’ Directive, taken on in 1989 (89/552/EEC) and amended in 1997 (97/36/EC), was established as ‘the legal frame of reference for the free movement of television broadcasting services in the Union’ (Europa, 2001). The regulation was to apply across the European Union and permit access, with the priorities lying in the promotion of distribution and production of television and advertising standards. It also protected from political pluralism, access of the public to major (sporting) national events and minors from seeing harmful content on the television. The Directive also provided for right of reply.
Consequently, Member States complemented the Directive into their national audio-visual policies. In the Netherlands, television programming must include fixed percentages of certain types of programming, for instance cultural programmes or domestically produced programmes. By 1998, 80% of all Austrian households were able to receive foreign television programmes either on terrestrial, satellite or cable; however, foreign channels in other languages reach only a statistically insignificant number of viewers. This shows that language largely determines television viewing habits in Austria. Many non-Swedish satellite channels are received in Sweden but of the foreign channels, only MTV and Eurosport have more than a few per cent of the market (European Journalism Centre, 12/03/2003). It is evident that although some member states have access to foreign language channels, they do not necessarily want to watch it. The preference for foreign products depends largely on the culture of the nation. For example, in Belgium there is a fear of the loss of national identity. As the most densely cabled country in the world (94 per cent of all households with televisions), programmes of foreign television stations were soon distributed into it, between 24 to 40 channels and gradually, some commercial stations were admitted as well. This means that Belgium is highly exposed to neighbouring countries’ television products that may reduce their viewers own cultural identity.
The French in particular are most apprehensive about the preservation of their cultural identity and even though the TWF Directive (legislation in promoting the production and distribution of European works) mean they will be exposed to a lot more foreign language programmes, they are careful when it comes to the way they are received (for instance, many programmes are dubbed in French), however, there are drawbacks in this particular scenario, it is not possible to fully appreciate, share and understand the Community’s cultural and artistic products if effort has been put in to familiarise it. There would be rather little to gain in a cultural/national respect.
In Chapter 5 of Recitals To Directive 97 (Television Without Frontiers 89/552/EEC), it states that measures should be provided for ‘programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors’, this meaning programmes which involve pornography or gratuitous violence. The time is it aired should be considered and also be preceded by ‘an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration’. (Cited in Unit Guide European Mass Media, 2002/3, page 16). Although this is a guideline set out for Member State’s broadcasters to implement into their own broadcasting policies, it seems rather vague and unnecessary.
Firstly, the interpretation of a ‘child’ differs in each country. Due to disparate cultural differences in Europe, children mature and come of age at different times. In the Netherlands and Spain the age of consent can be as low as 12 years old and in Great Britain it is 16 and Ireland, 17. (The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, 2002) This says a lot about the tolerance different children can hold towards programmes of an explicit nature; therefore, there is no need really for the legislation as each Member State is capable of structuring a legislation that can protect minors.
Various aspects of the Television Without Frontiers Directive such as Right of Reply and the protection of minors are already drawn upon in the British Broadcasting Act, which was revised and in effect from January 2002. For example in Section 1.3(i), it makes reference to the above TWF Directive quote yet in the rest of Section 1, they elaborate on similar key terms which shows that is not necessary to have both the TWF Directive and the British Broadcasting Act. (ITC, 2003). Elsewhere, in the ITC Communications Bill Update No 1 (2002), whereby the TWF Directive states the ‘application of the rule requiring 10% of transmission time or of programme budget to be reserved for independent productions.’ It appears that British television exceeds the minimum requirement anyway.
To comply with European law, all broadcasters should use independent producers for at least 10 per cent of original commissions, and the public service broadcasters – the BBC, Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – have a higher target of 25 per cent of commissioned hours. (ITC, 2002)
The Television Without Frontiers Directive provides sufficient protective mechanisms for children and young people in regards to advertising and sponsoring (on television) but VPRT (Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telekommunikation or German Association of Private Broadcasters and Telecommunication) feel they should be given adequate consideration with regards to sales promotions for alcohol and misuse of their data (Bonn, Europa, 2002). This is an indication of specific importance that countries place on different items (in this instance alcohol) and the reason is because all countries have their own views on their nations habit of consumption. So although the above-mentioned measures are effective, it is also not necessary to be placed in a European context as it is reflected in national regulation.
A strong case as for why EU regulated audio-visual policy does not work would be to look at Germany. The Member State, who joined the EU in 1958, is a highly regional and diverse nation. By means of prevention of a politically unified realm, the country is split into very clear regions and the audio-visual industry is not allowed to merge their political leanings within regions. This means that although Germany is one country, their broadcasters are separated and are ruled by not only the national and local government which then is overlooked by the Federal Constitutional State (they run the media TV system), the Basic Law of 1947 already protects children and gives the freedom to express, therefore there is no need for them to incorporate the legislations of the audio-visual policy into their country. It is not necessary at all. (Taken from Richard Rooke, The European Television Industry with a case study – Germany PowerPoint, 18/03/2003)
The MEDIA Programme that entered force in January of 2001 aims to strengthen competition of the audio-visual industry in Europe with a series of support measures dealing with the training of professionals, the development of production projects and companies, the distribution of cinematographic works and audio-visual programmes, the promotion of cinematographic works and audio-visual programmes and the support for cinematographic festivals. (Europa, 2003) Having analysed the structure of the MEDIA Programme (fig. 1), I agree that it is a very productive and positive way to boost the industry in terms of giving them recognition and financial benefits apart from it being modestly financed; ECU 200 million over five years (Humphreys, 1996: 280).
Bjorn Erichsen, TV Director at the European Broadcasting Union, appeals for co-production from the EU Community to ‘join forces and pool their resources for a programme series’ and ‘they can double the budget, and still pay only one fifth of the price’. But even he agrees that ‘the solution is not as simple as the logic. There are a lot of problems when you set up co-productions. The problem of the languages. The different cultures.’ (Erichsen, European Broadcasting Union, 2003) the problem is still continuous today.
In conclusion to the assessment of various Member States’ responses, reception and adaptation of the above regulations, legislations and directives to their national policies, I believe it is imperative for Member Sates to not only deter from unifying together with regards to their audio-visual policy but actually rejoice in the fact that Europe is diverse culturally and that it is in effect to be reflected through their audio-visual broadcasting and I say this mainly in regard to the Television Without Frontiers Directive. In relation to the preservation of culture, I feel it is only the exposure of American globalisation activity that can create perhaps long term, capitalist-dictated damage to the Community. I feel that the actions required to make this issue resolved is to have a body in each Member State that is made up of internally elected representatives of all the different broadcasters both private and public, then they should draw up a directive with which the audio-visual can run by. These legislations can then be put to Parliament for them to be considered. They should all consist of the bare essentialities of humanistic rights and protections such as those of TWF but also refined detailed explanations, instructions and rules. In order to keep the European broadcasting industry prosperous on an international level, there should be an agreement amongst Member States to promote use of their neighbours’ products on a national level. This is where the MEDIA Programmes come to effect. It can provide for a space within the Community where they help each other to prosper especially against the non-European market.
Bibliography
-
2001. ‘Introduction to audiovisual Policy’ downloaded from Europa http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/index_en.htm Accessed: 11/03/03
-
2002. ‘ITC Communications Bill Update No 1 Final draft’ downloaded from ITC Website http://www.itc.org.uk/uploads/ITC_Communications_Bill_Update_1.doc Accessed 20/03/03
-
2002. ‘The Knitting Circle’ downloaded from South Bank University Website http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/ageconsent97.html Accessed 12/03/03
-
2003. ‘Codes & Guidance Notes Programme Code’ downloaded from ITC Website http://www.itc.org.uk/itc_publications/codes_guidance/programme_code/section_1.asp Accessed on 20/03/03
-
2003. ‘European Media Landscape’ downloaded from European Journalism Centre http://www.ejc.nl/jr/emland/index.html Accessed: 12/03/03
-
2003. ‘MEDIA’ downloaded from Europa http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/media/index_en.html Accessed 18/03/03
- Bonn, 2002. ‘VPRT Positioning Paper on the European Commission’s Green Paper on Consumer Protection in the European Union and European Commission proposals on sale proposals in the internal market’ downloaded from Europa http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/fair_comm_pract/responses/business_germany/vprt_en.pdf Accessed: 12/03/03
-
Curran, James 2000. Media Organisations in Society. London: Arnold Publishers
-
Erichsen, 2003. ‘The Television Department Activities’ downloaded from European Broadcasting Union http://www.ebu.ch/departments/television/activities/index.php Accessed: 18/03/03
-
Humphreys, Peter J. 1996. Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe. Great Britain: Manchester University Press
-
Rooke, Richard. 2003. Controlling the European Mass Media: An Overview of Regulation PowerPoint, 25/02/2003
-
Rooke, Richard. 2003. The European Television Industry with a case study – Germany PowerPoint, 18/03/2003
-
Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle. 1997. Media in Global Context: A Reader. Great Britain: Arnold