A newsletter from Nordicom at the University of Gothenburg. Editor: Natacha López, freelance journalist |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US push against the EU’s digital rules has reached new heights over the summer, the implementation of the bloc’s AI Act and European Media Freedom Act raise concerns, and a debate over EU media funding has been reignited. Read about these and other news in the latest European Media Policy newsletter.
|
In this issue: Authors' Rights Media economy Digital rules Media freedom Transparency | Authors' rightsConcern over AI Act implementationAs of 2 August, most AI model providers are required to publish summaries of the data used to train their models’ algorithms. This provision is part of the EU’s AI Act and was designed to facilitate for rightsholders to prove their work has been stolen by AI developers. But the European Commission’s so-called “transparency template”, published on 24 July, as well as its General Purpose AI Code of Practice and guidelines, published earlier in July, have been met with strong disappointment by European rightsholder organisations. In a joint statement on 30 July, a broad coalition of organisations stated the outcome does not provide a meaningful implementation of the General Purpose AI obligations under the AI Act and fails to protect intellectual property rights. The European Federation of Journalists, one of the signatories, complain the transparency template only requires companies to reveal the top 10% of scraped domains, and allows them to circumvent requirements by invoking trade secrets. Other signatories include the International Federation of Journalists, European Alliance of News Agencies, European Publishers Council and European Newspaper Publishers’ Association. (AI: European Commission caves in to Big Tech to the detriment of authors) | Media economyProposed multiannual budget promises investments in journalismThe European Commission presented its proposal for the EU’s next seven-year budget, for 2028–2034, on 16 July.
According to the newsletter Media Finance Monitor, the proposal implicates that journalism could double its share of the EU budget, if the Commission's €2 trillion framework were to be approved as it stands (which it most probably won’t). At the same time, the Commission’s draft for the new long-term budget suggests that there will be fewer but bigger programmes financing journalism, thus meaning a centralisation of the resources. As Media Finance Monitor writes, this could both have positive and negative consequences. It could both lead to a more “targeted, visible and accessible funding”, but it could also increase the risk of political interference. The Multiannual Financial Framework will be discussed before being decided upon by EU member states and the European Parliament, and may take up to two years of negotiations to settle. (The new EU budget promises a big boost for journalism. It’s probably too good to be true)
EU’s funding of media scrutinised While the discussion on the EU’s next multiannual budget has just started, a more general debate has arisen regarding the EU's funding of the media. Euractiv published an article stating that the EU spends approximately €35 million annually in a handful of media outlets that would have difficulty surviving without substantial subsidies, funding that skews the market against independent media outlets. Meanwhile, the European Commission officially says it allocates around €21 million for pan-European media outlets covering EU affairs. But Euractiv’s analysis shows that the figure “does not encompass pilot projects, European Parliament-driven media initiatives or funding under other programme lines”. The biggest beneficiary of the EU’s media funding is the multilingual broadcaster Euronews, which, according to Euractiv, has received an average of €25 million annually in EU funds between 2014 and 2023. Euractiv’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Karnitschnig, went on to strongly attack the outlets that receive EU funding, stating: “Media can’t claim independence if a government or public donor is an outlet’s primary or even a major source of funding”. EU Observer, on the other hand, claimed in a newsletter that there is an ongoing attack on independent EU media, undermining their credibility. Something they connect to the recent right-wing attack on NGOs within the EU. According to EU Observer, which does not receive EU funding, this has softened the ground to paint newsrooms with the same brush, and links it to the development in Hungary. EU Observer identified Mathias Corvinus Collegium, a Hungarian educational institution with close ties to Victor Orbán’s government, as the source behind the claims of big EU spending on media projects. The institution published a report on the topic in June, calling the EU support the “EU’s €80 million annual ‘media machine’”. EU Observer also published an opinion article by Giordano Zambelli, PhD researcher on journalism and media policy, pointing to positive European examples of public funding for journalism. Particularly highlighting the Danish model for media subsidies, which he means has ”generated a sophisticated infrastructure which ensure transparency of ownership funding mechanisms, while preserving the independence of media regulators”. (Money for nothing: Commission pours millions into struggling EU media) (What the debate about subsidising EU media misses) | Digital rulesUS–EU trade deal does not address digital rules, despite US pressure On 21 August, the US and EU announced details of their trade framework. Notably, the agreement did not introduce any changes in terms of the EU’s Digital Services Act, reports CNBC. The act has been a point of contention in trade talks. According to Financial Times, the negotiations between the US and EU were delayed by talks on the EU’s digital rules. A US official said to the newspaper: “We continue to address digital trade barriers in conversations with our trading partners and the EU agreed to address these barriers when our initial agreement was struck”. But both the EU’s tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, and the bloc’s competition chief, Teresa Ribera, have lately reiterated that the EU’s digital rules are not up for negotiation. (U.S. and EU spell out tariffs for autos, pharmaceuticals and more) (EU push to protect digital rules holds up trade statement with US) US diplomats ordered to lobby against Europe’s tech lawAccording to a report by Reuters, the US administration has instructed US diplomats in Europe to launch a lobbying campaign to oppose the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a law which aims to combat the spread of hate speech and disinformation online. A cable, signed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 4 August, instructed American diplomats to convey US concerns about the DSA. “Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online”, the cable said. It aimed particularly at the DSA’s description of illegal content, saying it was expansive, and told US diplomats to advocate narrowing the definition of “illegal content” so it would not curb freedom of expression, including in political and religious discourse. Politico reports that French European parliamentarian Sandro Gozi, from the liberal Renew group, commented on the leak in a press release, calling it “nothing less than a blatant act of political interference in European democratic processes and legislative autonomy”. (Exclusive: Rubio orders US diplomats to launch lobbying blitz against Europe’s tech law) US delegation to Europe to discuss digital rulesIn the end of July, the Republican House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Jordan, led a bipartisan group of committee members in a delegation to Brussels, London, and Dublin to discuss European tech regulation. There they met with EU and UK government officials, representatives of US companies, and what they described as free speech advocates. “Nothing we heard in Europe eased our concerns about the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, or Online Safety Act”, said Jim Jordan, in a written statement after the visit. “American companies based in Europe are frustrated”, said Antitrust Chairman Scott Fitzgerald, who was also part of the delegation. Shortly before the trip, on 25 July, the Judiciary Committee released a report that singled out the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) as a “foreign censorship threat”. The report, shared with Politico, describes the DSA as a “comprehensive digital censorship law” that threatens the freedom of speech of American citizens. The Judiciary Committee’s report is the result of an ongoing inquiry that started with subpoenas issued by the US Congress in February to Big Tech companies, asking them for information about their contact with foreign countries regarding censorship. The report also criticised the way the EU designates what counts as Very Large Online Platforms, which are given greater responsibilities. According to the report, these designations are “used to burden” non-EU firms, while EU firms are afforded workarounds. (Chairman Jim Jordan Leads Delegation on Free Speech in Europe) (US Congress goes after EU over ‘foreign censorship’) | Media freedomAs EMFA enters into force, guidelines are still missing[empty link] The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), meant to safeguard the independence of European media and protect journalists, entered into force on 8 August. But one key component for its enforcement is still missing, namely the guidelines on how to determine who should qualify as media service provider. One of the purposes of the EMFA is to prevent Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) from arbitrarily removing or downgrading content by professional media outlets, named media service providers (MSP). This means an MSP status would provide safeguards that one's content would be treated differently by VLOPs. The European Commission has promised to publish implementation guidelines for the process to determine who qualifies as an MSP, but as these are still lacking, and are not expected until the autumn, it is difficult to determine which outlets have the right to EMFA protection. Rule of Law Report sees little or no progress in some countriesThe European Commission presented its 6th Rule of Law Report on 7 July. The report analyses the situation concerning rule of law in four key areas, one being media freedom, in the EU member states and four of the candidate countries. According to the report, many member states are undertaking reforms to strengthen the independent functioning and financing of public service media and to improve fairness and transparency of state advertising allocation. Increasing attention is also given to the safety and protection of journalists, and member states have set up support structures or strengthened the legal protection of journalists. Still, further action is needed to address concerns regarding the safety of journalists as well as to improve safeguards for the independence of some media regulators and public service media, increase the transparency of ownership, and ensure better fairness and transparency in the allocation of state advertising. The report also highlights that economic challenges faced by the media, which represent a global phenomenon, are also felt across Europe. It points to reforms of media support mechanisms that are planned in Denmark and Portugal as positive ways to deal with this. When it comes to negative examples, particular concern is expressed about the situation in Hungary, where no measures have been adopted or are planned to regulate the distribution of state advertising to media outlets. Previously voiced concerns regarding the independent governance and editorial independence of public service media have not been addressed, and there are concerns regarding the national media regulator’s independence. Romania also stands out negatively, where the financing of private media by political parties and state authorities has led to an increase of non-transparent political advertising. And several concerns are expressed concerning the media situation in the candidate country Serbia, where the safety of journalists has become a “source of increasing concern” as well as the independence of the public broadcaster. The Commission also expresses “serious concerns” regarding the independence of Serbia’s media regulator. (2025 Rule of Law Report) Criticism of Rule of Law ReportThe European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) was unimpressed with the EU Commission’s Rule of Law Report this year, saying it makes a weak assessment of the different areas of media freedom, far from reflects the dark picture in some countries, and “fails to provide an adequate response to the repeated warnings from journalists’ organisations and scientific research”. “Instead, the report seems to enumerate a number of positive initiatives undertaken by Member States, without assessing or verifying their effectiveness in practice”. The EFJ specifically points to the situation in Serbia: “The ferocious repression underway in Serbia cannot be treated as a mere source of concern. This is tantamount to normalizing blatant violations of the rule of law”, said EFJ General Secretary Ricardo Gutiérrez in a written statement. (2025 Rule of Law Report: European Commission fails to raise its voice and continues to ignore emergency situations) | TransparencyFurther conflict between EU Commission and the press
New tensions have arisen between the European Commission and the press covering EU affairs. In the latest development, the International Press Association (API-IPA), representing foreign correspondents accredited to the EU, issued a statement “deploring the lack of transparency” around the publication of the Commission’s proposal for the bloc’s seven-year budget in July. The journalists complained of several breaches of a formal agreement between the Commission and API. “This severely impacted the ability of journalists to accurately and promptly report on a key policy event”, the letter said. Among those breaches were that the €2 trillion budget was presented without a table of figures, that insufficient details were shared regarding the planning of the day the budget would be presented, and that the press release regarding the budget was presented long after decisions on the budget were taken. In a letter seen by Politico, the EU’s spokespersons service replied and said the intervention from API did not reflect reality. As this newsletter reported in our previous issue, a group of more than 130 EU journalists recently signed a letter urging the European Commission to uphold the EU’s transparency laws. (API-IPA Deplores Breaches of Press Agreement During Presentation of EU Budget) | |
Don't forget our Nordic newsletterDid you know that Nordicom has another newsletter about the media policy sector in the Nordics? It is called Nordic Media Policy. |
Follow Nordicom on social media: |
About the newsletter
The newsletter European Media Policy provides an update on policy developments at the European level. It concentrates on news from the European Union: current issues and trends in media policy, new proposals for legislation, debates in the European Parliament, recently taken or impending policy decisions and reactions among those concerned, new support programmes, EU studies in the field, etc. There is also some coverage of policy developments in the Council of Europe and at the international level. European Media Policy is published with support from the Nordic Council of Ministers.
Editor
Natacha Lópaz, freelance journalist
natacha.lopez@gu.se Publisher
Nordicom University of Gothenburg
PO Box 713
SE-405 30
Gothenburg
Sweden
www.nordicom.gu.se
|
|
|
|
