Iva Nenadic

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, but much the same can be said of those who fail to prepare for the future. In this chapter, both the long and short view of the future are taken by our panel of contributors: short term outlooks often revolve around the media titans of today—GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook. Amazon, Microsoft), which according to Benhamou, cannot be ignored. Long term outlooks include both positivity—Curien—and pessimism, via Bernisson. Of course, these forecasting exercises will only meet reality halfway. The future is as unpredictable as the past is unbelievable.

This report presents the results and the methodology of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM2020), a tool geared at assessing the risks to media pluralism in EU member states and selected candidate countries (30 European countries in total). The Media Pluralism Monitor has been implemented, on a regular basis, by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, since 2013/2014 (last implementation MPM2017), based on a holistic perspective, taking into account legal, political and economic variables that are relevant to analysing the levels of plurality of media systems in a democratic society. This implementation covers the years 2018 and 2019. Consequently, the United Kingdom – which left the Union in January 2020 - is still analysed as being part of the European Union in this report

This paper aims to discuss the extent and potential consequences of the blurring line between professional and private activity of journalists on social media: if and how is this challenging traditional journalistic norms and routines, but also if and how this could stand as an ethical issue for researchers. The study first utilizes netnography as a method to notice potential trends and conflicts that were then used to define categories of the content analysis of tweets posted or shared by journalists in Croatia. Finally, in-depth interviews will be conducted with journalists that show to be most (pro)active in their use of Twitter. The preliminary observations suggest the shift towards more transparency and personalization. However, there is also a tendency of normalization, in particular with the gatekeeping role

This work was supported by the European Union through the project for the implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor in EU28, Montenegro and Turkey, within the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF) at the European University Institute.

Rad sadržava pregled politika vodećih online-platformi u borbi protiv dezinformacija i infodemije kako bi se promislile njihove moguće izravne ili neizravne, kratkoročne ili dugoročne posljedice za medijski pluralizam i informirano građanstvo, uzimajući u obzir značenje platformi u oblikovanju informacijskog okruženja. Metoda istraživanja je analiza dokumenata koje su odabrane platforme objavile od početka koronakrize u veljači do 31. srpnja 2020. kako bi komunicirale promjene svojih politika moderacije sadržaja kao posljedicu te krize. Uključena su i izvješća, koja su u kolovozu 2020. dostavile Europskoj komisiji, o mjerama koje su primijenile kako bi ograničile širenje dezinformacija povezanih s bolešću COV ID-19. Analiza sugerira da su platforme nedvojbeno poduzele niz potencijalno korisnih mjera kako bi odgovorile na izazove širenja lažnih, obmanjujućih i štetnih informacija u pandemiji, ali gotovo svaka od tih mjera sadržava i potencijalan rizik za slobodu izražavanja i medijsk...

The European Commission (EC) has recognised the exposure of citizens to online disinformation and micro-targeting of voters based on the unlawful processing of personal data as one of the major challenges for European democracies. In a response, the EC has put in place several measures creating a "European approach". This paper analyses the approach to identify which are the key principles upon which it is based; and the extent to which it takes into account the complexities of the challenges identified. The initial conclusions are that, while being a significant step in the creation of a common EU answer to disinformation and political manipulation, the "European approach" requires further elaboration, primarily to include additional layers of transparency and public oversight.

Američki predsjednički izbori 2016. i referendum o izlasku Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva iz Europske unije razotkrili su slabosti tradicionalnih medijskih organizacija i novinarstva u online dominiranom okruženju. Digitalni posrednici, pogotovo društvene mreže poput Facebooka i Twittera, potvrdili su svoj sve značajniji položaj u distribuciji i konzumaciji informacija i mišljenja.

This study examined how journalists in Croatia use Twitter and how they differ regarding their work for elite and non-elite media. Research focuses on basic journalistic norms of nonpartisanship, transparency and the gatekeeping. It was found that journalists in Croatia do not use Twitter extensively partly because of small number of overall Twitter users in Croatia. But this study also found that, as a result of Twitter use, journalists were more open and more involved in discussions with consequence of more transparency and changes in their norms. Elite and non-elite journalists differ in topic selection, transparency level and routines. Journalists in elite media are less likely to link, self-promote and write about their personal lives than journalists working for non-elite media.

This chapter provides a brief insight into how technology driven changes affect the ways news is being made, delivered, found, and funded, and what implications this may have for media pluralism. Starting from the broad notion of media pluralism, which goes beyond the market dimension of media plurality and takes, for example, into account the role of journalists and other players in the news ecosystem, the author calls for even broader and more nuanced consideration of players and processes related to news. Trends suggest that news is increasingly produced outside traditional journalistic forms and conventions, and it is increasingly delivered through personalised recommendation systems of online intermediaries which are not media but carry out some media-like functions and profit from the work done by media. At the same time, these intermediaries are not bounded by the same requirements of transparency, impartiality and diversity, as legacy media.

Technological transformation has provided conditions for people to engage in different stages of news production, as never before. With this in mind, this paper explores whether the media and journalists across Europe in their attempt to innovate the news business model reconsider their relations to users. More specifically, we question whether this innovation seeks to address users primarily as citizens or as consumers. The analysis is based on the data collected by national research teams through the project Media Pluralism Monitor 2016, implemented in EU:28, Montenegro and Turkey. The results show that the most visible attempts of innovation are crowdfunding/crowdsourcing and paywalls, which can be seen as a turn to audiences to compensate for a loss in advertising revenues. At the same time, only a few initiatives re-invent their relationship with audiences by giving them more decision-making powers (be it related to content or to their business strategy). Audiences are to a great extent still treated simply as paying consumers, and the level of participation remains limited.

In the view of the 2019 European Parliament elections and elections being held in Member States, the European Commission has recognised the exposure of citizens to large scale online disinformation and micro-targeting of voters based on the unlawful processing of personal data as the major challenges for Europe and European democratic systems. In a response to these challenges, and to ensure citizens’ access to a variety of credible information sources and voices, the EC has put in place several mainly platforms-oriented actions and measures which aim to create an overarching “European approach”. This paper provides a preliminary analysis of this approach to identify which are the key principles upon which it builds; and to what extent, if at all, they differ from the principles of media regulation in electoral period. The analysis further looks at how these principles are elaborated in the new context and whether it reflects the complexity of the challenges identified.

The development of digital landscape has caused significant disruptions in media and policy, including a need for shift in the definitions and measurements of different forms of concentrations and plurality. To adequately define media pluralism within the media policy, it is no longer sufficient to address concentration of ownership of “traditional” media companies. Regulation and monitoring mechanisms need to add the issue of concentration of digital content and distribution intermediaries.

Concentration of media ownership is seen as one of the biggest threats for media pluralism as it may narrow the diversity of editorial voices and information. To ensure sufficient plurality and diversity, most countries in the EU, within their media policy, have enacted certain limits or thresholds on horizontal concentration in traditional media markets. The specific safeguards to prevent cross-media concentration are less common, but in those cases general competition laws (antitrust and merger control) may also apply and take sufficient account of media pluralism. Market positions of digital content and distribution intermediaries have currently not been taken into account with the same approach.

Although the change in technology in legal theory should not present a key legal issue (McLeod 2009, 32), the contemporary disruptions represent such a radical shift that lack of response in media policy risks losing touch with current realities. In the current environment, the news and information are increasingly produced and shared outside traditional journalistic institutions. Digital intermediaries are often not defined as ‘media’ but increasingly act as editors (Helberger, 2017) and main sources to engage with news (which is still largely produced by traditional media) (Newman et al. 2017). These gatekeepers dominate online/digital environment, diminishing the role and importance of traditional, legacy media also within the issue of plurality. Regulating traditional media technologies, thus, “but leaving the internet free creates distortions in the media market.” (Looms 2011).

The Media Pluralism Monitor currently covers two types of media concentration: horizontal and cross-media, considering also the concentration of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Internet Content Providers (ICPs). The Monitor assesses the actual level of different types of concentration based on the “four-firm (or Top 4) concentration ratio” (CR4). The experience of the MPM, and the changing reality, require for more nuanced measuring method, as well as for more aspects and actors to be measured, in particular the concentration of distribution networks and the (dominant) (new) intermediaries which increasingly influence or determine the conditions for access to, and the nature of, the media and content. The paper presents an analysis of existing measures as well as critical assessment of potential shortcomings and additions, stemming from historical discussions on cross-media regulation and concentration measures, including ponders based on reach, access, actual use, and income (Robinson 1996; Graham 1996).

This paper analyses the approaches in regulating the media pluralism, placed between the ‘traditional’ approaches that include legacy media and ‘new’ approaches that (attempt to) take into account the disrupted digital landscape. Within this new landscape, fluid definitions and notions of what is (news) media and which conditions are required to ensure plurality and diversity present one of the key challenges for policy-making.

Presented at the International Communication Association Pre-conference, May 24, 2019, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON DC
https://cla.purdue.edu/research/conferences/PREICA2019.html