Intervention by Mr. Roger Ingebrigtsen, State Secretary, Ministry of Cultural Affairs

The media in our countries play an important role in safeguarding freedom of expression, the free flow of information and ideas and the promotion of democracy. To be able to fulfil these tasks, the media have to be independent and pluralistic. They have to be independent of the authorities and of outside influence. They have to be independent channels for different opinions and general outlooks on society.

The owners of a media company, whether they are a publishing house, a newspaper, a broadcasting company or an Internet service provider have the possibility to influence the content that is transmitted to the public. Over the last few decades we have witnessed a trend towards concentration of ownership in the media. This trend is mainly due to the fact that media companies represent a potential for huge profits. But another important effect is the potential to undermine democracy and freedom of expression. Faced with this possibility, many European countries have regulated media ownership.

The concrete regulations vary among our countries. Some regulate through the licensing of broadcasting services, some have special regulation within the competition laws. However, the most recent trend in Europe is to regulate media ownership in broadcasting laws or in special laws.

The Norwegian Media Ownership Act is an example of regulation in a special law. The purpose of the act is clearly stated: It is to promote freedom of expression, genuine opportunities to express one’s opinions and a comprehensive range of media. The varieties in types of regulation in Europe are based on differences in media structures, the complexity of the media markets and historical, cultural and legal traditions.

The Norwegian act provides a specially established authority with the power to intervene against acquisitions of dominant ownership interests in newspapers or broadcasting enterprises. An important article in the 1999 act states that the Media Ownership Authority cannot be instructed by the Government on how to enforce the act generally or in individual cases. A special appeals board has been established to deal with complaints against the Authority’s decisions. This underlines its independence from governmental interference.

The scope of the Media Ownership Act is restricted to the traditional newspapers and broadcasters. The Norwegian government has recently expressed its intention of extending the scope to cover the new media. This work has just started.

The Media Ownership Authority looked into more than 40 acquisitions of ownership interests in media enterprises last year. The Authority intervened in four cases. Three of them were appealed. The special Appeals Board has this year confirmed the Authority’s decisions in all three cases. Regulation of media ownership is by nature controversial, but there has not been much public debate in Norway as to the type of regulation or the Authority’s practice. On the contrary, two public reports have stated that this type of regulation is in conformity with the promotion of freedom of expression and should be extended to also cover the new media.

Regulation of media ownership calls for international co-operation. Especially broadcasting and the new media know no national borders. But also newspaper owners are looking outside their home countries. For example one of the three largest media companies in Norway controls a larger percentage of the national newspaper circulation here in Poland than in Norway after recent acquisitions.
The combination of potential for profits and media ownership regulation in some countries but not in all, may lead to unreasonable media concentration in countries which have no media ownership regulation as yet.

So what is the potential for pan-European action to promote media pluralism?

Although the European Union has worked for some time to regulate media ownership, the aim for the Commission’s work seems not primarily to be the promotion of freedom of expression and media pluralism, but rather the free flow of capital within the EEA area. I believe this is not necessarily the best approach to regulating the media. I do hope that the European Union will propose media ownership regulation based on genuine media policy considerations.

The Council of Europe is in a good position to take the responsibility for international co-operation in this field.
The Council of Europe is a true pan-European organisation, where almost all European countries are members. The Council of Europe also has a tradition of producing non-binding legal instruments, such as recommendations and guidelines, and I believe that is the type of instruments we need.

In my opinion the best way to meet the international challenge that media concentration poses, is to guide member states on how to regulate to avoid unreasonable media concentration within their countries, based on the fact that there is a broad understanding in Europe on what is needed to safeguard freedom of expression and media pluralism, and giving room for the different legal traditions in our countries. I believe that the Council of Europe is competent to manage this important and difficult work, and I hope we can agree to do it.