Keyword: Media law

Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU external link

Seipp, T., Helberger, N., Vreese, C.H. de & Ausloos, J.
Internet Policy Review, vol. 13, iss. : 4, 2024

Abstract

Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in "the online environment". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.

EU, media concentration, Media law, Platforms, Regulation

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU}, author = {Seipp, T. and Helberger, N. and Vreese, C.H. de and Ausloos, J.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulating-media-concentration-and-platform-dependence}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.4.1813 }, year = {2024}, date = {2024-11-14}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {13}, issue = {4}, pages = {}, abstract = {Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in \"the online environment\". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.}, keywords = {EU, media concentration, Media law, Platforms, Regulation}, }

What can a media privilege look like? Unpacking three versions in the EMFA download

Drunen, M. van, Papaevangelou, C., Buijs, D. & Fahy, R.
Journal of Media Law, 2024

Abstract

The media privilege has been one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). However, it is important not to assess the drawbacks of the media privilege in isolation, but in relation to the other available alternatives. In this comment, we lay out and critique how the European Parliament and Council build on the Commission’s proposal for a media privilege in the EMFA. We focus on three key questions: how is media content treated differently, who qualifies as media, and who decides who qualifies as media?

Content moderation, Media law, Platforms

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {What can a media privilege look like? Unpacking three versions in the EMFA}, author = {Drunen, M. van and Papaevangelou, C. and Buijs, D. and Fahy, R.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/what-can-a-media-privilege-look-like-unpacking-three-versions-in-the-emfa/journalofmedialaw_2024/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2023.2299097}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-01-31}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, abstract = {The media privilege has been one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). However, it is important not to assess the drawbacks of the media privilege in isolation, but in relation to the other available alternatives. In this comment, we lay out and critique how the European Parliament and Council build on the Commission’s proposal for a media privilege in the EMFA. We focus on three key questions: how is media content treated differently, who qualifies as media, and who decides who qualifies as media?}, keywords = {Content moderation, Media law, Platforms}, }

Public interest content on audiovisual platforms: access and findability download

McGonagle, T., Bosch, L. van den, Buijs, D., Huang, M., Nazarski, M., Fahy, R., Poort, J. & Ulasiuk, I.
2023

audiovisual content, Media law, public interests

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Public interest content on audiovisual platforms: access and findability}, author = {McGonagle, T. and Bosch, L. van den and Buijs, D. and Huang, M. and Nazarski, M. and Fahy, R. and Poort, J. and Ulasiuk, I.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/public-interest-content-on-audiovisual-platforms-access-and-findability/iris-special-2023-01/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-10-17}, keywords = {audiovisual content, Media law, public interests}, }

Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age

Seipp, T.
Media and Communication, vol. 11, iss. : 2, pp: 392-405, 2023

Abstract

Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.

digital platforms, editorial independence, European regulation, media concentration, Media law, media pluralism, opinion power, structural dependency

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age}, author = {Seipp, T.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6393}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-06-30}, journal = {Media and Communication}, volume = {11}, issue = {2}, pages = {392-405}, abstract = {Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.}, keywords = {digital platforms, editorial independence, European regulation, media concentration, Media law, media pluralism, opinion power, structural dependency}, }

Dealing with opinion power and media concentration in the platform era external link

Seipp, T.
LSE Blog, 2023

media concentration, Media law, Platforms

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Dealing with opinion power and media concentration in the platform era}, author = {Seipp, T.}, url = {https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2023/05/15/dealing-with-opinion-power-and-media-concentration-in-the-platform-era/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-05-15}, journal = {LSE Blog}, keywords = {media concentration, Media law, Platforms}, }

Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights external link

McGonagle, T. & Voorhoof, D.
European Audiovisual Observatory, 2023, Strasbourg, Edition: 8th , ISBN: 9789287184351

Abstract

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first seven editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022) have proved hugely successful. The new seventh edition summarises over 378 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).

Freedom of expression, Journalism, Media law

Bibtex

Book{nokey, title = {Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights}, author = {McGonagle, T. and Voorhoof, D.}, url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-8th-edition-april-2023-/1680ab1d11}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-04-24}, abstract = {This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first seven editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022) have proved hugely successful. The new seventh edition summarises over 378 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court\'s online case-law database).}, keywords = {Freedom of expression, Journalism, Media law}, }

A Primer and FAQ on Copyright Law and Generative AI for News Media external link

Quintais, J. & Diakopoulos, N.
2023

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Media law, news

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {A Primer and FAQ on Copyright Law and Generative AI for News Media}, author = {Quintais, J. and Diakopoulos, N.}, url = {https://generative-ai-newsroom.com/a-primer-and-faq-on-copyright-law-and-generative-ai-for-news-media-f1349f514883}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-04-26}, keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Media law, news}, }

Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix

Sax, M.
Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. : 10, pp: 1650-1670, 2022

Abstract

The role news recommenders can play in stimulating news diversity is receiving increasing amounts of attention. Democratic theory plays an important role in this debate because it helps explain why news diversity is important and which kinds of news diversity should be pursued. In this article, I observe that the current literature on news recommenders and news diversity largely draws on a narrow set of theories of liberal and deliberative democracy. Another strand of democratic theory often referred to as ‘agonism’ is often ignored. This, I argue, is a mistake. Liberal and deliberative theories of democracy focus on the question of how political disagreements and conflicts can be resolved in a rational and legitimate manner. Agonism, to the contrary, stresses the ineradicability of conflict and the need to make conflict productive. This difference in thinking about the purpose of democratic politics can also lead to new ways of thinking about the value of news diversity and role algorithmic news recommenders should play in promoting it. The overall aim of the article is (re)introduce agonistic theory to the news recommender context and to argue that agonism deserves more serious attention.

agonism, algorithmic news recommenders, Democracy, diversity, Media law, news recommenders

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix}, author = {Sax, M.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2114919}, year = {2022}, date = {2022-09-14}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, volume = {10}, issue = {10}, pages = {1650-1670}, abstract = {The role news recommenders can play in stimulating news diversity is receiving increasing amounts of attention. Democratic theory plays an important role in this debate because it helps explain why news diversity is important and which kinds of news diversity should be pursued. In this article, I observe that the current literature on news recommenders and news diversity largely draws on a narrow set of theories of liberal and deliberative democracy. Another strand of democratic theory often referred to as ‘agonism’ is often ignored. This, I argue, is a mistake. Liberal and deliberative theories of democracy focus on the question of how political disagreements and conflicts can be resolved in a rational and legitimate manner. Agonism, to the contrary, stresses the ineradicability of conflict and the need to make conflict productive. This difference in thinking about the purpose of democratic politics can also lead to new ways of thinking about the value of news diversity and role algorithmic news recommenders should play in promoting it. The overall aim of the article is (re)introduce agonistic theory to the news recommender context and to argue that agonism deserves more serious attention.}, keywords = {agonism, algorithmic news recommenders, Democracy, diversity, Media law, news recommenders}, }

Towards a Normative Perspective on Journalistic
AI: Embracing the Messy Reality of Normative
Ideals download

Helberger, N., Drunen, M. van, Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S. & Eskens, S.
Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. : 10, pp: 1605-1626, 2022

Abstract

Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.

Artificial intelligence, governance, Journalism, Media law, normative perspective, professional values, Regulation

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Towards a Normative Perspective on JournalisticAI: Embracing the Messy Reality of NormativeIdeals}, author = {Helberger, N. and Drunen, M. van and Möller, J. and Vrijenhoek, S. and Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/towards-a-normative-perspective-on-journalisticai-embracing-the-messy-reality-of-normativeideals/digital_journalism_2022_10/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2152195}, year = {2022}, date = {2022-12-22}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, volume = {10}, issue = {10}, pages = {1605-1626}, abstract = {Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.}, keywords = {Artificial intelligence, governance, Journalism, Media law, normative perspective, professional values, Regulation}, }

Popularity-driven Metrics: Audience Analytics and Shifting Opinion Power to Digital Platforms external link

Dodds, T., Vreese, C.H. de, Helberger, N., Resendez, V. & Seipp, T.
Journalism Studies, 2023

Abstract

As digital technologies have made their way into news production, allowing news organizations to measure audience behaviors and engagement in real-time, click-based and editorial goals have become increasingly intertwined. Ongoing developments in algorithmic technologies allow editors to bring their audience into the newsroom using specialized tools such as Chartbeat or Google Analytics. This article examines how these technologies have affected the composition of the audience and their power to influence news-making processes inside two Chilean newsrooms. Drawing on several months of newsroom ethnography, we identify how the pursuit of “clickable news” impacts editorial processes and journalistic priorities by changing the datafied audience opinion power behind news production. Shifts in opinion power, loss of control, and increased platform dependency may contribute to a concentrated media landscape. Our findings show that opinion power has shifted to a datafied version of the audience, raising new questions about platform dependency and editorial autonomy in media organizations. These results carry significant implications for understanding the chase for traffic in current multiplatform newsrooms and how this phenomenon impacts news production.

Media law

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Popularity-driven Metrics: Audience Analytics and Shifting Opinion Power to Digital Platforms}, author = {Dodds, T. and Vreese, C.H. de and Helberger, N. and Resendez, V. and Seipp, T.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2167104}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2167104}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-01-06}, journal = {Journalism Studies}, abstract = {As digital technologies have made their way into news production, allowing news organizations to measure audience behaviors and engagement in real-time, click-based and editorial goals have become increasingly intertwined. Ongoing developments in algorithmic technologies allow editors to bring their audience into the newsroom using specialized tools such as Chartbeat or Google Analytics. This article examines how these technologies have affected the composition of the audience and their power to influence news-making processes inside two Chilean newsrooms. Drawing on several months of newsroom ethnography, we identify how the pursuit of “clickable news” impacts editorial processes and journalistic priorities by changing the datafied audience opinion power behind news production. Shifts in opinion power, loss of control, and increased platform dependency may contribute to a concentrated media landscape. Our findings show that opinion power has shifted to a datafied version of the audience, raising new questions about platform dependency and editorial autonomy in media organizations. These results carry significant implications for understanding the chase for traffic in current multiplatform newsrooms and how this phenomenon impacts news production.}, keywords = {Media law}, }