During the interactive debate on media freedom (Medijska svoboda? Bo, da!), , which was hosted by MEP Irena Joveva in early December 2022, young people discussed the upcoming European Media Freedom Act. The workshop critically discussed the current state of the media in the European Union and the measures proposed by the Act, and offered solutions for how to increase media freedom and in particular how to ensure that this legislation does not become another in a series of toothless tigers.

Young people welcome the proposed Act, because they believe that media freedom should be given greater attention as it has been neglected for too long. They think the proposal is well conceived, but too general and does not go far enough in actually addressing the most problematic issues regarding media freedom in the European Union. In the debate, they divided up into thematic groups to explain their views and propose solutions.

With respect to independent public service media and their pluralism, young people emphasise that building society’s trust in these media is key. They believe that the media should be independent, not least financially. They stress the importance of (self-)regulation on the basis of ethical standards developed by representative organisations working towards regulated, quality and independent journalism. In their view, the media landscape would benefit from an independent regulatory body to oversee the pluralisation and protection of media of special interest, for which criteria for state (co-)funding would need to be determined. Young people would also devote due care to online media, including in relation to foreign investment, for which they propose a publicly accessible single information system.

With respect to protecting editorial independence and transparency of media ownership, young people point to the vagueness of the Act. They propose the development of more common European norms for the appointment, dismissal and tenure of editors in public service media and to cover their running costs. They mention the possibility of trying to influence a media outlet through an ownership stake and therefore foresee the disclosure of all (in)direct media owners. The same is proposed for advertisers and their share in a media outlet’s funding.

Young people also want clearer rules on viewership and state advertising, including an obligation for the European Commission to issue guidelines. They advocate that national regulatory authorities should help to draw up guidelines on viewership methodology and that the methodologies and the rating themselves be publicly available (including in digital form). Young people propose abandoning the concept of territorial entities of one million inhabitants, as it is too broad for smaller countries such as Slovenia, and add the importance of local authorities and municipalities. As regards state advertising, they advocate transparency and more precise instructions for state-controlled entities.

They also press for the protection of online content and appropriate media services in the digital environment. In their view this area relies too much on national legislation and there is not enough communication between platforms and national institutions, for which they propose a direct channel of communication between the big platforms and the competent authorities. They mention the under-staffing of existing online safety bodies and poor definition of self-regulation. They thus propose the creation of basic national norms across Member States, with their own independent bodies, on the basis of which minimum common European standards would be drawn up (as a bottom-up approach). They also mention minimum standards for journalists and online media, with independent bodies stripping those who would abuse their status as journalists or media of their verification/vetting. Rather than punishing offenders, young people see the solution in  stimulating compliance with the code of ethics and (self-)regulation through state subsidies. The same should apply to non-digital media. An additional solution would be to design strict rules requiring a clear declaration in the headline as to whether the piece is an opinion or news. For the latter, the criteria for compliance would be stricter.

With respect to the currently envisaged regulatory body at the European level, the European Board for Media Services young people propose certain mechanisms to ensure that the Committee is not a toothless tiger and that Member States actually follow the rules laid down in the Act. They suggest that the Committee could report an offending country to the European Commission, which could then take the Member State to the Court of Justice of the EU. When appointing representatives to the Committee, they stress that they should be selected without influence from the ruling parties, but, say, by representative organisations. As regards the national regulatory authority, young people also point to the lack of leverage; they propose powers similar to those of the Competition Protection Agency. They also propose a single media inspection service covering the entire media sector. Furthermore, they point to the importance of a precise definition of terms, as this will determine what power and leverage these bodies will really have.

The young people concluded their reasoning with the thought that even if this Act is expected only to set a framework for media freedom, it will have to be as defined, robust and ambitious as possible. You can read more about young people’s views and ideas on the European Media Freedom Act here.

A shorter video of the event can be found here. 

The interactive workshop was preceded by a panel discussion with MEP Joveva, Asta Vrečko, Minister of Culture, Lenart J. Kučić, Media Adviser to the Minister, and Marko Milosavljević, professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences. They presented their views on media freedom and its current state and, of course, discussed the current draft of the Act. You can read more here.

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA):

EMFA is a proposal from the European Commission containing a new set of rules to protect media pluralism and independence in the EU, aimed at strengthening the internal media market so that media – public and private – can operate more easily across borders in the EU internal market, without undue pressure and taking into account the digital transformation of the media landscape. The text of the Act will shortly be taken up by the European Parliament and the Council.

On Thursday, 8 December 2022, MEP Irena Joveva hosted an interactive debate with students on media freedom (Medijska svoboda? Bo, da!), where they discussed the forthcoming European Media Freedom Act (MFA). Among other things, Joveva believed that this regulation should be shaped as ambitiously as possible.

In addition to the MEP, the debate was attended by Asta Vrečko, Minister of Culture, Lenart J. Kučić, Media Adviser to the Minister, and Marko Milosavljević, professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences.

In her address, Ms Joveva focused on the developments at the European level, saying that in terms of the European Union’s competences in the media field the Act truly is revolutionary, and that for that reason the Union will have to find solutions that are appropriate for all Member States.

She stressed that certain standards absolutely must be ensured, particularly those of additional, European protection of the media and journalists and their independence. She added that MEPs are often accused of legislating only as dictated by lobbyists, which is why she wants to change this and to hear the voice of young people who will co-shape this area in the future.

Next to speak was Minister Vrečko who highlighted the importance of the forthcoming Act for the Slovenian media landscape. In her view, the Act will boost the Union’s democratic credentials, and Slovenia will contribute constructively to both the formulation of the regulation and its implementation.

Kučić followed up on the Minister’s words and said that the Act will not necessarily solve the main problems in our media space, but will undoubtedly encourage more intensive problem-solving in this area. He added that the political message is clear, as we do not want the European media space to be marred by non-transparent public advertising in the media, misuse of public funds in order to silence journalists or by controlling them.

Milosavljević concluded the opening debate by recalling that Slovenia was one of the countries that were the reason for this Act in the first place. He stressed that we should not forget what happened during the previous government (led by Janez Janša) and that not everything that concerns freedoms can be taken for granted.

The speakers agreed that the Act still needs to be further refined.

The second part of the event was devoted to an interactive workshop for students, who examined the separate thematic components covered by the Act and discussed possible amendments and solutions. This sparked discussions on both the current and the past situation, what could be improved and how. At the end of the thorough examination of the sets of provisions, the students, in groups, presented their interesting and useful proposals to the speakers. More details on this will be published in the coming week.

You can watch the full recording of the speakers’ speeches HERE.

“For me personally, it is not hard because I know who I am and how I want to stay. And above all, I know what I do not wish to become, ” said MEP Irena Joveva in a lengthy interview on the Gorenjska Television (GTV) channel about her work. She also talked about media freedom, the energy crisis, working for the benefit of young people and answered the question of what would be the first thing about the European Parliament she would change if she could.

She began by explaining that for MEPs too, almost everything has gone back to the way it was and that physical presence is again the norm, with the notable exception of the meetings of the Renew Europe political group, of which she is a member. She regretted that the majority in Parliament had refused to take advantage of the good practices of the system built during the pandemic, especially in terms of transparency of votes.

She added that she tries to organise her work in Brussels in such a way that her days are filled with work, but that this allows her to be more active in Slovenia.

She believes that politics is a matter of compromise and negotiation, but that respect for the rule of law, fundamental human rights and democracy is non-negotiable, and this is what the Renew Europe group, despite its diversity, is very much aware of. She added that “a typical day in the European Parliament is atypical”, as there is a great deal of variety ­–from weeks with more committee work, weeks devoted to the Renew Europe group and plenary weeks to missions across Europe and work in the country of origin. On top of that, there are many coordination and preparatory meetings, meetings with different organisations, experts, stakeholders and other MEPs, visitors to be received and events to be attended.

How does she stay true to herself? “Before going to bed, I think about the day and see if I can go to sleep without any guilt. The answer has to be yes, and it always is yes. If it weren’t, it would mean that I have “messed up” something in my life,” Joveva replied.

The discussion also turned to media freedom, where the MEP said that she did not believe for a moment that voters would not support changes for a better public service broadcaster. Still, she regretted that some politicians were abusing the right to a referendum through manipulation and lies, going so far as to compare the current situation in Slovenia with Nazi Germany, which was completely unacceptable.

She reiterated the importance of the European Media Freedom Act, for which she is likely to act as rapporteur on behalf of Renew Europe. The Act will bring a new set of rules and mechanisms aimed at promoting media pluralism and independence.

The presenter also asked the MEP about Hungary and Poland, and Joveva responded that today these two countries would not be admitted to the European Union if measured by the standards required from potential new members. “We can see that there has been no consideration of the possibility that the situation in a country could worsen after it has joined the Union. We do not have sufficient mechanisms in place and I would like to stress that the situation in Hungary and Poland is really worrying.”

Another topic mentioned was the letter to the directors of digital platforms about the non-use of Slovene, and the MEP said that she was happy to see that things were moving, albeit slowly, and that it is gratifying to know that one had contributed to these developments. She insisted that it does not matter whether we speak foreign languages or not, as the right to access content in one’s mother tongue is something fundamental, and, most importantly, that blind, partially sighted, deaf and hard of hearing people should not be discriminated against.

Touching on the current energy crisis, Joveva first reaffirmed her resolute support for Ukraine in its legitimate struggle for existence in the face of intense Russian aggression, and then went on to present her opinion that the energy crisis could be solved by putting a price cap on Russian oil, but that it should be as low as possible:

“The long-term solution is to invest in renewable energy and to provide the necessary infrastructure for real independence from fossil fuels.” Joveva also called for a fund similar to the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

Asked what would be the first thing that she would change in the functioning of the European Parliament, she replied that she would determine a single seat for it, either in Brussels or Strasbourg, as this is the only sensible thing to do from an environmental, financial and logistical point of view. Another thing she would wish to see is that the work of the MEPs were followed and presented to the public more comprehensively.

The MEP concluded the interview with a New Year greeting, wishing the audience a peaceful Christmas and a healthy and happy 2023, and above all that we might live in a world where manipulators, liars, war profiteers and divisive people do not stand a chance.

You can watch the full interview with the MEP here.

To Whom It May Concern:

To avoid further manipulation or misunderstandings regarding our decision not to vote on the final text of the resolution designating the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism, we wish to provide further clarifications.

We chose the possibility to refrain from voting because none of the voting options fully corresponded to our positions. We are in no way against the main text of the resolution, nor do we have any reservations about it, as we have always strongly condemned the Russian aggression against Ukraine and we strongly support Ukraine’s struggle for its territorial integrity and independence and its efforts to defend against Russian aggression. This is evident from all our actions and personal endeavours to date. We have also demonstrated this by voting in favour of all previous resolutions on Ukraine. We have also endorsed, in the same plenary vote this week (Thursday, 24 November 2022), two actual legislative proposals: on financial assistance to Ukraine and on the non-recognition of Russian travel documents issued in the occupied territory.

Why were we unable to vote in favour of this particular resolution? During the vote on the amendments, we supported the amendments put forward by the Group of the Greens, which in our opinion would have made the final text of the resolution better (also in terms of international law or possible consequences). To summarise: one amendment by the Greens, which was not adopted in the end, would have recognised the Russian Federation as a state which uses means of terrorism. Their second amendment, which was also ultimately not adopted, would have called on the EU and its Member States to take concrete practical steps “in the face of such terrorist acts, using all existing instruments available” and to trigger “further restrictive measures against Russia”, while calling on the EU’s partners to adopt similar measures.

Furthermore, we took exception to the PiS party (Poland, a member party of the ECR Group in the European Parliament) managing to insert into the text of the resolution a part referring to the crash of a Polish plane in 2010 (with part of the then government on board) in the same article or paragraph that otherwise states the facts about the proven downing of a Malaysian plane in 2014.

We are always fighting against autocratic and, above all, violent regimes that kill innocent people, destroy infrastructure, displace populations and put the whole world in danger. This certainly applies to Russia, but also to all other current and past wars.

We would like to reiterate our strong condemnation of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and our strong support for Ukraine’s struggle for its territorial integrity. The option we have chosen in the vote this time does not change our position in any way.

Below you can find the amendments that we supported and were rejected (the original text on the left and the proposed amendments on the right).

Yours sincerely,

MEPs Irena Joveva and Dr Klemen Grošelj

Amendment 1

Amendment 2