El Relator Especial para la Libertad de Expresión de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), Edison Lanza, aseguró que la subasta económica no puede ser el único criterio de acceso a las frecuencias de radiodifusión y que debería existir un mecanismo diferenciado para que los medios indígenas puedan expresar su derecho a expresarse.

Como hemos publicado en OBSERVACOM, este año la CIDH remitió a la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CorteIDH) el caso de cuatro radios comunitarias indígenas mayas que no cuentan con reconocimiento legal en el país y quedaron excluidas del acceso a frecuencias radiales.

Según explicó Lanza en el programa radial “Con Criterio” que se emite por Infinita 100, será la primera vez que la CorteIDH resuelva un caso de este tipo para medios de comunicación a partir de la petición de cuatro pueblos indígenas maya, que hace más de 12 años quieren acceder a frecuencias radiales para dar un servicio a su propia comunidad y en su propia lengua.

“La Ley en Guatemala establece que solo se puede acceder a frecuencia por subasta… No hay procedimientos especiales que impidan, por un lado, a quienes ya tienen frecuencias, presentarse a nuevos llamados y tampoco procedimientos especiales para que las comunidades puedan acceder a frecuencias”, dijo Lanza.

“La Comisión entendió que se viola la libertad de expresión porque el mecanismo de subasta impide a fundar medios para difundir opiniones”, señaló. Además explicó que, como estas radios funcionan sin autorización al no contar con reconocimiento legal “se les decomisan equipos y se realizan procesos penales a sus dirigentes, así no solo están impedidos al acceso sino que los persiguen penalmente”.

“El 98% del espectro en Guatemala está asignado a seis cadenas empresariales. No hay un pueblo maya que tenga frecuencia asignada. Eso habla de una asimetría y falta de medidas positivas por el Estado (para estos grupos)… hay un grado de concentración nocivo”, afirmó.

Dijo que “en Guatemala debería existir un mecanismo diferenciado… el Estado tiene que arbitrar mecanismos que reviertan la desigualdad y discriminación estructural histórica(y) puede arbitrar mecanismos de participación positiva para estos sectores que no destruyan al sector comercial”.

Explicó que “una subasta económica no es un mecanismo democrático de acceso, estamos hablando de la regulación de un derechos fundamental que no tiene que tener un valor económico para su acceso… el espectro es patrimonio común de la humanidad… en algunos países hay un 30% reservado para emprendimientos sin fines de lucro y ese porcentaje está dirigido a comunidades”.

Se puede ver escuchar la intervención de Lanza aquí (del minuto 24 al 47).

Source: Observacom.org

AMARC has received the information that on Sunday 10th May 2020 a group of masked persons have violently forced their way into the premises of Radio d’Ici, the local community radio station and long-term AMARC member, in Saint-Julien-Molin-Molette, Department Loire, France. During the attack the studio was vandalised, and fascist and white supremacist symbols were painted on the walls and sound, recording and studio equipment have been destroyed by the attackers. 

Radio d’Ici was founded 1996 and operates three frequencies with a total technical reach of 50,000 persons and facilitates the productions of over forty volunteers. Fortunately, no radio staff has been harmed during the attack. However, the FM live broadcast via studio has been suspended due to the incurred damages, but the operations and production will continue via internet and podcasts. French Community Radio pioneer and chair of Radio d’Ici Patrice Berger states “This attack is inexplicable, but it was obviously targeted. We will continue our information and cultural work. In this difficult time, it is a work of contact, support and friendship between people. We will bounce back very quickly. “

Here you can find the audio statement “Neo-Nazi aggression against a french community radio : interview in English with Patrice Berger, president of Radio d’Ici by Denise Barstow (Fréquence-Sillé)”

Déclaration audio de Radio d’Ici sur l’attentat du 10 mai 2020

L’AMARC a été informée que dimanche 10 mai 2020, un groupe de personnes masquées s’est violemment introduit dans les locaux de Radio d’Ici, la radio associative locale et membre de longue date de l’AMARC, à Saint-Julien-Molin-Molette, Département de la Loire, France. Pendant l’attaque, le studio a été vandalisé, et des symboles fascistes et suprémacistes blancs ont été peints sur les murs, le matériel d’enregistrement et le studio ont été détruits par les attaquants.

Radio d’Ici a été fondée en 1996 et exploite trois fréquences avec un bassin d’écoute de 50 000 personnes et facilite les productions de plus de quarante bénévoles. Heureusement, aucun membre du personnel de la radio n’a été blessé pendant l’attaque. Cependant, la diffusion FM en direct via le studio a été suspendue en raison des dommages, alors que les opérations et la production se poursuivront via Internet et des podcasts. Le pionnier de la radio communautaire française et président de Radio d’Ici Patrice Berger déclare: «Cette attaque est inexplicable, mais elle était visiblement ciblée. Nous poursuivrons notre travail d’information et de culture. En ces temps difficiles, c’est un travail de contact, de soutien et d’amitié entre les gens. Nous rebondirons très rapidement. “

Vous trouverez ici la déclaration audio”Radio associative française victime d’une agression néo-nazie : entretien avec Patrice Berger, président de Radio d’Ici, par Eric Lucas, délégué national au SNRL”

AMARC has received the information that on Sunday 10th May 2020 a group of masked persons have violently forced their way into the premises of Radio d’Ici, the local community radio station and long-term AMARC member, in Saint-Julien-Molin-Molette, Department Loire, France. During the attack the studio was vandalised, and fascist and white supremacist symbols were painted on the walls and sound, recording and studio equipment have been destroyed by the attackers. 

Radio d’Ici was founded 1996 and operates three frequencies with a total technical reach of 50,000 persons and facilitates the productions of over forty volunteers. Fortunately, no radio staff has been harmed during the attack. However, the FM live broadcast via studio has been suspended due to the incurred damages, but the operations and production will continue via internet and podcasts. French Community Radio pioneer and chair of Radio d’Ici Patrice Berger states “This attack is inexplicable, but it was obviously targeted. We will continue our information and cultural work. In this difficult time, it is a work of contact, support and friendship between people. We will bounce back very quickly. “

AMARC strongly condemn the attack against its member as an attack directed against press freedom, freedom of expression, media pluralism and the whole community media movement as a platform of critical and underrepresented voices in Europe and worldwide.

In France Community Radios are key actors in the context of social cohesion, contribute to the strengthening of democratic structures and media diversity, are diverse and locally embedded sources of information, provide low-threshold access for marginalised groups and offer a platform for the acquisition of critical media information and literacy skills. 

We demand a full investigation of the incident and the government’s support to ensure the re-opening of the community radio for broadcasting and provide access for staff, volunteers and the local population the airwaves.

In solidarity with our members in France, Europe and around the world!

Other statements and sources

Radio d’Ici Statement here
SNRL – Syndicat National des Radios Libres statement here

Contact for further inquiries 
contact@amarceurope.eu

[en français] L’AMARC condamne l’attaque fasciste contre un de nos membre en France

L’AMARC a été informée que dimanche 10 mai 2020, un groupe de personnes masquées s’est violemment introduit dans les locaux de Radio d’Ici, la radio associative locale et membre de longue date de l’AMARC, à Saint-Julien-Molin-Molette, Département de la Loire, France. Pendant l’attaque, le studio a été vandalisé, et des symboles fascistes et suprémacistes blancs ont été peints sur les murs, le matériel d’enregistrement et le studio ont été détruits par les attaquants.

Radio d’Ici a été fondée en 1996 et exploite trois fréquences avec un bassin d’écoute de 50 000 personnes et facilite les productions de plus de quarante bénévoles. Heureusement, aucun membre du personnel de la radio n’a été blessé pendant l’attaque. Cependant, la diffusion FM en direct via le studio a été suspendue en raison des dommages, alors que les opérations et la production se poursuivront via Internet et des podcasts. Le pionnier de la radio communautaire française et président de Radio d’Ici Patrice Berger déclare: «Cette attaque est inexplicable, mais elle était visiblement ciblée. Nous poursuivrons notre travail d’information et de culture. En ces temps difficiles, c’est un travail de contact, de soutien et d’amitié entre les gens. Nous rebondirons très rapidement. “

L’AMARC condamne fermement l’attaque contre son membre comme une attaque dirigée contre la liberté de la presse, la liberté d’expression, le pluralisme des médias et l’ensemble du mouvement des médias communautaires en tant que plateforme de voix critiques et sous-représentées en Europe et dans le monde.

En France, les radios associatives sont des acteurs clés dans le contexte de la cohésion sociale, contribuent au renforcement des structures démocratiques, sont des sources d’information diverses et intégrées localement, offrent un accès aux groupes marginalisés, représentent la diversité des médias et offrent une plate-forme pour l’acquisition d’ informations critiques sur les médias et compétences en éducation aux médias et à l’information.

Nous demandons une enquête complète sur l’incident et le soutien du gouvernement pour assurer la réouverture de la radio communautaire, garantir sa diffusion et fournir un accès au personnel, aux bénévoles et à la population locale.

En solidarité avec nos membres en France, en Europe et dans le monde!

Autres déclarations et sources

Déclaration de Radio d’Ici ici
SNRL – Déclaration du Syndicat National des Radios Libres ici

Contact pour toute information complémentaire contact@amarceurope.eu

On this World Press Freedom Day, the undersigned organisations honour those who work tirelessly to help keep the public informed and call for robust support for independent journalism. 

Millions of people around the world are looking for reliable, fact-based, and gender-sensitive journalism that can help them navigate the biggest shared challenge of our lifetime. The need for trustworthy information has never been greater and more urgent than during this pandemic. Access to timely, high-quality information is imperative during a global health crisis; it is one of the key pillars required to slow the spread of this virus, mitigate its impacts, and underpin collective societal responses. Journalism is also the best antidote to fight the misinformation that is fuelling the pandemic. 

But at this crucial moment, independent media are facing an unprecedented existential challenge. With the perfect storm of disinformation and misinformation, repression of critical voices in many countries, and disruption caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the situation facing journalism and news media is dire. Revenues for these institutions are collapsing, and funding is decreasing just when we need it most.

In response to these challenges we, press freedom, media development, and journalism support communities, are making an urgent appeal to all those in a position to support journalism organisations and independent media, especially those who provide professional and essential information and reporting during the COVID-19 crisis. 

We call on governments to:

1. Respect fundamental human rights: Fully respect, safeguard, and enable the rights to press freedom and freedom of expression, rule of law, access to information, privacy, and digital rights, and only restrict them as international standards permit. Do not engage in practices that undermine such freedoms – notably surveilling and monitoring journalists and their sources. People need independent information that they can trust, and responses to this crisis will be more effective and command greater public support if it is subject to independent scrutiny, openness, and transparency.
2. Ensure access to information: Allow journalists covering this pandemic to exercise their freedom to seek, receive, and communicate information without being harassed, intimidated, or attacked. Consider, where appropriate, designating journalists and media workers as key or essential workers. The responsible authorities should also avail journalists with accurate information on this global pandemic and state responses to it, to further facilitate citizens’ right to access information. This includes holding open press conferences ensuring that all media outlets have access to public officials and other information sources.
3. Release imprisoned journalists: It is critical that any state that continues to criminalise journalism, release all imprisoned journalists, including those detained or sentenced under the guise of prohibiting defamation or countering terrorism, and does not pursue such cases during the pandemic given the additional risk posed by detention.

On the sustainability of public-interest journalism:

1. Provide financial support: Work with journalism, media, and civil society organisations to assess the damage that COVID-19 is inflicting on providing vital information to the public and the sustainability of journalism and news media organisations. Devise appropriate mechanisms to urgently provide financial support to media that produce public-interest journalism, enabling them to hire or keep reporters, editors, and producers who cover COVID-19 and related issues, and reach underserved audiences. Support for local journalism, health, and investigative reporting is especially important. Ensure that this support is just and transparent, undertaken without favouritism, compromising editorial independence, or distorting the market. Examples include VAT exemptions, tax relief, simplified public procurement processes, reliable social security schemes for freelance journalists and media workers, issuing non-profit tax status to public-interest journalism and media organisations, and other forms of support that can ease the financial pressure on journalism organisations and independent media.
2. Allocate public advertising fairly: Continue to publish and broadcast public health awareness campaigns and public service announcements through advertising. But, like all uses of public funds, be transparent, and avoid conflicts of interest – such as favouring your allies and supporters.

We call on journalism and media development donors and funders to:

1. Increase funding and flexibility: Increase and distribute funding to journalism organisations and independent media, or to organisations best placed to financially support independent media, especially in resource-poor settings (although similar issues affect media everywhere). Consider increasing support to existing grantees and intermediary organisations, and to those with the capacity and systems to rapidly scale up sub-granting to journalism and news media outlets. In addition to scaling up media support funding through their existing instruments, donors should look to establish an emergency fund to help public-interest media survive during this time of crisis as well as lay the foundations for future crisis response. Donors should coordinate and pool emergency resources to maximise efficiency, agility, and prioritisation. Also, ensure that representatives of journalism and media sector, journalism support and media development organisations are included in any aid coordination systems set up by donors.
2. Ensure respect for editorial independence: Donors focusing on humanitarian and public health programmes should consider allocating support to local media that can engage with communities in need, and can provide appropriate formats and languages for informing and engaging communities. Be aware that programmatic funding can inadvertently shape editorial agendas. Respect and understand the value of editorial independence and take into consideration long-term needs and sustainability of the media you support.
3. Include media support in COVID-19 response: Reinforce your recognition of the importance of media and journalism for quality information for all citizens by firmly positioning support for the sector within the overall COVID-19 related funding. However, be sure to learn the lessons from previous crises and avoid the pitfalls of only conceiving and providing media support in the context of crisis health communication.
4. Address structural long-term needs: Plan for allocation of substantial resources to journalism and media support when designing your programmes and budgets for the coming years. The crisis is immediate but also follows a longer-term crisis. Please look to increase and distribute core and flexible long-term funding, and capacity building assistance, to journalism organisations and independent media, or to organisations best placed to financially support independent media. This includes increasing support to existing grantees and intermediary organisations, and extending support to those with the capacity and systems to scale up sub-granting to media outlets, such as pooled or emergency funds, and the newly proposed International Fund for Public Interest Media.

We call on journalism and media organisations to:

1. Ensure media workers can conduct their work safely: Employees and freelancers must have protective equipment, training and clear safety guidelines. COVID-19 highlights the responsibility news organizations have towards all journalists and media workers, but also their duty towards the individuals we report on. Safety comes first. 
2. Protect jobs and adapt working environments: Work with unions and others to find ways to avoid laying off staff due to losses in revenue. Take advantage of furlough schemes where they exist and other support wherever possible to avoid job losses. Adapt newsrooms to enable working from home when possible, particularly as and when governments put in place stay-at-home or physical distancing protocols. Provisions should take into consideration the gendered implications of these new working environments. Women are largely the main caregivers in their own homes, and the most likely to be responsible for nursing children and elders who are ill, home from school, or in isolation. Acknowledge that working from home, covering high-risk stories, or being exposed to infection can be both isolating and alienating. As such, work to ensure that employees and freelancers have access to appropriate mental health or psychosocial support.
3. Serve your public: Keep asking how you can find new ways to be relevant and useful to the public as well as to the overall response. Provide practical guidance alongside the news, and highlight solutions to challenges as well as problems. Be on the frontline in fighting disinformation and misinformation. Organise collective action and pool resources if that is the most effective way of responding and persevering. This is a time for collaboration, not competition.
4. Recognise diversity: Serve all sections of your community by recognising that, while COVID-19 affects everyone, it is particularly devastating for marginalised communities and is exaggerating socio-economic inequalities (often related to ethnicity and gender) that predate the pandemic. We should be led by the evidence and challenge misleading narratives that the crisis is affecting society in equal ways. Ensure that your journalism includes perspectives and voices from women and marginalised groups and that you hire journalists from a variety of different backgrounds and specialisations that can report accurately about how the disease and economic fall out is disproportionately impacting people of colour, working-class, immigrant, and other marginalised communities. Create a database of women health experts and economic experts to avoid the gender bias of sourcing in the media.

We call on technology, telecommunication companies, and Internet intermediaries to:

1. Respect fundamental and digital rights: Guarantee and safeguard fundamental digital freedoms, including privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity, and do not engage in practices that undermine such freedoms – notably surveilling and monitoring journalists and their sources. Do everything you can to enable free, safe, and secure digital spaces for journalists, journalism organisations, and independent media. 
2. Remodel algorithms and moderation practices: Ensure your algorithms and moderators recognise credible information sources, including independent, trustworthy media and journalism organisations. Prevent automated takedowns of journalistic content related to COVID-19, particularly by algorithmic processes. Such takedowns erode the public’s ability to access information, and harm journalism and media organisations who must then dedicate precious resources to resolving content-related disputes that could instead be directed towards reporting. Strengthen transparency and notice procedures as well as expedite appeal and remedy procedures.
3. Manage Blacklist Technology Responsibly: Work with advertisers to stop the use of blacklist technology to block ads from appearing next to credible journalism and news media stories that mention the COVID-19 pandemic and other critical health and social issues.
4. Support journalism: Where appropriate, initiate or increase funding of independent, public-interest journalism, fact-checking, and other measures to counter disinformation and misinformation, as well as expedite grants to prioritise news and information outlets working to address the global health crisis.
5. Reverse commercial incentives that discriminate against journalism: Create mechanisms to verify credible actors online, and reverse existing incentives to allow media to monetise public-interest journalism and high-quality content. Consider fundamental policy changes such as investing more in identifying and demonetising malicious actors, and preventing malicious actors from utilising digital and programmatic ads to finance the spread of disinformation and misinformation.
6. Deliver Internet accessibility to all: Prioritise maintaining Internet accessibility and connectivity, and promote the right to access information. As such, we urge telecommunication providers to lower the cost of Internet connectivity – especially in emerging and developing markets and low-income communities – to allow users to access news and information regardless of their economic status, as well as enable journalists to be able to work from home.

We call on advertisers to:

1. Responsibly Manage Blacklist Technology: Work with media companies and ad agencies to find solutions to blacklisting of COVID-19 or other news reporting related content, and stop using blacklist technology to block ads from appearing next to credible journalism and news media stories that mention the COVID-19 pandemic and other critical health and social issues online. This is in-line with our similar call to technology platforms and telecommunications companies (see 4.3 above).
2. Change how you measure and value engagement: Build your long-term brand reputation by turning away from programmatic, click/view-based and/or cookie-driven targeted advertising. Journalism offers value to the brands beyond just the traffic and offers a safe environment for brand exposure and both commercial and societal impact.
3. Advertise through trusted media: Make it a policy to include as many quality journalism outlets, particularly at the local level, as possible in your digital advertising spend. Work with United for News, the Journalism Trust Initiative, or local journalism associations in each market to add reputable, local news outlets to your advertising inclusion lists. Ramp up existing direct advertising relationships with quality media, and review your programmatic “blocklists” to develop a more subtle approach to your brand safety concerns ensuring that you do not block news altogether. This is a time to support the media above and beyond commercial interests and imperatives.  

And finally, to people everywhere who read, watch, listen to trusted news services – large and small, local and international, print, digital, or broadcast: 

We ask you to contribute, as much as you can, to the subscriber and membership-based journalism and news outlets you read, watch, or listen to regularly or to any non-profit news organisations on whom you also rely to be informed during this global health crisis. Newsgathering is difficult and costly in normal times, and it is even more difficult and expensive now. We know this is a difficult time to request this kind of support. The pandemic has left tens of millions of people without incomes at a time of acute need for safe shelter, sustenance, and – for many – medical treatment. Paying for news may seem an unaffordable luxury right now, but we need these journalists and news services more than ever – and they need us. 

Special thanks goes to GFMD – Global Forum for Media Development for the work on the appeal. The up-to-date list of signatories can be found here and the press release here.

If you want to join the emergency appeal please use the form below

The launch of the European Rule of Law Mechanism in July 2019 marks the renewed opportunity for the European Union (EU) to uphold democracy and overcome the limits of the Article 7 procedure. Among the proposed actions, the announcement by the European Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová of a ​dedicated chapter to media freedom and pluralism in the Annual Rule of Law Report was strongly welcomed by press freedom and journalists’ organisations. It is not only the acknowledgment that independent journalism and access to pluralistic information are one of the pillars of democracy, but also a key step in addressing the worrying state of media freedom and pluralism in the EU.

The killings of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta and Ján Kuciak in Slovakia shed light on the numerous threats faced by journalists within EU member states. Journalists are daily exposed to censorship, intimidation, online and offline harassment, abusive lawsuits and physical violence for doing their work and exercising their fundamental right to freedom of expression. In parallel, media capture by states and ownership concentration by private actors pose a huge threat to media pluralism, in a broader context where the media sector struggles for its financial sustainability. This has a chilling effect on press freedom and endangers citizens’ right to information. As the COVID-19 crisis is being used by some governments to curtail rule of law principles, access to information is essential for the public’s right to know. This crisis also illustrates the crucial ​need for safe working conditions for journalists and an independent, pluralistic and sustainable media sector.

It is crucial that EU decision-makers aim for an ambitious European Rule of Law Mechanism, effectively upholding press freedom and media pluralism and leading to concrete improvements for journalists and the media sector. The following recommendations outline how to make the Mechanism ​strong,​ ​timely​, inclusive ​and representative of the challenges faced by journalists and the media sector.

Recommendation 1:
Assessing the timeliness of the Annual Rule of Law Report

The July 2019 Communication was followed by the firm political commitment of the new College of EU Commissioners to implement the Mechanism in a comprehensive way5. The European Commission Work Programme foresees the Annual Rule of Law Report as one of its 2020 deliverables. This is welcome, given the challenges faced by journalists and the media sector.

We understand and support the urge to move forward on the release of the report, in spite of the disruption brought by the COVID-19 crisis. However, the press freedom community is united in its shared vision that the issuing of the Annual Rule of Law Report should be durable, critical and permanent.

For these reasons, the Annual Rule of Law should only be released when it:

• Provides h​igh-quality content​ and added value to existing evidence (​see recommendation 4);​
• Paves the way for tailor-made recommendations and ​leads to concrete changes in EU member states ​(see recommendation 2);​
• Takes into account and analyses the ​emergency measures ​taken in 2020 in the context of the COVID-19 crisis and their impact on press freedom and the rule of law.

Recommendation 2:
Strengthening the Mechanism with country-specific recommendations, developing effective responses and establishing a sanction system

Monitoring the state of press freedom and media pluralism in all EU member states is strongly welcome and needed. However, for the Mechanism to lead to concrete changes, we believe the Annual Rule of Law Report should be accompanied by:

• Country-specific recommendations:​ based on the evidence collected in each EU member state. Inspiration could be drawn from the European Semester. Across the years, this process was strengthened by tailor-made national recommendations and a tracking system of their implementation by the European Commission. A similar approach could be taken to strengthen the impact of the Mechanism. Recommendations should be framed within the context of Member States’ existing obligations under other intergovernmental bodies, such as Council of Europe commitments, and could complement existing international efforts to support Member States in their response to addressing press freedom and the safety of journalists.
• Using recommendations to strengthen Member States’ capacity and EU competency: Country-specific recommendations should be used as a foundation for all EU institutions to assess their capacity to defend press freedom and the safety of journalists, with a view to establishing, through all necessary policy, legislative, and budgetary measures, ways to remedy possible deficiencies at EU Member State level, and within the institutions themselves, and in turn provide a long-term, meaningful improvement to press freedom in the bloc.
• Sanctions for serious and systematic breaches of the rule of law: Evidence collected through the Mechanism should be used to activate the future rule of law conditionality clause of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, and lead to the potential suspension of EU structural funds to Member States or local/regional authorities.

Recommendation 3:
Reflecting individuals, voices and diversity in the Annual Rule of Law Report

The need to take into account various sources of information is rightly acknowledged in the July 2019 Communication. A bottom-up approach is key to make the Annual Rule of Law Report meaningful, given the potential of the Mechanism to bring about positive change to the lives of millions of citizens. In this regard, the approach of the European Commission should be transparent and inclusive.

The targeted stakeholder consultation launched on 24 March 2020 gives the possibility to a wide range of actors, such as civil society organisations, to feed into the process, but is hardly accessible to those who are not acquainted with EU-level technical language. Reports produced by academic and civil society organisations can be strengthened by insights from journalists, judges and other rule of law defenders. Ensuring a broad capture of national research, opinions and evidence would endow the Mechanism with ​greater credibility and recognition, and promote civil society inclusion ​in Member States where the rule of law is threatened.

There is still time to make the content of the Annual Rule of Law Report inclusive of a diversity of sources, by setting out a ​publicly-available communications plan for engaging a range of stakeholders. This could include:

• Launching a ​complementary public online consultation,​ targeting journalists, judges and other individuals working or involved in rule of law related issues at the national and local levels. Such a consultation would allow individuals or bodies to easily submit relevant material, including statements, reports and opinions that would provide essential information and expertise. The Commission should also take measures to actively promote the complementary public online consultation to a wide, external audience.
• Making the March 2020 stakeholder consultation available​ in all EU languages,​
• Consulting journalists, judges and other individuals working or involved in rule of law related issues during the European Commission ​country visits,​
• Ensuring emblematic ​individual cases are considered during country visits, included in the report, and remedy in their cases is made a priority.
• Using the ​connections of European and national networks of journalists, judges and other rule of law defenders to gather insights about facts and individual cases.
• Complementing the findings of the 2020 Media Pluralism Monitor with already existing sources, such as the alerts and country responses of the ​Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists,​

Recommendation 4:
Ensuring the Annual Rule of Law Report effectively captures the challenges faced by journalists and the media sector

As previously stated, the findings of the first Annual Rule of Law Report are not only an opportunity to lead to concrete improvements at Member State-level. They can also inform upcoming initiatives such as the European Democracy Action Plan, or the Media Action Plan, and pave the way for stronger EU-level action to support an independent, pluralistic and sustainable media sector.

To do so, the report must cover the wide range of challenges faced by journalists and the media sector.Whilst some of these issues are already addressed in the March 2020 stakeholder consultation and the 2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, the following list gives an overview of these challenges. They are based on international and EU standards, such as the 2014 ​EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline and the 2016 ​Council of Europe recommendation on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors.​

We believe the Annual Rule of Law report should ​cover and assess the following areas:

1. Transparency of ownership and government interference

• Adoption and enforcement of ​rules governing transparency of media ownership
• Media capture by state actors​, including:
  • Degree of state control in private media outlets
  • Degree of state control in public service media
  • Transparent allocation of state advertising
  • Transparent allocation of state subsidies
• Ownership by private actors,​ including:
  • Degree of concentration of ownership by national private actors
  • Ownership rate by foreign actors

2. An environment conducive to an online and offline independent and pluralistic media landscape

• Adoption and enforcement of ​rules protecting the independence of the media and pluralism,​ as well as​ freedom of expression and access to information
• Sustainability of public and private media,​ including:
  • Legal mechanisms reinforcing financial self-sustainability of both public and private media
  • Financial mechanisms reinforcing financial self-sustainability of both public and private media
• Development and promotion of s​elf-regulatory initiatives and mechanisms
• Powers and governance of media regulatory authorities and bodies​, including:
  • Independence, enforcement powers and adequacy of resources of media authorities andbodies
  • Conditions and procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the head / members of thecollegiate body of media authorities and bodies
• Adoption and enforcement of ​rules ensuring free and pluralistic reporting on elections as well as equitable political party access to public service media during election campaigns
• Status and role of independent organisations in actively monitoring the situation of media freedom and pluralism in different countries
• Impact of emergency measures taken in the context of the COVID-19 crisis ​on press freedom and media pluralism

3. Framework for protection of journalists

• Adoption and implementation of a ​comprehensive legislative frameworks and other rules enabling a online and offline safe environment for journalists and other media actors​, including:
  • Prevention measures
  • Provisions criminalising specific and serious attacks against journalists (arbitrary arrest,torture, threats to life and killing)
  • Effective redress mechanisms for victims and their families
  • Establishment of early-warning and rapid-response mechanisms
  • Adequate procedural guarantees

• Adoption, mainstreaming and implementation of ​gender-sensitive approaches to address violence against female journalists and other media actors, including:
  • Gender-sensitive legislation
  • Gender-disaggregated data collection
  • Awareness-raising
  • Protection of victims
  • Prosecution of perpetrators

• Establishment of ​effective, independent and ​impartial investigations into threats, killings,attacks, harassment, intimidation and ill-treatment of journalists and media workers
• Establishment of ​special judicial or non-judicial inquiries into specific cases or independent specialised bodies ​to conduct inquiries when investigations and prosecutions do not result inbringing to justice the perpetrators
• Development of protocols and ​training programmes for all state authorities who areresponsible for fulfilling obligations concerning the protection of journalists and other mediaactors
• Partnership with and supporting civil society and the media for getting their inputs whendeveloping legislative frameworks, promoting good practices, monitoring and reportingthreats and violence and raising awareness
• Impact of the COVID-19 crisis ​on the safety of journalists

Signatories

•  ActiveWatch
•  Association Mondiale des Radiodiffuseurs Communautaires Europe (AMARC Europe)
• Archiwum Osiatyńskiego
• ARTICLE 19
• Budapest Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
• Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
• Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
• DW Akademie
• European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
• European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
• Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
• Gazeta Wyborcza Foundation
• Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)
• Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU)
• IFEX
• International Press Institute (IPI)
• Media Diversity Institute (MDI)
• Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC)
• Norsk PEN
• PEN International
• Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
• South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
• South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)
• Stichting Democracy & Media