Press Release Strasbourg, 3 July 2009 Would Lord Reith have tweeted? The Public Service Remit and the New Media		of this report
		Information on IRIS publications
		Legal database IRIS Merlin
		EMR Institute of European Media Law

1971 saw the death of Lord Reith, first Director General of the BBC and the founding father of the whole ethos of public service broadcasting. In the same year the first e mail was sent with the momentous message: QWERTYUIOP. Since then, the technical, planetary revolution brought about by the Internet has generated a myriad of new forms of media. In this brave new broadcasting world, it is highly pertinent to wonder how the premises of the public service remit can apply when broadcasters make their content available via these new forms of media. At a moment when there is talk of top-slicing the BBC licence fee in the UK and Spain is legislating to provide for the launch of HD television, there is no better time for the European Audiovisual Observatory to publish its latest IRIS plus report, freely downloadable here, entitled

Author Meike Ridinger of the Saarbrücken-based Institute of European Media Law opens her report with a useful historical overview of European legislation concerning public service broadcasting. From the 1970s onwards the notion of “the provision of television services with a pluralist and non-commercial content” was recognised by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The report then analyses the current ways in which broadcasters – both public and private – can use the new media as additional platforms to distribute content. Three broad categories of new services are defined. Firstly, the new digital media are considered as an additional distribution channel for broadcast content using methods such as simulcasting or via mobile reception networks (DMB or DVB-H-standard). This definition also includes broadcasting via third-party platforms such as YouTube. The second usage comprises “purely commercial activities” excluded from the classic PSB remit such as e-business or advertising/sponsorship. The third, most controversial, service is an offering of programmes that can be watched at any time, independently of the traditional linear services. Ridinger asks whether or not the content of the public service media can justifiably be made available on-demand with no content/time limitations and also raises the question as to whether public service broadcasters should develop and distribute services “specifically tailored to the new media and the way they are used?”

The report moves on to analyse current EC legislation covering responsibility for respect of the public service remit and the supervision of state aid to public service broadcasters. In both cases, explains Ridinger, the EC Treaty (ECT) is the point of departure. Article 86(2) of the ECT in particular sets out very clear rules for the attribution of state aid, stipulating that there must be “a clear and precise definition of the public service broadcasting remit at the national level” and that ”the public funding is limited to the extent necessary to fulfil the public service remit”.

More complex is the question of the respective fields of action of the Community and the Member States in terms of defining the public service remit and funding PSBs accordingly. Here, the author points out the fascinating dichotomy between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the one hand, which supports the notion of diversity of opinion and pluralism, and the 1997 Amsterdam Protocol, on the other, which firmly places the responsibility on each Member State to provide a solid definition of the public service remit. Ridinger puts it bluntly thus: “Freedom of broadcasting and independence from the State versus a precise definition of the remit”.

The Commission’s 2001 Broadcasting Communication is then examined as the current text “regulating” the definition of the public service remit and state aid to public service broadcasting via the new media. The report provides a country by country analysis of its practical application, looking at PSB and state funding of public service broadcasting via the new media in the UK, Ireland, France Germany.

Ridinger ends the report with a look at the current revision in progress of the Commission’s Broadcasting Communication, the amended version of which should be adopted before then end of this year. She concludes that “the discussion will be mainly about the extent to which the impact on private competitors of (new) offerings from the public service media should play a role in the definition of the remit and why an ex ante assessment is required for new services to enable them to be included in the remit.”

Journalists, please contact:
Alison Hindhaugh, Information and Press Officer
Tel.: +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 10 - E-mail: alison.hindhaugh@coe.int

To take out a subscription to our IRIS monthly legal review with its IRIS plus supplement, click here or contact: markus.booms@coe.int

For further information on the content of our IRIS products, please contact our legal department:
susanne.nikoltchev@coe.int - francisco.cabrera@coe.int

---

The European Audiovisual Observatory Set up in December 1992, the European Audiovisual Observatory's mission is to gather and distribute information on the audiovisual industry in Europe. The Observatory is a European public service body comprised of 37 member states and the European Union, represented by the European Commission. It operates within the legal framework of the Council of Europe and works alongside a number of partner and professional organisations from within the industry and with a network of correspondents. In addition to contributions to conferences, other major activities are the publication of a Yearbook, newsletters and reports, the compilation and management of databases and the provision of information through the Observatory’s Internet site (http://www.obs.coe.int).