AVMS Directive

The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility external link

Journal of Media Law, vol. 12, num: 2, pp: 166-190, 2020

Abstract

This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.

Links

AVMS Directive, digital platforms, frontpage, Journalistiek, Media law, redactie

Bibtex

Article{Drunen2020,
	title = {The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility},
	author = {Drunen, M. van},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067},
	doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067},
	year = {0728},
	date = {2020-07-28},
	journal = {Journal of Media Law},
	volume = {12},
	number = {2},
	pages = {166-190},
	abstract = {This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.},
	keywords = {AVMS Directive, digital platforms, frontpage, Journalistiek, Media law, redactie},
}

The independence and functioning of the regulatory authority for electronic media in Serbia, Study commissioned by the Council of Europe, Amsterdam/Brussels/Budapest/Belgrade, 2017. external link

Irion, K., Ledger, M. & Svensson, S.

2017

Abstract

This study carries out an independent assessment of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) of Serbia. The scope of the study is to apply the INDIREG methodology to the REM and provide contextual interpretation of the results with policy recommendations. This study has been commissioned by the Council of Europe, on the request of REM, in the framework of the Project “Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX)”. REM, seated in Belgrade, is caught and operates in a challenging context: media markets in Serbia are highly saturated and government grants are awarded to selective private media. There is low upfront compliance with programme and advertisements rules as well as an overall squeeze on quality content and the accountability function of the media. Lacking the optimal support of the parliament and being sidelined by the Ministry on Culture and Information can damage the effective functioning of the independent regulator. REM in this situation appears to retreat to overly formalistic (law-abiding) activities without necessarily being effective in regulating the Serbian electronic and audiovisual media. Many stakeholders from the media sector do not perceive of REM as an authority pointing to a lack of enforcement or the deflection of responsibility which has undermined its public credibility. The study concludes with a set of recommendation how to address these challenges.

Bibtex

Other{Irion2017d,
	title = {The independence and functioning of the regulatory authority for electronic media in Serbia, Study commissioned by the Council of Europe, Amsterdam/Brussels/Budapest/Belgrade, 2017.},
	author = {Irion, K. and Ledger, M. and Svensson, S.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/rem-report-indiregmethodology-nov17-final-3/},
	year = {1016},
	date = {2017-10-16},
	abstract = {This study carries out an independent assessment of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) of Serbia. The scope of the study is to apply the INDIREG methodology to the REM and provide contextual interpretation of the results with policy recommendations. This study has been commissioned by the Council of Europe, on the request of REM, in the framework of the Project “Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX)”.

REM, seated in Belgrade, is caught and operates in a challenging context: media markets in Serbia are highly saturated and government grants are awarded to selective private media. There is low upfront compliance with programme and advertisements rules as well as an overall squeeze on quality content and the accountability function of the media. Lacking the optimal support of the parliament and being sidelined by the Ministry on Culture and Information can damage the effective functioning of the independent regulator. REM in this situation appears to retreat to overly formalistic (law-abiding) activities without necessarily being effective in regulating the Serbian electronic and audiovisual media. Many stakeholders from the media sector do not perceive of REM as an authority pointing to a lack of enforcement or the deflection of responsibility which has undermined its public credibility. The study concludes with a set of recommendation how to address these challenges.},
	keywords = {AVMS Directive, frontpage, independence, INDIREG, media, Regulation},
}