Digital challenges to media pluralism - Urska Umek
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•585 views
A presentation from Urska Umek at the Council of Europe on the Online and offline threats to media pluralism. Presented at the 2018 CMPF conference, Measuring Media Pluralism in Europe - Between Old Risks and New Threats.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Digital challenges to media pluralism - Urska Umek
Similar to Digital challenges to media pluralism - Urska Umek (20)
More from Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom
More from Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Digital challenges to media pluralism - Urska Umek
- 1. Presentation 7 December 2018 Urška Umek Council of Europe Online and offline threats to media pluralism
- 2. To ensure media freedom and pluralism as crucial corollaries of the right to freedom of expression, and thereby contribute to the functioning of a democratic society Objective Media pluralism in the digital age Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1 on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership
- 3. How to ensure media pluralism in the digitised media environment, and more specifically, how to ensure the same level of media freedom and pluralism across all platforms where media content is disseminated? Challenges Media pluralism in the digital age
- 4. • States are the ultimate guarantors of media pluralism • Requirement of an appropriate legislative and policy framework to ensure variety of media types and, by extension, diversity of content • Requirement to regularly assess the state of media pluralism Principles Media pluralism in the digital age
- 5. • Powerful players in the digital economy • Radical transformation of the distribution of media content • (Over)abundance of information • Human editorial choices are replaced by non-transparent algorithms • News consumption habits of the audience have changed • Business models of social media are oriented towards maximum audience engagement and not towards an offer of reliable media content Implications of the gatekeeper role of internet intermediaries Media pluralism in the digital age
- 6. • Based on express or inferred users’ preferences and adapted to their profiles • A need for more transparency as to the criteria applied in the collection, analysis, and modelling of relevant data, and the systems’ optimisation goals • Filter bubbles effect? • “Diversity” and “quality” algorithms Personalised news selection and recommendations Media pluralism in the digital age
- 7. • “Quality algorithm” based on an assessment of credibility and relevance of media content • The stamp of “quality” should enable promotion on online platforms over disinformation and other types of manipulative or unreliable content • Clear information to the users on how to find and access credible news sources • Standardisation of indicators of journalistic quality (Journalism Trust Indicators) • Media literacy initiatives for developing skills helping the audience recognise and value quality content Exposure to quality - mission possible? Media pluralism in the digital age
- 8. • “Requirement (statutory or equally effective) of disclosure of ownership information to the public and to the relevant independent regulatory body • Requirement to maintain databases with updated information on media ownership • Requirement of national/international co- ordination of transparency regimes • Transparency of media financing (impact of state advertising, grants, loans, impact of structural and contractual relations with other media outlets, advertising companies, political parties, etc.) Transparency of media ownership and financing Media pluralism in the digital age
- 9. • (Draft) Recommendation on human rights impacts of algorithmic systems • (Draft) Declaration on the manipulative capabilities of algorithmic processes • A study on the implications of AI systems on the concept of responsibility within a human rights framework • (Draft) Recommendation on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age • (Draft) Declaration on the financial sustainability of quality journalism in the digital age • Study on developing skills to recognise and value quality journalism in the digital environment Council of Europe current focus - ongoing work Media pluralism in the digital age
- 10. Thank you for your attention! Media pluralism in the digital age
Editor's Notes
- Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen! First I wish to thank the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom for inviting the Council of Europe and myself to contribute to your conference. I would start with an echo from a last week’s event, the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights, where we discussed the perspectives of European democracy, questioned its resilience, and raised numerous concerns to the integrity of electoral processes. One might ask, how does integrity of elections relate to media pluralism? Very naturally, because for people to be able to make informed and balanced choices about their legislature, about their representatives, they need to have access to accurate, credible information, preferably from diverse sources that highlight different perspectives and provide various views on issues that are important for our society.
- We find ourselves in a world today where a mass of information is spreading with unprecedented speed across various online channels; so one might be seduced to think that “new” digital technologies that enable a less intermediated public debate have automatically empowered diverse expression and pluralism. Indeed, freedom of expression and participation in public debate have never before been so accessible and so horizontal. We can engage directly with one another, can share and discuss our ideas and opinions in online forums much wider than the traditional reach allows for, we can even co-create our media space through user-generated content. But in reality, this new, freedom of expression 2.0, is increasingly vulnerable and makes pluralism a rather relative notion. Earlier this year, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted an updated instrument, Recommendation on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership, to address some of those vulnerabilities.
- We tried to address, among other, the issue of what new approaches might be called for as regards ensuring pluralism in the new digitised media ecosystem. We have identified a number of challenges to media pluralism that arose with the digitisation process. If I name a few: internet intermediaries, notably online platforms, are taking over the role of “gatekeepers of information”; a related issue is selective exposure to media content that may enhance fragmentation of societal groups and contribute to a more polarised society; undermined business models of traditional media and a number of related problems such as precarious working conditions of journalists, massive cuts, threats and attacks against them… - Renate will take us through those concerns later proliferation of different types of misleading information Of course, there are also many other, long existing, risks for media and journalists that are no less pressing. However, I will limit my contribution to three points that are, in one way or another, related to the process of digitisation of the media environment. - implications of the internet intermediaries’ gatekeeper role - personalised selection of news by algorithmic processes and its impact on informed citizenry (“diversity” and “quality” algorithm) - transparency of media ownership and financing
- Allow me, however, to briefly state three principles on media pluralism that follow from the recommendation: according to the Council of Europe standards, including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, member states are considered to be the ultimate guarantors of media pluralism. that means that they should have in place an appropriate legal and policy framework that, on the one hand, allows media pluralism to flourish through a wide scope of media freedom, and on the other hand, it allows them to respond actively to various risks to pluralism - also by introducing various support measures including indirect and direct subsidies (if necessary dnd appropriate) thirdly, independent monitoring and evaluation of media pluralism is very important because it allows the states to then develop appropriate regulatory and policy responses. Recommendation: “States are called upon to ensure that there is regular independent monitoring and evaluation of the state of media pluralism in their jurisdictions based on a set of objective and transparent criteria to identify risks to the variety in ownership of media sources and outlets; the diversity of media types; the diversity of viewpoints represented by political, ideological, cultural and social groups; and the diversity of interests and viewpoints relevant to local and regional communities. States should also ensure that bodies conducting independent monitoring and evaluation exercises have sufficient access to all relevant data and sufficient resources to carry out these tasks. States are further urged to develop and enforce appropriate regulatory and policy responses in order to effectively address any risks found.”
- So, now to the question of which processes require the attention of policymakers in the rapidly evolving media ecosystem. We have, firstly, the radical transformation in the distribution of the media content, nowadays mostly offered and consumed through various online platforms. That means that human editorial choices are being increasingly replaced by the non-transparent algorithms of major global online platforms, and they are driven by commercial considerations of scale and shareability. Instead of aiming to fulfil public interest function, powerful platforms are driven by the goal of maximum monetisation. The new media and information ecosystem has also transformed news consumption habits, especially among young people. The factors mentioned in the slide - combined - make it much more difficult for most people to identify quality content from amongst the vast range of information on offer. Therefore, while there is a nominal diversity of information on offer, there is no guarantee that the audience is in fact consuming a diverse diet of information.
- The possibility of automated processing of large volumes of data makes it possible to infer intimate and detailed information about individuals from readily available data. This, in turn, enables sorting users into categories - according to their different background and interests, and microtargeting them on the basis of those profiles. As regards the media content, microtargeting by way of personalised news offer is considered to be a solution in a vast media and information ecosystem; it is also used by an increasing number of media companies, not only intermediaries. However, the criteria should be transparent, optional - allowing individuals to receive personalised recommendations, or not - and they should also be designed according to editorial values, not merely commercial, marketing values. Another point, fears have been expressed that such personalised selection creates filter bubbles - that it focuses on subjects that are most interesting for individuals, and on perspectives that they can identify with. But, a number of researchers oppose the “filter bubbles” threat by claiming that such phenomena are not backed by evidence. In fact, personalised recommendations can have a rather positive effect on users’ exposure. Well, whatever may hold true, one way of ensuring that people will not be closed off in their filter bubbles is designing personalised recommendations in such a way as to stimulate a more diverse exposure to information - therefore, we needto aim for a “diversity algorithm” that breaks, instead of makes “filter bubbles”. We do know now that such diversity algorithms are possible, and that they can be optimised to offer an individual as much diversity as a human editor would. And Recommendation on media pluralism includes a guideline encouraging member states and all relevant stakeholders to enhance users’ effective exposure to the broadest possible diversity of media content by improved processes of distribution of online content.
- One of the key questions today, in the era of “post-fact”, “post-truth”, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, which researchers increasingly define with notions such as “information crisis”, is how to ensure exposure to quality content - as a means to counteracting these socially disruptive processes. We are currently working on a recommendation that explores the ways of promoting the mission of quality journalism, and are encouraging development of a “quality algorithm” - mechanisms and criteria for assessing credibility and relevance of journalistic content. Such content should be promoted on the platforms so as to ensure its maximum exposure. Of course, it may not be easy to assess whether particular content meets the criteria. A number of different initiatives is currently working on transforming the idea into practice. One of the ideas, currently developed by the RSF and partners, is to develop standards on three key areas: identity and transparency (tell us who you are), second on accountability and professionalism (tell us how you work), and a third one on independence and ethics (tell us what your values are). If the standards will be successfully implemented on a voluntary basis by media outlets, they might serve as an indicator to online platforms for their ranking and moderation of media content.
- Lastly, transparency of ownership is, as just mentioned, considered one of the key elements of ensuring a media environment conducive of quality and diverse media diet. The recommendation on media pluralism includes a detailed part on transparency of ownership and financing, encouraging member states to introduce frameworks where it will be possible to identify beneficial owners of all media outlets, irrespective of the type of media, that fulfil certain criteria (or reach, commercial nature, etc.) It was considered that such information is necessary for media regulatory and other relevant bodies to be able to conduct informed regulatory and decision-making processes. It also enables the public to analyse and evaluate the information, ideas and opinions disseminated by the media. Names and contact details of media outlets Names and contact details of direct owners (recommended threshold of 5% shareholding) Names and contact details of beneficial owners Owners’ involvement in ownership structures of other media, or in media-related or advertising companies which may lead to decision-making influence, or their positions in political parties Names of editors Changes in ownership and control arrangements of a media outlet Transparency of media financing – reducing influence of political/commercial interests on media independence Lack of transparent financing: risk of corruption Impact of state advertising, grants, loans, etc. on accuracy/fairness/quality of media reporting Impact of structural and contractual relations with other media outlets/advertising companies/political parties on media reporting Criteria for the allocation of public funds to the media Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1 encourages member states to: Set out the disclosure of information on the sources of the media outlet’s funding obtained from State funding mechanisms Promote disclosure by media outlets of contractual relations with other media or advertising companies and political parties Set out clearly defined purposes for state support measures based on predetermined, clear, precise, equitable, objective and transparent criteria
- Just to give you a taste what the Council of Europe is working on currently, and what might contribute to the development of future indicators of media pluralism…
- Measuring diversity also as exposure diversity - what news sources do individuals actually consume, and how do they consume them. British Ofcom recent research indicates that we we have become very passive consumers of online sources, and that we Is it diversity if the sources consumed do not provide any quality content? How informed are we?