Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, holds a press conference after the debate and the final vote a new regulation to protect EU journalists from growing threats to media freedom and to ensure that citizens have access to a plurality of editorially independent media content. This transcription is a result of an automatic process. Please check against delivery.

Strasbourg

press conference

freedom of press and media (T)

VERHEYEN, Sabine (EPP, DE)

Press Conference by Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), Rapporteur on the European Media Freedom Act

https://api.multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20125/75430541/1710330183881_I254362Chapters%5BSD-EN%5D.srt

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, Good morning. Let me give you the press statement. Now this is on the Media Freedom Act and the texts that were negotiated with the Council and Commission. And, it's actually a great success. It's a significant, success for the protection of,the rights of journalists in the EU and media freedom, and it supports media diversity, and it's a major step in providing more protection for journalists. It's the first European legislation in this area and will make a contribution to protecting free and independent media.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, For a long time, we had the Media Services Directive, for example, we had directives. But here for the first time, we have a regulation which will have to be transposed in member states as it is. So it's minimum standards for protection and media diversity, free media, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. They ensure a balance between economic and various cultural interests because the media landscape is very influenced by culture. So today we'll hopefully find a majority, a large majority for this text. I know there are a few people who would have liked to have seen more, but obviously we have to be aware that as a parliament, we're not alone in terms of decision making. We have to negotiate the text with the Council.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, So I think, what we have in the Parliament is a very good result. And there are many areas where we have been able to get good things through. So what are the successes? Firstly, public service media providers does need to be more independent from governments. And that's very clearly stated in the text. Independence needs to be guaranteed. Media services providers need to be protected better from the State and they will be in many areas. And in addition, journalistic sources and confidential communications will be better protected. Member states, will have be under stricter conditions, to access those things than they currently have.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, In addition, there are rules on spyware. This is something that's being discussed in Parliament at the moment. There's not a general ban on it, unfortunately. But there have been difficult situations in member states. And given that it was difficult to implement a full ban also because it goes against European law, because, member states under the treaties have a duty to ensure national security. But what we have ensured is that the work of journalists can't be affected by spyware. And, spyware can only be used in the case of serious crimes. So when there are investigations on those, it's only then that sources can be revealed. And also there must be a legal decision behind that happening and also behind spyware being placed on the equipment of journalists. So those are the things that have pushed us in order to bring forward this Media Freedom Act.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, 'I mean, the murder of Daphne Galicia - this room is named after her, of course - and other crimes against journalists were what pushed us to go for this regulation. SLAPPs as well: we have the anti-SLAPP directive, and there are many cases in which, journalists work was prevented, or made more difficult by member states governments. And we've also had attacks on journalists and, those are things that endanger media freedom and independence of the media. So we need these rules in place as quickly as possible. I mean, obviously, we would have liked to have achieved even more, but we have achieved a great deal. And what we have achieved, I think, needs to be implemented as rapidly as possible, so that at the European level, we have the means to intervene directly when, governments don't fulfil their duty to ensure media freedom.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, Then we've also gone for more transparency when it comes to media ownership and advertising. And the problems that audio visual media have suffered will be looked at as the board and these boards of the media will be more independent. The Secretariat will have work people that have been being sent from the Commission. But, when it comes to deciding what to these workers will do, well, that will be decided at the board level. We didn't find any legally secure means of financing here. So we went for a construction which includes the Commission. But we have clearly stated that the board of the organisation decides what the Secretariat does. It's not the Commission that decides. So the Commission's influence on the Secretariat has been reduced.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, So what's this new board going to do when it's going to draw up opinions that will support the Commission in its work? The Commission can call for these opinions, but the board can also call for opinions as well and can also act on requests from platforms and media service providers. And, it can also mediate if there are disputes. Also, in terms of strengthening the media, because of the large platforms now, large, online platforms can no longer arbitrarily delete or block media service providers from their platforms. That's article 17. And I think that's an important step in protecting the media from arbitrary decisions from platforms.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, We've had previous cases where journalist content was simply blocked or deleted because the platform owners didn't like it. So there have been various cases of that, and we wanted to prevent that. So now we have achieved a privilege for previously registered media. There are various conditions that need to be complied with. And these help to protect media channels. So, for example, they can't be funded externally by governments. They must prove that the editorial work is independent and there are other conditions as well, so that it's clear that the content is online,  it will be online for at least 24 hours if there's a conflict. And so there's this 24 hour reaction time. And that's a privilege which the media will have.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, And then there are self control regulatory mechanisms at the European level that underpin all of this. So it's a privilege for media platforms needs to enter into dialogue as well. And I think it's important to state why you're looking at taking down content. And then when it comes to illegal content, of course, let me say clearly the DSA, the Digital Service Act, is still in force and deals with that. We didn't want to undermine that European legislation, but, I don't imagine that media service providers want to spread illegal content on online platforms, so they need to be protected. You know, media service providers that are affected by national media measures can also turn to the board. So if there are problems, the board can draw up an opinion and that provides a protection in countries such as Hungary or elsewhere where  the media supervisory boards don't have the independence that exists elsewhere.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, So all European media regulators can draw up a common opinion, and that gives them a stronger position, than when it's a dispute between a small media provider, perhaps, and a national regulator in a member state. So that improves the situation then. In addition, it's important that on line platforms, in terms of market are treated differently when it comes to the bundling of media. So, there's more independence and more of a variety of media. And, I think, that's also an important step. We're also looking to see where there are hidden subsidies for media that's close to member states government. And, that also provides more transparency so we can see who's being supported and who isn't. And I think that's another important step.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, Then, there are rules when it comes to public sector advertising in the media. There's a limit in terms of how big the public authority body is. 100,000 inhabitants, I think. So smaller regions don't have to say whether advertising. I think in Belgium, for example, the German speaking area, is has fewer than 100,000 inhabitants and so they wouldn't be covered. And, so the point is that, we need to have transparency when it comes to budgets and budgetary control. And, so it's important to see who's spending what when it comes to advertising in the public sector. So I think, this provides also provides better transparency. So we don't get distortions in the media sector. Then article 3, protection of the individual right to diverse independent media. That's a right for every citizen. It's guaranteed, as part of citizens fundamental rights.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, But here we make it clear that each member states of the addressees of all of this. They need to ensure that access is available under their framework conditions for the media. So, I mean, you can't obviously say that every newspaper kiosk needs to have all newspapers or whatever, but, it is nevertheless clear that in member states there needs to be access to a diverse media landscape. That's something that needs to be guaranteed. And I think that is a major step forward, particularly in rural areas, for example, where sometimes, you have access to one broadcast, and then you don't necessarily have internet access. And, so we need to ensure that other media providers aren't blocked.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, Article 4 now. The media services are better protect. And here we're talking about editors and all those who have access to sensitive information because of their profession or whatever. And this relates to, as I mentioned, the protection of sources. No one can force a journalist to reveal their sources. And in addition, we can't have monitoring or surveillance of what journalists are doing in their research. So I think that's another step forward that we can through that we have made.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, So I'll stop there. If you have questions on any of the details. I look forward to answering them. But I think that what we're going to be deciding today is an important step forward for our democracy in Europe, and also the boosting the ability of citizens to make democratic decisions. And it's important in terms of the media landscape, which we have to protect globally. There are more and more problems with regard to media freedom and diversity. And I think that in Europe we really need to show that the media is part of, basic democracy. It's the fifth pillar and is crucial for the functioning of democracy. So it's very important for us to adopt this legislation today. Thank you.

Q&A, Question regarding journalist sources.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, Okay, well, firstly, we're not talking about sources having to be revealed when journalists are involved in criminal cases. The point is that it's not about revealing sources. I mean, they're always protected, and that's clear. I mean, if a journalist, for example, starts trafficking drugs, then, we need to be able to investigate just as we would investigate any other citizen. So that's why it's only in cases of serious crimes that these kinds of measures would be taken as they would against other any, any other citizen. But, the sources for journalists work always need to be protected. And I think that's a very important point.

Q&A, Question regarding the legal definition of propaganda and disinformation.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, Well, let me say that we would have liked, stronger wording when it came to spyware and national security, clearly. But that wasn't something we could achieve. But we have, made a lot of progress. If you look at the original position of the council and the same thing goes at the end of the day for the independence of the Secretariat. We would have liked to have a completely independent secretariat. So the secretariat of the board. It would have been good if the board could have employed staff themselves so that it was completely independent from the commission, but that wasn't possible because of legal structures. And so here again, we have a review clause in the text, and then we have a review clause in the text anyway. So that's the first time that we have this kind of legislation in the form of a regulation at the European level. So we're breaking new ground here. And so I think it's important that once the Media Freedom Act is in force, we look carefully at the effects it has and which improvements could be made. And if what we've achieved isn't enough, then we will be looking at all of this in a review and see what we can do in the future to perhaps go further or whatever. But I think that in many areas here, when it comes to the independence of journalists in their day to day work...

Q&A, Question regarding national security.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, That was negotiated. During discussions, we said that in the base law or in the treaty, member states are competent for this area. So this is an important step for the member states. And the council wanted to include this, but, we ensured that it was explicitly excluded. What is included is before certain measures are taken, there has to be a clear legal decision that it is necessary. There are journalists that say, okay, but if I have no independent judges, then what can I do? But I think in those particular cases will have to depend on rule of law and member states. Hope that the secret services don't intervene, but you will need a legal ruling. Then journalists which are affected have to be fully informed that these steps have been taken in the interests of national security.

SOUNDBITE (German), Sabine VERHEYEN (EPP, DE), rapporteur, And if there is spyware on the appliances, for example, that they need to be informed. So. If you get information, via these, mechanisms or spyware, this information can not be used. Then, information gathered by investigative journalists: the information could not be gathered using the spyware. The proof that the journalist themselves is acting illegally, rather than a third party source at gaining information illegally. There are no restrictions over the investigative work carried out by journalists. The only thing that is permitted legally is the obligation of the member state to identify serious crimes committed by the journalist, which justify an investigation, but not a serious crimes committed by the sources.