23/09/2002

Roberto Barzanti was a deputy in the European Parliament from 1984 to 1999. During his term of office, he was Vice Chairman of the Assembly and Chairman of the Commission for Culture and Information. He dealt with regulations for radio and television broadcasting, as well as policies regarding culture, the development of the film industry, the protection of creative ownership and copyright. He was the Parliamentary spokesman for the “Television sans Frontieres” Directive and the MEDIA Programme. He was also Parliamentary spokesman for the directive concerning copyright in the information society. Both these directives have yet to be adopted. Roberto Barzanti was appointed by FERA (Federazione Europea Realizzatori dell’Audiovisivo – the European Federation for Film Directors) to head two workgroups: one was given the task of outlining a European directive on the cinema while the other was concerned with safeguarding cultural diversity.

89/552/EEC was the original Directive concerning “Television Without Frontiers”. It was issued on October 3rd 1989 and later modified with Directive 97/36/EC on June 30th 1997. Now that the time has come to discuss the reforms to be made to the Television Without Frontiers Directive, it would be useful to take another look at the context within which it was originally created, and to examine some of its most controversial aspects – many of which are at the heart of the current debate. Although the European Commission put forward the first proposal on April 30th 1986, the issue itself dates back to 1982. That was when a rather confused and naïve Parliamentary resolution requested that a legal and political basis be formulated in order to create a Europe-wide television service. In fact, the Luxembourg Court of Justice had already handed down a judgment which had acted as a catalyst for a discussion on how a “European broadcasting zone” could be created, particularly in view of the imminent arrival of the single market.

Many factors played a part in formulating the 1989 Directive – and it would be useful to summaries them here, although not necessarily in strict chronological order. From the beginning of the 1980s, advances in technology had lead to the increasing globalization of the television broadcasting sector. The event of Direct Broadcast Satellites (DBS) meant not only that it was possible to cover an enormous reception area, but also that national borders became meaningless in this context. In fact, satellite broadcasting in general has a pivotal role to play in the sector – not just in terms of technology, but also in terms of the nature of television broadcasting services and how they should be regulated.

The mere mention of television broadcasting services evokes the image of a basic system of relevant laws. Such laws, in fact, have been relatively complicated since the somewhat controversial Sacchi judgment was handed down on April 30th 1974. The European Court of Justice decreed that television broadcasting constituted a service and that it was thus subject to the regulations laid down in the EEC. Treaty (paragraphs 55 to 58 and 59 to 66) regarding the free circulation of services. Consequently, it was necessary to break down all barriers which were impeding the free circulation of television broadcasting services: most of these barriers arose from the different legislation in force in the EEC member countries regarding issues such as advertising, the protection of minors, copyright and the right of redress. It was necessary to bring this legislation into line so that the reception of international television programmes could take place within a legal framework, and so that television broadcasters could provide a service which could be assimilated into the sector along with all the other paid services. Each member country had to be responsible for the legislation necessary for setting up its own broadcasting system, but the EEC had to define a series of regulations for creating a Europe-wide system which would be capable of responding to mutual needs and similar interests in an increasingly global market.

The technological revolution and the integration of European markets were not the only problems. For the first time, serious cultural and political issues had to be faced. It was totally essential for the EEC member states to cooperate in the television broadcasting sector, so that the people in each individual country could feel that they were part of a single community. It was equally essential for these people to be aware that they shared a common identity, which was based on mutual values. Gradually, people in Europe were becoming part of a single European community instead of remaining locked inside their own national borders: and ideas, information, creativity and money were all vital factors in the development of projects which would appeal to this new kind of European public.

The EEC also had to provide regulations - or at the very least directions – for the dual systems which had gradually become the norm in the television broadcasting sector throughout Europe. This phenomenon had not arisen at the same time in all the member countries, but there had gradually been a tendency to reduce the influence of public monopolies and to introduce legislation which allowed dynamic private companies to operate. The result had been a vast panorama of different legislation - although, on the whole, each individual system ran along similar lines: while it was not compulsory that each member country follow exactly the same pattern, it was necessary to impose a modicum of order. There were also enormous problems with regard to fair competition. Advertising resources could not be allocated haphazardly, and were governed by a number of agreements containing extremely strict regulations which had to be respected. If the aim of the EEC was to develop an increasingly united community – and if it wished to use television broadcasting as a means to this end - it had to be prepared to play a more aggressive role on the international stage. It had to close the gap between European television broadcasting and American television broadcasting and cancel out the deficit which meant that Europe continued to lag behind. It had to present a united front, and act as one when faced with commercial treaties and competition on a global scale.

There were a number of reasons leading to the need for legislation at EEC level. These reasons were linked to different rationales and different kinds of motivation, and they contained ambiguous and contradictory factors. The potential for success was there, but there were also considerable risks to be run. The broadcasting service as a general phenomenon has its own complex, specific nature. Clear lines have never been drawn between cultural requirements and market demand. Approaching the question from a purely financial point of view would not have removed the need to take measures to safeguard language and to avoid offending the public’s scruples. Nor would it have removed the need to ensure an open, pluralist public service. The question of the illegal media also had to be taken into account: steps had to be taken to prevent this sector from expanding and reaching a position of domination which could only be harmful.

The Television Without Frontiers Directive was the first, decisive battle in a campaign which involves two more equally ambitious strategic aims for Europe. The first is to provide support for the television and film production industries, and the second is to coordinate research into new technology – and also to coordinate the way in which it is used.

The effectiveness of the Directive was inextricably linked to the balanced, timely combination of these guidelines. The compromise which was arrived at concerning the regulations has resulted in dissatisfaction in some quarters, but at least it has resulted in the implementation of measures which would seem to be essential.