1

MEDIA PLURALISM: risks and opportunities

from UGC

Prof. Dr. Peggy ValckeICRI K.U. Leuven - IBBT

Pluralism and Competition in the Regulation of New Media

Conference FSR/MEDIADEM at EUI, Florence, 10-12 Nov. 2011

A D V I S O R Y

Disclaimer

A C A D E M I C

NO EXPLICIT ANSWERS

2

Notions (1)

When we talk about MEDIA PLURALISM, we(*) talk about:

(*) Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States –Towards a Risk-Based Approach, 2009 (“Media Pluralism Monitor”)

6 Risk Domains

basic domain

geographical

pluralism in the media

cultural pluralism in the

media

political pluralism in the

media

pluralism of media types and

genres

pluralism of media ownership

and control

basic domain (‘pre-conditions’)

4

Notions (2)

When we talk about UGC, we talk about• Blogs

• Wikis

• Multimedia sharing services (photos: Flickr, video: YouTube, MySpace, audio: Odeo)

• Content syndication

• Podcasting

• Social networking sites

• Virtual worlds (Second Life)

Web 2.0

3

5

Impact of UGC

When we talk about UGC, we talk about

• Collaboration and cooperation

• Increase of participation and cultural diversity

• Democratization of news process

• Additional sources of information

• Additional control of mainstream media

• Growth of user autonomy

6

Impact of UGC

But when we talk about UGC, we also talk about

• Privacy invasion

• Intellectual property infringements

• “Unwanted diversity”: defamatory content, (child) pornography, other undesirable content (suicide websites and newsgroups, eating disorders (anorexia...), violent, shocking images (beheadings...), insults to religious groups…)

• Information overload (fragmentation, gated communities, “sphericules”)

• New super powers (“Google-isation”)

4

Questions

How to make most of the opportunitiesand at the same time manage the risks?

What are suitablesector/policy/regulatory responses?

Possible answers

Develop better tools to measure online diversity, both at level of supply and exposure

Strategies to improve potential of UGC to make a meaningful contribution to media pluralism

Strategies to enable and assist users to find and recognise UGC quality

Diversity by design

5

Possible answers: (1) measuring tools

• Growing importance of exposure diversity in demand-driven media environment(cf. McQuail: diversity as sent versus diversity as received; Napoli/ Valcke: diversity chain = source/provider – content/product –exposure/use diversity)

“Policymakers have wrestled with the concept of media diversity for decades. Typically, their attention has focused on either the diversity of sources or the diversity of content available to the public. While these are important considerations, they ignore a crucial question. What do audience members do with the media options they have? Do they consume a varied diet of program types and ideas, or binge on the equivalent of junk food? Is there diversity of exposure? […]

If we are serious about understanding diversity in an age of media abundance, we need to be serious about diversity of exposure.” (Webster, 2007)

Possible answers: (1) measuring tools

• N.B. Some aspects of exposure diversity integrated in European Media Pluralism Monitor, for instance indicators on:– Level of successful complaints to the media and self-regulatory

bodies by citizens or political groups with regard to misconduct in political reporting during election campaigns

– Level of influence on political and public debate by bloggers

– News source preferences of audiences for local issues (what is the primary source of information?)

– Estimated reach and audience share of regional and local media

– Ratio of consumer spending on different media per capita to GDP per capita

6

Possible answers: (1) measuring tools

• Some challenges:– Methods to measure online diversity?

– Crossmedia: different media – different impact? (cf. debate in Germany)

– Multi-sourcing?

– Consumer’s critical attitude towards/trust of the media?

“How consumers engage with the media may affect the ability of a media owner to influence public opinion…Where consumers do seek toquestion the news they may themselves limit the ability of a media owner to influence public opinion. How far this can successfully guardagainst the risk that one controller of media enterprises may have toomuch influence remains unclear.” (Ofcom, 2010)

Possible answers: 2) influence quality

Strategies to improve potential of UGC to make a meaningful contribution to media pluralism

• Examples to make transparent / monitor / stimulate / ensure quality :– Integration of UGC into traditional

media platforms

– Transparency concerning editorial

goals, guidelines and codes of conduct

– User-generated peer review /

moderation

• Challenge: – supportive legal environment

without forcing traditional standards

on UGC and amateurs

7

Possible answers: 3) enable finding

• Strategies to enable and assist users to find and recognise UGC quality (to consume diverse media diet) Digital skills and media literacy

Providing users with information that helps to find and assessUGC upon its value and relevance

Cf. “the media literate viewer”

• UGC platform

• User ratings

• Diversity label?

(cf. Helberger)

Possible answers: 4) Diversity by design

• Starting point: great impact of “electronic choiceintermediaries” (search engines, EPGs…) on diversity of content people are exposed to.

• Today: – “neutral” regulation of EPGs under EU telecoms law

– Some MS: limited presentational rules requiring prominence or equalpresentation of PSB programs

– Alternatives?• “Positive discrimination”?

• “Serendipity principle”?

• (Cf. Helberger)

8

Concluding remark

Food for thought for the brand new Centre for Media Pluralism and Media

Freedom in Florence…!

Relevant literature

• ICRI, MMTC, CMCS, Ernst & Young, Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Towards a Risk-Based Approach, Brussels, European Commission, 2009.

• IDATE, TNO & IViR, Study on User-Created-Content: Supporting a participative Information Society, Brussels, European Commission, 2008.

• Helberger (2011). “Diversity Label: Exploring the Potential and Limits of a TransparencyApproach to Media Diversity”, Journal of Information Policy 1(2011):337-369.

• Helberger, Leurdijk & de Munck (2010). “User Generated Diversity – Some Reflections on How to Improve the Quality of Amateur Productions”, Communications & Strategies 77, 55-77.

• Napoli (2011). “Exposure Diversity Reconsidered”, Journal of Information Policy 1 (2011): 246-259.

• Valcke (2011). “Looking For the User in Media Pluralism Regulation: The Potential and Limits of Regulating Exposure Diversity”, Journal of Information Policy 1 (2011): 287-320.

• Valcke & Lenaerts (2010). “Who's author, editor and publisher in user-generated content? Applying traditional media concepts to UGC providers”, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24: 1, 119-131.

• Valcke (2008). “In Search of the Audiovisual Search Tools in the EU Regulatory Frameworks”, in Nikoltchev (ed.), IRIS Special: Searching for Audiovisual Content, Strasbourg, European Audiovisual Observatory, 71-84.

• Webster (2007). “Diversity of Exposure”, in Napoli (ed.), Media Diversity and Localism, LEA, 309-325.

9

Thank you for your attention!Peggy Valcke

[peggy.valcke@law.kuleuven.be] http://www.icri.be – http://www.ibbt.be

Conference ICRI 20 years: “Trust in the information society. In search of Trust Generating Mechanisms for the Network

Society” (14-15 November, Leuven): http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/pages.php?pid=106

http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/psiml/