For communication among alternative media producers, academics, artists, and activists.


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Kate Coyer <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:20:03 +0200
text/plain (167 lines)

Here are a couple of sites I sent to Gabi directly, but thought I
would through in the mix in this converstaion as well.

Two projects our center is working on, one completed, one just
starting, about media pluralism (European Union's diversity/localism
framework for what should be aspirational in terms of organizing media
systems), and one specific to the independence of audio/visual
regulatory agencies.

1) EU Study: INDIREG: Indicators for independence and efficient
functioning of audiovisual media services regulatory bodies - a study
conducted on behalf of the European Commission. indireg project page


Yes, we (heart) acronyms in Europe!

This study is just starting, so no data yet, but it was commissioned
by the European Commission,
Results will include:

a) development of a set of dimensions and indicators for measuring
independence and effective functioning.
b) Analysis of institutional, regulatory and legal frameworks of media
c) Analysis of practical implementation and effectiveness of
institutional, regulatory and legal conditions concerning independent
regulatory bodies
d) Identification of key characteristics of a functioning independent
regulatory body, including measurement criteria

2) European Commission study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the
Member States - Towards a Risk-Based Approach


The INDIRIG project above is a follow up study of just one set of the
media pluralism indicators developed.  This is a very long study and
has A LOT of indicators, that cover everything from ownership,
independence of regulatory agency, transparency, public and community
media, etc.  It is in many ways overly exhausted, but ripe for a lot
of follow up studies, and taking at least a set of the indicators and
applying them in a different country.


Lastly, I would add that in seeking out best practices and whose
country model to avoid more, we should be clear to separate policy
from implementation.  It would be interesting for more studies on
this, and I think Harold and Petri's pieces start to do this, looking
at where policies on paper might be great, but how they get
interpreted, precedent, and political / economic capture render them
something entirely different.

And i the realm of 'it can always get worse', I will shortly email
around an English language summary of the proposed changes to the
Hungarian media law, and constitution, proposed by the new government
that has 2/3 majority and will pass with no public input, or input
from the opposition...


On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:53 AM, pete tridish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> well, in a word,  whoever told you the fcc is not such a good model-- they are right!
> perhaps you may want to show whoever the  decisionmakers are on this new regulatory agency  some of the current recommendations for reforming the FCC-- which could help highlight the problems with its structure and save you a lot of trouble later dealing with an inept, captured agency that responds more to corporate interests than the public.
> here is a blog post by harold feld who mentions a number of other sources with detailed critiques of fcc structure. and one of the first links is his white paper on the subject- "painless reforms to improve the fcc."
> http://tales-of-the-sausage-factory.wetmachine.com/content/reform-week-at-the-fcc-and-why-letting-in-the-public-is-better
> i am cc:ing harold too- i know he is quite busy with the problems of our US agency, but he follows this stuff pretty closely and may have more ideas for resources.
> also, i have two articles i have written from an activists point of view about how the FCC works. my attempt to explain to lay people why such bad policy comes out of our government.  in truth, our fcc is not half as bad as congress. but that is not saying much.
>  unfortunately i haven't posted these articles to our new website yet, so i will try attaching them and see if they come through to the list- i don't think they are too big.
> happy to talk about this more with the people working on this, if they would find that useful.
> pete tridish
> [log in to unmask]
> On MondayJun 14, 2010, at 5:26 AM, Janey Gordon wrote:
> They should look at the Australian model.
> ACMA is the Australian communications regulatory body, overseeing all communications. It works a bit like the UK system in that the regulator is not part of the government but does advice, regulate  and implement laws.
> Australia has  a particularly strong community radio sector and ACMA feel that community radio is very much part of the democratic conversation and enables groups such as the Indigenous Aboriginal  peoples of Australia and the new and older ethnic migrant  groups to have a media and voice.
> I believe Giles Tanner is the head of broadcasting at ACMA and a great supporter of community media.
> Janey Gordon
> Principal Lecturer
> Radio LaB Project Leader
> University of Bedfordshire
> [log in to unmask]
> On 14 Jun 2010, at 04:06, G wrote:
> Dear OURmedia friends,
> (apologies for cross-posting)
> Urgent question regarding independent regulation agencies.
> In Japan, the government (constantly changing though the members are) is
> considering finally (!) an independent broadcasting agency (so far airwaves
> directly regulated by ministry of interior). A civil society group called
> ComRights is feverishly gathering information on good examples (and some bad
> ones) of independent regulating agencies from around the world. Does anyone
> know of existing comparative studies or have on hand detailed info about the
> independent regulators (independent from the government) of specific
> countries?
> Japanese colleagues are already currently collecting info from US, UK,
> France and Germany (and I have found some comparative data on EU country's
> regulators), but hints for good examples in other countries would be welcome
> and some notably bad ones too (word so far is: FCC is not so good- though
> unfortunately now being considered as the main model- the planned regulatory
> agency is even dubbed 'Japanese FCC', OFCOM is better, the regulator in
> Germany's Northrhine-Westfahlia is pretty good. Any insights on that?).
> We'd be interested also on information on how regulators relate to the
> community media sector(s) in each case (I've found some information on that
> in comparative community radio reports).
> Please feel free to pass this question on to other people and lists who you
> think may have leads, but when forwarding please cut out my e-mail address
> in the header and instead include the signature below.
> Gabi
> ghprof(at)me.com
> PS: They are for now looking at broadcasting authorities ONLY, as the
> convergence law draft is on hold for the moment and industry bodies
> 'self-'regulate internet, game industry, etc. But obviously many countries
> regulators cover multiple platforms, and this may also happen in Jp
> eventually.
> pete tridish
> director of electromagnetism
>  __      __
> Pe'tre Dish (n):  A squat, cylindrical article of laboratory glassware, useful in observing resistant strains in aetherial media.
> prometheus radio project
> [log in to unmask]
> www.prometheusradio.org
> 215-605-9297