2. Regulatory Framework

European Television Production. Pluralism and Concentration This publication is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act in con- junction with international copyright agreements, no part may be reproduced for any purpose without written premission of the publisher. First edition: June 2004 © Copyright 2004. Mercedes Medina Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, S.A. (EUNSA) Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra Pamplona - España ISSN: 1695-310X Depósito legal: NA-2.944/2002 Printed by: Gráficas Egúzkiza Printed in Spain European Television Production. Pluralism and Concentration Mercedes Medina INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 9 1.1. Hypothesis.................................................................................. 13 1.2. Literature review........................................................................ 16 1.3. Methodology .............................................................................. 22 2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 25 2.1. Definition of independent producer .......................................... 25 2.2. Independent production quotas.................................................. 33 2.3. Audiovisual Authorities ............................................................. 38 2.4. Conclusions................................................................................ 41 Five Number 7 3. EUROPEAN PRODUCTION MARKET ................................................................... 45 3.1. Audience share of leading channels .......................................... 45 3.2. Independent production in the European channels.................... 48 June 2004 3.3. Ownership of European producers and television channels...... 54 3.4. Independent producers and vertical integration......................... 67 4. PRIME TIME PROGRAMMING AND PRODUCTION ................................................ 75 4.1. Producers of public and private channels.................................. 75 4.2. General trends in public and private programme supply .......... 84 4.3. Production of fiction .................................................................. 100 4.4. Some conclusions........................................................................ 103 5. Summary of findings ..................................................................................... 107 5.1. Conclusions................................................................................ 107 5.2. Discussion .................................................................................. 110 5.3. Proposals .................................................................................... 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 117 ANEXES Annex I. List of graphics and tables............................................... 127 MERCEDES EUROPEAN TELEVISION PRODUCTION. MEDINA PLURALISM AND CONCENTRATION CONTENTS Annex II. Main European producers................................................ 128 Annex III. Prime time programming, audience and producers (2000 & 2003).................................................................. 130 Annex. IV. National consultants......................................................... 158 Number Five Number 8 June 2004 1. Introduction Pluralism and cultural diversity are priority values of public communication. Their presence in media content guarantees citizen rights as basic as freedom of thought and expression, and political and social participation. However, it is generally recognised that the current process of media company concentration threatens this with the risk of message and audience homogenisation (Chan & McIntyre, 2002; UNESCO, 2000; Tomlinson, 1999). As Renaud (1993: 154) suggests, it is possible to say, “market forces are not necessarily synonymous with the consumer interest”. The individual countries and international political institutions of Five Number Europe have come to adopt diverse measures to put a stop to this 9 undesirable eventuality. Nevertheless, it has been observed that this legislation has proved inadequate (Miège & Tremblay, 2003; La Porte & Sádaba, 2002; UNESCO, 2001). Some of these regulations have June 2004 been directed exclusively at avoiding the concentration of media ownership, being limited to defending a kind of superficial pluralism that does not take into consideration the final product that is broadcast (Doyle, 2002: 132). Still, the evolution of the market has demonstrated that the increase of the number of voices does not assure plural and high quality content offerings (Council of Europe, 2002: 8). European legislators understood that television had a fundamental function to play in the construction of a “culturally united” and democratically developed Europe (Perry: 2003). This public function that television must assume does not contradict the European way of thinking. In every country there exists public television channels that have historically served an institutional role. Thus the continued regulation of television simply means continuing a long extant tradition. Any institutional objective of the European Commision becomes, sooner or later, a Directive through a long process of MERCEDES EUROPEAN TELEVISION PRODUCTION. MEDINA PLURALISM AND CONCENTRATION consultations and alignments of diverse opinions. In terms of the European Union, diversity has become an institutional foundation. According to the Council of Europe (2002: 6), “in Europe, cultural diversity is an integral part of European cultural identity”. In the audiovisual sphere each country has a different set of legislation. For example, in United Kingdom a 14% obligatory level of in-house production was established in the 1950s. This allowed them to place themselves among the top exporting countries. In discussions caused by the European audiovisual debate, an obligatory 30% European content broadcast quota was fixed, excluding news, sports, game shows, and advertising. The objective was to promote national cultures through films, theatre, programmes and documentaries. Some countries opposed the measure, alleging that it was impossible to achieve that percentage due to the lack of sufficient European production (Negrine; Papathanossopoulos, 1991). According to Ward (2002: 67), “French participants in the debate about the quotas and Number Five Number their allies in the European Parliament, which lobbied on the quota 10 system as the central pillar of the Directive, may have underestimated the ability of European broadcasters to produce the amount of programmes that would fill the extended transmission time made June 2004 available by the growth in the number of channels”. National interests held back the timely application of the proposed objectives. Along with the quota, the EC established a limit on the number of imported programmes and facilitated the free circulation of programming. The legal framework of European countries is fundamentally defined by the Council of Europe’s Transfrontier Television Convention of May 5, 1989 and by the Television Without Frontiers Directive adopted by the European Community on October 3rd of that same year. The members states of what was then the European Commission saw the necessity of incorporating these regulations in their own legislation. The European Directive was critiqued, above all, for trying to interfere in the cultural sphere with the excuse of strengthening the market (Wheeler: 2004). At the same time the ED was criticised because more than simply pursuing cultural goals, it pursued economic objectives in detriment to third party countries (Schlesinger; Doyle, 1995). INTRODUCTION Any study connected with the European Union requires the gathering of an immense quantity of information and data from each country in order to compare the manner of application of European institutional initiatives in each national situation. In the end, the comparison of the legislative systems and the political realities of each country helps to implement the necessary measures for putting in practice general initiatives. The comparison itself is enriching because it helps to discover the different manners of understanding according to the political, historical and social circumstances of each country (Livingstone, 2003). In this book this methodology is employed to uncover the different ways of understanding the boost of independent European production in the member countries of the EU and how these measures have contributed to pluralism. The study will encompass the countries of the European Union prior to 2003, when the new countries were incorporated. The study will thus cover fourteen countries. Luxembourg has been excluded due to its scarce relevance to the audiovisual sector. Its data can distort the general Five Number trends of the European market overall. 11 Before laying out the study’s objectives, literature review and methodology, a quick explanation of television in Europe will help to June 2004 understand the findings of the research (Medina, 1998: 43 - 52). Deregulation and liberalisation of European television took place at the end of the eighties. In some cases, like France and Italy, the public channels were privatised. At different speeds new channels, created through private initiatives, appeared and began

Load more