Mr. S?amus Dooley:

A Chathaoirligh and members of the committee, I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss the proposed European Media

Freedom Act. The proposed Act comes at a time when media freedom is in peril on a global scale, where journalism is undermined by lack of investment, regulatory failures to protect media diversity and plurality, and by persistent attacks on journalists and media organisations aimed at inhibiting the conduct of their professional duty. Against this backdrop, the NUJ strongly favours the principle of global action to protect and defend freedom of expression. National governments alone cannot be relied upon to protect media freedom. International threats to the fundamental principles which underpin democracy must be addressed at European and indeed international level.

As a mission statement, the European Media Freedom Act serves as a useful starting point but as currently constituted does not adequately address the key issues which serve to undermine media freedom in Europe. The European Media Freedom Act is a landmark initiative aimed at strengthening the free and pluralistic media system and the commitment to protect journalists and editorial independence within the European Union and we have provided the committee with a summary of our key concerns.

The European Media Act is a landmark initiative aimed at strengthening the free and pluralistic media system and the commitment to protect journalists and editorial independence within the European Union and we have provided the committee with a summary of our key concerns. It is not an exhaustive list. If the Act is to make a meaningful contribution to guaranteeing media pluralism, protecting journalists’ rights, and ensuring editorial independence from the impact of vested commercial and political interests there will need to be genuine transparency regarding media ownership and cross-ownership; an end to the reliance on soft laws and informal dialogue; a courageous approach to powerful tech giants, which is very timely at the moment; and a more strident approach to the independence of national regulators. From the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, perspective far more needs to be done to deal with the scourge of surveillance against journalists while we seek unambiguous guarantees for the protection of sources as a fundamental tenet.

My union has a proud track record of defending the right of journalists to protect sources of information and the landmark Goodwin case, which is central to any discussion on this topic, was taken by the union on behalf of our member. Names like Ed Moloney, Geraldine Kennedy and Colm Keena are also linked to that commitment. We have a major concern with the provisions of Article 4; the protection of confidential sources of information is at the heart of journalism. The form of words deployed regarding protection of sources in Article 4 of the proposal does not correspond with the protections under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, and the case law of the ECHR guaranteeing the right of journalists to protect their sources. Indeed Article 4 could be a step backwards in the protection of journalistic sources. The actual provision does not guarantee the level of protection that all EU member states should already respect with regard the protection of journalistic sources in application of Article 10 ECHR as developed and reflected in the well-established case law of the European Court of Human Rights. We also share the view of the European Federation of Journalists, EFJ, that the guarantees of source protection at the level of media service providers, producing and broadcasting news and journalistic content, should not be less than the guarantees of source protection that can be invoked by individual journalists in the application of Article 10. In other words, media organisations as well as individual journalists should have protections. Under Article 4 there is a targeted safeguard against the deployment of spyware in devices used by media service providers or journalists, building on protections provided by Directive 2002/58/EC, the privacy directive; Directive 2016/680/EU, the law enforcement directive; and Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems. However, the proposal should protect journalists from surveillance techniques in general, not only specifically spywares, as reflected in recital 16, Article 4(2)c. We need to protect journalists from eavesdropping and ensure their encrypted communications remain secure from all spywares. The NUJ is opposed to a reliance on voluntary codes of best practice to protect editorial independence. The response of publishers’ organisations to the proposed European Media Freedom Act is instructive. The European Press Publishers Association has described the Act as a “Media Unfreedom Act”, but their concern is not at a perceived threat to editorial independence by the EU but to the right of publishers to dictate editorial content.

In 1955 a US Democrat politician, Roger Branigan, declared: “I never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.” I suspect that in the coming months there will be many arguments by owners, who are usually men, who used to buy ink by the barrel but European policy on media freedom is not just about cash transactions or the generation of profits. On that note we welcome the Act but in an unoriginal sentiment, I would say, there is a lot done and more to do. I thank the Cathaoirleach.