Speech: Closing remarks of the second Fundamental Rights Colloquium on Media Pluralism and Democracy by Commissioner Věra Jourová

Ladies and gentlemen,

Our second Colloquium on Fundamental Rights has been as timely and relevant as last year's event (on anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred).

The discussions of the past two days illustrated clearly that media freedom and pluralism are essential features of a democratic society.

And our discussions brought to the fore serious concerns about current threats to media freedom and pluralism:

• - 

  threats to the financial viability of media businesses, in particular of “traditional” media,
• - 

  political pressures and attempts to undermine the independence of media either from within countries or from outside, and
• - 

  intimidation and self-censorship (or "soft censorship" as it was also denoted yesterday) resulting from hate speech targeted at journalists.

Each of these elements becomes even more threatening in a climate where there is a tendency to relativize facts and truth: a climate of "post-truth", as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it in its word of the year 2016. Many of you referred to it and to the predominance of emotions over facts.

On hate speech, let me recount some telling numbers from the Eurobarometer survey we published yesterday: Three out of four (75%) of the respondentshave seen or themselves experienced cases where abuse, hate speech or threats are directed at journalists and people active on social media, in particular women.

The effect of hate speech on freedom of expression cannot be overstated. We heard that one third of journalists say they self-censor. The impact on society at large and on democracy is a real concern. We have also witnessed very compelling testimonies and I would like to thank especially all those in this room that have shared their first-hand experience.

We need to better understand the situation and the root causes of hate speech: we will step up support to projects aimed at the collection and analysis of data related to online abuse and its effects.

I also believe that Member States should strengthen the capacity of law enforcement to ensure appropriate protection for journalists. Quality journalism is a public good.

It is important that publishers and journalist associations reflect on how to ensure that journalists experiencing online abuse have access to a comprehensive system of support, including psychosocial and legal assistance.

Emerging technological innovations and working together with the tech industry can further contribute to providing concrete assistance to journalists.

And I was encouraged to hear examples where media actors have joined up with the tech industry to develop tools countering cyber-attacks in real-time; tools which can make a real difference on the ground for the individual journalists - also in the short term.

Business and media actors can play a key role, by engaging in crowdfunding of online platforms supporting journalists. They can help bring to the public investigative work that otherwise might not see the light of day.

As was mentioned during the discussions, high-quality investigative journalism costs money. It also costs courage.

You discussed today the role of whistleblowers, as a priceless source of information for investigative journalism.

The ability of journalists to effectively "shield" their sources, and the protection of whistleblowers, are essential for the "watchdog" function of investigative journalism. This, in turn, is key for democratic accountability, good governance and the rule of law.

I will thus consider to prioritise in 2017 funding to support actions to empower journalists to develop expertise in digital security.

I will also launch, in the course of the coming months, a broad public consultation inviting the input of all relevant stakeholders on what EU level can do to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers. We are looking at different options - this doesn't mean it will be the Directive you are calling for, but we want to find the best solution.

Another key theme of our discussions over the two days were the challenges to the democratic debate posed by technological innovations that can result in the so-called “filter bubble” effect.

We need more transparency. Bias in media content is amplified if citizens are unable to access a plurality of views. And this opens the door to misinformation, as noted by many speakers.

Information underpins an effective democracy, and misinformation can undermine it.

There were many questions raised over algorithms specifically. As Michael Ignatieff defined it eloquently, we live in an “algorithmic segregation” - which polarises society and isolates us from reality.

Media literacy is only part of the response but an important one. The participation of citizens in the democratic debate needs to be supported. We must make sure all voices are heard, and that an informed and open debate may continue.

Overall, the intense debates that took place in this Colloquium illustrated again and again what First Vice-President Frans Timmermans had mentioned in his introduction: we are privileged to live in democratic societies where media freedom, pluralism and what Frans calls "disagreeing well" are protected fundamental rights - however, we cannot take this for granted and must work hard to preserve it.

The experiences you shared in the last two days, the wealth of ideas put forward, give shape to a substantial to-do list of very concrete actions; actions that the EU and all of you, resembled today in your respective capacities, should put in motion to safeguard and promote this right.

I hope that this event also helped create networks that will continue the exchanges and work together. Now it's time for all of us together to "walk the talk", with commitment and determination.

We will reflect these commitments in the Colloquium conclusions.

Now, my colleague Günther Oettinger will take the floor to finalise the conclusion of this Colloquium.

SPEECH/16/3842