Talk:Media in the digital age – PL 01 2015

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

15. Mai 2015

Update 11 may 2015 by Focal Point

Session teaser

The session will explore the new media developments with a particular focus on public service media value, hybrid television and the new types of journalism in the digital age.

Session description

The purpose of the plenary session is to discuss various problems of the media and media freedom in a connected environment. The approach is to present the issues within a multidisciplinary framework which allows for each problem to stand out displaying specific characteristics and at the same time be perceived as an element of the contemporary mediatized reality. The new challenges for the media will be analyzed from the perspective of human rights with a particular emphasis on freedom of expression, technological innovation and public value and distinctive content. Media are inherently related to the system of rights in modern society and particularly to freedom of expression. Nowadays freedom of the media comprises not only the freedom of traditional media but also Internet freedom and the freedom of new services and platforms. The Internet freedom is crucial for benefiting fully from freedom of expression. Having in mind the arguments above one part of the debate will tackle issues related to media freedom, the new opportunities created by the Internet for innovation, creativity and participation and the conditions that have to be available in order for the media and the Internet in particular fulfill its public role in society. The second part of the session will be devoted to technological topics and more particularly to the transformation of traditional television and its impact on human rights. The third issue to be discussed within this session is the public value and the quality content in the new media environment. The focus will be put on PSM and their role in the digital environment. By PSM we understand not only public service media institutions but also novel public service platforms and networks.

Keywords

Media and Internet freedom, Public service media, Creativity and creative industries, Innovation, Hybrid TV, Public service media and Public service value in the digital age

Format

The session will comprise an interactive discussion in which speakers are expected to make short interventions on their topics at the beginning and then exchange with the audience. Speakers from the panel will not be the sole actors in the performance. There will be respondents/disucssants from the audience, too.

Further Reading

People

  • Focal Point: Bissera Zankova with the assistance of the Bulgarian Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications and the EBU
  • Org team:
    • Juliana Toncheva, Head of International Relations, Projects and Programs, Bulgarian National Television
    • Emir Povlakic, CDMSI
    • Anelia Dimova, MTITC
    • Giacomo Mazzone, EBU
    • Albena Milanova,Director International Cooperation, Bulgarian National Radio
    • Milen Mitev, Senior Legal Adviser, Bulgarian National Radio
    • Desislava Preobrajenska, Bulgarian National Television consultant - legal affairs
    • Dobrina Cheshmedjieva, Bulgarian National Television Chief producer - "News"
    • Daniel Chipev Bulgarian National Television "News & Current affairs" Director
    • Evgenios Nastos, CDMSI
    • Yrjö Länsipuro, Finland
    • Iliana Franklin, Mediaframestudio, LTD, creative director, UK
    • Lizzie Jackson, Professor of Interactive Media and Head of Research, Ravensbourne,
    • Maho Takahata, Google
    • Marco Pancini, Google
    • Dimitar Dimitrov, Wikimedia
    • Nevena Borisova, Association of European journalists
    • Nikolay Kolev, BTv,
  • Key participants|Panelists: Proposals
  • Key speakers:
    • Ross LaJeunesse, Google
    • Dr. Lizzie Jackson, Ravensbourne College
    • Roberto Suarez Candel, EBU Head of MIS
    • Sanja Mikleusevic-Pavic, HRT
  • Discussants:
    • Daniel Smilov, CLS
    • Elvana Thaci, CoE
    • Andra Leurdjk, Independent researcher & consultant at forallmedia.nl and professor at Hogeschool Windesheim
    • Evgenios Nastos, CDMSI
  • Moderator:
    • Nuno Conde, Pedrosos de Lima and Associados and Thomas Schneider GAC
  • Comoderators:
    • Nevena Borisova
    • Maho Takahata
  • Reporter:
    • Dimitar Dimitrov, Wikimedia,
    • Albena Milanova, BNR
  • Remote moderator:
    • Nelly Stoyanova, Berec/MTITC

Exchange via email Contact: pl1@eurodig.org


Minutes 11 May 2015

Freedom of expression signifies the broader public engagement of the media in a democracy to support the dissemination of a variety of information, opinions and views on a larger everyday scale and to sustain public debate about common principles and values of our life. Nowadays freedom of the media comprises not only the freedom of traditional media but also Internet freedom and the freedom of new services and platforms. The Internet freedom is crucial for benefiting fully from freedom of expression. The Council of Europe Internet Governance Strategy 2012 – 2015 states that ‘for many, access to the Internet is a precondition (an enabler) for user to exercise their rights and freedoms contained in the ECHR.” Further to this the Council of Europe Ministerial conference on freedom of expression and democracy in the digital age (Belgrade, 7 – 8 November 2013) stressed that access to the Internet is a key tool enabling people to effectively seek, receive and impart ideas and opinions. The org team discussed and proposed the following questions that can be tackled during the session :

SAME TREATMENT ACROSS ALL OVER THE PLATFORM OR REGULATION BY PLATFORM ?

  • To what extent is possible to keep separate legislations and regulations for media when same contents circulate over the Internet and are distributed via tv or radio channels ?
  • How can we comment on complex approaches to regulate the media environment like the Hungarian media laws, for instance? Are these new approaches disguising new more deeply penetrating media censorship?
  • Can we speak of a conflict between Internet and media freedom as there are countries like Bulgaria where a fast broadband connection is in operation and at the same time the media freedom index of the country is going down?
  • How can we measure and evaluate media freedom and Internet freedom and what are the appropriate indicators states can use to mark their progress in accomplishing these freedoms?


THE TRANFORMATION PROCESS INTO ON-LINE MEDIA

1. What is Hybrid TV (definition(s)).

2. Should you make different versions of a TV programme for different delivery platforms?

3. Will the Internet and the use of Meta-Tagging enable viewers to choose a TV programme with commentary and sound in their own language (look at Google Translate).

4. What can a ‘Second Screen’ be best used for?

5. How can you create a strong narrative across different platforms in Hybrid TV?

6. Will Hybrid TV offer opportunities for broadcasters to work with Museums and Galleries around broadcast topics?

7. Is online streaming still ‘television’? What is ‘Television’ and what isn’t television?

8. Should there be a global search engine to assist public service media to be more findable globally?

9. Should Public Service Media Producers become more digitally literate e.g. by understanding the Internet, Internet Protocols, Meta Data, and Websites?

10. There is a “public service” possible approach to the treatment of personal data, to privacy and to data retention policies?

11. Is reliability still a value to be protected?

12. How to keep national communities still alive in the world of fragmentation.

13. Examples of new communities created from TV to support the change.

14. UGC : user generated contents and their transformation into reliable material by traditional media.


NEW FORMS OF PUBLIC SERVICE ON-LINE

1.Some academics argue that Public Service Media has become diluted (or augmented) by other media and communications which are also created for ‘the public good’ (Wikipedia, the Open Source movement, citizen blogging, or the non-commercial search engine DuckDuckGo?).

2. Is Public Service Media becoming superceded by such services?

3.Is cooperation possible ?

4.How PSM could counter the main risks of the ONLY-ON-LINE-WORLD : fragmentation, communitarism, hate speech, information-like-me-syndrome, etc.


Current discussion

With the view of approaching deadlines the organizing team considered the topics and also the names of speakers, discussants, moderators and rapporteurs.Emir Povlakich from Bosnja proposed as a key-note speaker/discussant Ms. Sania Mikleušević-Pavic. Giacomo Mazzone from the EBU proposed as a key note speaker Roberto Suarez Candel, EBU Head of MIS to make a 12 min. introduction on the current status of public service media on line and lines for the future. Some of the invited pesons - Nuno Conde, Andra Leurdijk, Ms. Mikleušević and Nelly Stoyanova declined invitations due to a charged agenda or lack of funding. Elvana Thaci, Counil of Europe accepted the invitation.The organizing team is waiting for the confirmation of other sugegsted key-participants. In the meanwhile the focal point communicated with Bulgarian media associations – the Union of Bulgarian Journalists – to assure larger involvement of practitioners in the session.

30. April 2015

Notes and suggestions from the focal point

1. What came out is that nobody has challenged the title of the plenary session so I presume that it will stay as it reads now - Media in the digital age – the new challenges.

2. Nobody has proposed a separate title for the break out session - I understand that we shall continue discussing more in-depth under the same title.

3. New proposals for topics to be discussed have been raised including new types of media and human rights/ Freedom of expression, re-centralizatoin of technology and media infrastructure (legislation/regulation), restrictions on new media such as filtering of online content, criminalization of online expression and intermediary liability public service, private media, citizen media, crowd-funded media, new and old types of journalism, changes in journalistic profession due to the technological boom, technology and social development.

4. A speaker has been suggested by Maho and Marco and this is Mr. Ross LaJeunesse. Ross LaJeunesse leads the global team responsible for advancing the company’s work on free expression and open Internet issues, as well as Google’s relationships with international organizations.

5. Nobody has proposed a special format for the session and has not disagreed with my suggestions to organize the session in rounds, to have a couple of short interventions by speakers and then to start debate with the audience. In this case we have to rely on the moderator/s to provoke larger discussion.

Having in mind old and new suggestions I would conclude that there are no deep contradictions among them. The new media environment is a bubbling world and represents a range of subjects and issues and we have to find the right way to tackle them. Even if some of us disagree with others this can be a good basis for a lively session debate. With a view of these points I would propose we split the org team into separate groups that can work together and formulate the overarching topics of the different panels or rounds of the plenary session and the break out session.

First group will be dealing with general issues as media and internet freedom or media v. Internet freedom, regulation, creativity and innovation. I would nominate Dimitar, Maho, Marco and Nikolay.

Second group dealing with the problems of various types of media. I propose here Anelia, Emir, Evgenios, Albena, Milen and all BNT and BNR people to join.

Third group tackling journalism old and new and novel types and approaches in journalism. May I invite Yrjo, Iliana and Nevena to set up such group.

The focal point Bissera is supposed to coordinate and cooperate with all the groups.

These groups may exchange and come up with detailed proposals about the particular questions that will be discussed during the panels searching for interdisciplinary and cross cutting issues and also put forward names of speakers and moderators.

Re: methodology – we continue discussing via email, we also use the Wiki more thoroughly informing others so that everybody is aware what is going on and people that are willing can join in the talk.

Thank you for the good summary of what has happened so far. Do I understand correctly what we have one session and that this session is called "Media in the Digital Age" and is a session at an internet governance conference? If that is correct, splitting the session into rounds is a terrible idea and a clear sign of weak leadership . The organisers (Bissera, EuroDIG) must pick a focus and stick with it. Are we going to discuss the the newest Samsung TV products or how media is changing. I am sorry for the harsh words, but this is turning into a farce. Also, having the members of the organising team speaking on the panel is a sub-opitmal solution. I would urge, after we have found a definite and precise topic, to nominate four speakers and a moderator to lead through the debate. --Dimi (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2015 (CEST)
DIMI, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE PROPOSING TO DROP THE IDEA ABOUT GROUPS AND INSTEAD YOU ARE SUGGESTING FOR ONE TOPIC ONLY TO BE THE FOCUS AND TO HAVE 4 SPEAKERS AND ONE MODERATOR? HOW IS THIS OPTION MORE EFFECTIVE? CAN YOU PLEASE BE MORE SPECIFIC IN YOUR STATEMENTS, TERMS LIKE "TERRIBLE IDEA" , "FARCE" AND "WEAK LEADERSHIP" SOUND LIKE PERSONAL INSULTS AND ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC CRITICISM PLEASE ARTICULATE IT INSTEAD OF ABUSING THE ORG TEAM. SO FAR YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING APART FROM INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS OF NO SUBSTANCE. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU TRY TO RESPOND ON A LEVEL APPROPRIATE TO THE EVENT.
Dear unknown! I will answer and provide more detail, but please don't forget to sign each statement on the wiki with three tildes (~). Also, please don't write all capitals. It makes it seem like you're shouting and makes it difficult to read. Thank you!
EuroDIG is a conference about the social and political change brought about by communications technology. It has already been split into session and each session was given a topic. Ours is media and we have 90 minutes for it. The goal of every organising team should be to find an overarching and topical issue that encompasses most or at least many of the underlying issues. It should ideally be something topical that attracts attention and tells a story that provides an example speakers and audience can relate to.
Instead, what has been proposed is to have three distinct topics and possible a keynote speaker. Even without the keynote speaker, just dividing by three and calculating the technical time needed, that would leave not more than 20 minutes for each topic. Now, I don't know about the Bulgarian Ministry, but that seems hardly enough and appropriate for such a respectable forum like EuroDIG.
I am sorry if my words hurt you, but I stand by them. A coordinator's/organiser's job is to bring together a group with diverse interests, make out the underlying issues and form them them into an exciting, in-depth discussion that everyone can take something away from. Instead, what I am seeing is either deliberate dispersion or just unprofessional. I for my part prefer to still believe it is the latter.
And, so you see that I am actually willing to cooperate, here's my proposal: From where I am standing, we live in a region that has a shamefully low freedom of media score and where we have economic and legislative processes that go in the direction of further worsening the situation. This is something that has both topicality and urgency built into it. There are plenty of real-life, practical examples. Plus, it includes social aspects of freedom and privacy, economic challenges of media, regulatory attempts and technological developments. It just seems like it might be the overarching topic
Let's do something that we will all be proud of having participated in instead of just doing something! Have a great day and be bold! ;) --Dimi (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2015 (CEST)
I don't appreciate being called unprofessional. You seem like you have a strong political agenda here. You say we live in a region with little freedom, but looking at your signature you are based in Brussels. So after you have deserted the region now you are trying to slag off that region in order to get noticed? At least Bissera Zankova - the media lawyer you are shamelessly insulting in her calling her unprofessional actually resides in that region and works towards its best interests.
Your understanding of Eurodig is inaccurate. When I attended the first meeting of Eurodig organizers in Sofia in January it was pointed out that Eurodig is not a conference but it is a dialogue, an open platform for informal and inclusive discussion and exchange on public policy issues related to IG between stakeholders from all over Europe.
The formats are very clearly outlined on the Eurodig website and pl1 is a plenary session where broadly based topics will be discussed according to the requirements. I disagree with the view that we have to put the emphasis on one local issue regarding public media freedom. My view is to present the questions posed by the organizing team because of their importance. The nature of Internet provides freedom of expression and is the reason why it revolutionized the world and created a new level of communications. The local casual media providers represent only one fraction of the overall number of Internet users.
Consider that Internet provides democratic tools for social inclusion and participation. If there is any space gap in that local media environment we should seek the reason not in the political and economical sphere only, but also in the area of education, dissemination of knowledge, creativity and innovation since they inspire the progress and change.
The politics and economy as we see already have adapted to this because this is progressive. I understand this may go against the role you have within the organization that you work for and therefore you may be opposed to such an approach. I propose that we open the discussions by pinpointing the new exciting and inspiring topics instead of chewing the same stuff over and over again and trying to witch-hunt any topics that some participants may not understand due to using analogue methods in a digital age and therefore feign boredom . -- I.Franklin (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2015 (CEST) I. Franklin
Dear All, thank you Anelia, Dimi for the suggestions and ideas. It is great to have a lively discussion here, but I also would like to remind ourselves that we have to decided on few important items below in mind that we are preparing for the plenary.
1) Speakers & Moderator
I know that we were aiming to decide on moderator and speakers by 15 May.
So far, I only see Ross LaJeunesse suggested as a speaker. Could any of you suggest speakers and a moderator so that we can check their availability for the plenary ?
2) The topic of plenary 1
I agree that in the plenary 1, rather than going into technical/device details, it might be good to keep the topic wider.
Thus, the topic "New digital media, and the challenges in freedom of expression" should cover things we have been discussing, and we can go into details at breakout sessions. Yes, given this year's EuroDIG is held in Bulgaria, I would appreciate if some of the speakers could bring the challenge in Bulgaria and Eastern/Central Europe.
Thank you. It'd be great if we could decide on the topic of plenary 1 first and speakers & moderator by 15 May. Maho -- Maho (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2015 (CEST)
The discussion was once again taken to the mailing list instead of the much more public wiki. I counted four people saying that we need one common topic for the session and instead we were told that there is a consensus to form subgroups and prepare a format with three different panels. --Dimi (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2015 (CEST)
As I said before: all proposals are relevant. We have tasks from the focal point –to work in subgroups….I hope we all as organising team could contribute to the media panel!Let‘s do it!​Maho, I think Bissera is traveling now and I'm sure she will answer to your proposal as well to Dimi and Iliana-- Anelia (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (CEST)
Dear Anelia,answering what you perceive as personal attacks with ad-hominem attacks is surely not the best way to go ;)To me it is clear that you have no interest in having an in-depth debate about the actual problems of the country and the region by watering it down with topics of little relevance. This is a clear political agenda to me.
Thirdly, I would appreciate it if you keep the debate on the wiki, as there the entire world can read it. By posting here (mailinglist instead of wiki), you're just hiding from the public. Dimi --Dimi (talk), 17:20, 5 May 2015 (CEST)
The discussion was once again taken to the mailing list instead of the much more public wiki. I counted four people saying that we need one common topic for the session and instead we were told that there is a consensus to form subgroups and prepare a format with three different panels. --Dimi (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2015 (CEST)
I appreciate the views you are sharing - they really are very valuable.

Since the discussion become very dynamic and very narrow I would like to raise a quick question - is this Eurodig 2015 a forum aiming at inspiring international dialogue? Why should the emphasis be placed on regional problems? We all know the problems and the conversations about them so far are not very productive.

What we need is a new level of inspiration, something to learn from and engage with.

Could you bring examples of good practice please? Why not put the emphasis on learning how to do the things better and not on what we have as a problem? --I.Franklin (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2015 (CEST)

If we want a "inspiring international dialogue" we need two things: Firstly to have time to talk, which will not happen if we split into 4 groups and run on and off the speakers table every 15 minutes. Secondly, to have a topic that excites people, provides examples and gets to the core of things. I do not see a contradiction between regional and global. Talking "global" is soooo 90s :). The great thing about IT is that we are actually starting to have the same problems and challenges everywhere in the world, although in a local setting. The Guardian, the Huffington Post, the NYT die Tageszeitung and Capital.bg are having the very similar problems with financing, regulation, audience focus, (self-)censorship, freedom of information, although against different backdrops. Now that is exciting - seeing how a global problem applies to the regional case and seeing, hopefully, how a regional solution can apply to the global case. Umberto Eco's induction and deduction tactics. --Dimi (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2015 (CEST)

Question: Should we not consider that the delivery in a digital age is much faster than in the 90's - 15 minutes is a lot of time...we have smart audience? And don't you contradict yourself here saying "we are actually starting to have the same problems and challenges everywhere in the world, although in a local setting." However, earlier you are saying: "From where I am standing, we live in a region that has a shamefully low freedom of media score and where we have economic and legislative processes that go in the direction of further worsening the situation." --I.Franklin (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2015 (CEST)

23. April 2015

Four centres or pillars for discussion at least: Firstly, we have to deal with the challenges of the new media environment in general and more precisely with the principles of creativity, innovation and participation in the digital age in and through the media, secondly, we have to dwell on hybrid TV and its challenges, thirdly, we have to focus on public service media and regional public service media and the transformations they are undergoing nowadays, fourthly, we have to explore the new types of journalism including data and blogs and the consequences they entail regarding human rights and particularly freedom of expression.

Starting from the preliminary ideas about PSM and Hybrid TV a number of more general questions with respect to the concrete organization and format of the sessions can be posed:

  • Which are the most relevant issues within the themes already registered that deserve being been discussed during Pl1 at Eurodig 2015?

If we take the themes as frameworks we could look for specific and important aspects that represent a must to be debated.

  • How shall we separate the issues for the plenary session from the issues for the break-out session or whether such separation is needed at all?

We can discuss all topics during the plenary and continue exchanging more in depth all of them during the break-out session but we can pick a couple of accents, the sexiest ones and put on the table for the second session and involve more thoroughly the audience and especially young people?

  • What will be the particular format of our plenary - a classical panel discussion consisting of 5 – 7 min interventions and then Q&A with the audience or a round table discussion or a pro and contra talk involving the audience?

These topics relate to the methodology of carrying out sessions. My proposal is to start Pl1 discussing creativity, innovation and participation together with the new types of media and journalism. Here aspects of PSM delivery and content will also be taken into consideration. This will be the first panel.

We have to think about good moderators because the success of such complex sessions as the session on the media in the digital environment depend to a large extent on thought provoking moderation.

From what I have read I really fail to see how Hybrid TV fits the other keywords. This is just a type of non-portable device marketed by technology companies that can in no other way be distinguished from the functionalities of modern :phones, tablets, laptops other than its non-portability.
From where I stand talking about technology is boring and such a focus always produces debates that miss the main, underlying points. Internet governance is not about regulating technology (we have standards agencies for that). It is :about looking at the overlap of social change and technology. It is about technological advances that lead to social changes and economic disruptions.
In that line of thought, the major challenges for "media in the digital age" are:
  • Increased competition and end of de-facto monopolies (setting up a media is easy and cheap)
  • Recentralisation of technology and media (setting up hundreds of 'counter-medias' is also cheap and there are efforts to control the infrastructure)
  • Calls for redecentralisation of the infrastructure
The main issue nowadays is who controls/owns pays the media (revenue stream) and who controls the infrastructure (I do count legislation/regulation as part of the infrastructure. There are four main groups:
  1. public service
  2. private media
  3. citizen media
  4. crowd-funded media
The debate must be centred around them. Focusing on technology would make our debate obsolete before it is even over.
Furthermore, there is clear trend in European, Balkan and Bulgarian governments/interest groups to try and control both the infrastructure and a majority of the media. This against the backdrop of changing revenue streams is the exciting :topic this panel should touch upon. Sparing out the fact that Bulgaria is the lowest ranked country in the media freedom index of RWB, although our internet infrastructure is excellent, would be missing out on the chance to have an :actual in-depth conversation. Dimi (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2015 (CEST)

Raw comments of org team members

For transparency find the comments of the org team members:

E.: what is curent position of PSB? What is value of PSM in digital age, and specially for youth? Is there future of PSM? Who will provide culture diversity in domestic/international level if not PSM?...

Ev.: Hbbtv is already well adopted in some European countries, such as Germany, other countries have just adopted equivalent platforms or are about to do so. This satisfactory outcome has come although hbbtv has only recently been described and released to the public, the manufacturers, the content providers etc. Hbbtv can be a game-changer in user experience regarding TV-content delivery. As hbbtv is a platform that combines both broadcast and broadband delivery and it has implications in the domains of net neutrality and data protection I believe it fits perfectly in the plenary Media in Digital Age and it can be introductory to plenaries that follow.

A.: Something from me to you like a food for thought – I addressed them in the WS1 Participation in a digital society but most are suitable here also with some regionalaspect as well:

1.Vatican: Internet - the potential for good and /or evil

2.Today more than 99% of things in the phisical world are still not connected to the internet. What is Internet of everything?

3.Measuring participation- DESI –the new EC tool .How to measure SEE information society- ITU report 2014. Is there any SEE IS statistics? Cullen?

4.Mapping IG.CSTD report.

5.The technology- Moguls of the Internet

6.IG and Internet Management.Critical resources.Who runs the Internet?

7.EC conception digital by default

8.e-democracy,e-participation,e-government, e-governance

9.spectrum management ( Giacomo) – I would add what are we doing with the digital dividend?

Status on the 10th of April 2015

Participants exchanged email messages to formulate relevant proposals. This plenary session will aim at exploring the changes in the media landscape in the new digital environment with a particular focus on the parameters of media freedom and the new phenomena such as the new public service, hybrid TV and its consequences and novel types of journalism. Creativity, participation and innovation are the principles underpinning the media transformations in the digital age. Following the online exchange between the members of the org team, the title, the session teaser and key words have been agreed. The team will continue working on the elaboration of the session format and key participants including key-speakers and moderators.

Retrieved from "https://eurodigwiki.org/mw/index.php?title=Talk:Media_in_the_digital_age_–_PL_01_2015&oldid=16625"