Welcome Britblog Roundup 189 Visitors

Here is a summary of the European Parliament’s latest pronouncement on the media (including bloggers). You’ll recall the original pernicious idea to ‘validate’ bloggers.

The full text of the ghastly resolution – 4352 words long – is here.

It is an exemplary Liberal Fascist document. Everyone should read it to see the full horror of the blandly oppressive collectivistic thought-processes dominating EP discourse, which is not legally binding but steadily contaminates Europe’s governance instincts and outcomes.

Let the fisking focus on the EP’s own press release:

MEPs defend media pluralism and call for discussion of blogs

As you’ll see, apart from the fact that this is not what they in fact do, what is ‘media pluralism’? This sounds very different from ‘media freedom’ or indeed just good old plain freedom.

Media pluralism must be safeguarded and all citizens should have access to free media, MEPs underline in a resolution adopted on Thursday.

What?! Why should all citizens have access to free media? What does that mean? Nothing man-made is free – there has to be a cost and an opportunity cost somewhere, so if ‘citizens’ are not paying for ‘free media’ someone else – not a citizen? – must be doing so.

And it gets worse. Much worse:

To prevent owners, shareholders or governments from interfering with editorial content, MEPs advocate creation of editorial charters.

Why should not owners and shareholders ‘interfere’ with editorial content? They own the goddam content! If I want to set up a newspaper and hire an editor to emit exactly the views I like and no others, that’s my business and no-one else’s. If the public like the product, they’ll buy it. If not, they won’t, and I’ll lose my money. Validation by the free market. Sorted.

To shed light over the aims and background of the broadcasters and publishers, the resolution also encourages the disclosure of ownership of all media outlets.  

Why should light be shed on such matters any more than happens anyway under business practice?

MEPs also voice concern over the media’s ability to carry out the role of a watchdog of democracy, when private media enterprises are motivated by financial profit, and warn that this could lead to loss of diversity.

Bang!

My brain has just exploded. Sorry. Let me scrape it back together to get this straight.

MEPs with their miserable electoral mandates are lecturing us on democracy? They dare to insinuate that the motivation of financial profit which pays their fat salaries and dodgy expenses somehow threatens ‘diversity?

The nasty profit motive of course skews media quality. Hence deep in the resolution itself is this call for

… high-quality public broadcasting services which can offer a real alternative to the programmes of commercial channels and can, without necessarily having to compete for ratings or advertising revenue, occupy a more high-profile place on the European scene as pillars of the preservation of media pluralism, democratic dialogue and access to quality content for all citizens

Just like the BBC?

Having ensured the independence of journalists, the MEPs move on to bloggers.

Weblogs represent an important new contribution to freedom of expression and are often used by both media professionals and private persons.

A bit patronising, as if we bloggers would have a lowlier existence without this munificent EP blessing?

Therefore MEPs encourage an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs.

Sorry, I can’t understand the ‘therefore’. Who are these people to ‘encourage an open discussion’? Have they never had a look round the Internet/blogosphere to see that it offers unending discussion there about blogs and their role/status? I have just typed in blogging legal status into Google, giving 260,000 links.

On this point the resolution is slightly different from the proposal from the Committee on Culture and Education, that suggested a ‘clarification’ of the status of weblogs and sites based on user-generated content, assimilating them for legal purposes with any other form of public expression.

What a relief.

Here, MEPs, is my status.

I say and write what I like, subject to the usual laws of slander/libel.

And the fact that I do so is none of your business.

In my opinion, the fact that you have wasted my taxpayer money to debate and then pass this bloated, sinister resolution by a comfortable majority shows that you both treat voters with contempt and represent a direct threat to my freedom and ‘status’ alike.

Update: Welcome Bruges Group readers, sent here by Helen. NB her absolutely central point:

Media pluralism, on the other hand, suggests a structure that is actually defined by the powers that be. Rather like a charter of rights that is graciously awarded to people by the state.

Doesn’t the EP’s usurpation of this new paradigm of ‘media pluralism’ remind me of … something?

Ah yes. Got it:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that’s all."