Journalism Worthy of the Name: An Affirmative Reading of Article 10 of the ECHR

Abstract

In an era of globalisation the significance of large media conglomerates in shaping public opinion gets ever more real. The author argues that it is no longer realistic to assert that the best press law is no law at all. The traditional criteria of hands off policy with regard to the media is obsolete not only in light of increased concentration of media power but also with an affirmative reading of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the democratic significance of the press as the public watchdog. Legal regulation may be the only safeguard left to counter the market control of the media – more often than not supported by political interests. Supra-national institutions like the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights may be the only forces available to counter the growing impact of big corporations potentially crushing fundamental rights in a parallel manner as many governments were suspected of when the European Convention on Human Rights was designed as a collective safeguard against abuse of power by authorities. The Convention did not put an end to pressures on media freedom. While it has developed into a constitutional bill of rights for the now 45 member States of the Council of Europe its relevance is of no less importance in the well-established original member States as in the newer ones. Journalists are not only threatened by shameless rulers but also by tough corporate elites who have the same objective as their forerunners who were elected – to use the media for their own agenda. An affirmative reading of Article 10 providing the argument for legislation, to guarantee freedom within the press, requires a separate theory and justification.