4.2.5 Equitable access to the media [ICCPR art 19] Condensed entry: The right to freedom of expression requires that states should ensure (a) access (b) in a fair and equitable way (c) of public media (d) to all sectors of the society, especially the most disadvantaged among them. Governments should particularly promote and protect equitable access to media of national minorities in their own language and for opposition political parties and candidates. Discrimination during licensing processes, or requirements and rules that prevent certain groups from owning media infringes on equitable access to the media. Equitable access to the media requires that monopolies (whether public or private) can be justified only in highly exceptional cases, such as in small markets, where monopolies may be allowed but the state must strictly observe the duty of comprehensive, objective, impartial and balanced reporting and simultaneously ensure equal access for all groups of the population, including minorities. Comprehensive entry: States should ensure (a) access (b) in a fair and equitable way (c) of public media (d) to all sectors of the society, particularly the most disadvantaged among them.[1] For this purpose, ‘an independent, national (public) agency [should] be in charge of administering and managing the allocation of broadcasting frequencies’ and ‘[g]overnments should take responsibility for facilitating and subsidizing access to electronic media to ensure equitable enjoyment of [freedom of expression]’.[2] Discrimination during licensing processes, or requirements and rules that prevent certain groups from owning media infringes on equitable access to the media.[3] (See *prohibiting media from operating*). Opposition political parties and candidates should benefit from the right to equitable access to the media. This is particularly so during election campaign periods. Ensuring effective electoral competition requires that parties and candidates have a fair and equitable chance to campaign for their ideas through government-controlled media.[4] This can only be achieved through access to the media and adequate resources. The complete exclusion of one political party or candidate from broadcasting his or her opinions while others are given broadcasting time may constitute a violation of freedom of expression.[5] States should ‘encourage an independent and diverse media’[6] and ‘adopt adequate measures in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities’.[7] Thus governments should promote and protect equitable access to public media of national minorities in their own language. Minorities should also have the right to establish their own media in their mother tongue without any form of obstruction. Equitable access to the media requires that monopolies (whether public or private) be discouraged and avoided as they undermine media diversity.[8] States should therefore encourage an ‘independent and diverse media’.[9]The HRC has stated that states should avoid having or seeking to have monopoly control over the media.[10] The ECtHR has observed that ‘a public monopoly is the one which imposes the greatest restrictions on the freedom of expression’.[11]The HRC has also called on states to ‘prevent undue media dominance or concentration by privately controlled media groups in monopolistic situations that may be harmful to a diversity of sources and views’.[12] Monopolies constitute a ‘concentration of political power that threatens democratic models’.[13]
[1] See eg Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/HRC/14/23 (2010) paras 35, 111. [2] Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Annual Report A/HRC/14/23 (2010) para 37. [3]Ivcher Bronstein v Peru (IACtHR 2001). [4] All political parties and candidates may not claim exactly the same amount of airtime and other benefits. It should only be fair and equitable in the circumstances. [5]X and the Association of Z v United Kingdom application 4515/70 (EComHR 1971) (admissibility). [6] Draft General Comment 34 para 13. [7]Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities art 9(2). See also European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages art 11. [8]Informationsverein Lentia and Others v Austria, application nos 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89, 17207/90(ECtHR 1993) paras 38 & 39. [9] HRC, Draft General Comment 24 (CCPR/C/GC/34/CRP.4) para 13. [10] HRC, Concluding Observations: Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS) para 18. [11]Informationsverein Lentia and Others v Austria, plication nos 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89, 17207/90 (ECtHR 1993) para 39. [12] See HRC Draft General Comment 34, para 42. [13] Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/HRC/14/23 (2010) para 36. See also Draft General Comment 34 para 42.
Condensed entry:
The right to freedom of expression requires that states should ensure (a) access (b) in a fair and equitable way (c) of public media (d) to all sectors of the society, especially the most disadvantaged among them. Governments should particularly promote and protect equitable access to media of national minorities in their own language and for opposition political parties and candidates. Discrimination during licensing processes, or requirements and rules that prevent certain groups from owning media infringes on equitable access to the media.
Equitable access to the media requires that monopolies (whether public or private) can be justified only in highly exceptional cases, such as in small markets, where monopolies may be allowed but the state must strictly observe the duty of comprehensive, objective, impartial and balanced reporting and simultaneously ensure equal access for all groups of the population, including minorities.
Comprehensive entry:
States should ensure
(a) access
(b) in a fair and equitable way
(c) of public media
(d) to all sectors of the society, particularly the most disadvantaged among them.[1]
For this purpose, ‘an independent, national (public) agency [should] be in charge of administering and managing the allocation of broadcasting frequencies’ and ‘[g]overnments should take responsibility for facilitating and subsidizing access to electronic media to ensure equitable enjoyment of [freedom of expression]’.[2]
Discrimination during licensing processes, or requirements and rules that prevent certain groups from owning media infringes on equitable access to the media.[3] (See *prohibiting media from operating*).
Opposition political parties and candidates should benefit from the right to equitable access to the media. This is particularly so during election campaign periods. Ensuring effective electoral competition requires that parties and candidates have a fair and equitable chance to campaign for their ideas through government-controlled media.[4] This can only be achieved through access to the media and adequate resources. The complete exclusion of one political party or candidate from broadcasting his or her opinions while others are given broadcasting time may constitute a violation of freedom of expression.[5]
States should ‘encourage an independent and diverse media’[6] and ‘adopt adequate measures in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities’.[7] Thus governments should promote and protect equitable access to public media of national minorities in their own language. Minorities should also have the right to establish their own media in their mother tongue without any form of obstruction.
Equitable access to the media requires that monopolies (whether public or private) be discouraged and avoided as they undermine media diversity.[8] States should therefore encourage an ‘independent and diverse media’.[9]The HRC has stated that states should avoid having or seeking to have monopoly control over the media.[10] The ECtHR has observed that ‘a public monopoly is the one which imposes the greatest restrictions on the freedom of expression’.[11]The HRC has also called on states to ‘prevent undue media dominance or concentration by privately controlled media groups in monopolistic situations that may be harmful to a diversity of sources and views’.[12] Monopolies constitute a ‘concentration of political power that threatens democratic models’.[13]
[1] See eg Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/HRC/14/23 (2010) paras 35, 111.
[2] Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Annual Report A/HRC/14/23 (2010) para 37.
[3] Ivcher Bronstein v Peru (IACtHR 2001).
[4] All political parties and candidates may not claim exactly the same amount of airtime and other benefits. It should only be fair and equitable in the circumstances.
[5] X and the Association of Z v United Kingdom application 4515/70 (EComHR 1971) (admissibility).
[6] Draft General Comment 34 para 13.
[7]Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities art 9(2). See also European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages art 11.
[8]Informationsverein Lentia and Others v Austria, application nos 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89, 17207/90(ECtHR 1993) paras 38 & 39.
[9] HRC, Draft General Comment 24 (CCPR/C/GC/34/CRP.4) para 13.
[10] HRC, Concluding Observations: Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS) para 18.
[11]Informationsverein Lentia and Others v Austria, plication nos 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89, 17207/90 (ECtHR 1993) para 39.
[12] See HRC Draft General Comment 34, para 42.
[13] Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/HRC/14/23 (2010) para 36. See also Draft General Comment 34 para 42.