All in favor, all against

Majority consent and majority dissent in the European Parliament. During the plenary session in Strasburg on October 19-22 MEPs rejected all proposals on the defense of media pluralism worldwide.EP split. The debate on the freedom of the press took place in Brussels at the beginning of the month. A number of MEPs had underlined a problem unanimously viewed as having a “continental bearing” (many cases were mentioned: Germany, France, Portugal, Lithuania, Hungary…), although centre-left parties branded the case of Italy. A series of resolutions to this regard were thus presented in parliament, notably the joint proposal of the European People’s Party, the Conservatives, and the Euro-skeptical group, which denied that the problem of the freedom of information is felt in Italy only. At the same time, Socialists and Democrats, the Green party, Liberal-democrats and Left-wing parties submitted a resolution claiming that the opposite was true. The Parliament first rejected the ‘centre-right’ resolution (322 against, 297 in favor, 25 abstentions) and then the ‘centre-left’ resolution (338 against, 297 in favor, 13 abstentions). Thumbs down also to the proposals presented by the People’s Party, ECR, Green Party, Socialists and Democrats, EFD and Liberal-democrats (those in favor and those against were neck-and-neck, 338 per part, but regulations prescribe that this case the motion is rejected). The directive, a “sacrificial lamb”. After MEPs’ vote rejecting all resolutions regarding the “freedom of information in Italy an in the EU”, a series of meetings, press conference and more-or-less mild arguments ensued in the EP. Italian MEPs were in the front lines: PPE member Mario Mauro declared: “in line of principle all parliamentary groups acknowledge the problem of the plurality of information in Europe”. Moreover, it is necessary “to adopt a directive regulating this issue”, provided it “stems from a serious political debate, without becoming instrumental to nationalistic claims, as in this case”. Mauro pointed out: “Obviously a directive on pluralism in Europe becomes the true sacrificial lamb”. Roberta Angelilli, PPE party member added, “the left-wing paid the dues of its anti-Italian sentiments”, that she reckons are directed against premier Berlusconi. Indeed, “by opposing all amendments aimed at extending the debate to other EU member States”, “the Left showed its true goal, namely, to use the European Parliament to obtain the political condemnation of the Italian government”. Freedom of information. Progressive MEPs held a different stand. MEP David Sassoli member of the Socialists and Democrats group remarked, “We had asked the Commission for a European directive on media pluralism and on public television standards that could be adopted by all Member States, and that would protect the freedom of information”. In his opinion, “the EPP instrumentally considered this resolution on the freedom of information as a form of high treason of” the Italian premier and for this reason “a serious analysis of the media in Europe was thwarted”. Carlo Casini from the EPP admitted he abstained. In his view, the resolution presented by the Socialist, Democrat and Liberal party group was intended merely for the case of Italy. Casini also abstained on the resolution presented by his own party, since “it overlooked the question of the relationship between media power and other State powers, which in Italy is a serious problem, due to the renown conflict of interests involving the Prime Minister”. “A loyal and concrete confrontation”. After the rejection of the resolutions on media pluralism in Europe, “the coherence of the European People’s Party will be assessed. EPP leader” – French MEP Joseph Daul – “proposed to hold a debate on the freedom of information”. Niccolò Rinaldi, Liberal-Democrat, is a proponent of one of the resolutions. “We plan to submit another request for a directive on concentration in the media and for the defense of pluralism in due time”. Gianni Pittella (Socialists and democrats), EP vice-president, declared, “The number of votings on the freedom of information show that to this regard the Parliament is split in two”. “However, it is possible to hold a loyal and concrete debate to integrate in EU regulations, perhaps by means of a directive, a series of rules addressing the conflict of interests, the problem of pluralism and of the concentration of the media”.