Reform of local media: response to the unfounded criticism from the CSA Advisory Board

1. Context

This Friday, the audiovisual sector, gathered in the CSA Advisory Board, published an opinion on the reform of local media championed by the Media Minister and already approved twice by the Government of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation.

Below you will find arguments responding to the main criticisms levelled at this project.

It is important to first point out that of the 67 pages making up this opinion, almost 65 almost entirely reproduce the positions of the Association des Journalistes Professionnels (AJP) and the Réseau des Médias de Proximité (RDMP), who have opposed any large-scale reform from the outset.

This opinion is not a contribution from the main regulatory body of the French-speaking audiovisual landscape, but a compilation of criticism from long-standing opponents of the reform.

It should also be noted that the opinion of the Réseau des Médias de Proximité does not represent the entire sector, as many of them, including in provinces affected by potential mergers, did not want to associate themselves with this opinion, which they do not share: Quatre, Télé MB, Vedia, TV Lux, etc.

Furthermore, the profiles of certain contributors consulted raise questions: a former journalist from Télé Sambre, a doctoral student selected on the basis of her thesis still being written, to deliver a “neutral” opinion…. An opinion whose very light scientific rigour is striking.

These arguments should be read as a complement to the very comprehensive arguments on the outlines of the reform, on the attacks by the opposition and by certain local media, which were sent to you at the beginning of October.

2. Media pluralism at risk?

The sector is concerned about the impact of the reform on pluralism in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation / is concerned about an “organised decline” in local news provision.

Argument 1

Who can seriously and honestly claim that a reform aimed at ensuring the survival of 8 local media outlets, funded almost exclusively by public funds, in a territory of only 4.5 million inhabitants, would be a threat to media pluralism?

A territory:

• where a strong public broadcaster operates, with an annual budget of almost half a billion euros and 3 channels,
• where a private audiovisual group also offers several channels,
• where a rolling news channel exists,
• and where 6 daily newspapers coexist, supported by press subsidies.

Argument 2

Flanders, with twice the population of Wallonia, has a comparable number of local media outlets: is anyone worried about weak pluralism in the north of the country?

3. Risk of “information desertification”?

The sector is concerned about the risk of “information desertification” and excessive centralisation of newsrooms, and proposes a criterion based on catchment areas rather than provinces.

Argument 1

No, there will be neither information desertification nor loss of local news. Two mechanisms targeted by the reform ensure their protection:

• Recognised local media will be required to cover the entire territory of their new coverage area.
• An amount of €1.2 million will make it possible to support media outlets that, as part of a merger, wish to maintain or create decentralised newsrooms in order to guarantee journalistic presence across the entire territory.

Argument 2

Today, with the exception of Canal Zoom, local media are already organised by province. The catchment-area criterion can be used by merged local media through the reform's provision for creating decentralised newsrooms.

4. Unjustified savings in the media sector?

The sector opposes the savings measures affecting subsidies granted to local media.

Argument 1

The Government's message is clear and honest: everyone must play a part in the enormous budgetary effort that the Wallonia-Brussels Federation must make.

The Minister and the MR are clear: while not all civil servants are being replaced, while higher-education teachers are seeing their working hours harmonised upwards, while childcare services are making major operational efforts, should local media not be asked to contribute to the effort, however small?

Argument 2

The Government has committed to maintaining the operating grant at €10 million annually throughout the term of office. In the current budgetary context, few organisations can claim to have a clear view of their operating grant.

5. Re-politicisation of boards of directors, press freedom at risk?

The sector warns against “re-politicisation” and criticises the lack of safeguards.

Argument 1

This criticism sums up the Advisory Board's opinion in its entirety. Is it out of touch with reality on the ground, or is it eminently political? Enough hypocrisy: for several years now, the legal framework has prevented mayors and aldermen from sitting on the boards of local media. The result? Some have sent their staff, cabinet chiefs, etc. to represent them instead. If politics must be represented because local authorities fund local media, let it be represented directly by those who are elected.

Argument 2

The reform prevents such individuals from holding the position of chair or deputy chair of the boards. So safeguards do exist.

6. What are the next steps?

The Minister is carefully analysing the opinion of the Association des Journalistes Professionnels (AJP) and the Réseau des Médias de Proximité (RDMP).

Let us not forget that not all local media oppose the reform, and a good number of them are working productively with the Minister to ensure the sector's survival and the future of local news.

Let no one doubt the Minister's determination to thoroughly reform the ecosystem in order to ensure its survival.

Enough hypocrisy and fear.