Max van Drunen
Max van Drunen is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Information Law. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology (2014) and a Master’s degree in both Civil and European Law (2015 and 2016). His research is part of the Personalised Communications project and is being supervised by Natali Helberger. It focuses on the effects of personalized communication on media users’ trust in editorial integrity.
| Drunen, M. van, Fahy, R., Seipp, T.|
In: Journal of Media Law, 2023.
(| | )
This comment examines the definition of ‘media’ under the recently-proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and highlights its potential flaws, while pointing to possible considerations for future improvement. Notably, the narrow service-based approach to defining ‘media’ under Article 2 EMFA appears to be in conflict with the functional approach to defining media under European and international human rights law. Additionally, a lack of transparency and safeguards regarding how the criteria of ‘editorial independence’ is to be assessed, especially under Article 17 EMFA, is problematic. The risk that such decisions are made based on commercial and/or political considerations rather than established standards of media freedom must be avoided, especially when platforms are to assess editorial independence.
| Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S.|
In: Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. 10, pp. 1605-1626, 2022.
(| | )
Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.
| Drunen, M. van|
In: European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2022.
(| | )
NIT t. Moldavië draait om de vraag of een staat een uitzendvergunning mag intrekken om pluralisme te waarborgen. Het merendeel van de jurisprudentie van het EHRM over pluralisme heeft juist betrekking op de plicht die staten hebben om te verzekeren dat er voldoende mediabedrijven zijn die vrij zijn om hun eigen, diverse standpunten uit te dragen. NIT werd echter uit de lucht gehaald om pluralisme te beschermen: de Moldavische omroep had niet voldaan aan haar verplichting om in haar nieuws verschillende politieke standpunten gebalanceerd te presenteren. De Grote Kamer grijpt de zaak aan om haar jurisprudentie over de omstandigheden waaronder een staat de redactionele vrijheid van een mediabedrijf kan beperken om pluralisme te garanderen te ontwikkelen. Het EHRM oordeelt dat artikel 10 EVRM niet geschonden is.
| Buri, I., Chapman, M., Culloty, E., Drunen, M. van, Fahy, R., Giannopoulou, A., Gil González, E., Heuvelhof, C. ten, Meiring, A., Strycharz, J.|
2022, ISSN: 2079-1062, (IRIS Special 2022-1, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).
| Drunen, M. van, Fechner, D.|
In: Digital Journalism, 2022.
(| | )
This article explores the relationship between legal and journalistic perspectives on the way editorial independence can be safeguarded in the context of automation. It aims to bridge two discussions. First, the journalism studies literature that has explored how automation challenges the way editors and journalists fulfil their role in newsrooms and society. Second, the legal discussion that is revisiting how the conditions for editorial independence can be created in a media system where automation is increasingly important. To do so, this article contrasts a normative framework that outlines the functions of editorial independence in European media law with interviews with editors and journalists involved in data journalism and news personalisation. It finds excellent potential for a complementary relationship between legal and journalistic perspectives on editorial independence. However, the challenges posed by automation fall outside the mechanisms through which this relationship has traditionally been operationalised.
| Drunen, M. van|
In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 3, 2021.
(| | )
The media has increasingly grown to rely on automated decision-making to produce and distribute news. This trend challenges our understanding of editorial independence by transforming the role of human editorial judgment and creating new dependencies on external software and data providers, engineers, and platforms. Recent policy initiatives such as the EU’s Media Action Plan and Digital Services Act are now beginning to revisit the way law can enable the media to act independently in the context of new technological tools and actors. Fully understanding and addressing the challenges automation poses to editorial independence, however, first requires better normative insight into the functions editorial independence performs in European media policy. This article provides a normative framework of editorial independence’s functions in European media policy and uses it to explore the new challenges posed by the automation of editorial decision-making.
| Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S.|
In: Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion).
| Appelman, N., Ausloos, J., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N.|
| Drunen, M. van|
In: Journal of Media Law, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 166-190, 2020.
(| | )
This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.
| Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J.|
2020, (Council of Europe, September 2019).
(| | )
Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."
| Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N.|
In: International Data Privacy Law, vol. 2019, 2019.
(| | )
- If the right to an explanation is expected to effectively safeguard users’ rights, it must be interpreted in a manner that takes the contextual risks algorithms pose to those rights into account.
- This article provides a framework of transparency instruments in the context of the news personalization algorithms employed by both traditional media organizations and social media companies.
- Explaining the impact on a user’s news diet and the role of editorial values in the algorithm is especially important in this context.
- Conversely, explanations of individual decisions and counterfactual explanations face specific practical and normative barriers that limit their utility.
| Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Leerssen, P.|
In: LSE Media Policy Project Blog, vol. 2019, 2019.