Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10

The study zooms in on a key issue related to the 2019 World Press Freedom Day theme, which focused on “Media for Democracy: Journalism and Elections in Times of Disinformation”. New digitally-enabled tactics in political funding, campaigning and advertising, are often lacking in transparency. Meanwhile journalists, whose output can empower the electorate, are under increasing attack. It is against this backdrop that this Report identifies recent trends on disinformation, attacks on the safety of journalists, and disruption in election communications. The report lists possible responses in order to safeguard media freedom and integrity while strengthening news reportage on elections in digital times.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/elections_and_media_in_digital_times.pdf https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371486

desinformatie, frontpage, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, transparantie, verkiezingen

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - McGonagle, T.
AU  - Bednarski, M.
AU  - Francese Coutinho, M.
AU  - Zimin, A.
PY  - 1121
DA  - 2019-11-21
T1  - Elections and media in digital times
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/elections_and_media_in_digital_times.pdf
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371486
AB  - The study zooms in on a key issue related to the 2019 World Press Freedom Day theme, which focused on “Media for Democracy: Journalism and Elections in Times of Disinformation”. New digitally-enabled tactics in political funding, campaigning and advertising, are often lacking in transparency. Meanwhile journalists, whose output can empower the electorate, are under increasing attack. It is against this backdrop that this Report identifies recent trends on disinformation, attacks on the safety of journalists, and disruption in election communications. The report lists possible responses in order to safeguard media freedom and integrity while strengthening news reportage on elections in digital times.
K1  - desinformatie
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Journalistiek
K1  - Mediarecht
K1  - transparantie
K1  - verkiezingen
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{McGonagle2019h,
	title = {Elections and media in digital times},
	author = {McGonagle, T. and Bednarski, M. and Francese Coutinho, M. and Zimin, A.},
	year = {1121},
	date = {2019-11-21},
	abstract = {The study zooms in on a key issue related to the 2019 World Press Freedom Day theme, which focused on “Media for Democracy: Journalism and Elections in Times of Disinformation”. New digitally-enabled tactics in political funding, campaigning and advertising, are often lacking in transparency. Meanwhile journalists, whose output can empower the electorate, are under increasing attack. It is against this backdrop that this Report identifies recent trends on disinformation, attacks on the safety of journalists, and disruption in election communications. The report lists possible responses in order to safeguard media freedom and integrity while strengthening news reportage on elections in digital times.},
	keywords = {desinformatie, frontpage, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, transparantie, verkiezingen},
}

Save .bib

Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR external link

Voorhoof, D. & Fahy, R.

Strasbourg Observers, 2019

Links

https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/11/04/denying-journalist-access-to-asylum-seeker-reception-centre-in-hungary-violated-article-10-echr/

Art. 10 EVRM, frontpage, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Know you algorithm: what media organizations need to explain to their users about news personalization external link

Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N. & Bastian, M.

International Data Privacy Law, vol. 2019, 2019

Abstract

Key Points: - 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.

Links

algoritmes, frontpage, Journalistiek, medialaw, personalisatie

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Drunen, M. van
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Bastian, M.
PY  - 1001
DA  - 2019-10-01
T1  - Know you algorithm: what media organizations need to explain to their users about news personalization
JO  - International Data Privacy Law
VL  - 2019
UR  - https://academic.oup.com/idpl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/idpl/ipz011/5544759
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz011
AB  - Key Points:
- 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.
K1  - algoritmes
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Journalistiek
K1  - medialaw
K1  - personalisatie
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Drunen2019,
	title = {Know you algorithm: what media organizations need to explain to their users about news personalization},
	author = {Drunen, M. van and Helberger, N. and Bastian, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz011},
	year = {1001},
	date = {2019-10-01},
	journal = {International Data Privacy Law},
	volume = {2019},
	abstract = {Key Points:
- 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.},
	keywords = {algoritmes, frontpage, Journalistiek, medialaw, personalisatie},
}

Save .bib

De vrijheid en de verantwoordelijkheid van de pers: Een onderzoek naar de betekenis van de raad voor de journalistiek in het kader van de informatievrijheid external link

Meij, J.M. de

0618

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/De-vrijheid-en-de-verantwoordelijkheid-van-de-pers-De-Meij.pdf

informatievrijheid, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, Persrecht, raad voor de journalistiek

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Infographic: ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’ external link

McGonagle, T.

2019

Abstract

The infographic, ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’, visualizes and condenses the detailed information in Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 to member States on the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists and other media actors. The infographic also signposts, and hyperlinks to, the Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other valuable Council of Europe resources, including the European Court of Human Rights’ three judgments to date which cite the Recommendation.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CM-Rec20164-Infographic.pdf

Council of Europe, Journalistiek, Mediarecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Agreement of the [Dutch] Steering Group on Aggression and Violence against Journalists external link

McGonagle, T.

2019

Abstract

Unofficial translation by T. McGonagle of "Akkoord Stuurgroep Agressie en geweld tegen journalisten", July 2018

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Agreement-of-the-Steering-Group-on-Aggression-and-violence-against-journalists-EN-translation.pdf

geweld, Journalistiek, Mediarecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

My Friends, Editors, Algorithms, and I: Examining audience attitudes to news selection external link

Thurman, N., Möller, J., Helberger, N. & Trilling, D.

Digital Journalism, vol. 2018, 2018

Abstract

Prompted by the ongoing development of content personalization by social networks and mainstream news brands, and recent debates about balancing algorithmic and editorial selection, this study explores what audiences think about news selection mechanisms and why. Analysing data from a 26-country survey (N = 53,314), we report the extent to which audiences believe story selection by editors and story selection by algorithms are good ways to get news online and, using multi-level models, explore the relationships that exist between individuals’ characteristics and those beliefs. The results show that, collectively, audiences believe algorithmic selection guided by a user’s past consumption behaviour is a better way to get news than editorial curation. There are, however, significant variations in these beliefs at the individual level. Age, trust in news, concerns about privacy, mobile news access, paying for news, and six other variables had effects. Our results are partly in line with current general theory on algorithmic appreciation, but diverge in our findings on the relative appreciation of algorithms and experts, and in how the appreciation of algorithms can differ according to the data that drive them. We believe this divergence is partly due to our study’s focus on news, showing algorithmic appreciation has context-specific characteristics.

Links

https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1493936

algoritmes, curation, filtering, frontpage, gatekeeping, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, personalization, recommender systems, user tracking

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Thurman, N.
AU  - Möller, J.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Trilling, D.
PY  - 1019
DA  - 2018-10-19
T1  - My Friends, Editors, Algorithms, and I: Examining audience attitudes to news selection
JO  - Digital Journalism
VL  - 2018
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1493936
AB  - Prompted by the ongoing development of content personalization by social networks and mainstream news brands, and recent debates about balancing algorithmic and editorial selection, this study explores what audiences think about news selection mechanisms and why. Analysing data from a 26-country survey (N = 53,314), we report the extent to which audiences believe story selection by editors and story selection by algorithms are good ways to get news online and, using multi-level models, explore the relationships that exist between individuals’ characteristics and those beliefs. The results show that, collectively, audiences believe algorithmic selection guided by a user’s past consumption behaviour is a better way to get news than editorial curation. There are, however, significant variations in these beliefs at the individual level. Age, trust in news, concerns about privacy, mobile news access, paying for news, and six other variables had effects. Our results are partly in line with current general theory on algorithmic appreciation, but diverge in our findings on the relative appreciation of algorithms and experts, and in how the appreciation of algorithms can differ according to the data that drive them. We believe this divergence is partly due to our study’s focus on news, showing algorithmic appreciation has context-specific characteristics.
K1  - algoritmes
K1  - curation
K1  - filtering
K1  - frontpage
K1  - gatekeeping
K1  - Journalistiek
K1  - Mediarecht
K1  - personalization
K1  - recommender systems
K1  - user tracking
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Thurman2018,
	title = {My Friends, Editors, Algorithms, and I: Examining audience attitudes to news selection},
	author = {Thurman, N. and Möller, J. and Helberger, N. and Trilling, D.},
	year = {1019},
	date = {2018-10-19},
	journal = {Digital Journalism},
	volume = {2018},
	abstract = {Prompted by the ongoing development of content personalization by social networks and mainstream news brands, and recent debates about balancing algorithmic and editorial selection, this study explores what audiences think about news selection mechanisms and why. Analysing data from a 26-country survey (N = 53,314), we report the extent to which audiences believe story selection by editors and story selection by algorithms are good ways to get news online and, using multi-level models, explore the relationships that exist between individuals’ characteristics and those beliefs. The results show that, collectively, audiences believe algorithmic selection guided by a user’s past consumption behaviour is a better way to get news than editorial curation. There are, however, significant variations in these beliefs at the individual level. Age, trust in news, concerns about privacy, mobile news access, paying for news, and six other variables had effects. Our results are partly in line with current general theory on algorithmic appreciation, but diverge in our findings on the relative appreciation of algorithms and experts, and in how the appreciation of algorithms can differ according to the data that drive them. We believe this divergence is partly due to our study’s focus on news, showing algorithmic appreciation has context-specific characteristics.},
	keywords = {algoritmes, curation, filtering, frontpage, gatekeeping, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, personalization, recommender systems, user tracking},
}

Save .bib