Separating the facts from the fiction in today’s media is becoming mission impossible. In the era of the #fakenews hashtag, the internet, and the media in general, are concerned by the emergence of fiction which is sometimes much stranger than truth! So what rules and initiatives exist in Europe to help ensure the accuracy and objectivity of news and current affairs reporting? How far can the European and the various national legislators go to protect us from dubious reporting or at least ensure that codes of good conduct exist?

},
note = {<p>IRIS Special, European Audiovisual Observatory: Strasbourg, 2018, 150 pp.</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

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 = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

De uitspraak van de rechter dat journalisten stiekem een gesprek in de fractiekamer van Kamerlid Farid Azarkan mochten opnemen, is slecht nieuws voor de democratie en de journalistiek.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In 2017 stond de Nederlandse journalistiek onder druk. Veiligheid van journalisten is daarbij een belangrijk thema. Twee misdaadjournalisten worden zo ernstig bedreigd dat ze moeten worden beschermd. Een wet met nieuwe bevoegdheden voor de Nederlandse geheime diensten zet bronbescherming onder druk. Er werden in 2017 weer regelmatig rechtszaken tegen de media gevoerd, maar de rechter besliste in het merendeel van de gevallen in het voordeel van de media. Wel kunnen procedures tegen de media en individuele journalisten, waarbij steeds vaker een beroep op de privacyregelgeving wordt gedaan, een ‘chilling effect’ hebben.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

This case study provides an overview of the ‘fake news’ phenomenon in Belgium. In light of the 2018 Reuters Report, it starts by sketching the present media landscape in Belgium. It then enquires whether Belgians are concerned about ‘fake news’; what their level of trust is in the media; which media sources are favoured by them, and what their level of media literacy is. After analysing these facts and figures, the emergence of ‘fake news’, through foreign political events, is discussed. Different examples of Belgian ‘fake news’ are then presented, which range from ‘hoaxes’ to misleading and inaccurate news articles stemming from qualified journalists. By means of these examples, the ambiguities of the term ‘fake news’, as an umbrella term to cover a wide variety of content, are explained. Given the vagueness of the term, it is submitted that ‘disinformation’ is a more appropriate term to use.
Having regard to the possible impact of this type of ‘news’ on democracy, this case study strives to shed light on Belgian politicians and their relation with ‘fake news’. By means of examples, the author argues that they increasingly use the term ‘fake news’ to discredit news media. Moreover, they tend to by-pass traditional media, through their social media accounts, thereby contributing to the emergence of ‘fake news’. The lack of editorial oversight on social media allows for false messages to be spread. In order to propose measures to counter ‘fake news’ in Belgium, the case study provides an overview of different responses that have already been put in place. Besides responses at the EU level (including the Council of Europe), the overview includes governmental responses, news media responses, civil society responses and responses stemming from collaborations with IT companies. Taking account of these measures, various recommendations are proposed in the Conclusion. It is argued that both short and long-term actions should be developed. Having regard to the forthcoming Belgian elections, the former would be necessary and should, inter alia, aim to enhance the transparency of social media platforms. Regarding the latter, it is argued that media literacy measures should be further built upon.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In recent years, we have been witnessing a fundamental shift in the form how news and current affairs are disseminated and mediated. Due to the exponential increase in available content online and technological development in the field of recommendation systems, more and more citizens are informing themselves through customized and curated sources, while turning away from mass-mediated information sources like TV news and newspapers. Algorithmic recommendation systems provide news users with tools to navigate the information overload and identify important and relevant information. They do so by performing a task that was once a key part of the journalistic profession: keeping the gates. In a way, news recommendation algorithm can create highly individualized gates, through which only information and news fit that serves the user best. In theory, this is a great achievement that can make news exposure more efficient and interesting. In practice, there are many pitfalls when the power to select what we hear from the news shifts from professional editorial boards that select the news according to professional standards to opaque algorithms who are reigned by their own logic, the logic of advertisers or consumes personal preferences.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

“Nepnieuws” heeft de laatste tijd veel aandacht gekregen in de media en in het politieke debat. Tegen deze achtergrond en in het licht van de potenti\"{e}le bedreigingen van “nepnieuws” voor de Nederlandse samenleving is de opdracht voor deze studie gegeven door het ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. Het doel van dit rapport is om een update te geven over de stand van zaken met betrekking tot het onderwerp “methodes om de verspreiding van nepnieuws tegen te gaan”. Het rapport beantwoordt de volgende vragen: Welke methodes zijn er internationaal bekend om nepnieuws tegen te gaan? Wat is bekend over de effectiviteit van deze methodes? Welke kwalificaties kunnen gemaakt worden over de toepasbaarheid en relevantie van deze onderzoeksresultaten voor de Nederlandse context?

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. With well over 30,000 downloads, the first three editions of the e-book (2013, 2015 and 2016) have proved hugely successful. The new fourth edition summarises over 270 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.

},
note = {<p>IRIS Themes, Vol. III, 4th edition, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, 2017
ISBN: 9789287184351 (print version).</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

‘‘Fake news’’ has become a much-used and much-hyped term in the so-called ‘‘post-truth’’ era that we now live in. It is also much-maligned: it is often blamed for having a disruptive impact on the outcomes of elections and referenda and for skewing democratic public debate, with the 2016 US Presidential elections and Brexit referendum often cited as examples. ‘‘Fake news’’ has also been flagged for fuelling propaganda and ‘‘hate speech’’ and even violence. ‘‘Pizzagate’’ is an infamous example of exceptional circumstances in which a false news story had a central role in a shooting incident. In December 2016, a man in Washington D.C. took it upon himself to ‘‘self-investigate’’
a story (a completely unfounded conspiracy theory) that the Hillary Clinton campaign team was running a paedophile ring from the premises of a pizzeria. Shots were fired and he was arrested and charged with assault and related offences. Given all this bad press, it is perhaps little wonder that ‘‘fake news’’ has become a major preoccupation for international organisations, national law- and policy-makers, the media and media actors, civil society and academia. But what exactly is ‘‘fake news’’ and what is all the fuss about? In addressing these questions, this column will also consider historical and contemporary perspectives on the term and its relationship with human rights.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

More and more news is personalised, based on our personal data and interests. As a result, the focus of media regulation moves from the news producer to the news recipient. This research asks what the fundamental right to receive information means for personalised news consumers and the obligation it imposes on states. However, the right to receive information is under-theorised. Therefore, we develop a framework to understand this right, starting from case law of the European Court of Human Rights. On this basis, we identify five perspectives on the right to receive information: political debate, truth finding, social cohesion, avoidance of censorship and self-development. We evaluate how news personalisation affects the right to receive information, considering these five different perspectives. Our research reveals important policy choices that must be made regarding personalised news considering news consumers’ rights.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, the Council of Europe and other partners, Strasbourg, 24 March 2017.
Video recording, Part 2, EN, starting at 3.05.20.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}

Persvrijheid in veilig Nederland is ruim verkrijgbaar \textendash ons land staat net als in voorgaande jaren hoog op de internationale ranglijst. Maar elders kan het gauw voorbij zijn. En dat is ook hier voelbaar, constateren Otto Volgenant en Tarlach McGonagle in de Persvrijheidsmonitor 2016.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. With 30,000 downloads, the first and second editions of the e-book (2013, 2015) have proved hugely successful. The new updated edition summarises over 250 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). The latest edition of the e-book is also available in French and in German.
For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.

},
note = {<p>IRIS Themes, vol III, new, updated edition, December 2016</p>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

Journalist mag een identiteitsbewijs alleen in het kader van de nieuwsgaring vervalsen als er objectief gezien geen legaal middel voor handen is en het nieuwsgaringsbelang heel hoog is.

},
note = {nr. 469},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Report commissioned by the Council of Europe, 11 August 2016, 24 pp.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

Dit artikel geeft antwoord op de vraag of er niet een taak ligt, of zou moeten liggen, voor de publieke omroep om als onderdeel van zijn publieke en publiek gefinancierde culturele taak te waarborgen dat audiovisuele makers, die rechtstreeks of door tussenkomst van een producent in opdracht van de publieke omroepen bijdragen leveren aan omroepprogramma's, redelijk worden beloond.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Een journalist die klakkeloos afgaat op zijn bronnen kan stevig afgaan. Dat blijkt uit een vonnis van de Amsterdamse rechtbank van 13 april 2016, gewezen in de zaak van een Japans bedrijf tegen AVROTROS en twee journalisten.

},
note = {

Bijdrage aan webblog Journalistiek en Nieuwe Media van de Universiteit Leiden.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}

Facebook's use of human editors may bring comfort to some, but there are wider issues to do with editorial responsibility that need to be addressed.

},
note = {

LSE blog, 26 May 2016.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}

In 2015 scoorde Nederland weer goed op de internationale persvrijheidsranglijst. Toch zijn er aandachtspunten. Zo beperkte de overheid in 2015 geregeld de feitelijke toegang tot het nieuws, bijvoorbeeld door bij Wob-verzoeken veel informatie weg te lakken, en zelfs door journalisten te weren bij inspraakavonden over de huisvesting van vluchtelingen.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Bijdrage aan de nieuwsbrief 'De Hofvijver' van het Montesquieu Instituut.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}

Net als ieder jaar scoort Nederland goed op de persvrijheidsranglijst. Op het put van de journalistieke bronbescherming lopen we internationaal gezien echter nog altijd uit de pas. We hebben nog steeds geen wettelijke regeling. Najaar 2014 werd een wetsvoorstel openbaar. Maar na kritiek uit de mediabranche ligt het wetgevingsproces nu stil. Dit en meer in de Persvrijheidsmonitor over 2014.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

In: Tekst & Commentaar: Telecommunicatie- en privacyrecht, vijfde druk, P.C. Knol & G.J. Zwenne (red.), Deventer: Wolters Kluwer, 2015.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}

The study on the future of European audiovsiual media regulation develops new ideas and recommendations for shaping a new European framework. A structural reform is favoured, as a response to digitization and convergence. The new framework should concentrate on general principles and be able to adapt and learn. Regulation should not be linked to types of services, but rather be developed by considering its goals, like protection of minors and consumer protection. Standards should be set allowing for effective regulation and coordination. Moreover by taking a 360-degree view on all relevant areas of regulation, it needs to become visible, where the European Law can offer leeway for to the member states’ own media policy.

The study called HERMES draws a precise image of current media consumption and value-added chains by examining several EU member states, as well as certain international states. The developments of the last years are being examined and current phenomena are explored. The centre of attention is the shift away from regular TV to non-linear media and the consumption via alternative channels as well as via new devices, which were not yet taken into account when shaping the present framework. The outcomes are analysed and put into practical guidelines for the near future.

},
note = {

Final report of HERMES project lead by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulz (Hans-Bredow-Institut for Media Research) and Prof. Dr. Nico van Eijk (Institute for Information Law), Hamburg/Amsterdam, October 2015.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

Boekbespreking van D. Voorhoof & P. Valcke, Handboek Mediarecht, 4e editie, Brussel: Larcier 2014.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}

Onderzoek in opdracht van de Raad voor Cultuur, Amsterdam, juli 2015.

},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}