Media Policy and Globalization - Blogs Unpad

BROADCASTING POLICY 103
limited way in the form of ‘diversity of production’ under the recent proposals
for the amendment of Television without Frontiers, as drafted by the
European Commission in December 2005. Whether a future pluralism
directive will succeed in identifying the boundaries of media and even
media services (content) ownership is to be seen, although one cannot be
particularly optimistic, given the fact that, despite repeated calls by the
EP, the importance of the issue has not been forcefully addressed in the
directive. For now, the clause on European content (‘where practicable’)
remains in the new directive, but has been expanded to cover all nonlinear
media services, such as those where the consumer decides whether
or not to receive content (EC 2005). According to this proposal, nonlinear
media service providers have the obligation to promote European
cultural content ‘where practicable’ and to take into account the effective
users’ consumption of such works.
The question of the cultural domination of American (US) values and
narratives over domestic ones has remained a powerful discourse in international
politics. This discourse not only represents genuine fears and
real conditions of underrepresentation and market saturation but also
represents the interests of capital not yet able to achieve transnational and
global mobility. This is particularly the case with small entrepreneurs, and
expands well beyond the confines of the broadcasting industry to print
and electronic media other than broadcasting. On the cultural front and
in particular in the production of films, it is hardly ever the case that
national markets, with the exception of a few strong national producers,
can support film production. 11 The problem is even more acute when
films are not designed for easy consumption. This means that cultural
production requires the support of the state, which comes in the form
of subsidies, restriction on the entry of foreign (and most importantly
Hollywood) films, the application of quotas and other forms of financial
or in-kind support. The EU, having opened its trade borders internally
as an exchange to the Marshall plan (Pauwels and Loisen 2003:293) becomes
a more ‘manageable’ space of national, therefore decentralized,
markets. Entry to one of these markets allows free mobility to the totality
of EU market and regional space. This is particularly useful to the US
film and television industry that now needs only to deal with the same set
of rules across Europe, making significant savings in resources and time.
As cultural expression and the cultural industry as a whole are of particular
significance in more ways than simply the economic, the protection
and support of the sector is still a very sensitive issue for a number of
political and social actors. These tensions between the US audiovisual
lobby and the US government, on the one hand, and the reaction to the
liberalization of cultural goods represented by most countries, on the
other, have formed the level of negotiations at the WTO and GATT