
© Wikimedia
Last week, I received an email from the European Commission denying me annual accreditation for the year 2018. In the terse reply to my request sent more than six weeks earlier, the Commission stated that my employer, the German blog netzpolitik.org, was “not a media organisation”.
I was somewhat baffled. My colleagues at netzpolitik.org had run their donation-funded news site for over a decade and had won journalism prizes in Germany, including one awarded by the German parliament. We report about EU affairs almost daily. How could we not be a media organization?
The Rules Are not Alright
The decision is a result of the arcane and opaque accreditation system of the EU institutions. Decisions are made by a joint committee of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament as well as the Brussels-based press club API. They meet behind closed doors and pick who gets accredited and who does not.
Journalists who are accepted get a press pass and have access to European Union buildings and resources. Accredited reporters can mix with the Brussels bubble, meet officials and pick up news and gossip in the cafeteria. Meanwhile, journalists lacking annual accreditation have to apply for passes for every single visit, separately for each institution. It severely limits their access for reporting.
The Commission’s email did not specify an exact reason why we are not considered a “media organisation”. But the criteria note that any media must be “a commercial organisation”. This should theoretically exclude every public broadcaster from EU accreditation, and not-for-profit media such as us.
Resident Reporters And Non-dom Lobbyists
The accreditation rules also require journalists to have a residence in Belgium. In the German version of the criteria, as published on the Commission’s website, it even has to be a residence in Brussels (no similar rule applies to lobbyists accessing EU institutions).
Based on these criteria, we were denied accreditation.
Luckily, we were not alone. After we published the Commission’s rejection letter, we received a wave of solidarity from other journalists and friendly politicians. The German Federation of Journalists protested the decision and called on the EU institutions to reform their “absurd” criteria. After a week, the committee in Brussels met again and decided to change their initial decision. I was informed this week that, after all, I would be granted accreditation.
But what if we did not have so much support? It is easy to imagine a small news website from, say, Slovakia being turned down by the high and mighty accreditation committee. Even if they appeal and protest, not every news organisation can count on as much support as we could.
To put it bluntly: Why should EU member state governments or other countries care about recognizing the freedom of journalists to do their work, if not even the EU institutions themselves can tell what is a media organisation and what is not?
What Happens Next?
Clearly, the criteria for media accreditation need an overhaul. We agree with the assessment of the German Federation of Journalists that non-commercial organisations should be given equal access to EU institutions. Also, journalists who write regularly about the European Union should not be denied permanent accreditation if they have no fixed address in Belgium.
This is as much a question of fairness as it is of power. Small media organisation have every right to do journalism and share equal access to institutions. If their work is being hindered by decision makers who say they are not journalists, it is media freedom that loses out.
Opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO.
Sign up for the EJO’s regular monthly newsletter.
Why It Matters When The EU Denies Access To Journalists
March 28, 2018 • Comment, Media and Politics, Recent • by Alexander Fanta
© Wikimedia
Last week, I received an email from the European Commission denying me annual accreditation for the year 2018. In the terse reply to my request sent more than six weeks earlier, the Commission stated that my employer, the German blog netzpolitik.org, was “not a media organisation”.
I was somewhat baffled. My colleagues at netzpolitik.org had run their donation-funded news site for over a decade and had won journalism prizes in Germany, including one awarded by the German parliament. We report about EU affairs almost daily. How could we not be a media organization?
The Rules Are not Alright
The decision is a result of the arcane and opaque accreditation system of the EU institutions. Decisions are made by a joint committee of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament as well as the Brussels-based press club API. They meet behind closed doors and pick who gets accredited and who does not.
Journalists who are accepted get a press pass and have access to European Union buildings and resources. Accredited reporters can mix with the Brussels bubble, meet officials and pick up news and gossip in the cafeteria. Meanwhile, journalists lacking annual accreditation have to apply for passes for every single visit, separately for each institution. It severely limits their access for reporting.
The Commission’s email did not specify an exact reason why we are not considered a “media organisation”. But the criteria note that any media must be “a commercial organisation”. This should theoretically exclude every public broadcaster from EU accreditation, and not-for-profit media such as us.
Resident Reporters And Non-dom Lobbyists
The accreditation rules also require journalists to have a residence in Belgium. In the German version of the criteria, as published on the Commission’s website, it even has to be a residence in Brussels (no similar rule applies to lobbyists accessing EU institutions).
Based on these criteria, we were denied accreditation.
Luckily, we were not alone. After we published the Commission’s rejection letter, we received a wave of solidarity from other journalists and friendly politicians. The German Federation of Journalists protested the decision and called on the EU institutions to reform their “absurd” criteria. After a week, the committee in Brussels met again and decided to change their initial decision. I was informed this week that, after all, I would be granted accreditation.
But what if we did not have so much support? It is easy to imagine a small news website from, say, Slovakia being turned down by the high and mighty accreditation committee. Even if they appeal and protest, not every news organisation can count on as much support as we could.
To put it bluntly: Why should EU member state governments or other countries care about recognizing the freedom of journalists to do their work, if not even the EU institutions themselves can tell what is a media organisation and what is not?
What Happens Next?
Clearly, the criteria for media accreditation need an overhaul. We agree with the assessment of the German Federation of Journalists that non-commercial organisations should be given equal access to EU institutions. Also, journalists who write regularly about the European Union should not be denied permanent accreditation if they have no fixed address in Belgium.
This is as much a question of fairness as it is of power. Small media organisation have every right to do journalism and share equal access to institutions. If their work is being hindered by decision makers who say they are not journalists, it is media freedom that loses out.
Opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO.
Sign up for the EJO’s regular monthly newsletter.
Tags: access, Eu, European Commission, European Union, Journalism, journalists, Media accreditation, Media Freedom, media organisation, political lobbying
About the Author
Alexander Fanta
Related Posts
Media empowerment is key to Covid-19 recovery in...
Toxic Europeanisation – coverage of the 2019 EU...
The media revolution in Afghanistan
The decline and fall of Hungary’s leading news...
City University to host the European Journalism Observatory
September 3, 2020
How media worldwide are covering the coronavirus crisis
March 19, 2020
Sad farewell or new dawn? Europe’s media reflect on ‘Brexit...
March 3, 2020
Do European media take climate change seriously enough?
February 18, 2020
INTERVIEW: Using digital solutions to protect the practice of investigative...
May 5, 2022
How games, TikTok and fake fact-checking sites became disinformation tools...
April 22, 2022
Why the UK government’s new school curriculum resource body should...
April 13, 2022
Opinion: Why we need a manifesto for a people’s media
March 28, 2022
Evolving journalistic approaches that are helping to tell the story...
March 15, 2022
City University to host the European Journalism Observatory
September 3, 2020
How media worldwide are covering the coronavirus crisis
March 19, 2020
Sad farewell or new dawn? Europe’s media reflect on ‘Brexit...
March 3, 2020
Do European media take climate change seriously enough?
February 18, 2020
13 Things Newspapers Can Learn From Buzzfeed
April 10, 2015
How Data Journalism Is Taught In Europe
January 19, 2016
Why Journalism Needs Scientists (Now)
May 13, 2017
Digitalisation: Changing The Relationship Between Public Relations And Journalism
August 6, 2015
Can Robots Do Public Interest Journalism?
February 11, 2015
City University to host the European Journalism Observatory
September 3, 2020
How media worldwide are covering the coronavirus crisis
March 19, 2020
Sad farewell or new dawn? Europe’s media reflect on ‘Brexit...
March 3, 2020
Do European media take climate change seriously enough?
February 18, 2020
Are Journalism’s Best Brains Leaving For PR?
November 13, 2015
Mobile And Money: Re-Shaping Online News And Media
November 30, 2015
Romanian Media and the Silence of the Mines
October 21, 2013
Do We Remember Where We Get Our News From?
October 15, 2018
Kiss and Tell Journalism
April 13, 2010
Operated by
Funded by
Newsletter
Find us on Facebook
Archives
Links