Social Product: What are Media law’s amendments aimed at?

On October 12, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine registered a bill on amendments to the Law of Ukraine On Media regarding the production and broadcasting of a social product. The author of the bill is MP Serhii Hryvko (a Servant of the People faction member).

The MP’s idea is to oblige TV and radio companies to produce and broadcast the so-called “social product” at their own expense in the quantity specified by law. Sanctions are provided for failure to comply with this provision.

The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine (NUJU) considers such a legislative initiative to be an intervention in the editorial policy of independent media and an attempt to impose an additional financial burden on newsrooms.

What does the author of the bill propose?

“Given the wide opportunities in the field of information popularization among the population, the need to involve subjects in the field of media (in particular, in the field of audiovisual media) in the production and broadcasting of socially useful information aimed at the development of the individual and society is seen,” the Explanatory Note to the bill says.

The author of the document proposes to supplement Section 1 of Article 1 of the Law On Media with clause 55-1 defining the term “social product:” “social product – audiovisual works containing socially useful information aimed at the development of the individual and society, the popularization of the ideas of humanity and justice, healthy way of life, an inclusive society, to support family values and improve the demographic situation, to ensure state sovereignty, security and defense, patriotic education of youth, crime prevention and prevention of corruption, nature and ecology protection, entrepreneurship development. A social product may include information on the coverage of state programs aimed at protecting statehood, public order, increasing the state’s defense capabilities, etc.”

Thus, the legislator obliges Ukrainian media, which – please note – are independent, to produce a certain amount of the same social product, sets requirements for it, and dictates the frequency of broadcasting.

The position of the NUJU: the legislative initiative does more harm than good

The NUJU has analyzed the new bill in detail and formed its position, which is based on the protection of both consumers of media products and the media themselves.

Danil Serbin, an NUJU lawyer, says:

Enshrining in law the obligation of audiovisual media entities that have a broadcasting license to produce and broadcast a so-called social product at their own expense, and even more so, establishing responsibility for the violation of such an obligation, will cause a violation of the rights and interests of the entities in the field of audiovisual media.

1. Ukraine is a country with a market economy system, that is, a system built on the economic interests and aspirations of subjects to obtain the most significant economic results from one or another activity. Subjects in the field of media, with the exception of individual media, which are also other participants in market relations, act to achieve economic and financial results, earn money, etc. In this sense, actors in the field of audiovisual media seek to create a product that will be of interest to a broad audience and is expected to generate revenues from its broadcast. Enshrining the obligation to produce and broadcast a social product at one’s own expense will become a significant item of expense for entities in the field of media; it is expected that it will not justify the costs of its production, which will lead to losses.

The legislation already contains regulatory requirements for the distribution (prohibition of distribution) of certain products and materials under certain circumstances (for example, entertainment broadcasting during days of mourning, distribution of official announcements about emergencies, etc.). At the same time, such obligations and restrictions, which are already established by the Law of Ukraine On Media, are necessary and justified, which cannot be said about the proposal for a social product.

2. We believe that establishing the obligation to produce and broadcast a social product does not comply with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the fundamental principles of law and the basis of law-making in any legal state. Interference with freedoms and rights, the establishment of certain obligations is possible only when it is really necessary. Moreover, the scope of the intervention should correspond to the set goal.

Establishing at the legislative level the obligation to produce and broadcast a social product and the benefits that the state will be able to receive as a result of establishing such an obligation are offset by the negative consequences for the media themselves. This is a significant financial burden associated with the obligation to independently finance the production and broadcasting of a social product in significant volumes.

3. The author of the bill proposes to classify the violation of the requirements for the production and broadcasting of a social product as a significant violation at the level of the distribution of instructions or advice on the manufacture, purchase, or use of explosives, narcotics or psychotropic substances, dissemination of information denying or justifying the criminal nature of the communist totalitarian regime of 1917-1991 in Ukraine, dissemination of propaganda for the use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, etc. Accordingly, the media will bear equal responsibility for any of the committed actions (inaction) that will be recognized as a significant violation of the law.

In our opinion, classifying the violation related to non-compliance with the requirements for the production and broadcasting of a social product as a significant violation is unfounded and excessive and significantly diminishes the significance of the other significant violations established by the law.

Taking into account the aforementioned, we believe that the adoption of the said amendments in the production and broadcasting of the social product, the establishment of responsibility for the violation of the relevant requirements will actually be an intervention in the editorial policy of subjects in the field of audiovisual media, will cause stagnation in the quality and quantity of the national product, and will become an excessive financial burden for the relevant editions.

In our opinion, the social product is indeed important for the purposes described in the explanatory note; however, the achievement of such purposes must occur as a result of financing the production and broadcasting of such a product by the state, public organizations, or at the expense of the media themselves, if they independently decide to produce and broadcast such a product but in no case not by way of normative consolidation of such duty and responsibility.