About the working group2 sessions:
 On day 1 we started with 6 participants – having to deal with 8 results
 On day 2 2 more persons participated in the group work
 The red additions in the result column are points that were considered important by the
group, and should be taken into consideration in finalizing the results framework, either in
the results itself, or in the indicators themselves.
 Results were defined as changes within an actor / stakeholder (within their level of control).
 Actions may be undertaken by other stakeholders in order to bring about the change in the
concerned stakeholder. E.g. a training by a university has a result trained journalists. The
university however does not control the use of the acquired journalism skills. The use of
journalism skills is at the level of control of the journalists + most likely the media outlets in
which they work. Their result.
 The changes are included in the line itself. Underneath a number of considerations, and/or
suggestions are presented. Some of the comments made by the participants have been
included in the presented framework.
 In blue are some changes made after the comments made by the participants on Friday
afternoon.
 If the comments were not in line with the thinking of the group (some things may not have
been properly conveyed/understood), the original suggestions by the group are presented, in
order for the persons in the commission to see for themselves, if they think the suggestions
are valuable, or not.
Objective
Result
Indicator
Enabling environment and resulting responsibilities of main actors
1.4. Public Service Media /
1.4.a. Assessment of the legal
Broadcasting – ensure content
framework of Public Service
pluralism in media
Media/Broadcasting remits
environment.
definition law (as preceded by
broad public consultation),
including aspects related to:
media remits, transparency,
election and composition of
board & council, editorial
independence, involvement of
public in programming,
complaint mechanisms, financial
independence, etc.
1.4.c. Assessment of the
implementation of the various
laws in the legal framework
related to Public Service media
/ Broadcasting (see 1.4a)
1.4.d. Implementation of long
term reform of Public
Broadcasters guided by
comprehensive and budgeted
Draft 23/10/2013
MoV/Comment
OSCE + CoE
Independent Body (EU
– South East Europe
Media Observatory)
(benchmarking)
Ombudsman
Questionnaire / public
survey by PSB
1
strategies (matching the PS
remit).
(outsourcing to
professional agencies)
1.4.e. Sustainability and
autonomy of PSB financing
mechanism.
1.4.h. measuring dynamics of
public’s trust in PSB.
1.4.i. level of completion of the
digitalisation efforts
Observations / Suggestions in relation to 1.4
 Result 1.4 includes result aspects that have to do with the enabling environment (controlled
by other govt. Institutions) as well as with results that are controlled by the public service
media themselves.
 Examples: Indicator 1.4a, 1.4b and 1.4c (and 1.4e?) seem to focus on the enabling
environment (legal framework), 1.4 d (enabling enviroment if reform is ”owned by others”,
PBS if implemented by PBS themselves?). 1.4f As well as 1.4g are clearly controlled by the
public service media themselves.
 Suggestion of the group was to split the indicators into two types of change, which can then
be developed into two composed indicators):
o Assessment of the law that regulates the functioning of the public service media – or
PSB (enabling environment result of concerned goverment institutions). Harmonsded
with international standards – CoE and Amsterdam ??)
o Assessment of the implementation of the law (result by public service media
institution) and other results that can be seen as change in the functioning of PBS.
 These last results may be presented under component 2 – modern level of internal
governance (all media: PBS + Media Outlets)
 The assessment of the law should be done by OSCE and council of europe (in order to have
an independent assessment – with a certain political clout)
 To assess to which extent the law is actually implemented may be done by the South Eastern
Europé Media Observatory, (this would be a kind of watchdog function)
 1.4d is the reform implemented by the media themselves (result of media), or by the
government (enabling environment)
 The assessment of the law should focus on a number of issues (to be further finetuned
maybe)
o Public service media remits
o Editorial independence
o Financing mechanism and sustainability (possibilities to generate funds)
o Transparency in relation to ownership and funding of the public service media
o Transparency in relation to publishing of of annual (including financial) reports
o The election process of the board / council of public media
o The involvement of the public in programming (as a means to guarantee the public
character of the ownership of the programming – e.g. are minority groups served by
public media).
o Complaints procedures
 The implementation of the legal framework should cover the same issues.
Draft 23/10/2013
2



Additional indicator of public trust is good, as well as the level of completion of the
digitalisation efforts (shows if change is taking place).
There is no real indicator relating to content pluralism!
Indicator 1.4e should be the outcome of all results. Results from a) the sphere of enabling
environment, and b) results in terms of changes in operations of public service media should
contribute to this together. PSM/PBS that are financially sustainable and autonomous.
Advancing media to a modern level of internal governance
2. Improved
2.1. Media outlets adhere to
standards and
principles of good governance.
accountability in
media sector.
Growing public’s
confidence in media.
Financial
sustainability of
media outlets.
Indicator: audience
measurement for
publications/broadcas
ts with investigative
content
2.1.a. The share of media
outlets that provide open
access to key data (balance
sheets and ownership
structure) about corporate
governance and finances.
Register of media and
register of companies
The % of companies/media
outlets that publish sources of
finances (incl. state aid and
state (advertising) / market
share
The body for
protection of
competition
The level to which the Law
(related to the transparency in
relation to the ownership) has
been implemented by media
outlets in the country
CSOs/NGOs and
regulatory bodies
Observations / Suggestions in relation to objective 2 and result 2.1
 All results under objective 2 focus on changes in the media outlets themselves.
 The objective (outcome of various results at the level of media outlets) may include
indicators in the sense of growing public confidence and financial sustainability.
 Comment to the aspect of financial sustainability. In results thinking the level of
accountability is more at the level of control, and less at the level of influence. Media outlets
do not control their financial sustainability (market conditions have a strong influence), and
do not control the opinon of the general public). The media outlets can influence these
results by producing quality products for which a market (seems to exist).
 Objective 2 … if the governance is at the level of the media sector as a whole, then changes
at the level of PMS / PBS are also part of this objective (see 1.4 above)
 Result 2.1 focuses on changes in media outlets behaviour in relation to good governance,
with a strong focus on (financial) transparancy. A number of indicators have been added.
 Actions in order to make these results a reality may be (not to be included in the results
framework here):
Draft 23/10/2013
3
Regular
regulato
regulato
(Objecti
Legal pr
related
ownersh
transpa
(objecti
o regular control by regulatory and self-regulatory bodies. This may be a result under
objectives number 1 (regulatory body as part of enabling environment) and 4 (selfregulatory bodies as part of professional organisations)
Draft 23/10/2013
4
o
2.2. Media outlets subscribe to
and implement adequate labour
standards, in a wide sense,
including adopting minimum
wage rate, guaranteeing
editorial and journalist
independence, and the
protection of free lancers.
2.2.a. increased share of
journalists reporting adequate
working contracts with
sufficient social protection.
TBD
The number of signed collective
agreements
The number of media outlets
with internal code of conduct
The level to which journalists
say that they can do their job
independently
Survey by journalist
associations/civil
society media
organisations
Observations / Suggestions in relation to 2.2
 Result 2.2 is focusing on labour standards in a broader sense, including issues that have to do
with editorial and journalist independence (can they exercise their profession?)
 Actions to be included here are:
o Negotiations btw. Trade unions, owners and state (tripartite) (part of objective 4)
o Strengthening of Trade Unions (objective 4)
o Strengthening of the position of the media to allow them to conduct investigative
journalism. The focus is not so much organisational strengthening, but the media
being taken more seriously from an enabling environment point of view (to be
included as a result under objective 1 – e.g. recognition of media outlets in govt.
policies / legal framework regarding the media).
 A pre-condition in order to have collective agreements through tripartite social dialogue is
the formation of an association of employers.
 It was considered positive to have a survey to be conducted by representative media
organizations into labour conditions (labour conditions and the possibility to exercise the
profession w/i media outlets)
Draft 23/10/2013
5
2.3. Self-enforcement of ethical
norms and professional
standards.
2.3.a. Share of media outlets
with developed in-house codes
and effective mechanisms to
deal with readers/viewers
complaints (e.g. ombudsman,
readers editor).
TBD
The % of media outlet with
developed, published and
implemented internal code of
conduct (in accordance with IFJ
– International Federation of
Journalists).
Survey of journalists
The content review of the
media outlets
Review conducted by
professional
agencies/CSO/press
council/watchdog
media monitoring
groups.
Observations / Suggestions in relation to 2.3
 Result 2.3 has been given focus on labour standards in a broader sense, including also issues
that have to do with editorial and journalist independence (can they exercise their
profession?)
 Suggested indicator 2.3a are actually 2 indicators
o In-house codes +
o Effective mechanisms to ….
 The inhouse codes can be replaced by the ”a bit more elaborated indicator” on internal code
 The additional indicator of ”the content review of the media outlets” is a qualitative
indicator, that will say us something about the level to which ethical norms and professional
standards are reflected in the media products.
 Actions to be included
o Capacity building of media
o Involvement / of media ombudsman
Draft 23/10/2013
6
2.4. Structures strengthened for
basic and continuous training
and education of Journalists and
journalist students with
professional standards, freedom
of expression and media
integrity. Qualitative and
trustworthy investigative
journalism available to the
citizens.
2.4.a. Number of curriculums
for journalist colleges/schools
developed and implemented
incorporating ethical codes and
standards.
TBD
2.4.b. number of internships
increased and professional
journalists and publicists as
resource persons in training
programmes.
The level of professionalism in
the sector
The breaches (breech) in the
professional conduct
Recognition of quality
journalism (prizes)
Media monitoring
groups/watchdog CSOs
Journalist professional
organisations
EU/award system
established in
countries by
Association of
journalists
Share of quality investigative
journalism in local on- and offline media.
Share of outlets’ (including
PSM) budget used to
investigative journalism.
Observations / Suggestions in relation to 2.4
 The way result 2.4 was formulated is not a media outlets result as such. It says something
about the underlying structures that provide training, structures that ”produce” quality
journalism within media outlets (with freedom of expression, integrity).
 Strengthening structures are actions that should be supported in order to achieve the result
at the level of media outlets as it is defined here. Strenghtened journalism support structures
may be part of objective 4 ”support capacity” (a bit more wide then it is formulated now).
The strengthtende journalims support structure (including universities and NGOs) provide
services to media outlets (training services being one possible type of services there).
 In the group work it was suggested to include the qualitative journalims (objective 3) in this
result. However, thinking of the comment on the clarity of objectives, it is suggested to make
2.4 as it is above, objective 3, and skip result 2.4.
Draft 23/10/2013
7


The group came up with quite a number of indicators that say something about the quality of
journalism.
In terms of actions that need to be developed in order to reach the concerned result are the
following:
o At the level of support structures (e.g. platforms - networks) – objective 4
 Partnerships btw media outlets and media schools
 Mentorship programs
 Internships for journalists students
 Exchange student/editor programs with international university
 Investigative journalism training
 Inclusive journalism training
o At the level of enabling environment – objective 1
 Protective environment of journalists
o Change the criminal law to reflect the needs of journalist protection
Draft 23/10/2013
8
2.5. Media outlets promote
professional training (including
on professional ethics).
Increased managerial capacities
in media outlets
The number of media outlets
with implementing business
plans towards financial survival
in a changing market.
Market share/financial
reports
Observations / Suggestions in relation to 2.5
 Result 2.5 as it was is an integral part of objective 3 (or 2.4 as above).
 The result presented here is an additional one. Reasoning is that professional standards and
codes of conduct within organisations, may not be enough for organisations to survive in a
market that is only just now developing itself. Therefore a result needs to be included that
focuses on the development of managerial capacities that can deal with changing market and
financial conditions.
 Activities that are needed:
o Training/additional education for managers
o Exchange programs/study visits for managers
o Coaching for managers
 These activities may require support structures (objective 4) to be strengthened, also on the
above mentioned aspects.
Draft 23/10/2013
9
2.6. Regaining audience’s
confidence.
2.6.a. Growing audience ratings
for outlets embarking upon
improved governance.
Result 2.6 as such is the outcome of media outlets (including PMS / PBS) engaging professionally in
qualititative journalism, within an enabling environment.
Draft 23/10/2013
10
3. Qualitative and
trustworthy
investigative
journalism available
to citizens .
3.1. Improved conditions for
quality investigative journalism
(see also: 1.3.b; 4.5.a; 2.4.b).
3.1.a. increased cooperation
between media organisations,
media outlets and CSOs
benefiting investigative
journalists. (Objective 4)
TBD
3.1.b. Share of quality
investigative journalism in local
on- and off-line media.
3.1.c. public recognitions of
quality investigative journalism
(audience measurement for
publications/broadcasts with
investigative content).
3.1.d. Share of outlets’
(including PSM) budget
dedicated to investigative
journalism.
Observations / Suggestions in relation to 3
 The cooperation is part of objective 4 (support structures / platforms)
 Include 2.4 here.
Draft 23/10/2013
11