T3 Lack of sufficient market Ratio of advertising 160 T3.2 resources to support range of E U expenditures per capita to GDP media per capita Regulatory safeguards for the T4 Lack of sufficient resources objective and independent 161 T4.1 to support public service L S allocation of (adequate, media consistent and sufficient) resources to PSM Regulatory safeguards for the T5 Insufficient engagement of 162 T5.1 L S engagement/presence of PSM PSM in new media in/on new media T5 Insufficient engagement of Proportion of employees 163 T5.2 S S PSM in new media dedicated to new services T5 Insufficient engagement of Amount of financing invested 164 T5.3 S S PSM in new media in new media by the PSM Proportion of online media T6 Insufficient attention paid offering space for publicly 165 T6.1 S S to public participation available comments and complaints Table 2. Overview of the risks and corresponding indicators for the risk domain of types and genres’ ‘pluralism 3.2.3. Interpretation of the results When the different indicators in the six risk domains have been scored, the results will be represented in a report that looks like a and which shows a country’s risk assessment ‘barometer’ profile for a particular risk domain (see figure 1). Fig. 1. Example of sheet These results have to be interpreted with great care. For example, it is important to note that the indicator type should be considered carefully before drawing conclusions from negative (red) scores for individual indicators. This is especially relevant for the legal indicators: a critical score on a legal indicator assumes particular relevance in those situations where the corresponding economic and/or socio-demographic indicators for the same risk have also received a negative score (as a rule of thumb we suggest at least 50% red or 75% orange). In short, users of the MPM should not infer an inevitable need for regulatory intervention on the basis of the red score of a single legal indicator alone. Drawing such a conclusion prematurely in a situation where the economic and/or socio-demographic context is not problematic from the perspective of media pluralism, indicated by a majority of positive (green) scores obtained for the corresponding indicators, may lead to overregulation. In other words, the legal indicators fulfill a role’ ‘serving in the sense that the absence or non-effectiveness of regulatory safeguards for media pluralism should be considered most significant if they occur in conjunction with actual or imminent risks
160 T3.2 T3 Lack of sufficient market resources to support range of media E U Ratio of advertising expenditures per capita to GDP per capita 161 T4.1 T4 Lack of sufficient resources to support public service media L S Regulatory safeguards for the objective and independent allocation of (adequate, consistent and sufficient) resources to PSM 162 T5.1 T5 Insufficient engagement of PSM in new media L S Regulatory safeguards for the engagement/presence of PSM in/on new media 163 T5.2 T5 Insufficient engagement of PSM in new media S S Proportion of employees dedicated to new services 164 T5.3 T5 Insufficient engagement of PSM in new media S S Amount of financing invested in new media by the PSM 165 T6.1 T6 Insufficient attention paid to public participation S S Proportion of online media offering space for publicly available comments and complaints Table 2. Overview of the risks and corresponding indicators for the risk domain ‘pluralism of types and genres’ 3.2.3. Interpretation of the results When the different indicators in the six risk domains have been scored, the results will be represented in a report that looks like a ‘barometer’ and which shows a country’s risk assessment profile for a particular risk domain (see figure 1). Fig. 1. Example of sheet These results have to be interpreted with great care. For example, it is important to note that the indicator type should be considered carefully before drawing conclusions from negative (red) scores for individual indicators. This is especially relevant for the legal indicators: a critical score on a legal indicator assumes particular relevance in those situations where the corresponding economic and/or socio-demographic indicators for the same risk have also received a negative score (as a rule of thumb we suggest at least 50% red or 75% orange). In short, users of the MPM should not infer an inevitable need for regulatory intervention on the basis of the red score of a single legal indicator alone. Drawing such a conclusion prematurely in a situation where the economic and/or socio-demographic context is not problematic from the perspective of media pluralism, indicated by a majority of positive (green) scores obtained for the corresponding indicators, may lead to overregulation. In other words, the legal indicators fulfill a ‘serving role’ in the sense that the absence or non-effectiveness of regulatory safeguards for media pluralism should be considered most significant if they occur in conjunction with actual or imminent risks