Increased concentration of media ownership has adverse effects on the pluralism of media output.

I've posted this entry on www.treepex.co.uk.

I would be interested in other peoples opinion on this subject. I hope you'll find my essay interesting. Constructive comments are welcome.

Increased concentration of media ownership has adverse effects on the pluralism of media output. Do we all agree? Well, here is my answer:

The concentration of media ownership is one of the biggest questions of pluralism these days. No proper solutions have been found yet. There were several acts during the last century that try to keep media companies in check. The aim of this essay is to give a general overview of the British media landscape and highlight those issues that are waiting for solution. The complexity of the markets and the contradictions between theories make it more difficult to answer the question that is raised by the topic.

Media concentration.
Media concentration implies to several issues around the media structure, ownership and diversity of output/content. A brief overview of media history could explain how media industry has reached the current shape. In the beginning of 1900s, the media landscape looked different. Media concentration was not known. The diversity structures of media organizations were pluralist, because different media sectors had different ownership. At the time, “freedom of the press was synonymous with the absence of government censorship and licensing and the freedom to operate unhindered in the marketplace.” [Paul Marris & Sue Thornham; 2004:142] That kind of structure and philosophy created a perfect ground for media concentration. The unregulated media industry was built on a very competitive system in which only the wealthy companies remained. These wealthy companies have grown even bigger by demolishing small companies and/or by merging with other huge corporations. AOL Time Warner Warner, The Walt Disney Co., Bertelsmann (Europe biggest media publisher, broadcaster and producer), Viacom, News Corporation, Vivendi Universal are the biggest media corporations in the world nowadays.

There are two type of media concentration. Monomedia concentration, which “refers to concentrated ownership within a single sector of activity, e.g. newspaper publishing, radio or television broadcasting.” The other is the Cross-media concentration that are split into Vertical Integration – “refers to a common ownership across different phases in the supply chain for media product e.g. television programme-making (production) and television broadcasting (distribution)” and Diagonal Integration –“means common ownership between different media sectors e.g. television and newspapers, or newspaper and radio” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:13]

Pluralism.
According to the definition of the Committee of Experts on Media Concentrations and Pluralism (MM-CM) “pluralism embraces both diversity of ownership (i.e. existence of a variety of separate and autonomous media suppliers) and diversity of output (i.e. varied media content).” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:12] Therefore pluralism can be divided into two main groups. First one is the External Pluralism that implies to the diversity of ownership. The second one is called the Internal Pluralism. It is exist “within the firm” and it is “about diversity of content” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:12] Further important definition about pluralism is, that “pluralism is about diversity within what is made available, rather than within what is actually consumed.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:12] Divers output can be found when Political Pluralism (different political viewpoints) and Cultural Pluralism (different cultures and ethnic groups) are built equally into the output of a media corporation.

The links between pluralism and media concentration are simple (may look simple), the fear of over-presentation and the monopoly of means of media output. Over-presentation of viewpoints can have an impact on pluralism by not giving a chance for other independent voices in a field of politic, religion, ideology, market, etc. This part of the pluralism (internal pluralism) can be regulated by policies. Policies or acts that are able to secure the places of these different voices within any given media sector. Same policies could be applied on the monopoly of means of content. There are some efforts made by the British government and other legislative power, like the 1973 Fair Trading Act, 1990 Broadcasting Act, the 1995 Green Paper on media ownership and the 1996 Broadcasting Act. These will be explained in more detail.

Determinants of media pluralism
Pluralism is very complex issue that cannot be secured by creating one ’unisex’ solution. According to Gillian Doyle, the followings have to be investigated in order to decide what sort of acts or policies are the best for any given country that want to support media pluralism: size and wealth of the market; diversity of suppliers; consolidation of resources; and diversity of output.

Size and wealth of the market
“Within any free market economy, the level of resources available for the provision of media will be constrained principally by the size and wealth of that economy, and the propensity of its inhabitants to consume media.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:15] Those countries that have relatively large market, like England, France or Spain have more financial background to support diversity of output and have the ability to keep more media companies in the market (as they are there to make profit). More divers output and fragmented ownership will, obviously, support pluralism. In contrast, small ones like Ireland are suffer from the absence of all those that are given in bigger countries. It means that “support for the media through direct payment” and “levels of consumers expenditure”, furthermore “the availability of advertising support” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:15] are less in these countries, due to the low number of audience. Overall, the size and wealth of the market determine the diversity of both media output and media ownership.

Diversity of suppliers/owners
From the previous paragraph can be assumed that size/wealth of the market have a very strong relation to the diversity of supplier. If the first is not given (wealthy market) then it is difficult to achieve fragmented supplier system. Diversity of suppliers refers to those heterogeneous independent organizations that are involved in media production and to the common ownership as well. The more various suppliers there are, the better for pluralism is. However, “the more powerful individual suppliers become, the greater the potential treat to pluralism.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:18]

Consolidation of resources
The consolidation of cost functions and cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is a common practice in monomedia and cross media. For example, “for multi-product television or radio broadcasters, the more homogeneity possible between different services held in common ownership (or the more elements within a programme schedule which can be shared between ’different’ stations), the greater the opportunity to reap economies.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:22-23] Though the main concern of pluralism is that different organization under different ownership may buy the same e.g. news stories from the same news-supplier agency. In the UK, the biggest news-supplier is The Press Association (PA). Here is a quoted text from PA web site: “The Press Association supplies services to every national and regional daily newspaper, major broadcasters, online publishers and a wide range of commercial organisations.” Overall, in a system where all different media organizations gather its stories from the same source, then we can’t really call that system pluralist. That is where diversity of output comes in.

Diversity of output
Diversity of output is what the essay is essentially about. The above sections had to be mentioned, in order to have a clearer view of this complex system. Media output is actually what we, an audience consumes. We make sense out of the world (mainly) through media output. Therefore it is important to know that who owns the media output and who decide what to publish and what to ignore. Through radio, television or newspapers we can be manipulated. Several cases in the media history have proved it, i.e. the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi who used his TV channels to support his businesses an his political viewpoints. There is a similar case in the United Kingdom, namely Margaret Thatcher’s. The media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, supported Margaret Thatcher trough his media empire, which known as The News International. It is understandable and desirable to have strict laws, and acts around this issue. Who is going to decide what to restrict and what not? Karen Siune highlights an interesting point in her essay: “to decide not to regulate is also a kind of policy”. [K. Brants; J Hermes; L Zoonen; 1998:18] Unfortunately, this essay won’t go into this interesting question, it is because it’s not its aim.
Divers media content supports not only the media pluralism but also the political and the cultural ones. The main concern is, that the concentration of media and cross-media ownership can lead to, as mentioned, over-presentation, which would reduce the diversity of output. However, here is a contradiction, larger corporations tend to support greater diversity due to the competitive market structure and their stable financial background. Finding new market and scale audience rating is crucial for these companies. The conclusion is that media concentration actually supports pluralism.
By summing up, the first half of the essay suggests that concentration of media ownership has adverse effect on pluralism. The second half says that it is actually enables pluralism. So now then which one is the true? There are many ongoing arguments about it. Some say, that policies that try to restrict media concentrations are also restrict the freedom of expression that is the bastion of democracy. On the other hand, without acts, policies or laws, the owners of the media corporations would gain power that could affect every segment of our life.



I found it important to mention, briefly, some of the policies or act that have/had a deep enduring effect on the UK media industry.

In the UK, the 1973 Fair Trading Act divided media ownership mergers into two separate fields. This act draws distinction between newspaper and the other that contains all form of media and cross-media ownership mergers e.g. radio, television. Legislations over broadcasting are straightforward. It means that there are a number of broadcasting licenses that can be owned by a person or a company. Later on, the 1990 Broadcasting Act extended the Fair Trading Act to all members of the European Union. The British government decided that, “those deemed eligible for terrestrial television broadcasting license ownership were permitted to own either (a) two regional ITV (also called C3) license (but not both of the London licences), or (b) a national ITV license, or (c) a C5 license. Ownership of a license in one category would restrict ownership to a 20 per cent investment in either of the other categories.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:87] The situation is a bit different at the newspaper sector. If a company’s daily circulation exceed the 500.000 copies, and the company still wants to extend it, then it has to undergo a test that decides whether or not it is in the public interest.
Briefly, the 1990 Broadcasting Act was a step back on the way towards pluralism. It changed the previous restrictions about ITV franchises. This step back is called the deregulation. The meaning of this word implies to “the process of removing or diluting the rules which govern the operation of certain companies or areas of industry. In the media, this refers especially to the move, in western Europe, away from state-regulated broadcasting systems towards systems which are more open to market forces.” [www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk]
The 1995 Green Paper on media ownership was a proposal. It meant to set back and improve the 1973 Fair Trading Act. It was welcomed by the whole media industry. All those that was published in this proposal, would be dealt in the 1996 Broadcasting Act.


Finally, to summarize all above-mentioned and to give a strict answer to the topic, I believe that concentration of media ownership has effect on media pluralism. However, without these big corporations, from my point of view, the motivation of finding and trying out new product would be less intensive. Moreover, without the pressure that these concentrations are able to put on the market and on the government of any given country, it would be a less democratic world.
The problem with pluralism is that we all know the ingredients of it, however there is no existing example for it. Therefore, we are chasing a utopian dream. There was a media structure in the beginning of the last century, which was said to be pluralist. It was said to be pluralism because there were number of autonomous media companies. Their owners influenced their output at that time as well. So, therefore, it cannot really be called pluralist.
I believe that we are living in a pluralist system. There are thousands of TV and radio channels out there. In different language though, but they are there. I am sure that we could have watched the Iraqi War from the Muslims point of view. However there were no western government in this world who would have allowed that. In this case, the governments should be blamed, rather then the media corporations.






Daniel Vaczi




Bibliography:

[1] Chris Barker (1997) Global Television: An Introduction, Blackwell
[2] Watson, and Hill (2000) Dictionary of Media & Communication Studies, Arnold
[3] Kees Brants, Joke Hermes and Liesbet van Zoonen (1988) The Media in Question, Sage Publications
[4] Gillian Doyle (2002) Media Ownership, Sage Publications
[5] Edited by Paul Marris and Sue Thornham (2004) Media Studies; A Reader, Edinburgh University Press
[6] Cult Sock, http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/mediaown.html
accessed on 23/04/05
[7] Press Association,
http://www.pa.press.net/about_pa/about_pa.php
accessed on 23/04/05
[8] Cult Sock,
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html
accessed on 21/04/05
[9] Media UK,
http://www.mediauk.com/
accessed on 24/04/05
[10] Cult Sock,
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/bact.html
accessed on 19/04/05
[11] The Washington Post,
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/r_metro_fisher022703.htm accessed on 19/04/05
[12] Peace Institute (Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies),
http://www.mirovni-institut.si/media_ownership/conference/speakers.htm accessed on 19/04/05
[13] International Journal of Communications Law and Policy http://www.ijclp.org/1_1998/rtf/ijclp_webdoc_3_1_1998.rtf
accessed on 19/04/05


source: treepex.co.uk online newspapers forum