Dasu Krishnamoorty, U.S.A.
The views expressed are solely of the author

A recent commentary in Media Trends on changes in media ownership laws infers a lot of ambivalence and skirts what according to me, is the central point in any debate on media mergers. While it refers to the dilemmas of several countries vis a vis media deregulation, it suggests that easing of controls on media is justified because of media owners' need to make large investments. While statements like 'media business has evolved into a high technology, high investment business' was offered as a comment, it was not clear whether it was regret or rejoice which accompanied sentences like 'Gone are the days of newspapers dedicated to public interest!'
The overall tone however, did make it appear that a case was being made out for the corporatization of public expression that is media.

Let us deal with the question of high technology and high investment. There are still newspapers in India working with Gutenberg and Merganthaler technologies and reaching significant number of households as compared to newspapers using sophisticated technology. It has always been my opinion that technology should be bent to serve the needs of society, rather than vice versa. Why for example, should the reader, listener, viewer surrender his freedom to help a few media giants to capture the economy and the minds of the people? Like politicians, the goal of media companies also is to capture the public mind. Politicians are answerable to a Parliament, but as far as media companies go, the greater the deregulation, the lesser their accountability.

In short, the argument that "We need large investments that we have to mobilize. So, free us from all controls." is far from valid. Are the investments in public interest? Or are they for the profit of the media company?) I wonder how many people are aware that the mega film producing companies that comprise the famous Hollywood have practically killed the film industry in several third world countries? While India with its own dynamic film industry, has escaped the Hollywood onslaught, Barbie & Leo have all but killed India's indigenous toy industry.

Take another line that says, 'It makes commercial sense to merge media companies to create mega media companies, capable of large investments for long periods' : the consumer is interested in content, not commercial sense. And no government has the mandate to surrender its people's interests to large companies that do not pass the gains of economies of scale to the consumers.

Mega mergers, mega media, globalization are all very romantic terms. Their consequences for countries other than the United States are evident from the recent demise of diplomacy as an instrument of settling international disputes. (I refer to the Iraq War : the sovereignty of every country today may be in jeopardy.)

Mega media mergers mean the emergence of a singular media powers or consortiums who will determine what people all over the world would read, watch and listen to. Throughout the civilized world, there are cultures that are several millennia more ancient than the western ethos : which threatens to engulf other ancient cultures. For example, how much of Bharata Naatyam or Bhangra or Indian classical or folk music do you see on the Indian TV? Because, advertising revenues largely depend on ratings and MNC advertisers who have no interest in preserving local culture.

Back to the crux: the debate is about content & its control. Content delivery is the main function of the media. If you leave the extremely small percentage of cosmopolitans inhabiting the metros, the rest of the population in most non-G8 countries wants content relevant to their modest lives. The operating word is relevant. What percentage of India's reading public benefits from Harry Potter and what is the space and time donated to its promotion in the Indian media? The entire coverage is a surrender of the readers' space to trap buyers for the book. The bigger the media company, the less responsive they are to public demand. In short, the public everywhere has no way of getting what it wants from mega media and has to be content with what the media disseminate.

Whether it is for reasons of large investments or for induction of expensive technology, the fewer the number of media firms, the fewer are the persons who will determine what we need, read, listen to and watch. This is a travesty of the democratic principle and equivalent in political terms to media dictatorship. The greater the number of media outlets, the greater the chances for diversity and pluralism. The consequences of mega mergers are the same, whether the emerging giants are Indian or global. India is a union of several culturally distinct communities. For example, when what are called national newspapers launch their editions in different parts of the country, they pay little attention to local communities. When the New York Times acquired the Boston Globe, the first & foremost worry was that local issues would take a back seat.

Mega mergers will naturally lead to proxy ownership by foreign interests. Take the (hypothetical) case of a Pakistani company acquiring 26% interest in an Urdu newspaper published from Kashmir (India) - pro-terrorist content cannot be prevented because as an Indian newspaper it can invoke Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Or the real case of Star TV running a News Channel in India via a "shell company".

All these points are relevant in any debate on mega mergers of media companies. According to me, investment & technology are incidental components. But the media continues to wield immense power over us the people, to the extent of almost setting the agenda of our lives.

In the end we will consent to our own cultural annihilation to help a few corporations to rake in the bucks.