Media Ownership Regulation Laws
                                                                                                                                                                                                     
July 10, 2006
Copyright Mediaware Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
Is there a need to ensure that all newspapers, channels, & other mass media are not controlled by a handful of behemoth corporations?

Mass media began with the print medium. And most newspapers played a historically significant role during their nation's struggle for freedom, civil wars, etc. During these periods of strife, newspapers inspired people and even galvanized them to join or support the movement. Indeed,during these periods, this became their chief role. This may be the reason behind the special status awarded to the print medium in most free states.

After the freedom movement, newspapers slowly discovered that their raison d'etre was no more. Over the past few decades, most newspapers have evolved into commercial juggernauts, who are focussed on selling their ad space & often extend their role to mail order sales business. (Some even sell ads disguised as editorial content!)

The Technology Wave
Over the years, newspapers and the media business in general, has evolved into a technology-driven, high-investment business.

From media owners' viewpoint, upgrading technology is a major cost. And because of constant threats from new media (based on new technology), upgradation is inevitable. For example, currently, many running TV channels plan to change over from analogue to digital broadcast. Newspapers need to upgrade equipment regularly and invest in developing online properties. Ditto for the radio medium.

All this involves massive investments which may need to be amortised over a a number of years.

National Deadlines
In the same direction, many governments have declared "national deadlines" for switching over to digital TV broadcast. For example, the Japanese Government plans to enforce complete switchover from analogue to digital television in 2010. U.K., Italy, U.S.A., France are other countries which have also declared such deadlines.

To achieve this, media owning companies may prefer to merge with/acquire other media owning cos. (including foreign companies) to create large entities which will own multiple channels, newspapers, radio stations, online properties, et al.

These mega corporations will have the potential to generate large turnovers which in turn will sustain the large investments required.

Mass Influence
Mass media (as the term suggests!) is a medium to influences the masses. Naturally, our forefathers felt that safeguards were required against any single entity controlling national (& international) mass media - to ensure diversity or what the English lawmakers call "media plurality".

In other words, media owners' argument that they "large investments need to be mobilized. So, please free them from all controls" may be one-sided.

Conclusion
Why are media ownership laws so significant? With global mergers & acquisitions, mega media groups already control bouquets of TV Channels & multiple newspapers across the world. Sharing of content for commercial efficiency is the reason behind the mergers.

For the consumer however, news stations will cover the same stories repeatedly, with the same visuals. And sometimes the news may be accompanied with a not-so-subtle political bias - which runs common to the corporation. Instead of having more channels to chose from, the consumer may end up viewing the same content replayed across the group that owns the stations.

Frankly, giving tax & other sops to media owners (to help expand & upgrade) seems to be a better option than deregulating media ownership.

Media Ownership Laws

The U.S. Case Story
 To illustrate the nature of the media ownership restrictions, let's take the U.S. example.

The U.S.A. already has a set of laws meant for controlling cross media ownership. Howver, in 2003, U.S. Media Regulator (FCC) Chairman Mike Powell proposed to deregulate media ownership - a proposal that met with the protests by millions of people.

Most changes proposed then pertained to relaxation of restrictions in media ownership, mostly in favour of the big media networks. (Some critics have gone so far as to suggest that the infamous "embedded" journalism displayed by major American media in the recent Iraq War was in return for relaxations in media ownership laws.)

Stopped by a federal court, the FCC had to back out from implementing its proposed rules.

In June 2006, the current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced a review of the media ownership regulations for broadcast TV - proposing to allow media consolidation.

Once again, there seems to be a resistance from lay people, punctuated by public interest groups. While the FCC's plans are not clear, there is a public move to oppose further media consolidation. The general concerns expressed during meetings organized by FCC involve local news coverage, instead of sanitized news based on a single political view. And local entertainment instead of canned & homogenized programming

Other Countries
Similar attempts by U.K. Government, (U.K. Communications Bill) have been facing resistance.

While in Australia, the Government's attempts to relax media ownership laws have been facing opposition. And

India on the other hand, has no media ownership laws. It has recently proposed laws to regulate cross-media ownership.

Mediaware Infotech Pvt. Ltd.  
The New Mahalaxmi Silk Mills Premises, Mathuradas Mills Estate, Opp Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013.
Tel: 6660 2634  Fax: 24923765 Email : response@mediawareonline.com
Mediaware Gulf
P.O.Box No. 182620, Dubai Media City, U.A.E.
Tel: +9714 3681655 Fax: +9714 3688058 Email : m-e@mediawareonline.com