MEDIA EXPANSION AND CONSOLIDATION: CASTING

PUBLIC VIEW IN NEW MOULD

The motivations and ethos surrounding the press barons of the 20th Century differs from

the driving-forces behind the multi-media tycoons that exist today. Unlike their

predecessors who were more interested in promoting their political perspectives,

entrepreneurs of recent years prefer to channel their efforts into acquiring more and more

outlets on various media platforms. Digitisation and convergence of technologies have

forced media companies to expand – traditional boundaries are eroding whilst

globalisation has caused an internationalisation of competition.

This rapid growth of communications industry fuelled by the expansion of media

corporations has meant that a new debate has been stirred –

“ Is there less diversity and choice while media conglomerates continue to grow in

both national and international markets within respective media segments and

across media segments ? ”

The following report attempts to discuss this issue through the following heads:

I. Defining the concepts – Media Consolidation/Concentration, Cross- Media

Ownership and Media Plurality

II. Pros and Cons of Media Consolidation in Context Of Their Influence On Media

Content

III. Regulation On Media Ownership – Balance Between Business and Editorial Sides

(A Comparative View Between Different Nations)

DEFINING THE CONCEPTS

Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation) refers to the

degree to which media ownership is concentrated. It is also a commonly used term that

refers to view that the majority of the media outlets are owned by a small number of

conglomerates and corporations. The term in that sense is used especially by those who

view such consolidation as detrimental, dangerous, or otherwise problematic.

Media concentration can occur in a variety of ways and for different reasons. Companies

can integrate horizontally and vertically or through product diversification and

internationalisation

Cross-Media Ownership: Refers to a media corporation owning media outlets in

different mediums like print, electronic, online, advertising, public relations, and the like.

Concentration developed initially primarily within single sectors of the media industry

(as for example with the early consolidation in film production and newspaper

publishing), but cross-media concentration has also been a major feature of recent

decades. There have been a lot of mergers and buyouts of media and entertainment

companies since the 1980s. Mainstream media has since become more concentrated in

terms of ownership.

Media Pluralism: By and large Pluralism is defined to mean, ensuring fair, balanced and

unbiased representation of a wide range of opinions and views which is a critical

requirement for functioning of modern democracies. Media sector today encompasses

diverse segments that include written press, television, radio broadcasting and electronic

communications over the internet. These developments may suggest that pluralism as an

objective is achievable today with the plethora of media available for the diffusion of

ideas.

MEDIA CONSOLIDATION FILES: A LOOK AT SOME OF THE BIGGEST

MEDIA CONGLOMERATES IN THE WORLD

1. BERTELSMANN:

Bertelsmann is one of the world's largest media companies. It owns RTL Group,

which is one of the two major private TV companies in both Germany and the

Netherlands and also owning assets in Belgium, France, UK, Spain, Czech and

Hungary. Bertelsmann also owns Gruner+Jahr, Germany's biggest popular

magazine publisher, including popular news magazine Stern and a 26% share in

investigative news magazine Der Spiegel. Bertelsmann also owns Random House, a

book publisher, #1 in the English-speaking world and #2 in Germany, Arvato, Direct

Group, VOX and Five, a part in M6 TV channel, and FremantleMedia North

America.

2. TIME WARNER:

Time Warner was the product of the 1989 merger between Time Inc and Warner

Communications, which brought together film production, TV, music and publishing

interests. Ted Turner’s media empire (including CNN) was acquired by Time Warner

in 1996. The $112 bn merger of AOL and Time Warner was, in 2000, the largest

merger in US corporate history.

The current portfolio includes: AOL (including Netscape, CompuServe), Time

Warner books, HBO (cable), CNN (cable news), Warner Bros (film studios and

television), magazines (Time, Fortune, etc), Warner Music group, Warner Brothers

theme parks, Turner Entertainment (including Cartoon Network) and a 50%

ownership stake in The CW Television Network.

3. VIVENDI:

Vivendi (formally the staid French water utility Générale des Eaux), transformed into

a global media giant with the 2000 deal with the Canadian company Seagram to

create Vivendi Universal. The Vivendi Universal deal also involved Vivendi buying

out minority shareholders to acquire full control of the important French and

European television channel Canal+.

In 2003 Vivendi sold its US film and media interests to NBC which then became

NBC Universal. Vivendi now owns Canal + Group, Universal Music Group and 20%

of NBC Universal.

4. DISNEY:

Disney is well regarded for providing wholesome family entertainment, with

numerous films, cartoons/animation movies and so on. It is considered one of the top

5 media corporations in US.

Portfolio: ABC network television, Walt Disney Pictures, Disneyland theme parks

and resorts, Walt Disney Co Book Publishing, magazine interests, Disney Channel.

Among other assets, Disney owns Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, ESPN, and

Miramax Films.

5. VIACOM :

Viacom developed its current shape in the middle and late1990s, first with the

acquisition of Paramount studios, Blockbuster and MTV and subsequently (in 1999)

with the addition of the CBS television network. Though technically separate

companies, CBS and Viacom have a large portion of common ownership through

Sumner Redstone's National Amusements.

Portfolio: Paramount Pictures, CBS network television, MTV television,

Nickelodeon, radio interests in US, Simon and Schuster (book publishers),

Blockbuster video, UCI cinemas (50% holding)

6. RUPERT MURDOCH/NEWS CORPORATION:

The media empire created by Rupert Murdoch originated in newspaper publishing,

but now encompasses film production, television and book publishing.

Apart of News Corp., he also owns British News of the World, The Sun, The Times,

and The Sunday Times, as well as the Sky Television network, which merged with

British Satellite Broadcasting to form BSkyB, and SKY Italia; in the US, he owns the

Fox Networks and the New York Post. Since 2003, he also owns 34% of DirecTV

Group (formerly Hughes Electronics), operator of the largest American satellite TV

system, DirecTV, and Intermix Media (creators of myspace.com) since 2005. He also

owns Star (Satellite Television Asia region) in Asia and HarperCollins

MEDIA CONSOLIDATION: THE WAY MEDIA COMPANIES WANT TO

LOOK

The logic of accumulation/ consolidation is not unique to media industries since all

capitalist enterprises exhibit innately dynamic and expansionist tendencies. As applied to

contemporary media, this insight suggests that any newspaper, TV, film or any media

company may be founded with the aim of serving a particular national culture or local

market, over time it must redeploy its creative resources and reshape its terrain of

operations if it is to survive competition and enhance profitability.

1. Whilst take-over bids and conglomerates are perceived to be a recent

phenomenon, the concept of mass press ownership has been present for over 100

years. The age of the press barons, at the turn of the last century, saw

entrepreneurs such as Lord Northcliffe owning 39% of all national morning

newspapers in UK.

2. Although defined by new technology and expansion, the ‘Northcliffe Revolution’

combined a “’popular-educator’ emphasis with a marketing sense which was

energetic, imaginative, daring and ruthless.” [Watson, 2001, pp 218]. Rather than

sparking any qualitative progression in journalism, the era was characterised by

sales-driven, attention-seeking, sensationalist stunts, with advertising as the

catalyst.

3. In the 1950s, the newspapers focused on maintaining the publications and family

tradition rather than innovating, but were still seen as ‘journalist-politicians’.

4. There have been a lot of mergers and buyouts of media and entertainment

companies since the 1980s. Mainstream media has since become more

concentrated in terms of ownership.

The various aspects where media corporations have sought to justify their

consolidation efforts are as follows:

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.”

Synergy between different mediums: Some media companies want to create a "synergy"

between their print/broadcast and online properties. They believe that "Newspapers will

add new resources to struggling television and radio enterprises, and those broadcast

outlets will strengthen newspapers as the number of media choices continue to explode in

a changing media environment.

The conglomerates insist changes are essential in order to compete and mass ownership

can actually improve content and save ailing publications from closure

Consolidation provides opportunities for making savings through sharing resources. Most

sectors of the news media are struggling to cope with declining revenues from both

advertising and sales, and are looking for ways to make savings in order to remain

profitable.

Consolidation allows savings to be made through economies of scale, without cutting

spends on actual journalism.

Simon Kelner, the Editor of The Independent, argues that editorially there are many

advantages to being underpinned by a large multi-national media organisation "There are

many benefits for our papers around the world in being able to use the journalism that is

in The Independent. It is not just a one-way street; we quite often use reports from our

papers in a remote part of South Africa, for instance, or a political piece from Ireland or

Australia. It is a two-way street in that respect"

Consolidation would allow more efficient and streamlined commercial operations, better

able to invest in original programmes and thus meet the challenge from a burgeoning

competition.

Access to better news management (e.g. from overseas and other media) and superior

talent (e.g. journalists and presenters); Improved access to overseas capital for investing in

the news function and Improved access to news gathering, editing and disseminating

technology are some more reasons being forwarded by large media corporations to drive

home the point that consolidation is necessary to ensure growth of business.

MEDIA CONSOLIDATION: DIVERSITY OF VIEWS GOES FOR A TOSS

Media should reflect the whole variety of ideas, viewpoints and opinions that exist in a

society and represent a wide range of political and cultural societal groups. A

concentrated media market has a disadvantageous impact upon pluralism and allow

media owners a heightened influence on public opinion.

It is important to elaborate upon the issue of media consolidation and its effect upon the

diversity of information reaching a particular market. Consumer advocates argue that

ownership concentration has serious political, social and cultural consequences and has

provoked a crisis in quality journalism.

Considering the important role that a free and diverse media takes on in a functioning

democracy, these questions become even more important. One of the major concerns that

arises from such concentration is that there are very few media owners in the mainstream

that reach out to the masses. As a result, there is the risk of reduced diversity of issues

and perspectives as well as undue political influence and interests from a few affecting

the many.

The different grounds on which media consolidation is considered a hindrance to sound

public opinion is as follows:

§ Critics of consolidation raise the issue of whether monopolistic or oligopolistic

control of a local media market can be fully accountable and dependable in

serving the public interest. If, for example, only one or two media conglomerates

dominate in a single market, the question is not only that of whether they will

present a diversity of opinions, but also of whether they are willing to present

information that may be damaging to either their advertisers or to themselves.

§ Different organization under different ownership may buy the same news

stories from the same news-supplier agency. Overall, in a system where all

different media organizations gather their stories from the same source, then we

can’t really call that system pluralist.

§ "Sameness"of thinking between different mediums under common ownership:

A local television station owned by a newspaper can simply televise a summary

of the paper's content, offering no benefits to the consumer, yet it will still be able

to dominate the local political and cultural discourse.

§ The savings to be made by sharing resources amongst titles is enormous, but

can be problematic when journalistic expertise is shared. Editors admit that the

levels of possible savings are not worth jeopardising the independence of each

title for. Diversity would certainly take a battering if human resources were

pooled internally in media corporations.

§ Vested interests in other areas can also affect content exemplified perfectly in

the mid-1990s when Rupert Murdoch and his publications supported the Labour

Party in UK in return for allowing him to continue expanding his monopolist

empire. In Italy, current PM Silvio Berlusconi has used the media assets he owns

to advance his political career. Berlusconi is the major shareholder of - by far -

Italy's biggest (and de facto only) private free TV company, Mediaset, Italy's

biggest publisher, Mondadori, and Italy's biggest advertising company Publitalia.

One of Italy's nationwide dailies, Il Giornale, is owned by his brother, and

another, Il Foglio by his wife. While in power, he has also used the state

broadcaster, RAI to promote his political interests.

§ Owners of the media influence the content and form of media content through

their decisions to employ certain personnel, by funding special projects, and by

providing a media platform for ideological interest groups.

§ Consolidation actually has the effect of reducing investment in original

journalism as new owners seek to maximise returns to investors and

shareholders. Darius Walker, the New York bureau chief of CNN, says that

consolidation has been bad for diversity and quality. He believes that the drive for

money and more profitability invariably meant that news and research were

sacrificed, reducing quality and the number of voices available.

§ Local journalism is an area many feel is particularly at risk when large national

or global companies take-over small locally-owned businesses. Unique local

programming gets jeopardised by greater homogenisation of opinion and news.

Clearchannel Communications, US was at the forefront of public criticism that

national programming was subsuming local interests. For example, in Minot,

North Dakota in 2002, the New York Times claimed that the local Clearchannel

station did not report a train derailment of toxic chemicals. This was widely

attributed to centralisation of news production.

§ Cross-promotion of other parts of the business within large organisations can

affect the impartiality of news. In 2001 the US organisation, The Project for

Excellence in Journalism, published a study that found media outlets tend to

cover their parent companies products much more than others, but only declare

the link 15% of the time.

§ Many of the large media company owners are entertainment companies and

have vertical integration (i.e. own operations and businesses) across various

industries and verticals, such as distribution networks, toys and clothing

manufacture and/or retailing etc. That means that while this is good for their

business, the diversity of opinions and issues we can see being discussed by them

will be less well covered and their criticisms almost non-existent.

“Plurality of opinion requires journalistic competition, i.e. opinions competing at the

intellectual and journalistic level. Even if more than one company is licensed to

broadcast private television, this does not eliminate the danger of dominating public

opinion. Some of the risks relevant under plurality aspects are, above all, a tendency

towards business concentrations and to producing predominantly homogenous

content with mass-appeal which is particularly prevalent in media markets.”

-The German Commission on Concentration in the Media

(Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration

im Medienbereich, KEK)

MEDIA OWNERSHIP REGULATION – A BALANCING ACT

Both electronic media and print media are vulnerable to problems of concentration of

media power. This is all happening within the existing rules and regulations of national

and international market places.

The diversity gains which have been made on account of growth of media are in danger

of slipping, leading the commentators to argue that this tendency towards concentration is

a direct threat to democracy and informed public debate while others argue that media

concentration has little or no effect on diversity. The truth probably lies somewhere

between the two extremes which is why the issue is so contentious and eludes

consensus on policy and regulatory frameworks.

· The Media Ownership rules are designed to strike a balance between ensuring a

degree of plurality on the one hand and providing freedom to companies to expand,

innovate and invest on the other hand.

· One of the main objectives for having such rules on accumulation of interest to

provide for competition, diversity and plurality of players, news and views in a

democratic country and also to ensure that the delivery platforms owned by

broadcasters do not block competition/content from others.

· Since concentration has been an increasing market reality and public concern over the

last two decades, attention is being directed by governments, regulators, interest

groups and media companies themselves to find mechanisms that preserve and

enhance diversity.

MAINTAINING THE BALANCE IN COMMUNICATION POLICIES:

§ The distinctive feature of the (mass) media that they serve multiple, at times

conflicting public interests (economic and non-economic) and thus fulfill a dual

function. Media products and services are economic and cultural goods at the

same time, i.e., commodities and constitutive elements of public-opinion

formation.

§ This dual character results in a value conflict in media policy: from a public-

policy point of view, communications policy is intended to accommodate both

economic and cultural values so as to enable media (industries) to meet both

economic goals and central, often constitutionally granted functions in society

§ This value conflict is particularly evident whenever media concentration issues

arise as a result of the need to align two “competing” interests: the safeguarding

of competition, on the one hand, and the securing of media

plurality/diversity/pluralism, on the other

§ While many argue in favor of an integrated regulation, because, among other

things, it removes regulatory inconsistencies and reduces transaction costs, others

caution regarding the incompatibility of the regulatory traditions in media and

telecommunications and hint at the possibility that public interest objectives such

as cultural and societal issues could eventually be neglected, resulting in reduced

media plurality altogether

§ Ultimately, as the diversity of services and choice of content from different

owners in the market increase and as the consumer acquires increasing levels of

choice over what sources of news they use and when, the features and need for

specific ownership rules to guarantee plurality will undergo change.

Figure 1: Regulatory objectives in the mediamatics sector (broadcasting,

telecommunications, the press, Internet). Source: Latzer et al. 2003: 105.

Can a competition regulation serve the purpose? While competition regulation can

successfully tackle economic competition between firms, it has widely acknowledged

limitations as a means of regulating for pluralism and diversity. The public policy

concept underpinning anti-monopoly measures concerns the effects of concentration on

the public interest rather than on competition. Communications regulation needs to be

based on the recognition that media contribute to pluralism, diversity and quality of

information and hence require a separate regulatory structure from that which governs

other parts of the national and global economy.

To quote The Competition Commission, UK: “Whether or not they raise competition

concerns, certain mergers raise public interest considerations. Media mergers in

particular may raise plurality concerns because they might concentrate newspaper

and other media ownership in too few hands, to the detriment of the quality of

journalism and broadcasting”

MEDIA REGULATION IN SELECT NATIONS: A BRIEF LOOK

1. UNITED KINGDOM:

The UK media are regulated by the Office of Communications (OFCOM). It was set

up by a new Act in 2003, which also changed the ownership rules. The media

ownership rules (“MO rules”) are special rules governing the ownership of television,

radio and newspapers in the UK.

The MO rules provide that:

§ No person may acquire a commercial TV channel license if he or she runs one

or more national newspapers with an aggregate market share of 20% or more;

and

§ The holder of a commercial TV channel license may not acquire an interest of

20% or more in a body corporate running one or more national newspapers

with an aggregate market share of 20% or more.

The justification for these rules is that commercial TV channel and national

newspapers have a special influence.

House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, UK made a special

observation on the issue of regulating media mergers:

“Locally, nationally and internationally, the news media are becoming

concentrated in fewer hands, and that brings with it risks in a democracy.

Consolidation can reduce the number of voices available to the public; it can

mean that disproportionate power to influence government and the political

process is placed in a few hands. That is the risk and that is why we believe

there remains a need for a special regime to cover media mergers.”

2. UNITED STATES:

The US has gone through a series of deregulation initiatives particularly since the

overhaul of the Telecommunications Act in 1996. The Act built on the original 1934

Communications Act and was the first substantial change to the industry in 62 years.

Telecom (Cable and Telephone), Broadcasting (Radio and Television), and the

Internet were all part of what has been described as enabling “radical changes” in the

Industry. The 1996 Telecommunication Act did not allow cross ownership between

broadcast and newspaper companies

Ownership regulation was not a major source of political and public outcry in 1996

but it became so when, in a mandated review in 2003, the FCC attempted to further

relax the rules. It released an order that replaced the existing newspaper-broadcast

station and radio-television station cross-ownership limits with a new rule setting a

single set of media cross-ownership limits. Several parties challenged these new rules

in federal court. In June 2006, the FCC opened a new phase of its broadcast

ownership rulemaking to reconsider the remanded rules

Radio/TV Cross-ownership rule : A person may own up to 6 commercial radio

stations and 2 commercial TV stations, or 7 commercial radio stations and 1

commercial TV station, in a particular market, provided that at least 20 independently

”media voices” remain in that market. A media voice in this context comprises radio

stations and TV stations (both commercial and non-commercial), cable television

systems and newspapers of general circulation.

Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule: The rule, put in place in 1975,

prohibits common ownership of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same

market. A person may not own a full-service broadcast station (either a radio station

or a TV station) and a daily newspaper when the broadcast station’s service area

covers the newspaper’s city of publication

3. CANADA:

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in

January, 2008 introduced new policies to ensure that a diversity of voices is

maintained in the Canadian broadcasting system. CRTC has developed an approach

to preserve the plurality of voices and the diversity of programming available to

Canadians, both locally and nationally, while allowing for a strong and competitive

industry. The new policy restricting cross-media ownership has the following main

features:

The Commission reaffirmed its existing common ownership policies under which, a

person may own no more than one conventional television station in one language in

a given market.

The CRTC decided to restrict cross-media ownership in order to ensure that

Canadians continue to benefit from a range of perspectives in their local news

coverage. Under the new approach, a person or entity may only control two of the

following types of media that serve the same market:

§ A local radio station,

§ A local television station, or

§ A local newspaper. No single person or entity controls all three types of

media at this time.

4. AUSTRALIA:

The Amendment to the Broadcasting Service Act of 1992 was passed in April 2007.

It introduces key concepts relating to media ownership including prohibitions relating

to unacceptable media diversity situations and unacceptable 3-way control situations.

On the issue of cross ownership, the Government proposed relaxing the rules on

TV/Radio/newspaper ownership in a given market subject to a diversity test and the

maintenance of the current limits on ownership:

§ A person must not be in a position to control more than one TV license in a

market.

§ A person must not be in a position to control more than 75% reach of the

national audience for commercial television.

§ A person must not be in a position to control more than two radio licenses in a

market

The Government considered that “media diversity would be best served by clear

protection against excessive ownership concentration among traditional media

outlets, combined with a liberalization of market entry opportunities and relaxed

regulatory barriers for new platforms and services.”

Disclosure of Cross-media relationships: The Broadcasting Services

Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 introduced new provisions for the

disclosure of cross-media relationships into the Broadcasting Services Act 1992

(the BSA). The provisions require commercial television broadcasting licensees,

commercial radio broadcasting licensees and newspaper publishers to publicly

disclose cross-media relationships if they broadcast or publish matter about the

business affairs of another party in a set of media operations.

5. GERMANY:

Media regulation rests with various state governments in Germany (Lander) as called

for by their constitution. However, there has been a great deal of work done in

harmonizing their ownership and diversity regulations to create a national policy. The

German Cartel Office (BKA) and The Commission on Concentration in the Media

Industry (KEK) regulate competition in the media environment as per the Inter-state

Treaty on Broadcasting.

The rules provide for intervention if a company’s media holdings (including

newspapers) comprise more than 30% of a viewer share in a year. This is considered

a predominate impact on public opinion. There are no specific restrictions on cross

ownership between radio and television beyond the principle of predominate impact.

MEDIA OWNERSHIP REGULATION IN INDIA : AN OUTLOOK

The Indian Entertainment and Media (E&M) industry is undergoing remarkable change

and is today one of the fastest growing sectors in the country. The entertainment industry

is a blend of creativity and commerce and provides vast investment opportunities. The

E&M industry worth was estimated to be Rs 513 billion in 2007, up from Rs 438 billion

in 2006. According to a report by FICCI and Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the Indian

entertainment and media industry is poised to become one trillion rupees (Rs100, 000

crore) industry by 2011.

There has been emerging evidence of consolidation in Indian media. As per media

scholar Robin Jeffrey, there has been overwhelming dominance of two newspapers (per

language) in seven of India's 13 major languages as detailed in the 2003 edition of his

landmark book, India's Newspaper Revolution.

If this is the trend within the large, privately owned, and traditionally diverse print media

sector it is unlikely that the relatively new, even more capital-intensive private broadcast

sector is any different, especially with the rise of cross-media ownership and the blurring

of boundaries between old and new media. Already several media houses have stakes in

print, radio, television, Internet and cable operations like:

ZEE GROUP: Beginning with a single channel in 1992, Zee TV, this media

conglomerate has since taken long strides under its visionary chairman, Subhash

Chandra. With calculated strategies, Zee ensured that within electronic media, it was the

pioneer in different areas like satellite TV, cable services and launching a multitude of

news and entertainment channels which stretched regionally as well as internationally. In

2006 the demerger process of Zee Telefilms Limited (ZTL) was initiated. Its news and

regional entertainment channel business was demerged from it to Zee News Limited and

it was renamed Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Its cable and wireless business was

branched out in separate entitities called Wire and Wireless India Limited (WWIL) (Cable

related business) and ASC Enterprises Limited (Consumer services and Dish TV)

The following channels form the Zee portfolio: Zee TV, Zee Cinema, Cartoon Network,

Zee Marathi, Zee News,CNN, Zee Café, Zee Studios, Zee Bangla, Zee Gujrathi, Zee

Punjabi, Zee Trendz, Reality TV, HBO, POGO, Zee Business, Zee Classic, Zee Action,

Zee Premier, Zee Sports, Zee Telugu, Zee Kannada, Play TV, ETC Punjabi, ETC, Zee

Music, Zee Jagran, Zee Smile, 24 Ghante, 24 Taas, Zee Talkies, Zee Next.

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED (BCCL) {TIMES GROUP} :

Unarguably, the country’s biggest and leading media conglomerate, Times Group stands

testimony to the growth of Times of India, one of the country’s oldest and widely-read

newspapers, into a major media corporation with interests spanning: printing and

publishing, distribution and services, online services, retail, Medianet, television,

multimedia, corporate, radio, outdoor, events and music.

Under the chairmanship of Indu Jain and managed at the helm of operations by Samir

Jain and Vineet Jain, the Times Group has spread itself well in every media possible in

the country and exert a great deal of influence on the way people approach media and

their outlook. It stretches across 11 publishing centers, 15 printing centers, 55 sales

offices and over 7000 employees. Its publications are diversified into 5 dailies, 2 lead

magazines and 29 niche magazines reaching 2468 cities and towns.

Its major brands include The Times of India, the Economic Times, magazines-

Filmfare, TopGear, Femina, Radio Mirchi (FM stations), Indiatimes web portal, Times

Now (a news channel JV between Reuters and the Times Group) and Zoom (an

entertainment channel) and Planet M.

NEW DELHI TELEVISION (NDTV): Beginning with very successful programme The

World This Week on Doordarshan in 1988, Prannoy Roy- led NDTV has since diversified

into a very successful, independent media house which has established itself as one of

India’s premier English news channels. Boasting of household names like Barkha Dutt

and Vikram Chandra, NDTV has been at the forefront of providing good-quality news.

After successfully dabbling in news, recently NDTV launched its entertainment division

which has launched some new entertainment channels

The major brands include: NDTV 24X7, NDTV PROFIT, NDTV INDIA, NDTV

Imagine, NDTV Showbiz, NDTV Good Times, NDTV Convergence and NDTV Lumiere

Media Ownership Regulation In India:

§ In area of Cross-media Ownership, India is yet to format some rules, though the

draft Broadcasting Bill, 2007 (Section 12) does have provisions related to that -

Two clauses restrict cross-holdings between broadcasters (e.g., television

channels) and network operators (e.g., cable and DTH companies). Another

proposes restrictions on the number of channels a broadcaster can control within a

city or a state; a ceiling at the national level is also mooted. The clause relating to

cross-holdings across media segments (print and broadcast, for example) at

present only gives the government the right "to prescribe eligibility criteria and

restrictions... from time to time."

§ However, it is not clear whether the government's intent is to restrict market

presence (in terms of media outlets) or market share, and within the latter whether

the criteria relate to revenues or audience. The draft also stops short of fully

addressing what media reports have loosely termed "cross-media ownership”

§ In area of vertical integration, restrictions on consolidation have been placed only

in the Guidelines for obtaining license for providing Direct-To-Home (DTH)

Broadcasting Service in India, vis-à-vis broadcasters and cable operators.

{License Agreement annexed to the DTH Guidelines}

§ Restrictions on market share in the city/ state /country within a media segment

have been placed only in the case of private FM radio. The policy permits the

applicants to bid for only one channel per city and have no more than 15% of the

channels in the country. {Grant Of Permission Agreement (GOPA) for

Operating FM Radio Broadcasting Service (Phase II)}

§ To ensure the smooth growth of communications industry in India and meeting

public interest concerns, it is important that the issues of cross media restrictions

are to be addressed in an inclusive manner covering broadcasting services, print

media and other miscellaneous ownership within the fold of telecom, information

and broadcasting.

CONCLUSION:

· Research offers mixed results when examining whether journalistic quality is

affected by ownership concentration. It is, however, obvious that omissions occur

to protect vested interests and local news usually suffers.

· The need for media regulation is beyond question. There is little doubt that

ownership issues are legitimate concerns within media regulation. The question is

how regulation is to be approached and implemented.

· What standard of ownership concentration is economically and politically

appropriate and what is socially acceptable? The implications of alternative

standards are controversial in regulatory circles, in popular public policy debates,

as well as in communication and media policy studies. The question for media

and communication studies to be researched is whether a meaningful contribution

to a profound public policy debate can be made on the problem of media

ownership and concentration.

“The threat does not lie in the commercial operation of the mass media. It is the

best method there is and, with all its faults, it is not inherently bad. But narrow

control, whether by government or corporations, is inherently bad. In the end, no

small group, certainly no group with as much uniformity of outlook and as

concentrated in power as the current media corporations, can be sufficiently open

and flexible to reflect the full richness and variety of society’s values and needs. …

The answer is not elimination of private enterprise in the media, but the opposite.

It is the restoration of genuine competition and diversity.”

— Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly

REFERENCES:

1. The Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rules and the Public Interest -

Lorna Veraldi, Florida International University

2. Global Concentration in the Media – Andrew Bibby, Union Network

International (UNI)

3. Expanding media market and shrinking public space - Poornananda

Dasegowdanakoplu, Mangalore University

4. Consultation Paper on Media Ownership - Telecom Regulatory Authority of

India (TRAI), September 2008

5. New media or more of the same? The cross-media ownership debate -

Christian Downie and Andrew Macintosh, The Australia Institute

6. Cross-Media Relations: A Challenge for Media Concentration Control - The

German Commission on Concentration in the Media (Kommission zur Ermittlung

der Konzentration im Medienbereich, KEK)

7. The Politics And Policy Of Media Ownership – Ben Scott, American University

Law Review

8. Cross Media Ownership - Asim Kumar Mitra, The Organiser

9. Media Ownership – Does It Matter? - Werner A. Meier

10. Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership - Anup Shah,

Global Issues

11. Media concentration and democracy : Why ownership matters - C. Edwin

Baker

12. Whose media are they anyway? – Ammu Joseph, India Together

13. House Of Lords Select Committee on Communications First Report –

Parliament of United Kingdom

14. What are the reasons for and consequences of ownership concentration in the

newspaper industry? – Thomas Grundy

15. Cross-Ownership, Quality, and How the Future May Look – Al Tompkins,

Poynter Online

16. Concentration Of Media Ownership – Wapedia

17. India On Television – Nalin Mehta, Harper Collins

18. Media Industries: History, Theory And Method – Jennifer Holt and Alisa

Perren, Wiley- Blackwell

ABHISHEK TYAGI

B.A JOURNALISM (HONS.) III YEAR

ROLL NO. - 13