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