The Idea of Media Ownership Regulations - Case Study Example

Cross Media Ownership The Australian law restricts cross media ownership in same geographical regions of the country. A person owning commercial television channel covering 75% of the population in its license area cannot own a license for a commercial radio broadcasting service or a commercial newspaper. The same law applies to a person with a license for a commercial radio broadcasting service or a newspaper. Foreign investments are also restricted to 30%, with a 25% limit to any one shareholder. In 1988, when these laws came into effect, they made perfect sense, as cross media ownership and foreign investments in newspapers raised the issue of dilution of content. It gave room for cross media marketing and propaganda of vested interests for the stakeholders. For example, the Publishing and Broadcasting Limited owns a television channel, several magazines and a casino and this could result in cross promotion. But there is very little chance that a committed free press will dilute the news content where the welfare of the country is concerned. And today’s informed reader or viewer is intelligent enough to recognize even subtle traits of cross promotion and get news from more than one source. Direct foreign investments will also affect them little since international news is also consumed through the internet directly from the news organizations of the world countries. The media's role is to observe what goes on around us, inform the public about what we see, and if necessary expose to a healthy dose of the disinfectant called 'sunlight' what they are doing, and what they are not doing. When it comes to running governments, at any level, nothing beats transparency. (Hartigan, 2003) Charles Darwin said ‘survival of the fittest’. It is time the Australian Government looked at media ownership from that perspective. With the watertight compartments between different media crumbling away fast, it becomes mandatory to do away with the strict demarcations between print, television and radio and also abandon the ownership rules with respect to geographical boundaries. After all, the internet has made easy access to newspapers and video clippings possible and popular. The citizens will subscribe to the newspaper, channel or radio station that offers the best programs anyway. So, competition need not be something that the Government should control, but can be what the people decide is best. But at the same time, a democracy cannot function successfully if its citizens do not get free, objective information about the running of their country. Today, it is not the news organization that decides its audience, but vice versa. People decide which newspapers they want to read, which radio stations to tune into, which television channels to watch and which internet publications to subscribe to. International publications are available for them on their fingertips and it results in a way of using the media which was unheard of in the years when the media ownership laws were formulated. So, the concept of cross media and foreign ownership control in its present form loses its significance, when any one newspaper or TV channel or radio station can still monopolize the media in any region. The whole idea of media ownership regulations from the Government started in 1985, when a report of the study conducted by the Forward Development Unit of the Department of Transport and Communication suggested options to control cross-media ownership. These proposed changes were introduced by the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987 which amended the Broadcasting Act 1942. Under this legislation, a person owning a television licence could not own more than 15 per cent of a newspaper published 4 days per week which had more than 50 per cent of its circulation in the same area as that of the licence. However, a newspaper proprietor was restricted to owning just 5 per cent of a television licence in the same area. In order to effect passage of the Bill through the Senate, the Government reduced the maximum population reach for television licences from 75 per cent to 60 per cent (Gardiner-Garden and Chowns, 2006). These regulations were put forth to control concentration of media ownership and also encourage diversity in the news media of any particular geographical region. This law has lost its point with the advent of the internet and the new technologies, which has really seen the different media working hand-in-hand in terms of their content, programs and commercial impact. The Government’s stand point in issue has been one of giving the public a diverse mass media offering a variety of viewpoints, which will in turn, guarantee a perfect functioning of the fourth estate of democracy, namely the free press. What the Government should probably be looking at is encouraging diversity in terms of the newspapers, TV and radio stations that function in any particular area. The proposed amendment of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002, suggested a control over the cross media ownership that allowed exemptions subject to editorial conditions. The Australian Press Council came out strongly against it, stating the amendments to be against the working of a free press. Giving a government-appointed authority the proposed power over the press, even though limited, will nevertheless be an historic departure, the first ominous step toward government press control in this country. It will be an historic breach of democratic rights. Once print media independence from government is compromised, however innocently that first step is portrayed, there will exist the strong possibility of additional amendments, further limiting and managing the press (Australian Press Council Submission). Diversity of opinions through the commercial free-to-air media will only be a hypothetical situation if the law is continued in its present format. It will also make it easy for the Government to impose strict regulations of the media, because it will be looking at controlling just one newspaper or one TV station in a particular region. Taking an international example from the emergency rule proclaimed by Mrs. Gandhi in India in 1971, the free press survived despite many brutal attempts to curb it; just because of the multitude of newspapers that were circulating in the country made total Government almost impossible. There is no doubt that diversity in free press is all-important in a democracy. But instead of amending the existing Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act of 1988, we should probably be looking at new laws that will encourage new media organizations to come up and thus make room for diversity of opinion and proper checks and balances for the democratic government. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 suggested dangerous controls over the editorial policies of cross-controlled organizations and demanded a declaration of the nature of ownership on any publication or broadcasting other than advertisements. Rather than amending the cross media rules we should have laws to encourage diversity and pluralism, which encourage new entrants. They should be: flexible - so that, unlike the cross media rules, they are not soon outdated; technologically neutral - to allow for the blurring of boundaries between print and electronic which is already occurring; transparent - so that their application can be seen to be completely removed from the exercise of political patronage or punishment; and rely on quantitative assessment - so that their application removes as much subjective qualitative judgement as possible. (Flint, 1995) The proposed amendments of 2006, spelt out in a discussion paper from the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and Arts, allow for flexibility in terms of the digital media and also take a more liberal view on the foreign ownership in media in the country. The amendment proposes to remove the rules on newspaper-specific foreign investment and also allows for direct investments with prior approval from the Treasurer. Also, the paper proposes to restrict licenses for any new free-to-air television or radio stations. The cross-media rules would be amended to allow cross-media transactions to proceed, subject to there remaining a minimum number of commercial media groups in the relevant market (five in mainland state capitals, four in regional markets – the 5/4 rule). However, the ACCC would separately assess the competitive impacts of transactions, in accordance with the requirements of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Gardiner-Garden and Chowns, 2006). These amendments can rectify the current discrepancies that cross media ownership presents to the public. Cross promotion and concentration of ownership of media in a particular region comes under strict Government control under these regulations, but at the same time, the freedom of the press is not diluted in anyway, as was proposed by the 2002 amendments of the bill. If the amendments proposed under the Discussion Paper becomes law, one can safely assume that the freedom of the press in its role as a watchdog for democracy can be upheld and also ensure some kind of transparency in the news organizations too. The amendments have to be put in practice with the media and the Government checking abuse of power on each side, and function with the ultimate welfare of democracy in view. References: David Flint; A Dangerous Dinosaur, Australian Press Council News, Volume 7, No.3, August 1995 Media Ownership Regulation in Australia, Dr John Gardiner-Garden, Analysis and Policy, Social Policy Section and Jonathan Chowns, Analysis and Policy, Economics, Commerce and Industrial Relations Section, Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library, May 2006 John Hartigan, 2003 Annual Speech for the Australian Press Council News Submission from the Australian Press Council to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 Read More