Media Freedom and Regulation Essay Example

Concentration and Democracy' that opposing media ownership concentration is important for three main reasons. According to Baker (2006:6), the first reason is to achieve "a more democratic distribution of communicative power." He believes that the mass media, similar to elections, have a role in mediating between the public and the government.

The presence of fair and influential media platforms, along with elections, is crucial for a country to be considered democratic. Baker (2007:7) argues that the best way to achieve this democratic ideal of the public sphere is by ensuring an equal distribution of control over mass media ownership. The author emphasizes that this egalitarian approach will enable a wide variety of perspectives, preferences, and visions to be expressed and observed, which is essential for democracy.

The author argues against media ownership concentration, citing three main reasons. Firstly, he emphasizes the importance of "democratic safeguards" to prevent the abuse of communicative power. By dispersing media ownership widely, the risk of undemocratic and potentially irresponsible power is reduced. Secondly, he points out the negative consequences of concentrated media ownership, such as an individual decision maker exerting unequal and unchecked power. Lastly, Baker suggests that quality and financial considerations are also at stake when media ownership is concentrated.

According to Baker, the relentless pursuit of profits by companies and their focus on the bottom-line limits investment in creating desired news and cultural media content. This is particularly true among larger publicly traded conglomerates (ibid:29). Baker presents three reasons for opposing media concentration, all of which primarily consider its impact on the public. He also argues that failure to disperse or reduce media concentration goes

against democracy as it allows unequal decision-making by individuals or large corporations, especially when related to voting or other political activities. An example illustrating the use of communicative power for political gains is Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian President. Despite having no prior affiliation with any political party, Berlusconi was able to establish his own political party called Foza Italia due to his wealth as one of Italy's wealthiest individuals.

The text highlights how Berlusconi's control over 45 percent of nationwide television and influential print media allowed him to become prime minister in 1994 and be re-elected in 2001. He holds the record for being Italy's longest-serving president since World War II (ibid:18). This example shows that concentration of media can disadvantage the public by restricting viewpoints and opinions, leading to misinformation and manipulation. To address this issue, the government implemented regulations on media ownership to promote diversity.

The Communication Act 2003 currently regulates media ownership in the UK. This Act empowered the media regulation body 'OFcom' and replaced the separate bodies that previously regulated each media sector, such as the Independent Television Commission and The Radio Authority. The merger of these regulatory bodies was based on the belief that communication technologies were converging, allowing us to watch videos, send emails, and listen to radio online using our phones.

Initially, the convergence mentioned in the passing of the Act was more theoretical than practical. However, the introduction of advanced smartphones like the iPhone and new versions of gaming consoles such as the X-Box and Playstation has made this concept seem more feasible. The implementation of this Act eliminated rules regarding foreign ownership

and relaxed restrictions on cross-media ownership. In terms of cross-media ownership, a national newspaper group with a minimum 20% market share can now acquire Channel 5. However, newspaper groups with a 20% or greater share of the national market are still restricted from owning an ITV license.

According to the regulations set by Ofcom in 2009, a company can still have interests in an ITV licensed company as long as it holds less than 20% ownership. These regulations allow a company to have a significant control over the media market. An example of a company that has taken advantage of these regulations is Rupert Murdoch’s ‘News Corporation’. News Corporation owns various newspapers including The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, and The News of the World (now closed). Additionally, News Corporation owns 39. % of BSkyB, which previously owned a 17. 5% stake in ITVplc. However, in 2008, the Competition Commission ordered News Corporation to reduce its stake to no more than 7.5%. After fiercely fighting in court to retain its shares, News Corporation finally complied with the order in early 2010. The fact that media owners can heavily influence the content of their newspapers and news programs is a major reason why there should be regulation of media ownership. This becomes a genuine concern when their influence extends to political views and voting patterns.

The 1992 Conservative election victory is an example of Murdoch's paper influencing voting patterns. The headline "It's The Sun Wot Won It" appeared on the front page of The Sun on 11 April 1992, declaring their support for the Conservatives. Murdoch's papers have continued to have an influence

on foreign policies. For instance, The Guardian suggests that Murdoch's 175 papers' support for the Iraq war and downplaying of anti-war movements indicates a potential impact. The paper argues that censorship is not solely a state prerogative in a free enterprise system. Additionally, it is worth noting that Murdoch's papers traditionally supported the Conservatives in elections, but in 1997 they switched sides and heavily promoted Tony Blair and New Labour. This move was aimed at helping New Labour secure votes, and their victory ultimately led to the passing of the Communications Act 2003. This act relaxed regulations, allowing Murdoch to acquire more shares and increasing his power in the British Market.

The text highlights the significance of media ownership in shaping political activity, emphasizing the need for regulation. Despite this, some argue for a free market approach, believing it will meet consumer demands and promote healthy competition. However, deregulating the market can grant extensive and unchecked power to large corporations, bolstering media owners and shareholders while fostering the growth of oligopoly and monopoly.

If this happens, the focus will shift to profit rather than public service, shareholders will be prioritized over readers, listeners, and viewers. A free market will also give importance to advertising and neglect consumer interests once again. In relation to a free market fulfilling consumer desires, the Pilkington report of 1962 states that the phrase "to give the public what it wants" is misleading. It is misleading because it seems to appeal to democratic principles, but this appearance is deceiving.

The statement is both patronizing and arrogant. It assumes knowledge of what the public wants, but only defines it

as the mass audience. It also imposes limits on the public's choices, restricting them to average experiences. We completely reject this notion. If there is any way to consider its use, it should be about allowing the public to have the right to choose from a wide range of program content. Anything less than that would be considered deprivation. (Coase 1966: 442-44)

The deregulation and increased concentration of media ownership will undoubtedly limit the diversity of content and ownership, which are important aspects of the media regulation act. It is crucial to recognize the significant influence that owners of media companies have on their products' content. As mentioned earlier, this power can be abused to promote their own political agenda, resulting in a lack of accurate representation of society in the output produced by these media companies.

The regulation of media ownership is important as it safeguards the public from outside influences and works towards their best interest. A notable example highlighting the dangers of deregulation is Rupert Murdoch's recent business venture. In 2010, Murdoch made an effort to obtain the remaining 61% of BSKYB in order to achieve full control over the company. However, in June 2011, he was given approval but with certain conditions attached.

In order to fully control BSKYB while reducing concerns about monopolization, Sky News must be separated from News Corporation and become its own publicly listed company for a minimum of ten years. Under this agreement, News Corporation would retain a 39% ownership stake in Sky News. This separation would ensure that the editorial, governance, finance, and commercial aspects of Sky News are independent from

News Corporation, along with the majority of its directors (Sweney Guardian 2011). However, a potential issue remains as a 39% ownership stake still grants significant influence over the new entity.

If this bid is successful, Murdoch would obtain ownership and significant influence over a substantial segment of the market. Such a scenario requires regulation due to its profound impact on the British public. This particular deal highlights the essentiality of regulating media ownership. Many politicians acknowledged the necessity of regulation in this case and provided comments on it. Media analyst Claire Enders submitted a confidential report to the former Business secretary Vince Cable, outlining the risks associated with allowing Murdoch to proceed with this deal.

The author expresses concern about the possibility of media plurality being significantly reduced, which is deemed unacceptable. The author suggests that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to intervene by issuing a notice under the 'media public interest considerations' of The Enterprise Act 2002, as amended by the Communications Act 2003. Additionally, it is believed that this intervention is timely due to the increasing dominance of BSkyB in the UK TV market and News Corp in the UK newspaper market up until 2014.

The Secretary of State should prioritize this matter in the given window of opportunity (Enders:19). Despite concerns about plurality, Steven Baxter suggests that this deal could lead to future cross promotion among different News Corporation brands, improving the consumer experience. Baxter wonders if it would be possible to include a subscription to the Times or the Sun with broadband or TV channel packages.

Richard Desmond, known for his

various Northern and Shell products, is pioneering cross-platform promotions. It would be naive to believe that the new News Corp wouldn't follow suit and possibly improve upon these strategies. Nonetheless, these cross promotions alone will not guarantee a variety of content. Instead, these integrated platforms may enhance their control over public life in the United Kingdom.

Claire's report highlights the increasing influence of media owners, causing alarm. Eventually, due to pressure from individuals like Claire Enders and politicians, Murdoch decided to retract his bid for the remaining portion of BSkyB that he did not already possess. Rupert Murdoch has once again made headlines, this time regarding a scandal involving phone hacking. His publication 'News of the World' faced allegations of unauthorized access to voicemails belonging to various individuals, ranging from missing person Miller Dowler to notable figures such as celebrities, politicians, and staff members of the Royal family.

The hacking was exposed by the Guardian newspaper in 2002 and is still being unraveled today (August 2011). This revelation of the News of the World's actions has prompted calls for revising the rules on media ownership. It is argued that Rupert Murdoch's immense power in the British market was what gave News of the World employees the confidence to engage in hacking. Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, believes that allowing one person to own more than 20% of the newspaper market, the Sky platform, and Sky News is problematic. He states that such concentration of power has clearly led to abuses within Murdoch's organization, and it poses a danger in terms of minimizing abuses of power. Miliband also expresses doubts that

News International's abandonment of its bid for BSkyB, the resignation of its CEO Rebekah Brooks, and the closure of the News of the World are enough to restore trust and reassure the public (Helm & Doward Guardian 2011; Enders :19).

I think the Communication Act of 2003 should be revised because it has allowed cross media ownership to become excessive, resulting in Murdoch owning or controlling a significant portion of the market. The Broadcasting Act permits the regulator to consider the conduct of those managing and controlling licenses. Nevertheless, I believe this is insufficient and the Acts should impose stricter limitations on Murdoch's stakes and ownership to prevent him from attaining such power in the future.

According to Miliband, the existing media ownership regulations are obsolete and fail to take into account the effects of digital and satellite broadcasting. Nevertheless, there are those who believe that emerging technologies such as the internet can counteract concentrated media influence. Internet blogs allow individuals to voice their viewpoints and provide alternative outlooks, thereby reducing the control that media owners have over the British population.

The argument against this is that blogs lack the same level of exposure as newspapers and TV channels, which means that it is unlikely for the mass audience to be aware of them. Another point made is that the power held by media or cross media owners may be exaggerated and ultimately dependent on public acceptance. However, The Guardian newspaper argues that the media represents an indisputable force of influence, allowing a "power elite" to legitimize their perspective on global affairs and obtain consent for their actions, such as engaging in

war or advocating for austerity measures to address budget deficits.

According to Miliband Sr, the media primarily function as platforms for disseminating ideas and values that support existing power structures and privileges (Freedman Guardian 2011). The exposure of News International and Murdoch's influence has brought attention to media ownership regulations. However, if these rules are not revised, power will return to the hands of a few who prioritize their own interests over those of the public. A non-partisan group led by Philip Pullman argues that Britain is governed by an "untamed" elite responsible for various crises such as phone hacking and disputes over bankers' bonuses, which have had a negative impact on the nation (guardian web). The crises involving bankers' bonuses, politicians' expenses, and phone hacking are all interconnected events that have occurred in rapid succession. Bankers, politicians, and media moguls lack effective self-regulation abilities.

According to author Philip Pullman, it is the duty of the public to hold those in power accountable and ensure that their actions benefit the public's interests (Watt Guardian 2011). Pullman argues that media organizations should prioritize achieving success at all costs, even if it means disregarding compassion and betraying public concerns. He believes that prioritizing profit over public interest is not only unprofessional but also unrealistic (Edwards and Cromwell 2006:199).

The 'News of the World' is believed to have become corrupt due to their excessive methods of obtaining sensational stories and attracting a larger audience. This constant pursuit of a bigger readership is fueled by the aspiration for increased advertising revenue. In order to retain this readership, each news article must surpass its predecessors in grabbing

attention. The Guardian clarifies that News Corp's actions were driven by an insatiable hunger for more readers, market share, viewers, scoops, and influence without any sort of self-regulation or accountability.

Who within the company stood in opposition to this type of media dominance? Without revising regulations on media ownership, this greed will persist and public interest will be disregarded. Pullman proposes a randomly selected jury of 1,000 members of the public to establish a test of public interest, thus removing power from "distant interest groups."

A public jury, consisting of 56 academics, writers, and politicians from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party, was called for by The Guardian (Watt Guardian 2011). Pullman’s group believes that this proposed jury, which will consist of 1,000 individuals, will be able to provide suggestions for enhancing banking and politics. The areas that the jury will examine include media ownership, MP selection and accountability, policing and public interest. Additionally, they aim to implement a public interest first test to British political and corporate life (ibid).

In their book 'Guardian of Power', Edwards and Cromwell recommend that the media should primarily depend on individual subscribers to cover essential expenses, while discouraging financial support from large corporations (Edwards and Cromwell 2006:200). However, considering the substantial costs involved in printing and broadcasting, this proposal seems unfeasible. A more realistic approach would involve merging Pullman's idea of a public jury with imposing significant restrictions on the percentage of market ownership that an individual or company can have in the British market.

The current media ownership rules in the UK, in my view, do not effectively ensure plurality. This

is due to the policies permitting companies to have a significant market ownership percentage. The relaxation of regulation policies has resulted in media power being misused, emphasizing the necessity for regulation. Recent instances of power misuse demonstrate that self-regulation within the media industry is insufficient. Consequently, these existing policies have failed to safeguard the British public and thus necessitate revision.