Dispersal of ownership (also ownership dispersal, dispersed media ownership) is a standpoint that opposes concentration of media ownership and mergers of media conglomerates. This position generally advocates smaller and local ownership of media as a way to realize journalistic values and inclusive media public sphere in the society.
Media ownership concentration is a state that fewer individuals or organizations control many and various media entities. For decades, this consolidation of media ownership has been progressive and also controversial in the United States. [1] A recent study shows that many media industries in many areas and countries are highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms. [2] Such media conglomerates own large numbers of companies in various media domains, such as television, radio, publishing, movies, and the Internet. For example, the Walt Disney Company, the largest media conglomerate in the United States in terms of revenue, [3] owns the ABC television network, cable channels (for example, ESPN, Disney Channels Worldwide, and ABC Family), and eight television stations. Moreover, they have radio stations such as ESPN Radio, and publishers like Marvel Comics. [4]
One of the most prominent critics on this issue, Robert W. McChesney, points out [5] that these media conglomerates can have a strong and harmful impact on media culture. According to him, media giants are most likely to be politically conservative, because they usually take advantage of the current social structure, and “any upheaval in property or social relations, particularly to the extent that it reduces the power of business, is not in their interest”. [5] He warns possible lack of views that can oppose current societal structure.
Other criticism comes from the aspects of mass media as business activities. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner, Michael J. Copps criticize concentrating and highly commercializing media ownership by mentioning that “when TV and radio stations are not longer required by law to serve their local communities and are owned by huge national corporations, viewers and listeners have become the products that broadcasters sell to advertisers.” [6]
In 2003, then FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell pushed to relax the FCC's long-standing rules on media concentration, which regulate the market share of cable networks in a market, the number of television stations owned by national networks, and newspaper-TV cross ownership. [7] Powell planned to allow a single company to own up to three television stations, eight radio stations, a local newspaper, a monopolized cable provider and an internet service provider in a single market. [6] He insisted that although FCC had a historic role to protect the diversity of news and information, the recent circumstances surrounding newspaper publishing and television industries forced them to form centralized institutions, for their own survival. [6]
C. Edwin Baker, the Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law and Communication at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, proposes rationale for the standpoint of media owner dispersal, in challenging this FCC's attempts of deregulating media ownership restrictions. [8] [9] [10]
This normative value is based on the egalitarian premise of democracy, the "One man, one vote" requirement. Baker advocates that this premise should be applied to voice in the public sphere, since voice influences and forms public opinion, more than vote does. In other words, voice can form public opinion and it can also provide the possibility of public deliberation. Consequently, this view leads to discussion that dispersal of media power should be maximized because the media is regarded as the central institution of domestic public sphere. [8] [9] [10] Therefore, according to this value, concentration of media ownership does essentially harm basic principle of democratic society. These are the backbones of the recommendation for a maximization of dispersed media power, which is ultimately represented by the ownership. [8] [9]
Regarding this egalitarian "equal voice" goal, Baker noted three caveats. [8]
The democratic distribution value that maximizes dispersal of media power must not overwhelm the competing value of allowing effective speakers to accumulate large audiences. However, Baker notes, [9] this does not mean that a single man can own multiple media outlets and entities. It only suggests that effective speakers are allowed to appeal to and obtain a great size of audiences. This “equal voice” goal should be understood as individual's guaranteed media experience, where they freely express themselves and see themselves and their views are included in public discourse. [8] [9] [10]
Dispersed media ownership contributes to equalizing the distribution of media power. Still, other policy measures will be needed because people who have the similar values, experiences, and perspectives tend to control media entities. Government should take care of these demographic commonalities and try to include different demographic groups in public discourse. [8] [9] [10]
Similar to the second point above, even legal efforts are also required to assure that different voices are represented in media entities. [8] [9] [10]
This view argues that wide dispersed media ownership function work as safeguard for democratic society. Baker suggests four examples on how this dispersed media ownership contributes to sound democratic society. [8] [9] [10]
Media conglomerates influence public opinion and may try to control influence over the public sphere. Dispersed ownership can prevent such abuse of power --- the "Berlusconi effect.". [8] [9] [10] The existence of the consolidated media power within the public sphere is a real danger. Democratic society cannot accept this risk of power abuse. Many countries have experienced abuse of the concentrated power implicit in conglomerate media ownership. In fact, in past, German media conglomerate allowed and even supported the rise of Hitler. [11]
Simply, dispersal media ownership results in putting more people and organizations into being watchdogs of the society. More people and organizations work as a watchdog, broader range of perspectives and more different insights, which can detect possible problems, will be brought to the society. As a result, more malfeasance and incompetence of the powerful can be scrutinized under the dispersed media ownership structure. [8] [9] [10] FCC also explained this aspect of diversified ownership in 1970 as follows:
A dispersed media structure increases the number of people who influence over potential corrupters. [8] [9] [10]
Media concentration worsens the problems of interest conflicts. Journalism is sometimes distorted by such conflicts of interest. In short, journalism is vulnerable to outside pressure. These journalistic distortions tend to occur with other media companies or multi-industry conglomerates for the promotion of other (commercial, financial, or political) interests. [8] [9] [10]
For example:
Dispersal of ownership can reduce such conflicts. [8] [9] [10]
Media conglomerates' primary focus is placed on the bottom line, sacrificing quality of journalistic reporting. According to Baker, [8] [9] [10] executives of conglomerate, especially private and publicly traded companies, without stable management structure, such as family or in-group ownership, tend to value profits over journalistic values. It is understandable because these executives in those media giants are most likely to be required to maximize the profit rather than to serve their community by high standard reporting. These executives are rewarded (or fired) on the basis of their ability (or inability) to increase the bottom line. They often take some of identity from their achievements of profit-making. These bottom-line concerns are encouraged by day-to-day interactions, such as business trades, not with the people of a community that they are supposed to serve, but with other stakeholders and other executives who also value higher profits than journalism. [8] [9] [10]
Two structural reasons can be suggested to explain why these executives and media owners are not only less inclined, but also less free to make the choice of sacrificing profits for journalism. [8] [9]
Contrarily, smaller, local owners who take aspects of identity from their contributions to their community and their journalistic outputs they produce; workers who take professional and journalistic pride in the quality of their reports; non-profit organizations whose goals are to serve their community tend to value journalism over financial profits. [8] [9]
Therefore, dispersal of ownership enhances quality of media contents.
Daniel Ho, an Assistant Professor of Law & Robert E. Paradise Faculty Fellow for Excellence in Teaching and Research at Stanford Law School and Kevin Quinn, an Associate Professor in Department of Government and Institute for Quantitative Science at Harvard University, criticize the claim that media consolidation reduces viewpoint diversity. They argue this “convergence hypothesis” is not empirically proven, but it has been recognized as “empirical bedrock” of FCC's regulation on media concentration. By adopting statistical techniques to previous five merger cases, they discuss that these media mergers, such as the merger of The New York Times and The Boston Globe , did not show any statistical correlation with reduction of viewpoint diversity on the media. [15]
Responding to their point, Baker argues back that they mistakenly pay attention to the impacts of mergers on viewpoint diversity. Baker argues that source diversity should be focused instead. [9]
There are several types of mass media in the United States: television, radio, cinema, newspapers, magazines, and web sites. The U.S. also has a strong music industry. New York City, Manhattan in particular, and to a lesser extent Los Angeles, are considered the epicenters of U.S. media.
Concentration of media ownership, also known as media consolidation or media convergence, is a process wherein fewer individuals or organizations control shares of the mass media. Research in the 1990s and early 2000s suggested then-increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated where a few companies own much of the market. However, since the proliferation of the Internet, smaller and more diverse new media companies maintain a larger share of the overall market.
Alternative media are media sources that differ from established or dominant types of media in terms of their content, production, or distribution. Sometimes the term independent media is used as a synonym, indicating independence from large media corporations, but generally independent media is used to describe a different meaning around freedom of the press and independence from government control. Alternative media does not refer to a specific format and may be inclusive of print, audio, film/video, online/digital and street art, among others. Some examples include the counter-culture zines of the 1960s, ethnic and indigenous media such as the First People's television network in Canada, and more recently online open publishing journalism sites such as Indymedia.
A media conglomerate, media company, media group, or media institution is a company that owns numerous companies involved in mass media enterprises, such as music, television, radio, publishing, motion pictures, video games, amusement park, or the Internet. The weekly magazine The Nation commented, "Media conglomerates strive for policies that facilitate their control of the markets around the world."
Media democracy is a democratic approach to media studies that advocates for the reform of mass media to strengthen public service broadcasting and develop participation in alternative media and citizen journalism in order to create a mass media system that informs and empowers all members of society and enhances democratic values.
In journalism, mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence many people and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought. The term is used to contrast with alternative media.
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC is the general title of a series of cases heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 2003 to 2019. A media activist group, Prometheus Radio Project, challenged new media ownership rules put forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2002. In the first court challenge in 2004, the Third Circuit overruled an attempt by the FCC to raise the limits of media ownership within markets and relax cross-ownership prohibitions, and determined that a diversity index used by the FCC had been formulated inconsistently.
Mass media in Colombia refers to Mass media available in Colombia consisting of several different types of communications media: television, radio, cinema, newspapers, magazines, and Internet-based Web sites. Colombia also has a national music industry.
Television, magazines, and newspapers in Bulgaria are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Bulgaria guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Bulgaria's media system is under transformation.
The mass media in Croatia refers to mass media outlets based in Croatia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Croatia guarantees freedom of speech and Croatia ranked 63rd in the 2016 Press Freedom Index report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, falling by 5 places compared to the 2015 Index.
The mass media in Slovenia refers to mass media outlets based in Slovenia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Slovenia guarantees freedom of speech and Slovenia ranked 40th in the 2016 Press Freedom Index report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, falling by 5 places if compared to the 2015 Index.
A duopoly is a situation in television and radio broadcasting in which two or more stations in the same city or community share common ownership.
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945), was a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. concerning both antitrust law and freedom of the press. The ruling confirmed that anticompetitive behavior in the news industry should be subjected to a First Amendment analysis on the ability of the public to receive information from multiple sources.
Media ownership in Canada is governed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), with regards to audiovisual media and telecom networks, as well as other agencies with more specific jurisdiction, in the case of non-broadcast media—like the Competition Bureau, with regards to competition matters and Department of Canadian Heritage regarding foreign investment in the cultural sector. The CRTC implements the policies of the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act within Canada but, because its jurisdiction is limited to these, does not regulate the ownership of newspapers or non-audiovisual Internet activity. They have taken press and non-audiovisual Internet activity into consideration in deciding on broadcasting matters. Thus far, the CRTC has undertaken very little regulation of Internet-based audiovisual programming.
The Media Access Project was a non-profit group that promoted the public's interest before Congress and the US court system. MAP grew out of a 1960s lawsuit against the United Church of Christ and was eventually formed in 1972 in order to advance the rights of the public wanting to participate in the democratic process. Some of their first cases involved two TV stations in Mississippi not catering to the African American Community, resulting in the stations almost being shut down. From that era and cases came the thought "that members of the viewing and listening public have the legal right, derived from the First Amendment, to participate in FCC proceedings." Their most common way of fighting cases was through lobbying. The group suspended operations on May 1, 2012.
Media cross-ownership is the common ownership of multiple media sources by a single person or corporate entity. Media sources include radio, broadcast television, specialty and pay television, cable, satellite, Internet Protocol television (IPTV), newspapers, magazines and periodicals, music, film, book publishing, video games, search engines, social media, internet service providers, and wired and wireless telecommunications.
On December 3, 2009, telecommunications company Comcast announced its intent to acquire mass media company NBC Universal from General Electric (GE). The acquisition was subject to scrutiny from activists and government officials; their concerns primarily surrounded the potential effects of the vertical integration that the acquisition could create, as Comcast is also heavily involved in cable television and internet services in many media markets. The deal went through on January 28, 2011, resulting in Comcast owning 51% of the company until March 19, 2013, when GE divested its stake to give Comcast sole ownership. Through this acquisition, Comcast gained ownership of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), the film studio Universal Pictures, cable channels such as Syfy, CNBC and MSNBC, and Universal Parks & Resorts, among other assets owned by NBC Universal. It has also integrated its own cable channels – including E! and Golf Channel – into NBC Universal. As a result of the acquisition, NBC Universal slightly changed its name to "NBCUniversal", rendered in camel case, to indicate the integration between NBC and Universal Studios.
Minority ownership of media outlets in the United States is the concept of having ownership of media outlets to reflect the demographic population of the area which the media serves. This is to help ensure that media addresses issues that are of concern to the needs and interests of the local population.
Radio homogenization is the shift in which previously locally programmed and hosted radio stations increasingly air remotely pre-recorded program material and central-cast via Internet or satellite.
Media ownership in Turkey is highly concentrated. According to experts, Turkish media ownership structure prevents citizens from receiving reliable information.