Press ownership in United Kingdom is largely governed by
\nCommunications Act 2003, Enterprise Act 2002, The Broadcast Act 1996 and
\nCompetition Act 1998. <\/p>\n
Following the Leveson Inquiry in 2011, United Kingdom has been examining the state of its media<\/a>.[1]<\/a> Media concentration raises specific concerns regarding ownership in terms of political, cultural as well economic areas.[2]<\/a> Economically it affects the productive growth economically in form of competition and the market reality points out increasing number of media companies owned by the same parent company. [3]<\/a> This essay will first show that we need stricter press regulation laws against powerful corporations such as News UK and Trinity Mirror to strengthen plurality of sources and diversity of content. The essay will then discuss how print readership is on the decline because of convergence. Then it will explain then showed that since United Kingdom does not have legal boundaries on foreigners owning print media, we are now experiencing deterioration of media pluralism<\/p>\n The primary aim of establishing ownership rules for There have been evidences from former editors of newspapers like Daily Mirror and Sunday Telegraph that the newspaper owners openly meddled with the contents of the newspaper.[7]<\/a> In 2007 Council of Europe highlighted that \u2018media pluralism and diversity of media content are essential for the functioning of a democratic society and are the corollaries of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information\u2019.[8]<\/a> While media pluralism serves the public interest, it is not in itself the public interest.[9]<\/a> The main UK media plurality rules are set out in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002<\/a> which permits certain media mergers within the print industry on the basis of plurality grounds.[10]<\/a> One of the main issues with this provision is that a plurality review can only be started in the context of a media merger.[11]<\/a> Structural and behavioural interventions in relation to editorial freedom can often assert ineffectiveness given the enduring power relations as well as subtle means of pressure that has no legal ways as evidenced by Sir Harold Evans (former editor of the Times and the Sunday Times).[12]<\/a> Even the European Parliament has time and again supported legislative mediation to safeguard media plurality and has continued to push for action.[13]<\/a> Leveson Inquiry has revealed that avoiding significant merger has led powerful media personalities to seek unethical media activities to influence their power against political leaders with an agenda.[14]<\/a> This shows that we need stricter press regulation laws against powerful corporations such as News UK and Trinity Mirror to strengthen plurality of sources and diversity of content. This essay will then discuss stricter regulation for cross media ownership may eventually help in protecting media pluralism and diversity of content. This essay will then discuss the ineffectiveness of EU law to properly address the problem of press ownership regulation. <\/p>\n Protecting media plurality An Ofcom study conducted in An Ofcom After a long gap of Convergence is not just There are no formal In conclusion, there needs Collins, R. (2003). Enter Ownership of the Media in Cox, B. (2000), Media Doyle, G. (2000). The European Commission, Green Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Grahamn, C. (2004). The Krumsvik, A. H. (2015) Digital Competences, Digital Journalism<\/em>, 3:5, 777-790<\/p>\n Lord Justice Leveson\u2019s Letter from National Union Media Reform Coalition, the Media Trust and Goldsmiths Murdoch’s Sky bid: what next https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2018\/jan\/23\/rupert-murdoch-sky-bid-what-next-for-the-media-mogul<\/a><\/p>\n Ofcom, Report to the under Section 391 of the Smith, R.C. (2013). Smith, R. C. & Tambini, Winseck, D. (2008). The Why US media giants are https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/business\/2018\/mar\/03\/why-us-media-giants-are-eyeing-sky-and-what-any-deal-might-mean<\/a><\/p>\n Communications Act 2003<\/p>\n Enterprise Act 2002<\/p>\n Competition Act 1998<\/p>\n Treaty on European Union<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Media Reform Coalition, the [2]<\/a> Gillian Doyle. (2006). Media ownership<\/em>. London: SAGE [3]<\/a> Petros Iosifidis, n. d. and Barry [4]<\/a> Petros Iosifidis. Media Ownership and Concentration in the [5]<\/a> Media Reform Coalition [2014]<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> ibid.<\/em><\/p>\n [7]<\/a> ibid<\/em><\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Recommendation CM\/Rec(2007)2 on Media Pluralism and Diversity of Media [9]<\/a> Media reform. The Media and The [10]<\/a> The Enterprise Act 2002 s.58<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Smith, R.C. (2013). Reviewing [12]<\/a> HLSCC, Evidence Session 11 (n 31) [13]<\/a> European Parliament Civil [14]<\/a> Leveson Inquiry (2012)<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> Media Reform Coalition (April 24, 2014) p. 16<\/p>\n [16]<\/a> Ofcom (2014)<\/p>\n [17]<\/a> Schedule 14 of Communications Act [18]<\/a> Ofcom, Report to the Secretary of [19]<\/a> Ofcom (2014)<\/p>\n [20]<\/a> Ofcom, \u2018Review of Local Media: [21]<\/a> Enders Analysis, \u2018Media Ownership [22]<\/a> Ofcom, Report to the Secretary of [23]<\/a> Murdoch’s Sky bid: what next for [24]<\/a> Treaty of European Union<\/p>\n [25]<\/a> Doyle, G. (2006)<\/p>\n [26]<\/a> Green Paper on Preparing for a [27]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n [28]<\/a> European Commission, Green Paper [29]<\/a> Media Trust and Goldsmiths [30]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n [31]<\/a> Ofcom (2007)<\/p>\n [32]<\/a> Richard Collins (2003) Enter the Ownership [33]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n [34]<\/a> [35]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\nPlurality of sources and diversity of content <\/h3>\n
\nnewspapers are to to safeguard plurality of owners and to give consumers
\nvarious sources of news and information.[4]<\/a> A very
\nconcerning fact is that three companies such as (News UK, DMGT, Trinity Mirror)
\nown 70% of the national newspaper circulation.[5]<\/a> Five
\ncompanies control 70% of the regional daily newspaper circulation.[6]<\/a> This
\nshows that ownership concentration has reached endemic levels. <\/p>\nEffects of Cross Media Ownership <\/h3>\n
\nmay be affectively done if there is strong regulation of cross media ownership.
\nIt is also a way for local media companies to consolidate its radio, television
\nand printing press and produce similar content across all media.[15]<\/a> In the Measuring Media Plurality report, Ofcom
\nhas suggested that a diversity in viewpoints can effectively prevent any one
\nmedia from influencing public opinion or serving a particular political agenda.[16]<\/a> Schedule 14 of The Communications Act 2003
\nstates the cross media ownership rules and it includes consideration of company
\ngroups and also familial relationships. As specified in Part 1 of Schedule14,
\nno person may acquire a Channel 3 licence if he or she runs one or more
\nnational newspapers with an aggregate market share of 20% or more.[17]<\/a> The national cross-media ownership rule prohibits
\na newspaper owner with a market share of 20% or more of newspaper circulation
\nfrom holding a Channel 3 licence or a stake in a Channel 3 licensee that is
\ngreater than 20%. This helps
\nprotect plurality of sources and diversity of content in UK media ownership and
\nprevents the biggest newspaper operators from acquiring one of the biggest
\ncommercial broadcasters in the UK.[18]<\/a> This provision helps prevent undue influence
\nthat media conglomerates can use for self-serving agendas.[19]<\/a> <\/p>\n
\n2009 explains local media pluralism is not amongst the priorities for the
\npublic. Respondents were more concerned with single ownership amongst the local
\nmedia and were not concerned about cross media ownership.<\/p>\n
\nstudy conducted in 2009 explains local media pluralism is not amongst the
\npriorities for the public. Respondents were more concerned with single
\nownership amongst the local media and were not concerned about cross media
\nownership.[20]<\/a> Some academics believe that urgent reform is
\nrequired to redress the endemic concentration in the press markets.[21]<\/a> However Ofcom disagrees and asserts that cross
\nmedia merger laws should be retained.[22]<\/a> Recently Rupert Murdoch has been on the
\nspotlight as he is being investigated by the UK competition regulator for the \u00a311.7bn
\nbid which has consistently been called a deal against the public interest
\nbecause it would give the Murdoch family \u201ctoo much control over news providers
\nin the UK, and too much influence over public opinion and the political
\nagenda\u201d. By buying 61% of Sky Murdoch would own what it does not already making
\nhim the sole owner of Sky News. A three week consultation examining has been
\nlaunched by The Competition and Markets Authority referring to Sky News that
\ncould allow the deal to go through. The three options include to stop the deal,
\na potential spin-off or sale of Sky News or to keep Sky News as part of Sky but
\nto question its independence to address concerns about Murdoch\u2019s influence,
\nsuch as an independent board and funding guarantee.[23]<\/a> Hence, stricter regulation for cross media
\nownership may eventually help in protecting media pluralism and diversity of
\ncontent. <\/p>\nEuropean Union Law <\/h3>\n
\ninaction, European Union started to engage with the question of media pluralism
\nafter both internal and external pressures. Article 11.4 was introduced to
\nincrease support amongst the public for legislative intervention.[24]<\/a> European Laws function on the open market for
\nthe most part and hence the aim is multilateralism and as is the way of
\nglobalisation to be at an equilibrium state.[25]<\/a> Media pluralism is being addressed by the
\nEuropean Commission in its Green Paper focusing on the controlling of public
\naccess to information as well as
\ndistribution platforms.[26]<\/a> However, European laws too affect Competition
\nlaws which can be a duplication of the national laws as there is ineffective
\ncoordination between the two legal systems which are resulting in repetition. At
\nEU level, Mergers may be subject to competition law and more specifically the
\nMerger Regulation.[27]<\/a> There is of course the question of Brexit and
\nthe friction which will cause difficulties in the practice of the existing laws
\nbut that is not yet known.<\/p>\nConvergence <\/h3>\n
\nabout development in technology. It corresponds to creating innovative idea to
\ncreate services and about different ways of doing business and of interacting
\nwith society.[28]<\/a> Where local newspapers do exist, their
\naudience reach has traditionally been high although it has dropped in recent
\nyears.[29]<\/a> It has been observed that the decline in
\nquality local journalism is strongly associated with convergence and ownership
\nconcentration. Even though there is an increase in citizen media, however major
\nnews organisations still overpower the growing citizen media. Ever since
\nconvergence, the multinational corporations and organisations have responded to
\nthe current climate by investing heavily in online platforms with a strong
\nmarket strategy and extensively established news production infrastructures.[30]<\/a> Nowadays, UK citizens are predominantly using
\nonline news sites that are run by existing news providers further asserting the
\nalready significant dominant in the major players.[31]<\/a> Ever since the growing age of smartphones,
\nprint readership has been steady and big organisations are taking part in it
\nequally. <\/p>\nForeign Ownership <\/h3>\n
\nrestrictions on the foreign ownership in UK print media industry.[32]<\/a> Holding reservations of overseas firms is not
\nprofitable since international competitiveness is the aim for deregulating.[33]<\/a> However, the argument of News International
\ndominating the print industry still remains prevalent in the ownership debate.[34]<\/a> Ever since the Communications Act ended the
\nban on foreign ownership of TV licences, this paved the way for News
\nCorporation to attempt to buy the 60% of BskyB it did not own.[35]<\/a> In a surprising news, Brian Roberts who owns
\nNBC lanched a \u00a322 billion takeover bid for Sky and this just confirms that no
\nmatter who wins the bid, Sky will be moving into a complete foreign ownership
\nafter being UK\u2019s biggest media company for three decades.[36]<\/a> News UK, an American company owned by Rupert
\nMurdoch which is part of News Corporation commands a significant share in print
\nmedia.[37]<\/a> Since United Kingdom does not have legal
\nboundaries on foreigners owning print media, we are now experiencing
\ndeterioration of media pluralism. <\/p>\nConclusion <\/h3>\n
\nto be more defined regulation in the press ownership as it is largely being run
\nby corporations like News UK who are trying buy the press. This shows that we
\nneed stricter press regulation laws against powerful corporations such as News
\nUK and Trinity Mirror to strengthen plurality of sources and diversity of
\ncontent. This essay then explained why stricter regulation is needed for cross
\nmedia ownership which may eventually help in protecting media pluralism and
\ndiversity of content. This essay then discussed the ineffectiveness of EU law
\nto properly address the problem of press ownership regulation. The essay then
\ndiscussed how print readership is on the decline because of convergence. The
\nessay then showed that since United Kingdom does not have legal boundaries on
\nforeigners owning print media, we are now experiencing deterioration of media
\npluralism. Moreover, Brexit has left print ownership on a very unpredictable
\npath. Hence, we need concrete regulations on many issues regarding press
\nownership. <\/p>\nBibliography <\/h2>\n
\nthe Grecian Horse? Regulation of Foreign<\/p>\n
\nthe UK. Policy Studies. 24:1, 17-31<\/p>\n
\nOwnership and the Communications Reform White Paper. The Political Quarterly<\/em>, 71(4): 469 – 471<\/p>\n
\nEconomics of Monomedia and Cross-Media Expansion: A Study of the Case Favouring
\nDeregulation of TV and Newspaper Ownership in the U.K. The Journal of Cultural Economics.<\/em> 24, 1- 26.<\/p>\n
\nPaper On the Convergence Of the Telecommunications, 3 December 1997<\/p>\n
\nResearch Centre. (2010). Meeting the news needs of local communities.
\nCommissioned by Media Trust.<\/p>\n
\nEnterprise Act 2002 and Competition Law. Modern Law Review<\/em>, 67(2),
\np.273-288<\/p>\n
\nNewspaper Ownership And The Prioritization Of<\/p>\n
\nInquiry into the Culture, Ethics and Practices of the Press (2012)<\/p>\n
\nof Journalists to Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. (2017)<\/p>\n
\nelephant in the room: a survey of media ownership and plurality in the UK.
\nPublished on April 24, 2014.<\/p>\n
\nLeverhulme Media Research Centre, \u2018Meeting the news needs of local
\ncommunities\u2019, 2010<\/p>\n
\nfor the media heavyweight? The Guardian<\/em>
\nPublished on 23rd<\/sup> January 2018<\/p>\n
\nSecretary of State on the operation of the media ownership rules listed<\/p>\n
\nCommunications Act 2003. Published on 26 November 2015<\/p>\n
\nReviewing Media Ownership Rules in the UK and Europe: Competing or
\nComplementary Investigations? Journal of
\nMedia Law<\/em>, 5(2), 332-344<\/p>\n
\nD. (2012) Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy Choices and
\nRegulatory Challenges, Journal of Media
\nLaw<\/em>, 4(1), 35-63 <\/p>\n
\nState of Media Ownership and Media Markets: Competition or Concentration and
\nWhy Should We Care?. Sociology Compass<\/em>, 2(1), p.34-47.<\/p>\n
\neyeing Sky \u2013 and what any deal might mean? The Guardian. Published on 3rd<\/sup>
\nMarch 2018. <\/p>\nLegislations: <\/h2>\n
\n
\nelephant in the room: a survey of media ownership and plurality in the UK.
\nPublished on April 24, 2014. <\/p>\n
\nand Barry Cox. (2000). Media ownership and the Communications Reform White
\nPaper. pp. 469-471<\/p>\n
\nCox. (2000)<\/p>\n
\nUnited Kingdom. In: E. Noam (Ed.), International Media Concentration. OUP. This
\nis a draft of a chapter that has been accepted for publication by Oxford
\nUniversity Press in the forthcoming book International Media Concentration
\nedited by Noam, E. <\/p>\n
\nContent, 31 January 2007<\/p>\n
\nPublic Interest \u2013 preliminary briefing paper. Published November 4 2011.<\/p>\n
\nMedia Ownership Rules in the UK and Europe: Competing or Complementary
\nInvestigations? Journal of Media Law, 5(2), 332-344<\/p>\n
\n54\u201355 cited in Smith (2013)<\/p>\n
\nLiberties Committee, Motion for an EP Resolution on the EU Charter: Standard
\nSettings for Media Freedom Across the EU (23 March 2013), P7_TA(2013)0203,
\nparticularly at para 15 cited in Smith (2013)<\/p>\n
\n2003<\/p>\n
\nState on the operation of the media ownership rules listed under Section 391 of
\nthe Communications Act 2003. Published on 26 November 2014<\/p>\n
\nQualitative Findings\u2019 (2009), p. 6 cited in Media Reform Coalition (April 24, 2014)<\/p>\n
\nRules\u2019 (2012) cited in Media Reform Coalition (April 24, 2014) p.24<\/p>\n
\nState on the operation of the media ownership rules listed under Section 391 of
\nthe Communications Act 2003. Published on 26 November 2014<\/p>\n
\nthe media heavyweight? The Guardian Published on 23rd January 2018<\/p>\n
\nFully Con- verged Audiovisual World: Growth, Creation and Values cited in Smith
\n(2013)<\/p>\n
\nOn the Convergence Of the Telecommunications, 3 December 1997<\/p>\n
\nLeverhulme Media Research Centre, \u2018Meeting the news needs of local
\ncommunities\u2019, 2010<\/p>\n
\nGrecian Horse? Regulation of Foreign<\/p>\n
\nof the Media in the UK, 24:1, 17-31<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2017\/mar\/05\/uk-news-plurality-and-fox-sky-merger<\/p>\n