the media can play. The process must provide a sufficient public sphere for those encourage a rise In consciousne events that are indigenous and otherwise central value and functioning of free speech and its to the needs of citizens operation in the society It is the essence of an enabling environment The very idea of an enabling analysis that it is difficult, if not impossible, to for media reform assumes the importance of measure the effectiveness of a specific particular forms of law for free and independent intervention designed to render the media more media. It also presumes the necessity of vibrant contributors to a transitio certain kind of media structure. sometimes democratic institutions. It is easier to suggest including a prerequisite that the media be what range of efforts is more appropriate than ndigenous, for the development of democratic another in particular circumstances and at a institutions. Some may argue, however, that in a specific moment in time. For example, the media environment that is increasingly global existence of the Internet played a crucial role in the development of indigenous media is not an allowing certain opposition groups in the former essential prerequisite for the emergence of stable Yugoslavia to maintain contact with the aside democratic institutions. Take, for example. the world at the moment in 1999 when the Serbian view that what is important is that the government closed down or seized most government does not have a monopoly on opposition forms of media and communication information(as it often does with respect to the But it was a combination of factors. including legitimate use of force). The very opportunity of ssistance over the years and early identification civil society to have access, at critical times, to of individuals to be part of an anticipated civil Internet, fax, and phone might sufficiently allow society, that allowed the critical mass with the performance of the media checking ticated media and a world-wide network function. At the least, this may mean that such a of relations to develop. Only with all of that society where there is an imperfectly developed could the deus ex machina of the internet occur private media sector but a porous capacity for citizens to gain Internet access is less in need of Rob atkinson, A Dissenter's Commentary on the intervention or reform than a society that Professionalism Crusade, 74 TEXAS LAW REVIEW eft of both 259,297(1995 technology"critique of the need for intervention Julie Mertus, From Legal Transplants to strengthen free and independent media Transformative Justice: Human Rights and the On the other hand, important policy Promise of Transnational Civil Society, 14 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW decisions are often made locally, by political figures subject to local elections. Plural media REVIEW1335,1384(1999 that may only discuss global events do not The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 7 the media can play. The process must encourage a rise in consciousness about the value and functioning of free speech and its operation in the society. The very idea of an enabling environment for media reform assumes the importance of particular forms of law for free and independent media. It also presumes the necessity of a certain kind of media structure, sometimes including a prerequisite that the media be indigenous, for the development of democratic institutions. Some may argue, however, that in a media environment that is increasingly global, the development of indigenous media is not an essential prerequisite for the emergence of stable democratic institutions. Take, for example, the view that what is important is that the government does not have a monopoly on information (as it often does with respect to the legitimate use of force). The very opportunity of civil society to have access, at critical times, to Internet, fax, and phone might sufficiently allow the performance of the media checking function. At the least, this may mean that such a society where there is an imperfectly developed private media sector but a porous capacity for citizens to gain Internet access is less in need of intervention or reform than a society that is bereft of both. This might be called the “new technology” critique of the need for intervention to strengthen free and independent media. On the other hand, important policy decisions are often made locally, by political figures subject to local elections. Plural media that may only discuss global events do not provide a sufficient public sphere for those events that are indigenous, and otherwise central to the needs of citizens. It is the essence of an enabling environment analysis that it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the effectiveness of a specific intervention designed to render the media more vibrant contributors to a transition toward democratic institutions. It is easier to suggest what range of efforts is more appropriate than another in particular circumstances and at a specific moment in time. For example, the existence of the Internet played a crucial role in allowing certain opposition groups in the former Yugoslavia to maintain contact with the outside world at the moment in 1999 when the Serbian government closed down or seized most opposition forms of media and communication. But it was a combination of factors, including assistance over the years and early identification of individuals to be part of an anticipated civil society, that allowed the critical mass with sophisticated media and a world-wide network of relations to develop. Only with all of that could the deus ex machina of the Internet occur. 1Rob Atkinson, A Dissenter’s Commentary on the Professionalism Crusade, 74 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 259, 297 (1995). 2 Julie Mertus, From Legal Transplants to Transformative Justice:Human Rights and the Promise of Transnational Civil Society, 14 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 1335, 1384 (1999)
Chapter 2: Structures of the medi and the Enabling Environment 2.1 Overview retained and important civic function for public service broadcasting One might ask which organizational or Different societies have had different structural forms for particular media sectors starting points. In the United States, the market (television, radio, and the print media) help to has been the main arena for mass media dvance most effectively the development of development, and public service broadcasting is democracy or prove more consistent with stable designed to compensate for"market failure. " In democratic institutions? At least three principa Europe, public service broadcasting has been the egulatory forms have evolved during the history nd the private sector evolved to provide of the print and broadcast media effective competition and opportunities for new The first regulatory form is state monopoly and different voices (not the least of them ownership and media control. State authorities ercial ones) directly supervise the media system and no The Internet is viewed as a possible ideal voice can be heard without the permission or an infrastructure that allows rapid and consent of the state inexpensive access for any political party or The second is called a public or public point of view. It approaches an ideal because it service monopoly. In this instance, the media can provide communication among citizens with (usually the electronic broadcasting system)is in each other and by groups to individuals, a public, not private hands, but the governors of system of communication and interconnection the system enjoy substantial autonomy and are that will complement and enrich a formal not under the direct rule of the executive or structure of democratic practices Legislative branches of government erns of broadcasting and the Finally, there is private ownership, usually introduction of new technologies have accompanied by some degree of state regulation. demonstrated that relating the media to amount of such regulation varying fror democratic practices is more complicated than to state and from cycle to cycle summarized above. There have been More and more, these three systems overlap nat have had a publicly financed m substantially and come in various combinations broadcasting entity that helped to fuel strong Although there have been(and continue to be) democratic practices. In very rare instances some cases of pure state monopoly; pure public and the bbc was one of these. an autonomous ice monopolies have become rarer, while public service broadcaster was created in the easingly mixed systems have arisen in which sense that it was not answerable to the are both private and public broadcasters government. The BBC was not only allowed editorial freedom but also strived to ensure that 2.2 Balance between private many viewpoints in the society were given voice and Public service media in the broadcasting program. Increasingly however, the growth of private media is seen as a critical aspect of developing a media structure What is the most desirable mix of private and public service media? One frequently In post World War Il Germany, societal asserted view is that the principal goal should be goals were served by an elaborate structure with a competitive privately owned media with low committees representing many interests in market entry hurdles. But all but the most ardent federalized public service of advocates of a private sector recognize a broadcasting system established on a federal The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 8 Chapter 2: Structures of the Media and the Enabling Environment 2.1 Overview One might ask which organizational or structural forms for particular media sectors (television, radio, and the print media) help to advance most effectively the development of democracy or prove more consistent with stable democratic institutions? At least three principal regulatory forms have evolved during the history of the print and broadcast media. The first regulatory form is state monopoly ownership and media control. State authorities directly supervise the media system and no voice can be heard without the permission or consent of the state. The second is called a public or public service monopoly. In this instance, the media (usually the electronic broadcasting system) is in public, not private hands; but the governors of the system enjoy substantial autonomy and are not under the direct rule of the Executive or Legislative branches of government. Finally, there is private ownership, usually accompanied by some degree of state regulation, the amount of such regulation varying from state to state and from cycle to cycle. More and more, these three systems overlap substantially and come in various combinations. Although there have been (and continue to be) some cases of pure state monopoly; pure public service monopolies have become rarer, while increasingly mixed systems have arisen in which there are both private and public broadcasters. 2.2 Balance between Private and Public Service Media What is the most desirable mix of private and public service media? One frequently asserted view is that the principal goal should be a competitive privately owned media with low market entry hurdles. But all but the most ardent of advocates of a private sector recognize a retained and important civic function for public service broadcasting. Different societies have had different starting points. In the United States, the market has been the main arena for mass media development, and public service broadcasting is designed to compensate for “market failure.” In Europe, public service broadcasting has been the base, and the private sector evolved to provide effective competition and opportunities for new and different voices (not the least of them commercial ones). The Internet is viewed as a possible ideal: an infrastructure that allows rapid and inexpensive access for any political party or point of view. It approaches an ideal because it can provide communication among citizens with each other and by groups to individuals, a system of communication and interconnection that will complement and enrich a formal structure of democratic practices. But patterns of broadcasting and the introduction of new technologies have demonstrated that relating the media to democratic practices is more complicated than summarized above. There have been societies that have had a publicly financed monopoly broadcasting entity that helped to fuel strong democratic practices. In very rare instances, and the BBC was one of these, an autonomous public service broadcaster was created in the sense that it was not answerable to the government. The BBC was not only allowed editorial freedom, but also strived to ensure that many viewpoints in the society were given voice in the broadcasting program. Increasingly however, the growth of private media is seen as a critical aspect of developing a media structure that advances democratic values. In post World War II Germany, societal goals were served by an elaborate structure with committees representing many interests in society and a federalized public service broadcasting system established on a federal
rather than unitary, basis. A system was evolved able to enter the market in a wide variety of under Occupation that melded elements of the contexts. from Central Asia to Indonesia European and U.S These innovator private entities, often pluralism was built into the system fostered as part of a distribution of power to the were guarantees in the very architecture and ewly plural political interests, become design to forestall a monopoly state voice. The harbingers of a free market, and often as they German Federal Constitutional Court developed mature find themselves in joint ventures wth a unique idea: Article 5 of the Basic Law investors and larger media companie requires that the German broadcasting system, he right to receive and impart information as a whole, fulfil a public service mission. Either ot wholly depend on the existence of public or private broadcasters can fulfill this articular structure of media entities, though mission. However, since private broadcasters ome principles of competition have evolved depend on market revenues, it is presumed that human right. For example, a state they are less likely to fulfil the public service practice limiting competition even when there mission, and imposing strict public service are available modes of affording it, such as a obligations on them would endanger their law preventing private radio to compete with a existence. Therefore, private broadcasters in monopoly public counterpart could be a violation Germany are only allowed to operate as long as of human rights law the public broadcaster offers a basic service. The ideal public service monopoly is often 2. 3 Competition among media hard to achieve. Throughout the world. state- controlled monopolies are difficult to transform The very structure of media in a country into public service, autonomous, independent, could also be important if a commonly held view and pluralism-serving democratic institutions is true: that competition among various media Generally, societies that have moved away from fosters increased competition among holders of authoritarianism somewhat the path to conflicting and variegated ideas. Greater democracy have had to cope with just such competition of media voices, under this view, transformations of a government monopoly yields a greater variety of viewpoints in the broadcaster. This has taken several forms: a) public domain and a greater sense, in the maintaining the state broadcaster, but permitting society, that various interests are effectively significant private competition; b) privatizing the state broadcaster, in whole or in part, as well as represented Those who fear great concentration in the permitting competition; c) moving the state media laud the positive effects of competition broadcaster more to the public service In most cases, the existence of many owners is autonomy model considered a guarantee that more views will be Very few post-Soviet or transition societies expressed. Structurally, this argument against have decided to abolish the pre-existing the existence of a dominant private player is centralized broadcasting institutions. Often these parallel to the claim that lling state media Institutions are seen as too important in system weakens or bars the development of generating national identity, or merely as a useful democratic institutions tool of the new incumbents. In some places, the The economic rationale favoring increasing state broadcasting entity is partially privatized, ownership concentration is simple: because of vith state ownership diluted with stock provided technology and infrastructure costs in the to investors modern world of global communications, entry Much more frequent has been the opening costs for companies wanting to participate in the of frequencies for new, often small-scale radio information society are extremely high and television stations. NGOs. like Internews Distribution costs are low These are conditions and the Open Society Institute, have been that lead to rapid and increasing concentration in critical in making these new competitors better the telecommunications, media, and information The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 9 rather than unitary, basis. A system was evolved under Occupation that melded elements of the European and U.S. approaches. Here, too, pluralism was built into the system and there were guarantees in the very architecture and design to forestall a monopoly state voice. The German Federal Constitutional Court developed a unique idea: Article 5 of the Basic Law requires that the German broadcasting system, as a whole, fulfil a public service mission. Either public or private broadcasters can fulfill this mission. However, since private broadcasters depend on market revenues, it is presumed that they are less likely to fulfil the public service mission, and imposing strict public service obligations on them would endanger their existence. Therefore, private broadcasters in Germany are only allowed to operate as long as the public broadcaster offers a basic service. The ideal public service monopoly is often hard to achieve. Throughout the world, statecontrolled monopolies are difficult to transform into public service, autonomous, independent, and pluralism-serving democratic institutions. Generally, societies that have moved away from authoritarianism somewhat on the path to democracy have had to cope with just such transformations of a government monopoly broadcaster. This has taken several forms: a) maintaining the state broadcaster, but permitting significant private competition; b) privatizing the state broadcaster, in whole or in part, as well as permitting competition; c) moving the state broadcaster more to the public service, autonomy model. Very few post-Soviet or transition societies have decided to abolish the pre-existing centralized broadcasting institutions. Often these institutions are seen as too important in generating national identity, or merely as a useful tool of the new incumbents. In some places, the state broadcasting entity is partially privatized, with state ownership diluted with stock provided to investors. Much more frequent has been the opening of frequencies for new, often small-scale radio and television stations. NGOs, like Internews and the Open Society Institute, have been critical in making these new competitors better able to enter the market in a wide variety of contexts, from Central Asia to Indonesia. These innovator private entities, often fostered as part of a distribution of power to the newly plural political interests, become harbingers of a free market, and often as they mature find themselves in joint ventures with foreign investors and larger media companies. The right to receive and impart information does not wholly depend on the existence of a particular structure of media entities, though some principles of competition have evolved from this human right. For example, a state practice limiting competition even when there are available modes of affording it, such as a law preventing private radio to compete with a monopoly public counterpart could be a violation of human rights law. 2.3 Competition among Media The very structure of media in a country could also be important if a commonly held view is true: that competition among various media fosters increased competition among holders of conflicting and variegated ideas. Greater competition of media voices, under this view, yields a greater variety of viewpoints in the public domain and a greater sense, in the society, that various interests are effectively represented. Those who fear great concentration in the media laud the positive effects of competition. In most cases, the existence of many owners is considered a guarantee that more views will be expressed. Structurally, this argument against the existence of a dominant private player is parallel to the claim that a controlling state media system weakens or bars the development of democratic institutions. The economic rationale favoring increasing ownership concentration is simple: because of technology and infrastructure costs in the modern world of global communications, entry costs for companies wanting to participate in the information society are extremely high. Distribution costs are low. These are conditions that lead to rapid and increasing concentration in the telecommunications, media, and information industries
There are three forms of concentration that the need to assure, especially for relevant to regulatory issues in the telecommunications services and bas ic information society: a) horizontal concentration. audiovisual services, that the goal of universal for example, domination in the newspaper sector access is. at the least. enunciated or among television stations; b)cross ownership Structural problems may be compounded that occurs between different media sectors where a state entity controls a key element in the particularly print media and electronic media; c) ormation chain (for example, control of vertical concentration that involves integration of newspaper distribution or transmission facilities different stages the production and for broadcasting distribution chain. An example of vertical In terms of the actual application of law, the integration is the ownership of broadcast question often is whether general anti- channels and services and control of the means competition laws in place within a society are of distributing them. The convergence of media sufficient to deal with competition within the is reducing the distinctions that made cross media, or whether media-specific ownership ownership a viable concept laws should be created as well. In the United Structural problems, such as the existence States, for example, generally applicable antitrust of great concentration in a nations media, are laws prohibit monopolies and anti-competitive not immediately apparent in transition societies conduct (except limited Some states seem. at least in the short ru circumstances). These laws apply, for example global developments towards to the steel industry and the automobile industry concentration and control by transnational and can apply to print media, television corporations. On the hand. local broadcasting networks. or news bureaus as monopolies and local well. There is something desirable in ensuring integration are found in almost all states. As that media entities are subject to such laws of societies mature and as global corporations general jurisdiction, recognizing that those who new markets, large international mergers will own the media can engage in the same kinds of certainly affect national policies anticompetitive and harmful practices as the Issues of concentration yield several manufacturers of light bulbs or computers. specific elements that are particularly threatening But, in addition, the U.S. has enacted a for media pluralism and access to information number of media-specific ownership laws Companies in control of distribution networks premised on the idea that media are different, their position as“ gatekeepers”to and that there are free-speech interests that distribute information and program services of demand a different way, a more specific way, their own media of organizing access. If the state is in control of distribution might find a concentration of power in the field networks, this is a matter of very substantial of speech more troubling than a concentration concern. Some think that operators of network of power in a field with less consequence for infrastructures on which other progra democratic values. For example, for a long providers depend for distribution of their criod, federal regulation extended to questions services to the public should not be allowed to such as whether the owner of a newspap produce their own programs and gain favorable could own a broadcaster in the same city, the access. Most global communications empires number of radio stations one person ol are now heavily vertically integrated. As a result corporation could own(including the maximum attention must be paid to techniques that provide one assurance of fair access. A particular concern permissible audience that one corporation could arising from concentration is whether there reach. The U.S. Congress and the Federal room for the development of a local zone of Communications Commission limited the creativity, with the capacity to build expertise in number of local stations that a major network providing information to citizens. As more free could own and the ownership rights of such market principles are introduced, there is also etwork in the programs that it distributed. All The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 10 There are three forms of concentration that are relevant to regulatory issues in the information society: a) horizontal concentration, for example, domination in the newspaper sector or among television stations; b) cross ownership that occurs between different media sectors, particularly print media and electronic media; c) vertical concentration that involves integration of different stages of the production and distribution chain. An example of vertical integration is the ownership of broadcast channels and services and control of the means of distributing them. The convergence of media is reducing the distinctions that made cross ownership a viable concept Structural problems, such as the existence of great concentration in a nation’s media, are not immediately apparent in transition societies. Some states seem, at least in the short run, untouched by global developments towards concentration and control by transnational corporations. On the other hand, local monopolies and local versions of vertical integration are found in almost all states. As societies mature and as global corporations seek new markets, large international mergers will certainly affect national policies. Issues of concentration yield several specific elements that are particularly threatening for media pluralism and access to information. Companies in control of distribution networks might use their position as “gatekeepers” to distribute information and program services of their own media group, thus limiting free access. If the state is in control of distribution networks, this is a matter of very substantial concern. Some think that operators of network infrastructures on which other program providers depend for distribution of their services to the public should not be allowed to produce their own programs and gain favorable access. Most global communications empires are now heavily vertically integrated. As a result, attention must be paid to techniques that provide assurance of fair access. A particular concern arising from concentration is whether there is room for the development of a local zone of creativity, with the capacity to build expertise in providing information to citizens. As more free market principles are introduced, there is also the need to assure, especially for telecommunications services and basic audiovisual services, that the goal of universal access is, at the least, enunciated. Structural problems may be compounded where a state entity controls a key element in the information chain (for example, control of newspaper distribution or transmission facilities for broadcasting). In terms of the actual application of law, the question often is whether general anticompetition laws in place within a society are sufficient to deal with competition within the media, or whether media-specific ownership laws should be created as well. In the United States, for example, generally applicable antitrust laws prohibit monopolies and anti-competitive conduct (except in a few limited circumstances). These laws apply, for example, to the steel industry and the automobile industry and can apply to print media, television broadcasting networks, or news bureaus as well. There is something desirable in ensuring that media entities are subject to such laws of general jurisdiction, recognizing that those who own the media can engage in the same kinds of anticompetitive and harmful practices as the manufacturers of light bulbs or computers. But, in addition, the U.S. has enacted a number of media-specific ownership laws, premised on the idea that media are different, and that there are free-speech interests that demand a different way, a more specific way, of organizing or regulating media. A society might find a concentration of power in the field of speech more troubling than a concentration of power in a field with less consequence for democratic values. For example, for a long period, federal regulation extended to questions such as whether the owner of a newspaper could own a broadcaster in the same city, the number of radio stations one person or corporation could own (including the maximum number in one city), and the maximum permissible audience that one corporation could reach. The U.S. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission limited the number of local stations that a major network could own and the ownership rights of such a network in the programs that it distributed. All
these laws have been undergoing change in the Throughout Central Asia, even where private United States, but they are testimony to a notion and independent broadcasters were allowed to that the media sometimes warrant specific spring up, the real power lay with state ownership-related attention broadcasting and those private entities n a recent study of Uruguay, Faroque associated with the government. Structures Barone argues that, there, tight anti-competitive should be examined to see if media companies, practices among the owners of the dominantly print media, and television stations are still ess helped block the development of a connected to the state through family or other forum. Not only are there few owners relationships. An enabling environment study ot only do agreements among them control takes such factors into account when studying the limits of the news. but. he claims these reform polIcies owners are closely tied to the government In of transition there Furthermore, the state-financed public service vital questions about the legal environment for broadcasting sector is disadvantaged vis-a-vis its increasing private ownership of the media stronger private competitors in funding, These include questions of how much spectrum program scheduling, and access to high-quality space will be allocated to private broadcasters programming. Public service broadcasting in how that spectrum will be awarded and who Uruguay thus remains too weak to adequately will have the most powerful transmitters. Each complement the offerings of the private sector of these decisions may have profound The Council of Europe has recommended onsequences for the ultimate structure of the that not only should there be a public service electronic media. Government can allocate and broadcasting sector, but it should be protected distribute spectrum in a way that underscores through the rule of law the legal framework carcity and can lead to a high level of governing public service broadcasting, in the concentration. Spectrum assignment can mean words of the recommendation should an ultimate system that is limited to several national stations. An alternative approach may C]learly stipulate their editorial independence lead to many local stations or even local nd institutional autonomy, especially competition. Rules concerning how and when such as icenses can be transferred are a factor in The definition of programme schedules determining whether a decentralized and The conception and production of ompetitive industry has the potential to survive programmes, The editing and presentation of news and Whether one approach or the other fosters current affairs programmes pluralism and stronger democratic institutions The organisation of the activities of the turns on many circumstances, including demography, requirements imposed on the Recruitment, employment and staff media, and the relationship between regional and management within the service; national centers in the constitution of politics The purchase, hire, sale and use of goods a set of recommendations of the council of and services. Europe asserts the importance of " the existence The management of financial resources of a multiplicity of autonomous and independent The preparation and execution of the media outlets at the national, regional, and local budget; levels generally because it"enhances pluralism The negotiation, preparation and signature and democracy. The Council also maintains of legal acts relating to the operation of that " political and cultural diversity of media the service types and contents is central to media pluralism. "As a result, the Councils Committee There are a significant number of transit of ministers recommended that members of the societies where too much media ownership is Council "evaluate on a regular basis the concentrated in the state and/or in the hands of effectiveness of their existing measures to private interests closely tied to the state promote pluralism and/or anti-concentration The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 11 these laws have been undergoing change in the United States, but they are testimony to a notion that the media sometimes warrant specific ownership-related attention. In a recent study of Uruguay, Faroque Barone argues that, there, tight anti-competitive practices among the owners of the dominantly private press helped block the development of a public forum. Not only are there few owners, and not only do agreements among them control the limits of the news, but, he claims, these owners are closely tied to the government. Furthermore, the state-financed public service broadcasting sector is disadvantaged vis-a-vis its stronger private competitors in funding, program scheduling, and access to high-quality programming. Public service broadcasting in Uruguay thus remains too weak to adequately complement the offerings of the private sector. The Council of Europe has recommended that not only should there be a public service broadcasting sector, but it should be protected through the rule of law. The legal framework governing public service broadcasting, in the words of the recommendation, should, [C]learly stipulate their editorial independence and institutional autonomy, especially in areas such as: · The definition of programme schedules; · The conception and production of programmes; · The editing and presentation of news and current affairs programmes; · The organisation of the activities of the service; · Recruitment, employment and staff management within the service; · The purchase, hire, sale and use of goods and services; · The management of financial resources; · The preparation and execution of the budget; · The negotiation, preparation and signature of legal acts relating to the operation of the service.3 There are a significant number of transition societies where too much media ownership is concentrated in the state and/or in the hands of private interests closely tied to the state. Throughout Central Asia, even where private and independent broadcasters were allowed to spring up, the real power lay with state broadcasting and those private entities associated with the government. Structures should be examined to see if media companies, print media, and television stations are still connected to the state through family or other relationships. An enabling environment study takes such factors into account when studying reform policies. In many of transition societies, there are vital questions about the legal environment for increasing private ownership of the media. These include questions of how much spectrum space will be allocated to private broadcasters, how that spectrum will be awarded and who will have the most powerful transmitters. Each of these decisions may have profound consequences for the ultimate structure of the electronic media. Government can allocate and distribute spectrum in a way that underscores scarcity and can lead to a high level of concentration. Spectrum assignment can mean an ultimate system that is limited to several national stations. An alternative approach may lead to many local stations or even local competition. Rules concerning how and when licenses can be transferred are a factor in determining whether a decentralized and competitive industry has the potential to survive. Whether one approach or the other fosters pluralism and stronger democratic institutions turns on many circumstances, including demography, requirements imposed on the media, and the relationship between regional and national centers in the constitution of politics. A set of recommendations of the Council of Europe asserts the importance of “the existence of a multiplicity of autonomous and independent media outlets at the national, regional, and local levels generally” because it “enhances pluralism and democracy.” The Council also maintains that “political and cultural diversity of media types and contents is central to media pluralism.” As a result, the Council’s Committee of Ministers recommended that members of the Council “evaluate on a regular basis the effectiveness of their existing measures to promote pluralism and/or anti-concentration