mechanisms and examine the possible need to one of the major democracies to prevent foreign economIc ownership of newspapers, though, even the technological developments in the media field the restriction has been called into question The Council has also urged what is called transparency. Because"pluralism and diversity 2.5 Media Ownership by are essential for the functioning of a democratic Society "5 Religious or political the Council of recommended that "members of the public Organizations should have access on an equitable and impartial basis to certain basic information on the media so as to enable them to form an opinion on the organizations, political parties, or government value to be given to information, ideas, and agencies from owning radio and television opinions disseminated by the media. stations or newspapers. In others, often those that are in an early stage of transition, channels 2.4 Foreign Ownership of communication are controlled, directly or indirectly, by these very entities. As media One area of ownership restriction that is channels become more and more abundant quite common is restrictions on foreign rough satellite and cable and transfer to digital ownership. It is interesting that such broadcasting), restrictions on ownership may restrictions. at least on terrestrial radio and become less important television broadcasting, are frequent, not only in These restrictions represent retained(and transition societies. but in the West. including e dominance the United States. Fear of foreign ownership that can be achieved through control of mass goes back to the wartime fear that radio and television could be and are used for propaganda ay reflect historic concerns where there has purposes. There is also the assumption that been a radical break from an authoritarian past, citizens or corporations controlled by citizens or reaction to former modes of control and are easier to supervise in time of national crisis influence. These ownership rules may than those owned by foreign interests specifically deny ownership or control to Ownership of the media remains one of the institutions that were once dominant most consistent bastions of xenophobia, partly In some instances it based on the assumption that foreign owners are gious influences have been so strong that likely to program a channel differently from their restrictions on sectarian ownership of stations domestic counterparts might be prohibited. Where In some transition societies however emerging from a statist, authoritarian regime, a foreign voices are extremely important as reaction may be to swing wholly toward private means of leavening what would otherwise be a ownership. In other instances, however, the retained government monopoly or a narrow new society often has derivative forms of the range of domestic points of view in the media old, as where new government institutions stand Pluralizing opportunities for external in the stead though now with more democratic programming is increasingly possible because of purposes, of their predecessors Internet. But the capacity of foreign investors to 2.6 Viewpoint Domination by a own radio and television stations or printed Single broadcaster or owner media press can be important in yielding diversity as well. Many countries that prohibit Another mode of structural regulation foreign control of terrestrial broadcasting permit relevant to the enabling environment, is the greater investment and control of cable extent to which any single broadcaster or owner television and most allow foreign ownership of of licenses can reach large segments of the print media. India, on the other hand, has been opulation. If the goal is to have competition and The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 12 mechanisms and examine the possible need to revise them in the light of economic and technological developments in the media field.”4 The Council has also urged what is called “transparency.” Because “pluralism and diversity are essential for the functioning of a democratic society,” the Council of Europe has recommended that “members of the public should have access on an equitable and impartial basis to certain basic information on the media so as to enable them to form an opinion on the value to be given to information, ideas, and opinions disseminated by the media.”5 2.4 Foreign Ownership One area of ownership restriction that is quite common is restrictions on foreign ownership. It is interesting that such restrictions, at least on terrestrial radio and television broadcasting, are frequent, not only in transition societies, but in the West, including the United States. Fear of foreign ownership goes back to the wartime fear that radio and television could be and are used for propaganda purposes. There is also the assumption that citizens or corporations controlled by citizens are easier to supervise in time of national crisis than those owned by foreign interests. Ownership of the media remains one of the most consistent bastions of xenophobia, partly based on the assumption that foreign owners are likely to program a channel differently from their domestic counterparts. In some transition societies, however, foreign voices are extremely important as a means of leavening what would otherwise be a retained government monopoly or a narrow range of domestic points of view in the media. Pluralizing opportunities for external programming is increasingly possible because of new technology, including satellites and the Internet. But the capacity of foreign investors to own radio and television stations or printed media press can be important in yielding diversity as well. Many countries that prohibit foreign control of terrestrial broadcasting permit greater investment and control of cable television and most allow foreign ownership of print media. India, on the other hand, has been one of the major democracies to prevent foreign ownership of newspapers, though, even there, the restriction has been called into question. 2.5 Media Ownership by Religious or Political Organizations Some societies prevent religious organizations, political parties, or government agencies from owning radio and television stations or newspapers. In others, often those that are in an early stage of transition, channels of communication are controlled, directly or indirectly, by these very entities. As media channels become more and more abundant (through satellite and cable and transfer to digital broadcasting), restrictions on ownership may become less important. These restrictions represent retained (and possibly justified) fears about the dominance that can be achieved through control of mass communication instruments. Ownership rules may reflect historic concerns where there has been a radical break from an authoritarian past, or reaction to former modes of control and influence. These ownership rules may specifically deny ownership or control to institutions that were once dominant In some instances, it is precisely where religious influences have been so strong that restrictions on sectarian ownership of stations might be prohibited. Where a society is emerging from a statist, authoritarian regime, a reaction may be to swing wholly toward private ownership. In other instances, however, the new society often has derivative forms of the old, as where new government institutions stand in the stead, though now with more democratic purposes, of their predecessors. 2.6 Viewpoint Domination by a Single Broadcaster or Owner Another mode of structural regulation, relevant to the enabling environment, is the extent to which any single broadcaster or owner of licenses can reach large segments of the population. If the goal is to have competition and
many voices, it is also important to have some however. serve other aims that lead to stable sort of end game vision. What if the result democratic institutions. Citizens may perceive a privatization is that there are two remaining lack of opportunity to use the media for change broadcasters and that the stronger of the two if the media are deemed oligarchy-controlled gains 70 percent of the audience? That may not One response to this situation may be to necessarily be inconsistent with democratic facilitate the development of strong competitors norms, but such a dominant position should or tolerate the oligarchical approach, but prohibit raise alarms. a government committed to a anticompetitive or abusive practices competitive and independent media structure It is virtually impossible to obtain a media must have the tools to define and enforce an structure in which every voice, every large-scale explicit model of the role that broadcasting and the press should play. An enabling environment broadcasting enterprise. Since this state is analysis would ask not only about concentration unrealistic(except maybe in the idealized world but whether the state voice is controlling and of the Internet), premising a set of enabling laws what pattern exists for access by minority and for media reform on such an outcome would be opposition views within the society deceptive. There will always be strong Many of these questions arose broadcasting enterprises consideration of a revised media ownership law because of the costs of broadcasting for Russia. a draft law was prepared that had successfully, the pressures toward consolidation limitations on the extent to which one company often seem irrepressible or interrelated group could own stations that reached too high a percentage of the Russian 2.7 Access and right to Impart criticism of the russian broadcasting structure Information was that industrial groups, including banks, oil companies, and other natural resource For these reasons and others some states corporations, controlled most major components enabling environments include structural of the media. from an enabling environment approaches that seek to assure access or other perspective, one Important question was opportunities to exercise a right to impart whether the stations were independent of the information. For example, a privately owned government. Even though they were privately station may have a rule-based government owned, the condition of their ownership and the obligation to provide time for all political relationship of the owners to government, meant candidates at the time of an election or to set that"independence"was a difficult status to aside time for minority groups in the society to promulgate their views or present cultural or Indeed, the very importance of a majo programming. Sir conglomerate, owner of the independent require a cable television operator to carry the television network NTV, meant that government public service broadcasting stations or the efforts to enforce tax or other laws against its tations of particular groups, including minority owner could credibly be interpreted as an attack voices, to enhance pluralism. on the press in general. Concentration meant There are those who consider these kinds of delicate relationships that were hard to untangle structural" regulations more consistent with Even there. however. it could be said that democratic goals and less intrusive than content there was competition of a sort: industry was regulation, regulation that turns on the nature of organized into an oligarchy, with several particular communications. The general idea is powerful groups. There was competition among that if competition and independence can be these groups and, as a result, among the achieved through these basic organizing rules, broadcasting empires that they controlled. A then progress toward the goals of pluralism and media that is tightly controlled by an oligarchy recognition of various political viewpoints will of industrial and banking interests may not The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 13 many voices, it is also important to have some sort of end game vision. What if the result of privatization is that there are two remaining broadcasters and that the stronger of the two gains 70 percent of the audience? That may not necessarily be inconsistent with democratic norms, but such a dominant position should raise alarms. A government committed to a competitive and independent media structure must have the tools to define and enforce an explicit model of the role that broadcasting and the press should play. An enabling environment analysis would ask not only about concentration but whether the state voice is controlling and what pattern exists for access by minority and opposition views within the society. Many of these questions arose in the consideration of a revised media ownership law for Russia. A draft law was prepared that had limitations on the extent to which one company or interrelated group could own stations that reached too high a percentage of the Russian audience. On the other hand, much of the criticism of the Russian broadcasting structure was that industrial groups, including banks, oil companies, and other natural resource corporations, controlled most major components of the media. From an enabling environment perspective, one important question was whether the stations were independent of the government. Even though they were privately owned, the condition of their ownership and the relationship of the owners to government, meant that “independence” was a difficult status to achieve. Indeed, the very importance of a major conglomerate, owner of the independent television network NTV, meant that government efforts to enforce tax or other laws against its owner could credibly be interpreted as an attack on the press in general. Concentration meant delicate relationships that were hard to untangle. Even there, however, it could be said that there was competition of a sort: industry was organized into an oligarchy, with several powerful groups. There was competition among these groups and, as a result, among the broadcasting empires that they controlled. A media that is tightly controlled by an oligarchy of industrial and banking interests may not, however, serve other aims that lead to stable democratic institutions. Citizens may perceive a lack of opportunity to use the media for change if the media are deemed oligarchy-controlled. One response to this situation may be to facilitate the development of strong competitors or tolerate the oligarchical approach, but prohibit anticompetitive or abusive practices. It is virtually impossible to obtain a media structure in which every voice, every large-scale worldview has control of a significant broadcasting enterprise. Since this state is unrealistic (except maybe in the idealized world of the Internet), premising a set of enabling laws for media reform on such an outcome would be deceptive. There will always be strong broadcasting enterprises in a society and because of the costs of broadcasting successfully, the pressures toward consolidation often seem irrepressible. 2.7 Access and Right to Impart Information For these reasons and others, some states' enabling environments include structural approaches that seek to assure access or other opportunities to exercise a right to impart information. For example, a privately owned station may have a rule-based government obligation to provide time for all political candidates at the time of an election or to set aside time for minority groups in the society to promulgate their views or present cultural or other programming. Similarly, a state may require a cable television operator to carry the public service broadcasting stations or the stations of particular groups, including minority voices, to enhance pluralism. There are those who consider these kinds of “structural” regulations more consistent with democratic goals and less intrusive than content regulation, regulation that turns on the nature of particular communications. The general idea is that if competition and independence can be achieved through these basic organizing rules, then progress toward the goals of pluralism and recognition of various political viewpoints will be enhanced
Structural regulation does not require also often present. The state can use its government, generally, to make invidious purchasing power to place advertising only with interventions. deciding whether certain those media that are supportive, and the state programming is fair or not fair or whether advertising budget may dwarf that of any certain political viewpoints have been adequatel competitor. Or state broadcasting may use its expressed. These issues are dealt with, at least subsidized position to undercut private media in abstractly, by the theory that supports a the market for advertising, rendering it difficult diversity of owners (or, a diversity of voices for free and independent media to develop. In through rules designed to guarantee access to late 1999, for example, the Croatian Nationa media outlets)as one of the most important Parliament House of Representatives voted to ways to reinforce democratic institutions. caster to expand number of advertising minutes it was permitted 2.8 Government Subsidies to sell. The advertising market was limited, and if the amount of advertising in the society is Policies and practices regarding subsidies imited, then enlarging what the public service are also factors in an enabling environment broadcasting entity can do might harm its study. Governments may appear to have rivate competitors. That argument led critics to formally, a neutral approach to particular claim that the move ocate speakers, but through the use of financial commercial television by depriving it of rever support(sometimes hidden) render one group or one medium far more powerful than others 2.10 Government funding Discriminatory access to a monopolized distribution scheme is one method that can be question of the role of state television used for this purpose. Fav vored accr compliant reporters is another mportant in assessing the enabling environment here are a thousand tricks or devices for media reform in transition societies. For Costly duties on newsprint or computers can xample, the very mode of financing such have a substantial impact on the capacity of independent media to develop. States can handover of Hong Kong to China, legislators discriminate in terms of access by students to called for more permanent funding of Radi the gateways of the profession: universities, Television Hong Kong(rTHK)to assure that training programs, and travel abroad. States can would not have to seek year to year financing interfere with access to transmission facilities by from the government of what was now the media that are too independent or engage in Special Administrative Region surprise audits or other forms of harassment Some believe that a media entity that In harsh economic circumstances, the way funded through a license fee, paid by each user government allocates newsprint or access to of a receiving set, is likely to possess greater printing facilities may be a strong determinant of autonomy and independence than one that is power within the society. Miklos Haraszti, in his funded entirely by the government. However, Velvet Prison describes how benefit uch license fees are increasingly under attack to favored journalists (membership in clubs as the state or public broadcasters rely, as well apartments, or trips abroad ) served to enhance a on advertising revenue or otherwise engage in kind of control that was as invidious as commercial activity. Private competitors censor complain that this creates an"uneven playing field, as they struggle against entities that have 2.9 Government as a Market to commercial profits as well Participant government support, government promotion, access to government information, and More comprehensive and systematic modes government subsidies. Some countries have re. of using state power to structure the media are thought their support for television possibly in The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media
The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media 14 Structural regulation does not require government, generally, to make invidious interventions, deciding whether certain programming is fair or not fair or whether certain political viewpoints have been adequately expressed. These issues are dealt with, at least abstractly, by the theory that supports a diversity of owners (or, a diversity of voices through rules designed to guarantee access to media outlets) as one of the most important ways to reinforce democratic institutions. 2.8 Government Subsidies Policies and practices regarding subsidies are also factors in an enabling environment study. Governments may appear to have, formally, a neutral approach to particular speakers, but through the use of financial support (sometimes hidden) render one group or one medium far more powerful than others. Discriminatory access to a monopolized distribution scheme is one method that can be used for this purpose. Favored accreditation for compliant reporters is another. There are a thousand tricks or devices. Costly duties on newsprint or computers can have a substantial impact on the capacity of independent media to develop. States can discriminate in terms of access by students to the gateways of the profession: universities, training programs, and travel abroad. States can interfere with access to transmission facilities by media that are too independent or engage in surprise audits or other forms of harassment. In harsh economic circumstances, the way government allocates newsprint or access to printing facilities may be a strong determinant of power within the society. Miklos Haraszti, in his book, The Velvet Prison, describes how benefits to favored journalists (membership in clubs, apartments, or trips abroad) served to enhance a kind of control that was as invidious as censorship. 2.9 Government as a Market Participant More comprehensive and systematic modes of using state power to structure the media are also often present. The state can use its purchasing power to place advertising only with those media that are supportive, and the state’s advertising budget may dwarf that of any competitor. Or state broadcasting may use its subsidized position to undercut private media in the market for advertising, rendering it difficult for free and independent media to develop. In late 1999, for example, the Croatian National Parliament House of Representatives voted to allow the state broadcaster to expand the number of advertising minutes it was permitted to sell. The advertising market was limited, and if the amount of advertising in the society is limited, then enlarging what the public service broadcasting entity can do might harm its private competitors. That argument led critics to claim that the move would "suffocate" commercial television by depriving it of revenue. 2.10 Government Funding The question of the role of state television or public service broadcasting is frequently important in assessing the enabling environment for media reform in transition societies. For example, the very mode of financing such a broadcaster is vital. Two years after the handover of Hong Kong to China, legislators called for more permanent funding of Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) to assure that it would not have to seek year to year financing from the government of what was now the Special Administrative Region. Some believe that a media entity that is funded through a license fee, paid by each user of a receiving set, is likely to possess greater autonomy and independence than one that is funded entirely by the government. However, such license fees are increasingly under attack as the state or public broadcasters rely, as well, on advertising revenue or otherwise engage in commercial activity. Private competitors complain that this creates an “uneven playing field,” as they struggle against entities that have access to commercial profits as well as government support, government promotion, access to government information, and government subsidies. Some countries have rethought their support for television possibly in