On Media Concentration and the Diversity Question

Abstract

Corporate mergers and the consolidation of ownership in the American communications arena have long been sources of concern. US regulatory and antitrust policy traditionally attempted to secure a "diversity of voices" structurally, largely through rules regarding ownership. Although the meaning of diversity was always problematic and under-theorized, the Federal Communications Commission long set ceilings on the numbers of broadcast outlets any single person or corporation could own and enacted cross-ownership rules such as a prohibition against a corporation owning a newspaper and broadcast outlets in the same market. These rules, and the FCC's authority to make them, were upheld, occasionally even compelled, by the federal appellate courts. In the last 20 years, however, legal trends, in conjunction with political developments, have undermined the diversity rationales behind ownership rules and associated structural regulations of mass media.Paradoxically, even as media corporations are becoming larger and presumably more powerful, ownership regulations are being rescinded or struck down. This paper explains this history. It concludes with a suggestion that the First Amendment metaphor of marketplace of ideas is misplaced and how our thinking about media ownership and diversity might be better served by the metaphor of a mixed media system.

Market Philosophy and Information Privacy

“…The idea goes back to John Locke 1 in the seventeenth century when he pointed out that "the aĴ ainment of the truth is best achieved through the free uninhibited exchanges of ideas/information in the marketplace" (Napoli 2000, 105). Under this viewpoint, government regulation is to be leĞ to a minimum to keep the full functionality of the marketplace (Dalhgren 2001;Horwitz 2005). In an affi rmative sense, the policy is a hindrance when the self-functioning marketplace best guarantees the sharing of diverse viewpoints, and ultimately the truth.…”

“…Under the FCC principle, it is in fact assumed that structural regulation over media consolidation and/or ownership on the side of production (i.e., source diversity) would guarantee viewing diversity (i.e., exposure diversity) on the side of consumption (Horwitz 2005, Napoli 2000. In this vein, the current FTC regime is also a form of proxy regulation over the structure alone.…”

Los niveles de coincidencias temáticas en editoriales de cinco diarios chilenos de referencia en un contexto de concentración de la propiedad de los medios

“…Se puede asumir que donde las diferencias entre los medios de comunicación se muestran más claramente es en las secciones de opinión". Horwitz (2005) y Apreza (2005) subrayan que la diversidad de contenido editorial y el intercambio irrestricto de ideas diferentes en una democracia avalan la participa ción ciudadana, una óptima toma de decisiones y el diseño de políticas públicas ade cuadas. La diversidad se garantiza con una multiplicidad de medios que trata desde distintas posturas temas y sucesos socialmente relevantes y públicamente debatibles (McQuail, 1998, Van Cuilenburg, 2002.…”

Regulating Convergence: Challenges for Contemporary Media in Indonesia

“…Accoding to Horwitz (2005), convergence can be observed in content as well as in the merged of labour within the same group. Now that we know about the organisation of labour within the same group in MNC, which resulted in new structure and new workflow, let us examine each platform's content.…”