10 Nov 16 | Ireland, Mapping Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The Republic of Ireland has seen a steady decline in media plurality, according to the authors of a new report.
The recent Report on the Concentration of Media Ownership in Ireland, published on 19 October, concludes that the country has one of the most concentrated media markets, with wealthy media owners possessing the influence to skew the news report for personal gain. According to the report the The authors — Caoilionn Gallagher and Jonathan Price at Doughty Street Chambers, Gavin Booth and Darragh Mackin at KRW Law, and commissioned by Lynn Boylan MEP– drew on a variety of studies to compile the report including research from the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom’s Media Pluralism Monitor (2015). Based on the source material, the report examined how diversity in viewpoints and opinions are reflected in a nation’s media content.
CMPF created a Media Pluralism Monitor to measure whether a country is a “high risk territory” on a scale of 0% to 100%, with “high risk” countries falling at 74% or above. Researchers based in the 19 countries covered by the monitor collect data points that include protection of journalists, number of media outlets, political independence and social inclusiveness among other indicators.
In 2015 Dr. Roderick Flynn, of Dublin City University, generated a report on Ireland for CMPF’s Media Pluralism Monitor which found there was a “medium risk” (54%) of market plurality, and specifically “very high risk” (74%) in relation to the “concentration of media ownership”. Based on Flynn’s research it was concluded that, largely, the media concentration stemmed from businessman Denis O’Brien, founder of Communicorp, owner of a significant minority stake in Independent News and Media and a large portion of the commercial radio sector. The October report called O’Brien’s ownership and influence in media outlets a concern. Additionally, Doughty Street Chambers and KRW Law highlighted the Irish defamation law as a key issue “which threatens news plurality and undermines the media’s ability to perform its watchdog function”.
Though Flynn’s study and the Doughty Street Chambers and KRW Law report clearly point out significant issues, which have been further discussed with organisations such as the National Union of Journalists and the EU Commission, it also proposes ideas for revisions. The report states the “firm view that there must be detailed multi-disciplinary analysis and careful consideration before any steps are taken”. The authors of the report suggest that the Irish should “establish a cross-disciplinary commission of inquiry”, which would “examine the issues closely and make concrete recommendations.” Additionally the authors ask the Council of European Committee of Experts on Media Pluralism and Transparency of Media Ownership to work within the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a treaty that “the right to [business] property is heavily caveated under”. Consequently, by utilising the ECHR, the committee could spur a decrease in the media power of business moguls such as Denis O’Brien. Along with further modifications, the study indicates that these alterations are necessary to maintain media plurality in Ireland.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1479382383515-ed0923d1-1fb7-1″ taxonomies=”76″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Jul 13 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features, Politics and Society
As talk in India turns to media plurality and regulation, attention is turning to murky ownership structures and monopolistic practices. But some see the government’s moves as attempts to muzzle the press.
In May 2012, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India got a new boss – a retired bureaucrat named Rahul Khullar, who has the unenviable job of not just sorting out 2011’s 2G scam that hit Indian telecom sector hard, but also trying to ensure that the growth of the Indian media is “plural and diverse”.
In what has become a controversial interview, Khullar suggested bringing regulation to control cross-media ownership in India, suggesting that a single entity should be restricted to owning only one or two types of media carriage. “We are not talking about content but carriage.” he said in an interview to The Hindu.
India’s largest media houses, including Sun TV, Star India and the Essel Group, own multiple media platforms. In fact some media houses are so huge, with complicated and largely hidden ownership structures, that it can be unclear who really owns the company. The Indian media has been covering this subject heavily since the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting asked channels to disclose their equity structures as a results of the Saradha scam in West Bengal where businessmen were running news channels at the behest of politicians. Independent news portals have been trying to disclose ownership details on their sites, revealing that many politicians partly own the news channels/papers that report on them, as do big industrial houses, mostly unknown to citizens.
Khullar’s suggestion has been drawn from telecom regulator TRAI’s recent consultation paper on cross media ownership which has suggested that media houses investing in all forms — television, print, and radio — has led to “horizontal integration,” and asked whether there ought to be safeguards to curb this monopolistic growth. The lack of these checks, it believes, is the reason why broadcasters have become “politically backed entities for distribution of their channels in that region.”
Overwhelmingly, the media industry has reacted negatively at the suggestion of being regulated. In an passionate argument, the Times of India’s Executive Editor, suggests that this latest move by TRAI is part of a larger play by the government of India to muzzle the media following its active role in exposing many scams in the last few years – some which have ended with cabinet ministers in jail. Drawing a line between regulating ownership and accountability, the article points out that India has over 80,000 plus publications and 800 channels, thereby showing extreme plurality already.
Others, such as the opinionated online magazine Firspost – owned by Network18 which is partly funded by the corporate giant, Reliance Group – has argued against this move from a media freedom point of view. It argues that corporate houses have the constitutional right to own media houses and that, “one reason why corporate houses enter the picture relates to the non-viability of many traditional media houses. If they didn’t bankroll the media, many journalists would lose their jobs. So to label corporates as villains when they are actually white knights in some cases is wrong.”
In another interview with Mint, the TRAI chairman clarified that, “in many countries you have absolute bans. Some people just cannot own a newspaper, for instance, an advertising agency cannot own a newspaper. There are pure entry issues. Then there are safeguards—like the 2×3 rule. In virtually all jurisdictions, if you own a newspaper and a TV station, you cannot own radio stations.”
However, the most compelling argument against this suggestion, made by Firstpost, but also others, is the question of the internet; that TV and print are fast merging with the internet, and in that in reality, it would be tough to restrict media ownership to only two platforms. While TRAI has no ready answers, its consultation paper on cross media ownership stipulates that any future rules on the subject must include broadcasting, print and new media.
At the same time, the crux of the matter — “It is, therefore, important that an arm‘s length distance is ensured between the media and organs of governance, political institutions and other entities which have a profound sway over public opinion” – is addressed in the paper, by suggesting that political bodies, religious bodies, government departments and ministries, urban and local bodies and state governments should not be permitted to enter the business of broadcasting and/or distribution of TV channels.
There can be no doubt that in India, corporate and political interests have invested heavily in the media. The Economist carried a story in June 2013 about the condition of TV news in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, stating – “every large party in the state now has an affiliated station, often owned or co-owned by the party leader’s followers or relatives.” It talks of the Sun Group, a Chennai-based conglomerate with 32 TV channels and 45 radio stations. Sun, which is run by former Tamil Nadu chief minister M. Karunanidhi’s grand-nephew, and also owns one of the more lucrative parts of the television industry—a cable-distribution network. This is exactly the kind of media monopoly TRAI is looking to break, or at the very least, limit.
However, is the way forward to diverse news to limit the growth of media empires, even if they do tend to be monopolistic? How does the state broadcaster, both over TV and radio, fit into this model? Is it better to focus on regulating ownership or content to ensure citizens get a plurality of voices? There is already a parallel debate on media regulation in the country to ensure that the content reaching Indians is not paid for by vested interests and is clearly identified when it is. And finally, is TRAI’s solution take away corporate control and hand it over to the State?
These are questions India must grapple with very carefully, if it aims to retain press freedom – already perilously at 140 on the Press Freedom Index, 2013.
Mahima Kaul is a New Delhi-based writer and a Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, India. She tweets @misskaul
12 Jun 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman today called for cross-party consensus on the Leveson Inquiry’s recommendations for future press regulation, suggesting also that the Inquiry examine media ownership.
Labour leader Miliband said he felt News International’s share of 34 per cent of the national newspaper market was “too much”, and suggested limiting media ownership to 20 to 30 per cent. “More than 30 per cent is worrying,” he said, adding that his aim was “plurality”.
Miliband said it was good for democracy to have plurality in the market, stressing that his intention was not “to stifle one organisation or another”, but instead that “one organisation does not exercise overweening power.”
Harman, Miliband’s deputy, stressed the “opportunity” presented by the Inquiry into press standards, which is due to report this autumn. “People want this sorted,” she said of the press malpractice that led to the Inquiry being launched last summer.
“They want a strong free press and want it to act fairly, not a dressed-up version of the status quo.”
She said a new system of redress that operated on a voluntary opt-in basis — similar to the Press Complaints Commission — would be “pointless”. Miliband suggested the need for a body independent of press and politicians and stressed he was “conscious of the limits of statutory recognition”, while still suggesting a kind of statutory support might be needed for a reformed PCC.
Both emphasised the need for cross-party support of Leveson’s recommendations, a topic Leveson himself alluded to yesterday in stressing his desire to avoid “inter-party politics and the politics of personality”.
“The default position for us as politicians must be to try our hardest to use the recommendations of the Inquiry to provide a framework for the future,” Miliband said.
Miliband gave an impassioned defence of press freedom, reminding the judge that his recommendations should protect it.
He highlighted what he saw as a “mutual culture of contempt” between the press and politicians, and that we were a “long way” from the ideal of a relationship of mutual respect between the two.
He told the Inquiry there had been a “failure of the establishment” not to have spoken out sooner on abuses by the press, noting that there had been a sense of fear, anxiety and unwillingness to do so.
He compared calling for a public inquiry into phone hacking in July 2011 to “crossing the Rubicon”, suggesting it would have been seen by News International as “an act of war”.
“In retrospect I wish I would have said it earlier,” Miliband said.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
