The view was that the public would benefit from a diverse array of owners because it would lead to a diverse array of program and service viewpoints.
We need as many voices as possible to cover local and state elections. In Brazil, unlike the United States, it is common for a TV network to produce, advertise, market and distribute most of its programming. Should members of particular groups in society be shut out of the mass media industries, either as employees and managers or as consumers?
If society does not scrutinize the content its being served and by whom, varied political, social, and cultural perspectives will be restricted causing a one-way, carbon copy of chosen information.
Since newspapers have had their chance to participate in the new electronic world of the Internet, and failed by their own criterion profit maximizationthe policy question reduces to: Apart from a period during colonial times, the ownership of newspapers was free of government regulation until the s, when Labor governments under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating introduced changes that continue to define the media landscape 30 years later.
Here is a quoted text from PA web site: Telecommunications Act [ edit ] The Telecommunications Act of was an influential act for media cross-ownership. Not only specifically the big corporations that can afford to broadcast nationally, but more importantly locally. The major features of the paper are as follows: The FCC held one official forum, February 27,in Richmond, Virginia in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of elimination of media ownership limits.
Then there were three choices; now the single local cable provider chooses which channels we can watch. The notion became obsolete since the completion of the transition from analog to digital television in ; the majority of television stations now broadcast on the UHF band because, by contrast, it is generally considered superior for digital transmission.
The public interest will not be served by eliminating the longstanding prohibition against common ownership of a newspaper and a TV station in the same community. Prior topublic airwaves in the United States were regulated by the United States Department of Commerce and largely litigated in the courts as the growing number of stations fought for space in the burgeoning industry.
Motivation for media firms to merge includes increased profit-margins, reduced risk and maintaining a competitive edge. He already had assets but then he came in and bought six metropolitan newspapers as well as a raft of community papers around the country. There was diversity, albeit not perfect.
The rule may have been created a generation ago, but it is more relevant and important than ever. Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.
A debated concept, the term "public interest" was provided with a general definition by the Federal Radio Commission.
The cross-ownership ban does not prevent a newspaper from owning a broadcast station in another market, and indeed many large newspapers — such as the New York Times and the Washington Post — own and operate broadcast stations outside their flagship cities Compaine and Gomery New Services Two digital terrestrial channels for new services which could commence in The existing portfolios of broadcasters who now exceeded the cap due to the change were grandfatheredincluding the holdings of Ion Media NetworksTribune Mediaand Univision.
Quickly we had the situation where in Melbourne the great commercial radio station 3AW was owned by the newspaper company Fairfax. In such circumstances the lender with no direct company interests might be in a position of control.
Government regulation of the airwaves in Australia goes back to the s, when the federal government began to issue licenses, first for radio and then, in the s, for television. The FCC rejected the claims, stating that the discount would only allow forward a regulatory review of any station group acquisitions, and that the Institute for Public Representation's criteria for the stay fell short of meeting adequate determination in favor of it by the court; it also claimed that the discount was "inextricably linked" to the agency's media ownership rules, a review of which it initiated in May of that year.
The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to touch the internet, but that could change if net neutrality comes into play. So although the motivations behind regulation might not have changed, it may now be more difficult to achieve the corresponding goals.
Successful media companies usually buy out other companies to make them more powerful, profitable, and able to reach a larger viewing audience. Alternatively, a holding of 51 per cent might not constitute control if the holder had given undertakings to a lender.
Sectorial legislation has been timid, by express intention of the legislator, by failing to include direct provisions that limit or control the concentration of ownership, which, incidentally, goes in the opposite direction of what happens in countries like France, Italy and the United Kingdom, which are concerned with the plurality and diversity in the new scenario of technological convergence.
It would be a system built for the citizens, but most importantly - it would be accessible to anyone who wants to broadcast.
The Discussion Paper pdf file expresses its proposals as preferred options that can be amended in the light of the response to the paper. Allowing cross-ownership will undermine the marketplace of ideas by weakening the institutions that provide in-depth analysis, opinion, and investigative reporting, and will threaten the unique institutional motivation and perspective that newspapers bring to public debate.
Although merging media companies seems to provide many positive outcomes for the companies involved in the merge, it might lead to some negative outcomes for other companies, viewers and future businesses.
Regulators have typically approached media from a segmented perspective, with separate regulatory entities for separate producers—such as content providers or technological services.
Television used to be considered free; now the vast majority of homes pay a monthly fee for access to cable TV or DBS.Aug 11, · FCC retains media cross-ownership rules. The Federal Communications Commission keeps its rules that prohibit companies from cross-owning newspapers and broadcasting operations in the same market.
Media cross-ownership is the ownership of multiple media businesses by a person or corporation. These businesses can include broadcast and cable television, film, radio, newspaper, magazine, book publishing, music, video games, and various online entities.
In summary, media conglomeration has made the conditions that led to the enactment of the cross-ownership rule worse today than they were then, making it even more important that the rule be maintained.
The Regulation, Deregulation and Ownership of Media Society understands, and therefore seeks to check, the media’s collective power. But each member of society will have different opinions about the methods by which, and.
Regulating cross-media ownership: A comparative study between Australia and Italy cross-media ownership regulation could foster an innovative approach that is neither too liberal, nor too strong, but strike a harmonious balance between opportunism and. The cross-media rules would be amended to allow cross-media transactions to proceed, subject to there remaining a minimum number of commercial media groups in the relevant market (five in mainland state capitals, four in regional markets the 5/4 rule).Download