Regulation of the concentration of mass media
The concentration of the media in the hands of certain individuals or groups limits the pluralism of opinions and undermines the constitutional foundations of freedom of speech. That is why Governments are implementing both legal regulation of media ownership and special programs to promote print publications. The focus of the world and European community is constantly on the problems of mass media concentration, a dangerous economic phenomenon that has such negative consequences as restrictions on freedom of speech, pluralism of opinions, etc. Nevertheless, the concentration of mass media is observed all over the world. As an economic phenomenon, the concentration of mass media has an objective reason - changes in the material and technical base of mass media, characteristic of mass communications in all developed countries (first of all, the creation and introduction of new methods of telecommunications), objectively leads to the centralization of capital revolving in the field of mass communications, to the emergence of competition in the media to a qualitatively new level, to form powerful information and financial groups with their own corporate interests.
The concentration of mass media takes place in various forms. There is so-called cross-ownership (between television and radio broadcasting, between television and radio broadcasting and periodicals), vertical integration in the field of mass media (i.e. investments in organizations related to the main business), as well as the penetration of foreign capital.
In different countries, the processes of mass media concentration occur in different ways, and the fight against these processes is conducted in different ways. Thus, in the United States, the main means of state opposition to monopolies and concentration of mass media are antitrust laws, which have been repeatedly used by American courts.
As noted in a number of European Union documents, a potential disadvantage of the current European models of legal regulation of media pluralism is their tendency to focus exclusively on traditional media. However, the process of media concentration is also actively underway in the field of new communication technologies and services, the role of which is increasingly increasing. There is also an obvious danger that technological convergence between the broadcasting, telecommunications and computer technology industries contributes to the creation of a dominant market position and the development of media concentration.
The member States of the European Union are faced with the task of legislatively preventing and countering media concentration, which may threaten media pluralism at the national, regional or local levels. In their legislation or registration, licensing or similar procedures, States should provide for the definition of maximum levels of State control in order to limit the influence that a commercial company or group can exert in one or more media sectors. Such levels, for example, can take the form of a maximum audience share, or be based on the income/turnover of commercial companies in the field of mass media. It also provides for a limitation of the share of capital in commercial media companies. When setting impact levels, States should take into account the size of the media market and the level of resources available on it. Companies that have reached the permitted level of influence in the market should not receive additional licenses on it. In addition to these activities, national authorities responsible for issuing licenses, in particular to broadcasters, should pay special attention to promoting media pluralism in the exercise of their functions.
The member States of the European Union are considering the possibility of creating special bodies in the field of mass media with the right to oppose mergers of companies and other concentration operations, which threatens the pluralism of the media, or the right to grant such rights to already existing regulatory bodies of the language sector. In the event that States do not consider it appropriate, authorities dealing with general competition issues should pay special attention to media pluralism when reviewing mergers of companies or other concentration operations in the media sector.
Participating States should take special measures in cases where vertical integration - that is, the control exercised by an individual company or group of companies over key sectors of production, broadcasting, distribution and related activities - may pose a threat to pluralism.
It should be noted that in addition to general developments, in some European countries, quite detailed regulation of this problem is carried out by special legislative acts on mass media. For example, the Austrian Government subsidizes all daily newspapers in order to help them survive in the press market, and thus supports the existence of a wide range of opinions. In addition, there is a special support program for several small newspapers, which play a particularly important role in shaping various political opinions. The Swedish government finances the so-called "second row" newspapers (which rank second in circulation). In addition, in the Northern European states, financial support is provided to party publications and the religious press.
Legal regulation is carried out through general and special antitrust laws. So, in the UK, the Minister of Commerce has the right to limit the concentration of the press in one hand. Without his consent, it is impossible to transfer the publication (with a circulation of over 500 thousand copies) to another person if, as a result of the transfer, the new owner can close the newspaper or absorb it by a competing publication. In addition, the English Broadcasting Act (1990) restricts the purchase of various types of media by one person. German legislation guarantees the pluralism of the press as the most important factor of press freedom by prohibiting monopoly. The federal law on monopoly has special provisions that allow for the control of small and medium-sized associations in the field of mass media. According to him, the Federal Agency for Monopolies can prohibit the merger of companies.
The Government of Canada has limited media ownership by establishing a certain market share. There are no other recommendations to limit concentration. But the government has the right to consider property from the point of view of the unified Audit Act and to prevent the formation of a monopoly if its formation could harm Canadian society. There is no special legal regulation of media ownership in the Netherlands. However, the Government is considering press regulation projects so that one owner cannot have too large a share of the media in the market.
In the United States, the press is generally subject to regulation by antitrust laws or state corporate laws.
Electronic mass media are subject to special regulatory regulation, and this indirectly applies to print media (for example, the "one on the market" rule, a ban on simultaneous ownership by one person of a newspaper and a television and radio station in the same place or on the same information market).
By 1995, the United States had legally established national and local restrictions on the ownership of television or radio stations.
For example, 12 television stations were allowed to be owned nationwide (14 if the additional two stations are controlled by racial minorities), and these stations were not allowed to include more than 25% of the national audience (30% if they belong to racial minorities).
The owner of the local television is obliged not to overlap the frequencies of public-owned stations of "grade A" (68-74 dBu, depending on the frequency of the station). As for radio stations, nationwide, it was allowed to own no more than 20 AM and 20 FM stations (or 25 AM and 25 FM stations controlled by minorities or small businesses). In small markets (14 or fewer stations), no more than three stations of the same owner could make up no more than 50% of the stations on the market. In large markets (15 or more stations), no more than four stations of the same owner could cover no more than 25% of the local audience.
Considering the regulation of media concentration, it should be noted that the state monopoly in the field of mass media in democratic countries is also considered a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Governments regulating the concentration of mass media act in accordance with the Declaration on Mass Media and Human Rights adopted by PACE, which states that the independence of the media must be protected from the threat of monopolies, and neither private enterprises nor financial groups should have the right to a monopoly in the field of press, radio or television, and the formation of a monopoly controlled by the government should not be allowed.
Despite all the differences in the measures applied, it is possible to identify common economic approaches to regulating the processes of concentration of mass media:
The concentration restriction in the field of periodicals is carried out depending on the volume of circulation and its share in the national circulation or circulation in the region;
limitation of the share in the share capital;
limitation of the number of licenses per person;
regulation of cross-ownership;
limitation of the share of foreign capital;
ensuring transparency of the media (publication of the annual financial report, list of major shareholders, information on the sale of large blocks of shares, etc.).