Media Pluralism and Diversity

The term ‘media pluralism’ is regularly used in critiques of media and in arguments for public intervention in media markets. It is employed so loosely, however, that it allows varied interpretations to be attached, and this makes it highly challenging to turn general support for the concept into specific policies. Much of the lack of clarity is the consequence of indefiniteness of the term and because it is used as a proxy for more involved concepts. The term is derived from ‘plural’, an indistinct quantitative concept indicating the existence of more than a single thing, and plurality itself merely indicates a state of being numerous. This alone allows the term plurality to be used in various ways when applied to media. For some it means a plurality of media outlets. This is indicated by having multiple types of media and multiple units of each media, and the existence of a range of print, broadcast, satellite, and Internet content providers can also represent pluralism. For other observers pluralism means plurality in ownership, that is, a range of owners and different types of ownership. For others it is indicated by the existence of public service as well as private commercial firms so some content is provided by an organization(s) without direct individual economic self- interest(s).

Brown and Duguid (2000) note that the rise of the information age has brought about a good deal of ‘endism’. New technology, they say, is predicted to bring about, among other things, the end of the press, television and mass media; politics; government; and the nation- state. Napoli (2009) stops short of foretelling an Armageddon, but says that converging media technologies, the globalisation of distribution networks, and unprecedented fragmentation and interactivity dramatically affect established theories, analytical approaches and policy priorities. Does this extend to media pluralism concerns, as well?

Concerns over ownership of media and their effects on pluralism first arose in the late nineteenth century with the development of politically active press barons in the United Kingdom and the United States, but ownership did not become a policy issue in most countries until choice about ownership of broadcasting emerged in the first half of the twentieth century.

Societies have different media systems, and a pluralism of media types and media genres clearly differ among them. The term ‘media system’ (or ‘media scene’) used in communication literature generally ‘refers to the actual set of mass media in a given national society’ (McQuail 2000, p. 192). Media systems or media scenes, if one prefers the latter term, are products of social history and the continuous development of media technologies, including their adaptations to existing media. The dimensions that differentiate media systems are numerous, and, for instance, McQuail’s short summary of them consists of scale, degree of politicization and public regulation, diversity and sources of finance (2000, p. 210). The framework, used by Hallin and Mancini (2004) to compare media systems puts the emphasis on four dimensions, namely on the development of media markets, political parallelism, journalistic professionalism, and the degree and nature of state intervention in the media system.

The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) developed in the EU MPM Study offers an interesting example of incorporating the concepts of cultural and geographical diversity into the various layers of cultural and geographical space (KU Leuven — ICRI et al. 2009). As explained in the editors’ note, the study was prepared on behalf of the European Commission to detect and assess risks for media pluralism in the EU member states. The study proposed a quite robust scheme of empirical assessment of various dimensions of media pluralism, including cultural and geographical pluralism. These two types of diversity were distinguished to provide the member states with guidelines on how to eliminate threats and deal with risks to cultural and geographical diversity at the supranational (European), national and minority/local level.

The study of media pluralism indicators presented in this book has sought to develop a methodology for the effective analysis of several domains, including political pluralism in the media (KU Leuven — ICRI et al., ‘EU MPM Study’ 2009). In this chapter we will first place the notions of political and media pluralism in their broader theoretical and historical context. The underlying premise is that political pluralism, including in the media sector, cannot be successfully considered or assessed in isolation. It is a product of the dominant power relations and the economic system in which it occurs, and is therefore influenced by a number of interacting social and economic factors. To be able to monitor it, we must first understand the underpinning structures and then develop the methodology that will take into account the workings of the underlying factors rather than concentrate on its results.

The European Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) starts from the assumption that, in order to obtain a complete and accurate picture of actual or imminent threats to media pluralism in a country, different sets of indicators should be combined (KU Leuven — ICRI et al. 2009). It distinguishes between three types of indicators that assess respectively legal, economic, and socio-demographic factors relevant for media pluralism. The aim of this chapter is to describe these different indicators, give an overall account of the methods adopted to select and measure them, and explain how they interrelate.

In the United States (U.S.), diversity, rather than pluralism, has traditionally been one of the overriding goals of media policy (Napoli 1999). The concept of diversity overlaps to some extent with the concept of pluralism in a variety of ways (see Karppinen 2013), as will likely become clear in the discussion that follows. Diversity policy — and diversity measurement — have a long history in the U.S. At various times, policymakers in the U.S. have emphasized a variety of different dimensions of diversity, ranging from the diversity of sources and viewpoints, to the diversity of program types, to the demographic diversity of the employees within media organizations (Napoli 1999).

This chapter conceptualizes media change in China in terms of media pluralization, a concept that had been hitherto applied mostly in the context of democratizing media systems. As a starting point, it modifies and adapts the six dimensions of the Europe- based Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) for use in China. It reflects on conceptual frames, and the methodologies of some indicators as well as ongoing trends of change within political, social, economic and cultural contexts in China that are radically different from Europe. A conceptually and methodologically modified MPM could offer a scheme for regular, longitudinal monitoring of the status of media pluralization in China, including data gathering and analysis in a comprehensive, systematic and transparent way.

India has a strategic geo-political position as the largest country in South Asia, consisting of a population of over one billion with a diversity of languages, religions, and cultures with unity in diversity as its credo. Incredible India! — the punch line of the nation’s campaign on the world tourism stage — gives a glimpse of diversity as the soul of one of the oldest civilizations. In India, the term ‘diversity’ is used to cover all forms of pluralism, religious, cultural, social and economic dimensions of society, including the media. The term ‘media pluralism’ is not generally found in India, but pluralism and diversity are both used to describe a variety of media sources and opinions. Media diversity is used commonly to describe the prolific growth and expansion of media types with various political and socio-economic ideologies, languages, content and a mix of public and private ownership that cater to the diverse people of the country.

In the context of post-Soviet transformations and the digital revolution in Russia, many voices emerged to argue that the outcome of these developments would logically be media diversity. Although laws on press freedom and market economy were adopted, the reality proved to be rather complicated and controversial. Media in Russia have changed enormously, but no specific policy provisions or public mechanisms to introduce media pluralism and diversity have been introduced so far. Moreover, theoretical debates on these issues have been uncommon and they did not attract the particular attention of researchers or policy-makers.

As outlined in previous chapters, the EU Media Pluralism Monitor (hereafter ‘MPM’) identifies six dimensions through which media pluralism can be assessed (basic tier, ownership, types and genres, cultural, political and geographic diversity). In Latin America, media pluralism has not been a matter of policy, but of politics. The first section of this chapter will discuss three aspects of politics that have shaped the post-transitory media systems in Latin America.¹ The second section will analyse the impact of these aspects on the six dimensions of media pluralism identified by the MPM in order to understand how pluralism, as conceptualized in the EU (KU Leuven — ICRI et al. 2009), has been both challenged and inadequately promoted in Latin America.

Diversity is an attribute of major importance in any robust media system. Fair and balanced media thrive on the principles of inclusion, covering all sides of a story or an issue, and guaranteeing enough representation for religious, ethnic, geographical and socio-economic minorities. Many media systems in democratic countries value the importance of diversity and include provisions in their regulations to safeguard the concept.

This chapter explores the South African experience in attempting to achieve a more diverse and representative media that articulate the aspirations of the country, after decades of apartheid, which skewed the media towards white people. South Africa has not developed a diversity measurement tool, such as the one used by the European Commission to assess risks to media pluralism in member states.¹ A key problem the country faces in tracking the extent of concentration and diversity is that it has no ‘objective’² means of assessing the extent of diversity, which up to this point has simply been ‘read off’ the number of existing media outlets. While a plurality of outlets may arguably be a necessary condition for diversity, it is by no means a sufficient condition.

Like other jurisdictions considered in this collection, Australia is experiencing change in the way in which media is presented and received. Technological developments are challenging established business models as well as policy and regulatory settings.¹ During 2011, a review was established by the Australian Government to consider how policy and regulation might be remodelled to meet these challenges. Known as the ‘Convergence Review’, it was given a broad remit to undertake a comprehensive review of Australian communications and media regulation (Conroy 2010). In April 2012, the Convergence Review Committee (the Review Committee) delivered its final report.² The deliberations of the Review Committee provide a useful means of assessing contemporary media pluralism policy thinking in Australia. Australia does not use the media pluralism monitor, developed by the EU MPM Study (KU Leuven — ICRI et al. 2009), nor does it have anything similar. There is a high level of media ownership and control concentration, and vertical integration, but this tends to be accepted as a matter of fact, without much appetite for tackling these competitive constraints (DBCDE 2011a, p. 12).

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the notion of media pluralism and how it is assessed in South Korea. Throughout 2008–2009, Korean society experienced intense controversy over an amendment to its Broadcasting Law, which is commonly referred to as ‘the Media Laws Debates’. The essential purpose of the amendment was to deregulate the media ownership restrictions in the existing laws, such as the Broadcasting law, Newspaper law and IPTV law, which prohibited the ownership of major broadcast services — notably, network T V, general program provider (hereafter: PP), news PP — by large enterprises, newspapers and news agencies. The focus of the conflict was on the impact such ownership deregulation might have on the existing power structure of the major media, which exert a tremendous influence on public opinion.

As the chapters in this book illustrate, the notion of media pluralism has become an increasingly central, yet contested, part of media policy debates in both academic discourse and policy practice around the world. The reasons for the topicality of media pluralism as a policy issue are many, ranging from political and ideological trends to changes in the media landscape itself. Apart from the inherent value of pluralism and diversity as key notions of liberal democracy, one practical reason for the resonance of pluralism and diversity in current media policy debates may also lie in their apparent measurability and the illusion of ideological neutrality they imply. In contrast to value- laden notions such as media quality, freedom or social responsibility, pluralism and diversity seem at least in principle measurable and therefore more objective as media policy objectives.

The publication in November 2012 of the Report of the Leveson Inquiry, a major public enquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the UK newspaper industry led by Lord Justice Leveson, was heralded as a great landmark for regulation of the press. But on the question of media ownership the Report was relatively silent (Leveson 2012). The lack of any firm recommendations in this area was surprising since a key event that paved the way for the Inquiry was the proposal from News Corporation in 2010 to acquire the remaining 61% not already owned by the company of BSkyB, the UK’s dominant satellite television operator. This bid was seen by many as potentially damaging to the public interest because, in addition to BSkyB’s dominance in the UK pay television market, the company is a major provider of news to commercial radio stations across the UK and also its parent company, News Corporation, at that time owned press titles that collectively accounted for a share of the UK national newspaper market of some 37% (Fenton 2011).

State intervention in support of media plurality has traditionally employed fixed ownership limits targeted either at holdings within a specific media sector, for instance, television, or across different sectors, such as television and the printed press. As technological developments have enhanced the range and diversity of media goods and services, so ‘bright-line’ regulation of this kind has come to appear unduly rigid and out of step with the converging media environment. Ten years ago the United Kingdom (UK) embarked on a novel experiment, replacing fixed limits with a flexible, multifaceted test for assessing media plurality. This framework for measuring ‘media plurality’ has, however, come under increasing scrutiny as both procedural and substantive problems have become evident. Sophistication can lead to better targeted and effective regulatory intervention, but it can also increase subjective discretion, obscure important value choices, impose considerable costs on industry, and reduce levels of public transparency and accountability.

Existing media diversity policies have had and will continue to have an important role in realizing the overall diversity of media content available.¹ The various measures that exist in the member states, and at a European level, to promote a diversity of sources and independent media suppliers, as well as diversity in the output of individual media outlets, have firmly put their stamp on the structure of national media markets. When creating the conditions that users can benefit from media diversity, media law and policy are continuously being challenged to take into account the dynamics of permanently evolving media markets. A dynamic element that so far has played only a marginal role in traditional diversity policies, and which shall be at the focus of this chapter, is the changing role of the audience, and its increasingly complex relationship with the suppliers of media content.

This chapter will discuss whether and how the regulatory notions of diversity and pluralism in the public information environment could be used as normative signposts in the context of search engine governance. Search engine quality will be considered to be a question about the way in which fundamental notions relating to the quality of the public information environment are affected by the way in which search engines value, select, rank and prioritize information and communication streams. As search engines have become essential for certain societal demands, such as the free flow of and the access to information and ideas, it has become essential to discuss how well the current search engines are actually fulfilling these demands and how policies relating to pluralism and diversity could start to better take account of this.