Whether you like it or not, the fact is that Murdoch managed to add Dow Jones to his expansive media empire. Sad? Yes, I can't help feeling that. In the protracted debate on Murdoch's bid, the forces supporting Dow Jones' editorial independence have been locked in a bitter fight with the forces seeking commercial profit. At the end of the day, money speak louder, and Murdoch's smiles are splashed across the frontpages of the world newspapers.
More sadly, the media, the special instrument to democracy, will continue to see concentration through merger or takeover. As Amercian scholar Mchesney pointed out, media concentration begets concentration, Murdoch's takeover of Dow Jones will spark a new wave of concentration. Other rivals like Financial Times or NBC, among others, will have to responde to the takeover to survive in the market dominated by jungle law.
I may have to say that in the age of capitalism, money is the master. You could fight for public interest, but at the end of the day, money will carry the day.
Showing posts with label media ownership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media ownership. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 August 2007
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
Murdoch empire under scrutiny
Recently Murdoch was in the headlines again for the expansion of his media empire on both sides of the Atlantic. One was his bid for Dow Jones with a proposal of 5 billion dollars purchase. The other was about the deal that the satellite broadcaster BskyB, controlled by Murdoch, bought 17.9% shares of ITV. The Uk competition authorities are investigating if the deal would compromise the plurality and diversity of media industry.
What is interesting is that either his Dow Jones bid or the ITV deal appears not to have breached the ownership rules. The shares BskyB bought is less than the 20% limit stipulated under the 2003 Communications Act. As for the Dow Jones bid, law anyalysts said that the deal is unlikely to be blocked legally. The Federal cross-ownership rules prohibit the same entity from owning both a television station and a newspaper in the same local market. While News Corp. owns two local stations in New York, the Journal isn't considered a local New York City paper under a previous FCC ruling.
This may show Murdoch's wit or cunning (whatever term you could choose). His media empire maybe great, but its sprawling nature works to his best, as his antitrust lawyers predict it would sail through regulatory review because Rupert Murdoch's global media empire is not concentrated in any particular product or region. So the empire is designed by Murdoch to ease or circumvent the reuglatory constraint.
However, that doesnot mean that Murdoch could go ahead with his expansion without any restraint. No breach of regulations or ownership rules doesnot mean that Murdoch wouldnot have his expansion under scrutiny.
Regarding the ITV deal, it, though staying within the limit, could raise compeititon concerns given the influence enjoyed by Murdoch in UK, where he boasts one popular satelite broadcaster, one broadsheet and two talboids. As the competition commission said, they would look at the impact of the deal on the "plurality" of news and current affairs provision in the UK and might extend that probe to its impact on "different aspects of culture more generally".
As far as their bid for the Dow Jones is concerned, the FCC will not have regulatory authority to block the Dow Jones deal – because media ownership rules do not apply to national newspaper titles such as the Wall Street Journal – it could put pressure on News Corp as the company looks to the FCC to renew some of its broadcasting licences in the New York area.
Besides, the Democrats could also step in, having got chips on their shoulders for Murdoch's Fox News which is thought to be a propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
The Democratcs could exert their influence on the Down Jones bid through putting presure on the FCC.
Certainly the partisan politics may come into play, but the media concentration has been becoming a serious concern in the United States, where the ownership limits has been quite relaxed.
On both sides of the Atlantic, Murdoch had enjoyed many exemptions in the course of his media empires. For example in the United States, Murdoch has received exemptions from the FCC before. In 1993, the commission waived its "cross-ownership" rule -- which bars companies from owning a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market -- allowing Murdoch to buy back the New York Post. The FCC did so because, it said, Murdoch -- who had been forced to sell the Post five years earlier because he owned a Fox TV affiliate in New York -- was the only person who could prevent the Post from falling into bankruptcy.
Two years later, the FCC chose to go against the recommendations of its own staff, which found that Murdoch's Australia-based News Corp. should be defined as a foreign company and have its U.S. TV holdings limited to 25 percent. Instead, the FCC decided that since Murdoch had served the "public interest" by founding a fourth national network, he should be allowed to maintain full control of his TV stations.
It is the same case in the UK, where Thatcher let Murdoch burn the rulebook to acquire over 40% of newspaper ownership. She arranged a unique get-out clause in EU media law to allow him to launch Sky. Blair also relaxed the limit on cross-media ownership for him. All this contribute greatly to his media empire.
But everything seems to have a limit, even the sky has a limit. This time, Murdoch's empire expansion is put under great scrutiny. It is interesting to see what will happen next.
What is interesting is that either his Dow Jones bid or the ITV deal appears not to have breached the ownership rules. The shares BskyB bought is less than the 20% limit stipulated under the 2003 Communications Act. As for the Dow Jones bid, law anyalysts said that the deal is unlikely to be blocked legally. The Federal cross-ownership rules prohibit the same entity from owning both a television station and a newspaper in the same local market. While News Corp. owns two local stations in New York, the Journal isn't considered a local New York City paper under a previous FCC ruling.
This may show Murdoch's wit or cunning (whatever term you could choose). His media empire maybe great, but its sprawling nature works to his best, as his antitrust lawyers predict it would sail through regulatory review because Rupert Murdoch's global media empire is not concentrated in any particular product or region. So the empire is designed by Murdoch to ease or circumvent the reuglatory constraint.
However, that doesnot mean that Murdoch could go ahead with his expansion without any restraint. No breach of regulations or ownership rules doesnot mean that Murdoch wouldnot have his expansion under scrutiny.
Regarding the ITV deal, it, though staying within the limit, could raise compeititon concerns given the influence enjoyed by Murdoch in UK, where he boasts one popular satelite broadcaster, one broadsheet and two talboids. As the competition commission said, they would look at the impact of the deal on the "plurality" of news and current affairs provision in the UK and might extend that probe to its impact on "different aspects of culture more generally".
As far as their bid for the Dow Jones is concerned, the FCC will not have regulatory authority to block the Dow Jones deal – because media ownership rules do not apply to national newspaper titles such as the Wall Street Journal – it could put pressure on News Corp as the company looks to the FCC to renew some of its broadcasting licences in the New York area.
Besides, the Democrats could also step in, having got chips on their shoulders for Murdoch's Fox News which is thought to be a propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
The Democratcs could exert their influence on the Down Jones bid through putting presure on the FCC.
Certainly the partisan politics may come into play, but the media concentration has been becoming a serious concern in the United States, where the ownership limits has been quite relaxed.
On both sides of the Atlantic, Murdoch had enjoyed many exemptions in the course of his media empires. For example in the United States, Murdoch has received exemptions from the FCC before. In 1993, the commission waived its "cross-ownership" rule -- which bars companies from owning a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market -- allowing Murdoch to buy back the New York Post. The FCC did so because, it said, Murdoch -- who had been forced to sell the Post five years earlier because he owned a Fox TV affiliate in New York -- was the only person who could prevent the Post from falling into bankruptcy.
Two years later, the FCC chose to go against the recommendations of its own staff, which found that Murdoch's Australia-based News Corp. should be defined as a foreign company and have its U.S. TV holdings limited to 25 percent. Instead, the FCC decided that since Murdoch had served the "public interest" by founding a fourth national network, he should be allowed to maintain full control of his TV stations.
It is the same case in the UK, where Thatcher let Murdoch burn the rulebook to acquire over 40% of newspaper ownership. She arranged a unique get-out clause in EU media law to allow him to launch Sky. Blair also relaxed the limit on cross-media ownership for him. All this contribute greatly to his media empire.
But everything seems to have a limit, even the sky has a limit. This time, Murdoch's empire expansion is put under great scrutiny. It is interesting to see what will happen next.
Monday, 2 July 2007
Lords Committee to investigate the impact of media ownership on news
The House of Lords Communications Committee chaired by Lord Fowler has announced that it is to conduct an investigation into the impact of concentration in media ownership on news output (1,2). This chimes with concerns raised by Ofcom (but not the OFT) over the acquisition by BSkyB of shares in ITV. The Committee has called for evidence on the following questions:
- How and why have the agendas of news providers changed? How has the content of news programmes and newspapers altered over the years?
- How is the way that people access the news changing? The Committee is interested in national and regional trends and figures for television, radio, newspaper and on-line news consumption.
- How has the process of news gathering changed? The Committee is interested in the process of news production, the prioritisation of budgets and the deployment of journalistic resources.
- What is the impact of the concentration of media ownership on the balance and diversity of opinion seen in the news? Does ownership have an impact on editorial priorities and on news values such as fairness, accuracy and impartiality?
- How should the public interest be protected and defined in terms of news provision? Are the public interest considerations set down for Ofcom in the Communications Act 2003 enough to ensure a plurality of debating voices in the UK news media?
The Committee plans a second call, focusing on the concentration of media ownership, on cross-media ownership and on the regulation of media ownership, for later in the year.
(source: from Mediapal@LSE)
- How and why have the agendas of news providers changed? How has the content of news programmes and newspapers altered over the years?
- How is the way that people access the news changing? The Committee is interested in national and regional trends and figures for television, radio, newspaper and on-line news consumption.
- How has the process of news gathering changed? The Committee is interested in the process of news production, the prioritisation of budgets and the deployment of journalistic resources.
- What is the impact of the concentration of media ownership on the balance and diversity of opinion seen in the news? Does ownership have an impact on editorial priorities and on news values such as fairness, accuracy and impartiality?
- How should the public interest be protected and defined in terms of news provision? Are the public interest considerations set down for Ofcom in the Communications Act 2003 enough to ensure a plurality of debating voices in the UK news media?
The Committee plans a second call, focusing on the concentration of media ownership, on cross-media ownership and on the regulation of media ownership, for later in the year.
(source: from Mediapal@LSE)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
