Cross-ownership

Media has come out as one of the most powerful tools of influence and manipulation of our times. As a result of growing influence, various entities are being led by their gluttony for power and recognition to completely control media houses and disturb the freedom of media as a right. Cross ownership is something that has taken the form of a plague for our democracy. Media can exist in various forms, such as newspapers, radio and television. Cross ownership takes place when an entity takes ownership of media outlets in more than one of these mediums in the same sphere. This can seem like an innocent outcome of the accumulation of wealth with a select few but it can have drastic consequences. It can result in the consolidation of information taps and thus, the creation of a monopoly. What motivates most companies to practice cross-ownership is to expand their viewership to different spaces. As we speak of, there exist close to no restrictions that stop a company from exercising cross-ownership. There are however some restrictions when it comes to vertical integration to acquire Direct-to-home platforms. Competition laws too play a minor role. 

 Negative Impacts of Corporate Interest

 When a media outlet is controlled by a company, its ownership is purely focused on its economic success. This focus on earning more profits can interfere with what media outlets should be doing. It has been identified as a problem around the world including in the United Kingdom as can be seen in the First Report of the Select Committee on Communication, in the year 2007-08 which stated the negative impacts of overwhelming control over media outlets across various forms. The negative impacts included the effect it had on the approach to journalism, interference by top board members and unfair influence of owners. Companies Act, 2013 as well as Competition Act of 2002 mentions provisions dealing with the level of control by owners over corporations fulfilling different purposes such as investments, mergers and acquisitions, the appointment of high-level officials etc. but no such parameters are effective when it comes to ownership of media outlets because media units are a different category of bodies. They produce information which has the power to mould opinions and that power can give god-like powers to anyone who possesses that power. 

Government Monopoly

Government control should be resisted when it comes to the media. Media carries out one of the most vital roles played in a democracy and that is the dissemination of information. Government monopoly in this field can transform a democracy’s free space encouraging free voice into a dystopian world where nothing can be ascertained as the truth. In the case of ‘Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal’ (1995) 2 SCC 161: AIR 1995 SC 1236, the following was held by the Apex court: 

“The broadcasting media should be under the control of the public as distinct from the Government. This is the command implicit in Article 19(1)(a)...It/they must be required by law to present news, views and opinions in a balanced way ensuring plurality and diversity of opinions and views. It/they must provide equal access to all the citizens and groups to avail of the medium.”