Impact of Ownership Pattern on Independence of Media

Media is often referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy. It has the responsibility to uphold the
Right to Freedom of Speech, to scrutinise the actions of the executives and hold them accountable.
Providing this right to the media also casts an obligation on them to convey information which is
truthful and unbiased. However, media houses are themselves profit-making businesses, their
existence depends on attracting more audience, and they have to regularly report to the owners
who are concerned with profit maximisation. Therefore, the content is delivered for the interests
of the ‘consumer’ and not the ‘citizens’ of the country. As per the Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce & Industry (FICCI), Indian media is a $22.54 billion industry and recorded a growth of
13% in 2017. It is expected to grow at a CAGR of 11.6%, faster than the country’s GDP, making it a
lucrative business.

Just four companies – Walt Disney, Time Warner Holdings, 21st Century Fox and Comcast currently
supply 90% of the world’s media content. Media ownership pattern has a significant influence on
the coverage of events, with parent companies having a homogenising impact on their media
houses, leaving citizens with less diverse information about the activities in society. The Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has highlighted this belief and stated, “There may be
thousands of newspapers and hundreds of news channels in the news media market, but if they
are all ‘controlled’ by only a handful of entities, then there is insufficient plurality of news and
views presented to the people.”

The Media Ownership Motor (MOM) India, in its research, pointed to an increasing concentration
in the ownership patterns in the Indian media. For instance, only four outlets – Dainik Jagran,
Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala and Hindustan capture more than 75% of the readership share within
the national Hindi language market. Most leading media companies are backed by conglomerates,
with interests in a wide array of industries apart from the media. Five news media companies in
India – India TV, NDTV, Network18, News24 and News Nation – are either indebted to Mukesh
Ambani, or Mahendra Nahata, his associate, who is also a board member in Reliance Jio.

Such a high level of concentration is possible because of considerable gaps in our regulatory
framework to prevent media concentration and hence safeguard pluralism in the media. There are
no threshold limits in print, television, online spaces or cross-media concentration. Moreover,
there is no single body in India which can govern all media related aspects. Presence of multiple
bodies like Press Council of India, Press Information Bureau, Registrar of Newspapers in India etc.
with limited powers effectively make them toothless.

A significant proportion of media companies have some business or political affiliations, with more
visible links on a regional level as compared to the national channels. For example, Odisha TV is
owned by Baijayant Panda, a four-time MP from the BJP, the Marans control Sun TV in Tamil Nadu
and Sakshi TV is backed by Jagan Mohan Reddy in Andhra Pradesh.

Because of such structures, media houses have to increasingly rely on corporates, encouraging
them to further the interests of such corporates. The close association between the corporates and
political parties makes this web even more complicated. As a result, media no longer presents an
objective view of the events, but walk on a tight rope and tend to suppress the facts which have an
unfavourable impact on the business or financial interests of their “owners”. Editorial content,
which used to critically analyse political, social and economic issues from varying perspectives is
now subservient to the owner and taken over by managerial functionaries, making media an outlet
to advance the business and political interests.

These owners control what is viewed, seen and heard by the general populace of the country by
using their influence to filter out the news. They mould the narrative in media in such a manner to
prevent criticism of their companies’ actions and to get positive messages to the public. This
impacts the share price of the publicly traded companies, leading to impressive gains for the
shareholders. Laws or actions of the government which are expected to have a positive impact on
a particular media house tends to get favourable coverage, while those who may be negatively
impacted portray an unfavourable outcome with negative consequences repeatedly. Small
investors, who depend on newspapers and TV channels to find information to aid their investment
decisions are negatively impacted due to biased and inaccurate perception of corporate firms.

Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press conducted a survey of journalists in American
news media under which a high proportion of journalists argued that financial and business
interests are the major factors behind the poor quality of news in recent times. They believed that
pressure of the bottom line and 24-hour news cycle has weakened journalism. Sensational news
reporting and the race for highest ratings are the biggest problems of the profession.

One such instance in the international context is when Rupert Murdoch, the media baron who
controlled 150 newspapers in the US at the time of the Gulf War, supported US invasion of Iraq.
Shortly afterwards, he was able to favourably impact various domestic laws to get permission to
run his operations in the US. He was also integral to instigate a constitutional crisis in Australia in
1972 when the government refused to grant his company the license to develop bauxite reserves
in the country. Murdoch said that his newspapers could no longer support the then Prime Minister
Gough Whitlam since his government was grossly inefficient. He was able to influence the
opposition, which had a majority in the Senate to vote against Whitlam leading to his dismissal
from office.

A study was done in India on the influence of ownership to the delivery of new content using the
theoretical framework developed by Altschull (Maheshwari, 2015). It studied two news channels
NDTV (backed by Reliance) and India Today (Reliance Capital had reduced its stake from 14.9% to
5%). The report concluded that NDTV was more pro-corporate and took a more centrist position in
its coverage, which may be because of the influence of Reliance Group. India Today, on the other
hand, usually adopted a critical approach to the government in power and presented one-sided
arguments.

The objective of the government of India behind removing regulations and allowing the entry of
private players in media was to encourage pluralism and safeguard the freedom of expression. But
the actual result could not have been farther from the intention. It is high time that we bring the
debate on cross-media ownership forward and introduce an appropriate regulatory framework. It
may prove to be a difficult task but the way has already been shown by other countries like
Canada, the UK and France, which restrict domination by a single entity across different forms of
media. India needs to consolidate various regulatory frameworks to cover all media as well as
telecommunication under a single umbrella to facilitate effective formulation of law and its
implementation.
References

Freedomhouse.org. (2014). How Ownership Patterns Threaten Press Freedom. Available at:
https://freedomhouse.org/blog/how-ownership-patterns-threaten-press-freedom

Baum, M. and Zhukov, Y. (2018). Media Ownership and News Coverage of International Conflict.
Political Communication. Available at:
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/zhukov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/140/2018/02/BZ_ownership_final.pd
f

RSF. (2019). Media Ownership Monitor: Who owns the media in India?. Available at:
https://rsf.org/en/news/media-ownership-monitor-who-owns-media-india

Kaushik, K. (2016). The Big Five: The Media Companies That the Modi Government Must Scrutinise
To Fulfill its Promise of Ending Crony Capitalism. Caravanmagazine.in. Available at:
https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/the-big-five-the-media-companies-that-the-modi-
government-must-scrutinise-to-fulfill-its-promise-of-ending-crony-capitalism

Thakurta, P. (2012). Media Ownership in India-An Overview. http://asu.thehoot.org/. Available at:

Sarkar, S. (2013). Cross Media Ownership - A Threat to Vibrant Democracy. Vifindia.org. Available
at: https://www.vifindia.org/article/2013/august/22/cross-media-ownership-can-india-checkmake-
it

Puri, V. (2019). The Consequences of Concentrated Media Ownership. Young Bhartiya. Available at:
https://www.youngbhartiya.com/article/the-consequences-of-concentrated-media-ownership-1

Chishti, A. (2018). Corporate ownership of Media in India. Media Ownership Monitor. Available at:
https://india.mom-rsf.org/en/findings/corporateownership/

Maheshwari, M. (2015). The role of media ownership in creation and delivery of new content: Case
study of two English News Channels. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282246843_The_role_of_media_ownership_in_creatio
n_and_delivery_of_news_content_Case_study_of_two_English_News_Channels

Rao, N. and Choudhury, D. (2019). The Relationship Between Media Ownership and Media
Credibility.