Copyrighted material

Transcription

1 Selection, introduction and editorial matter Peggy Valcke, Miklós Sükösd and Robert G. Picard 2015 Individual chapters Respective authors 2015 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6 10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act First published 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number , of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave and Macmillan are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Media pluralism and diversity : concepts, risks and global trends / [edited by] Peggy Valcke, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium ; Miklós Sükösd, University of Copenhagen, Denmark and Robert Picard, University of Oxford, UK. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN Mass media and minorities. 2. Mass media and globalization. 3. Cultural pluralism in mass media. 4. Mass media and ethnic relations. 5. Multiculturalism in mass media. I. Valcke, Peggy, editor. II. Sükösd, Miklós, editor. III. Picard, Robert G., editor. P94.5.M55M dc Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India.

2 Contents List of Figures and Tables Acknowledgements Notes on Contributors vii ix x A Global Perspective on Media Pluralism and Diversity: Introduction 1 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd Part I Media Pluralism in Europe: Conceptualization and Dimensions in the European Media Pluralism Monitor 1 New Media Ecology: Reconceptualizing Media Pluralism 23 Karol Jakubowicz 2 The Dimension of Ownership and Control of Media 54 Robert G. Picard and Cinzia Dal Zotto 3 Pluralism of Media Types and Media Genres 67 Mihály Gálik and Artemon Vogl 4 Cultural and Geographical Dimensions of Media Pluralism 82 Beata Klimkiewicz 5 Political Pluralism in the Media 107 Sandra B. Hrvatin and Brankica Petković 6 Indicators for Media Pluralism Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard, Cinzia Dal Zotto, Miklós Sükösd, Aleksandra Kuczerawy and Robin Kerremans 121 Part II Media Pluralism across the Globe: Comparative Perspectives on the European Media Pluralism Monitor 7 Assessing Media Diversity in the U.S.: A Comparative Analysis of the FCC s Diversity Index and the EU s Media Pluralism Monitor 141 Philip M. Napoli 8 How to Conceptualize Media Pluralization in China? 152 Miklós Sükösd 9 Incredible India!: Media Pluralism amidst Unity in Diversity 171 Kiran Prasad 10 Media Pluralism in Russia: In Need of Policy Making 193 Elena Vartanova v

3 vi Contents 11 Latin American Media: The Challenges to Pluralism 211 Manuel Alejandro Guerrero 12 Media Diversity in Egypt: Monitoring Newspapers and Talk Shows During the First Post- Revolution Parliamentary Elections 226 Rasha Abdulla 13 Pluralism with Little Diversity: The South African Experience of Media Transformation 237 Jane Duncan 14 Reviewing Media Pluralism in Australia 252 Lesley Hitchens 15 The Ongoing Media Pluralism Debate in South Korea 267 Sugmin Youn and Hyunwoo Lee Part III Media Pluralism 2.0: Future Challenges and Critical Perspectives 16 The Limits of Empirical Indicators: Media Pluralism as an Essentially Contested Concept 287 Kari Karppinen 17 Why Ownership Pluralism Still Matters in a Multi- Platform World 297 Gillian Doyle 18 Bright- Line versus Responsive Regulation: Some Thoughts from the United Kingdom 310 Rachael Craufurd Smith 19 Media Pluralism Policies from the User Perspective 325 Natali Helberger 20 Search Engines, Pluralism and Diversity: What Is at Stake and How to Move Policy Forward? 341 Joris van Hoboken Index 358

4 A Global Perspective on Media Pluralism and Diversity: Introduction Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd What s in a name? 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). The amount of media, its ownership, and its operation, however, are not in themselves the objects of concern about pluralism, and these usages are merely shorthand semantic devices that indicate a collection of political, economic, and cultural concepts and ideologies. Because that collection is not universally agreed, the term pluralism is disparately employed. The term encompasses fundamental concepts in liberal democratic media ideology and neo- Marxist critiques of media. It incorporates ideas of the benefits of free flow of information, ideas, and opinions, and the value of a variety in artistic and cultural expression. It recognizes that the amount of content that can be offered by any one provider is limited by temporal and spatial factors. It accepts that the abilities of individuals to obtain and attend 1

5 2 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd to content are affected by monetary and temporal limitations. It recognizes that operation of media is accompanied by political and economic benefits such as access, privilege, influence, and power and that those can be used for personal advantage and interests. Those who accept these concepts underlying the term pluralism differ widely about the proper means for its pursuit, however. They have divergent beliefs about the roles of the state and the market, and differ widely about whether policy should promote beneficial outcomes through regulation or incentives, and whether and the extent to which non- market provision of content is desirable. The difficulty of achieving the ultimate objectives is further complicated by the fact that public policies promoting pluralism tend to focus on the overt evidences of plurality in media outlets, media ownership, and media operation. Although multiplicity of media outlets, ownership, and operation increase the possibility of achieving the objectives of pluralism, they do not guarantee it because they are not necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence. Such external pluralism of media organizations is sometimes not enough to achieve the desired results, and this has led many to advocate for internal pluralism, meaning that within a single broadcaster or publisher a variety of content and perspectives is provided. The provision of internal pluralism is typically used to justify public service broadcasting, and narrow internal pluralism is a typical critique of private media. The contemporary world creates lower barriers to participation in communication by making production easier and shifting distribution away from technologies that limited the number of providers and content available the fundamental rationale for concern about pluralism. In the digital media world, the fundamental challenge involving pluralism is not limitations on producing content, expressing divergent ideas and opinions, or access to distribution systems. The primary challenge in the digital age is the ability to effectively reach audiences. In this environment promoting pluralism is coming to focus on reducing control over what flows through new digital distribution systems, so dominant owners of production and distribution systems are not able to marginalize alternative perspectives and make them difficult to locate. This does not solve the problem, however, because the fundamental content and attention problem remains. Although digital media provide many more opportunities to be heard, the issue today is not share of voice, but share of ear. We need to seek ways to promote knowledge about alternative content and to make it more readily accessible. Otherwise the concentration of where the audience goes in terms of aggregators and sites is every bit as damaging to pluralism as limitations on spectrum and concentration of ownership. This is especially true of Internet service providers, content aggregators, search engines, and video on demand services that pursue their own interests through non-transparent practices and algorithms that skew the access to and distribution of information, even when it is personalized by individuals.

6 Introduction 3 Those who hold that pluralism is no longer an issue in the digital world argue that its underlying technological infrastructures are neutral. That technology may be neutral, but the systems necessary to make them function are under the control of companies with their own agendas and the ability to limit or direct its use in ways that may also harm pluralism. Development of media pluralism concerns and policies Concerns over pluralism in the media began to arise in the United States (US) during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as press barons such as William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, and E.W. Scripps began creating newspaper groups that wielded significant political influence. This led to criticisms and debates that owners of large press enterprises had undue influence over public discourse and could limit the range of ideas and opinions expressed by other citizens. The importance of media in developing and directing public opinion were asserted by Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays in the early 1920s, 1 building upon the work of eighteenth- century philosophers and the emerging field of social psychology. By the time that radio developed into civil communications in the 1920s, officials on both sides of the Atlantic were concerned about its abilities to influence public opinion and about its negative consequences. US regulators adopted policies promoting local ownership with limitations on nationwide ownership so that no single individual or firm would have dominance and be obliged to maintain some degree of political balance in their broadcasts. In Europe similar concerns led many governments to establish public service monopolies with requirements to provide a range of views and opinions. Because of the uses of mass media for propaganda and persuasion in the 1930s and 1940s by both German and allied governments, concerns over the power of media increased after the Second World War. There have been waves of discussion about pluralism, usually initiated by deaths of competing newspapers and the rise of press moguls specifically interested in political influence such as Axel Springer in Germany ( 1940s 1980s), Robert Hersant in France ( 1950s 1990s), Rupert Murdoch in Australia, the United Kingdom and US (1980s to present), Silvio Berlusconi in Italy ( 1970s 2000s), and oligarchs in central and eastern Europe ( 1990s 2000s). These led to national inquiries on ownership and pluralism and more recently, to inquiries by the Council of Europe and European Parliament. In the US, debates over pluralism tend to focus on ownership, with an occasional reference to broadcast policies such as the fairness doctrine. Most efforts to promote pluralism involved trying to protect ownership limits in broadcasting and to use competition law to limit mergers and acquisitions in the newspaper industry using competition law. The European debate, however, tended to take a more Habermasian public sphere approach, 2 and to focus on the role of media in maintaining and

7 4 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd limiting participation in the public sphere. Participation and pluralism are seen as central parts in ensuring a vibrant and democratic public sphere, and European nations tend to have greater ability to enact policies and regulations relating to pluralism than the Anglo nations. European ideas about pluralism have increasingly moved into discussions in the US in past two to three decades, but have not had much effect on policy. Concentration law and ownership limits emerged much later in Europe than the US, but have had limited effect in solving pluralism concerns. In other parts of the world pluralism concerns are rising as well. Some are based on concerns expressed in the West, but other concerns and perspectives on pluralism are increasing there too. This book explores these challenges and perspectives on pluralism by integrating concerns and perspectives from across the globe. To our knowledge, it is the first time such an approach has been taken. The aim is to advance our understanding of defining and assessing media pluralism in a fast- changing media environment that becomes more and more global. The book will compare and critically assess key metrics adopted in different parts of the world. It offers an interdisciplinary perspective at the crossroads of economic, legal, and socio- political research and media studies. It is the first book to offer a truly global analysis of media pluralism, which is a complex and multidimensional concept, interpreted in varying ways in different times, geographies, contexts, and policy circles, but which is widely accepted as an important value and core principle for media policy. EU Media Pluralism Monitor Policy context of the Monitor The starting point to explore these aforementioned different concerns and perspectives with regard to media pluralism is the EU Media Pluralism Monitor. This Monitor was developed at the request of the European Commission by an interdisciplinary study team between January 2008 and June Throughout this book, the study in which the editors and several of the authors have been involved is referred to as the EU MPM Study. 4 The policy context in which the European Commission launched the study was one in which it sought to find a compromise between taking up a more active role in the area of media pluralism (as it was called upon by the European Parliament) and refraining from legislative harmonization (which since the 1990s has constantly been met with fierce opposition from the Council of Ministers and the Member States). 5 Hence, the study was merely intended to develop a common methodological framework to facilitate the collection of empirical data on various risks for media pluralism given the particular economic, socio- demographic, and legal situation in each Member State; it was not meant as a call for harmonization of

8 Introduction 5 policies in this area. In other words, it sought to develop a diagnostic, not a prescriptive tool. The Commission s Staff Working Document, which preceded the study and constituted the first step in Wallström- Reding s three- step approach, highlighted that [m]edia pluralism is a concept that embraces a number of aspects, such as diversity of ownership, variety in the sources of information and in the range of contents available in the different Member States. 6 It advocated for shifting away from the traditional single- focused approach in assessing and regulating media pluralism, looking merely at media ownership, to a more holistic approach, taking into account all measures that ensure citizens access to a variety of information sources, opinion, voices etc. in order to form their opinion without the undue influence of one dominant opinion forming power. 7 Following the multi- faceted and risk- based approach that was suggested in the Working Document, the EU MPM Study identified a range of concrete indicators to measure media pluralism and put these in a risk- based analytical framework for assessing pluralism across the Member States. The objective of the study was not to apply the indicators systematically to every Member State, thereby generating a risk assessment profile for every Member State, but to develop a methodology based on indicators that would deliver such a result. The final outcome was (a prototype of) a Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM), a diagnostic tool, which functions as a radar and allows users to identify high and medium risks relating to various aspects of media pluralism, including not only ownership and plurality issues, but also cultural, political, and geographic dimensions. Main features of the Monitor The MPM can be characterized as a multidisciplinary, holistic tool that starts from a risk- based approach and defines a standardized set of metrics and methods for assessing media pluralism in EU Member States. It is designed as a neutral tool that is compatible with the varying normative, cultural, and economic approaches in the countries involved; in other words, it provides a tool for diagnosis, not therapy. The MPM aims for quantitative and objective analysis to the largest possible extent (reducing the scope for arbitrary assessment by offering transparent methods and thresholds in cases where a form of subjective judgement would be required). The MPM is designed in such a way as to be sufficiently flexible to be adjusted in the light of economic and technological evolutions and as user- friendly and practicable as possible. Arguing that in mature democracies, media pluralism encompasses political, cultural, geographical, structural, and content related dimensions, the MPM starts from a broad notion of media pluralism that includes internal and external pluralism, cultural, political, and geographic dimensions of pluralism, ownership and concentration issues, media contents and formats. The European Commission s Terms of Reference for the study pointed

9 6 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd out that the tool would have to assess the economic, socio- demographic, and legal/policy context in which media are offered and consumed, looking at supply (including elements of distribution and infrastructures), demand, and use. The range of media covered had to include radio and TV broadcasting, national and regional press, magazines, together with Internet media, and also take into account the book publishing sector. 8 In accordance with this broad notion of media pluralism, the MPM has been developed on the basis of three types of indicators (economic, sociodemographic, and legal), which assess the performance of media markets, structures, and regulations in relation to five dimensions (or domains ): media ownership and control, media types and genres, political pluralism in the media, cultural pluralism in the media, and geographic pluralism in the media. (Various chapters of Part I of this book discuss in more detail how these terms have been interpreted and operationalized in the MPM.) Aspects that are of a more general nature, but should be considered essential preconditions for media pluralism, have been isolated in a separate domain, the basic domain. This contains indicators assessing regulatory safeguards for freedom of expression and information, independent oversight, and policies for media literacy. To resume, the MPM offers a measurement framework to detect threats to media pluralism: in six risk domains : 1 basic regulatory safeguards; 2 pluralism of media ownership and control; 3 pluralism of media types and genres; 4 political pluralism in the media; 5 cultural pluralism in the media; and 6 geographic pluralism in the media; covering three risk areas, which correspond with the major levels in the media value chain: 1 supply; 2 distribution; 3 use; through the combination of three types of indicators (166 in total): 1 economic indicators (assessing the range and diversity of media, looking at the supply side and economic performance of the media, such as the number of media companies and concentration and profitability ratios); 2 legal indicators (assessing the presence and effectiveness of policies and legal instruments that support pluralism in Member States); 3 sociodemographic indicators (assessing the range of media available to citizens in different Member States in light of socio- demographic factors like geographic location, social class, age, and gender, and evaluating different types of media markets from an end- user perspective); that are scored on the basis of three border values : 1 low risk (associated with the colour green in the MPM, and indicating a safe zone where no immediate follow- up is required); 2 moderate risk (associated with the colour orange in the MPM, and indicating that follow- up is necessary and that actions or measures are possibly required); 3 high risk (associated with the colour red in the MPM, and indicating that threats to media pluralism are serious and require immediate actions or measures).

10 Introduction 7 It is worth noting that the MPM takes exposure diversity a dimension that is receiving growing attention in both academic and policy discourse 9 (and that is further discussed in Chapter 19 by Helberger) explicitly into account; a number of indicators look at consumption of media or aim to identify possible obstacles to exposure diversity. Several indicators in the MPM refer to online media and/or the Internet, for instance: ownership and readership concentration in Internet content provision; the range of citizens using online media to participate in political debate; the level of influence on political and public debate by bloggers; and the proportion of actors representing different cultural and social groups in news contents (looking at print, radio, TV, and online). Follow- up of the Monitor With the change of the Commission in the summer of 2009, the MPM initially suffered from the NIH- syndrome (Not Invented Here), and no immediate follow- up was given towards implementing the monitor or issuing the Communication that had been envisaged as the third step in the Wallström- Reding plan. 10 It was the European Parliament, as well as the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism convened by the then Vice- President and Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes who recommended the European Commission with insistence to further invest in EU- wide monitoring and to take up a more pro- active role to ensure enforcement of media freedom and pluralism across the EU. 11 Both referred to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which became binding with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and which mentions in its Article 11 (2) explicitly that the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. In September 2013, the European Commission assigned to the Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom at the European University Institute the task of updating, simplifying, and conducting a pilot- test implementation of the MPM. The Centre, acting independently from the Commission and Member States, first redesigned and updated the MPM in order to enhance its practical applicability and to reflect the growing importance of the Internet. The number of legal, economic, and socio- political indicators was reduced and the scope of application of the MPM narrowed to news and current affairs due to their key importance for the civic and political awareness of citizens and for democratic processes (CMPF 2014). 12 The Centre subsequently conducted a pilot implementation of the Monitor in a sample of nine EU Member States, namely, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, and the UK. These countries were selected on the basis of a number of criteria to assure the neutrality and representativeness of the sample, and to allow for a consistent implementation in different contexts. In particular, the selected countries represent all of the broad geographical regions, including Western and Central-Eastern European countries, Southern and Northern parts of the continent; founding and recently accessed Member

11 8 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd States; and also countries with different size and population, as well as different political and media systems. With the help of local institutions and experts, based in each of the respective countries, the CMPF successfully tested the methodology of the MPM, and defined strategies for a further enhancement of the tool in terms of applicability, universality, and comparability (CMPF 2014). Why this book? As mentioned before, the EU MPM Study resulted in (a prototype of) a media pluralism monitoring tool, which was accompanied by a final report, explaining the context of the study and the method deployed, as well as an extensive user guide. 13 In previous years, the MPM has been presented and discussed in various academic and policy fora worldwide. 14 Nevertheless, the book editors felt the need to elaborate on a number of aspects, both of a conceptual and methodological nature, which had arisen in the context of the EU MPM Study. The European Media Pluralism Monitor can be credited as the first attempt and therefore susceptible to misconception to: 1 systematically assess a variety of dimensions of media pluralism which have been identified as relevant in policy documents of the Council of Europe and the European Union, and which are based on the constitutional traditions in Member States, giving the notion a wide and inclusive meaning; and 2 assess these various dimensions through multiple indicators of different nature looking at the economics of markets, but also at the regulatory context and a number of socio- demographic parameters. The tool merits a more rigorous academic analysis of issues for which the study report offered no space. The first objective of the book is therefore to extend and deepen the work done in order to be able to ground it and critically assess it in ongoing scholarly debates. Given its comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, the MPM was also considered a good starting point for a comparative, focused, and critical discussion of the concept and measurement of media pluralism throughout the world which is the second objective of the book. As noted before, pluralism concerns are rising around the globe, but may differ in scope and be approached in varying ways. Rather than inviting expert authors from different regions and with different backgrounds to merely share their experiences with the conceptualization and monitoring of media pluralism in their respective country or region, contributors were asked to link their analysis, as far as possible, to the notions and metrics developed in the Media Pluralism Monitor. By looking at regional developments

12 Introduction 9 through the lens of the MPM (and vice versa), it is our aspiration to contribute to a better global dialogue and help to develop a mutual understanding of terms and methods across regions. The third objective of the book is to take a forward- looking approach and evaluate the impact of future challenges on the conceptual and methodological framework for assessing media pluralism. In order to test the robustness of the MPM, a series of eminent scholars have been invited to reflect critically upon the issue of media pluralism in the light of digital innovation trends in the media sector (such as the proliferation of content providers, convergence between traditional media and the Internet, personalization of media consumption, the growing role of online search tools, etc.). In addition, they were asked to assess what this would entail for the way in which a future prototype of the MPM has to be designed. Structure of the book 15 Part I Media Pluralism in Europe: Conceptualization and Dimensions in the European MPM This triple objective is reflected in the structure of the book, which consequently consists of three parts. Part 1 starts off with a remarkable chapter, Chapter 1 comparable to his seminal piece on A new notion of media by the late Karol Jakubowicz, in which he paints a colourful picture of the notion of media pluralism. He unravels the various components of media pluralism to see how social and technological change in mediated social communication affects our understanding of the issues involved and requires a reconceptualization of the notion itself and of ways of pursuing it as a policy objective. His chapter offers a major contribution towards theorizing media pluralism in the information society and is the ideal prelude to the other chapters of Part 1, and more generally, the remainder of the book. The subsequent chapters all authored by principal researchers involved in the EU MPM Study discuss the various dimensions and metrics of media pluralism upon which the European MPM has been built. In Chapter 2, Cinzia dal Zotto and Robert Picard offer a summary of concerns, structures, and measures of media ownership and control. Focusing on the impact of media ownership concentration on media pluralism, the chapter draws attention on the reasons why media ownership policies have not been very effective at addressing pluralism so far. Besides looking at existing media structures and legal frameworks, the authors describe ways to measure media pluralism threats using ownership concentration measures as well as media ownership control rationales. The chapter concludes by arguing that to effectively address concerns about plurality, better mechanisms are required to influence media owners behaviour and achieve pluralistic content.

13 10 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd Another important dimension pluralism of media types and media genres is discussed by Mihály Gálik and Artemon Vogl in Chapter 3. The authors clarify the notion, which in the EU MPM Study is used to refer to the co- existence of media with different mandates and sources of financing, notably commercial media, community or alternative media, and public service media, within and across media sectors, like print, television, radio, and Internet. They identify important threats and underline that the co- existence of different media types and different media genres seems to be a prerequisite for a healthy level of media pluralism in all countries. Focusing on public service media, they argue for a shift from a push mode that so far has characterized these media towards building partnerships with audience members via online media. Gálik and Vogl also touch upon the significance of user- generated content, and conclude that new media exert significant influence on the meaning of pluralism by changing the scope of pluralism of media types and media genres. Besides these two operational dimensions of media pluralism (on the one hand, ownership, and on the other hand, types and genres), the EU MPM structures a series of indicators around three normative dimensions, namely, cultural, political, and geographic pluralism in the media. 16 Chapters 4 and 5 are dedicated to these dimensions, which refer to the fair and diverse representation in the media of and expression by respectively the various cultural and social groups (including ethnic, linguistic, national and religious minorities, disabled people, women, and sexual minorities), the various political and ideological groups, and, finally, local and regional communities and interests. Under such broad definitions, indicators have been identified that relate to aspects of both passive and active access to the media by the various groups in society. Some indicators assess the spectrum of cultural, geographical or political viewpoints, opinions, and interests covered by and represented in the media; others look at the capacity and possibility of all social segments, with their likely diverse views and interests, to address/reach the public by means of media (whether owned by, or affiliated to them, or owned by third parties). Chapter 4, written by Beata Klimkiewicz, argues that cultural and geographical pluralism in the media are relatively complex concepts. This complexity stems from a triple relation between its defining elements: media, geographical space, and culture. The author conceptualizes cultural and geographical differentiation of the media by building a taxonomy of the multiple layers of media and of the corresponding cultural and geographical differentiation, in order to understand various policy choices. She discusses how geocultural layers intersect with parallel levels of the media and communication environment, including a macro level of media systems, meso level of media organizations, and micro level of media contents and services. This requires from policy- makers careful consideration and dynamic

14 Introduction 11 balancing when policy problems are defined and appropriate policy tools designed and implemented. The notion of political pluralism in the media is put in a broader theoretical and historical context by Sandra Hrvatin and Brankica Petković in Chapter 5. They argue that, political pluralism, including in the media sector, 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. This implies a process of continuous negotiations among various social groups about what the public interest is. The media, where battles are fought for dominant interpretations of politics and everyday practices, play an important part in this. To be able to monitor political pluralism in the media, it is crucial to 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. Accordingly, in the first part of their chapter, Hrvatin and Petković present the theoretical grounds for assessing political pluralism in the media. In the second part, the resulting methodology is explained. The concluding part of the chapter contextualizes the results of the monitoring tool development while placing emphasis on the necessity of media and social reform. The last chapter of Part 1, Chapter 6, takes a somewhat different direction. Whereas the previous chapters can be read as the theoretical grounding for the various risk domains of the MPM, Chapter 6 aims to contribute to the conceptual understanding of the various types of indicators used by the MPM. The 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. It therefore distinguishes between three types of indicators that assess respectively legal, economic, and socio- demographic factors relevant for media pluralism. In Chapter 6, the authors (Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard, Cinzia Dal Zotto, Miklós Sükösd, Aleksandra Kuczerawy, and Robin Kerremans) describe these different indicators, give an overall account of the methods adopted to select and measure them, and explain how they interrelate. Part II Media Pluralism across the Globe: Comparative Perspectives on the European Media Pluralism Monitor Part 2 offers the reader reflections on how relevant the concept of media pluralism itself and its various dimensions are in different parts of the world, and explores alternative systems of media pluralism monitoring. World powers as well as emerging and developing regions from all continents are covered. These include both democratic and non- democratic political regimes: China, India, the Arab world, Russia, Latin America, and Sub- Saharan Africa as well as the US, Australia, and South Korea.

15 12 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd As mentioned before, the authors were invited to go through the dimensions of media pluralism in the European MPM to explore similarities and differences in concerns and approaches in their respective countries and regions. In their chapters, the authors develop narratives exploring the specific economic, legal, and socio- cultural contexts of media pluralism, and share relevant empirical data and trends. In Chapter 7, Philip Napoli serves us a sharp, comparative analysis of the US Federal Communications Commission s controversial Diversity Index and the EU Media Pluralism Monitor. The chapter provides an overview of the Diversity Index and the criticisms that were levelled against it at the time it was introduced. The author then explores key points of similarity and difference between the FCC s Diversity Index and the EU s MPM. Finally, he considers the legacy of the Diversity Index for ongoing efforts to assess local media ecosystems in ways that can meaningfully inform contemporary media policy- making. Is media pluralism, or its softer version media pluralization, a relevant concept for China? And is it empirically measurable in China s media system? These intriguing questions are further explored by Miklós Sükösd in Chapter 8. He conceptualizes media change in China in terms of media pluralization and offers a critical discussion of recent trends in China, including commercialization, marketization, and geographic diversification of media. New insights result from putting this discussion in the framework of the six risk domains deployed by the European MPM: ownership; types and genres; cultural, political, and geographical diversity; and the basic domain. The chapter also builds on a research project that the author carried out at the University of Hong Kong and that gathered empirical evidence concerning the state of media pluralization in China, modifying and adapting the European MPM to the Chinese context. From this chapter, we learn that we should not assume a causal or linear relation between empirical pluralism and media freedom in all circumstances. In Europe, media pluralism has been interpreted in a human rights law context as intrinsically linked to freedom of expression. 17 In dictatorial, non- democratic contexts, however, one may see and measure certain degrees of media pluralism (or media pluralization ) according to several dimensions and indicators, without media freedom being achieved or guaranteed by this at all. Kiran Prasad offers in Chapter 9 an overview of media pluralism indicators in India. She draws attention to the fact that there is a growing understanding of media pluralism in terms of media concentration, standards compliance failures, and the difficulties of providing locally significant content and risks involved. New media technologies are also being used in India as community media initiatives to fill the vacuum in media access. Prasad finds that risks to media pluralism typical for the Indian context relate to increasing media commercialization and gender bias. Both in media

16 Introduction 13 workforce and in media content she notes a negative portrayal of women, which in her view is unlikely to be minimized as regulation on these issues continues to be weak. She points to the need for a more comprehensive media pluralism policy in India that would also include initiatives relating to media literacy. The state of media diversity in Russia in the context of social transformation is discussed in Chapter 10 by Elena Vartanova. She focuses on issues of political pluralism in the media, which she considers the most crucial element for the modern Russian society. She also points to the complexity of interrelations between media and cultural diversity in the Russian multiethnic and multilinguistic society, and reviews the role of media ownership in promoting diversity in the economic activity of media industry. The relevance of the European MPM for understanding the Russian media situation is reflected upon and the possible integration of this theoretical tool into Russian academic research and policy- making is briefly explored. Chapter 11 then moves our lens to Latin America. After a brief introduction explaining the Latin American politicization of the media system, Manuel Alejandro Guerrero examines the actual state of media pluralism in Chile, Mexico, Argentina, and other Latin American countries. As in the chapter on China, the analysis is structured around the dimensions of media pluralism deployed by the European MPM. Guerrero suggests that in Latin America, media pluralism has not been a matter of policy, but of politics. Clientelism, collusion between media and political groups, and the state s contested regulatory state s regulatory capacities have shaped the posttransitory media systems. Guerrero discusses the effect of these aspects on pluralism in Latin America s traditional media structures. He concludes with a positive overview of the emergence of pluralism in areas such as community media and the use of Internet and new technologies. From Latin America, we travel to the African continent in the subsequent two chapters. In Chapter 12, Rasha Abdulla presents a first- of- its- kind study of the diversity of media content in Egypt during the first postrevolution parliamentary elections, and the extent to which this content represents different groups in society. The study examines media diversity from the content, societal, geographical, and cultural perspectives, through analysing the coverage of major Egyptian newspapers and popular evening talk shows. The analysis focuses on diversity of themes discussed, as well as gender, religious, and geographical diversity, and tackles the representation (or lack thereof) of minorities in the media. Media pluralism is discussed in terms of aspects of political, cultural, geographical, structural, and contentrelated diversity, with the aim of providing an accurate and scientific picture of how inclusive and diverse the content is. Jane Duncan shares with us the South African experience of media transformation in Chapter 13. She explores South Africa s attempts to achieve

17 14 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd a more pluralistic, diverse, and representative media after decades of apartheid. Notwithstanding many impressive changes, the media landscape is still characterized by moderate plurality, but not necessarily diversity. The wealthy are well served by a plurality of media, but the poor less so, leading to an elite public sphere. Duncan sheds light on the reasons why these disparities have come into being, including the fact that the overly marketdriven nature of the country s media transformation has failed to distribute media goods equitably across society. A perspective from the Australian continent is offered in Chapter 14 by Lesley Hitchens. Using the normative and operational indicators included in the European MPM, she examines current media pluralism policy discourse and maps current Australian pluralism regulation. This exercise reveals the dependence in Australia on operational measures, an absence of normative foundations, and generally a narrower approach when compared with more holistic European pluralism policies. Hitchens proceeds to analyse contemporary policy discourses via an analysis of recent Australian policy and regulatory reviews such as the Convergence Review. She concludes the chapter with a critique of contemporary pluralism policy discourse, suggesting that Australian complacency about effective policy and regulation and the absence of a clear normative framework will create greater risks for media pluralism as the media environment grows in complexity. The last chapter of Part 2, Chapter 15, looks at recent media pluralism debates in South Korea. Sugmin Youn and Hyunwoo Lee explain how trends of deregulation in media policy resulted in intense political conflicts, which culminated in the Media Laws Debates. The two government agencies that were formed after the revision of the Media Law are pushing forward the research for evaluating media pluralism. They have been testing a variety of empirical approaches to assess and measure media pluralism, such as the Diversity Index (US), the KEK (Germany), and the MPM (EU). Despite the fact that it remains unclear whether the efforts to define and assess media pluralism will yield practical results, the authors are of the view that understanding the importance of scientific evaluation regarding media pluralism is a valuable lesson that South Korean society has gained from the Media Laws Debates. Part III Media Pluralism 2.0: Future Challenges and Critical Perspectives The last part of the book is devoted to confronting insights from the EU MPM Study with views from scholars who have been invited to reflect critically upon the MPM from a normative perspective or against the background of new technological developments. In Chapter 16, Kari Karppinen critically discusses the recent attempts (such as the MPM) to develop empirical tools for monitoring and measuring media pluralism. He notes that, despite disagreements about the exact meaning of media pluralism as a public

18 Introduction 15 policy objective, it is increasingly treated in current media policy debates as an empirically measurable concept. But, he continues, the illusion of neutrality and objectivity that this implies is not without its problems. He argues that media pluralism is an example of an essentially contested concept whose interpretations remain inherently political and normative. Therefore, all empirical definitions of media pluralism are also political in a sense that they involve choices about which aspects of pluralism are deemed most important and which criteria are considered valid for its assessment. Does ownership pluralism still matter in a multi- platform world? This is the key question in Chapter 17, authored by Gillian Doyle. She examines the effects of changing technology on landscapes of media provision and consumption, and considers whether the greater choice made possible by digital technology and changing patterns of consumption obviates the need for special interventions to restrict media ownership for the sake of pluralism. Digitization has encouraged greater cross- sectoral convergence, providing an extra spur towards strategies of diversification and multi- platform expansion in the media industry. Even so, and despite the transition to a more web- connected era, Doyle argues there remain good grounds for concerns about the power wielded by dominant media organizations in relation to production and circulation of news, ideas, and cultural and political values within contemporary societies. Chapter 18 touches upon a closely related issue whether media pluralism is better served with bright- line regulation (fixed ownership limits) or responsive regulation (a more flexible form of pluralism review). Rachael Craufurd Smith offers some thoughts on the relative advantages and disadvantages of both options, drawing on developments in the United Kingdom. The UK has now removed almost all fixed ownership limits and relies on a flexible form of plurality review contained in the Enterprise Act To date there have been three such reviews, triggered by past and potential media mergers, raising questions about the role of politicians in the review process and the ultimate goals and effectiveness of state intervention in this field. Growing consolidation of media ownership in the UK was regarded by Lord Justice Leveson to be a matter of serious concern, potentially adding to a sense of legal impunity and enhancing the political influence of media proprietors over elected politicians. The UK has thus embarked on an extensive process of review of the existing rules with a view to future reform. Craufurd Smith argues that although fixed ownership limits are an inherently blunt tool for realizing media plurality, they can play a useful role as part of a hybrid strategy, establishing clear outer limits. In its Digital Agenda Communication, the European Commission noted in 2010 that The Internet is also a driver of greater pluralism in the media, giving both access to a wider range of sources and points of view as well as the means for individuals who might otherwise be denied the opportunity to express themselves fully and openly. 18 Such observations

19 16 Peggy Valcke, Robert G. Picard and Miklós Sükösd may tempt us to think that concerns for pluralism and diversity have become not only increasingly contested, but even analytically obsolete or anachronistic, or as Kari Karppinen bluntly puts it in one of his articles: In what sense is it then meaningful to speak of media pluralism when our media environments are characterized more by abundance than scarcity? 19 This is the challenge we presented to Natali Helberger who has written illuminating pieces on the growing scarcity of attention in an age of information abundance and the need to deepen our understanding of exposure diversity. 20 She argues in Chapter 19 that the realization of media diversity as a public policy goal depends also and importantly upon the actual exposure of the audience to diverse media content, the choices the audience makes, and the obstacles that it encounters on its way. And yet, the users perspective on media diversity policies is an aspect that so far has played only a marginal role in the policy debate. Helberger s chapter aims to complement our traditional understanding of media diversity as diversity of supply with a more audience- centric understanding. She makes concrete suggestions for media law and policy on how to better take into account the exposure side of media diversity an aspect that is more important than ever under conditions of digital abundance, attention scarcity, and the individualization of media usage. 21 She also develops possible implications for the future scope of the European MPM. The last chapter basically starts from the same observation that there appears to be a contradiction in our contemporary society between the seemingly endless technological opportunities to disseminate information and ideas, and the limits to human cognitive skills to process huge amounts of data combined with our psychological urge to stick to what feels familiar; or, in the words of Helberger: Users lost in plenty will flock around a few sources they can trust. 22 Joris van Hoboken, however, looks at it from a different angle, namely the growing role of search tools to navigate us through the online information jungle. In Chapter 20, he discusses diversity and pluralism in the context of search engines. More specifically, he looks at how the ideals of diversity and pluralism of the public information environment could be used as normative signposts in the context of search engine governance. As search engines have become essential for 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 or affecting pluralism and diversity could start to better take account of this. We acknowledge that the range of issues covered by the book is far from being exhaustive. There is, and will always be, more to be said and analysed about a fascinating topic like media pluralism. Nevertheless, we are confident that by bundling these various contributions, the book offers a truly global, interdisciplinary, and multifaceted menu of media pluralism and diversity. We hope that you will appreciate the lens of the European