Media: Fair shares in multiple markets
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.HOW can cross-media rules be relaxed to encourage media companies to grow and straddle TV, newspapers, magazines and radio without creating unacceptable monopolies, or allowing Rupert Murdoch to move into ITV? Thus goes one of the fears underlying the review being finalised by the Department of National Heritage.
An interesting paper sent to the department by the media consultant Richard Hooper, a non-executive director of MAI, and a key influence on Lord Hollick's thinking (see left), suggests a new methodology for defining and measuring media markets.
He says the markets for television (including cable and satellite), radio and newspapers should be divided into national, regional and local sectors. There would be between 12 and 20 regional markets and 50 local markets such as cities the size of Glasgow.
The review would simply measure how much newspaper circulation, share of television viewing and share of radio listening a company had in each market in order to meet the public policy objective of ensuring a diversity of view. This could be reinforced with the traditional Office of Fair Trading 'rule' setting a 25 per cent market ceiling whether it is share of advertising or other income.
The paper suggests that local and regional market shares should include all newspaper circulation (national newspapers, where Murdoch controls a 34 per cent share of the national market, makes up 19.6 per cent of the total UK newspaper market) and all radio listening.
Simple market share rules would say that no media company could control more than X per cent of the combined market share of radio, television and newspapers in these three defined market areas.
Setting X would be the key political decision. To reach a company's market share, all three figures would be added. (That means that the BBC, with a 42 per cent TV share and 50 per cent radio share, would breach it and would probably allow ITV companies holding two franchises currently some scope for growth).
The setting of X could allow for different weightings for television and newspapers because they are more powerful than radio.
The paper suggests tentatively that 8 per cent could be the maximum dominance for combined national markets (scope for 12 media barons), 15 per cent for individual regions, and 25 per cent for local markets.
The paper also suggests that new media operators can be encouraged by ensuring that existing large cable and satellite operators, such as BSkyB, cannot discriminate against new channels through control of decoders and subscription management systems.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments