Final Report of the Special Policy Research Team on Media Issues

Cultural Diversity and the Media

In modern society the media plays a significant role in peoples everyday life and it is in many ways the link between different parts of society, such as politics, social and cultural life and economics. The general public is spending several hours per day using different kinds of media such as reading newspapers, watching television, film and video, listening to the radio, surfing on the Internet and playing computer games etc. The amount of time that people spend on these media is constantly increasing. Since the media is, to a large extent, bearer of cultural works it needs to be a part of the discussion on cultural diversity and globalization.

Diversity and pluralism in news and opinion moulding is also essential in the democratic society of today and constitute the base for an open debate and is even the foundation for democracy itself. This is why the media market cannot be considered as just any market - it is a necessity for the democratic society. For this reason it is also treated differently in many aspects. The conditions for freedom of expression and free exchange of opinion where different views and valuations can be given and debated are granted by international conventions and national constitutions.

The media sector also has great economic values, which have furthermore increased considerably the last decade or so. The major importance of the media in society is nevertheless not primarily economic, but their role in the democratic process and for their cultural and linguistic role in a broader sense. Hence, the democratic society assumes that there is a diverse media content and the free opinion moulding can certainly be harmed if individuals or small groups of media owners are given a too dominant position in media enterprises, at least when it concerns media that have a great impact on the general public.

The media sector is very complicated to its organisation and structure - apart from the different democratic, cultural, social and economic parts there are also differences within each of these parts and furthermore the national structures, and it is not possible to discuss every angle of the media sector in this paper. However, the discussion of concentration of ownership of the media sector can be divided into two main issues - on the one hand it is a question of distribution and accessibility of the media and on the other the media content as such. The issues are certainly linked to each other, but it could be practical to separate them in this discussion.

The last decade the structure of the media market has changed. The media enterprises have become more vertically organised, which in this respect means that a company or an alliance of companies is controlling every step in the production chain of media content. This phenomenon is often the case when it concerns new technology. The structure of the media sector has also become more horizontal, which means that a company or a group of enterprises have control over several products of the same kind. This is said to give positive synergy-effects.

The development has led to a situation where a small group of large enterprises have a very strong position on the global media market for distributors and sometimes also on different national markets. In other cases these media conglomerates may not have that strong position as a single market player on a national level but still have a great impact due to exports of media content. It is not unusual that there are only one or a few domestic operators that control the distribution channels, which are filled with media content from the big media companies.

Under the first issue mentioned above questions like the following could be raised - does concentrated ownership of media enterprises have a negative impact on the distribution systems and does this affect the accessibility of the media for the general public? This issue is to a large extent about market conditions such as competition rules and financing systems and it is at the same time an issue of both global and national interests. It is not difficult to assume that a dominant player on the media market, whether it be as provider of content or distribution platforms, or both, could have a negative impact on the media content from a cultural diversity point of view, especially when the horizontal and vertical structure is taken into consideration.

Some examples may illustrate this. If a company acquires another cable-network for television, and the new owners immediately change the range of channels - e.g. replace entertainment and sports channels with some important news channels - the diversity is certainly diminished from a democratic point of view. Another example could be platform distributors who deliberately are shutting out channels of general interest from their own distribution platform. This means that certain channels are only accessible if you are a subscriber to that particular distribution system and that viewers are locked into that system. To a certain extent these problems can, and are, solved by must carry- and/or must offer-rules, but such provisions must also take into consideration the market conditions for the distributors and their right to decide what to broadcast.

As the technological development within the media market continues and creates new forms of distribution platforms it is of greatest interest for decision-makers to make sure that technical solutions in the future are as open as possible for all kinds of media content in order to get and maintain a diverse media content landscape.

Regarding the second issue - about cultural diversity, concentration of ownership and the media content as such - it is often claimed that the media market has never been more diverse than today and that the general public never has had more access to media content than today. Further it is said that not only is the media more accessible than ever, but also that the general public has greater possibilities than ever to make actual use of their freedom of expression and their artistic creativity.

This kind of reasoning is to some extent true - there are many new possibilities to receive media content and make your voice heard through the media. But in the reality this may not be the case, since a few hands e.g. often control the distribution channels and the content that is provided. The traditional mass media, such as television, radio and newspapers, are still the most powerful and time consuming. Besides, these new possibilities do not necessarily lead to a situation where the most important media content as such have become more diverse. Just because you can watch more TV-channels or listen to more radio stations than ever it does not mean that these channels or stations are particularly varied to their content. Another truth is that the commercial interests for the content providers are the dominant factors for their decision-making, which consequences only seem to be regimentation.

Ten years ago Sweden created a system for local commercial radio, where the ambition was to make sure that the general public was offered the most diverse radio landscape as possible, both in terms of ownership and radio content. However, it soon turned out that neither was to be accomplished. Within a very few years the market had formed a radio landscape with very few but strong players and owners. Radio stations with other ambitions than playing what is called "adult contemporary music" soon disappeared from the market. Recently, it was also established that the content of commercial radio stations have become more regiment throughout the years since they are playing fewer song titles of hit-list-music more and more often. It is therefore not surprising that other genres of music and local, regional and cultural music have difficulties to reach broader audiences. It is not too much to say that even if there are more radio stations than ever to listen to, the radio content diversity has not increased but rather become more standardized.

It is hence of greatest importance that the society in general takes responsibility for a broad and diverse media content. For the political society it is especially important to follow the development of the media sector very closely and to work for good solutions and conditions, both for the general public and the media sector. If this is done properly there is a good chance that the democratic values of society will remain.

To this background the following questions could serve as the base for a further but substantial discussion on cultural diversity and media in Cape Town:

1. What are your experiences of general interest regarding media ownership and the diversity of media content?

2. What development of the media sector do you foresee, bearing in mind the discussion of cultural diversity and media content?

3. How can globalisation contribute to increase the diversity in the media and the exchange of cultural and medial products?

Back to Top