The Full Wiki

Media consolidation: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


(Redirected to Concentration of media ownership article)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concentration of media ownership refers to the degree to which media ownership is concentrated. This refers to the relative proportion between two quantities: first, the numbers of people or parties who own, control, or influence a given medium; and second, the numbers of people or parties who are exposed to, affected by, or influenced by, that medium. This topic is of particular importance as it relates to the sociological study of how people's beliefs are formed, and how people's actions are then based on those beliefs. [1] This topic is also important as it relates to the study of editorial independence, media bias, and freedom of the press.

Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation) also refers to the view that the majority of the major media outlets are owned by a proportionately small number of conglomerates and corporations. In that sense, the term "media consolidation" is used especially by those who view such consolidation as sociologically detrimental, dangerous, or problematic. This term may refer to states of oligopoly or monopoly in a given media industry, or to the sociological significance of the proportionately low number of "mass media," or "mainstream media" media conglomerates.

Concentration of media ownership is an issue globally, regionally, and also within particular nations.



Concentration of media ownership is very frequently seen as a problem of contemporary media and society.[2][3][4] When media ownership is concentrated in one or more of the ways mentioned above, a number of undesirable consequences follow, including the following:

  • Commercially driven, ultra-powerful mass market media is primarily loyal to sponsors, i.e. advertisers and government rather than to the public interest.
  • If only a few companies representing the interests of a minority elite control the public airwaves of 300 million US citizens, then calling them "public airwaves" is only lip service.
  • Healthy, market-based competition is absent, leading to slower innovation and increased prices.

It is important to elaborate upon the issue of media consolidation and its effect upon the diversity of information reaching a particular market. Critics of consolidation raise the issue of whether monopolistic or oligopolistic control of a local media market can be fully accountable and dependable in serving the public interest. If, for example, only one or two media conglomerates dominate in a single market, the question is not only that of whether they will present a diversity of opinions, but also of whether they are willing to present information that may be damaging to either their advertisers or to themselves.

On the local end, reporters have often seen their stories refused or edited beyond recognition, in instances where they have unearthed potentially damaging information concerning either the media outlet's advertisers or its parent company.

An example would be the repeated refusal of networks to air "ads" from anti-war advocates to liberal groups like, or religious groups like the United Church of Christ, regardless of factual basis.

Consequently, if the companies dominating a media market choose to suppress stories that do not serve their interests, the public suffers, since they are not adequately informed of some crucial issues that may affect them. If the only media outlets in town refuse to air a story, then the question becomes, who will?

Concern among academia rests in the notion that the purpose of the first amendment to the US constitution was to encourage a free press as political agitator evidenced by the famous quote from US President Thomas Jefferson, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Critics of media deregulation and the resulting concentration of ownership fear that such trends will only continue to reduce the diversity of information provided, as well as to reduce the accountability of information providers to the public. The ultimate consequence of consolidation, critics argue, is a poorly-informed public, restricted to a reduced array of media options that offer only information that does not harm the media oligopoly's growing range of interests.

For those critics, media deregulation is a dangerous trend, facilitating an increase in concentration of media ownership, and subsequently reducing the overall quality and diversity of information communicated through major media channels. Increased concentration of media ownership can lead to the censorship of a wide range of critical thought.

Another concern is that consolidated media is not flexible enough to serve local communities in case of emergency. This happened in Minot, North Dakota, in 2002, after a train filled with anhydrous ammonia derailed. None of the leading radio stations in Minot carried information on the derailment or evacuation procedures, largely because they were all owned by Clear Channel Communications and received automated feeds from the corporate headquarters in San Antonio, Texas. 1600 people were injured and one died [5]

An opposite evolution: massive diversification via citizen media

The Internet has caused a massive diversification of media which has materialized through millions of websites, forums, blogs and wikis. That evolution, often labeled citizen journalism or citizen media, makes it possible for practically everybody to be a media creator, owner and actor, instead of a passive user.

Citizen media gradually take audiences out of the traditional media and weaken the role of information professionals. Traditional media are slowly trying to adapt by becoming more "participative", asking their readers or watchers to send their own news.

Citizen media cannot however function with the same kind of in depth reporting that brick-and-mortar organizations have, in the form of funded research and expert analysis.

Nor is the internet immune to media consolidation. The largest telephone and cable companies which own the infrastructure of the internet have been accused of attempting to control the speed in which users can access various websites. The debate surrounding the independence and public control of the internet is called "net neutrality".

Determinants of media pluralism

Pluralism is a very complex issue that cannot be secured by creating one panacea solution. According to Gillian Doyle, the followings have to be investigated in order to decide what sort of acts or policies are the best for any given country that want to support media pluralism: size and wealth of the market; diversity of suppliers; consolidation of resources; and diversity of output.


Size and wealth of the market

“Within any free market economy, the level of resources available for the provision of media will be constrained principally by the size and wealth of that economy, and the propensity of its inhabitants to consume media.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:15] Those countries that have relatively large market, like the United Kingdom, France or Spain have more financial background to support diversity of output and have the ability to keep more media companies in the market (as they are there to make profit). More divers output and fragmented ownership will, obviously, support pluralism. In contrast, small ones like Ireland or Hungary are suffer from the absence of all those that are given in bigger countries. It means that “support for the media through direct payment” and “levels of consumers expenditure”, furthermore “the availability of advertising support” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:15] are less in these countries, due to the low number of audience. Overall, the size and wealth of the market determine the diversity of both media output and media ownership.

Diversity of suppliers/owners

From the previous paragraph can be assumed that size/wealth of the market have a very strong relation to the diversity of supplier. If the first is not given (wealthy market) then it is difficult to achieve fragmented supplier system. Diversity of suppliers refers to those heterogeneous independent organizations that are involved in media production and to the common ownership as well. The more various suppliers there are, the better for pluralism is. However, “the more powerful individual suppliers become, the greater the potential treat to pluralism.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:18]

Consolidation of resources

The consolidation of cost functions and cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is a common practice in monomedia and cross media. For example, “for multi-product television or radio broadcasters, the more homogeneity possible between different services held in common ownership (or the more elements within a programme schedule which can be shared between ’different’ stations), the greater the opportunity to reap economies.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:22-23] Though the main concern of pluralism is that different organization under different ownership may buy the same e.g. news stories from the same news-supplier agency. In the UK, the biggest news-supplier is The Press Association (PA). Here is a quoted text from PA web site: “The Press Association supplies services to every national and regional daily newspaper, major broadcasters, online publishers and a wide range of commercial organisations.” Overall, in a system where all different media organizations gather their stories from the same source, then we can’t really call that system pluralist. That is where diversity of output comes in.

Concentration of media ownership globally

Globally, large media conglomerates include, National Amusements, Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony, General Electric, Vivendi SA, The Walt Disney Company, Hearst Corporation, Organizações Globo and Lagardère Group.[2][6][4]

As of 2008, The Walt Disney Company is the world's largest media conglomerate, with News Corporation, Viacom and Time Warner ranking second, third and fourth respectively[7][8][9].

Concentration of media ownership in particular nations


Controls over media ownership in Australia are laid down in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 [10], administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Even with laws in place Australia has a high concentration of media ownership. Ownership of national and the newspapers of each capital city are dominated by two corporations, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, (which was founded in Adelaide) and John Fairfax Holdings.These two corporations along with West Australian Newspapers and the Harris Group work together to create Australian Associated Press which distributes the news and then sells it on to other outlets such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Although much of the everyday main stream news is drawn from the Australian Associated Press all the privately owned media outlets still compete with each other for exclusive Pop culture news. Rural and regional media is dominated by Rural Press Limited which is owned also by John Fairfax Holdings, with significant holdings in all states and territories. Daily Mail and General Trust operate the DMG Radio Australia commercial radio networks in metropolitan and regional areas of Australia. Formed in 1996, it has since become one of the largest radio media companies in the country. The company currently own more than 60 radio stations across New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia.

There are rules governing foreign ownership of Australian media and these rules were being considered for loosening by the former Howard Government.

According to Reporters Without Borders in 2004, Australia is in 41st position on a list of countries ranked by Press Freedom; well behind New Zealand (9th) and United Kingdom (28th). This ranking is primarily due to the limited diversity in media ownership. The problem has even created a show in itself - Media Watch on a government funded station Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) which is one of two government administered commercial channels the other being Special Broadcasting Service (SBS).


Radio and television ownership in Canada is governed by the CRTC. The CRTC does not regulate ownership of newspapers or Internet media, although ownership in those media may be taken into consideration in decisions pertaining to a licensee's broadcasting operations.

Apart from the public Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and community broadcasters, media in Canada are primarily owned by a small number of companies, including CTVglobemedia, Canwest Global, Rogers, Shaw, Astral, Newcap and Quebecor. Each of these companies holds a diverse mix of television, cable television, radio, newspaper, magazine and/or internet operations. Some smaller media companies also exist. In 2007, CTVglobemedia, Astral Media, Quebecor, Canwest Global and Rogers all expanded significantly, through the acquisitions of CHUM Limited, Standard Broadcasting, Osprey Media, Alliance Atlantis and Citytv, respectively.

Between 1990 and 2005 there were a number of media corporate mergers and takeovers in Canada. For example, in 1990, 17.3% of daily newspapers were independently owned; whereas in 2005, 1% were. These changes, among others, caused the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to launch a study of Canadian news media in March 2003. (This topic had been examined twice in the past, by the Davey Commission (1970) and the Kent Commission (1981), both of which produced recommendations that were never implemented in any meaningful way.)[11] [12]

The Senate Committee’s final report, released in June 2006, expressed concern about the effects of the current levels of news media ownership in Canada. Specifically, the Committee discussed their concerns regarding the following trends: the potential of media ownership concentration to limit news diversity and reduce news quality; the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]] (CRTC) and Competition Bureau’s ineffectiveness at stopping media ownership concentration; the lack of federal funding for the CBC and the broadcaster’s uncertain mandate and role; diminishing employment standards for journalists (including less job security, less journalistic freedom, and new contractual threats to intellectual property); a lack of Canadian training and research institutes; and difficulties with the federal government’s support for print media and the absence of funding for the internet-based news media.[11] [12]

The report provided 40 recommendations and 10 suggestions (for areas outside of federal government jurisdiction), including legislation amendments that would trigger automatic reviews of a proposed media merger if certain thresholds are reached, and CRTC regulation revisions to ensure that access to the broadcasting system is encouraged and that a diversity of news and information programming is available through these services.[11] [12]

Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic about 80% of the newspapers and magazines are owned by German and Swiss corporations[13].
The two main press groups (Vltava-Labe-Press and Mafra) are (completely or partly) controlled by the German group Rheinisch-Bergische Druckerei- und Verlagsgesellschaft (Mediengruppe Rheinische Post).

  • Vltava-Labe-Press (that owns the tabloids ŠÍP and ŠÍP EXTRA, 73 regional dailies Deník and other 26 weeklies[14][15] and that is major shareholder of publishing houses Astrosat, Melinor[16][17] and 100% owner of Metropol[18] and also partly controls the distribution of all the prints through PNS, a.s.[19]) is part of the German Verlagsgruppe Passau[20] (that controls also the German Neue Presse Verlags, the Polish Polskapresse and the Slovak Petit Press[21]).
  • Mafra (that owns the centre-right dailies Dnes, Lidové noviny[22], the local edition of the freesheet Metro, the periodical 14dní, the weekly music magazine Filter, several monthly magazines, the TV music channel Óčko, the radio stations Expresradio and Rádio Classic FM, several web portals[23][24] and partly controls, together with Vltava-Labe-Press, the distribution company PNS, a.s.[19]) is owned by the German Rheinisch-Bergische Drückerei- und Verlagsgesellschaft. This, in turn, owns 20% of the Verlagsgruppe Passau's shares, creating in this way a sort of cartel within the two corporations Vltava-Labe-Press and Mafra, controlling more than 50% of Czech print distribution through PNS, a.s. (26% by Mafra, 26,1% by Vltava-Labe-Press).
  • Ringier the Swiss group, controls in Czech Republic 16 daily tabloids and weeklies (such as 24 hodin, Abc, Aha!, Blesk, Blesk TV Magazin, Blesk pro ženy, Blesk Hobby, Blesk Zdravi, Nedělní Blesk, Nedělní Sport, Reflex, Sport, Sport Magazin) as well as 7 web portals, reaching approximately 3.2 million readers.

Czech governments, anxious not to be seen as placing any obstacles in the way of the country's path to EU membership, have defended foreign newspaper ownership as a manifestation of the principle of the free movement of capital[25].
The centre-left newspaper Právo is currently the only non-foreign owned Czech newspaper[25].
The weekly Respekt is published by R-Presse, the majority of whose shares are owned by former Czech Minister of foreign affairs Karel Schwarzenberg[25].
The national television market is dominated by 4 terrestrial stations, two public (Czech TV1 and Czech TV2) and two private (NOVA TV and Prima TV), which draw 95% of audience share.[26]
Concerning the diversity of output, this is limited by a series of factors: the average low level of professional education among Czech journalists is compensated by "informal professionalization", leading to a degree of conformity in approaches[27]; political parties hold strong ties in Czech media, especially print, where more than 50% of Czech journalists identify with the Right, while only 16% express sympathy for the Left[27]; the process of commercialization and "tabloidization" has increased, lowering differentiation of contents in Czech print media.[27]


Axel Springer AG is one of the largest newspaper publishing companies in Europe, claiming to have over 150 newspapers and magazines in over 30 countries in Europe. In the 1960s and 1970s the company's media followed an aggressive conservative policy (see Springerpresse). It publishes Germany's only nationwide tabloid, Bild and one of Germany's most important broadsheets, Die Welt. Axel Springer also owns a number of regional newspapers, especially in Saxony and in the Hamburg Metropolitan Region, giving the company a de-facto monopoly in the latter case. An attempt to buy one of Germany's two major private TV Groups, ProSiebenSat.1 in 2006 was withdrawn due to large concerns by regulation authorities as well as by parts of the public. The company is also active in Hungary, where it is the biggest publisher of regional newspapers, and in Poland, where it owns the best-selling tabloid Fakt, one of the nation's most important broadsheets, Dziennik, and is one of the biggest shareholder in #2 private TV company, Polsat.

Bertelsmann is one of the world's largest media companies. It owns RTL Group, which is one of the two major private TV companies in both Germany and the Netherlands and also owning assets in Belgium, France, UK, Spain, Czech and Hungary. Bertelsmann also owns Gruner+Jahr, Germany's biggest popular magazine publisher, including popular news magazine Stern and a 26% share in investigative news magazine Der Spiegel. Bertelsmann also owns Random House, a book publisher, #1 in the English-speaking world and #2 in Germany.


In Ireland Independent News & Media (CEO: Tony O'Reilly) owns many national newspapers: the Evening Herald, Irish Independent, Sunday Independent, Sunday World and Irish Daily Star. It also owns 29.9% of the Sunday Tribune.


Silvio Berlusconi, the Prime Minister of Italy, is the major shareholder of - by far - Italy's biggest (and de facto only) private free TV company, Mediaset, Italy's biggest publisher, Mondadori, and Italy's biggest advertising company Publitalia. One of Italy's nationwide dailies, Il Giornale, is owned by his brother, and another, Il Foglio by his wife. Berlusconi has often been criticized for using the media assets he owns to advance his political career.


In Mexico there are only two national networks, Televisa and TVAzteca. In 2006, Cadena tres tried to broadcast nationally but the Televisa Law did not allow it. The Televisa Law does not allow for a third national television network. On the other hand, Multimedios has a national cable network, Milenio, which has the right to broadcast on cable.

United Kingdom

In Britain and Ireland, Rupert Murdoch owns best-selling tabloids News of the World, The Sun as well as the broadsheet The Times and Sunday Times, and satellite broadcasting network BSkyB. Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) own The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, The Evening Standard, Ireland on Sunday, and free London daily Metro, and control a large proportion of regional media, including through subsidiary Northcliffe Media, in addition to large shares in ITN and GCap Media.

United States

In the United States, movie production is known to be dominated by major studios since the early 20th Century; before that, there was a period in which Edison's Trust monopolized the industry. The music and television industries recently witnessed cases of media consolidation, with Sony Music Entertainment's parent company merging their music division with Bertelsmann AG's BMG to form Sony BMG and TimeWarner's The WB and CBS Corp.'s UPN merging to form The CW. In the case of Sony BMG, there existed a "Big Five" (now "Big Four") of major record companies, while The CW's creation was an attempt to consolidate ratings and stand up to the "Big Four" of American network (terrestrial) television.

There may also be some large-scale owners in an industry that are not the causes of monopoly or oligopoly. Clear Channel Communications, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, acquired many radio stations across the United States, and came to own more than 1,200 stations. However, the radio broadcasting industry in the United States and elsewhere can be regarded as oligopolistic regardless of the existence of such a player. Because radio stations are local in reach, each licensed a specific part of airwave by the FCC in a specific local area, any local market is served by a limited number of stations. In most countries, this system of licensing makes many markets local oligopolies. The similar market structure exists for television broadcasting, cable systems and newspaper industries, all of which are characterized by the existence of large-scale owners. Concentration of ownership is often found in these industries.

In the United States, data on ownership and market share of media companies is not held in the public domain. Academics, for example at MIT Media Lab and NYU, have struggled to find data that show reliably the concentration of media ownership.


Prior to 1927, public airwaves in the United States were regulated by the United States Department of Commerce and largely litigated in the courts as the growing number of stations fought for space in the burgeoning industry. The Federal Radio Act of 1927 (signed into law February 23, 1927) nationalized the airwaves and formed the Federal Radio Commission (later named the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC) to assume control of the airwaves.

The Communications Act of 1934 refined and expanded on the authority of the FCC to regulate public airwaves in the United States, combining and reorganizing provisions from the Federal Radio Act of 1927 and the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. It empowered the FCC, among other things, to administer broadcasting licenses, impose penalties and regulate standards and equipment used on the airwaves. The Act also mandated that the FCC would act in the interest of the "public convenience, interest, or necessity."[28] The Act established a system whereby the FCC grants licenses to the spectrum to broadcasters for commercial use, so long as the broadcasters act in the public interest by providing news programming.

Lobbyists from the largest radio broadcasters, ABC and NBC, wanted to establish high fees for broadcasting licenses, but Congress saw this as a limitation upon free speech. Consequently, “the franchise to operate a broadcasting station, often worth millions, is awarded free of charge to enterprises selected under the standard of ‘public interest, convenience, or necessity.’”[29]

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 set the modern tone of "deregulation," a relaxing of percentage constrictions that solidified the previous history of privatizing the utility and commodifying the spectrum. The legislation, touted as a step that would foster competition, actually resulted in the subsequent mergers of several large companies, a trend which still continues.[30] Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership of TV stations dropped to its lowest point since the federal government began tracking such data in 1990.[31]

The FCC held one official forum, February 27, 2003, in Richmond, Virginia in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of elimination of media ownership limits. Some complain that more than one forum was needed.[32]

On June 2, 2003, FCC, in a 3-2 vote under Chairman Michael Powell, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area. The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period.

  • Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.
  • Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.
  • All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and Internet services are now counted, weighted based on people's average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.
  • Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for "public-interest" considerations.

The decision by the FCC was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC in June, 2004. The Majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered the Commission to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits. The Supreme Court later turned down an appeal, so the ruling stands.[33]

Cross-ownership proceedings

The FCC voted December 18, 2007 to eliminate some media ownership rules, including a statute that forbids a single company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin circulated the plan in October 2007.[33] Martin's justification for the rule change is to ensure the viability of America's newspapers and to address issues raised in the 2003 FCC decision that was later struck down by the courts.[34] The FCC held six hearings around the country to receive public input from individuals, broadcasters and corporations. Because of the lack of discussion during the 2003 proceedings, increased attention as been paid to ensuring that the FCC engages in proper dialogue with the public regarding its current rules change.

FCC Commissioners Deborah Taylor-Tate and Robert McDowell joined Chairman Martin in voting in favor of the rule change. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, both Democrats, opposed the change.[35]


The media in Venezuela is very fragmented when we say if there are good relations between private television broadcasters and the government. In 2002 all private television channels aired the national strike while not airing Hugo Chavez supporters. Then when Pedro Carmona became president for two days many people from low income neighborhoods started protesting and asking for Carmona to give up the power but the private channels (the public channel was off air) weren't airing those protests against Carmona. Two days later Chavez took power and the war of the media began. Chavez began insulting and threatening the channels to take them off the air. In 2007 Chavez didn't renew the RCTV license for which the opposition said he was silencing them. Also Globovision, the only opposition channel on air, has received threats for closure. While in private channels they mostly air negative things about the government and Venezuela, the state television mostly humiliate and praise Chavez. For now the sense of media ownership is very in danger to call to people to protests.

By corporation

  • NBC Universal is owned by General Electric (80%) and Vivendi SA (20%). In December 2009, General Electric and the media conglomerate Comcast announced a buyout agreement for NBC Universal. After the pending transaction, Comcast will own 51% of NBC Universal while GE will own 49%. As a part of the deal, GE will buy out Vivendi's 20% stake in the company.
  • Mediaset, also owned by Silvio Berlusconi, controls 3 out of 7 national TV channels in Italy. Mr Berlusconi in his function of prime minister also exerts great influence over 3 more channels (RAI-owned), thus directly or indirectly controlling almost 90% of Italy's mass media.

See also

Film documentaries


  1. ^ Steven, Peter (2004). The No-nonsense Guide to Global Media. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Co-published by New Internationalist Publications and Between the Lines. pp. 19. ISBN 1-896357-81-4.  
  2. ^ a b New Internationalist (April 2001). "Global Media". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10.  
  3. ^ New Internationalist (April 2001). "Ultra Concentrated Media - Facts". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10.  
  4. ^ a b Katharine Ainger (April 2001). "Empires of the Senseless". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10.  
  5. ^
  6. ^ New Internationalist (April 2001). "Ultra Concentrated Media - Facts". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10.  
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^ News Corporation - Annual Report 2007
  10. ^ The full text of the act, Australasian Legal Information Institute, Retrieved 2009-10-24
  11. ^ a b c The Globe and Mail (June 22, 2006). "Review media mergers - Senate group urges Grant Robertson and Simon Tuck". The Globe and Mail - republished by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. Retrieved 10 October 2009.  
  12. ^ a b c Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (June 2006). "FINAL REPORT ON THE CANADIAN NEWS MEDIA". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 10 October 2009.  
  13. ^ Commission of the European Communities, Commission staff working document - Media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union, Brussels, 16.1.2007 SEC(2007) 0032, p.9
  14. ^ "Independent periodicals", Website of VLTAVA-LABE PRESS a.s.: CV Týden, Tachovská Jiskra, Týdeník Domažlicko, Týdeník Chebsko, Týdeník Karlovarska, Týdeník Klatovska, Týdeník Sokolovska, Týdeník Vysočina, Týden u nás, Vyškovské noviny, Nový život, Slovácko, Znojemské noviny, Týdeník Ostrava, Region - Bruntálský, Region - Krnovské noviny, Region - Opavský a Hlučínský, Region - Karvinsko, Region - Havířsko, Region - Týdeník okresu Nový Jičín, Region - Frýdecko-Místecko, Prostějovský týden, Nové Přerovské, Hranický týden, Moravský sever, Slovácké noviny plus
  15. ^ Company structure on VLTAVA-LABE-PRESS's website
  16. ^Website of VLTAVA-LABE PRESS a.s., "About us"
  17. ^Město Brno pohledem lidí z různých oborů BA thesis by Michal Kárný
  18. ^ Vltava Labe Press' profile on the Czech Publishers Association
  19. ^ a b Vltava-Labe-Press AS acquires a minority stake in Prvni Novinova Spolecnost from Czech Republic Thomson Financial Mergers & Acquisitions. 08-06-2001
  20. ^ Website of VLTAVA-LABE PRESS a.s.
  21. ^ Company structure on Verlagsgruppe Passau's website
  22. ^ The Czech media landscape - print media
  23. ^ Web page of MAFRA
  24. ^ Company profile. Czech Publishers Association, 2008
  25. ^ a b c "The press in the Czech Republic". BBC news. December 10, 2005. Retrieved 2008-12-13.  
  26. ^ Pre-workshop Report, Robert Schumann centre for Advanced Studies
  27. ^ a b c Jaromír Volek. «The market takes all - Czech Republic: Playing the game of media trumps». Eurozine 2009-03-20
  28. ^ "The Communications Act of 1934 ." United States Public Law.
  29. ^ "[Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), p. 654-655 ]." Thomas I. Emerson
  30. ^ "Adbusters : The Magazine - #72 The Fake Issue / Fighting For Air: An interview with Eric Klinenberg". Retrieved 2007-06-29.  
  31. ^ Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (3/9/2003). "Speak Out for Media Democracy: Why isn’t the FCC doing its job?". Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 10 October 2009.  
  32. ^ Casuga, Jay-Anne. Not Enough: FCC public hearing allows only one hour for citizen input (
  33. ^ a b Labaton, Stephen. "Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners." The New York Times, 18 Oct 2007. Retrieved on 10 Dec 2007.
  34. ^ "Chairman Kevin J. Martin Proposes Revision to the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule." FCC. Press Release, 13 Nov 2007.
  35. ^ "FCC Votes to Relax Cross-Media Ownership Rule" Associated Press, 18 Dec 2007. Retrieved on 18 Dec 2007.

Further reading

External links

Supporting Media Deregulation:

Opposing Media Deregulation:


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address