Name: Pritha Chatterjee

Roll: 20

CHANGING PARADIGM OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP IN INDIA

The media market in India remains highly fragmented, due to the large number of languages and the
sheer size of the country.There are various types of media ownership. There are many media
organization in the country that are owned and controlled by a wide variety of entities including
corporate bodies, societies and trusts and individuals. There were over 82,000 publications registered
with the Registrar of Newspapers as on 31 March 2011

There are four major types of ownership of mass media. Chain, cross media, conglomerate and vertical
integration.

Chain Ownership

Chain ownership means the same media company owns numerous outlets in a single medium, a chain of
newspaper, a series of radio stations, a string of television stations or several book publishing
companies.

Cross Media Ownership

Cross media ownership is when the same company owns several along with newspaper, magazines,
musical labels, and publishers and so on.

Conglomerate Ownership

Conglomerate ownership means the ownership of several business one of which a media business.

Vertical Integration

Vertical integration indicates that a media company monopolizes the production of the ingredients that
go into the making of media products.

Change in the media ownership patterns in India

The evolution of media industry, over the world, has been earmarked with changing ownership patterns,
all aimed at expansion and consolidation.

The story in India is no different. Since the liberalization of economy in 1991, media organisations have
evolved and developed into industries. A handful of private media organisations have consolidated their
empire by owning different media.
Another interesting trend has been the interest of corporate houses to invest in media businesses – the
most recent being the takeover of Network 18 by Reliance Industries Limited. The biggest-ever deal in
the Indian media, this takeover doesn’t infuse much optimism and enthusiasm. There is enough
evidence with respect to the influence of advertisers and stakeholders in the editorial policy of a media
house. In this case, the whole media house is owned by India’s biggest corporate house. Corporate
interest of Reliance Industries is bound to be the priority of Network18, which undermines the whole
“social responsibility” and “watchdog” argument surrounding the media. Corporate houses and political
parties also share interests. One of the largest corporations in the country owning a significantly big
media house is surely going to have repercussions.

To understand the scale of the impact India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani has on the media, the
incident of the Aston Martin accident in Mumbai is enough. His son’s involvement in the accident was
not reported fairly by any mainstream media outlet. Every outlet (barring Mumbai Mirror and Indian
Express) either hid the all important details like the car was registered to Reliance Ports and Terminals
Limited (owned by Mukesh Ambani) or refrained from publishing or broadcasting this story altogether.
The pressure exerted by Ambani on media houses in this proven case reflects the influence corporates
have on the media.

Similar inferences can be drawn elsewhere, for the big media houses in the country are all owned by big
corporate, who clearly have a say in media content. It is impractical to expect an organisation to go
public against their bosses.

Such an ownership pattern is not desirable in a democracy, where media is hailed as the “fourth estate”.
Regulation of content on the basis of corporate interests undermines the sanctity associated with the
fourth estate. Initially, with increasing corporatisation of media, the content is aimed at generating
profit, and trivialisation of news is a common feature.

But ownership patterns and increasing cross-media ownership is making India’s mediascape into an
oligopoly, where a limited few call the shots and share virtually the whole market. Pluralism is the
biggest absentee in the emerging pattern of media conglomerates; both in production of content and
sources of information.

There are more than 800 television channels – out of which 300 are news channels, more than 82,000
newspapers are registered with the Registrar of Newspapers (RNI). Despite these figures, a very major
chunk of news is controlled by a limited few.

The emergence and rise of these few, has made it virtually impossible for any other individual to come
up and challenge the established organisations. Economically, it is not viable. Hence, making an entry in
mainstream media with no monetary backing (in millions), is improbable.

Such has been the impact of the dominating presence of the media conglomerates in the country. It has
been criticised. So much so, that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has come up with a
new document on its “Recommendations on Issues Relating to Media Ownership’’in August, 2014. TRAI
has suggested regulation of ownership pattern; although, the recommendations are not likely to
become laws.

The media environment has been deteriorating as the time is flowing by. Media has lost its credibility,
objectivity, and quality journalism is hard to find in the mainstream media. Much of this can be
attributed to cross-media ownership and evolving ownership patterns.

These ownership patterns are only muzzling pluralistic opinion and creating a monopolistic, rather
oligopolistic regime. There is no competition, for the content follows a similar pattern across platforms,
and there is not much to choose from. As explained by John Oliver in Last Week Tonight, “you can’t
reduce competition, if nobody is competing”. On the basis of content, there appears no digression in the
content itself and the representation as well.

Such has been the scenario in the mainstream media for the past few years. The debate is now turning
from quality of content to regulation of ownership patterns of media houses. Currently, that is being
perceived as the only way to ensure plurality of voices. It has its limitations, and ensuring regulation
happens in a fair manner, is again improbable.

Ownership patterns have made the scenario too complex. Ideally, self-regulation and following
journalistic principles and ethics is the way out. Realistically, it is unlikely that the mainstream media will
change their economic patterns. The need is to bridge the digital gap and build the technological
infrastructure. So that alternate sources of information can reach the masses and the general public also
gets the opportunity to participate in the whole process.