TRAI's call for curbs on media ownership and control and full disclosure of facts lie ignored since 2008
In August 2014, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) gave wide-ranging suggestions to transform the country바카라s media landscape. The aim was to impose restrictions on media ownership, and prevent dominance by a few media houses. It was the third time바카라first in 2008, then in 2012바카라that the regulator made the effort. For over a decade, four regimes refused to accept or reject them.
The reasons were obvious. Some of the views went against politicians and parties which owned media in several states. Some went against large media companies owned by big business houses, as also media houses that had ventured into non-media areas. Media, thus, was against TRAI. In addition, as media itself became fragmented and polarised, there were not enough voices to push through the decisions.
However, TRAI바카라s conclusions highlighted negative trends in media, especially those related to ownership. Both political and corporate ownership was up, and needed to be curbed. There was a lack of mandatory disclosures. Cross-media ownership had expanded. There were no laws to prevent horizontal integration바카라across genres like print, TV, cable, digital, etc.
Experts agree with TRAI on political ownership. 바카라Recent research shows examples of major media groups바카라 connections with politicians and political groups,바카라 says Marius Dragomir, director, Center for Media, Data and Society, Hungary-based Central European University.
Reiterating the points it made in 2008 and 2012, TRAI stated that political bodies, religious bodies, state agencies, state-funded entities, even government joint ventures and affiliates, should be 바카라barred from entry into broadcasting and TV channels distribution sectors바카라. If any such entity has an existing permission, 바카라an appropriate exit route has to be provided바카라 to it. Even 바카라surrogates바카라 of the above-mentioned entities need to be banned, it recommended.
There are problems with such generalisations. Firstly, since every party, or politicians from them, own media, no regime will accept this bar. It may impact the constitutional right under freedom of speech and choice. If you don바카라t wish to curtail choices, you cannot do so with restrictions on speech.
The regulator felt that there was an 바카라inherent conflict of interest바카라 vis-a-vis corporatisation of media바카라in cases of ownership by large businesses, it is 바카라driven by vested interests바카라. TRAI noted, 바카라Media is used for corporate propaganda in order to alter the business environment to one바카라s advantage.바카라 It added, 바카라In India, the problem of corporate ownership is further aggravated by the lack of publicly available ownership records of media entities.바카라
More importantly, many traditional media houses were being run for profits, and not to disseminate 바카라accurate and unbiased news and information to the public바카라. For example, a senior executive of the Times of India Group stated in a 2012 New Yorker article that the group is not in the news business, but the advertising business: 바카라We are a derived business. When the advertiser becomes successful, we are successful. The advertiser wants us to facilitate consumption.바카라
According to Dragomir, an ongoing study that may be published in March 2020 shows that in terms of flow of funds and incomes generated in Indian media, 바카라a dozen powerful companies and/or wealthy families dominate바카라. He adds that this is 바카라astonishing, given the size and (supposed) diversity in India, which should make it difficult for a company to expand its control at such a level바카라. And let바카라s not forget the entry of unsavoury entities like realtor, contractors, chit funds and plantation firms.
Experts feel this may be due to a mix of local, cultural and business factors. For example, Dwayne Winseck, professor of journalism, Carleton University, Canada, explains that the Indian situation is unique compared to western nations, but nearer to the standards in emerging economies. In the latter, 바카라many communication and media players are heavily integrated into dominant business, political, and religious groups바카라.
ALSO READ: Lutyens Media? What바카라s That?
TRAI said the government needs to 바카라seriously바카라 consider 바카라ownership restrictions on corporate entering media바카라. These could be in the form of caps on equity holding, extent of loans extended and other provisions related to control. This is important because the regulator made a distinction between mere ownership바카라a subset of the larger universe of control. Indeed, as TRAI fears, control could be exercised indirectly on media firms by outsiders. One was through loans given by large businesses to channels and newspapers. These loans could be converted into equity if not repaid within a period, thus having the potential to effectively change ownership. In most media acquisitions in the past two decades, this was the standard mode.
Another mode was through outside board members. One trend TRAI noted was that the 바카라board of directors of a number of media companies now include representatives of big corporate entities that are advertisers바카라. This allows the latter to influence media decisions.
On ownership, TRAI maintained that equity caps should consider both direct and indirect holdings. For, in some cases, A may hold 50 per cent in media company B. This is straightforward. But A can hold 100 per cent in C, which owns 50 per cent in B. The overall holding of A (50 per cent of 100 per cent) remains the same. If A owns 100 per cent in C, which owns 80 per cent in D, which owns 60 per cent in B, A바카라s overall holding in B (80 pc of 60 pc) is 48 per cent.
Such restrictions on equity, loans, board representations and the nature of secret contracts and deals may not work in practice. For these can change, and will change, regularly, making it tough to monitor. A more useful tool mentioned by TRAI was mandatory disclosures by those linked to media organisations. An increase or decrease in loans to a media firm should be updated immediately.
TRAI looked at cross-media, and ways to curb the dominance of a few players. It said that the fact that India had tens of thousands of newspapers, over 350 news channels, and hundreds of news websites in different languages didn바카라t imply diversity. What mattered was the presence of outlets not in the context of a national market, but in the relevant geographic one. A relevant market is one where the content available through different outlets is substitutable. In India, this whittles down to a particular language or state.
TRAI felt that if the market was thus defined, there were clear signs of dominance over news by a few media organisations.
In the 2014 report, TRAI gave the formula to measure dominance through the global Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI). An HHI of more than 1,800 each in print, TV, and digital, was accepted as a market that was dominated by a few powerful players. In such a scenario, any outlet that contributed more than 1,000 HHI in one market, say news channels, could not contribute more than 1,000 HHI in any other, say print. If it did so, it 바카라will have to dilute its control in one of the two segments바카라. Rough calculations indicate that this is indeed the case in several southern, western, and eastern states.
Clearly, some of TRAI바카라s 2014 recommendations may need a relook, and a few others need to be fine-tuned. Some, like the calculation to measure dominance, can be implemented. But media is ripe for full and mandatory disclosures.