Master Thesis: Concentration of Media Ownership in Europe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MAGISTERARBEIT Titel der Magisterarbeit „Concentration of Media Ownership in Europe“ Verfasserin ODER Verfasser Bakk. phil. Lukas Wiesboeck angestrebter akademischer Grad Magister ODER Magistra der Philosophie (Mag. phil.) Wien, 2009 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 066 841 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Betreuerin / Betreuer: Ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Hannes Haas ‐ 2 ‐ CONCENTRATION OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP IN EUROPE Perspectives of legal regulations of meDia ownership anD the safeguarDing of meDia pluralism in the European Union based on case studies of Germany, United Kingdom and France Is there a neeD to reconsiDer supranational measures? ‐ 3 ‐ Summary In this paper I will show that a supranational approach based on harmonization of national restrictions of media ownership in order to safeguard media pluralism, as proposed by the EU Commission in its 1992 Green Book is still not applicable today, despite the fact that the media landscape is undergoing considerable structural changes. The reasons for this are of political, legal and practical nature. My analyses are based on an extensive evaluation of the economic conditions and the legal framework of European media, which I will apply to case studies of Germany, United Kingdom and France. Moreover I will consider the definition of media pluralism and the preconditions for the technological changes European media will be subjected to in the next couple of years. A new and revised European legal framework should allow these changes – to a certain extent – to happen instead of protecting outdated business models of “old media”. Zusammenfassung In dieser Arbeit zeige ich, dass ein auf supranationaler europäischer Rechtssetzung beruhender Ansatz der Harmonisierung von nationalen Regelungen zur Sicherung der Meinungsvielfalt in den Medien, wie er von der EU Kommission 1992 vorgeschlagen wurde, auch heute, in einer völlig veränderten europäischen Medienlandschaft nicht anwendbar ist. Politische, rechtliche und praktische Gründe sprechen dagegen. Meine Analyse beruht auf einer ausführlichen Evaluierung der ökonomischen und rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen von europäischen Medien, die ich anhand von Fallstudien aus Deutschland, Großbritannien und Frankreich veranschauliche. Darüber hinaus werden auch die Bedingungen von Medienvielfalt sowie die Voraussetzungen für die strukturellen Veränderungen, denen europäische Medien aufgrund von technischen Entwicklungen in den kommenden Jahren unterworfen sein werden. Ein eventueller neuer europäischer Rechtsrahmen sollte diese Veränderungen bis zu einem gewissen Grad unterstützen, anstatt überholte Geschäftsmodelle von Medien der “alten Ordnung” zu schützen. ‐ 4 ‐ TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................ 7 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 9 2 THE FUNCTIONS OF MASS MEDIA....................................................................13 2.1 SOCIAL FUNCTIONS .............................................................................................. 14 2.2 POLITICAL FUNCTIONS .......................................................................................... 16 2.3 ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS ........................................................................................ 17 3 MEDIA PLURALISM AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE ..................................................20 3.1 DEMOCRATISATION OF MEDIA – THE ONLINE REVOLUTION? ......................................... 26 4 CONCENTRATION OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP .......................................................30 4.1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................... 30 4.1.1 Competition in a market model economy ............................................... 30 4.1.2 Characteristics of media economics ........................................................ 39 4.2 IMPACT............................................................................................................. 57 4.2.1 Evaluation................................................................................................ 57 4.2.2 Effects...................................................................................................... 60 4.3 MANIFESTATION ................................................................................................. 64 4.3.1 Germany.................................................................................................. 65 4.3.2 United Kingdom....................................................................................... 76 4.3.3 France...................................................................................................... 85 4.3.4 Europe ..................................................................................................... 92 5 CURRENT REGULATIONS OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP.............................................94 5.1 NATIONAL REGULATIONS ...................................................................................... 97 5.1.1 Legislation in Germany............................................................................ 97 5.1.2 Legislation in the United Kingdom......................................................... 101 5.1.3 Legislation in France.............................................................................. 107 5.2 LEGISLATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION ................................................................. 112 5.2.1 Existing legislation................................................................................. 112 5.2.2 Proposals ............................................................................................... 117 5.3 MEDIA GOVERNANCE ........................................................................................ 124 6 NECESSITY AND OF SUPRANATIONAL REGULATIONS.....................................126 6.1 TRANSNATIONAL LEVEL....................................................................................... 127 6.2 MEMBER STATE LEVEL ....................................................................................... 129 7 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................132 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................134 9 APPENDIX .....................................................................................................145 ‐ 5 ‐ ABBREVIATIONS ABC American Broadcasting Company / Audit Bureau of Circulation AG Aktiengesellschaft AGOF Arbeitsgemeinschaft Online‐Forschung ALM Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Landesmedienanstalten APA American Psychological Association APN Appointed News Provider ARD Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich‐rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland BaFin Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht BARB Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board BBC British Broadcasting Corporation bn billion BSkyB British Sky Broadcasting BVerfGE Bundesverfassungsgerichtshof CC Competition Commission CEO Chief Executive Officer CLT‐UFA Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion – Universum Film CME Central European Media Enterprises CNN Cable News Network CSA Conseil Supérieur de l’Audivisuel DSPS Digital Sound Programme Services EBRA Est Bourgogne Rhône Alpes ECHR European Convention on Human Rights EIAA European Interactive Advertising Association EU European Union ISP Internet Service Provider ITV Independent Television Commission KDG Kabel Deutschland Gesellschaft KEK Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich KG Kommanditgesellschaft KiKa KinderKanal ‐ 6 ‐ KKR Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co LLC loi de la liberté de communication m million NRCO Nouvelle Republique de Centre Ouest NRE nouvelles régulations économiques Ofcom Office of Communications OFT Office of Fair Trade OJD Office de Justification de la Diffusion PBS Public Broadcasting Stations RTL Radio Television Luxembourg SBS Scandinavian Broadcasting System SCP Structure‐Conduct‐Performance TIME Telecommunication/Information/Media/Entertainment TNT Télévision Numérique Terrestre UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WAZ Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung XML eXtensive Markup Language ZDF Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen ‐ 7 ‐ Preface “I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at in the right way did not become still more complicated.” (Poul Anderson) The work described in this thesis was carried out between January 2008 and July 2009 at the University of Vienna under the supervision and guidance of Dr. Hannes Haas. As described in the summary, this paper analyses the economic and legal environment of European media companies in order to evaluate potential supranational models of regulatory measures. The introduction provides much of the general background. Since the economic analysis is a core part of this paper, I would like to point out that I adopt a political economy point of view, particularly when assessing the functioning of markets and the way they influence society and law. Therefore I will build my analysis on the neoclassical theory of the firm, which centres round the principle of profit maximization and the notion of perfect competition. I am aware that other concepts, which challenge the simplifications of the neoclassical assumptions, have been introduced. There are many alternative and much more complex