Abstract
Media industries play an integral role in the life of the
modern world. The vast of the population perceives media as not only a source
of entertainment but, also information. Because of their critical role, media
for the longest period has attracted the attention of policy-makers. Therefore,
this essay aims to evaluate how media regulation frameworks are premised on
protecting media freedom, and public interests among others through limiting
media oligopolies. The essay argues that media regulation especially limiting
media oligopolies has impacted positively on the democratization of media. It
facilitates more media outlets that further facilitate to divergent viewpoints
consumed by the general public.
The essay will
discuss media regulation. It is enforced by the laws and policies of a
particular country. Their existence is
on the grounds of protection of freedom of speech and independence of media.
The regulation is in the forms of self-regulation, statutory regulation and
co-regulation. Further, it discusses the
democratization of media and its implications in Australia with the aid of
comparative analysis using an information privacy policy in the USA. The essay concludes that it is imperative to
formulate media regulations that safeguard the freedom of the press by
promoting divergent views.
Introduction
Social media as an avenue for disseminating and
acquisition of information is increasingly becoming popular in the contemporary
world as opposed to the mainstream media. According to the study by Statista
Research Department (2024), there are an estimated 21.3 million active social
media subscribers in Australia. Albeit the fact that the majority of the
Australian population is embracing social media as a source of information,
recently conducted research has indicated that more than half of the population
does not trust news and information from this source (Wilding et al., 2018).
Independent and free press is salient in enabling
information flows between the citizens and authorities. Democratic countries
such as Australia have profoundly recognized that disseminating information is
significant in upholding liberal and democratic societies. However, with press
freedom, it raises the question of meeting fundamental standards such as
fairness and accuracy. The matter has led to extensive debate locally and
internationally on media regulation and the form it should take. Notably, the
role of media is instrumental in realizing and exercising the right to protect
freedom of expression, however, media regulation frameworks are premised on
protecting media freedom, and public interests among others through limiting
media oligopolies.
The paper is divided into three parts. Part, one
focuses on defining media regulation citing cross-media ownership policy. It
covers the evolution and its implications in Australia with the aid of
different forms of media regulation. The second part is the critique of media
regulation. The paper evaluates how
regulation has succeeded in democratizing media access. It further builds on
the democratizing of media by discussing on conflict between regulation and
freedom of speech. The argument is cemented by the use of a case study.
The third part
is the comparative analysis that dives into details of the current media
regulatory framework in Australia. The comparison between Australian and USA
media regulations plays an instrumental in indicating the distinction and their
effectiveness. The fourth and concluding part is the conclusion that
encompasses the recap of the main points and gives implications on the paper’s
findings on future media regulation laws and policies.
Media regulation
The framework is instrumental in the limitation of
media oligopolies since it defines the path of democratization of media.
Furthermore, it enables a diversification of the political and social opinions
that give voice to the minority populations. Also, is a vital aspect in the
development country’s key values such as language and culture. In other words, the rationale of the media
regulation in limiting media oligopolies enhances the ability to use media for
the people-formation. Therefore, it forms the fundamental of cultural identity,
rights to public participation formulated with individual’s association with
media concerns on the impact on the minority population and media failure
especially on the global space.
Within a media oligopoly’s structure, the dominance of
the market by a few large firms significantly controls the flow of information.
In other words, they act as the only source of information hence impacting and
shaping public opinion (Chung et al., 2022). About this argument, in 2017, the
Australian government proposed a relaxation of strict cross-media ownership
policies and laws. The new rules prohibit a common ownership or control of
either TV, radio or newspaper in a particular area (Wilding et al., 2020).
Thus, it aims to encourage more operators to take advantage of the
expansion of new markets. The
development is due to the acknowledgement of the digital porous and competitive
global environment. The proponents of
changes in laws argue that it unfairly restricts local media enterprises from
optimizing the scale and scope of their undertaking and also the ability to
access fundamental requisites to be competitive globally.
Notably, in
Australia, the evolution of media has been shaped by globalization and
technological advancements. The changes and reviews have included changes in
various media control rules as such cross-media ownership rules. In a few
words, the media regulation in Austria involved the Broadcasting Services Act
1992 (BSA ACT) which focuses on the censorship and preservation of cultural
values (Grisold and Presold, 2020). In other words, the policy aimed to
solidify the country's ability to regulate and monitor the broadcasting realm.
The second
aspect of evolution is the licensing of broadcasting. Under the BSA Act, the
policy initiates activities to develop co-regulatory conditions. The
broadcasters were operating under regulated conditions and environments. With online content becoming popular, the
authority recognized the need to regulate online and digital content. The Enhancing Online Safety Policy of 2015
draws on the national cultural code to regulate prevented digital content (Wilding et al., 2021). Finally,
prevention and content regulation make the contemporary evolution of media
restriction in Australia. The policy
provides the framework to report online crimes and ban negative online content.
Media
regulation being a wider realm encompasses various forms such as content
regulation and access regulation. On one
hand, content regulation includes broadcasting threshold and classification of
content. Consequently, the content
regulation's primary objective is to influence the disseminated content to the
audiences (Chapdelaine et al., 2021). In effect, it shapes the public view and
cultural values. On the other hand, access regulation entails frequency
allocation and digital neutrality. While frequency allocation impacts the equal
distribution and accessibility of resources by all broadcasters, digital
reality impacts creating a neutral ground for all websites and internet users
(Spindler, 2020). In effect, it ensures there is equal online innovation and
competition.
Rationale on
the media regulation
The democratization of media in Australia has faced a
myriad of challenges. Nevertheless, the efforts in conjunction with government
policies have been successful to a greater extent. One of the areas where the
democratization of media has extensively succeeded is in the public interest.
Efforts to resolve media oligopolies were pinned on the argument that public
interest would be best in the situation whereby there is a diversification of
views (Winseck ,
2021). The act of watering down cross-media ownership policy was poised
to ensure diverse views through diversified ownership of licenses. Also, it
impacts on the general public welfare and the ability of the public to have
insights on the latest developments. Consequently, the public interest does not
include only public safety and well-being but also national security. The correlation between these variables draws
the arguments of journalist ethics. According to the UNHR, the best approach to
address the ethical dimension of journalists on matters of public interest is
through the adaptation of a human rights-based approach (Sonnenberge et al., 2022). Thus,
the ethical duty should involve engaging in a balancing analysis.
Although media regulation has been a success, from
time to time there is an emergency of conflict with the freedom of the
press. The government-led initiatives
are capable of undermining the independence of media. When independent media is
fully controlled by the government on the grounds of national security it
underscores the concern of journalism integrity (Hong et al., 2024). This has
been the case with a good number of authorities citing the context of national
security. Also, the government media regulation bodies can use the regulation
laws and policies to influence the information content to shape public opinion
and surpass any criticism from journalists. The conflict between media
regulation and independence of the press is increasingly becoming difficult to
create an equilibrium. For example, within the paradigm of the New York Times,
the issues of press independence were handled in a manner that indicates a high
level of journalism ethics (Muller and Birnbauer). Therefore, to minimize the
risk of executing unjustified and harmful manner, the media house sought advice
from various security organs. By doing so, the editorial allowed the state
agency to interfere with its editorial independence by voting them to offer
advice on what is correct to publish.
A case study of
anti-terror laws and the Australian government indicates the conflict between
media regulation and the independence of the press. The situation unraveled various ethical and
legal issues as the result of the cases in 2001, in which, the Australian, a
newspaper publisher, revealed to the general public the counterterrorism
operation that led to smoke out and apprehended of various militias linked with
al-Shabaab, a terrorist group based in Somalia (Stewart et al., 2009). The
police accused the newspaper of publishing information before the occurrence of
the raiding undertakings. The editor of the paper, on the other hand, justified
their action by claiming they gave the police a chance to vet information
before its publication and had to wait for several days. Furthermore, the
auditor purported that, the act of requiring the police to vet before
publication was a ‘highly unusual practice’.
The Australian paper praised its action citing the willingness of the
paper to practice responsible reporting and maintaining a high code of ethics.
Therefore, the aspect of withholding information from publication while seeking
clarification from the authorities challenged the principle of press
independence. The case study is a clear
example of where media and authorities are willing to cooperate when facing an
issue of national security.
The balance between government control and
independence of the press has disadvantages outweighing the advantages.
Excessive control of media by the government undermines democracy and
governance. With a lack of democracy and governance, the public is at risk of
not accessing diverse viewpoints. Furthermore, the government will not be held
accountable in matters of national interest. Furthermore, the introduction of
convenorship and intimidation of journalists plays a key role in undermining
the integrity of journalists.
Comparison analysis
In Australia, just like many other countries
worldwide, the use of social media as a source and channel for conveying
information is becoming more popular. Thus, the digital realm forms the
fundamentals of the current media framework. The framework is confined under
the online content regulation. Some of the digital services that are regulated
include built not limited to websites and social media platforms (Frosio et al., 2023). These services are required to comply with
content standards and other grouping requirements. Since it operates under the
Broadcasting Services Act, the digital vendors are required to implement
mechanisms that will ensure sanity on the internet such as restriction of the
harmful content (Bahl et al., 2020). The online content regulation regulatory
majors on privacy and security. The parameters are further divided into four
key concepts breach of privacy, data protection, trespass and surveillance. The
Privacy Act 1988, defines the principal aspect of the legislation that protects
the handling of individual information on the personal level. It includes
activities such as the gathering of data, usage of data, storage and also
matters data disclosure of individual information in the government public
sector and also within the private spectrum.
In the comparison analysis, the essay uses A case
study of USA information privacy laws. The information privacy law in the USA
is guided by the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. (2006) which provides the
regulation of information handling by the federal organs (Moira Paterson).
The law stipulates that the federal organ must ‘collect
information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject
individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an
individual’s rights, benefits, and privileges under Federal programs’ (Moira
Paterson, pg 27). Also, there is a clause within the policy that prevents any
chances of maintenance of records and in the process, it is described as
guaranteed by the law unless it conflicts with authorized law enforcement undertakings.
Both Australia and USA information privacy law,
laws have similarities to a greater extent. They have stipulated the mechanisms
of collecting and gathering personal information belonging to an individual. In
effect, they promote freedom of speech and press. This is in line with media
regulation on media oligopolies that aims to create divergent viewpoints from
the general public (Pisarkiewicz et al., 2021). With federal agencies through policies
allowing more and encouraging more media, especially in the digital space, the
freedom of the press and working as an independent body will guarantee a proper
and acceptable manner of handling private information.
The paper alludes that based on policies and approaches,
Australia has the best approach to dealing with the democratization of media.
the combination of the news laws making a relaxation on the cross-media
ownership policy and information privacy law forms a strong fundamental to
dealing with control of the flow of information. By allowing new entrants in
the media industry there is the creation of divergent views that impact
positively on shaping public opinion and to some extent cultural values.
Conclusion
Australia's federal agency is working towards empowering
more media to venture into existing and new markets to address the concern of
market oligopolies. The arguments towards media oligopolies are that they
hinder divergent views hence obstructing the freedom of speech/press
The essay findings
also indicate that the media industry is shaping towards digital platforms.
Unlike traditional media, digital media can reach a wider audience, hence the
need for more resources to be competitive in the global arena. Therefore, the media regulation to ensure
internet service providers are not practising favours will ensure equality in
digital services such as social media and websites. Therefore, the essay concludes that the
media regulation frameworks are formulated to promote public interest and its
achievable by limiting the existence of media oligopolies.
The findings
indicate that federal agency needs to create well-thought policies that will
protect and not hinder the well-being of digital users. Policies such as the
information privacy policy though it targets to protect the public interest can
result in conflict between the federal state and the press independence. In a
nutshell, the dynamics of information consumption and dissemination should be
the key guidance in the formulation of new policies. The
democratization of media will not be fully realized
without a strong working relationship between the federal agency and the media
outlets.
References
Bahl, V. S., Rahman, F., Bailey, R., Krishnan,
S., Deo, S., & Sontakke, N. (2020). Internet intermediaries and online
harms: Regulatory.
Chapdelaine, P., & McLeod Rogers, J. (2021).
Contested Sovereignties: States, Media Platforms, Peoples, and the Regulation
of Media Content and Big Data in the Networked Society. Laws, 10(3), 66.
https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10030066
Chung, M., & Wihbey, J. (2022). Social media
regulation, third-person effect, and public views: A comparative study of the United
States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Mexico. New Media & Society, 146144482211229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122996
Frosio, G., & Geiger, C. (2023). Taking
fundamental rights seriously in the Digital Services Act's platform liability
regime. European Law Journal, 29(1-2), 31-77.
Grisold, A., & Preston, P. (2020). Economic Inequality and News Media. Oxford University
Press.
Hong, M. S. S. K. (2024) Government Influence
on the Press in Democracies, Journalists’ Perception of the Influence, and the
Media Environment
Moira
Paterson, THE PUBLIC PRIVACY CONUNDRUM –
ANONYMITY AND THE LAW IN AN ERA OF MASS SURVEILLANCE, week 8 reading
Muller
and Birnbauer, THE ETHICS OF REPORTING NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS, week 9
reading
Pisarkiewicz, A., & Polo, M. (2021). Old
and new media: the interactions of merger control and plurality regulation.
In Research Handbook on EU Media Law and Policy (pp. 54-74).
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Spindler, G. (2020). Role and Liability of
Online Platforms Providing Digital Content and Digital Services – Some
Preliminary Thoughts, Including Impact of the Digital Content Directive
–. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550354
Statista Research Department, T. text provides
general information S. assumes no liability for the information given being
complete or correct D. to varying update, & Statistics Can Display More
up-to-Date Data Than Referenced in the. (2024, January 10). Topic: Social media in Australia. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/8628/social-media-in-australia/
Sonnenberg, S., Mason, L., Lim, Y., &
Reddi, T. (2022). Towards a Human Rights-Based Approach to New and Emerging
Technologies. Policy Paper Series on New and Emerging Digital
Technologies and Human Rights.
Stewart, Cameron, & Wilson, L. (2009, June
21). The Holsworthy Barracks Plot: A Case Study of an Al-Shabab Support
Network in Australia. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-holsworthy-barracks-plot-a-case-study-of-an-al-shabab-support-network-in-australia/
Wilding, D. (2021). Regulating News and
Disinformation on Digital Platforms. Journal of Telecommunications
and the Digital Economy, 9(2), 11–46. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v9n2.415
Wilding, D., Fray, P., Molitorisz, S., &
McKewon, E. (2018). The impact of digital platforms on news and journalistic
content. Digital Platforms Inquiry.
Wilding, D., Giotis, C., & Molitorisz, S.
(2020). Submission to Australian Communications and Media
Authority-Impartiality and Commercial Influence in Broadcast News, Discussion
Paper. Impartiality and Commercial Influence in Broadcast News,
Discussion Paper.
Winseck, D. (2021). Media and internet
concentration in Canada, 1984–2020.
