The effects of media concentration in Canada on the quality and objectivity of news
Samy Thuillier EXCHANGE STUDENT
Student ID: 0503335
University of Guelph
Canadian Government – POLS 2300 Assignment: Research Essay Prof. Michael W.F. Harvey
March 16, 2005
2
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION
CONCENTRATING DEVELOPING
3
PROPERTY:
THE
POSSIBILITY
TO
SAVE
MONEY
WHILE
TOWARDS CATCH-ALL MEDIA: NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE CONCENTRATION
4
5
The risk of a ‘democratic deficit’
5
A system privileging followers
7
Media used as a mean to defend personal interests
7
The law of silence : of the scarcity of debates about media concentration
8
CONCLUSION
9
REFERENCES
11
3 Introduction The concentration of the media is a world phenomenon which tends to be accelerating these last years. In the media sector, the concept of concentration returns to two dimensions: concentration of companies’ property and concentration of editorial contents, the second being able to rise from the first. The beginning of the concentration phenomenon can be dated from the 1980s, with the establishment of multimedia conglomerates present as well in sector of the media in a strict sense (newspapers, magazines, radio and television) as in entertainment and culture industries. Thus the fusion of two giants, Time and Warner Brothers, in 1989, is one of the best examples. In Canada, the principal event has been the acquisition of MacLean Hunter by Rogers Communications in 1994 (Canadian Heritage, 2002). Thanks to this transaction, the group became possessor of Sun newspapers’ chain and of the Financial Post. Three types of concentration can also be distinguished: horizontal concentration, which refers to the acquisition of similar businesses by a single firm, vertical integration, when a firm acquires other firms in other stages of the same industry, and crossmedia ownership, when a firm in one industry acquires a firm from another. Currently, crossmedia ownership seems to be the dominating tendency: the main illustration is the transaction in 2000 between CanWest and Hollinger which made it possible for CanWest, already possessing interests in broadcast media, to take control of 50 % of the National Post and to acquire 24 daily newspapers, 13 of which are located in the largest Canadian cities (CBC News, 2000). New groups often justify their merging by the will to propose more “content” to their audience, but content and information are not synonyms. The question is thus to know if the creation of big groups does not undermine the information quality. The notion of “quality” is generally associated to the values that information communicates and to the principles on which journalism is based. Thus objectivity, impartiality, equity, integrity and the respect of fundamental rights (reputation, dignity, private life, and equality) are part of these values. In addition, information quality is defined by diversity. Diversity of
4 forms, gender, approaches, but also diversity of media, viewpoints, opinions, analyses and beliefs (Saint-Jean, 2002). Two main theses are opposed about the consequences of press concentration and its effect on the quality of information. The first implies that the good practise of journalism requires sufficient human and material resources. Concentration consequently allows to increase the resources available and to improve general quality of the media, and especially of information. The second thesis states that the concentration tends to emphasize marketing and to reduce perspectives’ and contents’ diversity. We will thus start from the hypothesis according to which concentration is a positive phenomenon for media, and will study what can be study the consequences on the quality of information.
Concentrating property: the possibility to save money while developing For companies, advantages of big groups are multiple. They are better equipped to face effectively press current problems, that is to say lower circulation and costs rising. Peter Atkinson (1997), one of Hollinger’s leader, explains that facing high competition from other medias, newspapers chains are more suited than small daily newspapers to attract advertising incomes because of their presence in many markets and of the services they propose. Moreover, the economies of scale are substantial, either in the purchase of newsprint, the division of technological costs or the use of human resources. English scholar Peter J. Humphreys (1996) enumerates as well some of the advantages which were already associated with the large chains. In certain cases, the economies of scale which are carried out make it possible for chains to support low-dimension publications. They can provide access to texts of columnists and analysts whom they would not have the means to engage and thus provide a better quality of the information for an inferior cost. In addition, the economic power of big groups can ensure a better editorial independence with respect to various political influences.
5 Towards catch-all media: negative effects of the concentration However, several European works confirm that numerous factors as the monopolistic competition can threaten diversity of contents (Meier & Trappel, 1998). Media such as press target a broad variety of different audiences, which tend to transform them into “media omnibus” (van Rees & van Heijck, 2003), looking for diffusing everything for everybody, reducing then diversity of opinions and of comments to the lowest common denominator. Information relies on more and more generalist sources, which are intended for the largest audience, and which are the same for every journalist. In addition, the news privileges activities and decisions if the most powerful social actors, as well as spectacular subjects likely to create emotions. Commercial concerns also go beyond the information concerns. Cross property of conglomerate concentrations create new restrictions for newspapers; the more a media has profit objectives, the more journalistic practises tend to be replaced by “market journalism”. Advertisers indeed do not seek quality journalism but journalism good enough to reach the targeted audience. (Meier & Trappel, p.57) The objective is therefore not to inform but to satisfy readers, who become consumers. As a matter of fact, “trivialisation” becomes a norm, with fewer in-depth analyses and more generalist news. Telegrams also replace more and more leading articles: Prof. James McKenzie (1996) showed for example that Regina's Leader-Post had reduced local coverage, increasing by almost 40% the use of wire material from agencies such as the Associated Press. These reports imply that economic competition between the media is not a pledge of quality and of diversity for information.
The risk of a ‘democratic deficit’ Let us consider the impacts of concentration on an economic plan. Theoretically, it seems obvious that an increase in a company’s size is likely to provide better opportunities in terms of financing and to contribute to the widening of its activities. As a consequence, journalists
6 should obtain better working conditions. In reality however, such mergers mainly favour rationalization of activities, either reducing personal or dulling the journalists’ job. Press companies try indeed to diminish the information coverage when fixed costs of newsprint, impression and wages become too elevated (Gilens & Hertzman, 2000). Newspapers therefore refer to a reduced quantity of information sources; moreover international news services tend to be limited and there is generally only one news service for local and national news. In addition, the merging of several titles in the same group have led many newspapers to only rewrite, reformat and repeat the same pieces of information from the same sources, even if their audience are very different. However, this policy does not generate additional incomes in most of cases, and even tends to increase costs (Busterna, 1988). Information has been then concentrated to deal only with the topicality’s central questions: most of time, there is a limited number of geographical categories – local, national and international – and of headings – politics, social, economy, culture and sport – which constitute the constraining framework in which the journalists must locate information (Meier & Trappel, 1998). Newspapers, intending at decreasing costs, reduces the number of journalists, correspondents, and allocates a lower budget for the reporters’ travelling expenses, inter alia. After Hollinger purchased the Cambridge Reporter in 1995 from Thomson, 30 per cent of the staff were cut. Reporters went from writing 40 stories a month to 80 stories a month (Winter, 1997, p. 26). And so when Hollinger purchased the five daily Sifton-family papers in Saskatchewan in 1996, 25 per cent of the Regina Leader-Post editorial staff were immediately laid-off (Winter, p.32). As a matter of fact, quality journalism such as labour-intensive, investigative reports disappear to privilege easy-to-cover information, or organized events.
7 Moreover, if quality of information is generally improving since the Second World War, thanks to the audience’s higher level of education, to a better formation and ethics of journalists, information intended for the general public remains very strongly skewed in favour of the industry’s interests, as Bagdikian (1983) notices. André Noël (2001) is then right when he says: “The one who pays the musician chooses the music. That goes without saying. The problem occurs when only one or two people pay almost all the musicians. One is then likely to hear the same melodies everywhere.” A system privileging followers Discrete pressures are exerted so that the owner’s interests are defended in the group’s publications, particularly at a moment where concentration takes the form of crossed property (The Economist, 2001). The promotion system then favours flexible journalists to the prejudice of “spoil-sports”. In example, when employees at The Gazette (Montreal) publicly dissented from the policy of the CanWest group, they were “reprimanded, suspended and threatened with dismissal” (Knox, 2002, p. 504). From now on, criticizing the board of directors has become a taboo and has amplified employment insecurity for journalists: critical remarks from a speaker about CanWest Global were rewritten before being published in The Leader-Post (Regina), which is property of the group. Criticism was removed from the lead paragraph and rewritten so that it gives food for thought that the company’s actions were supported (Knox, p. 505).
Media used as means to defend personal interests The freedom of press is limited as well when the owners have multiple interests whatever they are economic or political. The most striking example is the National Post, which carried out a struggle for tax cuts and reduction in the welfare expenditures, which corresponded to the objective of owner “press baron” Conrad Black (Noël, 2001). In the same manner, a year after having acquired some of Conrad Black’s newspapers, CanWest Global Communications told its editors they would be obliged to publish corporate editorials as often as three times a week
8 (The Guild Reporter, 2002). Later, The Citizen published a commentary and editorial on the controversy over Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s interest in a resort which received federal government assistance. The Citizen said Mr Chrétien had mishandled the affair and should step down. Russell Mills, publisher of the paper, was fired by CanWest. Asper family, owner of the newspaper, was well known in Canada as strong supporters of Mr Chrétien and his federal Liberal Party (CBC News, 2002). The board then does not need to intervene in the newspaper offices. It chooses executives in which it has confidence, increasing pressure on those who are in office.
The law of silence: of the scarcity of debates about media concentration The impact of concentration on the information quality can also be verified by the relative absence of information, files and serious analyses in media concerning the phenomenon itself or its impact on society. The result is that information on concentration remains generally centred on the economic or technological aspects and on the personality of the owners implied; social consequences or the impact on information quality and diversity are completely neglected (Blidook, 2002, p. 4). Because of the known influence of press barons on information, public debates on press concentration and its consequences on information and democracy are not very fair. Most of the media professionals can seldom freely analyze this issue because of the pressure exerted on them. According to Meier and Trappel (1998), who refer to the European context, the majority of them are in practice directly affected by the increasing influence of the media conglomerates, and only a few can publicly expose the changes which occur. As for the owners, they are able and encouraged to largely expose what are the advantages of media concentration and internationalization media according to them, minimizing threats and potential risks of this evolution for democracy.
9 Conclusion Our starting hypothesis, according to which media concentration was beneficial for the quality of information, is then invalided by the various aspects we have developed and which tend to demonstrate the opposite. Even if they have not yet been circumscribed or theorized, the negative effects of media concentration can be evaluated as well by the evolution of journalists’ working conditions as by the risky treatment of some topics, such as the latent problem of concentrated property in the media. Three categories of impacts can be thus isolated: economic impact, working conditions, and professional practices. Journalists also have to face daily difficulties in the practise of their trade. Information is subordinated to economic imperatives because of profit objectives which can become contradictory with the development of quality news. Newspaper offices are confronted with employment insecurity and the danger of a loss of autonomy because of the new groups’ control. Finally, the main risk is a standardization of contents, to the prejudice of broad, indepth approaches. Pluralism is consequently threatened. Since press concentration is not desirable for society, there is a need to prevent this phenomenon. The owners are not willing to move back in spite of pressure public opinion, so the government has to intervene. The point is not to intervene in newspaper offices, but to define rules. In United States, laws restricted cross property of broadcasters and daily newspapers. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized the cogency of such a policy, ensuring opinion diversity and freedom of expression, without interfering in the media contents (Ross, 2001). Canada is thus late in terms of regulation policy. Nevertheless, federal and provincial authorities intervened and the existing rules allow a non-Canadian to own up to 25% of a Canadian print media company. Broadcast media are also regulated by law and controlled by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, 2004). Big groups however did not mind to impose specific policies on the newspapers they control. Then the stake is not to
10 know if the State has to intervene, but how, in order to find an effective and long-lasting solution to this problem. Competition policies designed to prevent abuses of dominant position in the media sector have been insufficient and ineffective so far to ensure diversity of information and opinions. Let us quote a former European Commissioner for Competition: “Rules relative to competition cannot be used to manage democratic stakes.” (Pauwels & Cincera, 2000) Beyond lawful and constraining measurements limiting concentration, the state could also adopt mechanisms favouring competition. This system could be particularly useful to increase local property. Local media, which represent an essential contribution to the life of a local community, are the first victims of acquisition by groups. Aid schemes already exist in many countries and in spite of the different cultural context, they deserve to be studied. Aid to press has to be selective as in Sweden (Curran, 1991) and intended to media supporting diversity of expression and a broad spectrum of opinions and analyses. Because beyond aid to companies, it is the diversity of information and opinions which needs to be strengthened.
11
References A – Academic resources. Atkinson, P. (1997) "Concentration of Media Ownership ", The Media Series. A Special Collection of Luncheon Addresses, The Canadian Club / The Canadian Journalism Foundation / Empire Club of Canada, 33-49. Bagdikian, B. H. (1983) The Media Monopoly, Boston, Beacon Press, 221. Busterna, J.C. (1988) Concentration and the Industrial Organization Model », in Picard, R.G., McCombs, M.E., Winter, J.P. & Lacy S. (eds.), Press Concentration and Monopoly: New Perspectives on Newspaper Ownership and Operation. Norwood, N.J., Ablex Publishing. Curran, J. (1991) Rethinking the media as a public sphere. in Dahlgren, P. & Sparks, C. eds., Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Public Sphere in the New Media Age, London, Routledge, 50-51. Humphreys, P. J. (1996). “Mass media and media policy in Western Europe”, Manchester and New York, Manchester University Press, 71. McKenzie, J. (1996, December) Content Analysis of the Regina Leader-Post under Hollinger Ownership, School of Journalism and Communications, University of Regina, 21. Meier, W.A. & Trappel, J. (1998) Media Concentration and the Public Interest. In McQuail, D. et Siune, K. (eds.). Media Policy: Convergence, Concentration & Commerce, London, Sage. Pauwels, C. & Cincera, P. (2000) Concentration and competition policies: toward a precarious balance within the global audiovisual order. In D'Haenens, L. & Saeys, F. (eds.): Western Broadcasting at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Brussels, Mouton de Gruyt. Saint-Jean, A. (2002) Éthique de l’information. Fondements et pratiques depuis 1960, Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Winter, J. (1997) Democracy's Oxygen. Black Rose Books Ltd., Montreal, 26.
B – Articles. Picard, R. G. (2001) Relations among Media Economics, Content, and Diversity. In Nordicom Review, 22(1) June, 65-69. Gilens, M & Hertzman, C. (2000) Corporate ownership and news bias : Newspaper Coverage of the 1966 Telecommunication Act, in The Journal of Politics, 05, 2000; 383. The Economist. (2001) Canada Duopoly, April 28. van Rees, K. & van Eijck, K. (2003, October) Media repertoires of selective audiences: the impact of status, gender, and age on media use. Poetics, vol. 31, no. 5, 465-490.
C – Official reports. Canadian Heritage. (2000, Spring) Concentration of Newspaper Ownership. Government of Canada. Retrieved March, 2005 from http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/esm-ms/prob2_e.cfm. Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. (2004, April). Interim report on the Canadian news media, Fourth Report. Parliament of Canada, Government of Canada. Retrieved March 10, 2005 from http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/tran-e/rep-e/rep04apr04-e.htm.
12 D – Online materials. Blidook, K. (2002) Controlling the market: The need for regulation in Canadian newspaper ownership, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/fall2002docs/KBLIDOOK.PDF Canoe.Ca. (2000, July) CanWest's Hollinger deal shrinks media ownership. Retrieved March 1, 2005 from http://www.canoe.ca/MergerMania/jul31_canwesthollinger.html CBC News / CBC.Ca. (2000, August) $3.5 billion CanWest-Hollinger deal 'horrifies' union. Retrieved March, 2005 from http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/07/31/canwest_paper000731. CBC News / CBC.Ca. (2002, June) CanWest 'very stupid' to fire Citizen publisher. Retrieved March, 2005 from http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/18/citizen_reax020618. Knox, P. (2002) Not in the newsroom…Free expression and media concentration in Canada: the case of CanWest Global. The Round Table, 366, 503–520. Retrieved March 1, 2005 from http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/E7VDVNUWRL3KJC0UJN9M/Contributions/X/K/Q/K/XKQKJB R3P9P6469K.pdf. Noël, A. (2001, February) Concentration : celui qui paye le musicien choisit la musique, Le30.net. Retrieved February 29, 2005 from http://fpjq.org/cgi-bin/article.popup.cfm?segment=4724. Ross, P. (2001, February) Supreme Court upholds cable ownership limits. CNET News.com. Retrieved March, 12 2005 from http://news.com.com/2100-1033_3-252847.html. The Guild Reporter. (2002, January) CanWest claims first victims. January 18. Retrieved March, 2005 from http://www.newsguild.org/gr/gr_display.php?storyID=605.
