Advertisement

Media Pluralism Policies from the User Perspective

  • Natali Helberger
Part of the Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business book series (GMPB)

Abstract

Existing media diversity policies have had and will continue to have an important role in realizing the overall diversity of media content available.1 The various measures that exist in the member states, and at a European level, to promote a diversity of sources and independent media suppliers, as well as diversity in the output of individual media outlets, have firmly put their stamp on the structure of national media markets. When creating the conditions that users can benefit from media diversity, media law and policy are continuously being challenged to take into account the dynamics of permanently evolving media markets. A dynamic element that so far has played only a marginal role in traditional diversity policies, and which shall be at the focus of this chapter, is the changing role of the audience, and its increasingly complex relationship with the suppliers of media content.

Keywords

Exposure Diversity Media Diversity Actual Exposure User Perspective Media Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aghion, P. and Bolton, P. (1987) ‘Contracts as Barriers to Entry’, The American Economic Review, 77(3), 388–401.Google Scholar
  2. Bagdasarov, Z., Greene, K., Banerjee, S.C., Krcmar, M., Yanovitzky, I. and Ruginyte, D. (2010) ‘“I Am What I Watch”: Voyeurism, Sensation Seeking, and Television Viewing Patterns’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(2), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barendt, E. (1993) Broadcasting Law: A Comparative Study (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  4. Beisch, N. and Negel, B. (2006) ‘Wie viele Programme nutzen die Fernsehzuschauer? Analyse zum Relevant Set’, Media Perspektiven, 7, 374–379.Google Scholar
  5. Commissariaat voor de Media (2011) Mediamonitor, The Dutch Media in 2010 (Hilversum: Commissariaat voor de Media).Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, R. and Tang, T. (2009) ‘Predicting Audience Exposure to Television in Today’s Media Environment: An Empirical Integration of Active-Audience and Structural Theories’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(3), 400–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Council of Europe (1999) Recommendation No. R(99)1 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Measures to Promote Media Pluralism, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  8. Council of Europe (2000) Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Strasbourg, 2 December.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Europe (2002) Media Diversity in Europe, Report Prepared by the Advisory Panel to the CDMM on Media Concentrations, Pluralism and Diversity Questions, Strasbourg, December.Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe (2003) Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  11. Council of Europe (2007a) Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Protecting the Role of the Media in Democracy in the Context of Media Concentration, Strasbourg, 31 January.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Europe (2007b) Recommendation Rec 11 on Promoting Freedom of Expression and Information in the New Information and Communications Environment, Strasbourg, September.Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe (2008) Methodology for Monitoring Media Concentration and Media Content Diversity, Report Prepared by the Group of Specialists on Media Diversity (MC- S- MD), November 2008, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/H-Inf%282009%299_en.pdf [accessed 5 August 2012].Google Scholar
  14. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C. and Shefer, S. (2004) From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality, Report prepared for the Russell Sage Foundation, http://www.eszter.com/research/c05-digitalinequality.html [accessed 5 August 2013].Google Scholar
  15. Entman, R. and Wildman, S. (1992) ‘Reconciling Economic and Non-economic Perspectives on Media Policy: Transcending the “market place of ideas”’, Journal of Communication, 42, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EU MPM Study (2009) — see below, under KU Leuven — ICRI et al.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (2007), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A European Approach to Media Literacy in the Digital Environment COM(2007) 833 final, Brussels, 102, December.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2010) ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’, COM(2010) 245, Brussels, 19 May.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (2011a) Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights: Boosting Creativity and Innovation to Provide Economic Growth, High Quality Jobs and First Class Products and Services in Europe, COM(2011) 287 final, Brussels, 24 May,, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/ipr_strategy/COM_2011_287_en.pdf [accessed 5 August 2013].Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (2011b) Green Paper on the Online Distribution of Audiovisual Works in the European Union: Opportunities and Challenges Towards a Digital Single Market, COM(2011) 427 final, Brussels, 13 July.Google Scholar
  21. European Court of Justice (2011) Case C-403/08 and C-429/08), 4 October (Premier League).Google Scholar
  22. European Parliament (1998) Opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth Education and the Media of the European Parliament on the Proposed Conditional Access Directive, A4-0136/98, Brussels, 9 February.Google Scholar
  23. European Parliament (2006) Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Europa, Energy for the Committee on Culture and Education on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities, COM(2005)0646 — C6-0443/2005-2005/0260(COD), Brussels, 11 October.Google Scholar
  24. Ferguson, D. and Perse, E. (1993) ‘Media and Audience Influences on Channel Repertoire’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodman, E.P. (2008) ‘Public Media 2.0, Draft’, 1 August, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1299685.Google Scholar
  26. Grabe, M.E., Kamhawi, R. and Yegiyan, N. (2009) ‘Informing Citizens: How People with Different Levels of Education Process Television, Newspaper, and Web News’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hargittai, E. (2000) ‘Open Portals or Closed Gates? Channeling Content on the World Wide Web’, Poetics, 27, 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hargittai, E. (2003) ‘The Digital Divide and What to do About it’, http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/hargittai- digitaldivide.pdf [accessed 5 August 2013].Google Scholar
  29. Hargittai, E. (2007) ‘Content Diversity Online: Myth or Reality?’, in P. Napoli (ed.), Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum).Google Scholar
  30. Helberger, N. (2002) ‘Brood en spelen — De implementatie van de evenementenlijst van artikel 3a van de Televisierichtlijn’, Mediaforum, 3, 78–84.Google Scholar
  31. Helberger, N. (2005) Controlling Access to Content (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar
  32. Helberger, N. (2011) ‘Diversity by Design’, Journal of Information Policy, 1, 441–469, http://jip.vmhost.psu.edu/ojs/index.php/jip/article/view/59/40 [accessed 5 August 2013].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hindman, M. and Cukier, K.N. (2003) Measuring Media Concentration Online and Offline, Paper presented at Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning, Metrics, and the Public Interest (New York: Ford Foundation).Google Scholar
  34. Holznagel, B. and Jungfleisch, C. (2007), ‘The Protection of Viewer Rights in Europe’, in P. Baldi and U. Hasebrink (eds), Broadcasters and Citizens in Europe: Trends in Media Accountability and Viewer Participation (Bristol: Intellect Books).Google Scholar
  35. Kang, M.H. (2002) ‘Interactivity in Television: Use and Impact of an Interactive Program Guide’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karppinen, K. (2010) ‘Rethinking Media Pluralism: A Critique of Theories and Policy Discourses’, Dissertation, University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research.Google Scholar
  37. Klemperer, P. (1987) ‘Markets with Consumer Switching Costs’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ksiazek, T. and Webster, J. (2008) ‘Cultural Proximity and Audience Behavior: The Role of Language in Patterns of Polarization and Multicultural Fluency’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. KU Leuven — ICRI, Jönköping International Business School — MMTC, Central European University — CMCS, Ernst &Young Consultancy Belgium (2009) Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States — Towards a Risk- Based Approach (Final Report and Annexes: User Guide, MPM, Country Reports, prepared for the European Commission) (Brussels: European Commission), http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/independent-study-indicators-media-pluralism (‘EU MPM Study’ [accessed 5 August 2013)].Google Scholar
  40. Livingstone, S. (2003) ‘The Changing Nature of Audiences: From the Mass Audience to the Interactive Media User’ in A. Valdivia (ed.), Companion to Media Studies, Blackwell Companions in Cultural Studies, 6 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing), http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/417/1/Chapter_in_Valdivia_Blackwell_volume_2003.pdf [accessed 5 August 2013].Google Scholar
  41. McQuail, D. (1993) Media Performance. Mass Communication and the Public Interest (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  42. Napoli, P. (1997) ‘Rethinking Program Diversity Assessment: An Audience- Centered Approach’, The Journal for Media Economics, 10, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Napoli, P. (1999) ‘Deconstructing the Diversity Principle’, Journal of Communication, 49(4), 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Napoli, P.M. and Gillis, N. (2008) Media Ownership and the Diversity Index: Outlining a Social Science Research Agenda, McGannon Centre Working Paper Series, 5, http://fordham.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=mcgannon_working_papers [accessed 5 August 2013].Google Scholar
  45. Noam, E. (1994) ‘Reconnecting Communications Studies with Communications Policy’, Journal of Communication, 43, 207–214.Google Scholar
  46. Ofcom (2012) ‘Measuring Media Plurality. Ofcom’s Advice to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport’, 19 June, http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/measuring-plurality/statement/statement.pdf [accessed 5 August 2013].Google Scholar
  47. Peterson, P. and Kern, R. (1996) ‘Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore’, American Sociological Review, 61, 900–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prior, M. (2005) ‘News vs Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens the Gap in Political Knowledge and Turnout’, American Journal of Political Science, 49, 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Riley, C.R., II (2005) Disability and the Media: Prescriptions for Change (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England).Google Scholar
  50. Rifkin, J. (2000) The Age of Access: How the Shift from Ownership to Access Is Transforming Capitalism (New York: Tarcher/Putnam).Google Scholar
  51. Schönbach, K. (2007) ‘The Own in the Foreign: Reliable Surprise — An Important Function of the Media?’, Media, Culture & Society, 29, 344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schulz, W., Held, T. and Kops, M. (2002) Perspektiven der Gewährleistung freier öffentlicher Kommunikation (Baden-Baden: Nomos).Google Scholar
  53. Stark, B. (2009) ‘Digitale Programmnavigation’, Media Perspektiven, 5, 233–245.Google Scholar
  54. Sunstein, C. (2007) Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  55. UNESCO (2005) Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, Paris, 20 October 2005.Google Scholar
  56. Valcke, P. (2011) ‘Looking For the User in Media Pluralism Regulation: Unraveling the Traditional Diversity Chain and Recent Trends of User Empowerment in European Media Regulation’, Journal of Information Policy, 1, 287–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Cuilenburg, J. (2002) ‘The Media Diversity Concept and European Perspectives’, paper presented at the Media Economics, Content and Diversity Seminar of the Finnish Academy of Sciences, Helsinki, 16 December, http://www.cvdm.nl/dsresource?objectid=6838&type=org [accessed 5 August 2013].Google Scholar
  58. Van Cuilenburg, J. and McQuail, D. (2008) ‘Media Policy Paradigm Shifts: Towards a New Communications Policy Paradigm’, European Journal of Communication, 18, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van der Wurff, R. (2004) ‘Supplying and Viewing Diversity: The Role of Competition and Viewer Choice in Dutch Broadcasting’, European Journal of Communication, 19, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van der Wurff, R. (2011) ‘Do Audiences Receive Diverse Ideas from News Media? Exposure to a Variety of News Media and Personal Characteristics as Determinants of Diversity as Received’, European Journal of Communication, 26, 328–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webster, J.G. (2005) ‘Beneath the Veneer of Fragmentation: Television Audience Polarization in a Multi-channel World’, Journal of Communication, 55, 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Webster, J.G. (2006) ‘Diversity of Exposure’, in P. Napoli (ed.), Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).Google Scholar
  63. Webster, J.G. (2010) ‘User Information Regimes: How Social Media Shape Patterns of Consumption’, North Western University Law Review, 104, 593–612.Google Scholar
  64. Webster, J.G. and Lin, S. (2002) ‘The Internet Audience: Web Use as Mass Behavior’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Webster, J.G. and Phalen, P. (1994) ‘Victim, Consumer, or Commodity? Audience Models in Communications Policy’, in J. Ettema and D.C. Whitney (eds), Audiencemaking: How the Media Create the Audience (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
  66. Webster, J. and Wakshlag, J. (1983) ‘A Theory of Television Program Choice’, Communications Research, 10, 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wong Shim, J. and Paul, B. (2007) ‘Effects of Personality Types on the Use of Television Genre’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Natali Helberger 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natali Helberger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations