Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age

Author:

Seipp Theresa Josephine

Abstract

Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.

Publisher

Cogitatio

Subject

Communication

Reference68 articles.

1. Armitage, C., Botton, N., Dejeu-Castang, L., & Lemoine, L. (2023). Study on the impact of recent developments in digital advertising on privacy, publishers and advertisers. European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8b950a43-a141-11ed-b508-01aa75ed71a1

2. Baker, C. E. (2002). Media concentration: Giving up on democracy. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.347342

3. Baker, C. E. (2007). Media concentration and democracy: Why ownership matters. Cambridge University Press.

4. Bossio, D., Flew, T., Meese, J., Leaver, T., & Barnet, B. (2022). Australia’s news media bargaining code and the global turn towards platform regulation. Policy & Internet, 14(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.284

5. Busch, C. (2021). Regulation of digital platforms as infrastructures for services of general interest (WISO Diskurs Report No. 09/2021). Friedrich-Eber-Stiftung. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/17836.pdf

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3