ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Finland’s media landscape is indeed pluralistic, as the country supports a large number and variety of newspapers and magazines. According to Freedom House’s 2008 press freedom survey, Finland boasts an impressive newspaper readership, ranking third in the world for circulation in relation to population. Two hundred newspapers are published, 31 of which are dailies. Previously a good portion of newspapers were financially and ideologically connected to political parties and acted as mouthpieces for the respective parties. This has now changed, and already in 1998 independent newspapers represented no less than 95% of the total circulation. As a rule, newspapers are privately owned but publicly subsidized; the ownership structure is therefore diversified. The position of regional newspapers remains strong, and they provide a great variety of print media at the national and the regional level. In 2004 parliament liberalized a media law that had placed restrictions on Internet publishers and service providers; the Internet is now open and unrestricted and more than 60% of all citizens have regular access. In 2009 Finland defined Internet access as a universal service that must be available to everyone. The national broadcasting company, Yleisradio, operates several national and regional television and radio channels, and supplies a broad range of information online. Although state-owned and controlled by a parliamentary council, Yleisradio is generally viewed as unbiased. Yleisradio is complemented by several private broadcasting companies.

In Germany, the scope of media concentration is determined by law to ensure the representation of the entire spectrum of opinions. The Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag, RfStV) defines a threshold of an annual average of 30% of viewers, at which a prevailing dominance over public opinion is assumed. The Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has used its powers to block several potential mergers in both the print and electronic media sectors. In a case current as of the time of writing, the FCO was looking into the planned merger of two news agencies that risked significant distortion of fair market competition.
Germany’s media environment can be described as pluralistic, decentralized, and compared with other European television and radio markets, very diverse. Such structural diversity guarantees the independence of media and facilitates substantive, content-related diversity in opinion and information (cf. Wyss 2002). In the broadcast sector, a variety of public and private television and radio channels across the country compete for the attention of the audience. Local and regional broadcasters play a meaningful role in this competition. Two main public television broadcasters operate at the national level: ARD – a conglomerate composed of various regional TV channels – and ZDF. According to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Fernsehforschung, a media research cooperative, the public broadcasters had a combined market share of 42.9% in 2009. The program share of reports on the political process is relatively high, and can be characterized as in-depth and well investigated. On the other hand, private networks obviously have a significant market share as well. In the private sector, two media groups are dominant: The RTL Group holds an audience share of 25.2%, while ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG accounts for a 21.9% share. Since it is also possible to receive international news channels via satellite, independent political coverage is available to everyone.
The nationwide print media market is dominated by five leading daily newspapers and the Bild tabloid, which has by far the biggest circulation in Germany. Additionally worth mentioning as agenda-setters are a number of weeklies. The Internet has become an increasingly important medium for citizens to gather information and broadcasters, radio stations and newspaper publishers have adapted to the new circumstances by providing a large portion of their services online.
Besides the variety of different broadcasters, radio stations and newspapers, several German-speaking news agencies exist, among which the leading German news agency merits special mention. It is a joint venture of several broadcasters and newspaper publishing companies, and affords a network of correspondents around the globe, thereby guaranteeing its shareholders independent and firsthand news coverage.

The most important electronic media organizations in Switzerland – in terms of coverage and intensity of use by citizens – are publicly owned. Private television stations play only a small role in the country’s media landscape. These are largely regional stations, such as Tele Bärn (mainly for the cantons of Bern, Solothurn and Fribourg) and Tele Züri (for the canton of Zurich). A number of foreign radio and television stations can be received in Switzerland, contributing to the country’s media plurality. The country has a high number of private newspapers, with a highly decentralized system of regional concentration. However, a strong tendency toward centralization has weakened the regional newspaper market. This has been amplified by the strong growth of free papers for commuters such as 20 Minuten in the morning and Blick am Abend in the evening (similar publications exist in the French-speaking part of Switzerland). These have tended to crowd out readership of classic newspapers, which have suffered from a decline in readership of 14% between 1998 and 2009. In addition, a trend toward concentration has affected formerly independent newspapers such as Bund and Berner Zeitung. As with other small nations, Switzerland enjoys a relatively diversified ownership structure, but over time there has been a very strong process of centralization and concentration (Meier & Perrin 2006; Trappel & Perrin 2006).

The Danish media market maintains about a dozen national newspapers (including Berlingske Tidende, Politiken, Jyllands-Posten, B.T. and Ekstrabladet) as well as about 40 local newspapers. Most of these private publications tend to trend conservative or liberal in political philosophy. Left-wing views tend to be underrepresented in editorial pages, but in straight news reporting most newspapers tend to deliver fairly wide-ranging and diverse coverage. The main newspapers regularly include letters to the editor that do not reflect the paper’s own views. So in practice, there is a high degree of pluralism of opinions in Danish newspapers. A vibrant civil society contributes to this.
The public media (mostly radio and TV) are independent and have editorial freedom. Satellites and cable TV are increasingly creating more competition for public media.

For a country of just 4 million people, the variety of print, radio and TV media in Ireland is striking. The range of newspapers in circulation is wide, and is augmented by the circulation of Irish editions of several UK tabloids, as well as the mainstream “broadsheet” UK newspapers. In addition to the range of “public service” state-owned radio and TV stations, a variety of privately owned stations also exist. Irish listeners and viewers also avail themselves of UK English-language stations, which are widely received in the country. Therefore, there are few grounds for worry as to the plurality of opinions to which Irish readers, listeners and viewers are exposed.
There is a plurality of ownership in the Irish media – the sector includes state radio and TV, private radio and TV, a variety of newspapers with varied private ownership, and many small-circulation magazines that purvey alternative political views and philosophies.
Of course there are suspicions about the influence and power of big businesses over the media, as well as criticisms of the views promoted by the state-owned broadcasting company.
One large multinational company is particularly dominant in the print media. But it has not restricted the range of political views expressed by its journalists in individual newspapers (or indeed within the pages of a single paper), although there has undoubtedly been bias in the treatment of individual issues and political notables.
Irish libel laws are restrictive and may impair the ability of investigative journalists to have their work published. This reduces the effective freedom of the press. Frequent calls have been made to bring the libel laws into line with those prevailing in the United Kingdom. However, the restrictions imposed by the existing laws do not imply any bias toward one end of the political spectrum or the other.

The state broadcast channels control dominant shares of the country’s TV and radio audiences. There are two private TV channels and various private radio channels, including local radio stations. The government does not interfere with the daily activity of the private media, but does monitor to ensure they comply with their contractual obligations, which for national channels includes broadcasting throughout the entire country. A special body, called the Medietilsynet, is responsible for monitoring and regulating the market.
The government regulates television or radio signal broadcasters. The stated goal of this regulation is to guarantee both quality and national coverage. Cable TV is essentially unregulated beyond the effect of general laws (e.g., pornography laws).
Newspapers operate entirely independently and express a plurality of views. Norway is the country with the highest per capita newspaper circulation in the world. The total daily newspaper circulation is around 2.8 million, of which media company Schibsted controls around 850,000, A-pressen around 485,000 and Edda Media around 250,000. The two largest newspapers (Verdens Gang and Aftenposten) are owned by the same company, Schibsted, which is publicly listed. The owner does not currently exercise any significant influence on editorial decisions in these newspapers (in contrast, Aftenposten had a clear right-wing affiliation until about 25 years ago). As elsewhere, newspaper circulation is in decline as is print advertisements, and many newspapers are under financial strain and have in recent years been forced to cut back on editorial staff. Web-based news outlets are replacing print newspapers. Local newspapers in particular have in the last few years come under increasing strain from a reduction of advertising income and subscription rates.
The concentration of ownership has not, so far, been perceived as a threat to the plurality of media. However, private ownership is becoming increasingly oligopolistic across print and broadcast media. In 2006, the media division of Orkla (the second most-important media owner in the country) was controversially sold to British-based Medcom (owned by David Montgomery) in a deal that for the first time brought major foreign ownership into the Norwegian market. Although there is a tradition of nonintervention by owners in editorial matters, the print media as a body has at critical junctures become politically biased. Broadband Internet is widely used and accessible all over the country.

The media is a very competitive business in Portugal, and there is a great deal of competition both between the different forms of media and within each form of media. Consequently, there is competition in opinions. In addition, the 1976 constitution and the laws noted above (see Media Access) prohibit monopolies in the media, with extensive government opinions providing additional support on this issue.
The state-owned RTP and RDP each have seven channels or stations. However, there are also two private TV channels. One of them, TVI, or Independent Television, attracts the largest TV audience share. Overall, the media, consisting of TV, radio, daily and weekly newspapers, and magazines, are owned by three main groups of private investors. The competitive business environment ensures a pluralism of views and opinions.
The scenario in general remains largely similar to that described in the 2009 report. The changes that can be noted are the following:
(1) The Sol weekly newspaper was purchased by a Luso-Angolan holding company in March 2009. Who is behind this holding company is unclear, and this was to be a point of some controversy in February 2010. In early 2010, Sol released alleged telephone wiretap recordings that implicated the prime minister in the PT/TVI deal (see Media Freedom above), despite a legal order barring the publication of the material. Socialist Party legislators raised questions as to who was behind the Sol newspaper, which were not answered in full. In the same month, Sol editor José António Saraiva accused the government of trying to shut his newspaper down, by leaning on one its main lenders, the BCP bank.
(2) The TVI group launched a 24-hour cable news channel, TVI24, in February 2009.
(3) The free weekly Sexta closed in January 2009.

Media ownership in the Czech Republic has been relatively concentrated. However, at least in the case of television, the digitalization of broadcasting, which started in 2005 but gained momentum only in 2008, has reshaped the media landscape and increased media pluralism. The number of nationwide private TV stations has risen from two to six (as of April 2010), and there are now approximately 50 regional TV broadcasters as well. Within the Czech print media, foreign ownership is strong, but has no visible influence on the ideological tone of media output. At the end of 2008, the German Handelsblatt group sold Economia, the biggest Czech publishing house (which inter alia publishes the leading daily Hospodářské Noviny), to a Czech media company. This transaction was preceded by fears that Economia could be bought by a dubious investor with Russian connections.

The Dutch media landscape is very pluralistic but nonetheless subject to a development observed in other countries, namely the gradually increasing concentration of media ownership, which has been aggravated by the present financial economic crisis, internationalization and rapid commercialization.

The Dutch media landscape is characterized by one of the world’s highest readership of newspapers. Innovations in newspaper media include the successful run of two free daily newspapers, tabloids, Sunday editions, and new media editions (online, mobile phone, etc.). The concentration of ownership in the print media is high. Three publishers control 90% of the paid newspapers circulated and foreign ownership of print media outlets is growing.

As the circulation of traditional magazines decreases, publishers are launching new titles to attract readers. There are currently at least 8,000 different magazine titles available for Dutch readers. The Finnish publisher Sanoma publishes more than half of the general interest magazines circulated. Print outlets, both newspapers and magazines, carry a high share of advertising, but this is declining.

There are several public and private TV and radio stations at the national, regional and local levels. A Dutch television viewer can receive three public national channels, two foreign, Luxembourg-based channels and five commercial Dutch channels. According to 2005 records, the (Luxembourg) commercial station RTL 4 and public channel Nederland 2 were the most popular stations, each of which carried a 16% market share. Commercial broadcasters together have seen their market share rise to 50% (in 2005); the three public channels lost viewers and now have a market share of 35%. the Netherlands also shows one of Europe’s highest rates of cable-penetration (±95%).

Finally, Internet use in the Netherlands is high and diverse, and many people are connected through broadband (almost 50% of Dutch households). Ten million Dutch use the Internet on a regular basis, which amounts to almost 70% of the population over six years old.

A moderate level of diversification in media ownership has continued, a trend that has grown somewhat stronger over the last couple of years. Apart from a quite healthy regional and local media sector (certainly newspapers, which are a traditional feature of the Spanish journalistic landscape, but today also including television and the Internet), diversified ownership structures prevail at the national level. To be sure, there are several giant media companies, each with an ideological bias, but the media market as a whole allows for a certain level of pluralism. If electoral behavior was compared with the spectrum of opinions actually published, very conservative positions would perhaps be shown to be overrepresented, and leftist positions somewhat marginalized. However, the most important media groups generally tend to cover a wide range of opinions, including post-materialist, social-democrat, liberal, Catholic and nationalist. There is no effective anti-monopoly policy in this field, but national public TV and radio networks (note that no public newspapers exist) have been relatively independent since 2006 (see Media Freedom) and help to compensate for some deficiencies.
The print media market is dominated by the Prisa Group (the publisher of the center-left El País, which is the most sold and most influential newspaper, but averages only 2 million readers), Unidad Editorial (which is owned by the Italian group RCS, and publishes the right-leaning El Mundo, with 1.3 million readers, as well as the most popular sports and economic newspapers) and Vocento (publisher of the conservative ABC, which is read by 750,000 people, as well as several other moderate or centrist regional newspapers such as El Correo in the Basque Country). Other groups include Prensa Ibérica (owner of several regional newspapers), Zeta (publisher of El Periódico de Catalunya, read by 800,000 people in Catalonia and Aragon) and Godó (publisher of La Vanguardia, based in Barcelona, with 750,000 readers). The electronic media market is quite similar to the print sector, since the two most-read political information websites are those belonging to El País and El Mundo, the two most popular newspapers.
The proliferation of TV channels at the national, regional and more recently local level has generated fierce competition for available advertising revenue. Public TVE, and the private groups Antena 3 (Grupo Planeta) and Tele 5 often swap positions with respect to audience ratings, with each generally drawing between 12% and 18% of television viewers. Tele 5 and the minor channel Cuatro (with a 5% to 9% audience share) are now owned by the Italian Mediaset (Silvio Berlusconi’s group). Regional public television stations, the private group La Sexta (owned by Mediapro, which is ideologically close to the socialist government) and a wide range of channels that appeared following the implementation of DTT complete the spectrum. Some of these focus solely on news, including Canal 24 horas (public TVE), CNN+ (affiliated with Prisa, leaning towards the center-left) and several tiny conservative channels.
Finally, the radio market is dominated by two of the groups mentioned above: Prisa (with the popular and influential station SER, which draws 5 million listeners) and Grupo Planeta (with Onda Cero, with 2.5 million daily listeners). Radio Nacional de España (RNE), the private Cadena Cope (belonging to the Catholic Church) and Punto Radio (Vocento) are also important radio networks. In 2010, these generalist stations shared around 50% of the total audience, with the other half divided between thematic, mostly music-focused radio stations.

There is a high degree of pluralism in the media market with intense competition among different groups of publishers and consortia. In the period under review, concentration of private media increased further. However, the EU and the Swedish public have followed this process of increasing concentration with a critical view .
As in other countries, the growing importance of social media (internet, blogs etc.) should be noted. Because they operate outside the regulated and official structures of the media market, they provide new patterns of public debate. Political parties react to this trend and try to invest in new forms of campaigning in the internet. It remains to be seen if this trend will counteract the ongoing concentration in the private media market.

The media market is overwhelmingly private, and pluralism and diversity characterize the American media scene. Only the over-the-air electronic media are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. The Commission has a mandate to oversee ownership concentration and, to a slight extent, program diversity. Since the mid-1990s, ownership restrictions have been relaxed, with consolidation in the radio market increasing as a result. But there are few signs that diversity has suffered. There are well over 1,500 TV stations in the United States, most of which (1,409) are affiliated with one of the national networks. The traditional major networks pursue a policy of pluralism, while the more recent entrant, Fox News, in its political programming, takes an openly conservative point of view. There are additional outlets that tend to serve educated viewers. Non-advertisement-revenue based stations include affiliates of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Corporation. Public funding has been decreasing steadily and has had to be replaced by contributions from listeners or viewers and by sponsorship funds. In some cable networks, international news outlets such as BBC World and Deutsche Welle are available. The network of public stations is available in all parts of the country.
The digital revolution has drastically changed the ways in which the cable market is regulated, as regulations have decreased and the delivery of services (cable, TV) converged. The market is characterized by growing competition, a process that the FCC currently supports. Internet media services are becoming important sources of information, particularly among the elite segments of public opinion. The dominance of a local newspaper over larger metropolitan areas has been broken by the availability of national newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal) ever since the introduction of satellite transmission. The larger metropolitan newspapers are characterized by an internal pluralism, particularly on the commentary pages.
Economically, newspapers have come under pressure. Readership among adults has dropped by 10 percentage points in this decade. Advertising revenues are falling, consumers are increasingly turning to the Internet, and many newspaper chains are burdened by debt. Between 2007 and 2010, there have been eight major newspaper bankruptcies, including well-established papers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Some of these papers have been taken over by private equity funds. Newspapers have reduced reporting and editorial staff as well as the space available for news coverage. During the same period, 10 papers closed altogether or went exclusively online. How these developments will affect media pluralism and the volume and quality of information available remains unknown. The quality of Internet-based sources varies and exposes readers to large amounts of unreliable information.

Australia has a high degree of concentration of media ownership, with the ownership of national and state newspapers being divided mainly between two companies, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, and the John Fairfax Group. There is slightly more diversity in the electronic media, with the government funding two bodies, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, to provide a balance to the main commercial outlets. There are also three main commercial companies.
Government oversight of the ownership of broadcasting on television and radio is enshrined in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. There has been no significant change in this legislation, despite discussion of possible changes by both the 1996-2007 Liberal-National government and the 2007 Labor government.

Private media is financially controlled by relatively few actors (an oligopolistic market), which is normal in a small economy like Belgium’s. The public media board (radio and television) is composed of representatives from most political parties, which includes all main parliamentary parties (including opposition parties).
Due to declining readership, newspapers are increasingly dependent on public subsidies, which might inspire some self-censorship when reporting on government matters is involved. Yet, in practice, the press expresses quite diversified opinions on the country’s many relevant issues (left vs. right politics, religious vs. secular points of view, cultural values, linguistic issues), and most political positions are well represented. This is also because the recruitment of journalists is not under the control of a few persons (for example, media patrons) but rather decentralized.
So in spite of rather weak institutional protections and a growing concentration in private media, there is still a quite high level of pluralism in the media.

Japan has an oligopolistic media structure with five conglomerates that dominate the leading national newspapers and the major TV networks. These five include the Asahi Group (Asahi Newspaper, TV Asahi), the Fuji Sankei Group (Sankei Newspaper, Fuji TV), the Mainichi Group (Mainichi Newspaper), the Yomiuri Group (Yomiuri Newspaper, Nippon TV) and the Nihon Keizai Group (Nihon Keizai Newspaper, TV Tokyo). Another major force is NHK, the quasi-national broadcasting service. This organization has enjoyed close connections with the LDP-led governments despite formal freedom from interference, and has followed a rather status-quo approach. Critical coverage of issues by the other media groups is rather mild, although a variety of stances from left-central (in the case of Asahi) to conservative-nationalistic (Sankei) can be observed. Generally speaking, the small group of conglomerates and major organizations does not support a pluralistic landscape of opinions. Regional newspapers and TV stations do not play a serious competitive role.
New competition might be expected from interactive digital media sources such as blogs, bulletin boards, e-magazines, social networks and so on . Their use is spreading rapidly, and only 65% of those in their 20s still read printed newspapers, compared to 93% of those in their 60s.

While ministerial press conferences have been more or less closed shops due to the “press club” system, the new DPJ-led government tried to open the system after its election in 2009, for instance by having a more liberal admittance policy, or by holding parallel news conferences so as to allow a wider circle of participants. Some senior ministry officials have also held Internet availabilities, followed by interchanges with the online audience. However, there has been no general overhaul of the system yet, and various ministries have followed different approaches.

Luxembourg’s six daily newspapers are more or less closely controlled by political parties. There is a marked imbalance of influence among these papers, which generally reflects the strength of their political sponsors. The leading newspaper, “Luxemburger Wort,” is owned by the Archbishop and is close to the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV). It has a circulation of roughly 80,000, which is a large number considering Luxembourg’s total population of one-half million; the paper’s circulation is alone larger than the combined circulation of its competitors.
The media landscape since 2007 has been shaken up by the release of two free daily newspapers. The audience share of the “Luxemburger Wort” fell to 43%, while that of “L’Essentiel,” its free competitor, is 27%, with an even higher proportion of readers among 15- to 49- year-olds. Among this target market the free paper exceeds the coverage of the historic leader, “Luxemburger Wort,” thus in effect counterbalancing the influence of the CSV.
In television and radio, the station RTL clearly dominates. RTL has had no real competitors in television and it remains well ahead of its radio competitors, despite the liberalization of the market launched in the early 1990s. Its audience share is 4.5 times that of DNR, a station which has close ties to the CSV.
As competition has increased since the last review period, media pluralism is ensured.

New Zealand’s media market is still characterized by a predominance of Australian companies. This is particularly true for print media, where four companies compete. As for radio stations, the public Radio New Zealand is the only nationwide provider. However, there are about 150 commercial local radio stations. Two public and three private stations compete in the TV market. With regard to pay television, Sky TV holds a monopoly position.

Poland is among the European countries with the highest market share of public television. However, the overall ownership structure of Polish media is quite diversified. Private electronic and print media compensate for biases or deficiencies in public media, thus providing for a high degree of media pluralism. Foreign ownership declined in 2008 when media mogul Rupert Murdoch withdrew from TV Puls, a television channel that offers programming on Catholic issues. A major, yet-to-be-tackled challenge for media pluralism is the disastrous financial situation of the public media. Less than 50% of all Poles pay the license fees that comprise almost half of TV Polska’s revenues. In August 2009, TV Polska announced mass layoffs, which are likely to reduce the quality of its programs. The public radio stations also face severe revenue problems.

Media ownership in Canada is concentrated, with a small number of Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled media conglomerates dominating the mainstream print and electronic media. There is strong media concentration in some parts of the country (e.g., the Irving papers in New Brunswick).
A case can be made that this has led to a lack of diversity in views and positions. For example, mainstream media outlets rarely support social democratic political parties. The mainstream print media argue that while their editorials generally express a right-wing or centrist political orientation, they make an effort to seek out contributors with left-wing perspectives. They also note the rise of alternative sources of media information promoting a pluralism of opinions, such as online newspapers and magazines and blogs. The counterargument is that the mainstream media continues to play a crucial role in setting the national agenda, and that the concentration of ownership means that certain opinions are thus not represented to the degree that they are held by the general population.

Media pluralism is facilitated by a diversified ownership structure with a high degree of foreign ownership. The TV and the radio sectors are characterized by a plurality of providers. In most municipalities, however, only a single local newspaper exists. Media pluralism also suffers from the strong politicization of the public and the private media and the personal ambitions of some media owners, most notably Gábor Széles, one of the richest persons in Hungary.

The ownership of media in Iceland can be divided into three blocs, two of which are in the private sector and one owned by the government. The government runs one of the two largest television stations and two of the largest radio stations in Iceland. In 2010, Iceland had one state-owned TV station (RUV – Sjónvarp) and two state-owned radio channels (RUV – Rás1 and Rás2). There are three private nationwide TV channels and two nationwide private radio channels, owned by separate companies. There are also two large newspapers published six days a week, owned by two different business groups (Morgunblaðið and Fréttablaðið). Morgunblaðið has for decades been considered to be the newspaper of the right-wing Independence Party (Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn), and remains so under its new ownership. In 2009, a former prime minister from the Independence Party became the chief editor, a controversial appointment in view of the editor’s role in the financial collapse of the country, first as prime minister and then as Central Bank governor. Fréttablaðið is a free newspaper, without paid subscribers. It is owned by one of the companies belonging to Baugur Group, now bankrupt, and another key player in the economic collapse in 2008 and associated events. Due to an old conflict between the Baugur Group and various right-wing politicians, particularly the above-mentioned former prime minister, Fréttablaðið has been considered by some as the newspaper of the left wing, especially the Social Democrats. From that perspective, ownership of the media in Iceland can be viewed as being fairly balanced, politically speaking, in a country of 320,000 people. At the same time, both main papers, especially Morgunblaðið, are widely viewed as being partial in favor of their owners. Morgunblaðið is said to have lost a third of its subscribers when the former prime minister was appointed editor.

The two main television companies, Televisa and Azteca, together enjoy access to the vast majority of Mexico’s television audience. There is some competition from cable and satellite stations, some of which are based in the United States, and a public television channel exists, though not many people watch it. Overall the Mexican television market de facto remains highly oligopolized, a situation which raises the possibility of bias with regard to political information.
The print media is much more diversified, providing outlets for a variety of different viewpoints. Radio stations tend to be somewhat light in their coverage of political events. However, electoral legislation requires television broadcasters to offer time to all registered political parties, thus exposing the public to a considerable range of different viewpoints at election time.

Media pluralism is facilitated by a diversified ownership structure and a substantial share of foreign ownership. In the period under review, however, Slovakia’s media ownership structure has undergone some consolidation. The American media enterprise Central Europe Media Enterprises (CME) took over TV Markíza, the market leader formerly owned by the media baron Pavol Rusko, and is now operating four TV programs. Ivan Kmotrík has also expanded his media empire which includes the country’s largest printing house, the important press distributor Mediaprint Kappa, the news program TV3, the largest advertizing agency and a number of print media. Unlike in other countries, the envisaged digitalization of TV was not used to open the market. The media market also continues to suffer from a lack of transparency and regulation. The provision in the Act on Broadcasting that no person or company is allowed to hold more than one national television or radio license or to be a publisher of more than one national daily is not sufficiently enforced, and there is often no clarity regarding ownership. Neither the Council for Broadcasting and Retransmission nor the government have done anything to improve the situation.

A strong concentration with respect to press ownership has long been a feature of the UK’s media market, and remains so today. A few corporations control most of the large UK newspapers, with Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation being the most famous and widely known example. Despite the presence of commercial pressures and ownership concentration, there is still quite a lively and diverse local press. The electronic media and television market is different in that it has three important free broadcast players (the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4) who are required by law to be politically neutral, as well as the subscription-based Sky channels in which News Corporation is dominant. While television can be considered fairly neutral politically, the oligopoly of media interests in the print market is to some degree an impediment to media pluralism.
Winning support from the Murdoch-owned media has been a coveted political prize in the past, and the impact of the competition for this has been most visible in the area of European integration, of which all the Murdoch papers are very skeptical. One-sided media coverage on this issue is the norm across much of the media, which is generally hostile to anything to do with “Brussels.” Growing levels of euroskepticism and public disinformation in this area have been evident.

Austria’s media have highly concentrated ownership structures. This is especially true for the print media. The most widely distributed daily paper, the “Neue Kronen-Zeitung,” (NKZ) is read by about 40% of all newspaper readers in Austria. The major weekly news magazines are all owned by one single group. Clearly, this does not reflect a situation of competitive pluralism. In addition, the NKZ carries political weight insofar as politicians of different parties are anxious to please the editor and the staff, a situation which erodes the fair and open democratic competition of ideas and interests.
Subsidies to the Austrian print media significantly discriminate in favor of papers with wider distribution as such subsidies are generally granted only to daily papers with a distribution of more than 6,000. These subsidies thus exacerbate the highly concentrated structure of the Austrian press.
Since the 1990s, the electronic media sector has slowly diversified as ORF’s monopoly in the sector has dissolved, although the state-owned broadcaster continues to offer (by far) the most popular programs. With its mandate anchored in public service, ORF ensures the plurality of information. In addition, the electronic media market has become wide open to the international market.

The Chilean print media sector is characterized by high concentration. The El Mercurio group and Copesa together account for much of the country’s print run, have the greatest share of readers and control a considerable amount of the country’s advertising portfolio. The papers owned by these two dominant groups offer essentially uniform political-ideological projects, editorial positions, styles and news coverage. The official (and more biased) government daily, La Nación, presents opposite views and biases to the dominant papers, but has a lower circulation.
The electronic sector offers a more diversified scope of opinion (especially local radio stations and a few online publications). Free TV is still more popular than paid cable TV. The government-owned TVN is the most dominant free station, but presents politically balanced views and provides access to all viewpoints.

Media pluralism is reasonably guaranteed in France. There are more than 1,800 radio stations and no fewer than six television channels with programs that reach approximately 75% of the French population. The diversity of newspapers and opinions mirrors rather well the political diversity of the country. The weaknesses of the system are to be found in the oligopolistic ownership structure of the print press, a result of the presence of financially strong industrial groups, which own a large number of media. For these groups, investing in the media is a secure way to lose money but to gain influence. Pluralism is still alive thanks to the relative autonomy that journalists have managed to safeguard throughout negotiated agreements with the owners, but this situation is fragile.
Faced with Internet competition, rising costs and a shrinking readership, the print media have had to rely more and more on the benevolence of wealthy entrepreneurs or on the state. Given the multiple ties between political and business elites in France, this is not a particularly favorable situation for the maintenance of vibrant media pluralism.

Since 1989, it has been legal to own and manage private TV and radio channels in Greece, while government control of the state-owned TV and radio stations has been somewhat relaxed. Whereas the 1989 decision led to a flourishing of private radio and TV stations both in the urban centers and in peripheral regions, it also provided the opportunity to create a private electronic media oligopoly with the capacity to broadcast news, films, sports and entertainment programs nationwide. On the surface this may appear to be a diversified environment conducive to the pluralism of opinions, but in practice the system airs only a few selected viewpoints. Often, because of the fierce competition among media owners to attract and preserve a share of the market, only the most popular opinions are aired. For example, if the public opinion leans toward staunch nationalism in foreign affairs, the media will not give any publicity to voices critical of established ethnocentric opinions.
In the period under review here, private media companies belonged to owners of traditional newspapers or of companies active in other sectors (e.g., construction, shipping). A few private media companies influenced public opinion, the day-to-day political agenda, government policy decisions, and even the rise and fall of individual politicians. Indeed, politicians’ public image can be severely tainted by negative publicity diffused even by a single newspaper or TV channel.

The quality of media pluralism depends on the type of media. The print media is dominated by three major newspapers: Chosun Ilbo, Donga Ilbo and Joong Ang Ilbo. The combined market share of these three outlets in 2006 was 62.3%. Smaller alternative newspapers also exist. The major newspapers are politically conservative and business friendly, partly because they depend to a very large degree on advertising revenues. For example, major newspapers and websites did not review or accept advertisements for the bestselling book of former Samsung chief counsel Kim Yong-chul, “Think Samsung,” in which he accuses Samsung and Samsung Electronic Chairman Lee Kun-hee of corruption. However, as newspaper subscription rates continue to decline – dropping by almost 50% between 1996 and 2006 alone – the Internet has increasingly become one of, if not the most important source of information for South Koreans, especially among younger generations. There is more pluralism in the broadcasting sector, due to the mix of public and private media. However, the diversity of political opinions in this arena is threatened by government influence over broadcasters’ personnel policies.

Media in Turkey has experienced a rapid transformation since 1980s. Input costs, distribution and sale of print media countrywide, as well as the unfinished frequency distribution enabling electronic media broadcasts has led to recent cartelization and oligopolistic developments . The Savings Deposit Insurance Fund’s (SDIF) intervention has changed the ownership of various media companies during the last decade. As a result of this, groups previously unengaged in media activities have stepped into the sector. Additionally, shares of some leading Turkish media companies were sold to global media giants. As of February 2008, there were 24 business groups in the national print and broadcast media; two of these (Doğan and Çukurova) control a majority of the sector between them, and have investments in a range of sectors varying from energy to construction.
Despite the legal provisions (Law No. 3984 on Supreme Board of Radio and television (RTUK)) on promoting pluralism in media, the broadcast sector’s ownership structure leads to the dominance of certain ideas and opinions. The Competition Authority and RTUK monitor media concentration, and the latter is responsible for the monitoring of media pluralism and diversity. However, it is hard to say that these institutions fulfill their functions effectively. The current media structure has nothing to do with the principles of the Council of Europe on promoting media pluralism, particularly with respect to the presence of an independent regulator or the elimination of cross-ownership. On the other hand, it is argued that the incumbent government facilitated the loan agreement from a state bank to Çalık Holding in purchasing a private print and broadcast media group (Sabah-ATV).

The printed media (daily newspapers and weekly publications) show a significant level of pluralism both in terms of ownership (three to four major groups, and a number of additional minor ones) and of ideological orientation. They provide a large variety of opinions. Even when the analysis is restricted to the newspapers with the largest circulation, it can be seen that the pluralism of political and cultural positions is significant.
With regard to television the system is dominated by a duopoly formed by the state-owned broadcaster and Mediaset, but with other actors (in particular News Corp. and its Sky TV) slowly growing in importance in the cable and satellite sector. The Mediaset group is owned by Silvio Berlusconi, the leader of the main center-right party (Popolo della Libertà) and the serving prime minister during the period of under review. Some degree of pluralism of political positions exists between in the different channels of Mediaset, but the breadth is limited. Other TV channels (Sky TV and TV 7) cover a larger spectrum of opinions, but are not equally important. There are also programs which are highly critical of the government’s positions. Some of these are seen in prime time and have a large audience. Once again, due to the dominance and the importance of television as the nation’s and Italians’ main information medium, a wide diversity of opinions is not immediately available. Only by consulting electronic media and newspapers, as only a minority do, can media users, consumers and citizens produce for themselves a certain pluralism.