Ownership has an enormous bearing on the nature of a media outlet’s elections coverage – or, for that matter, any political coverage. State and government owned media are under direct state or ruling party control and may therefore tend toward favouring incumbent parties or candidates. Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) acts independently of any political body, but is often financially supported by the state.  Privately-owned (whether corporate or otherwise) media may be independent, but may also serve the political interests of their proprietors. In some countries, these proprietors might be political parties and candidates themselves. Community media may tend to focus only on specific issues that pertain to the specific “community” it serves. The nuances go further: economics, trust, and historical context all contribute to the dynamics of differently owned media.  Yet, undoubtedly, it is the establishment of the right diversity and balance within the media ownership landscape that is one of the keys to fostering democratic processes in any given country, not least fair and free elections.

First, it is important that we know what is meant by each of the media types:

• Public media: This refers to two types: public service broadcasting (PSB) which is focused on the public good and is independent; and state-owned media which is controlled and funded by the state (tax-payers) and may be more or less focused on the public good, but is sometimes simply a mouthpiece for the government of the day.
• Private and corporate media: Private media are those that are independently owned, for-profit, and funded mostly from advertising and sales. They range in size from international conglomerates to small local outlets.
• Community media: These are usually small outlets that are community-owned and -oriented, participatory, and non-profit.
• Party and politician-owned media: These cover the range of different types of mass media created by parties, from small party propaganda sheets to media owned by rich politico-businesspeople.

All of these ownership types include both traditional and new media. There are significant overlaps between the above ownership models, and the categorisations are simplified here for ease of discussion.

Media Ownership in the Context of Elections

A country’s portfolio of media ownership is likely to have a significant bearing on a range of electoral issues, including questions such the extent to which political advertising is permitted, citizens’ access to civic and voter education as well as campaign material, and the extent to which elections are covered in a balanced and fair manner.

In the United States, where private media is predominantly owned by mega corporations, access to media by parties and candidates is organized by way of paid advertising. Similarly in Finland, where commercial broadcasting developed rather earlier than in most of Europe, has a far freer approach to paid political advertising than most European countries. Unlike its neighbours, Finland provides no free airtime on public media and allows contestants to purchase unlimited private airtime.[i] Conversely countries such as Britain and Denmark, with a strong tradition of public ownership of the media, do not allow paid political advertising at all, and instead have a system of free direct access broadcasts on private broadcasters. 

Licensing of broadcasters is one way in which governments manage media ownership and promote media pluralism. Many countries have some form of regulation in place. For example, in Australia:

The cross-media ownership laws brought in by the federal Labor Government in 1987 was the start of modern media change. The laws strictly prohibited the control of more than one commercial television license or newspaper or commercial radio license in the same market, thus aiming to reduce the potential for undue media concentration.[ii]

Such regulations are not easy to implement fairly, however, and can be victims of political competition. In Australia “these changes also led to increased concentration in some markets, and were widely seen as rewarding Labor allies,”[iii] and were later rolled back when the other major party gained power, which then led to further concentration of ownership.

In addition, due to their influence and reach, broadcasting licenses for private radio and television often include clauses with various requirements related to elections. For example, the Equal Time rule in the US Communications Act (1934) requires broadcasters to provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it; and forbids broadcasters to censor campaign advertisements. Other regulations require private broadcasters carry paid political advertising (see the section on Provisions Affecting Both Public and Private Media).

Media ownership directly affects media’s important watchdog role during elections. State and government media are sometimes measurably biased in favour of the incumbent parties or candidates.  This is particularly the case in newer or transitional democracies such as Cambodia in 2007.[iv]  During the 2012 Russia elections, the fact that most broadcast media was owned by either the government or by powerful pro-Putin businesspeople, translated into overwhelming bias in election coverage.[v] Much of the discussion about "regulation" of the media in elections is in fact to address this problem - ensuring that publicly funded media operate with due independence of the government of the day - rather than trying to restrict the operations of media that already enjoy full editorial independence.

Media ownership also affects the voters’ right to information. Voters’ access to information on elections is limited in some countries by poor diversity of media ownership, or by lack of policy-making and investment that ensures that media reaches a majority of the population. As well as the impact of media concentration, insufficient information can be caused by a lack of infrastructure and disillusionment or mistrust by the public in the media on offer.

Media Ownership in the Global Context

The proportion of state (or government) to private media ownership is sometimes mistakenly seen as a direct reflection of a country’s political and social freedom: dictatorships or authoritarian regimes with controlled media versus democracies with fostered pluralism of ownership. The reality is more complex.  Numerous influences are responsible in determining the degree of media freedom in any given country, including legal, economic, political and cultural environments. Ownership also varies within countries as economic and democratic development proceeds (or regresses).

However there are some discernable recent trends. According to the editors of Negotiating Democracy: Media Transformations in Emerging Democracies[vi], in the developed world, “the restructuring of telecommunications “markets” exploded in the 1990s” with an “unprecedented number of international mergers and acquisitions among transnational media corporations, which aggressively pursued the opportunities that privatization provided.” As a result in some of the most developed democracies, including Australia and the United States, a few large companies own the vast majority of private media.[vii] In middle-income countries these are mirrored by “the national and regional dominance of some of the world’s most powerful “second-tier media firms” of newly industrialized nations, such as Brazil’s Globo, Mexico’s Televisa, Argentina’s Clarín and Venezuela’s Cisneros Group—Latin American firms that have “extensive ties and joint ventures with the largest media TNCs, as well as with Wall Street investment banks”.”[viii]

Newly emerging democracies have experienced their own dynamics in terms of media ownership:

Other regional trends, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, parts of Asia, and even to some measure in the Middle East, bear witness to a transition into democratization that has emerged alongside the dismantling of national broadcasting systems and the reformation of the role of the press connected to authoritarian regimes, the promotion of private independent and pluralistic media, and/or the proliferation of new media channels…Yet despite a push to privatization above all else] mass media have served remarkably well as a means to globalize the democratic exchange of ideas and issues capable of challenging authority and of fostering an atmosphere of optimism. And while the degree to which a civic discourse has found a way to take root varies, when it does arise it is often in conjunction with citizen-based media.[ix]

Most Western European democracies had, until recent decades, state monopolies of broadcasting. Britain legalized private commercial broadcasting as recently as the 1950s. The establishment of the BBC in the 1920s was perhaps a stepping-stone toward this privatization, arguably the world’s first form of ‘public services broadcasting’: state subsidized but independent of the government and acting at the behest of the public. France, Germany, and Denmark did not allow privatization of media until the 1980s. Britain and France are particularly important examples due to their extensive colonial legacy that influenced the organization of broadcasting and media in scores of countries. In Britain and France, there is a strong distinction between broadcasting, with its strong public service history, and print media, which has a distinctly “privately-owned” history. However, in some long-standing democracies - for example in Sweden and Norway - there is a tradition of state funding of the print media as well. According to the Swedish government, subsidies to secondary newspapers are “important for the diversity of media at local and regional levels.”[x]

Conversely, in Latin America, private media were often closely identified with those in power – specifically the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s. Similarly, under the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia (until 1998), private media were tightly controlled, while the state owned a large media machine in its own right. In addition, the Suharto family bought directly into major media businesses. Far from facilitating pluralism, these private media advocated suppression of media. Indeed, many would argue that the large corporations (as discussed on the page Private and Corporate Media) dominating the US media are not conducive to the expression of alternative political viewpoints. Whatever the truth of such contentions, it is clear that there is no dependable correlation between the extent of private ownership and pluralism.

Economics also play an important part in determining the structure of media ownership. Public versus private broadcasting is sometimes more indicative of national financial resources rather than gauges of media freedom.  Public media (whether state, government or public service broadcasting) has been particularly strong in the early stages for many emerging democracies due economic conditions that make it more difficult for private broadcasters to start up operations.

The size of the advertising ‘cake’ varies according to economic conditions. Most private[xi] - and some public - media are dependent upon advertising to make their business sustainable. The public sector is often important in media in poorer countries for two reasons: the small advertising cake often means less private media, and a dominant public broadcaster; and where there is advertising revenue for private media, it is often from government agencies, or donors working with government. In wealthier countries, companies now use the Internet to advertise their goods and services. This has led to further drops in advertising revenues for traditional media.

In many countries in Africa, for example, as well as parts of Asia and Latin America, this explains why until recently national radio stations, broadcasting on medium- and long-wave frequencies, were almost entirely a state-owned phenomenon. Even where broadcasting regulations permitted - and often they did not - neither private broadcasters nor advertisers had much interest in broadcasting to the entire nation. Instead, private advertisers were primarily interested in reaching an urban audience with disposable income - the type of audience served by private FM stations (most of which primarily broadcast music). The fast growth of private and new media in these countries is now changing the public versus private paradigm, however. Nonetheless state-owned broadcasters are still important and in some cases remain the only choice for listeners.

Technological developments such as satellite and cable television and the Internet complicate the media ownership landscape further. Economic factors are still at play: those who can afford to subscribe to a pay channel or use the Internet will generally not be among the poorest. Local cable and satellite providers are subject to the same political and economic constraints as those broadcasting on terrestrial channels, in that they are dependent on advertising and subscriber revenues to survive and grow. Mass media using the Internet and other new media can often publish or broadcast more cheaply than in the past, and they are freer from some of the regulatory and constraints that are imposed on traditional mediums. Meanwhile, multinational broadcasters such as Al Jazeera, Cable News Network (CNN) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) can play an important role in breaching broadcasting monopolies. That is why some countries have prohibited ownership of satellite dishes (a prohibition that was circumvented in one memorable north African case by the widespread substitution of couscous pans). Internet news sites also help to challenge broadcasting monopolies, though caution should be exercised in celebrating pluralism on the Internet. In Australia, for example, “all but one of the 12 news sites in Australia’s top 100 most visited sites are owned by major existing media outlets.”[xii]

Cultural and attitudinal factors also impact on media ownership.  For example according to a report published in the Political Research Quarterly in 2009, “in post authoritarian African democracies [audiences] trust government-owned broadcast media more than they trust private broadcasters [despite] the public media’s lack of independence as well as a history of state propaganda.” The report suggests that this trust gap is due to a number of factors such as audiences’ levels of political sophistication, support for incumbent leaderships, and illiberal attitudes. The study also found that audiences also tended to prefer public broadcasters in countries with lower corruption and greater press freedom.[xiii] This trust gap no doubt impedes, to a certain extent, the growth of private media.