Media Conglomeration's Influence on Democracy: An Analysis

This essay delves into the critical issue of media conglomeration and its detrimental effects on democratic principles within an international context. It begins by outlining the concept of media concentration and its implications for freedom and democracy, highlighting the potential for limited media diversity due to concentrated ownership. The essay then explores the concepts of media conglomeration and pluralism, providing examples of media conglomerates like the Walt Disney Company and Viacom, and discussing the importance of both internal and external pluralism. Through case studies of Russia and Malaysia, the essay analyzes how these nations restrict conglomerate media influence, demonstrating how concentrated ownership can threaten informed decision-making and create environments where media coverage becomes polarized. The analysis covers the negative impacts of media ownership on democracy, the decline of press freedom, and the influence of corporate interests. The essay concludes by emphasizing that media conglomeration poses a serious threat to democratic rights, advocating for the protection of independent media and the capacity to unveil relevant information.

1
Media In An International Context

2
Introduction
Conglomeration threatens democracy has been a concerning issue for the media owners. Media
content is affected by ownership concentration. According to Mohamed (2017) the ownership
concentration limits freedom and democracy. However media diversity has been recognized as a
prerequisite for democracy. There are individuals who monopolize media shares thus this essay
will help to examine media concentration. This essay illustrates examples that justifies the
statement media conglomeration threatens democratic deal of pluralism. Pragmatism laid
foundations for a practice based citizenship. Pragmatism viewed democracy as an
accomplishment that is fragile and requires constant actualization. There are different
understandings of democratic countries dealing with pluralism. The present spread of democracy
throughout the world is unpredictable and the unsatisfactory to institutional practice and
citizenship notion. Democracy has been considered as an constructed idea that is revised timely
basis and implemented. This essay will outline the notions of pluralism and development of
democracy during the last few years. The objective of this argumentive essay is to unfold the
different perspectives of enacting democracy. The essay will support the statement by using two
countries as examples with critical analysis on their restriction over conglomerate media
influence.
Concept of Media conglomeration
Media conglomerate represents any company owing multiple media organizations such as
television, publishing house and radio. The media conglomerates frame separate policies
facilitating global market controlling. The threat of Media conglomeration is not restricted to the
commercial operation. There are examples of famous media conglobates such as the Walt Disney
Company and Viacom. It is a narrow control held by the governments. Corporate ownership does
not always impart negative impact for instance; the television network is regarded as quality
documentary which is capable of challenging BBC news media. It becomes a concerning issue
when ownership of media becomes concentrated. As opined by Lee, (2017) the concentrated
power is artful and ubiquitous. The concentrated power dilutes external influences in order to
weaken their abilities. Sometimes size incorporates in a political power providing appropriate
scrutiny of local business. In such circumstances the media companies that are larger in size are
more beneficial. Owing big media by large enterprise minimize criticism of governmental issues.

3
As per a report published the public broadcasting service is known as a public sponsored
alternative for commercial platforms (Piotrowski, 2017). The service has shown constancy in
their biases among which 78% were official sources with under representing the respective
genders of other ethnicities. The republican sources counted democrat sources by 65% to 37%.
Concept of media pluralism
Pluralism resembles diversity which includes several aspects that interprets other perspectives.
The perspectives are measured by the help of other qualitative and quantities criteria. As far the
pluralism concept is involved it includes two types, internal and external pluralism. Inter
pluralism reflects political and social diversity in its medias content. Different cultural groups are
represented along with divergence of ideological and political viewpoints. External pluralism
covers the media owners and companies thus it is well represented as suppliers plurality. It is
essentially consideration the competition among the media suppliers are taken in account into in
order to ensure free media choice (Loren-Aguilar, and Bate, 2019). The associated policies with
media concentration are concerned to the market power. It helps the enterprise owners to
produce their influence on market power. Thus media pluralism is an embracing concept of
ownership diversity, information sources and contents range having their availability in other
states. Media plurality has been fragmented into following variables
 Media plurality is of affordable public and news source
 The citizens of the country have domestic and international access to media
 The public media can reflect views from the political spectrum
 The broadcast media operating independently produce its own media coverage
Media conglomerates and concentration of ownership
Certain nations can influence their media to a larger extent. For instance, powerful corporation’s
produces enormous impact on the mainstream media. Multinational corporations owing media
stations survive by publicity charges such as advertising hence, the media enterprise is
influenced by different corporate interests. Hence in this case the ownership interest might affect
the uncovered area. The storyline can be influenced under particular situation. Hence the liberty
of country citizens for undertaking essential decisions is equally important for a liberal

4
functioning democratic country. This informed decision making practice is threatened by
concentration of ownership (Piotroski et al. 2017).
Since the last few years global press freedom has been experiencing an alarming notion. As
revealed in journals of the last five years only 14% of people are aware of their society coverage
that includes civic affairs. In these societies the journalists can cover every detail without any
barrier or fear for attack. The state interference is also limited in these issues. There are many
countries as well where media prefers to produce only government’s version of the events
whereas ignoring and trivializing the other views. This creates the pluralistic environment where
media coverage gets polarized with least attempt of fairness (Hiraki et al. 2017). There is
multiplication with abundant information sources for delivery of media thus there are sprawling
up of constrained and unethical media houses. The media ownership pattern is identified as an
important factor contributing towards unprofessional and propagandistic journalism.
Country such as Russia follows a dangerous model of ownership. In Russia the important media
outlets are ruled by state agencies, private sector cronies and business tied to state. In this
country the state owns all the national networks for broadcasting, national news papers and news
agencies through proxies. Russia also controls the periodicals across the country. This type of
system helps the regime developing a central information strategy that implies a form of
propaganda whereas the other essential media comes with similar content that presents same
supporting arguments for the leader. The caused propaganda that is informed by the techniques is
enriched with pluralism that is more persuasive than the repetitive methods. In Russia, media
owners work in a volatile environment prioritizing the political allegations more than the
editorial independence (Dansereau, 2018). Other countries such as Malasiya, the drug dealers
and corrupted officials use threats to determine the dealt of the whole topic. There are also
evidences of survival of the media personnel in a political turmoil competes with other
displaying their fawning loyalty whereas outlets present on the other side are biased amidst of
them many are closed forcibly.
The conglomerates consists the other model of ownership that has its control over media and
other enterprises. There are many traditional media companies which are entirely owned by
families the sprawling operations having principle commitment for viewing the media assets as a
tool for self promotion. Such type of business is vulnerable to financial pressure of the political

5
leader. Here ownership of the media outlets is very concentrated that holds companies that
indirectly influence the journalists to refrain from such coverage that might harm their interests
(Schiller, 2017).
Impact of Media ownership on democracy
Negative signs from the democratic societies are also observed in conglomerate model of
ownership. In countries following the conglomerate model, strong legal protection is provided to
journalists. In countries such as United States the media coverage of television is controlled by
the conglomerate model as noted by Piotroski, Wong, and Zhang, (2017). Along with this there
had also been an explosion of enterprise of internet media. As a result there is a two tire, unequal
culture for instance; individual passes for media coverage is more than shrill polemics. In order
to recognize a democratic world, one can notice easily that they can identify media freedom
conditions are influenced. There are other projects that can cope easily with the issue of
legislative proposals and business models that are framed for high quality economic journalism I
media age (Muramatsu and Krauss, 2018).
Developing countries prefer to prevent monopoly of economic and political powers who
dominate the media communication. There are different suggestions from researchers regarding
the distribution of media ownership between the judicial and private people of the states.
According to Metzler et al. (2019) self regulation and media concentration are used to improve
the informative media benefits. Hence democracy is not only confined into casting vote but also
depends on individual accessibility in order to explore other information sources for several
positions. Concentrated media includes exploitation of political influence or underrepresentation
of some other view points. Media regulations are operated as secondary concern because it’s
economic interests. As a result of which the subsequent concentration of ownership strengthens
the major media corporations (Berger, 2017). A democratic society comprise of independent
media along with the capacity of unveiling relevant information. However media does not
always have the qualities and abilities but ownership concentration and economic
interdependency are likely to decline freedom and derange exposition.
Media ownerships is the significant factor determining media independency. Media owners
regulate the information stream that directly affects the political, economical, social outcomes
thus rising disputes regarding media ownership corporations. In order to achieve the legitimacy

6
and understand the policies government of many countries use media but there is protection of
the natural rights for media activists (Green, 2018). Hence in developing countries with the
advent of capitalism protects independence from Government Corporation causing competition
among corporate regulating collective media.
Media conglomeration is a threat to democracy
The conglomeration of media is found to be a serious threat to the democratic rights as the
primary control of ownership lies in the hand of a few powerful and well-established
corporations. Although, FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has claimed that
conglomeration has resulted in the emergence of a large number of media choices than
traditional times, however the claims seems to be completely irrelevant. The independent
operators in the present-day context are left with no power and control, thereby resulting in
hurting the emotions and sentiments of both media business etiquettes as well as its customers,
the citizens (Hung, 2013). It has resulted in the emergence of a dictatorship rule, wherein suitable
candidates for parliamentary elections are selected without the consent of majority. Instead
media conglomeration claims that people now have the liberty to choose their own leader.
According to Baradaran (2015), the primary pitfall of media conglomeration in the context of
democracy is that that the primary focus of media is found to have experienced a gradual shift
from undertaking risks to a mere profit-making entity. The final outcome of such operational
shift is decrease in media quality with immense degradation of local social and cultural factors.
With the impending impact on the business operational scope of media, the democracy is too
found to face its consequences severely.
The control of huge media operational activities being restricted in the hands of a very few
corporations is identified to develop severely dangerous impact on the public as well as their
democratic rights. It is mainly due to the fact that such type of autocratic control is identified to
suppress the needs, demands and rights of local population from being aired on media. It only
tends to cover news that seems to hold enough weightage in the global platform. Such
operational threat to the global democracy has also been identified to develop significant impact
on capitalism too (Sup Park, 2014). According to Hung (2013), the high degree of consolidation
existing within the conglomeration of media is a serious threat to the operational rights and
independence of local broadcasters. It often results in questioning their survival for even minimal

7
time period. It is to be noted that democracy is exposed to such impending threats of media
conglomeration since the responsible authorities goes ahead with stressing relevant importance
on accomplishing the short-term business goals. Due to the overemphasis of the short-term
earning of the media mergers, their operational quality is found to be at stake. Furthermore, it has
been identified to cause a sharp decline in the local focus of media organizations on both news
coverage as well as effective programming.
Two countries restricting their conglomerate media influence
The non-government media organizations operating in Malaysia has been identified to be an
integral aspect of the country’s political segment. It is often looked forward to as an effective
consolidation against the governmental and state-controlled mainstream media operational
activities. Generally, referred to as alternative media, the operational entity in its conglomerate
form has been identified to cause severe complexities to the democratic practices widely
prevalent in the country. As a result, the country on the basis of Federal Constitution has gone
ahead with restricting the operational independence of media conglomeration due to a large
number of factors. Some of the notable aspects to be taken into consideration in this regard
comprises of social security, public order, ethics and morality. According to Mohamed (2017),
media conglomerate restriction is of immense significance in avoiding as well as prohibiting the
unnecessary questioning of matters that are looked forward to as highly stipulative. It also
accounts for several other social factors like democratic rights, status, privilege, sovereignty and
position. Furthermore, the Malaysia government is found to go ahead with undertaking severe
legal actions against media conglomerate’s operational objective of questioning the democratic
etiquette of the country. The country is found to make effective use of the fear of legal
penalizations to suppress the gradual insurgence of media conglomeration. It is to be noted that
the country also accounts for about holding an indirect control mechanism to restrict the media
organizations to cause any negative impact on its democratic outlook. In this regard, a large
number of alternative media houses and its conglomerate is found to be taken ownership by close
associates of ruling party (Mangsor and Mansoor, 2013). The monopolistic operational outlook
of Media Prima, the largest media conglomerate in Malaysia over other mass media entities has
found to be of immense significance in this regard. The final outcome of such media dichotomy
prevailing in Malaysia has further resulted in the development of an environment, wherein

8
people have a general tendency that news coming from only two sources, mass media and
alternative media requires to be acknowledged and valued.
The increased concern regarding democratic regulatory threats, has resulted in the FCC to
impose severe restrictions on the conglomeration operational activity of media houses in the
United States. In this regard, the enforcement of ownership limitations on the media operational
entities has been found to be highly significant (Eastman, Ferguson and Klein, 2012). It further
resulted in altering the overall scope of delivering media and entertainment to the target
audience. In the US, the media companies are not allowed to hold more than two television
stations in majority of its operational markets. However, in large marketplaces, the number has
been identified to be three. The primary objective underlying the imposition of media
conglomeration restriction by FCC in the US is to disseminate the flow of information to the
larger population segment. Such decisions undertaken by the concerned authority in the country
is exposed to severely impacting the public interest of the American population. However, the
restrictions imposed on media conglomeration has further resulted in emergence of pluralism of
ownership rights along with effective establishment of authoritarian control and supremacy. It
can be largely said that US under the operational influence of FCC is found to have
revolutionized the trend of media deregulation (Pickard, 2015). This is mainly due to the fact that
strict ownership rules are being perceived to be highly ineffective irrespective of the widespread
governmental influence.
Pluralism of a democratic country
A pluralist democracy is identified as a political system that encompasses multiple power
authorities. The primary objective of a pluralist democracy is to develop as well as allow high
degree of freedom of association. As a result, pluralism has been identified to be an integral
aspect of democracy. It is of immense significance in exercising the power of democracy as well
as the rights and regulations across each and every entity surrounding it. It is identified to
develop a feeling among the mass that that their collaborated effort is critical to effectively
coming up with solutions to the common problems that a country is being exposed to. The most
notable example of pluralist democracy in the present environmental context is the United States
of America. It is looked forward to as an epitome of collaborative political decision making. The
role played by interest groups in developing suitable political decisions for the country’s

9
population segment seems to be highly significant. It also encompasses individual grow
increased interest in becoming a part of interest groups, that is highly dedicated to solving their
problems and thereby offer them with a healthy and peaceful life.
Pluralism in Malaysia is identified to be highly significant due to the underlying impacts of its
Muslim majority dominance. On the other hand, the country is also found to suffer from
religious contradictions due to the widespread influence of Malay and Islamic culture. It has
resulted in the development of high degree of nascent multi-cultural environment in the light of
its pro-democracy movement (Hamayotsu, 2015). As a result, the country is likely to face severe
structural obstructions in due source of developing itself to be a truly pluralistic and democratic
country. However, with the successful handling and overcoming of the challenges the country is
facing, a pluralist democratic country is likely to enrich the overall living conditions and growth
prospects of the country severely.
Conclusion
Conglomeration has been identified to be a serious threat to the democratic rights of media
owners significantly. It is mainly due to the fact that the process is found to be responsible for
suppressing the democratic rights of the small media organizations. Their operational
independence is found to be at stake, with being directed by the large media corporates in a
pathway that seems to severely underestimate the local social and cultural factors severely. As a
result, the paper has elaborated in great detail the impending impacts of media conglomeration
along with identification of country specific rules and regulations to restrict the from causing any
severe influence on media operational activities.

10
Reference list
Baradaran, M., 2015. How the other half banks: Exclusion, exploitation, and the threat to
democracy. Harvard University Press.
Berger, P.L., 2017. Pluralism, protestantization, and the voluntary principle. In The New
Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 33-46). Routledge.
Citizen’s Media. International Academic Research: Journal of Social Science, 3(2), pp.17-23.
Dansereau, D.R., 2018. Considering Pluralism Through the Lens of Integral Research.
In Pluralism in American Music Education Research (pp. 79-98). Springer, Cham.
Eastman, S.T., Ferguson, D.A. and Klein, R.A., 2012. Promoting the media: Scope and goals.
In Media promotion & marketing for broadcasting, cable & the Internet (pp. 15-44). Routledge.
Green, A., 2018. The pluralism of sciences and psychoanalytic thinking. In Pluralism and
Unity? (pp. 26-44). Routledge.
Hamayotsu, K., 2015. Democracy and religious pluralism in Southeast Asia: Indonesia and
Malaysia compared. Key Issue in Religion and World Affairs. [pdf] Available at:
<https://www.bu.edu/cura/files/2015/10/Religious-Pluralism-and-Democracy-in-Southeast-Asia-
Hamayotsu-093015.pdf> [Accessed 16 July 2019].
Hiraki, T., Honda, T., Ito, A. and Liu, M., 2017. Financial Conglomeration, IPO Underwriting,
and Allocation in Japan.
Hung, C.L., 2013. Media Control and Democratic Transition: Ongoing Threat to Press Freedom
in Taiwan. China Media Research, 9(2).
Lee, J.R., 2017, March. Cyber Space and Digital Democracy in South Korea. In IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 185, No. 1, p.12). IOP Publishing.
Loren-Aguilar, P. and Bate, M.R., 2015. Toroidal vortices and the conglomeration of dust into
rings in protoplanetary discs. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society:
Letters, 453(1), pp.L78-L82.

11
Mangsor, M.M. and Mansoor, P.R., 2013. Media Ownership Regulation in Malaysia: Lessons
From The United Kingdom. [pdf] Available at:
<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3337/9c6068f1939ba0f4979a6b7ae069a17ef4c8.pdf>
[Accessed 16 July 2019].
Metzler, B., Heller, T. and Wiltsche, S., Leica Geosystems AG, 2019. True to size 3d-model
conglomeration. U.S. Patent Application 16/197,029.
Mohamed, S., 2017. Breaking the Malaysian Political Media Dichotomy: A Case for
Muramatsu, M. and Krauss, E.S., 2018. The conservative policy line and the development of
patterned pluralism. In Critical Readings on the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan(pp. 224-
266). BRILL.
Pickard, V., 2015. America's battle for media democracy: The triumph of corporate
libertarianism and the future of media reform. Cambridge University Press.
Piotroski, J.D., Wong, T.J. and Zhang, T., 2017. Political bias in corporate news: The role of
conglomeration reform in China. The Journal of Law and Economics, 60(1), pp.173-207.
Piotrowski, A., 2019. Colonialism, Apartheid, and Democracy: South Africa's Historical
Implications on the Land Reform Debate. Journal of Interdisciplinary Undergraduate
Research, 11(1),p.4.
Schiller, N.G., 2017. Transborder citizenship: an outcome of legal pluralism within transnational
social fields. In Mobile people, mobile law (pp. 39-62). Routledge.
Sup Park, C., 2014. Media cross-ownership and threat to diversity: A discourse analysis of news
coverage on the permission for cross-ownership between broadcasters and newspapers in South
Korea. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 10(1), pp.43-64.