Media Ownershipand Journalism

Media Ownership and Journalism
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication

Helle Sjøvaag and Jonas Ohlsson
Subject: Journalism Studies, Mass Communication, Media and Communication Policy
Online Publication Date: Feb 2019 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.839
Summary and Keywords
Media ownership is of interest to research on journalism due to the assumption that

ownership can have an impact of the contents and practices of journalism. Ownership of
news media take many forms: state ownership, family ownership, party ownership, trust
ownership, public or corporate ownership. The main concern with ownership in
journalism scholarship is market concentration and monopolization, and the undue
effects this may have on media diversity, public opinion formation, democracy and
journalistic autonomy. Throughout the research, ownership motivations are assumed to
lie with the potential financial and political benefits of owning journalistic media.
Benevolence is seldom assumed, as the problematic aspects of ownership are treated
both from the management side of the research, and from the critical political economy
perspective. News and journalism are largely understood as public goods, the quality of
which is often seen as threatened by commercialism and market realities, under the
economic aims of owners. However, the many forms and shapes that ownership of news
media assume have different impacts on the competition between media outlets, the
organization of editorial production, journalistic and professional cultures, and the
intensity of corporate and profit maximizing philosophies that journalists work under.
Ownership, however, assumes different forms in different media systems.
Keywords: journalism studies, media ownership, pluralism, democracy, monopolization, media systems,
clientalism, commercialism, media concentration, nonprofits, public service broadcasting
Introduction
The issue of ownership is primarily of interest to journalism scholars due to the
assumption that ownership can have an effect on news content, journalistic autonomy,
freedom of expression, and organizational and professional practices. Here, ownership
refers to the various forms of governance associated with particular ownership
structures, while the owners of media constitute the individuals and companies that wield
influence over their organization (Schlosberg, 2016, p. 8). Of equal importance is the
distinction between media that create news content and those that distribute it over
Page 1 of 28
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, COMMUNICATION (oxfordre.com/communication). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

network platforms (Noam, 2016, p. 9). Here, we are mainly concerned with how owners
and forms of ownership impact on content creating news media.
Overall, ownership of news media is relevant to journalism scholarship because of the

assumption that journalism has potential impact on policy, culture and the public debate,
and that owners, seeking to influence political developments, are using media to push
societies in a certain direction, for the benefit of interested parties. Pluralistic ownership
—the presence of more than one owner in the overall news media landscape—is therefore
of concern when researching the impact that structures may have on the practices and
contents of journalism. Journalism and media ownership research therefore typically fall
within one of four research strains:
1. Monopolization and concentration of ownership, including the monitoring and

assessment of the effects of ownership in the news industries.
2. Commercialization and homogenization, as questions regarding the effect of
ownership concentration and the commercial, political, and ideological motives
driving media ownership.
3. Clientalism, patrimonialism, and parallelism, particularly concerning the indirect
power of industry, politics, and military sectors on the contents of news media and
their impact on democracy and the public sphere.
4. Ownership diversity and its impact on journalistic autonomy and journalistic
quality.
The research on media ownership comprises a “contested and congested” (Hardy, 2014,
p. 79) body of literature. The bulk of research has been carried out in U.S. and U.K.
contexts in the 1980s and 1990s, when news media profits were high, and when the
critical political economy perspective emerged as a particular strand of media research.
Overall, the body of research devoted to news media ownership can be characterized by
four features:
1. The research on news media ownership is highly normative, dominated by critical

political economy perspectives viewing ownership in media sectors as problematic.
In contrast, studies of ownership in other sectors or industries tend to approach
ownership as a valuable resource.
2. The research is dominated by Anglo-American perspectives. Most of the research
has a U.S. or U.K. vantage point, often implemented in research on media systems
that do not necessarily share the characteristics of these liberal media systems.
3. The research on news media ownership is somewhat anecdotal, with data,
assumptions, and conclusions sometimes lacking in empirical rigor. The effect of this
anecdotal approach is that much of the conjecture about the impacts of news media
ownership on journalistic quality is contested.
4. To this effect, the operationalizations of ownership studies are often
methodologically problematic. As it is difficult to isolate ownership as an
independent variable in the study of journalism, there is no conclusive evidence as to
the possible effects of ownership on journalistic practice and content in general.
Page 2 of 28

The reason for this is that news media ownership must be seen in context with overall
social, political, and economic framework conditions under which media ownership
occurs. News media ownership assumes different characteristics depending on whether
and when it is profitable or politically interesting to own media. When investing in news
production is economically beneficial, it typically attracts corporate owners aiming to
maximize profit on the public stock market. When investments in news production are
politically beneficial, it typically attracts industry, military, or partisan ownership. When
news media ownership is not economically beneficial, as has been the development in
Western media systems in recent years, it attracts a variety of owners with different
motives. As the landscape shifts toward the digital economy, there are four trends in the
development of news media ownership that can be observed in relation to the emerging
“crisis” in journalism:
1. Ownership is becoming more pluralistic. Foundations, trusts, and other non-

commercial ownership forms are on the rise. At the same time, “digital tycoons” are
taking over financially struggling legacy institutions.
2. Due to a downturn in profits caused by new substitutes in the advertising market
(Facebook and Google primarily), publically traded news companies are increasingly
leaving stock markets.
3. State involvement in and regulation of media is becoming increasingly contested.
At the same time, government lobbying is emerging as an arena for competitive
advantage. To that effect, regulation of media ownership continues to move in the
direction of a financial policy framework, and away from cultural policy.
4. State-owned public service media has come under pressure, both from the
political sector and from the market, especially in Europe. Public funding is scaled
down in many countries, and oversight is being moved away from independent
bodies, reducing traditional regulatory arm’s length principles. Public service
broadcasting is increasingly accused of creating unfair competition by commercial
stakeholders, particularly in the online market.
While these trends all speak to the shifting conditions for news media ownership in the
digital era, it is important to observe that much of the literature on media ownership was
written when news media ownership was profitable. As such, profit motives and market
failure associations are highly present in the research, particularly as normative and
critical perspectives. While ownership of legacy news media in Western countries no
longer entails the same profits as before, research has yet to revise the critical
perspectives of the 1990s.
Of vital concern, however, is the fact that media markets develop differently in different
regions of the world. The motives for, and effects of, media ownership depend on the
particularities of the media system in question. While U.S. and U.K. markets have
experienced a crisis in journalism funding in recent years, this does not adequately
describe the situation in most other markets in the world (Soloski, 2013). Nevertheless,
the research presented at central conferences and in leading journals predominantly
concerns U.S. and U.K. market contexts, sustaining a largely Anglo-American crisis
Page 3 of 28

narrative that subsequent research tends to relate to. Common across the world,
however, is that news media ownership research is motivated by the potential impact that
journalism has on society, and the economic and political benefit that might arise from
controlling journalistic organizations. News media ownership is therefore largely seen as
precarious—a potential threat to democratic pluralism and journalistic quality and
independence (Picard & Dal Zotto, 2016).
Overview
Ownership matters because “all capital comes with conditions” (Ohlsson, 2012, p. 55).
This is because property rights essentially involve owners in the governance of media
firms. As Altschull (1997, p. 259) remarks, “the content of the news media inevitably
reflects the interest of those who pay the bills.” The study of news media ownership
therefore entails investigations into journalism’s various organizational forms (Benson,
2016, p. 29)—as part of the conditions and constraints that journalism operates under
(Street, 2010).
In the following, a brief history of media ownership is outlined, followed by three major
sections: (1) main theoretical perspectives, which includes critical political economy
perspectives and media industries and management studies; (2) different forms of
ownership, including corporate ownership, state ownership, and civil society ownership;
and (3) major trends and findings in the research, where the research on ownership
concentration, commercialization, clientalism, and diversity is outlined. Finally, the state
of research is discussed.
The History of News Media Ownership

The historical development of news media ownership depends on the particularities of the
media systems in which ownership evolves. Whereas concentration is a general trend in
countries where private media ownership is a dominant form (Noam, 2016), the impact of
ownership on news and journalism depends on how the relationship between media,
state, and other industries has developed.
In most parts of the world, ownership of news media has historically largely been non-
corporate and private. In Europe and the United States, newspapers in the late 18th and
early 19th centuries were either owned by families, local business leaders, or politicians.
A shift toward concentration and “tycoon” ownership emerged in the second half of the
19th century, particularly in the United Kingdom (Curran, 2002) and the United States
(McChesney, 2003). Corporate consolidation began in the 1960s, and accelerated in the
1980s and 1990s, particularly in advanced capitalist economies. Deregulation and foreign
investment led to increased transnational cross-media ownership (Thussu, 2005),
followed by convergence, where many news enterprises were consolidated into profit-
making entertainment and marketing-oriented conglomerates (Hardy, 2017, p. 10). In
post-communist countries, an early period of diversification of ownership after the fall of
Page 4 of 28

the Soviet block was quickly followed by increased concentration (Splichal, 2001) and
foreign takeovers (Doblek-Ostrowska, 2012). The growth in foreign ownership has, in
turn, caused many countries to relax domestic ownership restrictions in recent years—
encouraging domestic scale to better counter foreign interests (Picard & Dal Zotto, 2016,
p. 56). Overall, most newspaper businesses today are privately owned, for-profit
enterprises (Küng, Picard, & Towse, 2008, p. 8; Picard & van Weezel, 2008, p. 24)—except
in authoritarian systems such as China, Cuba, and North Korea, where newspapers are
largely owned by the state. Despite the predominantly commercial nature of newspaper
industries, generally only a few newspaper companies are publically traded in the
different media systems, but these tend to be large, dominant players.
When radio broadcasting systems began to emerge in the 1920s, these were largely
started as private enterprises. By the 1930s shifting toward corporate ownership in the
United States, and toward state ownership in Europe, radio ownership forms in these
markets came to shape future broadcasting markets. With the introduction of television in
the 1950s, broadcasting’s presumed effects on society made ownership in this sector a
policy issue. Most European, African, and Asian states chose to assume state ownership
of the national broadcasters, while in the United States and Latin America private
operators were given control of the airwaves. Whereas private broadcasting emerged
relatively late in the European context, most broadcasting systems in the world today are
mixed systems of private and state ownership. Western nations all have some media
ownership regulations, or competition policies that can be applied to news media, and
some have cultural and media specific policies addressing ownership concentration
(Picard & Dal Zotto, 2016). As emerging democracies move toward regulation of
journalism sectors, these tend to follow liberal or democratic corporatist models, mainly
differentiating along questions of foreign ownership limits. Overall, the history of
broadcasting largely demonstrates the extent to which monopoly ownership of media is
contested ground (e.g., Kuhn, 2006; Pickard, 2014A).
Main Theoretical Perspectives

Media ownership is studied in the context of journalism through political economic
studies of communication, as studies of media industries and practices, and as studies of
how communicative resources are organized and controlled (Hardy, 2014). Throughout
the literature on ownership of journalistic media, news is treated as a product with
information goods characteristics (Albarran, 2016). That is, news is a product (Hamilton,
2004, p. 7), but it is not like any other product. On the one hand, the firms that operate in
news industries use media technologies to package products for different consumer
groups (Küng et al., 2008). On the other, news organizations “do not manufacture nuts
and bolts: they manufacture a social and political world” (Bagdikian, 2004, p. 9). To that
extent, owners of news organizations not only generate income to investors but also serve
other purposes as social institutions. Concerns over media ownership therefore stem from
assumptions that the media are “effective” in shaping people’s perceptions about the
world (Sjøvaag, 2014A), while this connection is by no means necessarily substantiated by
Page 5 of 28

research. Dominated in part by issues of concentration (e.g., Bagdikian, 2004; Herman &
McChesney, 2001), research has largely failed to clearly distinguish between ownership
and commercialization as its root problem. An emerging field of research, however,
considers the impact of ownership in comparative journalism research (e.g., Esser et al.,
2012), while attention to alternative forms of ownership are also on the rise (e.g., Benson,
2018).
Critical Political Economy Perspectives
The political economy of media emerged in the 1960s as the study of mass
communication. This is a broad approach based on economics, political science,
communication, and social analysis. The critical branch of political economy addresses
the material conditions of communication (Hardy, 2017)—the power relations that
constitute the production, distribution, and consumption of material and symbolic
resources in the media industries (Curran, 2014; Garnham, 1979; Mosco, 1996; Murdock
& Golding, 2005). With roots in the classical political economy of Adam Smith (1776),
critical political economy is largely influenced by Marx’ historical materialism, adding
class to the analysis of the relations of production. Often holistic and historical in
orientation, this research considers the media as situated between market realities and
state intervention (Murdock & Golding, 2005, p. 61), often including perspectives related
to globalization and cultural imperialism (see Schiller, 1971; Smythe, 1960).
Critical political economic scholarship is mainly concerned with how the characteristics
of media ownership influence the organization of journalistic production and labor
(Hardy, 2014, p. 80). News organizations are hereto largely seen as systems maintaining
the interests of ruling elites (e.g., Bagdikian, 2004; Garnham, 1979; Golding & Murdock,
1991; Gandy, 1982; Gitlin, 1980; Mosco, 1996; Murdock & Golding, 1977; see Zelizer,
2004). The most influential publications in this context have been Ben Bagdikian’s The
Media Monopoly (2004), Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent
(1988), and Robert McChesney’s The Political Economy of the Media (2008). Here,
Bagdikian analyzes the rising power and concentration of American media
conglomerates, assuming a direct relationship between media ownership and political
influence. To understand how corporate media wields its power, Herman and Chomsky’s
propaganda model considers the role of dominant mass media firms’ size, concentration,
and profit orientation. The relationship between capitalist ownership and journalism is
here mediated by the “purely commercial motives” (Carey, 2008) that inspire a “culture of
objectivity” in journalism (Roshco, 1975; Schiller, 1981). While this “culture of objectivity”
renders a certain degree of autonomy to journalists, this only occurs within the limits of
consensus (Schlesinger, 1978), fostering the uncritical treatment of corporate and
government sources of power (Bennett, 1996), leading to pro-corporate bias (McChesney,
2003) and a standardized news logic (Ettema, Whitley, & Wackman, 1997, p. 35).
Often described as a “leftist” (Curran, 2014) approach, critical political economy merges
critical and normative perspectives on journalism (Zelizer, 2004). Historical processes are
central, including the growth of the media, the extension of corporate reach, and the
Page 6 of 28

changing impact of the state intervention (Murdock & Golding, 2005, p. 64). Methods are
varied, including document analysis, historical research, textual and content analysis, and
market analysis (Hardy, 2014). The use of economic statistics and market data is,
however, contested (Noam, 2016), and central works have been criticized for inflating or
exaggerating market share figures to back claims of media concentration (Noam, 2009,
pp. 19–20). In the digital context, critical political economy perspectives serve as
correctives to celebratory approaches to digital journalism research (Hardy, 2017, p. 1)
and as frameworks for analyzing shifting and emerging conditions of how communication
is organized (Hardy, 2014). As such, say Wasco, Murdock, and Sousa (2014, p. 5), for
critical political economy scholars, “digital media appear not as a primary lever of change
but as a new field of struggle dominated by long-standing battles and combatants,”
including questions of the unequal distribution of power.
Media Industries and Management Studies
Media ownership in the media industries perspective is studied mainly from two angles—
how the organizational forms, born from different types of ownership impact on
journalism (e.g., McManus, 1994), and framework conditions in the surrounding
structures (such as competition, regulation, and supply chains) impact on ownership
composition in the market (Busterna,1988; Lacy, Shaver, & Cyr, 1996; Noam, 2009;
Picard, 2005). The dominant perspective here has been the Industrial Organization
model, where the structure–conduct–performance paradigm describes how the economic
market structure affects the conduct of firms, which in turn affects the performance of
those markets. The problem with this perspective, says Ots (2015) is that it is first and
foremost suited to highly stable markets. The increasing globalization, convergence, and
fragmentation of media markets have therefore called for more adaptive and interpretive
approaches (Dimmick, 2002), including innovation perspectives (Storsul & Krumsvik,
2013).
John McManus’s 1994 book, Market-Driven Journalism: May the Citizen Beware, is a
central work in this field. McManus uses a model of economic reasoning in news
production to produce a systematic overview of the practical ways in which ownership
impacts news businesses. In publically traded companies, stockholders exercise their will
through electing boards of directors, while investors set general operating conditions,
expecting profit, influence, and prestige in return. Corporate management allocates
capital and sets company policy—legally obligated to serve the economic interests of the
owners. Newsmakers operate within this model under constraints set by others, where
owners and major investors have the most power. As media firms compete in markets for
investors, sources, advertisers, and consumers, the news becomes a commodity to fit
these markets.
Because “commercially funded media require financial resources and strength to sustain
and nurture their activities, but they cannot fully pursue their economic self-interest
without harming optimal public service” (Picard, 2005, p. 337), media sectors tend to
incentivize good behavior through regulation. Media industries are subject to anti-
Page 7 of 28

monopolization and competition law like any other industry, and in many countries in the
world, governments are active in controlling mergers and firm growth (such as in the
European Union). The Internet presents a problem here. While media industries are
regulated individually, the Internet carries a mix of content from all these industries.
Meanwhile, its global nature evades regulation unless by an international body (Küng et
al., 2008, p. 11). As such, current media business structures make ownership distinctions
more difficult to detect, primarily due to the complexity that the many forms of
cooperation, alliances, and networks that news media operate under—which diffuses
control within the system (Klimkiewicz, 2010, p. 908).
Different Ownership Forms

Only a few writers on the subject of news media ownership actually attempt to classify
the various forms that ownership of journalistic media assume. Picard and van Weezel
(2008) divide ownership according to juridical corporate power structures, distinguishing
between private ownership, public ownership, non-profit ownership, and staff ownership.
Operationalizations used by Hanitzsch and colleagues (e.g., Hanitzsch & Bergansa, 2012)
in their research on journalistic cultures around the world divide ownership into private,
public, and state forms of ownership, whereas Benson (2016) divide it based on sectors,
according to public ownership, commercial ownership, and civil society ownership.
Benson (2016) here uses public to denote the public service orientation of publically
owned media (media owned by the state, such as public service broadcasting), not to
denote publically traded media—a nomenclature often used to describe private media on
the stock market. Benson instead designates both privately owned and publically traded
media to the commercial sector. In addition, Benson designates to the civil society sector
philanthropic, religious, academic and foundation funding, and trust ownership. Whether
juridical, actor-based, or sectoral, divisions of ownership forms can assume different
meanings in different media systems. However, the sectoral ownership division suggested
by Benson presents as the most appropriate for discussing the various ways in which
ownership impacts on news and journalism.
Owners have two kinds of control over their media—allocation control and operational
control. Allocation control includes controlling the company’s finances and resources;
forming the policy and strategy of the company; controlling mergers, acquisitions, or
cutbacks; and profit control. Operational control includes the internal distribution of
resources; setting editorial strategies; deciding on leadership models; and hiring leaders
and managers (McManus, 1994). For private media, the more shares are owned by a
single party, the more power this party has over the company. For state-owned media, the
political composition of the ruling coalition matters for future budgets, provisions, and
management appointments, while oversight procedures determine the distance between
political power and broadcasting provisions (Benson & Powers, 2011). Media ownership
is often concentrated, exceeding concentration levels allowed for in other industries
(Noam, 2016). Most Western nations have been characterized by monopoly or oligopoly in
Page 8 of 28

the broadcasting sectors; monopoly in the telecommunication sector; oligopolies in

newspaper industries; and significant competition in magazine and book publishing
(Picard & Dal Zotto, 2016, p. 58).
Different ownership forms have different characteristics. Public (i.e., state) ownership
entails public funding and public oversight. Stock market ownership entails more fluid
ownership structures and quarterly reports, while family ownership means control is
limited to a single owner or owner group, with the ownership privileges often being
passed down from generation to generation. With party ownership—a historical form of
ownership that has all but died out—journalists are often tied to the party line, and
newspapers are largely advocates of a political program (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Trust
and foundation ownership is thought to entail more relaxed profit expectations, long-term
operational security, and to an extent a more “ideal” form of ownership. Journalism is
therefore subject to different kinds of controls, powers of pressures under different
ownership forms.
Different forms of ownership also have varying consequences in particular media

systems. The relationship between the media and the state, the market, culture,
commerce, and organized life has an impact on the extent to which various ownership
forms matter. Moreover, state ownership is considered more or less benevolent in many
media systems—public service broadcasting in many European countries, such as the
BBC in the United Kingdom and in the Nordic countries, have attained arm’s length
distance to its owners, assuring editorial freedom and journalistic professionalism (e.g.,
Syvertsen, Mjøs, Moe, & Enli, 2014). In other systems, particularly in Asia, Africa and in
Latin America, state ownership is considered more ominous and propagandistic, such as
in the Chinese or Russian media systems, in borderline failed states such as Venezuela
and Uzbekistan, and in authoritarian regimes such as Cuba and North Korea. In many
media systems, the political industrial complex is also thought to wield dual influence
over journalistic media, such as in Greece, Thailand, or Italy. As such, firm external
industry and market characteristics impact on the kind of significance that ownership can
have on journalistic enterprises.
Corporate Ownership
Corporate sector ownership is typically divided into public and private ownership, where
the former is traded on a public stock exchange and the latter is not. Publically traded
news media companies are often large corporations emphasizing maximization of
shareholder value (Benson, 2016, p. 35). Mergers and takeovers are natural parts of most
commercial industries, and the news media industry is no exception. Ownership
concentration reduces the reliance of companies on other organizations in the production
and dissemination process. This helps companies gain advantage over competitors,
making news more efficient and profitable. Ownership domination, however, can also lead
to homogenization, as different newspapers within the same corporation develop a
consensus on newsworthiness, adopt collective views and similar styles (Harrison, 2006).
Page 9 of 28

Chain or group ownership entails ownership of two or more news media outlets by the
same firm or individual, creating economies of scale. Chain-owned news media are
usually publically traded (Benson, 2016), although the phenomenon also exists in other
sectors (see below). When chains are formed, their organizational characteristics can
have an effect on journalists. Soloski (1979, pp. 20–24) has identified a number of
methods by which chains maintain control over their newspapers, including budget
control and mandated use of chain wire copy (see also Breed, 1955). As role expectations
in a chain newspaper are sourced outside the individual paper at a higher organizational
level, managers of chain papers are more prone to corporate attachment (Parsons,
Finnegan, & Benhan, 1988, pp. 100–101). The impact of chain or group ownership has
attracted much academic attention (Hamilton, 2005). While Baker (2006) found them to
be negative, chain formations can also help newspapers professionalize, creating greater
distance between reporters and local enterprise and politics exerting pressures on
journalists. Moreover, evidence is not conclusive that chain ownership necessarily
homogenizes content or practices (Braun, 2015; Lacy, 1991; Sjøvaag, 2014B). Chain
ownership can also squeeze titles for profit and dictate the editorial line (Entman, 1989).
When an individual starts up or buys a newspaper, it is usually considered private

ownership. Once ownership is transferred through inheritance, it is understood as family
ownership. Most newspaper ownership began as private or family enterprises, usually by
the hands of individuals from the wealthy business classes with political or commercial
interests. In the United States, many of the largest newspaper chains including Gannett,
Knight Ridder, Tribune and Times Mirror started as family-run enterprises. While family
ownership tends to mean stronger resistance to market demands for higher profits
(Benson, 2016; Kaye & Quinn, 2010), family stock passed down through generations also
tends to become diluted. Many of these companies therefore went public in the 1960s
(Kaye & Quinn, 2010).
Private ownership of media is one of those things, says Noam (2009), that can spawn
empire building, launching press barons and media tycoons. According to Curran (2002),
journalism history has often seen the press barons emerging in the United Kingdom
media system during the second half of the 19th century as forces of emancipation. As
these individuals (such as Carnegie, Northcliffe, Rothermere, and Beaverbrook) favored
entertainment, press barons developed commercial publication profiles, thereby
detaching the commercial press from the political parties and from the state (Curran,
2002, p. 38). The rise of politically active press barons in the United States and the
United Kingdom first inspired concern over the effects of ownership on media pluralism,
information flow, and open debate (Murdock & Golding, 2005, p. 67; Picard & Dal Zotto,
2016). These worries have been amplified in the wake of rising multimedia conglomerates
and their involvement in central communication sectors in large media markets
(Schlosberg, 2016).
The exploits of media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch in the United States, United
Kingdom and Australia, Carlos Slim in Mexico, and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy have been of
constant interest to researchers (Noam, 2016), particularly as regards their political
Page 10 of 28

influences. In recent years, new digital tycoons such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezoz’s
acquisition of The Washington Post and Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar launching the
investigative journalism site The Intercept have received similar attention. And not least,
the role played by Facebook in news consumption, and the power of its CEO Mark
Zuckerberg in constructing people’s news diets, pose new questions about the role of
technological giants in the news media sector globally. According to Noam (2016), these
concerns reflect a shift in control from the industrial to the information age concerning
the means of production.
State Ownership
State power over the media takes many forms—as pure state ownership (e.g., public
service broadcasting); through licensing (of broadcasting or distribution rights); or
through financial means (e.g., taxes, fees, and subsidies). The role of the state as owner
of news media outlets therefore has a variety of expressions (see Figenschou, 2010)
based on the different roles the state plays out in a given society (Hallin & Mancini, 2004,
p. 49).
As far at the Western world is concerned, the United States stand out as almost wholly
reliant on commercial media. The media industries in almost all other Western countries
include some forms of state ownership (Benson & Powers, 2011), the most important of
which is public service broadcasting (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). In many of these national
markets, public service media enjoy a market leading position, both in terms of audiences
(especially in Western Europe), journalistic quality, and editorial independence (Benson,
2018). While public service media have been accused of over-representing the left-of-
center political agenda in many national markets, public service media have also been
proven to provide more in-depth, critical journalism and foreign news, and a greater
diversity of voices and viewpoints (Benson, 2016; Humprecht & Esser, 2018), whereas the
opposite has also been found (e.g., Wahl-Jorgensen et al., 2017). European public service
broadcasting, in Spain and the United Kingdom for example, has seen an increase in
partisan political meddling in recent years (Garcia-Martines & Nguyen, 2012).
Commercial media increasingly see public service broadcasting as unfair competition,
especially in the online realm, and long-term funding is scaling back in some countries
like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands (Benson & Powers, 2011).
While most state-controlled broadcasters in Western Europe have evaded direct political
control (Benson, Powers, & Neff, 2017), southern European countries have not yet
reached this point, in Spain and Greece for example, where the ruling party directly
controls public broadcasting (Hallin & Papathanassopoulos, 2002). In recent years, there
has also been a similar development in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland and
Hungary. The effect of this is that state-controlled broadcasters in these regions are not
strong autonomous institutions, limiting journalistic autonomy (Hallin &
Papathanassopoulos, 2002, p. 181). Papathanassoulos (2001) therefore remarks that
media systems characteristics, including ownership, create doubt about the extent to
Page 11 of 28

which the (Anglo-dominant) “professional” model of journalism has indeed spread around
the globe.
State ownership also extends to the press and commercial media in many countries, and
some media systems also have state-owned news agencies. In China, entertainment
industries can have private and foreign ownership, but news media outlets, including
commercial newspapers and broadcasters, are owned by the state. Whereas privatization
of sectoral economy in China is expanding, it still promotes state ownership and socialism
in the media sector, limiting privatization of media. In China’s Lenin-inspired definition,
press freedom is first and foremost freedom from capitalist control (Zhao, 2012, pp. 153–
154).
While direct state ownership of media is assumed to be benevolent in the democratic

corporatist media systems in northern Europe, not all forms of state ownership are
associated with pluralism, access, free speech, and safeguarding democratic deliberation.
State-owned media can in some circumstances be more susceptible to formal and
informal control mechanisms (Dragomir, 2017), including the editorial influence of
government and politicians, and through hiring decisions (Hanitzsch & Bergansa, 2012,
p. 807). Populist governments in Latin America have, for instance, been found to use their
position to limit the power of selected media companies. When these governments
intervene in privately owned media, their argued concern is that private owners are only
interested in protecting their interests. While populist governments have intervened in
the media sector to decrease the influence of private interests, politicians have also built
alliances with media owners. Such alliances give political leaders powerful platforms
used for official reporting and public addresses, strengthening governments’ information
power. This Waisbord refers to as media patrimonialism: “the discretionary use of public
resources to strengthen the media power of the Executive” (Waisbord, 2011, p. 104).
Civil Society Ownership
News media owned by the civil society occupy a sector between commercial and state-
controlled news media (Benson, 2018). But much like its commercial and state
counterparts, the civil society sector comprises a number of distinct subcategories of
owners. These include political and religious organizations such as parties, unions and
churches, non-profit organizations such as trusts and foundations, and various forms of
cooperative ownership arrangements.
In Democratic corporatist countries, party-press parallelism has historically manifested in

news media ownership. Here, direct ownership links between newspapers, parties, trade
unions, churches, and other social organizations has played important roles in the media
system, particularly on the political left (Hallin & Mancini, 2004, p. 156). Perhaps the
purest expressions of party ownership were those found in the Scandinavian countries,
where partisanship lasted well into the 1980s. Since then, there has been a dramatic
decrease in direct party ownership in the Scandinavian news media sectors (Ohlsson,
2015), while informal ties still remain. In the Eastern and Central European media
Page 12 of 28

systems, restrictions on party ownership was introduced after the fall of Communism,
primarily with the aim to limit the “dominance of certain ideologies and potential foreign
(Russian) interests” (Balčytienė, 2012, p. 63). While formal ties between political parties
and news media may have been broken, informal ties still remain in some systems, like in
Portugal, where strong political players moved in to take control over the media after
privatization in the late 1980s (Hallin & Papathanassopoulos, 2002).
The charitable trust is a product of the Anglo-American, or common law, legal system.
Trust ownership of news media is thus found primarily in the U.S. and U.K. media
landscapes. Trusts can resolve the question of succession between multiple beneficiaries,
and in the United States, trusts avoid estate taxes (Benson, 2018; Kaye & Quinn, 2010;
Picard, 2014). American non-profit, philanthropic, or trust ownership of news media has
seen a rise in recent years. These entail a range of ownership forms linked to various
organizational fields such as religious, academic, secular, or trade union non-profit media
that tend to have strong commitment to public service (Benson, 2018). This type of
ownership can be described as ideal (see Konieczna, 2014), as there is no profit demand
from investors and alternative, critical, innovative, and socially relevant journalism is
often the goal (see Ellis, 2011; Levy & Picard, 2011; Graves & Konieczna, 2015; Kaye &
Quinn, 2010). However, trustee stewardship is difficult to attain, dependent on and
beholden to key actors (Ellis, 2011), and “mostly reinforces and extends upper middle-
class, pro-corporate orientation in mainstream American journalism” (Benson, 2018, p.
1060).
The equivalent of the charitable trust in the civil law system of continental Europe is the
foundation. The foundation shares many of the characteristics of the trust; it typically has
either a charitable or an ideological cause, or both, and is operated on a non-profit basis.
But whereas the trust is controlled by one or more trustees, who can dissolve the trust at
their own leisure, the foundation constitutes a legal entity of its own. As such, it is not
only “owner-less”—it is also constructed to last for eternity (Ohlsson, 2012). Primarily
found in the Scandinavian countries (Ohlsson, 2015), foundation ownership is the
dominant ownership form of the newspaper industries in both Denmark and Sweden, and
in 2016, a foundation took control over Amedia, Norway’s second largest newspaper
group with some 60 local newspapers. A non-profit foundation does not, however, relieve
news media companies from operating according to for-profit principles.
News outlets that are owned and operated directly by the employees constitute a final
form of civil society ownership in the news media landscape. Examples of cooperative
ownership of news media can be found primarily in Latin American and Mediterranean
media systems. Examples from France include Libération, founded as a cooperative after
the 1968 uprising, and Le Monde, in both of which journalist ownership has eroded over
time (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Journalists also challenged ownership control of news
media in Portugal, Italy, and Spain in the 1970s, where radical journalists perceived news
media as instruments of class struggle in processes of democratic transition (Hallin &
Papathanassopoulos, 2002). Today, say Hallin and Macini (2004, p. 117), “a legacy of this
Page 13 of 28

period exits in the form of editorial councils that give journalist the right to be consulted
on certain decision, usually including the appointment of the director.”
Summary of Ownership Forms
Picard and Dal Zotto (2016) note that scholars tend to find problems with all forms of
media ownership. Private ownership is problematic because proprietors can use it for
private interest; corporate ownership can put profit goals ahead of social goals; public
service media can present limited choice and are prevented from pursuing political
agendas; big companies can control content and markets; small companies cannot
provide the proper range of quality and content, and they are weak in the face of
pressures from powerful interests; foreign owners can bring in foreign influences that
can affect national sovereignty; and domestic owners are often too close to domestic
social and political power. Hence, all forms of ownership come with their own set of
advantages and disadvantages. However, note Picard and Dal Zotto (2016, p. 56), “many
of the complaints about ownership have nothing to do with ownership, but rather the
commercialized nature of media and the pursuit of economic rewards.”
Over the past 20 years, traditional journalistic enterprises have struggled in the
advertising market, losing ground to rival platforms in search and social media, notably
Google and Facebook. When mature businesses such as newspapers encounter disruptive
technologies such as the Internet, many engage in what Porter (1980) has termed
“harvest strategies”—lowering quality while raising prices to harvest money on the brand
(Meyer, 2009, p. 14). Convergence strategies have been used to offset the demands of
multi-platform publishing, with many newspapers merging newsrooms, rationalizing and
centralizing production, re-using content, and multi-skilling reporters (Larrondo et al.,
2016) toward more hostile labor situations (Örnebring, 2010). The financial crisis in
journalism has nonetheless been less severe in countries with civil sector ownership and
state support than in more market-oriented systems such as the United States (Benson,
Powers, & Neff, 2017).
Major Trends and Findings in the Research

Questions about media ownership are largely treated in journalism scholarship as issues
of regulation and policy, commercialization and homogenization of news, and as
influences on the autonomy of journalism. Essentially, ownership of news media is
interesting to investors because journalism can be used purposefully, typically to forward
or oppose certain political causes or interest, or to maximize income. The link between
ownership concentration and commercialization of journalism as a product is therefore
tied to the profit motive. The link between ownership control and journalism’s
independence is tied to political and economic interests.
Page 14 of 28

Ownership Concentration and Monopoly
There is good evidence that ownership concentration in the news media is increasing
across the world (Noam, 2016). The prevailing view on the effects of ownership
concentration is that it has a negative impact on the diversity of ideas that have access to
the sphere of public debate, which sustains democracy (Horwitz, 2005). Political
pluralism, it is assumed, can be most effectively attained by preventing a monopolization
of ideas in the mediated public sphere (Doyle, 2002; Entman, 1989). However, the extent
to which there is a link between ownership concentration and diversity in news and
journalism is difficult to establish, and therefore contested (Berry & Waldfogel, 2001;
Noam, 2009; Picard & Dal Zotto, 2016). While negative trends such as homogenization,
bias, and commercialization are often linked to media concentration, it is just as likely,
remarks Noam (2009, p. 13), that these results are twin outcomes of the profit
orientation. Moreover, the effects of concentration depend on the market—the number of
competitors, the form of ownership, the size and boundaries of the market.
Within the information technologies industries, concentration issues are causing concern
among scholars, particularly as online search and advertising are highly concentrated
(Turow, 2011), and because platform power combines infrastructure and content
ownership (Evens & Donders, 2016). Moreover, rather than dispersing power in the
media sectors, digital power is still incumbent power (Hardy, 2017, p. 11; Küng et al.,
2008; McChesney, 2008; Sjøvaag, Stavelin, Karlsson, & Kammer, 2018; Winseck, 2008).
The Internet has, thus, not fulfilled the emancipatory potential of digitization in breaking
conglomerate monopoly power purported by many scholars (e.g., Deuze, 2007; Shirky,
2008). Rather, the issues concerning scholars over the concentration of communicative
power continues in the digital age.
Commercialization and Homogenization
The profit motive is generally held as the main reason for commercialization of news and
journalism. Commercialism entails shaping stories to suit advertisers and owners—the
commercial penetration of professional journalism by corporate marketing, commercial
messages and advertising (Horwitz, 2005, p. 183; McChesney, 2003, pp. 310–311).
Publishers who follow free enterprise ethics and maximize profits provide audiences with
the simple and familiar—“the very kind of news that earns the least credit in the
marketplace of ideas” (Entman, 1989, p. 91). Herein lies the market failure thesis
(Pickard, 2014B), the assumption that market-governed media will underproduce certain
types of content that is critical to deliberation and self-government (Horwitz, 2005, p.
196). And while Croteau and Hoynes (2001, p. 8) note that “the most fundamental
dilemma may be that in the media world, entertainment is generally more profitable than
information,” there is also generally a commercial niche for high-quality news, in the
financial news segment and in-depth journalism for example.
That being assumed, “neither media content nor behaviour can be derived from an
account of corporate and market structures alone” (Hardy, 2014, p. 106). The problem,
Page 15 of 28

says Meyer (2009, p. 5), is that it is “very difficult to show that quality journalism is the
cause of business success rather than its byproduct.” Herein lies the particular interest in
ownership that journalism scholarship assumes—the contention that those who own the
news media have interests, and that journalism can be used to promote those interests.
Content homogeneity is therefore often identified as the main concern regarding how
news output affects the public and democracy. Homogeneity can, however, be shaped by
many factors, including journalists’ news practices (Ruotolo, 1988, p. 124). In fact,
scholars have argued that professionalism, not ownership nor the presence or absence of
competition, is what creates homogeneity in news (Benson, 2016, p. 40).
Clientalism, Patrimonialism, and Parallelism
A central question in the academic approach to ownership of journalistic media is the

impact that owners, rather than ownership forms, have on media content. In most media
systems around the world, the question of what sectors predominantly control the news
media industries is not so much an issue of a state-to-market transitions (see Curran,
2002), but a story of an increasingly intersectional set of influences. These forms of
pressures on journalism are sometimes referred to as clientalism (Örnebring, 2012),
sometimes as patrimonialism (Waisbord, 2011), instrumentalism (Stetka, 2012), or
political parallelism (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Whereas partisanship amounts to a chosen
and publicized editorial alignment with a political direction, clientalism or patrimonialism
amount to hidden influences caused by the motivations of media owners and their
political alliances. Evidence of such informal ownership impacts are found in media
systems in southern European (Hallin & Mancini, 2004), Latin American (Aldana-Amabile,
2008; Hallin & Papathanassopoulos, 2002; Waisbord, 2011), Asian (Haryanto, 2011;
McCargo, 2012), African (Hadland, 2012; Omenugha, Uzuegbunam, & Omenghua, 2013),
and Russian (Koltsova, 2005; Vartanova, 2012) news media.
Clientalism, referred to as “a pattern of social organization in which access to social

resources is controlled by patrons and delivered to clients in exchange for deference and
various kinds of support” (Hallin & Papathanassopoulos, 2002, pp. 184–185), is often
connected with late transition to democracy and a lack of state regulation (Hallin &
Papathanassopoulos, 2002; Haryanto, 2011). To that effect, limits on state ownership are
often enforced to curtail state or party control over media content (Balčytienė, 2012;
Vartanova, 2012) and a belief that decentralized market competition can be an antidote to
political despotism (Keane, 1991). Instead, because media is seen by interested parties as
leverage to increase political and economic power in society, a relaxation of concentrated
state ownership is often taken over by concentrated private ownership, using media to
promote business interests (Koltsova, 2005, p. 224). McCargo (2012) therefore asserts
that informal ownership of media is the norm around the world, and that Anglo-American
ownership models are the exception, not the rule.
Page 16 of 28

Ownership Diversity and Its Impact on Journalism
As journalism does not happen in a vacuum (Hanitzsch & Bergansa, 2012, p. 797;
Mancini, 2000, p. 267), the type of owners, the type of ownerships, and the type of
competition that exits in a news market impact on the organization, contents, and
practices of journalism in different settings (Donohue, Olien, & Tichenor, 1985; Soloski,
1979; Street, 2010; Zhu, Weaver, Lo, Chen, & Wu, 1997). There is therefore general
agreement in the literature that journalistic autonomy—the degree of freedom that
reporters have in practicing professional tasks (Reich & Hanitzsch, 2013, p. 135)—is
restricted by commercialization and corporate control. These forces are often thought to
cause journalistic quality to deteriorate (Altschull, 1997, p. 261; Reese, 2001; Reich &
Hanitzsch, 2013), while different forms of ownership also influence journalism in different
ways—some promoting quality more than others (see Benson 2013). In particular, owners’
increased profit demands and resource reductions are thought to make news more
market-driven (Weaver & Willnat, 2016), often in favor of owners’ commercial and
ideological interests (Cook, 1998, p. 173; McChesney, 2003, pp. 309–310; Soloski, 1989,
p. 225). Ownership pressures on the news media are, however, thought to largely
manifest indirectly (McChesney, 2003). To that extent, they are also largely invisible to
journalists and publics (Hanitzch & Mellado, 2011; McChesney, 2003, pp. 302–306).
The assumption here is that a diversity of owners leads to a diversity in journalistic

output, while a concentration in ownership leads to a concentration in content, essentially
because, says Doyle (2002, pp. 24–25), “separate ownership discourages consolidation or
sharing of editorial functions or content between owners of ‘rival’ products.” A dispersal
of ownership in the market implies a fairer distribution of communicative power (Baker,
2006). However, there is little conclusive evidence that ownership concentration, or even
monopoly situations, leads to less diversified content, and that a diverse ownership
structure creates a diverse content on offer (Entman, 2003; Noam, 2009). In fact, certain
studies have found that a reduction in owners, and even monopolies, increases output
diversity in distinct media markets (such as the radio market) (Berry & Wadfogel, 2001;
Huber, 2006, p. 11; Noam, 2009, p. 18), primarily because market control allows owners
to differentiate content according to different audience tastes without fear of
competition. This is essentially why monopolies are attractive positions for media owners.
However, there are forces beyond ownership diversity that determine how news and
journalism is shaped within media systems. In fact, ownership alone is difficult to isolate
as independent variable when it comes to questions about news homogeneity, quality, or
concentration.
The State of Research

Journalism and media ownership research is limited both in its normativity, its Western-
ness, and in its foundation in the age of the mass media. Moreover, ownership power is
assumed to be strong. Owners are often suspected of being greedy, with an overzealous
appetite for profit, scrupulous in pursuit of market shares, and ruthless in cost-cutting to
Page 17 of 28

generate revenue for shareholders. To that end, news media ownership is largely treated
as a precarious aspect of journalism, often seen as a threat to journalistic autonomy,
press freedom, and media diversity. Solutions to the problems of ownership are often
assigned to policy. The role of the state in regulating privately owned media is, however,
contentious, as state benevolence depends on the particularities of the media system in
question.
Overall, however, most journalism research largely refrains from addressing the issue of
who owns the media. As such, the perspectives and insights gained from the political
economy of communication and from the industry studies of news media add greatly to
our knowledge of the framework conditions of journalism. Nevertheless, as most
perspectives on media ownership are firmly embedded in the characteristics of mass
media, more work needs to be done to understand the impact of networked technologies
and the growing power that third-party intermediaries have on journalism. Media
ownership is growing more concentrated and global. As such, how the owners, and the
ownership forms, of the global networked media infrastructure will come to impact
journalism in the future can only benefit from the perspectives raised by media ownership
research.
Further Reading
Benson, R. (2018). Rethinking the sociology of media ownership, in L. Grindstaff, J. R.
Hall, & M. Lo (Eds.), Routledge handbook of cultural sociology (2nd ed., pp. 411–420).
London, U.K.: Routledge.
Bezanson, R., Soloski, J., & Cranberg, G. (2001). Taking stock: Journalism and the publicly
traded newspaper company. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Cagé, J. (2016). Saving the media: Capitalism, crowdfunding and democracy. Cambridge,
U.K.: Harvard University Press.
Cushion, S. (2012). The democratic value of news: Why public service media matter.
Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Konieczna, M. (2018). Journalism without profit: Making news when the market fails.
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
McChesney, R. W. (2015). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in

dubious times. New York, NY: New Press.
Nielsen, R. K., Fletcher, R., Sehl, A., & Levy, D. (2016). Analysis of the relation between
impact of public service media and public media. Oxford, U.K.: Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism.
References
Albarran, A. B. (2016). The media economy. London, U.K.: Taylor & Francis.
Page 18 of 28

Aldana-Amabile, S. (2008). The media in Paraguay: From the coverage of political

democracy to the obsession with violence. In J. Lugo (Ed.), The media in Latin America
(pp. 167–178). New York, NY: Open University Press.
Altschull, H. J. (1997). Boundaries of journalistic autonomy. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social

meanings of news (pp. 259–268). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Baker, C. E. (2006). Media concentration and democracy: Why ownership matters.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Balčytienė, A. (2012) Culture as a guide in theoretical explorations of Baltic media. In D.

C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), Comparing media systems beyond the Western world (pp.
51–71). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, L. W. (1996). News: The politics of illusion. New York, NY: Longman.
Benson, R. (2013). Shaping immigration news. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University

Press.
Benson, R. (2016). Institutional forms of media ownership and their modes of power. In
M. Eide, H. Sjøvaag, & L. O. Larsen (Eds.), Journalism reexamined: Digital challenges and
professional reorientations. Lessons from northern Europe (pp. 29–47). Bristol, U.K.:
Intellect.
Benson, R. (2018). Can foundations solve the journalism crisis?Journalism, 19(8),

1059–1077.
Benson, R., & Powers, M. (2011). Public media and political independence. Lessons for
the future of journalism from around the world. New York, NY: Free Press.
Benson, R., Powers, M., & Neff, T. (2017). Public media autonomy and accountability: best
and worst policy practices in 12 leading democracies. International Journal of
Communication, 11, 22.
Berry, S. T., & Waldfogel, J. (2001). Do mergers increase product variety? Evidence from
radio broadcasting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3), 1009–1025.
Braun, J. A. (2015). News programs: Designing MSNBC.com’s online interfaces.

Journalism, 16(1), 27–43.
Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social forces,
33(4), 326–335.
Busterna, J. C. (1988). Concentration and the industrial organization model. In R. Picard,

J. P. Winter, M. E. McCombs, & S. Lacy (Eds.); Press concentration and monopoly: New
perspectives on newspaper ownership and operation (pp. 35–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Page 19 of 28

Carey, J. W. (2008). Communication as culture, revised edition: Essays on media and

society. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cook, T. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2001). The business of media. Corporate Media and the Public
Interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Curran, J. (2002). Media and power. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Curran, J. (2014). Foreword. In J. Hardy (Ed.), Critical political economy of the media: An
introduction. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Deuze, M. (2007). Media work. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
Dimmick, J. W. (2002). Media competition and coexistence: The theory of the niche.
London, U.K.: Routledge.
Doblek-Ostrowska, B. (2012). Italianization (or Mediterranianization) of the Polish media

system? Reality and perspective. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.) Comparing media
systems beyond the Western world (pp. 26–50). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Donohue, G. A., Olien, C. N., & Tichenor, P. J. (1985). Reporting conflict by pluralism,
newspaper type and ownership. Journalism Quarterly, 62(3), 489–499.
Doyle, G. (2002). Media ownership: The economics and politics of convergence and
concentration in the UK and European media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dragomir, M. (2017). Control the money, control the media: How government uses
funding to keep media in line. Journalism.
Ellis, G. (2011). A Ghost in the chair: Trustee ownership and the sustenance of
democratically significant journalism (Doctoral dissertation). ResearchSpace@ Auckland.
Entman, R. M. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American
politics. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Esser, F., de Vreese, C. H., Strömbäck, J., Van Aelst, P., Aalberg, T., Stanyer, J., . . . &
Salgado, S. (2012). Political information opportunities in Europe: A longitudinal and
comparative study of thirteen television systems. The International Journal of Press/
Politics, 17(3), 247–274.
Ettema, J. S., Whitney, D. C., & Wackman, D. B. (1997). Professional mass communicators.
In D. A. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meanings of news: A text-reader (pp. 31–50). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Page 20 of 28

Evens, T., & Donders, K. (2016). Mergers and acquisitions in TV broadcasting and
distribution: Challenges for competition, industrial and media policy. Telematics and
Informatics, 33(2), 674–682.
Figenschou, T. U. (2010). A voice for the voiceless? A quantitative content analysis of Al-
Jazeera English’s flagship news. Global Media and Communication, 6(1), 85–107.
Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy.
Noorwood, NJ: Ablex.
García-Martínez, A. N., & Nguyen, A. (2012). When public service is the name of the
game: The evolution of British and Spanish Public Service Broadcasters in online
journalism. In M. Bruns & N. Brügger (Eds.), Histories of public service broadcasters on
the web (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Garnham, N. (1979). Contribution to a political economy of mass-communication. Media,

Culture & Society, 1(2), 123–146.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: mass media in the making & unmaking of
the new left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Golding, P., & Murdock G. (1991). Culture, communications, and political economy. In J.
Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass Media and Society (2nd ed., pp. 70–92). London,
U.K.: Edward Arnold.
Graves, L., & Konieczna, M. (2015). Sharing the news: Journalistic collaboration as field
repair. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 9.
Hadland, A. (2012) Africanizing three models of media and politics: The South African
experience. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), Comparing media systems beyond the
Western world (pp. 96–118). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and
politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge university press.
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (Eds.). (2012). Comparing media systems beyond the Western
world. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Hallin, D. C., & Papathanassopoulos, S. (2002). Political clientelism and the media:
Southern Europe and Latin America in comparative perspective. Media, Culture &
Society, 24(2), 175–195.
Hamilton, J. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms information
into news. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hamilton, J. T. (2005) The market and the media. In G. Overholser & K. H. Jamieson
(Eds.), The press (pp. 351–371). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Page 21 of 28

Hanitzsch, T., & Berganza, R. (2012). Explaining journalists’ trust in public institutions
across 20 countries: Media freedom, corruption, and ownership matter most. Journal of
Communication, 62(5), 794–814.
Hanitzsch, T., & Mellado, C. (2011). What shapes the news around the world? How
journalists in eighteen countries perceive influences on their work. The International
Journal of Press/Politics, 16(3), 404–426.
Hardy, J. (2014). Critical political economy of the media: An introduction. London, U.K.:
Routledge.
Hardy, J. (2017). Money, (co)production and power: The contribution of critical political
economy to digital journalism studies. Digital Journalism, 5(1), 1–25.
Harrison, J. (2006). News. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Haryanto, I. (2011). Media ownership and its implications for journalists and journalism
in Indonesia. In K. Sen & D. T. Hill (Eds.), Politics and the media in twenty-first century
Indonesia (pp. 104–118). London, U.K.: Routledge.
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of
the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Herman, E., & McChesney, R. W. (2001). Global media: The new missionaries of global
capitalism. London, U.K.: Continuum.
Horwitz, R. B. (2005). On media concentration and the diversity question. The

Information Society, 21(3), 181–204.
Huber, S. (2006). Media Markets in Central and Eastern Europe. An Analysis on Media
Ownership in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Berlin, Germany: LIT Verlag.
Humprecht, E., & Esser, F. (2018). Diversity in online news: On the importance of
ownership types and media system types. Journalism Studies, 19(2), 1825–1847.
Kaye, J., & Quinn, S. (2010). Funding journalism in the digital age: Business models,
strategies, issues and trends. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Keane, J. (1991). The media and democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kilmkiewicz, B. (2010). Introduction: Structural media pluralism. International Journal of

Communication, 4, 906–913.
Koltsova, O. (2005). News production in contemporary Russia: Practices of power. In D.

McQuail, P. Golding, & E. De Bens (Eds.), Communication Theory and Research (pp. 220–
234). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Page 22 of 28

Konieczna, M., & Robinson, S. (2014). Emerging news non-profits: A case study for
rebuilding community trust? Journalism, 15(8), 968–986.
Kuhn, R. (2006). The media in France. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Küng, L., Picard, R. R., & Towse, R. (2008). The internet and the mass media. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Lacy, S. (1991). Effects of group ownership on daily newspaper content. Journal of Media
Economics, 4(1), 35–47.
Lacy, S., Shaver, M. A., & Cyr, C. S. (1996). The effects of public ownership and
newspaper competition on the financial performance of newspaper corporations: A
replication and extension. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 332–341.
Larrondo, A., Domingo, D., Erdal, I. J., Masip, P., & Van den Bulck, H. (2016).
Opportunities and limitations of newsroom convergence: A comparative study on
European public service broadcasting organisations. Journalism Studies, 17(3), 277–300.
Levy, D. A., & Picard, R. (2011). Is there a better structure for news providers?: The
potential in charitable and trust ownership. Oxford, U.K.: University of Oxford, Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Mancini, P. (2000). Political complexity and alternative models of journalism. In J. Curran,

& M. J. Park (Eds.), De-westernizing media studies (pp. 265–278). London, U.K.:
Routledge.
McCargo, D. (2012). Partisan polyvalence: Characterizing the political role of Asian

media. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), Comparing media systems beyond the Western
world (pp. 201–223). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
McChesney, R. W. (2003). The problem of journalism: A political economic contribution to

an explanation of the crisis in contemporary US journalism. Journalism Studies, 4(3), 299–
329.
McChesney, R. W. (2008). The political economy of media: Enduring issues, emerging

dilemmas. New York, NY: New York University Press.
McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Meyer, P. (2009). The vanishing newspaper: Saving journalism in the information age.
Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Mosco, V. (1996). The political economy of communication: Rethinking and renewal.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Page 23 of 28

Murdock, G., & Golding, P. (1977). Capitalism, communication and class relations. In J.
Curran, M. Gurevitch & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Mass communication and society (pp. 12–43).
London, U.K.: Edward Arnold.
Murdock, G., & Golding, P. (2005). Culture, communications and political Economy. In J.
Curran, & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (4th ed.; pp. 60–83). London, U.K.:
Hodder.
Noam, E. (2009). Media ownership and concentration in America. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press.
Noam, E. (Ed.) (2016). Who owns the world’s media: Media concentration and ownership
around the world. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Ohlsson, J. (2012). The practice of newspaper ownership: Fifty years of control and
influence in the Swedish local press. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Journalism,
Media and Communication.
Ohlsson, J. (2015). The Nordic media market 2015. Gothenburg, Sweden: Nordicom.
Omenugha, K. A., Uzuegbunam, C. E., & Omenugha, O. N. (2013). Good governance and
media ownership in Nigeria: Dilemmatic practices, stoic challenges. Global Media
Journal-African Edition, 7(2), 92–115.
Ots, M. (2015). Teorier om mediernas ekonomiska strategier [“Theories on the media’s

economic strategies”]. In M. Karlsson, & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Handbok i
journalistikforskning [Handbook in journalism research] (pp. 169–185). Lund, Sweden:
Studentlitteratur.
Örnebring, H. (2010). Technology and journalism-as-labour: Historical perspectives.

Journalism, 11(1), 57–74.
Örnebring, H. (2012). Clientelism, elites, and the media in Central and Eastern Europe.
The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(4), 497–515.
Papathanassopoulos, S. (2001). Media commercialization and journalism in Greece.

European Journal of Communication, 16(4), 505–521.
Parsons, P., Finnegan, J. J., & Benham, W. (1988). Editors and their roles. In R. Picard, J. P.
Winter, M. E. McCombs, & S. Lacy (Eds.). Press concentration and monopoly: New
perspectives on newspaper ownership and operation (91–104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Picard, R. G. (2005). Money, media and the public interest. In G. Overholser, & K. H.
Jamieson (Eds.), The press (pp. 337–350). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Picard, R. G. (2014). Twilight or new dawn of journalism? Evidence from the changing
news ecosystem. Journalism Studies, 15(5), 500–510.
Page 24 of 28

Picard, R. G., & Dal Zotto, C. (2016). The dimension of ownership and control of media. In
P. Valcke, M. Sükösd, & R. G. Picard (Eds.), Media pluralism and diversity: Concepts, risks
and global trends. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave.
Picard, R. G., & Van Weezel, A. (2008). Capital and control: Consequences of different
forms of newspaper ownership. The International Journal on Media Management, 10(1),
22–31.
Pickard, V. (2014a). America’s battle for media democracy: The triumph of corporate
libertarianism and the future of media reform. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Pickard, V. (2014b). The great evasion: Confronting market failure in American media
policy. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31(2), 153–159.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and

competition. New York, NY: Free Press.
Reese, S. D. (2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences

approach. Journalism Studies, 2(2), 173–187.
Reich, Z., & Hanitzsch, T. (2013). Determinants of journalists’ professional autonomy:

Individual and national level factors matter more than organizational ones. Mass
Communication and Society, 16(1), 133–156.
Roshco, B. (1975). Newsmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ruotolo, C. (1988). Monopoly and socialization. In R. E, Picard, J. P. Winter, M. E.

McCombs, & S. Lacy (Eds.) Press concentration and monopoly: New perspectives on
newspaper ownership and operation (pp. 117–125). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Schiller, D. (1981). Objectivity and the news: The public and the rise of commercial
journalism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Schiller, H. I. (1971). Mass communications and American empire. New York, NY: AM
Kelley.
Schlesinger, P. (1978). Putting reality together. London, U.K.: Constable.
Schlosberg, J. (2016). Media ownership and agenda control: The hidden limits of the
information age. Oxon, U.K.: Taylor & Francis.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations.
London, U.K.: Penguin.
Sjøvaag, H. (2014a). The principles of regulation and the assumption of media effects.
Journal of Media Business Studies, 11(1), 5–20.
Page 25 of 28

Sjøvaag, H. (2014b). Homogenisation or Differentiation? The effects of consolidation in

the regional newspaper market. Journalism Studies, 15(5), 511–521.
Sjøvaag, H., Stavelin, E., Karlsson, M., & Kammer, A. (2018). The hyperlinked
Scandinavian news ecology: The unequal terms forged by the structural
properties of digitalisation. Digital Journalism, 1–25.
Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London,
U.K.: George Routledge and Sons.
Smythe, D. W. (1960). On the political economy of communications. Journalism Quarterly,

37(4), 563–572.
Soloski, J. (1979). Economics and management: The real influence of newspaper groups.
Newspaper Research Journal, 1(1), 19–29.
Soloski, J. (2013). Collapse of the US newspaper industry: Goodwill, leverage and

bankruptcy. Journalism, 14(3), 309–329.
Soloski, J. (1989). News reporting and professionalism: Some constraints on the reporting
of the news. Media, Culture & Society 11(2), 207–228.
Splichal, S. (2001). Imitative revolutions changes in the media and journalism in East-
Central Europe. Javnost-The Public, 8(4), 31–58.
Stetka, V. (2012). From multinationals to business tycoons: Media ownership and

journalistic autonomy in Central and Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Press/
Politics, 17(4), 433–456.
Street, J. (2010). Mass media, politics and democracy. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Storsul, T., & Krumsvik, A. H. (Eds.). (2013). Media innovations: A multidisciplinary

approach. Stockholm, Sweden: Nordicom.
Syvertsen, T., Mjøs, O. J., Moe, H., & Enli, G. S. (2014). The media welfare state: Nordic
media in the digital era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Thussu, D. K. (2005). From MacBride to Murdoch: The marketisation of global

communication. Javnost-The Public, 12(3), 47–60.
Turow, J. (2011). Media today: An introduction to mass communication. New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis.
Vartanova, E. (2012) The Russian media model in the context of Post-Soviet dynamics. In
D. C. Hallin, & P. Mancini (Eds.), Comparing media systems beyond the Western world
(pp. 119–142). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Page 26 of 28

Wahl-Jorgensen, K., Berry, M., Garcia-Blanco, I., Bennett, L., & Cable, J. (2017).
Rethinking balance and impartiality in journalism? How the BBC attempted and failed to
change the paradigm. Journalism, 18(7), 781–800.
Waisbord, S. (2011). Between support and confrontation: Civic society, media reform, and
populism in Latin America. Communication, Culture & Critique, 4(1), 97–117.
Wasco, J., Murdock, G., & Sousa, H. (2014). Introduction: The political economy of
communications: Core concerns and issues. In J. Wasco, G. Murdock, & H. Sousa (Eds.),
The handbook of political economy of communications (pp. 1–12). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley
Blackwell.
Weaver, D. H., & Willnat, L. (2016). Changes in US Journalism: How do journalists think
about social media? Journalism Practice, 10(7), 844–855.
Winseck, D. (2008). The state of media ownership and media markets: Competition or
concentration and why should we care? Sociology Compass, 2(1), 34–47.
Zelizer, B. (2004). Taking journalism seriously: News and the academy. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Zhao, Y. (2012). Understanding China’s media system in a world historical context. In D.

C. Hallin, & P. Mancini (Eds.), Comparing media systems beyond the Western world (pp.
143–177). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Zhu, J. H., Weaver, D., Lo, V. H., Chen, C., & Wu, W. (1997). Individual, organizational, and
societal influences on media role perceptions: A comparative study of journalists in China,
Taiwan, and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(1), 84–
96.
Helle Sjøvaag
Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen
Jonas Ohlsson
Nordic Information Centre for Media and Communication Research (Nordicom),

University of Gothenburg
Page 27 of 28

Page 28 of 28

Media Ownershipand Journalism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media Ownershipand Journalism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media Ownership and Journalism

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication

Summary and Keywords

Media ownership is of interest to research on journalism due to the assumption that

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Overall, ownership of news media is relevant to journalism scholarship because of the

1. Monopolization and concentration of ownership, including the monitoring and

1. The research on news media ownership is highly normative, dominated by critical

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

1. Ownership is becoming more pluralistic. Foundations, trusts, and other non-

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

The History of News Media Ownership

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Main Theoretical Perspectives

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Critical Political Economy Perspectives

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Media Industries and Management Studies

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Different Ownership Forms

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

the broadcasting sectors; monopoly in the telecommunication sector; oligopolies in

Different forms of ownership also have varying consequences in particular media

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

When an individual starts up or buys a newspaper, it is usually considered private

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

While direct state ownership of media is assumed to be benevolent in the democratic

Civil Society Ownership

In Democratic corporatist countries, party-press parallelism has historically manifested in

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Summary of Ownership Forms

Major Trends and Findings in the Research

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Ownership Concentration and Monopoly

Commercialization and Homogenization

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Clientalism, Patrimonialism, and Parallelism

A central question in the academic approach to ownership of journalistic media is the

Clientalism, referred to as “a pattern of social organization in which access to social

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Ownership Diversity and Its Impact on Journalism

The assumption here is that a diversity of owners leads to a diversity in journalistic

The State of Research

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

McChesney, R. W. (2015). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Aldana-Amabile, S. (2008). The media in Paraguay: From the coverage of political

Altschull, H. J. (1997). Boundaries of journalistic autonomy. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social

Baker, C. E. (2006). Media concentration and democracy: Why ownership matters.

Balčytienė, A. (2012) Culture as a guide in theoretical explorations of Baltic media. In D.

Benson, R. (2013). Shaping immigration news. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University

Benson, R. (2018). Can foundations solve the journalism crisis?Journalism, 19(8),

Braun, J. A. (2015). News programs: Designing MSNBC.com’s online interfaces.

Busterna, J. C. (1988). Concentration and the industrial organization model. In R. Picard,

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019

Carey, J. W. (2008). Communication as culture, revised edition: Essays on media and

Curran, J. (2002). Media and power. London, U.K.: Routledge.

Deuze, M. (2007). Media work. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.

Doblek-Ostrowska, B. (2012). Italianization (or Mediterranianization) of the Polish media

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2019