|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
| Radio | A person must not be in a position to control more than 2 licences
in the same licence area. There are no media specific restrictions
on foreign control of radio.
|
|---|---|
| Television | A person must not control television licences whose combined area
exceeds 75% of the population of Australia. A person must not control more than one television licence in the same licence area. A foreign person must not control a television licence.
|
| Newspapers | A foreign person must not hold more than a 25% interest in a mass circulation newspaper. |
Cross-media Restrictions
| Television and Radio | A person must not control a television licence and a radio licence
that have the same licence area.
|
|---|---|
| Television and Newspapers | A person must not control a television licence and a newspaper
associated* with the licence area of the television licence.
|
| Radio and Newspapers | A person must not control a radio licence and a newspaper associated*
with the licence area of that radio licence.
|
| Pay TV | A person who controls a Licence A or Licence B subscription television licence must not have more than a 2% interest in the other licence, or be in a position to control that other licence. |
* 'Associated' means that at least 50% of the circulation of the newspaper is in the broadcasting licence area. (13)
Both the United States and Great Britain liberalised their laws on aspects of cross-media ownership in 1996. Some restrictions do, however, remain.
Great Britain enacted the Broadcasting Act 1996 in July 1996. This legislation has been described as permitting the 'most liberal ownership regime in Europe'. (14) The legislation is, however, quite complex and it reflects factors which, as yet, are not directly comparable with the situation in Australia. For example, there are domestic and non-domestic satellite services, as well as the special aspects of regional broadcasting. (Australia will have somewhat equivalent commercial access to Asian satellites broadcasting pay television in July 1997, with the deregulation of the telecommunications sector). In addition, in the United Kingdom, broadcasting licensing covers a range of categories in television including 'programme services', 'restricted services', 'television multiplex services', 'digital programme services' and 'digital additional services', as well as regional and national channels. A similar licensing regime applies to national radio, local radio, and satellite radio services as well as digital and multiplex radio services. 'Multiplex' allows multiple broadcast signals on the same system. The digital system allows compression of the broadcast signal and the efficiency of the system is enhanced by computerisation. Australia will move to digital radio and television systems shortly after the turn of the century. (15)
In the United Kingdom, there is a general limit which prevents any one person from holding two or more licences in specified sectors, when his or her total audience time in the preceding calendar month exceeded 15%. No one person may hold more than 3 licences for multiplex television services. The assessment of interest by a broadcast licensee in 'programme services' is calculated by reference to a points table. A licence holder can have two local radio licences, only if one is an FM station and the other is an AM station, or if the relevant government authority finds that multiple licensing in a particular case is not contrary to the public interest.
The key cross-media restriction under the British Broadcasting Act 1996 is that a person who runs a national newspaper which has a market share of 20% may not hold a licence to a regional or national television station, or a national or local radio station. The relevant limit for inter-related company interests is 20% (i.e. a newspaper owner is limited to a 20% interest in the holder of a broadcast licence). The limit for market share for a local newspaper is 50% of the market.
The British Broadcasting Act 1996 also has a 'public interest' provision which enables denial of a cross-media investment by a newspaper if such an association with a broadcasting licence would, in all the circumstances, operate against the public interest.
In terms of significant cross-media interests, Britain allows the print media giant News International, to also operate the satellite television broadcaster British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB). The former British government defended its decision on two main grounds. The first ground was that blocking the television operation would only have caused Rupert Murdoch's company to move its television service off-shore into Europe or to international waters. The second was that the satellite facility, Astra, is not a domestic or restricted service. Astra is operated from Luxembourg on the European continent. Other operators are free to institute channels on Astra and there is no scarcity of broadcasting frequencies. The former British government's arguments are not free of criticisms and the most obvious is that cross-media rules are not there to regulate any scarcity of broadcasting frequencies but to ensure plurality of views and information.
It must be conceded, however, that given the fact that Britain must observe the principles of the free movement of good and services throughout the European Union, it is limited in what it can do to restrict broadcast services. Likewise, the related issue of foreign ownership of the media is more complicated in Britain.
The former British Government considered, but did not implement, the concept of 'Share of Voice' approach to measuring and regulating total media ownership when formulating the Broadcasting Bill 1996. It was conceded that there was insufficient agreement on aspects of the concept. This issue is more fully explained in the Appendix to this paper and in the Research Note, The 'Share of Voice' Approach to Cross-Media Ownership Control issued by the Information and Research Services in April 1996. (16)
Regulation of ownership and control of broadcasting in the United States is implemented under the Communications Act of 1934 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Up until 1996, no foreign ('alien') ownership or control of a broadcasting licence was permitted. Under the FCC's rules and regulations, the duopoly rule ('multiple ownership') prevented the overlap in the same area of AM, FM radio or TV licences owned or controlled by the same party. The same rule prevented a broadcasting licence being issued to a party when the broadcast area encompassed the entire community in which the same party controlled and published a newspaper. (17)
Perhaps of greater interest, given Australia's impending deregulation of its telecommunications sector, are recent US legislative developments in cross-media ownership which have mainly focused on cable television services and telephone companies. In February 1996, the United States Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which also modified the cross-media rules issued by the FCC under the Communications Act of 1934. Essentially, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 repealed much of the former restrictive regime and replaced it with a test which, in general terms, looks at aggregate share of the market. The permitted upper limit of network television audience reach was increased to 35% of the national market, with a further increase to 50% in 12 months. Foreign ownership restrictions on broadcast licences were eased, at least to the extent of short-term or occasional transmissions by satellite of audio or television program material. The US Congress has recognised that the old prohibition was insular and at odds with its own industry's interests in broadcasting to other countries. The FCC will, however, have the power to refuse or revoke such a broadcast licence in the public interest.
The effective repeal of the old cross-media restrictions in the US attracted dissenting views contained in House of Representatives Commerce Committee's Report No. 104-204 of July 1995. (18) The dissenting views identified the issues of perceived threat to media diversity and the problem of mass media concentration. One of the main concerns was that local television broadcasting would eventually be absorbed by the networks. Under the old system, local television broadcasters could affiliate with a network and carry national network sports programs and news but still have a mix of local news and locally produced programs. The dissenting views included the following comment:
One of the key aims of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to remove the previous prohibition on telephone companies offering cable service within their telephone service areas. Cable television commenced in the United States in the early 1950s. It was initially provided to improve television reception in certain rural and remote localities. For many years it was a fledgling industry and cable services were regulated by a combination of Federal and State laws. In the 1980s, Congress recognised that the full potential of cable services was being impaired by haphazard regulation. A national Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 was enacted. A measure of deregulation was introduced and the cable industry became a powerful force in its own right but deregulation had a down-side in that some cable services raised their subscriber rates. Congress intervened with the Cable Act of 1992 to restrain hyperinflationary price hikes and to help foster competition. It is estimated that this legislative intervention saved consumers $3 billion. Congress has now determined that telephone companies should no longer be prevented from competing with the now firmly established cable services. (20)
As already noted, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 also increases the amount of national audience a television licensee may reach from 25% to 35%. Cable operators are no longer prohibited from acquiring an interest in a television station in the same area as their cable service, but some limits do apply. Cable and telephone companies may own up to 10% of each other in major markets, and 100% in smaller, rural markets.
It is still possible for the FCC to implement cross-media restrictions if it is satisfied that the licensing would result in an undue concentration of media voices in the respective local market, or would result in two or fewer persons or entities controlling all the media of mass communications in the market. (21)
In passing, it should be noted that the United States has powerful antitrust laws to regulate anti-competitive mergers, acquisitions and monopolies.
As a generalisation, in Europe there appears to be a broader base to business interests involved in the mass media. For example, the conventional print, radio and television interests may also be part of more diversified alliances such as book publishing, music publishing, advertising and film production. Program production is also an important activity within the broader scope of mass media. An added dimension in Europe is, of course, compliance with the European Union's rules on competition policy which have been adopted by member countries to prevent potentially undesirable market behaviour such as cartels or anti-competitive concentration.
The broadcasting system in the Federal Republic of Germany is one of the most powerful in Western Europe. Given the political history of Germany, pluralism in both the political and social-cultural dimensions permeates the Constitution, the Basic Law, which was created in 1949 under Allied supervision. Germany is a federation and there are federal (Bund) and Land laws which impact on the mass media. (The Lander are somewhat equivalent to States). The Federal Constitutional Court can rule on the validity of individual Land laws to protect the Constitution. This is important because it is the individual Land laws which regulate the media. National regulation is achieved by an inter-Land treaty which is ratified by each Lander legislature. When the main treaty was signed in 1987 (i.e. prior to German re-unification), there were 11 Lander.
Cross-media rules are implemented under the laws of the individual Lander. The basic aim of the rules is to prevent what are referred to as 'double monopolies'. The percentage limits vary between the Lander and generally range from 20% to 50%. For example, under the most generous cross-media rules, if a publisher dominates within a broadcast area then that publisher is confined to half the ownership of a broadcasting licence or the ability to supply half the programs. One Lander (Hessen) distinguishes between broadcasting and supply of programs and excludes a dominant publisher from broadcast but not program supply. Cross-media rules are not specified in the Inter-Land Treaty of 1987. Essentially, there is no restriction on foreign investment in the media but the broadcasting rules combined with the variations between the Lander invariably means that foreign investment is achieved in partnership with local media interests which are more familiar with the intricacies of the German system. (23)
The importance of cross-media regulation was exemplified by the media dominance that Silvio Berlusconi was able to achieve in Italy. In 1979, Berlusconi controlled a media empire centred on the Finivest conglomerate. He controlled the newspaper Il Giornale, 90% of Italy's commercial television and the Mandadori publishing house. Silvio Berlusconi became Prime Minister of Italy for a brief period (20 May 1994 to his resignation on 21 December 1994). (24)
Italy's Law 223 of 6 August 1990 now imposes cross-media restrictions but is limited to ownership or control of national newspapers and television. Radio and periodicals are not restricted. Local television and newspapers are not restricted but there is an overarching set of restrictions which will not permit the acquisition of more than 20% of all media resources in Italy.
France divides its broadcasting controls into national and regional classifications. The French approach, which is contained in the Law of 30 September 1986, is quite formulaic and can be expressed as follows:
A similar formula is applied to regional concentrations of the media.
Regulation within the European Union tends to revolve around open competition and ensuring the free movement of goods and services. One complicating characteristic of the European Union is that some countries have public broadcasters which are State monopolies, essentially, but which can still comply with common market principles. Cross-media regulation on a trans-national basis is, perhaps, a matter for the future. (26)
What is instructive in looking at the British and European approaches to cross-media regulation is the added complication of multi-sectoral interests which interact with broadcasting and mass circulation newspapers e.g. advertising, book publishing, music and film production. This is referred to as multi-sectoral integration. It may be worth considering whether it is desirable for other industries to have the potential to 'control' the media, as well. There may be the temptation to either boost the interests of the particular industry through favourable media coverage, or to down-play adverse stories about problems in a particular industry. To date, Australia has concentrated its cross-media rules on conventional media operations.
The integration of print and television appears to be inevitable for both technical and investment reasons. The German media mogul Leo Kirch said in 1988:
It is possible to construct indices which measure the relative capacity of media organisations to influence the Australian population. Appendix 1 of this paper discusses this issue and derives the following measure of cross-media influence.
* (100 = total control of all media)
MEDIA CROSS-MEDIA ORGANISATION REACH INDEX *
Australian Broadcasting Corporation 59.4 Special Broadcasting Service 45.2 Seven Network Ltd (Stokes) 35.8 Ten Group Ltd 32.0 Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd (Packer) 27.8 News Ltd (Murdoch) 20.3 Prime Network 12.2 TWT Holdings Ltd 11.2 Southern Cross Broadcasting Aust. Ltd 10.2 Telecasters Australia Ltd 8.7 APN (O'Reilly) 7.1 Village Roadshow 6.5 Lamb Family 6.2 Fairfax Group 5.9 NBN Ltd 4.7 Sunraysia TV Ltd 3.5 West Australian Newspapers 1.5 Rural Press/JB Fairfax 1.3
Ivor Reis (Chanticleer) in the Australian Financial Review of 13 May 1997 has also constructed a table based on the 'share of voice model' confined to private sector media interests. That table shows that PBL (Kerry Packer) has 28.67% share of an aggregated media market (comprising television, radio, newspapers and magazines) while News (Rupert Murdoch) has 20.39%.
Allowing for the fact that such indices do not measure actual media influence but reflect the relative potential to influence the media, it is also worth noting the importance of the national broadcaster (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and the relative potential to influence available to the Seven and Ten Networks. A more detailed analysis of these issues is found in the Appendix to this paper.
Australia's foreign ownership restrictions are found in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and Government policy announcements on permitted levels of foreign ownership. Foreign ownership in television broadcasting is regulated separately under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
A foreign person must not have control of an Australian television broadcasting licence nor hold company interests exceeding 15%. Two or more foreign persons must not have company interests exceeding 20%. These limits of 15% and 20% really relate to control in the conventional corporate sense of voting shares or directorships. As mentioned previously, there is already the somewhat anomalous situation with the television broadcaster the Ten Network in which the Canadian media company CanWest holds a 57% economic interest, as well as shares amounting to 14.99% of the issued voting shares.
A 'foreign person' is a foreign citizen who is not ordinarily resident in Australia, unless (a) that person has been in Australia for 200 days in the previous twelve months and (b) there is no legal limitation on that person remaining in Australia. (28)
Unlike television, there is no media-specific regulation of foreign investment in radio and newspapers. Foreign ownership of radio and newspapers is regulated under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. This means that a starting point for notification to the Treasurer (via the Foreign Investment Review Board within the Treasury) of a foreign investment proposal is 15%. The Treasurer is guided by the principle of what is in the public interest if a higher percentage of foreign investment is sought. In other words, the 15% point is a notification requirement and it is not a fixed legislative limit. For example, the former Labor Government moved the percentage limit of individual foreign investment to 25% for mass circulation newspapers in April 1993. Unrelated foreign investment (in addition to an individual limit of 25%) was set at 5%.(29)
Proposals for foreign investment in radio are considered on a case-by-case basis. (30) The starting point, of course, is the standard notification requirement of a 15% investment.
The cross-media rules and the specific issue of foreign investment in television are also matters for the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Foreign investment in radio or newspapers (assuming no cross-media issue is involved) is a matter for the Foreign Investment Review Board which in turn advises the Treasurer. Apart from the publication of broad statistics and guidelines, the deliberations of the Foreign Investment Review Board are confidential. This system is not without its critics, who have argued for a more publicly accountable system. The Senate Select Committee on Certain Aspects of Foreign Ownership Decisions in Relation to the Print Media said of the Foreign Investment Review Board in June 1994:
It is suggested that the following options for cross-media regulation are open to Government:
On balance, and at the time of writing this paper, it seems more likely that the end result will be the retention of the status quo, at least for this Parliamentary term (due to run to May 1999 or no later than 3 July 1999). This is due, at least in part, to reported backbench concern over the potential for the majority of the mass media in Australia to be subject to undue concentration with an assumed diminution of diversity. The Labor Opposition, as well as the minor parties in the Senate, are likely to oppose any major changes to the cross-media laws.
The existing intersection of regulatory agencies and others which impact on the mass media also needs review. At the Commonwealth level, these agencies are the Australian Broadcasting Authority (broadcasting regulation, cross-media rules and foreign investment in television), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (concentrations in the market) and the Foreign Investment Review Board (foreign investment in the print media and foreign investment, generally). Given the importance of the mass media it may be time to establish a single media-specific regulator.
It is, of course, impossible to measure the actual influence of any media organisation, outlet or proprietor on the nation as a whole. What can be measured is the media's potential or capacity to influence the population. In terms of policy utility and administrative simplicity, the most useful available measures are broadcasting reach and press circulation. These are employed in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and can be readily analysed through the work of Bruce Shearer, 'Media Ownership Update', Communications Update (no. 129, Feb. 1997: 9-30). Audience surveys or ratings can also be useful in indicating the relative impact of broadcasting services, although their variability and complexity could cause some difficulties if they were intended for regulatory use.
It has been suggested that measures such as these could be used as a basis for cross-media regulation. A similar procedure was recently discussed, but not implemented, in the UK (the 'national share of voice'). There are considerable administrative and political difficulties associated with this approach (see Department of the Parliamentary Library Research Note No. 39, 29 April 1996, The 'Share of Voice' Approach to Cross-Media Ownership Control). The nature of the Australian media industry poses an additional difficulty. Unlike the UK, there is no national audience. Instead there is a collection of metropolitan and regional audiences or markets. It would be difficult to use a national cross-media index as the basis for the allocation of broadcasting licences because it would not accurately reflect the situation in individual areas. It would be possible for a regional proprietor to have a complete monopoly of the local commercial media but still rate an insignificant score on a national scale. If cross-media measures are to have an effective role in the allocation of broadcasting licences, then it would be necessary to create specific indices corresponding to the licence areas.
Although cross-media indices may have the appearance of statistical impartiality, their creation will inevitably involve a large degree of subjectivity-particularly in the selection and weighting of the various media. Whatever the merits of the method, its application cannot be anything but arbitrary. The establishment of a scale representing cross-media influence with statutory limits will inevitably require arbitrary cut-off points (like the current 15% ownership limit). The determination of these limits will be a political decision assessed with reference to existing circumstances. For example, will such-and-such a limit on the scale permit a newspaper proprietor to control a television and/or radio station if there is no other local newspaper or broadcasting stations in the licence area? The question then arises: if the scale and its limits are to be determined by what is
considered acceptable in particular circumstances, then why not simply mandate those circumstances in the legislation ?
It is often argued that the convergence of media through new technology has necessitated the development of new measures of media influence. This claim is easily overstated. The impact of new media such as the Internet and pay TV on Australian audiences has been small when compared with the traditional media. The ABS survey of household computer use in February 1996 indicated that some 3.9 million persons used a computer at home in that month. However, only 262,000 used the computer to access the Internet. Nor has the Internet added greatly to the diversity of sources. A survey of online users in December 1996 indicated that seven of the ten favourite media web sites were electronic versions of existing print media and the ABC (Sydney Morning Herald, 24 April 1997). With regard to pay TV, in February 1997 there were approximately 553,000 subscribers to the major services (Australian Financial Review, 13 March 1997). This represents about 8 per cent of households. In comparison, 99 per cent of homes have a TV and 84 per cent watch daily. In 1994 the average weekly time spent viewing TV for households was just under 39 hours. The average weekly time spent listening to the radio for people aged over 10 years was just over 23 hours. For the press, each day just over 3 million papers are sold, with a further one million metro/suburban papers being given away. (ABA, Trends & Issues, February 1996, 'Broadcast Audiences in the 90s' and Shearer, op.cit).
If the cross-media rules are to be amended to take into account the influence of the 'new media', then there is an even stronger case for including existing traditional media such as magazines and suburban newspapers. For example, compare the 262,000 users of the Internet in February 1996 with the one million sales of the Women's Weekly, the 400,000 copies of the Bulletin sold over the same period, or the thirty million suburban newspapers that land on the nation's front lawns each month.
This appendix uses the work of Shearer and some other indicators to derive two measures of the potential of media organisations to influence the Australian population. The first is Cross-media Population Reach. This is derived from the number of households who are able to receive the signal of television and/or radio stations controlled by a media organisation, plus the circulation of daily, Sunday, regional and suburban press and magazines. The second, Cross-media Audience Share, comprises that part of the audience who are watching/listening to a particular organisation's television and radio stations (as indicated by the ratings), plus paid print circulation (i.e., excluding the suburban press).
The Reach Index (or variations of it) would be most appropriate in regulatory terms as it based on measures currently applied in broadcasting legislation. The Share Index is simply an attempt to reflect the actual, as opposed to the potential, audiences of the various media organisations. It has too many limitations to be anything but illustrative.
The crucial question in the development of any cross-media index is the relative weighting of the two dominant media-television and the press. In this Appendix it has been assumed that a household's daily access to the broadcast signal of a TV channel is the equivalent of a daily unit of press circulation. Daily access to a radio broadcast has been weighted at 21 per cent of a TV broadcast. This percentage reflects the ratio of commercial television to radio licences, the assumption being that the relative influence of a licensee or broadcaster will depend largely upon the range of alternative sources in the same medium. For the print media, comparative equivalence has been achieved by converting the circulation of weekly and monthly publications to a daily average.
Broadcasting licensees and press proprietors have been attributed all of the audience or circulation of the media they control. Where ownership of a media outlet is shared equally, then the audience/circulation has also been shared unless indicated otherwise. It is also possible to attribute audience/circulation in proportion to minority interests, thus reflecting the fact that influence can exist without control. The main effect of adopting this approach is to increase the index rating of News Ltd (Murdoch) and to a lesser degree, PBL (Packer) and Ten (CanWest).
Any cross-media index derived from audience statistics related to ownership understates the potential influence of the three commercial networks. Since the aggregation of regional markets these networks now reach over 90 per cent of the population. The most powerful network is Nine, as it can command the highest percentage of its advertisers' and affiliates' revenue because of the popularity of its programs. Yet Nine's own licence coverage is the smallest of the three networks: 51.2 per cent of the population, compared to Seven's 71.4 per cent and Ten's 64.6 per cent. In reality, the three commercial networks have approximately the same potential to influence the population, rather than the wide range presented by any index derived from audience statistics related to ownership.
The Audience Share Index uses ratings to adjust the population reach figures to reflect the relative influence of the networks. Ratings, or the share of the television viewing population watching a particular program, are an imperfect measure for this purpose. Average network ratings are an artificial construct. Actual ratings can vary with time, season and location, not to mention programs. A better measure of influence would be audience reach, or the percentage of television households who watch a particular station at any stage over a given period of time. However, these figures are not readily available so the ratings figures published by the Australian Broadcasting Authority have been used.
Tables 1 and 2 provide details of the measures and methods used to calculate the indices for the broadcasting and press/magazine sectors respectively. Table 3 contains the Population Reach Index and the Audience Share Index. Each Index has two versions: one represents the audience/circulation of media outlets controlled by each major media organisation; the second also includes attributed audience/circulation in proportion to the minority interests of each media organisation.
Note: minority interests (and totals that include minority interests) have been placed in brackets.
Media Organisation TV Max TV Max TV Share TV Share Pay TV Radio Max Radio Radio C-M Pop C-M Aud Audience Audience (% H'holds 4 Subs 5 Audience Adjusted Share Reach Share 1 H'holds 2 viewer ('000) ('000) (% Pop) 6 H'holds 7 H'holds H'holds 9 H'holds (% Pop) ('000) five cap ('000) '000) 8 ('000) 10 cities)3 ('000)
ABC 99.0 6578.6 14 921.0 99.0 1381.5 303.9 7960.1 1224.9 SBS 77.5 5149.9 2 103.0 65.0 907.0 18.1 6056.9 121.1 PBL/Nine (Packer) 51.2 3402.2 31 1054.7 3402.2 1054.7 (9.3) (3411.5) (1147.7) News Ltd (Murdoch) 140.0 140.0 140.0 (10.3) (684.4) (205.3) (824.4) (345.3) Seven (Stokes) 71.4 4744.5 30 1423.4 4744.5 1423.4 Ten Group Ltd 64.6 4292.7 23 987.3 4292.7 987.3 (4.9) (325.6) (74.9) (3.7) (4618.3) (1062.2) Prime Network 24.7 1641.3 1641.3 TWT Holdings 22.7 1508.4 1508.4 Telecasters Australia Ltd 17.5 1162.9 1162.9 Southern Cross Broad. Aust.Ltd 15.4 1023.3 24.9 347.5 1370.8 NBN Ltd 9.4 624.6 624.6 Sunraysia TV Ltd 7.1 471.8 471.8 APN (O'Reilly) 53.9 752.1 752.1 Village Roadshow 62.7 874.9 874.9 Lamb Family 6.9 458.5 27.0 376.8 835.3 Rural Press/JB Fairfax 5.2 72.6 72.6 NATIONAL AUDIENCE 6645.0 553.0 1395.5 8593.5
Media Organisation Daily Region Sunday Av Paid Suburb Av Total Monthly Weekly Average C-M C-M
Press Press Press Daily Press Daily Mag Mag Daily Reach Share
Circ 1 Circ 2 Circ 3 Press 4 Circ 5 Press 6 Circ 7 Circ 8 Mag 9 Circ 10 Circ 11
('000) ('000) ('000) ('000) ('000) ('000) ('000) ('000) ('000) ('000) ('000)
PBL (Packer) 1884.0 1842.7 324.5 324.5 324.5
(90.0) (16.0) (130.1) (109.4) (180.4) (135.2) (459.7) (433.9)
News (Murdoch) 1620.5 141.2 2569.1 1877.0 3255.4 2342.1 429.3 1442.9 243.6 2585.7 2120.6
Fairfax Group 523.2 93.1 756.6 636.3 1048.6 786.1 786.1 636.3
Seven (Stokes) 42.5 40.5 42.2 122.1 59.7 59.7 42.2
APN (O'Reilly) 196.4 196.4 248.8 203.9 203.9 196.4
West Australian 234.1 7.8 207.3 207.3 207.3 207.3
Newspapers (304.2) (250.8) (250.8)
Rural Press/JB Fairfax 99.1 84.9 34.5 89.8 59.3 8.4 98.2 93.3
(87.0) (102.3) (110.7)
NATIONAL AUDIENCE 2422.3 634.5 3362.7 3100.5 7422.3 4160.8 4065.9 3675.4 657.2 4818.0 3757.7
Note: minority interests (and totals that include minority interests)
have been placed in brackets.
* (100 = total control of all media)
MEDIA ORGANISATION CROSS-MEDIA POPULATION REACH CROSS-MEDIA AUDIENCE SHARE INDEX * 1 INDEX * 2
Controlling Controlling Controlling Controlling Interests and Minority Interests Only and Minority Only Interests Interests
ABC 59.4 9.1 SBS 45.2 0.9 Seven (Stokes) 35.8 10.9 Ten Group 32.0 34.4 7.4 7.9 PBL (Packer) 27.8 28.9 10.3 11.8 News (Murdoch) 20.3 25.4 16.9 18.4 Prime Network 12.2 TWT Holdings 11.2 Southern Cross 10.2 Telecasters Aust. Ltd 8.7 APN (O'Reilly) 7.1 Village Roadshow 6.5 Lamb Family 6.2 Fairfax Group 5.9 4.7 NBN Ltd 4.7 Sunraysia TV Ltd 3.5 West Aust Newspapers 1.5 1.9 1.5 Rural Press/JB Fairfax 1.3 1.4
