10

Polish channel TVN24 was in the news recently over an attempt to force it to change owners:

The draft bill, which was submitted to Parliament on July 7 by a group of PiS lawmakers, would amend Article 35 of the Broadcasting Act to bar companies which are majority-owned by entities from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) from owning more than a more than 49% stake in Polish media.

TVN24 and its parent company TVN have been 100% owned by U.S.-based Discovery, Inc. since 2015 through a subsidiary registered in the Netherlands, to meet current requirements under Polish law. If approved, the new regulation would strengthen those restrictions to ban Discovery from owning TVN through its Dutch subsidiary.

This means Discovery would have six months to adjust and could be faced with selling 51% of its stakes in TVN, which is valued at around $1 billion. If it did not, TVN’s channels such as TVN24 could be stripped of their media licenses by the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT).

Similar restrictions were in place until 2013 in the US but they've since been repealed. Are there other countries with similar rules of media ownership?

Rick Smith
  • 35,501
  • 5
  • 100
  • 160
JonathanReez
  • 50,757
  • 35
  • 237
  • 435
  • 2
    Note that broadcast company is not the same as media company. The former "own" (or rather are licensed) a part of the EM spectrum, so could potentially do physically annoying or even damaging things with it. It's more on par with US/Western worry about giving China a big role in digital infrastructure etc. – the gods from engineering Aug 10 '21 at 22:52
  • Related: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21999/how-does-the-judicial-independence-in-poland-after-the-reforms-compare-to-other – JonathanReez Aug 11 '21 at 16:38

1 Answers1

24

Yes, such rules are quite common, even in countries which generally place relatively few restrictions on doing business. Many governments believe that allowing foreign investors direct control of national news media gives up too much political influence to outsiders, who may use their platforms to sway public opinion in a direction that is harmful to the country. A few examples from large democracies:

  • India limits foreign investors to 49% ownership of many broadcast services and 26% of newspapers and periodicals dealing with news and current affairs. For digital media, a recent regulation requires that the CEO and a majority of any digital media company’s board of directors must be Indian citizens and limits foreign investment to 26%.

  • Indonesia limits foreign ownership of media and journalism businesses to 49%. In fact, this is a recent liberalization of regulations which previously prohibited all foreign direct investment in such businesses. For broadcasting businesses, the limit is only 20%.

  • Brazil's Law No. 10,610/2002 forbids foreign ownership of more than 30% of news companies and broadcasting companies (radio and TV).

  • Several EU countries limit ownership of media companies by non-EU investors. (EU members are prohibited from blocking media investment from other EU countries.) For example, France limits non-EU investors to 20% ownership of French-language daily newspapers, radio broadcasters, and terrestrial television companies.

  • Canada limits total foreign ownership of companies in the telecommunications (fixed-line and mobile/wireless infrastructure and services) and television broadcasting sectors to 46%.

Thorondor
  • 1,511
  • 1
  • 9
  • 15
  • 1
    Huh, are Canada or France criticized for having this law? Sounds like Poland isn't doing anything special. – JonathanReez Aug 10 '21 at 23:15
  • 1
    @JonathanReez: I'm not incredibly familiar with TVN24, but form its Wikipedia, they don't seem to have been licensed a part of the spectrum. They're just a cable channel that's annoying to PiS due to its [critical] contents. – the gods from engineering Aug 10 '21 at 23:23
  • 9
    @JonathanReez No, PIS in Poland really isn't doing anything special here. However, they have been quite autocratic in the last 5 or so years - including severe infringement on judicial autonomy - so anything they do to enforce government/national control gets a more sinister interpretation than it would otherwise. Neither France nor Canada are suspected to be veering towards authoritarianism at this moment. The facts you describe can't be interpreted in isolation, no matter how justified a normal Polish govt might be to cry foul on US ownership. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Aug 11 '21 at 01:16
  • 3
    @JonathanReez Poland is hardly the only country that's been criticized for this sort of policy. For example, the US State Department recently accused Canada of "maintaining investment stifling prohibitions in the telecommunication sector." However, friendly countries normally prefer to resolve such disagreements through trade negotiations behind closed doors. As ItalianPhilosophers said, this particular issue probably wouldn't have attracted much attention in the absence of other political and ideological differences. – Thorondor Aug 11 '21 at 03:31
  • @JonathanReez context could be very relevant. An old, established law no longer handicaps the companies, as they have adapted to it. OTOH the introduction of the law may introduce disruptions, if it forces changes into some companies. And if there is suspicion that the true purpose of the law is hurting companies that are critical of the government... – SJuan76 Aug 11 '21 at 07:18
  • 1
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica "Neither France nor Canada are suspected to be veering towards authoritarianism at this moment" - tell that to the pro-disease protestors. – Reasonably Against Genocide Aug 11 '21 at 08:37
  • 1
    @Thorondor Why are you surprised that the US doesn't like the idea of other countries having news media that is independent of US control? Especially when they share a common border. Shock, horror - some US citizens might even be able to find out what foreigners say about them! – alephzero Aug 11 '21 at 13:10
  • What I want to know is where did the number 46% come from? Most of the other percentages are round numbers, and 49% is just under half. – Barmar Aug 11 '21 at 13:19
  • Yes, Canada is criticized for restricting media ownership, but it's also criticized for not restricting media ownership enough. – DJClayworth Aug 11 '21 at 14:23
  • 8
    @JonathanReez The main issue is the timing. The law is practically tailor-made to target TVN, and attempts at modifying the law to exclude non-OECD countries, for example (in accordance to the spirit of the law as told by PiS, which was to exclude authoritarian foreign interests), were rejected. TVN has applied for an extension of its broadcasting license 17 months ago, and KRRiT has not processed it in any way, breaking records in the length of the process, without any reason. Law changing who can be given license is being changed just 1.5 months before TVN broadcasting license expires. – Diamond Dust Aug 11 '21 at 14:33
  • Regarding this answer and the EU: the link shows that most countries in the EU don't actually have any such restrictions. In fact it says "only 5 EU member countries set limits to foreign capital in the media sector". So France is more like the exception than the EU norm. – the gods from engineering Aug 11 '21 at 16:47
  • 1
    I am in Poland right now; while I don't speak the language, people around me are always updating me with the politics and it is clearly a way to muffle the opposition, done with the right timing. – Thomas Aug 11 '21 at 19:29