Proposed changes to the Australian cross‐media regulation prohibiting common ownership of commercial free‐to‐air television and radio services and daily newspapers in the same market and their likely impact on diversity of opinion are evaluated in this paper. The analysis indicates that the replacement of the cross‐media rules with a minimum number of voices rule will lead to increased concentration of main media and reduced diversity. There is little evidence that the Internet and other new media are significantly displacing traditional media as independent sources of opinion in the domestic market. Also, the proposed number of voices rule is assessed as a largely ineffective and inefficient regulation. Consequently, the paper concludes that while abolition of the cross‐media rules might be an appropriate objective in the longer term, the proposed changes are likely to have undesirable effects on diversity of opinion in the immediate future.

PAGES
301 – 322
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’