Eierskapskonsentrasjon representerer ikke i dag en større trussel for mediemangfold og ytringsfrihet.
Mye tyder på at lov om erverv av eierskap i mediene er en lite effektiv offentlig styringsform ut fra reguleringens intensjoner. Loven har også en uavklart, samfunnsøkonomisk kostnadsside, ved siden av at den bidrar til å fremme utenlandske oppkjøp av norske medier.
Artikkelen presenterer en kritisk analyse av lovens effektivitet og dens utilsiktede konsekvenser basert på dagssituasjonen i det norske mediemarkedet.
Concentration of media ownership is traditionally regarded as a potential threat to freedom of speech and media pluralism. Acknowledging this threat, the Norwegian Parliament in 1997 passed a special legislation, imposing narrow limits on ownership in print and broadcasting media.
This article argues that ownership concentration is very weakly related to freedom of speech and particularly to media pluralism. Hence, the legislation seems to be an ineffective tool as compared to its initial, political intentions. What makes the situation more grave, is that the law implies hidden economic societal costs, and even seems to promote unintended foreign ownership in Norwegian media, specially broadcasting. The article presents empirical facts from Norwegian media business supporting those assertions.
Conclusively, the article suggests that focusing only upon ownership regulation may be generally harmful, because it draws public attention away from more effective ways of promoting media pluralism. Taking the inherent ineffectiveness and negative consequences of the legislation into account, it is reasonable to suggest that the legislation be considered abolished, thus relying only upon the potential of competition control legislation.
