The Constitutional Court has declared unconstitutional parts of the Newspaper Law and the Press Arbitration Law. Both have been under endless attack from conservative newspapers. Specifically, the court found that the section on "market-dominant" companies is too strict in comparison to the Fair Trade Law, and that preventing support for market-dominant companies is inconsistent with the constitution. It also found unconstitutional parts of the Newspaper Law's procedures for filing legal motions demanding newspapers print corrections.
Overall, however, the court's decision recognizes the aims of these laws, which are to guarantee diversity in the newspaper market and make newspapers more socially responsible. This is evidenced in how it upheld sections requiring newspapers to disclose portions of their business data and appoint a staff member to be responsible to protect readers' interests.
It also chose to uphold the main spirit of the Press Arbitration Law, which seeks to make it possible for individuals to respond quickly to inaccurate news reports. It is also significant that the court found constitutional the restriction, controversial in some quarters, which prohibits the same company from publishing newspapers and working in the areas of television or radio broadcasting.
However, it is unfortunate how the court has made it difficult to prevent a few conservative newspapers from using money as weapons to seize the market and pervert public opinion. The Fair Trade Law calls any three companies that have a 75-percent market share "market-dominant" businesses, but the Newspaper Law does the same when there is a 60-percent market share. According to the court, that regulation fails to function as an adequate means to guarantee diversity in newspapers and a "market-dominant" position is ultimately determined by individual and willful choices made by the reading public. Using the same logic, it also found the prohibition on government support for market-dominant newspapers to be unconstitutional.
That might not be all that wrong if you look only at the abstract logic of it. However, that part of the court's decision is out of touch with reality. Currently, the newspaper market is not led by "individual and willful choice made by readers," it is determined by sales promotions based on money, in which newspapers give away free papers and excessive gifts in exchange for subscriptions. The market is led by suppliers, not by those in demand of the product. Newspapers may be private companies, but they also need to be recognized as having an unique public role. Furthermore, there is no reason for the massive newspaper companies already dominating the market to receive government financial assistance. Giving those private companies funds will not be justified until the government protects and fosters the development of newspapers that speak with diverse voices, in order to be true to the public's interests.
The fact the court said it is unconstitutional to keep newspaper companies from owning other newspaper companies is also of concern. Many experts will tell you that the point behind keeping companies from simultaneously engaging in both broadcasting and newspaper publishing is basically to prevent the ill effects of monopoly. Those same negative side effects also occur when one company owns several newspapers. And now that it will be even harder to determine a company to be "market-dominant," you worry that the problems of monopoly will grow even more serious. That is something that needs to be given ample consideration in the course of amending the law, as will have to be done in the wake of the court's decision.
It is also worth looking at the court's decision that it is unconstitutional to require people seeking corrections printed to follow the legal procedures for provisional injunctions. The court's decision makes sense by itself, but it needs to consider how that part of the law was created to help people protect themselves from being victimized by the media and to be able to take action in a timely manner. Media reports spread quickly and are often forgotten after a certain period of time. That makes it important that corrections are printed promptly, so there is a need for something to be legislated into place so that, unlike regular lawsuits, people can act quickly to correct inaccurate reports.
The court's decision is cause for concern in various areas, but it is significant in that it gives legitimacy to the basic aims behind the Newspaper Law and the Press Arbitration Law, all the more so because the country's conservative newspapers have been making quite a fuss about them for supposedly being laws meant to suppress the media. The wasteful debate about the Newspaper Law needs to be put to rest. Now what needs to happen is a search for diverse policy methods for preventing monopolies, methods that respect the spirit of the court's decision. There must be no indolence in the moves to guarantee the existence of diverse newspapers, for this will, in turn, encourage balanced public opinion.
[Editorial] Newspaper Law decision overlooks important concerns |
