Cross-media ownership is a situation in which a single corporate entity owns multiple types of media companies. The types of media companies owned may include print, radio, television, movie and internet media sites. Owning multiple types of media companies allows a single corporation to build cross-linked walled gardens that corral customers and their money to the corporation’s child companies and create an environment of controlled messages.

Media is called the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. It plays a crucial role as a medium of communication between the government and the people. In today’s world, thanks to technology, news is available to everybody at anytime at their fingertips, and it moulds public opinion of almost everything. Thus, it becomes important to know the source and intent of the news one reads. Different media groups provide us with diverse opinions. Media pluralism reflects an essential tenet of democracy i.e. freedom of speech. It plays a vital role in sustaining a democracy and therefore, it is essential that media itself functions in a democratic manner. Hence, in order to serve its inherent purpose, it is vital that media channels provide to its readers true content without any biases or motives. Media is a powerful institution and under wrong influences, it can act as a threat to democracy.

Oligarchy in any business is considered unhealthy. However, unfortunately, the current trends in media market point towards cross media ownership. Cross media ownership is a situation in which a single media producer owns different channels of communication, which include print, digital, television, radio etc.

We, however, see it spreading unregulated in the Indian scenario. One of the best-selling English newspapers in India, The Times of India, owns 40 other new media businesses. Similarly, other major groups such as Essel group (owner of Zee media) and Hindustan Times have influence over more than one media platforms. It's not surprising that the majority of the news channels today are either owned or controlled by political parties or corporate houses. Moreover, political parties and corporate entities have a symbiotic relationship. Corporates provide parties with funds and, in return, political parties help them grow their business. An ideal media would expose this unfair nexus, but today, it has also become one of them.

Political parties use media outlets for lobbying purposes as a medium to achieve their vested interests, and especially as an instrument to promote their party during elections. They own the channels either directly in their own name, through their relatives or through corporate companies.

All over the world today, corporate entities own most of the media platforms. For them, it is not just a source to reap profits and expand their business, but also a way towards influence and power. By investing in media groups, they pursue their economic interests. Rupert Murdoch is a well known name in the media empire. He not only owns media platforms in Australia, but also has influence over foreign media platforms including India. In India, the Reliance group, run by the Ambani family, has major control over media channels. Media group Network 18 is owned by them; Network 18 in turn owns several television news channels.

Ownership of corporate firms restricts the ease and credibility of media. The institution of media, ideally, should remain independent from any kind of fear, pressure or external interference in their affairs. Sadly, media groups today are dependent on political parties and corporate entities for investment and thus, fear to report anything against them. All this has led to rise in commercialisation of news, paid news, sensational news stories and propaganda news. Thus, what the readers or viewers get is filtered and manipulative information.

The Indian media, during its beginning in the independence days, emerged as the voice of the people and the nation. It had a mission and a purpose to serve the nation. It represented a collective voice of the people against the British oppression. Media was then strong and independent. But post independence, the sanctity and integrity of this institution started declining. Today, media is witnessing dark times where it has surrendered its powers to those with money. This issue has not received due attention. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting referred this issue to TRAI twice, in 2008 and 2014. The TRAI, in its consultation paper, recommended measures to regulate media ownership.

Apart from India, cross media ownership exists in many other countries. The US, the UK, Australia and Canada have formulated laws to limit media ownerships in their countries. Australia and Canada have a blanket restriction on the entry of a media entity into more than one or two media segments. After studying the laws in these countries, TRAI recommended that political bodies, religious bodies, government institutions and other publicly funded bodies should not be allowed to own media groups as media plurality is necessary in building public opinion. Except for the formulation of Press Council of India in 1978, no other action has been taken to check media ownership. No strict action has been taken on the recommendation given by the TRAI. In the current scenario, media should no more function as a self-regulated body. Regulations in media is the need of the hour. Despite living in a democracy, citizens find it hard to get to the truth. Their rights are being violated by those who are meant to protect them.