本文觀察旺旺併二中與中嘉案件，指出我國媒體所有權有集中化之趨勢，而且至今尚未訂立出完備的法律制度來因應此等壟斷問題。由於防範媒體壟斷的管制爭議很多，本文的論證將聚焦於結構管制的必要性與跨媒體集中度測量之方法。論述架構的方向上，除了檢視媒體的一般競爭結合管制問題之外，更側重媒體民主機能的健全發展，並探討我國現行規範之不足，尤其針對跨媒體結合的管制困境，試圖尋找適當的解決出路。 本文認為，依循反托拉斯法的結合管制架構來規範跨媒體結合，管制上有過度寬鬆之疑慮，應該採取更嚴格的管制手段，以避免過多的結合行為破壞市場秩序。其次，統整國外的做法與相關經驗，對於跨媒體集中度的測量方式，建議適度修正美國FCC於2003年提出的多樣化指數(Diversity Index)模型，使其調整成適於我國媒體產業與社會民情的計算方法。雖然該模型於實施前因為有其假設的矛盾之處，最後被美國聯邦第三上訴巡迴法院予以駁回，然其對於媒體的「意見市場」分出階層性的管制，能夠促進管制的效率，因此仍值得我國參考。對於公共利益的判斷，借鏡英國Ofcom與美國FCC的管制經驗，本文主張以觀點多元化、消費者利益、新聞獨立性、媒體經營者適格性等事項審議媒體併購案，對於這些項目之判斷樹立原則性規範，讓結構管制的密度更高，方能達成促進民主政治發展之效果。 ;Using Want China Times Media Group’s merger disputes as examples, Taiwan’s regulatory challenges are examined. Due to the wide array of complex problems which remain unresolved, the focus will be on describing the necessity of ownership regulation and searching for a better method or model to calculate the cross-media concentration ratio. In addition to viewing the problems of antitrust regulation of media mergers, an emphasis is placed on the maintenance and enhancement of press media’s functional character in a democratic society. Based on this analysis, it is determined that Taiwan’s current regulations are inadequate. The issues arising from cross-media mergers in Taiwan and possible solutions to these regulatory problems are then explored. It is argued that following the theory of American antitrust regulations applying to cross-media mergers would be ineffective; therefore the Fair Trade Commission should adopt stricter regulations. Because Taiwan’s Fair Trade Commission abides by the same pattern of antitrust regulations, the thresholds set by our Competition Authority should also be revised in order to preserve market order. Compiling the experiences of foreign countries, it is suggested that Taiwan revise the Diversity Index Model originally delivered by the FCC to fit into its individual society and legal system. Although this Model has its own deficiencies and was even revoked by the Federal Court of Appeals, its goal of dividing up hierarchically controlled “opinion markets” would be a good start towards improving regulatory effectiveness. Regarding the determination of public interest, reference is made to Ofcom’s and the FCC’s experiences. It is proposed that Taiwan take these items into consideration, including the representation of diverse viewpoints, benefits to consumers, independence of the press and the qualifications of media owners. It is concluded that stricter regulatory schemes will enhance the media’s role in the maintenance of healthy democracy.
