The media in Russia have of late all been abuzz about an issue close to their hearts – themselves. The Media-MOST drama has clogged the airwaves and filled the pages of many newspapers. But we should not let this explosion of coverage drown out another issue concerning the media that is currently under discussion – the question of foreign ownership.

Over the last two years, there has been intense speculation about the changes that are needed to Russia's laws governing foreign ownership of domestic mass media, which at present are pretty much laissez-faire. There is also no law on cross-ownership of broadcast and print media by Russians or foreigners. That means individuals can hold television, radio, newspaper and magazine outlets in a single marketplace, as Vladimir Gusinsky has done in Moscow, and build up a formidable PR apparatus.

Russian practice has been way out of line with Western norms. In the United States, for example, foreigners are not permitted to own more than 25 percent of a broadcast media company – in fact, a Russian attempt to buy up a 30 percent share in an American TV outlet, as CNN founder Ted Turner suggested he may do in the case of NTV, would be declared illegal – and cross-ownership limits prevent anyone from holding both a television license and a newspaper in a single city.

In Australia, the limit on foreign ownership of broadcast and print media is 25 percent. In India, foreign ownership of newspapers and TV stations is forbidden. In EU states, there are also restrictive laws to curb monopolistic tendencies and market concentration to foster competition and to protect local-language media from the ubiquitous presence of English.

Sensing that NTV could soon be taken over by Turner or other foreign media groups, many Duma groups are now promoting a change in Russian law on foreign media control. The idea is nothing new: The Duma has already enacted a limit of 25 percent on foreign ownership of Russian insurance companies, acknowledging that, without the cap, no Russian insurer could survive. Foreign ownership limits are also in legal effect in industries deemed of strategic importance, such as gas and nickel.

Almost all the political parties now seem to agree there should be some restriction on foreign ownership. Bills have been drafted by Duma deputies proposing limits on foreign ownership ranging from 25-50 percent. If adopted, the limit would have a dramatic impact.

Concern over monopolization of Russian media and intellectual space by foreign groups is understandable. It could lead to genuine threats to strategic interests, as there is no guarantee that a foreign owner of a media outlet would not use it first and foremost as a means of increasing his or her own nation's interests over that of Russia.

However, many media companies in Russia are already fully foreign-owned. Independent Media, for example, which controls Vedomosti, the Moscow Times and other publications, is 100 percent foreign-owned – 90 percent by Dutch interests and 10 percent by a Lausanne affiliate of the bankrupt Menatep Bank.

The Russia Journal is also foreign-owned. Such arrangements are defensible from the standpoint of providing greater editorial independence than is possible for most Russian-owned newspapers. Lack of capital on the part of domestic media and the poorly developed advertising market mean that Russian outlets often need to cozy up to powerful figures with deep and generous pockets who have an interest in supporting (or ordering) a partisan journalistic line. Of course, if foreign owners use their capital, their links to rating companies and their ties to foreign advertisers to collude against fair competition from domestic media owners and publishers and to keep secret their balance sheets, then Russian readers are being cheated and editorial independence as such is a sham. But it does not need to be this way.

The fact of the matter is that Russia desperately needs foreign investment in the media sector, as in many others, and strategic partnership with foreign media groups is essential for its growth. No media group is likely to invest in Russia unless a fair degree of control over management and financial issues is available. On the other hand, there is no financial reason for them to seek editorial control as well. Foreign ownership cannot be dismissed out of hand (and we're not just saying this out of our own partisan bias, to get that objection out of the way).

There is not much in the way of will or resources in the Russian media market to effectively control and run profitable and professional media companies. So far, only the boulevard press has show that it can turn a profit.

We have learned that foreign ownership would be restricted across the board and be applied retroactively as per a compromise draft law being discussed. Deputies are said to be keen to study the laws in other European countries and make Russian laws compatible. How the new legislation will be applied to existing foreign-owned media companies is not yet known.

A blanket instruction to existing companies to change their shareholding structures is not realistic. Nor will retroactive application of the coming law be practical. As an alternative, a media board, such as exists in Australia, could be instituted with representatives of the Duma, the media and the government in order to reregister companies, obliging them to transfer their shares to legally acceptable owners over a period of, say, three to five years.

Another idea would be to have an ethics commission, drawn from the media themselves, within a new media board that would oversee the editorial independence of Russian and foreign-owned media.

Either way, while accepting that a change in the media laws is inevitable – with repercussions for our own newspaper – we hope the government and Duma will engage in consultation rather than decree before adopting such laws.