National and international media
development and aid programs often embrace the objective of developing
independent media as a means of promoting democratic development. They do so in hopes of reducing political
power over media, but fail to acknowledge that all media and communication infrastructures are
systemically influenced by economic and social, as well as political power. And
they often seem to ignore the reality that the history and cultures of nation
states affect how that power is exercised. Media systems and their content, and
the degree of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, are reflections
of the alignment of the dominant cultural elements in society.
Even
in the West, most notably within European Union and Council of Europe governing
institutions, efforts to promote media independence are gaining significant
support—particularly when applied to media in Central and Eastern Europe.
The
term media independence is often used naively and imprecisely, consequently
those pursuing it often appear to be pursuing something that exists nowhere and
is an impossible dream. Independence is
really evidenced by its opposite; it is indicated by degrees of dependence or
interdependence and their consequences, because full independence is
impossible. Very often the term is used as an objective without even specifying
independence from what and for what.
Independence is affected by factors
internal to media, such as ownership, decision-making control, and dependence
on resources and revenue sources. It is also affected by external factors such
as influence through persuasion and criticism, cooption through financial and
other material support, and coercion through threats and retaliatory exercise
of power.
One needs to be wary of the assumption that
ownership determines independence of media. Many assume that
state media are dependent and non-state media are independent. In reality,
public service, privately owned commercial media, and foundation-supported
media may or MAY NOT be independent. In Saudi Arabia, for example, state media
are owned and operated by the monarchy and private media are owned by princes
and persons close to the crown. There is little difference between them with
issues of politics, economics, and social lives are addressed.
The press is relatively separate from
government and politics in Germany but not in Hungary, yet it still represents
an elite perspective. Public service
broadcasting is reasonably independent of government in Sweden, but not so in
Serbia.
The state, the government, social elites and powerful individuals, funders
such as sponsors, advertisers, and foundations, and media consumers all
influence the amount of independence. The more those influences align, the
greater independence is diminished.
Programs aiding democratic development
usually promote private, commercial media. Few efforts to support
not-for-profit media outlets exist, however. Not-for-profits are emerging in
response to independence challenges in private commercial media and public
service broadcasting. Not-for-profits tend to be the most independent of media
firms, but they can be dependent on sponsors and funders (parties, unions,
churches, NGOs, foundations) and many face sustainability issues.
To create greater independence all media must
ensure levels of dependence on any single source of funding are relatively low
and that there are multiple sources of income (sponsors, foundations,
consumers, members, advertisers, events) to spread dependence risks. A good
rule of thumb is that if more than one-third of income is from one source, a
media firm becomes vulnerable to influence and may become unsustainable if it
is rapidly reduced.
Media independence is a lovely ideal, but can only be partly achieved in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment