CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION(S) & RECOMMENDATIONS 199-208
2.2 Media Independence: Defining the Concept
29
elements like peace and democracy are able to flourish (Nordenstreng, 2007:16). Furthermore,
“no one can reasonably make a demand for freedom in an unqualified sense – a freedom to do anything one pleases. For it is morally impossible to approve all freedoms” (Hook, 1970:10).
30
one marked by the absence of such a permanent censorship or constant and general control; it is one in which private owners and independent journalists are free to supply news and opinion to the general public under statutes of libel and decency which are applicable to everyone and not capable of arbitrary and discriminatory interpretation by the ruling power. In other words, the chief criterion is the degree of control normally exercised by any official agency which has the power to interfere with the dissemination and discussion of news.
Lowenstein (1970) wrote that “a completely free press is one in which newspapers, periodicals, news agencies, books, radio and televisions have absolute independence and critical ability, except for minimal libel and obscenity laws, the press has no concentrated ownership, marginal economic units or organized self-regulation”. Lowenstein‟s definition makes clear that three entities tend to affect media freedom; these are media owners, economic motives and legal tendencies. Merrill (1974:26) argued that the concept of press freedom is fundamentally „press autonomy‟; that is, freedom from outside control in the professional activities of the news media.
From the point of view of Merrill, “maximum journalistic autonomy is the imperative of journalism”. Merrill‟s position was focused completely on external forces and ignored internal pressures which might emanate from structures within the press. From a more institutionalised perspective, Pratte (1986:31) opined that editorial independence may be said to refer to
newspapers not subject to control by government, religious groups, political parties, business, or other outside interests. Independent newspapers may also be described as those publications that are self-reliant and whose employees are able to think and act for themselves with a minimum of arbitrary outside authority. Another characteristic of an independent newspaper is the ability to remain objective.
In a more inclusive perspective of defining media independence, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) saw media to be free and independent if it is distinguished “from one that is directed or even overtly controlled by government or private interests to one that is more open and has a degree of editorial independence that serves the public interests” (USAID, 1999). USAID‟s stance appears to suggest that a free media should be independent editorially, exhibit pluralism and ultimately pursue the interests of the public.
31
However, the “interests of the public” whom USAID subscribes as one of the features whose fulfilment by the media determines its independence, remain undefined because conversely it may influence the institution‟s autonomy in content presentation. Due to the complexity of the notion of freedom of the press, because different nations with different cultural backgrounds define it differently (Ogbondah, 1994:9), Weaver (1977:152) defined press freedom from three key angles
(i) as the relative absence of governmental restraints on the media; (ii) as the relative absence of governmental and other restraints on the media; and (iii) as not only the absence of restraints on the media, but also the presence of those conditions necessary for the dissemination of a diversity of ideas and opinions to a relatively large audience such as enforced right of access to newspapers and radio stations.
In agreement with USAID, Weaver makes pluralism and the eradication of government influences visible but seemed to obscure enterprises who may be important players in determining the independence of the media in other restraints. The [British] Royal Commission on the Press [RCP] (1977) defined press freedom as that “freedom from restraint which is essential to enable proprietors, editors and journalists to advance the public interest by publishing the facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments” (cited in Curran, 1979:76). The Commission seemed to highlight that an independent press is vital to citizens‟ appreciation of a well-functioning democratic order. Defining press freedom from two major perspectives, Powe (1991:285) was of the view that editorial independence from government and inability of government to direct reportage puts the press in a position to execute its role as a fourth estate - “a role more secure than the nebulous and inconsistent possibilities in the public‟s right to know”. Similarly, Ogbondah (1994:13) explained that press freedom is the “absence of prior restraints and governmental attacks on the press and journalists for expressions of ideas, information and opinions made in the overall interest of the citizens of a society”. Furthermore, Martin (1992:335) asserted that independence of the mass media entails that the press be set free from “state control and coercion” and specifically for the newspaper, it connotes the absolute termination of “direct or indirect state ownership”. From three different descriptions, Asante (1997) pinpointed that the press is free if
32
there is: “relative absence of government restraints; prevalence of autonomy; and ability to serve as the fourth estate that checks the three official arms of the government”.
From a more global perspective, Freedom House (2007) explained the concept of media freedom broadly which covers three clear-cut domains as the legal, political, and economic environments in which media operate to determine their independence. This casts lights on the position of Brunetti and Weder (2003:1806) who contended that the dimensions that violate press freedom are the influences that affect media content through laws and regulation, political interference, economic and repressive actions, under which harassment and arrest among others, is present. Moreover, Peksen (2010:454) highlighted that in an attempt to consolidate media‟s independence, the use of economic sanctions by the international community as a coercive measure has rather intensified media‟s reliance on government subsidies, thus allowing the government able to control the free flow of information. Croteau and Hoynes (1997:67-68) have questioned whether press freedom really means government should take a hands off approach towards the media, as the very media tend to seek government intervention in some matters. An example of this is that, copyright is inseparable from regulation which protects media instead of threatening it, thus the relations between government and media is a complex one suggesting that the definition of regulations should differ from print and broadcast. It is in this state of complexity that Asante (1997:12) noted that generally all countries spell out in their constitution, or statutory laws, or decrees specific items that speak to press freedom and freedom of expression; so the extent of these freedoms differ in different societies. Asante‟s position presupposes that media independence should be defined by law. McQuail debunks this assertion on the grounds that notions of the independence of the media should be a continuous and practical activity.
From the above divergent views on the definition and explanation of what media independence really means, almost all the scholars acknowledged the fact that government, with its legal and political apparatus, is a key player in determining freedom of the media. At the same time, the majority of commentators gave either no, or limited space, to enterprises, and where recognition is given, their influence has tended to be obscured into other restraints. Based on the bits and pieces of media freedom in the literature above, the concept may be defined as: the absence of influences on the media attributed to the institutions of legal, political, economic and socio-cultural settings of society, as well as internal organisational structures of media itself,
33
which inhibit it from executing its role as a watchdog for public interest within the public sphere.
Overall, it can be deduced that the independence of the media is tied to the interplay of both immediate (internal) and remote (external) stakeholders of a defined society.