CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION(S) & RECOMMENDATIONS 199-208
2.6 Media Ownership and Control
Though not all owners can be said to engage in editorial interference, ownership always suggests a level of actual or probable control which subsequently serves as a hindrance to pluralism and diversity (Buckley et al. 2008). It is worth noting that the “growing commercialism of media in the twentieth century and the concentration of ownership cannot very well coexist with media pluralism. „Conglomeratisation‟ is not favourable context for the needed independence of the media” (Bertrand, 2002:3). Viewing media from an organisational horizon, the level of freedom is often measured in terms of the extent of control that owners and managers exercise over media practitioners such as editors and producers; and how they in turn control subordinates like journalists, writers and artists in a structured organisation. The most fundamental concerns here have to do with editorial freedom from owners and controllers (McQuail, 1987). In another context, Miller (2002:106) referred to Ronnie Dugger, the owner and editor of Texas Observer in the States, as having said
keep in mind how the structure of corporate journalism works. The owner of the corporation appoints the CEO who appoints the manager who appoints the editors.
Those [dependent …] editors hire and fire the reporters and decide what stories the reporters are assigned to write, what stories they are not assigned to write, what the
56
stories that are published say and how they say it, and what stories get killed.
The expectation is that the press contributes immensely to the promotion and development of widespread support for the ideals and interests of entities who own and/or control it (Karikari, 1987:31). However, there still remains a justification for controls by proprietors over capitalist press on the traditional notion that the media is a „fourth estate‟, thus making it operations autonomous of government and economic interests alike (Curran, 1979:60).
Writing on „freedom versus control‟, McQuail (2000:30) highlighted that the newspaper press holds on to its historical position of operating freely, directly under its political functions of expressing opinion and disseminating political and economic messages. Nonetheless, the same newspaper is also deemed as a major business entity for which freedom to produce and distribute its key product is an essential condition for operating successfully.
Changes in the structure and ownership of media present a problem for the liberal tradition. Currently several media outlets are owned by large conglomerates. This appears to “fly in the face of the much vaunted claim that the media are neutral institutions which have severed links with sectional interests” (Curran, 2002:130). Regarding the significant position of the media, governors may want to either control or influence the media‟s spread of information that reach their citizens. Issues of control can be executed directly through government monopoly of media ownership or exhibited indirectly through the funding pressure on private media houses to frame content in a certain way (Leeson and Coyne, 2005 cited in Leeson, 2008:155). Apart from controlling the media directly, governments, through indirect ways, can grip the media through the acquisition of essential infrastructure and distribution facilities of a privately-owned media house (Dutta and Roy, 2009:244).
Assessing the repercussion of an ownership type, state ownership of the media may not be good because the government who possesses power use it to benefit its own media establishment with a high degree of distorting or stifling information supplied. Private intervention on the other hand brings to the market competition so that diverse and alternative viewpoints are supplied to voters and audience (Djankov et al, 2001:5). This explains the position of A. J. Leibling who once remarked, “[f]reedom of the press belongs to whoever owns one” (cited in Owers, Carveth and Alexander, 2004:4). The fact that ownership gives birth to
57
control, tends to shape the content supplied to audience and entire society (Djankov et al., 2001:5-6). Despite these positions, in matters of ethical obligations owners are not placed on the same horizon in comparison to their employees (editors/reporters) with respect to subjects such objectivity and lobbying. They tend to renounce certain editorial responsibilities to external interests (Pratte, 1986:32). It is not a question of ownership that matters, but broadly a matter of who really pays for the media product. Instances of media owners who pay personally to influence content, though rare, do exist; profit is the motive of most owners and it is usual that several sources jointly fund media. Some of these are shareholders, consumers, advertisers, government and other subsidised groups. Consequently, the path of influence by owners is indirect and complicated and it is seldom the sole path of influence (Altschull, 1984:198;
Djankov et al., 2001:5-6). Furthermore, Guthrie argued that
Despite all the talk about threat to newspapers, the biggest threats come from within them. As newspaper managements struggle to please both shareholder and readers, it is journalism which suffers. Proprietors, increasingly conglomerates or with aspirations to be so, want maximum returns, while readers have a right to expect their papers, particularly broadsheets, to fulfill their accepted societal role. Both these demands are entirely understandable. But are they reconcilable? At the very least they are creating a kind of identity crisis in newspapers […] For the sake of circulation, or profit, we are being urged to compromise our journalistic integrity. We might win short-term circulation gains, or a better-looking bottom line, but we do our own industry‟s reputation long-term harm (Guthrie, 1997:57; cited in Grattan, 1998:7-8).
As part of effort to lessen the dreads that come with ownership and control of media, Akhavan-Majid et al (1991) referred to Knight-Ridder‟s comment: “We bought them. But we don't own them”. However, this stance does not erase the fact that there exists the tendency of control in the event of a change in a firm‟s policy or indirectly influencing editorial independence (Akhavan-Majid, Rife and Gopinath, 1991:60). Hallow (2011:350-1) concluded that whenever owners assume the position of caretakers in the newsroom to advance their own economic or partisan programme, there is a high possibility that all-inclusive news will be shattered for content that promotes their interests. Such owner-shaped news is lop-sided and hinders the process of democracy because the populace are not informed fully. By this, any
58
attempt by owners of big newspaper chains to influence content on issues of national concerns would spell the greatest threat to freedom of accessing information in a democratic order (Akhavan-Majid et al, 1991:60).
2.6.1: Media Ownership in Africa
Overall, independent sub-Saharan Africa had a population of 240 million as at 1974, but published 71 papers, the least of daily newspapers published compared to any other continent.
Putting the control of information flow in Africa under a microscope, of the 71 dailies, 47 were owned and managed by the state or quasi-state organisations. Incumbent political parties, especially those in one-party state also owned and run another four while the remaining twenty papers had private ownership (Wilcox, 1975:45). Currently, the population of the Continent has increased sharply and is estimated to be around 1.166 billion in 2015 (World Population Review, 2015). However, compared with other continents, Africa is deemed the world‟s poorest in terms of media facilities with fewer print, broadcasts and information technologies (De Beer et al., 1995:212). Notwithstanding this, the control of the media is seen by most African governments after the colonial era as a crucial means to consolidate and personalise the power of the state. As a result, strict legal channels and actions were applied to silence privately-owned print media when they occasionally attempt to disseminate diverse point of views contrary to content of the state-owned media (Aginam, 2005:125). Governments in poorer countries tend to hold ownership of the media and their regimes are autocratic and above all, hold ownership of the state economy. On average, 61% of the topmost five daily newspapers in circulation in Africa are controlled by governments (Djankov et al, 2001:4, 18). Nonetheless, there exist a real threat in Africa that newspapers and sister publication units may escape from government control just to be „swallowed‟ by foreign interests (Martin, 1992:335).
In the media horizon, public interest is of prime importance but if the media in most parts of the African continent are controlled and suppressed by relevant state authorities or private entities, then there is likelihood that such interests will be ignored and rather the agenda of the few elite class in such countries will be pursued (Mukhongo, 2010:348). In this instance, where alternate views are absent or ignored, the media deviate from its core mandate of representing an entire nation, to rather being a representative of specific ethnics, groups and segments of society (Gecau, 1996:207). McChesney (2008:72) argues:
59
Just as they are today, the political and economic interests of the elites were naturally conservative and deeply intertwined. Publishers depended on retailers to advertise;
retailers depended on manufacturers to produce; and everyone depended on the financiers to float the upper echelon of economic development. The politicians often came from these ranks and served this class with quite explicit design. They presided over the status quo and had no intention of allowing that favourable situation to change newspapers became a powerful device for social control and public manipulation.
But if the media environment is to be one that stimulates participation leading to the overall development in Africa, then content diversification alone is inadequate and requires ownership diversification which encapsulates the ownership of profitable, non-profitable, public and community media outlets (Buckley et al., 2008).