The Media Policies in the UK and Libya - Term Paper Example

Media policy in United Kingdom and Libya Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Introduction This essay will explore the media policies in the UK and Libya by considering different aspects of specific conditions in each country. Firstly, it will demonstrate the issues behind the process of policy-making in general and then discuss the specific issues that have shaped or might shape the UK and Libya’s media policy. Discussion Nowadays media is simplifying people’s communication process by various ways and plays a crucial role of delivering information between the authority and the public. As Blumler and Gurevitch states, ‘the advances of communications technologies in the last few decades have had such a profound impact on the way political actors communicate with the public, on the proliferation of media formats, and on the dynamics of information distribution across the globe’ (Blumler and Gurevitch, 2005). New communication technologies are providing various approaches for the public to receive and digest the information and at the same time the public is also enabled to publish their own views in terms of particular events by these technologies (Blumler and Gurevitch, 2005). This circulation of information seems facilitates the dynamic of communication environment but it is also can be seen that the public maintained to be the passive recipients within the media system. As Van Cuilenburg and McQuail state media policy focuses mainly on newspapers, broadcasting, cable and other similar means of general public distribution and the main concerns of media policy are with freedom, diversity, quality of content and public accountability (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). Since media policy plays such significant role therefore the process of policy-making should be put enough concerns (Gurevitch, Coleman & Blumler, 2009). Doctor Des Freedman from the department of media and communications of University of London conducted a sophisticated research that examines the balance of power in contemporary British media policy-making by interviewing 40 actual participants in the policy-making process. According to the interviews he found that the public is still remains as a largely passive force in the policy-making process (Freedman, 2005),‘although the public’s opinions are collected by the authority but there are few opportunities for individual members of the public to come into direct contact with and to influence the core policy-making process’. As Van Cuilenburg and McQuail discussed, policy formation is generally ‘guided by a notion of the “public interest”, a matter of “public interest” is one that affects the society as a whole (or sections of it) rather than just the individuals immediately involved or directly affected’ (Blumler and Gurevitch, 2005). However what Freedman found actually reveals the fact that although a range of voices were heard during the policy-making process, ‘there is little opportunity to question the fundamental assumptions about the desirability of “competition” and “consumer sovereignty” that increasingly dominates media policy-making’ (Freedman, 2005). The United Kingdom, which recognized as one of the most powerful and developed countries in the world has its own complexities in terms of media policy-making. The main policy issues and concepts that have shaped the media policy in the UK include the goals and objectives to be pursued, the values and criteria defining the goals, the contents and communication services that apply to the policies and the different distribution services (Gurevitch, Coleman & Blumler, 2009). Furthermore, the policy makers are also supposed to put into consideration the appropriate policy measures and the implementation means (Blumler and Gurevitch, 2005). Normally, the distribution services would include print publishing, satellite, cable and broadcast dissemination of information together with telecommunications (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail 2003, p. 184). The concept of implementation is embodied either in the laws, the regulations, and self-regulation or in the market prices (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail 2003, p 184). Subsequently, media policy in the UK is also shaped upon public interest. The general public interest has three major components: the social welfare, the political welfare and the economic welfare of the people (Gurevitch, Coleman & Blumler, 2009). Political welfare encompasses aspects such as freedom of expression and democracy. In any media policy, a good measure of weight must be given to values of participation and equality. In this respect, then it means that there must be wide availability and equality to the public to access all means and contents of communication (Van Cuilenburg & McQuail 2003, p. 185). It also includes access to participate in civic life. On the other hand, social welfare concerns social order and cohesion, in the sense that these must be well outlined in any media policy. This must be national, sub-national, regional, and ethnic as well as linguistic (Van Cuilenburg & McQuail, 2003). It must cover both social and cultural objectives, preventing harm to the public and avoiding offences of public communication. Similarly, economic welfare of the people will require that any media policy must enable a national policy to function well in terms of production and market terms. Therefore, the communication system must remain an integral part of the economy as it is also involved in matters of interconnection and innovation (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail 2003, p. 185). As Van Cuilenburg and McQuail state the goal of any communication policy should be ‘securing the free and equal access to a social communication system that diversely provides for the information and communication needs in society’ Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). Although political factors still maintained as the dominating factor that influence and construct the media policy-making process, public interest should also be regard as another major factor within this process. After the Second World War, the media policy was largely dominated by the social and political sector rather than the economic and state concerns (Van Cuilenburg & McQuail 2003, p. 182). The changes effected by media policy owing to the evolution of particular aspects such as politics, technologies and culture are also wide and varied. According to Psychogiopoulou and Anagnostou, the media has undergone fundamental restructuring with the different policies and tools that regulate them (Psychogiopoulou & Anagnostou 2012). Many normative media policies have changed substantially and new communications polices are being put in place (Van Cuilenburg & McQuail 2003, p. 182). Also, rapid changes in technologies have intensified the regulatory processes beyond state powers with several actors playing a big role in the major restructuring of the media policy (Hansen, Bertot & Jaeger 2011, p. 131-140). For instance, many commercial broadcasters have come up leading to state monopoly being undermined in the media sector. Many of these technological advancements include cable and Trans frontier transmissions, online media services among others (Psychogiopoulou & Anagnostou, 2012). In addition, the aspect of globalization and extensive capital mobility has undermined the national regulations in the media policy that was previously dominating the culture (Psychogiopoulou & Anagnostou 2012). According to Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, the field of media policy has undergone significant developments which in large areas reflect the changing technologies especially in communications and information sciences (2003, p. 182). These changes started as early as with the intervention of the electric telegraph in the middle of the 19th century and has since been developing in consecutive phases. In the modern days, many technological improvements have come up to totally evolve the media policy. These include computer telecommunications converting to telematics. Personal computers and televisions have become more familiar (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). Others include, multimedia integrating texts, audio and video technologies. Moreover, ministries of media and communications have come up and many media laws have been formulated. Socio-cultural changes are also central to media policy and these include aspects such as communism, free market, populism and pragmatism (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail 2003, p. 197). These are as a result of the impacts that multinational media has had on the society at large. In Libya on the other hand, the media policy has also been the major platform in extraordinary advancements in the communications sector. It helps citizens to share information mobilizes people thus bringing together noble ideas. According to Jones et al. (2012), the social media policy considers how the international community can support the advancement of the ICT sector so as to ensure democracy in Libya. In most instances, it is social media that has helped achieve democracy through revolutions. Media policy in Libya is primarily aimed at strengthening Libya’s transition to democracy from a long regime of dictatorship. It has three major objectives and these are increasing internet access, monitoring mobile election and ensuring the formulation of a strong e- government initiative (Jones et al. 2012). The media policy has the main aim of creating a potential ICT system that will be capable of promoting and protecting democracy. As per the present, mobile phones have been made more affordable with many users being able to access the internet easily (Jones et al. 2012). Moreover, high speed wireless networks have been established in more than 24 cities in Libya. Initially, communications and media policy had remained in the domain of government monopoly during the reign of Muammar Gaddafi. Since then, internet use has expanded for the better of the country. Basically, recognizing such a policy for Libya has made it possible for it to achieve an open and transparent government, improved use of technology in the education sector, more opened capacities in the e-commerce section and online provision of government services (Jones et al. 2012, p. 3). Basically, the media policy in Libya is centred on the improvement and the expansion of the ICT sector. In expanding and widening media policies, countries also ought to put into consideration some ethical and moral factors. Media policy must be confined within the morally accepted standards in the society. For example, the European Commission checks on all the broadcasting stations to check whether they are operating within the stipulated rules (Freedman 2005, p. 5). In a nutshell, it must be confined to the terms of society that consists of a whole range of religious, consumer, moral activists and other voluntary groups (Freedman 2005, p. 4). Major outcomes of media policy There is evidence of what media policy has resulted into in the countries, region and in the world at large. For example in UK, the predominant values that guided media policy have been embodied in many other media policies of other countries. Such include ideas of freedom, solidarity and equality (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). Moreover, many emerging policies have followed the logic of free market and technology just like UK and Libya. It has also impacted on some of the previous underlying values as some of them are slowly losing their force. This is particularly in respect of social responsibility which has slowly been replaced by consumer values (Hansen, Bertot & Jaeger 2011). In addition, politics has also been enhanced in the countries, in the nearby regions and the world at large due to the rise of the internet and media regulatory prescriptions in most national legislations. There is a larger political will to incorporate the population within the new scope of media policies (Hansen, Bertot & Jaeger 2011). There have also been significant efforts in encouraging the use of media technologies in many institutions such as schools, libraries, health centres and political administration institutions (Tsukuyama 2011). Finally, media policy has influenced and still influences national public opinions especially where sensitive issues accrue like those of human rights, morality and marginalization of specific groups (Van Cuilenburg & McQuail 2003, p. 201). Challenges In achieving stable media policies, several challenges have been encountered. First and foremost, there was a big struggle between the socio-political dominance in the media policy and new approaches that were being advocated for. In Europe, most advancement was politically driven and the policy seemed to be more of politically dominated (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail 2003, p. 195). The major stakeholders were sidelined. Secondly, media policy has been faced with opposing policy tendencies. It has mainly grappled with challenges of technological innovation and the expansion of media. Due to such an overlap of tendencies, both strategies were held back and this threatened the existing public sector involved in broadcasting and has even led to harming a number of social and cultural interests (Klimkiewicz 2010). Yet again, there is the problem of an expanded number of interest groups (Freedman 2005). Many trade associations and corporate lobbyists want to be involved in the policy formulation process. These come up with different perspectives and conflicting interests in whose respect policy makers must ensure that the divisions are clearly expressed in the policy making process. Moreover, it is a challenge for the stakeholders to settle the differences in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner (Freedman 2005, p. 22). Once again in the 1980’s, the UK government sponsored some ventures into new media technology but they were not successful because of prematurity and general lack of consumer interest in information technology and entertainment (Klimkiewicz 2010). Another challenge in the UK is also that the media policy is still divided. While one side of the stakeholders hold onto the principles of open market and competitiveness, the other side advocates for legitimacy of public service broadcasting (PSB) and public service communications (Klimkiewicz 2010). In Libya, the most experienced challenge is state sponsored censorship which threatens the freedom of journalists and press actors. The government places strict conditions and a rigorous set of criteria (Ahmida 2012). In this respect, the media is over-controlled by the regulations, by use of state violence and through harassment and imprisonment of journalists (Ahmida 2012). Another challenge is also restrictions on the access of private internet (Tsukuyama 2011). Moreover, those in authority muzzle with the media by enforcing restrictive laws, intimidating the journalists and instilling fear (Ahmida 2012). They also put total control for the print and electronic media. Thus Libyan print media is strictly monitored and censored by the authorities. There are also general difficulties for the public to access quality information which in turn undermines media freedom. One other major challenge that Libya also faced was the authoritative regime of Gaddafi that was based on indigenous populism (Ahmida 2012). As such it placed a lot of restrictions on social media thus weakening media policy in the country. Future Trajectories in both Countries Most future trajectories point at advocating for a citizenship-centred analytical approach in the development of media policy (Psychogiopoulou & Anagnostou 2012). Many advise that there ought to be both state and non-state components of regulation in the media policies. Moreover, efforts must be projected toward attaining a media and communication policy that has citizen-oriented objectives rather than state regulated ones. One good example is the aspect of media independence which will protect the media from any form of government influence, media pluralism and support for public service broadcasting (PSB) (Psychogiopoulou & Anagnostou 2012, p. 30). One other major proposal is that governments should gain national interests in exploiting the benefits that accrue out of media policies. These include employment benefits as well as revenue benefits. This is also because they still remain the main actors in the media policy sector. Media corporations also ought to develop new international markets that will expand the merge the evolving media policies. For instance, Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, state that competition should be the prime vehicle to regulate electronic communication market while keeping obligations to a minimum (2003, p. 199). Moreover, there should be harmonized regulations between different countries while individual governments put in efforts to ensure that the national regulatory authorities in charge of media policy are independent and impartial (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). As a matter of fact, Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, (2003, p.203) point out the main objective, to any government ought to be freedom of expression. This should entail independence of communication and non-interference from economic, political and social forces. Conclusively, it is also suggested that governments must value changes in the communication policies. They must acknowledge dynamism and open frontiers to new technologies (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). They must also encourage access to communications for every individual, organization and institution. This will have significant implications for the performance and practicability of medial policies in several respects. References Ahmida, A. A. (2012). "Libya, Social Origins of Dictatorship, and the Challenge for Democracy." North African Revolutions, special issue of The Journal of the Middle East and Africa 3.1.Retrieved from http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/7892/new-texts-out-now_ali-abdullatif-ahmida-libya-soci Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (2005). The crisis of public communication. London, Routledge. Freedman D. (2005). Promoting Diversity and Pluralism in Contemporary Communication Policies in the United States and the United Kingdom. Freedman, Des (D. J.). 2005. Promoting Diversity and Pluralism in Contemporary Communication Policies in the United States and the United Kingdom. The International Journal on Media Management, 7(1, 2), Pp. 16-23. ISSN 14241277 [Article]. http://eprints.gold.ac.uk/1680/1/Freedman_2005_Promoting_Diversity.pdf. Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. (2009). Political Communication: Old and New Media Relationships. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 625, 164-181. Hansen D., Bertot J.C., & Jaeger P.T. (2011). Government policies on the use of social media: Legislating for change. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 131-140. Jones., C Kennedy S., Kerr S., Mitchell J., Safayeni D. (2012) Furthering Democracy in Libya with Information Technology: Opportunities for the International Donor Community Klimkiewicz, B. (2010). Media freedom and pluralism media policy challenges in the enlarged Europe. Budapest, Hungary, Central European University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10425230. Psychogiopoulou, E. (2012) Understanding media policies a European perspective. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137035288. Psychogiopoulou, E. & Anagnostou D. (2012). Recasting the contours of media policy in a political context: An introduction in E. Psychogiopoulou (ed.), Understanding media policies: A European perspective, 2012, Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.mediadem.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/psychogiopoulou-anagnostou-introductory-chapter.pdf Tsukuyama H. (2011), “Welcome back to the Internet Libya,” The Washington Post (blog), August 22, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/faster-forward/post/welcome-back-to-the-internet-libya/2011/08/22/gIQArYrJWJ_blog.html. Van Cuilenburg, J., & Mcquail, D. (2003). Media Policy Paradigm Shifts: Towards a New Communications Policy Paradigm. European Journal of Communication. 18, 181-207. Read More