Media Power Abuse or Restrictions on Freedom of Expressions - Coursework Example

Media Regulation Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Introduction The aim of this essay is to establish whether media regulation is intended to regulate abuses of media power or curtail freedom of expression. While many governments have laws that respect the freedom of speech and expression of media outlets, there are cases of concentrated media power that has led to abuse and political excesses. Although the government is tasked with regulating media, new media is one aspect of the digital age that regulating proves difficult. Yet, continued monopoly of media houses especially television and newspapers are likely to engender authoritarian and outright suppressions of fundamental rights of citizens. In reality, the media may be regulated to promote diversity and pluralism in content from various sources but excessive restrictions curtails the freedom of expression among the civil society, public and international media. Therefore, this essay will find out if media regulation is meant to check on abuses of media power or whether such regulation lead to restrictions of freedom of expressions. Media power abuse or restrictions on freedom of expressions. In the media field, some countries are pursuing a deregulatory agenda distorted by powerful media interests while pursuing media policies (Westphal, 2002). If unchecked, powerful media owners can exert undue influence over politicians and citizens. Moreover, dominant media firms with exclusive content rights can exclude or sideline market competitors especially where political or corporate affiliations are involved. Although information is accessible through few people with inclination, expertise and time, stringent media regulations can lead to suppression of information and media bias (Milo, 2008). Consequently, deregulatory policies favoring major media interests are likely to undermine, in the democratic processes, public trust. Smith and Tambini (2012) concur that media freedom allows independent sources to provide information on socio-economic and political processes that help people and governments to understand their roles and responsibilities. Notably, media ownership fragmentation is seen as a way to dilute media power and influence to an extent it enhances media diversity. Undue influence on media freedom is incompatible with liberal notions and paternalistic to individual choice and freedom (Baker, 2007). For example, in the US, concentrated media market allows for better resourcing for sufficient investment in original content and investigative journalism. However, intensive regulation in journalism may lead to reduction in the number of journalists as firms attempt to stave off losses and enhance profits. In practice, a media environment that embraces pluralism is one that regulatory strategies go beyond media ownership controls (Hill, 2006). For example, in Europe, Article 10 on European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the freedom of expression. This has been deployed to challenge state restrictions and provides for greater latitudes to regulate media markets. Vaira et al. (2013) argues that media legislations can be implemented in a way that restricts freedom of expression. There are significant concerns on the political setup to muzzle politicians freely expressing their opinions or restricting the freedom of press to report on possible misconduct among private and public individuals. On the other hand, excessive influence of advertising clients or media owners can lead to manipulation of political decisions to favor hidden economic interests (Frohardt & Temin, 2003). Concentration of media ownership in the hands of single media owners or foreign owners is dangerous for democratic principles and practices of freedom of speech and expression (Duffy, 2013). While the lack transparency and opacity of funding sources powerful media owners are capable of corrupting the society. For example, as journalists look for sensational stories there is bound to be widespread bribery, false prosecutions, and gross infringement of individual rights and undue harassment of those opposed to the misdeeds of the government. Media contribute to democratic decay and public cynicism if used by political group proxies to sow suspicion, hate speech and divisiveness (Smith & Tambini, 2012). Yet, in many fledgling democracies, the ideals of a free media have boosted the credibility to the public for being a credible and effective watchdog. As government owned media is potential to manipulate and distort information on consumers, voters and politicians, regulations would be advisable for the creation of competitive and attractive media that offer checks-and-balances of modern democracy (Westphal, 2002). Ho and Quinn (2012) observe that media power should be dispersed in order to equalize media power distribution among groups. They argue that it is essential to understand that dispersed media ownership safeguards from the dangers of demagogic power. In vulnerable societies, there is rampant use and abuse of media power (Frohardt & Temin, 2003). Despite conventional media such as newspapers, television and radio playing informative and positive role in society, they can be used to instigate violence. Conversely, there are cases of complete state control or absence of regulation where government oversight on the licensing process is seen to be heavily corrupt or inclined to political influences (Smith & Tambini, 2012). This may make it difficult governments, especially in developing countries, to consolidate and build democracies since the design and implementation of regulations is lacking. Puddephatt (2011) admits that media regulations should go in tandem with protection, promotion and guarantee to freedom of expression. In individual development, freedom of expression is necessary to radicalize and improve democracies. The regulation on freedom of expression and broadcasting is one that focuses on strengthening the freedom of expression. A self-regulating and diverse media is one that is part community, public and private. This implies that a modern media environment should be capable of ensuring a suitable regulatory environment, funding to public broadcasting and providing infrastructure. According to Norris and Zinnbauer (2002), independent journalism may not promote human development and good governance but is necessary to check on the abuse of power by state authorities. There is no guarantee that a rich media environment is one that state intervention is absent. Indeed, state intervention or regulations are necessary to promote a media environment of diversity and plurality. Regulation of content, under limited circumstances, is the role of judicial arm given that freedom of expression is not an absolute right (Ruane, 2014). For example, freedom of expression can be restricted to protect individuals from false accusations, children from sexual exploitation and incitement to violence against specific racial groups. Nonetheless, Ruane (2014) observes that regulating the media is important in preserving media independence and protection form partisan interference from the government. Self-regulation is even necessary in the digital age where internet and social media comply with professional standards of behavior (Baker, 2007). These involve journalist codes of conduct, editorial independence and professional guidelines to uphold the power of moral exhortation. Attention to media regulations in the new era is the use of social media to circumvent outlets controlled by the state (Duffy, 2013). For example, the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2010 led to the ouster of the government of Ben Ali in Tunis after citizens exploited the free access to Face book, Twitter and YouTube that the government had little control. In the past, information reaching the citizens was highly restricted and censored by the government hence allowing the progression of an authoritarian media system model (Duffy, 2013). In fact, the media systems were under government regulations that prohibited journalists to support state policies and cease to be a watchdog. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy and is a fundamental human right involving respect of reputation and rights of others as well as protection of public order and national security (Duffy, 2013). Where right to freedom of expression is being limited, the law must provide with an explanation on its necessity with limited restrictions (Puddephatt, 2011). For instance, the right of the media to freedom of expression can be restricted if engaging in child pornography, voter intimidation and contempt of court. New media access is under restriction for content or views because of fear that it criticizes moral, religious and national policies. However, there is always a fragile balance between legitimate restrictions and freedom of expression in a democratic society (Vaira et al., 2013). Where one or two media operators command most of the audience, they easily monopolize and determine what people will watch or read leading to loss of objectivity (Ruane, 2014). Lack of regulations on media can lead to manipulation of public opinion and control over information flows hence more totalitarian or authoritarian systems. Conclusion Societies are vulnerable to media abuse which creates the necessary conditions for the government to regulate against their monopoly. While most of the regulation is mainly on content, self-regulation has been left at the onus of the individual media companies especially in the digital age. Media regulation not only checks on abuses of concentrated media power but also allows for impartial and objective reporting. Despite such regulations, it is difficult to completely safeguard the freedom of expression of individuals and organized societies. For this reason, most governments do not intend to restrict the freedom of expression but to create checks-and-balances from powerful media companies from proliferating hate speech, divisiveness and abuse of power. Consequently, media regulation is intended to promote pluralism and media diversity hence regulating content and view. This essay establishes that media regulation is needed to address abuse of media power and not necessarily to restrict the freedom of expression. Reference list Baker, C.E. (2007). Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters, Cambridge University Press. Duffy, M.J. (2013). Arab Media Regulations: Identifying Restraints on Freedom of the Press in the Laws of the Six Arabian Peninsula Countries. Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law, 6(2), pp. 1-32. Frohardt, M., & Temin, J. (2003). Use and Abuse of Media in Vulnerable Societies, Special Report, Washington DC. Hill, B.S. (2006). Measuring Media Market Diversity: Concentration, Importance, and Pluralism. Federal Communications Law Journal, 169, pp. 56-68. Ho, D.E., & Quinn, K.M. (2012). The role of theory and evidence in the media regulation and law: A response to Baker and a defense of the empirical legal studies, Stanford University Press. Milo, D. (2008). Defamation and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press Norris, P., & Zinnbauer, D. (2002), Giving Voice to the Voiceless: Good Governance, Human Development & Mass Communications, UNDP Human Development Report Office (available at: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/background_papers/2002/NorrisZinnbauer_2002.pdf). Napoli, P. (2011). Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences, Columbia University Press. Puddephatt, A. (2011). The Importance of Self-Regulation of the Media in Upholding Freedom of Expression, CI Debates:UNESCO. Brasilia. Ruane, K.A. (2014). Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment. Congressional Research Service. Smith, R.C. & Tambini, D. (2012). Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy Choices and Regulatory Challenges. Journal of Media Law, 4(1), pp. 35-63. Vaira, V.F., Herta, D.G., Hammersley, B. & Maduro, L.M. (2013). A Free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy. European Center for Media and Communication Studies. Westphal, D. (2002). Media Pluralism and European Regulation, European Business Law Review, 13(2), pp. 459-468. Read More