The Media and Liberal Democracy - Essay Example

What is the role of the media in liberal democracies in 21st century? Does media ownership affect this role- if so how/why, if not why not? 1. Introduction The media is seen as a critical watchdog of government processes and an essential platform for transmitting significant political statements. However, the same media had also attracted criticism as they failed to perform in accordance with public expectation and the role they are supposed to uphold. Media ownership is a very relevant issue in the sense that law and regulation in liberal democracy ensures that there is both a relative dispersion of media ownership and a relative degree of media independence from political power. The role of media in liberal democracies in the 21st century and the impact of media ownership to this role is the focus of this research. It will discuss the relationship of media in liberal democracy, the impact of media ownership to the freedom expression, the advantage and disadvantage of regulating media ownership, and concludes with the final analysis of the problem. 2. The Media and Liberal Democracy 2.1 The Role of Media Throughout the 20th century, the mass media have played an essential organizing role in the construction of the public sphere in liberal democracies. Over this period, first in the United States and later all over the world, the commercial, advertising-supported form of mass media has become central in both print and electronic media. Occasionally, these media have played a role that has drawn appreciation as ‘the fourth estate’. Now, the media are seen as a critical regulator of government practices, and as a vital platform for translating the mobilization of social activities into significant, and eventually exploitable, political statements. These similar media, on the other hand, have also drawn loads of contempt for the power they have, as well as fail to have, and for the superficiality of public communication, they endorse in the usual pattern of the business of selling viewers to advertisers. Nowhere was this obvious than in the appreciation of the sizeable role that television and other media came to play in world’s public culture and its public sphere (Benkler 2006, p.186). 2.2 Media and Liberal Democracy Media have operated mostly under very sympathetic private, elite ownership” (Levy et. al. 2001, p. 116). Liberal theorists have been eager to confer two roles for the media, both rooted on the practical concept that ‘despotism’ is not agreeable for the public. Liberals suggest that the mutual relationship between a free press and liberal democracy keeps repressive government at bay. Significantly, the source of liberalism’s call for a free press was linked with the resistance aligned with feudal despotism. Liberal theorist customarily considered the media as ballast to communication collapse linked with feudalism such as the authoritarian influence of monarchs, aristocrats, and members of the clergy. Additionally, the media are expected to safeguard power exploits and dishonesty on the part of politicians and public servants (Louw 2005, p.50). One of the most important functions of the complex structures of laws and regulations that border around media ownership and functions in even the most de-regulated of capitalist societies is to “ensure that there is both a relative dispersion of media ownership and a relative degree of media independence from political power” (Sparks and Reading 1998, p.22). In this regard, the media’s role is to guarantee the maximum flow of information within society to create an informed citizenry. Conversely, liberal theorists have been barely enthusiastic to talk about explicitly an added role of the media within liberal democracy, which is the role related with challenging the ‘tyranny of the majority’. “Politicians and executives are doing everything possible to consolidate the media under a handful of corporate giants” (Spigel and Olsson 2004, p.14). When a collective suffrage was granted, the rich propertied elite, which is always marginal, unavoidably faced the risk that the enfranchised non-affluent could use democratic ‘majoritarianism’ to generate a mass despotism that would challenge their property rights and wealth. The middle class have always acknowledged this threat and have developed communication policies for dealing with this crisis. For this reason, it is only natural that a mass communication industry of professional image consultants, public relations managers, researchers and impression managers grew up to attempt and manoeuvre the masses. From this perspective, the widely held mass media’s role to serve and create an informed citizenry often ends up serving as a vehicle for disseminating the publicity necessary to transport mass publics to mainstream political parties, and in so doing conciliate liberal democratic political practices. The result is the emergence of “hype-ocracy” (Louw 2005, p.50). 2.3 Media Ownership and Freedom of Expression The nature of media ownership has experienced a drastic modification, instigated by amendments in legal rules governing the media. “The ownership rules have been at the centre of a legal and political firestorm” (Wicks et. al. 2004, p.126). Prior to this change occurred, the various forms of media were owned by distinct media organizations. Currently, only a few companies increasingly own the media (Lessig 2005, p.162). The issue of who owns the media, and how much of it they own, makes a difference. A great deal of interest had been put on the possible tribulations as a consequence of concentrated media ownership and the exploitation of political power by media owners or false representations of important opinions (Albarran et. al. 2006, p.368). Concentrated ownership configuration of the media can limit freedom of expression by letting owner’s unwarranted control over what is incorporated in their merchandise (Oakland 2002, p. 232). Opponent of numerous station ownerships contends that uncontrolled group ownership of stations could end in unnecessary control of the communications media that could result in restricted flow of information, and excessive economic influence of the media by a small number of owners (Albarran et. al. 2006, p.368). Individuals and society essentially required a different and pluralistic media provision. Concentrations of media ownership constrict the collection of voices that prevails in the media and therefore pose a risk to the interest of society. The political economy viewpoint perceived the mass media transmitting influential values and notions which derived from and served to the advantage of the governing group, and which replicate the existing structure of class influence (Strinati 2004, p.128). 2.4 Regulating Media Ownership Appreciation of the necessity to safeguard pluralism has traditionally been the main reason for regulating ownership of the media. However, concentrated media ownership matters to society, because of not only pluralism and democracy, but also because ownership patterns may influence the way in which the media industry is able to administer the resources available for media provision. Limitations on ownership for instance, could result in a replication of resources, which restrain the industry from taking advantage of all potential economies of scale. The manner in which ownership patterns influence the economic potency and value of the sector are not exclusively an issue of broad community significance but are apparently of vast and specific concern to media firms (Doyle 2002, p.6). Industrial or economic opinion supporting a more liberal approach towards media concentrations of ownership seem to have become more prominent in shaping media ownership guidelines in the United Kingdom and Europe since the early 1990s. The rise of industrial interest may, as a minimum could be attributed to ‘technological mystique’ surrounding developments such as convergence and globalization and to the insight that policy-making should assist the industry make the most on such developments. Nevertheless, reasonably modest work has been done to accurately measure efficiency gains and other economic benefits, and inconvenience concentrations of media ownership might lead to (Doyle 2002, p.6). 2.5 Advantage and Disadvantage of Media Ownership In the United Kingdom, opinion polls imply that the media are not a source of great concern to most British people. It is hard to assess completely whether the media play an overriding part in manipulating public belief on a variety of political and other matters. Some analyst insinuates that corporate ownership does not have a major impact on the flow of information. They contend that, regardless of some abuses, freedom of speech is protected (Brym and Lie 2004, p.501). However, though a number of people may have their outlook directly affected by media, it is argued that a mainstream of readers and audience have already made up their own minds and respond against deliberate attempts to misinform the public. On specific circumstances and for particular activities, the media may have a significant consequence on public opinion but it is also probable that the media may purely go after accepted trends (Oakland 2002, p.232). Primarily, ownership and power over the media elevate exceptional concerns that are not relevant to the case of other sectors of industry. A Media concentration is important because, as demonstrated in the infamous case of the Berlusconi media empire in Italy, media have the power to build or destroy political careers. As was said a former UK media baron: ‘Without his newspaper, he is just an ordinary millionaire. With it, he can knock on the door of 10 Downing Street any day he pleases’- Financial Times, 2000:24 as cited by (Doyle 2002, p.7). “There have always been newspaper owners who hoped to influence government policies” (Stretton 2000, p.355). As politicians are well aware, hegemony over a significant share of the more popular avenues for broadcasting of media content can give sizeable impact on public views. Critics contend that as rivalry among media companies diminish, the quality of media products wanes. However, has the quality of the media products declined? There is no evidence that it has. For instance, studies have not found that when a corporation buys a radio station the content disintegrates. In a study by Lacy and Riffe (1994) as cited by Potter (2005, p.208), they found that group ownership had no effect on the financial commitment or the local and staff emphasis of news coverage. In addition, a study done on newspaper content could find no change in content after a newspaper bought by a chain. No proof of change was found with the stories, the variety of opinions of the editorial page, or the percentage of the newspaper displaying news. The analysis that concentration of ownership lessen competition in a market appears well founded on the surface, but it crumbles when explored according to Potter (2005, p.2088). For example, let us imagine that a community has two newspapers. A chain buys one of those newspapers. The chain-owned newspaper cuts subscription costs and ad rates. Readers and advertisers turn to the chain newspaper since it is cheaper. Ultimately, the other newspaper goes bankrupt. The amount of concentration in that market goes up. Nevertheless, this does not indicate that the newspaper has no competition just because it is the lone newspaper in the market. The newspaper must contend for audiences and advertisers along with the radio, television, and cable stations in the market. Hence, if the newspaper disintegrates its news product, people will discontinue their subscription and fall back on other sources of news. With lesser circulation rates, the newspaper will be forced to reduce the rate it charges advertisers, and this will generate small revenues. With smaller revenue, the newspaper will be compelled to lay off reporters, and the news product further deteriorates. This downhill cycle persist until the newspaper is insolvent. However, this almost never take place as chain-owned newspapers are motivated by making hefty returns, and to attain that, they will do everything they can to increase their circulations and therefore their charm to advertisers (Potter 2005, p.208). Various critics contend that the media industry lose diversity when the industries become more concentrated. Fewer voices should mean fewer views being aired. However, in one study according to Potter (2005, p.208), there is no established connection between media ownership and programming content. This is because the decrease in the number of program choices is not due to merging but to television’s dependence on advertising as its main source of income. Because of this dependency, there are strict limits on content, which include time lines for length of program, the lowest common denominator, attitude and aversion of controversy. Although businesspeople in media establishments normally leave the creative people on their own to accomplish what they do best and draw large audiences, the business side can overrun the editorial side at newspapers in several cases. For instance, when the Los Angeles Times Magazine devoted coverage of the Staples Centre in the fall of 1999, publisher Kathryn M. Downing had entered into a partnership agreement on the issue with the Staples Centre, agreeing to have the Staple Centre promote the magazine in return for profit sharing. The publisher did not inform her reporters or editors regarding the business partnership. When the journalist discovered the agreement, they protested that the magazine had been turned into an image management device for the Staple Centre. The publisher, who was not a journalist apologized and said the she was not aware of the complications of her actions. She was sorry that she had damaged the journalistic integrity of the newspaper – L.A. Times Publisher Errs, Apologizes (1999) in Potter (2005, p.209). The risk in so much consolidation is not deterioration of quality in the production of messages. This is because media organizations have a huge investment in drawing and sustaining audiences with rivalries or not. The risks are actually in the messages that are too superficial and business-oriented, and more importantly ‘owner-preferred’, and therefore limited to the public. 3. Conclusion There is no doubt that media plays a very significant role in the construction of the public sphere in liberal democracies. However, they are also held accountable to the quality and integrity of their news products. The widely held roles to serve and create an informed citizenry often become a vehicle for spreading information beneficial to mainstream political parties. The issue of who owns the media and how much they own really depends on the outcome of their ownership. Regardless of poll results and studies supporting concentrated ownership of various media, concentrated ownership of the media will always likely to result in exploitation of power and false representations of significant opinions. It will always limit the freedom of expression, as there is no control over the owner’s preference. Media have been operated mostly under the ownership of few elite thus despotism and other form of exploitation is possible whenever the interest of these affluent groups is at stake. Media should be free from authoritarian influence and political power, and should serves as a counterweight to ensure the smooth flow of information. Apparently, this is not possible when a single group whose objective is business, profit, and political domination controls the majority of media. 4. Reference List Albarran Alan, Chan-Olmsted Sylvia, and Wirth Michael, 2006, Handbook of Media Management and Economics, Published by Routledge, U.S. Benkler Yochai, 2006, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Published by Yale University Press, U.S. Brym Robert and Lie John, 2004, Sociology: Your Compass for a New World, Published by Thomson Wadsworth, U.S. Doyle Gillian, 2002, Media Ownership: The Economics and Politics of Convergence and Concentration in the UK and European Media, Published by SAGE, U.K. Lessig Lawrence, 2005, Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, Published by Penguin, U.S. Levy Daniel, Bruhn Kathleen, and Zebadúa Emilio, 2001, Mexico: The Struggle for Democratic Development, Published by University of California Press, U.S. Louw Eric, 2005, The Media and Political Process, Published by SAGE, U.K. Oakland John, 2002, British Civilization: An Introduction, Published by Routledge, U.S. Potter James, 2005, Media literacy: Media Literacy (3/ed P), Published by SAGE, U.K. Sparks Colin and Reading Anna, 1998, Communism, Capitalism and the Mass Media, Published by SAGE, U.K. Spigel Lynn and Olsson Jan, 2004, Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition, Published by Duke University Press, U.K. Stretton Hugh, 2000, Economics: A New Introduction, Published by Pluto Press, U.K. Strinati Dominic, 2004, An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, Published by Routledge, U.S. Wicks Jan LeBlanc, Sylvie George, Hollifield Ann, Sohn Ardyth Broadric, and Lacy Stephen, 2004, Media Management: A Casebook Approach, Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, U.S. Read More