The media give practical expression to the right to freedom of expression, a universal human right recognised in Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. In this sense freedom of expression is taken to include, or is the basis for, freedom of the media. So strictly speaking, for anyone to exercise the right they should own a media outlet. This practical impossibility, however, does not remove the contradiction that most of us who have a right to freedom of expression neither own nor control media.
Most media outlets in this century, in almost all countries, are privately owned and controlled as profit-making enterprises. Even in countries where significant public ownership of media exists, the voice of the general public is nominal, or is exercised through representatives. Given that it is an open secret in most established democracies that political systems have lost touch with the majority – and voter turnouts indicate that less than the majority are voting – the problem is compounded.
When talking about the public interest, media ownership matters because it has implications for editorial control. As content should ideally empower audiences to become informed citizens, editorial and programming independence is critical. Any form of control that undermines this independence is not in the public interest.
Of course, depending on who they are, media owners can tend towards the peddling of ideologies, or be directly linked to political interests. Black economic empowerment media owners in South Africa are generally members of the ANC. In the apartheid era, the Afrikaans press was linked to supporters and members of the National Party and the Broederbond.
But beyond politics and ideologies, the private media, in their capacity as profit-generating businesses, also have a relationship to the public interest. On the one hand, if the media ride roughshod over editorial and programming independence they will lose audiences and not achieve commercial profitability, prestige or influence. On the other hand, if they respond to the broad information and entertainment needs across the spectrum (rich or poor) they might not make mega bucks. Business logic, including profit maxisimisation strategies, dictates that the private media treat audiences differently.
In the last two decades fervent corporate activity, informed by the profit motive, has resulted in the emergence of a few media behemoths. The result has been a drastic reduction in the number of media outlets, which has in turn had a negative effect on media diversity. In this time advertisers have increased their power and influence, and media owners have found it necessary to consummate their marriage with the paying marketers.
So the public gets a multiplicity of channels under the same ownership and more amusement from reality shows, more games, more quizzes, more sport – more of anything that does not question the social order. It’s what Neil Postman calls ‘amusing ourselves to death”. In this mix media workers have seen their editorial independence being eroded as their point of accountability shifts from the public to the owners.
Media ownership, then, can lead to immense wealth, prestige and political influence by individuals or groups of individuals without any gain to society. This is the central theme in works like US media academic Robert McChesney’s ‘Rich Media, Poor Democracy’.
Ownership of media is too important to be left to owners alone. It is a public issue, which is critical to the realisation of freedom of expression and the building of democratic societies where all have a voice. The way forward is media policies that ensure diversity of ownership and protection of editorial and programming independence, as well as sustainable media.