The past couple of years have not been good for freedom of expression.
The governments of Poland, Hungary and Turkey have become increasingly authoritarian and — like leaders in the Balkans, China and Russia — increasingly eager to control public discourse, while US President Donald Trump relentlessly attempts to discredit the news media and his administration is unprecedentedly inaccessible to the press.
The age of censors physically redacting newspapers, as I have seen in Vietnam and Myanmar, is mostly over, but as recent developments show, press freedom remains highly vulnerable, as governments and “vested interests networked with politics” — in the words of political scientist Alina Mungiu-Pippidi — engage in a kind of soft control that can be described as “media capture.”
Economists used the term “capture” after the 2008 financial crisis to describe how regulators, who often came from — and returned to — the industry they were supposed to oversee, failed to police the sector properly.
Media capture works in much the same way, with political leaders either owning media outlets outright, like former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, or ensuring that media leaders are loyal to them, whether through cronyism or punishment.
One of the first orders of business for Poland’s far-right government, led unofficially by Law and Justice party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, was to adopt a new media law allowing it to hire and fire the heads of public broadcasting networks.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has jailed critical journalists — such as well-known columnist Ahmet Altan and his brother Mehmet, a professor — and closed down or seized control of media companies, using fear to shape reporting.
In a less extreme version of Erdogan’s approach, Trump bullies his critics, such as CNN and the New York Times, and encourages others, such as the Wall Street Journal, to treat him favorably.
Elsewhere, government cronies do the bullying. In South Africa, the politically connected Gupta family has targeted former Business Day and Financial Mail editor Peter Bruce for criticizing South African President Jacob Zuma.
Leaders might also try to control the narrative by denying access to potentially critical media organizations, as has occurred in the US and, more aggressively, in crisis-ridden Venezuela under President Nicolas Maduro.
Such media capture is vital to enable governments — especially those pursuing what could be unpopular policies — to sustain public support.
Trump’s campaign against the “fake news media” has enabled him to retain the loyalty of much of his base, despite revelations that would have buried any other US politician.
Just as media capture shapes public perceptions, it can also shape economic outcomes.
Economist Maria Petrova said that media capture can fuel inequality, particularly if the rich are doing the capturing, rather than politicians, who can often be voted out of office.
Likewise, Giacomo Corneo of the Free University of Berlin believes that increased economic concentration makes media bias more likely.
Media capture is not a new phenomenon, but the Internet was supposed to free people from it, at least those in nations without overt online censorship.
As entry barriers fell, the proliferation of media outlets, it was believed, would make it difficult to capture them all. Even if some outlets were captured, the media could still be an effective watchdog, so long as there was sufficient diversity.
This expectation was reinforced by the assumption that more competition could lead to higher-quality news.
However, the opposite might have happened. The rise of digital media rendered traditional media outlets’ business models untenable.
Advertisers migrated to the Internet, where slots are cheap, and consumers, with seemingly infinite free options, became less willing to pay for content.
As a result, traditional media have endured precipitous declines in revenue and large-scale job losses.
Dwindling resources undermine the quality of reporting, especially because many cash-strapped outlets tried to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, Science Po’s Julia Cage said.
The need to chase clicks on sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google eroded the ability of legacy media owners to perform their traditional role in ensuring accountability.
Declining media revenue promoted capture in another key way: It shifted the incentive for owning a media outlet.
If a newspaper will not provide much in the way of economic returns, the main inducement for purchasing or running one becomes influence.
Billionaire American casino owner Sheldon Adelson, for example, did not purchase the Las Vegas Review-Journal in 2015 or capture Israeli media for the money.
As the media landscape increasingly lends itself to capture, political and corporate accountability will only decline. That is why the Center for International Media Assistance has just released a report shining a spotlight on the phenomenon — and calling for solutions.
Free and healthy news media are essential to a well-functioning democracy. If people are to protect the latter, they must defend the former at all costs.
Anya Schiffrin is director of the technology, media and communications specialization at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas