Tue, Aug 22, 2017 - Page 9 News List

Shining a light on media capture in the digital age

By Anya Schiffrin

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.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top