There is a compelling influence of media owners on media practice: a personal opinion

To say that media owners have a compelling influence on media practice is an understatement. This is because media practice around the world has been denied the necessary freedom despite the fact that the journalist has an absolute responsibility to his society, his country and his conscience. He has to make a choice between the interests and policies of his media owners and the demands of professionalism. Consequently, serving the private interests of the owners is a subtle betrayal of the ethics of the profession. Drawing a compromise line between the political objectives of the media owner and the social responsibilities/obligations of the profession is never an easy decision.

Media professionals around the world, particularly in Africa, have tried to navigate the ever-contentious question of media owner policy goals versus professionalism in practice. For example, Kofi Buenor Hadjor, a Ghanaian journalist, once argued that there must be “relevant journalism” for Africa. According to Hadjor, the media that daily absorb and disseminate information around the world should be seen for what they are: an integral art of society that reflects and, in turn, affects existing social relations.

As a result of the authoritarian influence of media owners on media practice, a relevant policy was declared on July 22-31, 1980 in Yaoundé, Cameroon, in the UNESCO African Member States of the Intergovernmental Conference on Communication Policies. The conference statement said: “We need a new conception of freedom that truly liberates man and society instead of subjecting them to the conditioning of those who control the powerful media; that contributes to the democratization of communication and recognizes the rights of people and people to be informed and express themselves freely”.

In many parts of the world, particularly Nigeria, competing power bases have been at the forefront of the problem facing media practice due to their contributions to the lack of enforcement of press freedom laws. Various cultural, religious and tribal groups also disagree on how the country should be governed, forging an agreed political philosophy, forcing media professionals to take sides with various groups within the country.

According to Herbert Altschull, an independent press is impossible because “the news are agents of the people who exercise political and economic control.” That is to say, the benevolence of the government does not matter, nor the democratic principles of society; Regardless of the progress of any society, the media are often subject to some form of control by those who hold and operate the power apparatus.

However, the foundation of authoritarianism in Nigeria that gave the government direct control and monopoly of radio and television stations was broken in 1992 when private broadcasting stations were granted licenses for the first time, marking a new era in ownership of the broadcast media.

In the United States, according to Amy and David Goodman, media ownership concentration is very often seen as a problem of contemporary media and society because most people are motivated by many things. Media ownership can focus on one or more inappropriate things that can then lead to a number of undesirable consequences that can include serving the interests of their sponsors (advertisers and government) rather than the public interest, and the absence of a market. healthy. based competition. This has led companies that dominate a media market to suppress stories that do not serve their interests. As a result, the public suffers because they are not adequately informed about some crucial issues that may affect them.

Media censorship, which has been a recurring problem around the world, regardless of the supposed freedoms expressed in their constitutions, will continue to plague media practice unless drastic measures are taken to check it. Over the years, those who wield political power have in many ways controlled the media in any society. They have often achieved this through the arsenals of authoritarian control, such as repressive legislation, heavy taxes, direct or indirect control of essential production inputs, harsh treatment of media workers, threats of death, and , in some extreme cases, the murder of media workers, and Closing of media houses.

There is also the measure of vicarious control taken against media workers, which can include a management structure where media workers determine the day-to-day activities of the organization; financing, production, structure and distribution of broadcast signals, as in the case of broadcast media.

In addition to government control of the media, there is the presence of other bodies such as the courts that exist and obstruct freedom of expression. In addition, the government’s attitude of preferential treatment to “buy” the most influential journalists or critics of the government, through appointments to senior government positions, cannot be ignored. When journalists are co-opted into government positions, it reduces them to mere puppets, as it influences the objectivity of their media products in handling issues of concern to the government.

Private media owners, on the other hand, exercise significant control over their media organizations. There are cases where the owners demand self-censorship from their publishers to satisfy the interests of their sponsors.

Noting that unethical practices and negative attitudinal trends in the workplace are capable of negatively affecting an organization’s productivity, profitability, growth and goodwill, the environment in which so many journalists work today has shown that The opposite happens. Successes are now measured in the number of “who’s who?” on an organization’s list of sponsors. Imagine a situation where unemployment, poverty and deteriorating social values ​​take center stage, and a journalist manages to secure a place where their daily needs are met, no matter what happens there, despite the issues? ethical? In some parts of the world, where money rules everything, most journalists no longer even care about the ethics of their profession, instead giving in to the antics of dubious media owners to gain access to places and people. to obtain information. receiving highly paid advertisements from sponsors and dubiously labeling and distorting documents containing valuable information to suit the interests of their sponsors.

The question that demands an answer is this: if those with the correct information refuse to provide it, who else will? Everything falls on the journalist who has sworn an oath to tell the truth at all times, which is the basis of good journalism. However, the signing into law of the Freedom of Information Bill on May 22, 2011 by the President of Nigeria, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, is highly praised. The implication of the Act is that certain types of information that are exempt from the general right of access under the Act are listed in the Act. Now that is good news!