Evaluate media ownership and control in the digital age and size

Introduction

The media in the past has been owned by the Government or State. However, recently private individuals have started to own different media which has been able to give a fair voice to news that are broadcast or printed. Usually Government owned media like NTA are biased when broadcasting news. For example, the recent documentary on the Ikeja Police College was done by a private owned media – Channels.

What is media? Media (singular medium) are the storage and transmission channels or tools used to store and deliver information or data. It is often referred to as synonymous with mass media or news media, but may refer to a single medium used to communicate any data for any purpose. There are broadly three types of media: The print media, Audio visual media and Cyber media or digital media. Media can be government or private owned.

What is the digital age? The Information Age, also commonly known as the Computer Age or Digital Age, is a period in human history characterized by the shift from traditional industry that the industrial revolution brought through industrialization, to an economy based on the information computerization. The onset of the Information Age is associated with the Digital Revolution, just as the Industrial revolution marked the onset of the Industrial Age.

During the information age, the phenomenon is that the digital industry creates a knowledge-based society surrounded by a high-tech global economy that spans over its influence on how the manufacturing throughput and the service sector operate in an efficient and convenient way. In a commercialized society, the information industry is able to allow individuals to explore their personalized needs, therefore simplifies the procedure of making decisions for transactions and significantly lowers costs for both the producers and buyers. This is accepted overwhelmingly by participants throughout the entire economic activities for efficacy purposes, and new economic incentives would then indigenously encouraged, such as the knowledge economy.

The Information Age formed by capitalizing on the computer micro-miniaturization advances, with a transition spanning from the advent of the personal computer in the late 1970s to the internet's reaching a critical mass in the early 1990s, and the adoption of such technology by the public in the two decades after 1990. Bringing about a fast evolution of technology in daily life, as well as of educational life style, the Information Age has allowed rapid global communications and networking to shape modern society.

Why the media should be controlled? This will maintain ethical and professional standards. When left alone the media can be a poison unleashed on the masses. The media are THE 4TH ESTATE and are in essence the watch dog for society and in this light the media have a huge responsibility and duty to proceed. However, they should largely have stake in the control but be weary of propagandist and unequivocal reporting. The other concern is with media ownership which is wanting. The fact is that many are owned by political leaders and Government. This also brings about propaganda reporting.

Why the media shouldn’t be controlled? Like we stated above there must be control over the media to prevent the "average Joe" from knowing what is really happening in today's society.

1.      Government controlled media – can be seen simply to be media that operates in a government controlled environment. There are three main concepts behind media that have emerged from such an environment. Authoritarianism is seen to be the oldest and most pervasive concept, with two modifications in the twentieth century - the Communist and Developmental Concepts.

·         Authoritarian Concept: We can see from this then, that the government historically has always had some sort of relationship with the press. The Authoritarian concept is viewed as the oldest of media concepts, tracing its roots from the as far back as Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in the mid-fifteenth century. With this invention came government limitations and restrictions on something they saw could challenge their authority, as it ended church and state monopoly on knowledge.                                                  

According to Hachten, the basic principle of authoritarianism is the press is always subject to the direct of implied control of the state or sovereign. Diversity of views is seen as wasteful and irresponsible, harmful to the country's development. Under this system, the press is allowed to gather and publish news, but the news must be for 'the good of the state', and should not criticize authority or challenge the leadership in any way.

·         Communist Concept: The Communist concept is seen by some as a variation of the authoritarian one. This was a theory advocated mainly by Lenin. According to Lenin, mass media controlled and directed by the Communist Party could concentrate on the task of nation building by publishing news relating to the entire society's policies and goals as determined by the top party leadership. There were three main aspects of this press:

Ø  The press was to be one-party

Ø  It was to control both incoming and outgoing news

Ø  The news was to be 'positive' information that furthered party goals, rather than reflecting the interests of the people

Ø  It was to be used as a means of exercising control over the people, along with the secret police.

·         Developmental Concept: In a way somewhat similar to John Martin's and Anju Chaudhary's media division by economic wealth (Comparative Mass Media Systems 1983,) Hachten's development concept is applied mainly to 'underdeveloped', or poorer countries that are lacking in media and other technological resources. Central tenets of this perspective are:

Ø  All instruments of mass communication should be mobilized to assist the government in nation building, fighting illiteracy and poverty, building a political consciousness and helping in economic development)

Ø  Media should support government, rather than challenge it

Ø  Information, like in authoritarianism concept, flows from the top down

Ø  Individual rights and other civil liberties are ranked low importance compared to larger problems of poverty, illiteracy, disease and ethnicity

Ø  Each country has a right to restrict the flow of news between its borders as well as foreign journalists. Hachten describes this concept as an attempt on the part of poorer countries to limit the flow of information they receive from the western world threatening traditional cultures, as well as an attempt to have some control over news content about them. He further states that this trend too appears to be a dying one, citing examples such as the move of much of S. America including Brazil, Argentina and Chile, from dictatorships to democracies in the 1980's

Should social media be controlled?  Many businesses fear social media and, in a way, they have a right to. By definition, one of the major factors of what sites/tools are described as social media is that they are open: Free for people to speak their mind. That one aspect can often keep companies away.

The major thing to understand about social media is that no one can control the conversation. Companies can and should simply provide the space for discussion and participate. The average consumer isn’t going to launch a slander campaign if there is a company outlet for them to legitimately voice their issues.

Companies who are open and actively communicating with online consumers enjoy ever increasing brand loyalty because those consumers feel camaraderie with the company that works with them. Control, for the most part, is unnecessary. Simply creating the space for consumers to meet, vent, and chat will help your customers to gravitate to your brand.

In many cases, companies have to see social media as an opportunity; the ability to learn about their business from a consumer perspective, solve consumer problem publicly, build relationships directly, offer more or better services and overall improve their brand.

How does the government control what the media broadcasts and publishes? The government has agencies that control everything, every aspect of our living...

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) controls broadcasting frequencies, bandwidths, & content.

The FDA (Food & Drug Administration) monitors foods, drugs, and herbal/health remedies/vitamins/food.

Those are just two examples of major aspects of our lives, if you research you can see that in every aspect they are in control, and even on the higher levels of media it is an issue of how the government wants the citizens to perceive them and situations to enable them to make laws, create situations to cost citizens time and money and also to program the people with ideas of how they want them to behave.

Remember, any present source of government controlled media (all of it) is not interactive, meaning it is a one way projecting media (hypnotist), by repeating the same things over and over on several channels with only a biased point people inevitably buy into it.

It's just like when you hear crap music and hate it but they stop playing good music and play only the crap music until it becomes tolerable or better than nothing.

Government ownership is more pervasive in broadcasting than in the printed media. Government ownership of the media is generally associated with less press freedom, fewer political and economic rights, and, most conspicuously, inferior social outcomes in the areas of education and health. It does not appear that adverse consequences of government ownership of the media are restricted solely to the instances of government monopoly

Media regulations and ownership

Throughout the world, governments regulate media using measures ranging from content restrictions in broadcasting licenses to Constitutional freedom of expression provisions. The types of regulations and their enforcement vary significantly within countries.

In some cases, ownership is influenced directly by regulation. In Norway, for example, regulations restrict owners from holding more than one third of shares in media enterprises. Similar restrictions on ownership apply in Israel. Regulations of foreign ownership and cross media ownership are also prevalent.

Media ownership in Nigeria: Present and future perspectives

Two remarkable developments of the 1990s had immense implications for media ownership and control in Nigeria. These are the deregulation of the broadcast media by the Federal government in 1992 and the annulment of the 12 June 1993 presidential election. The deregulation of the broadcast media brought to an end government’s monopoly of the broadcast media and the emergence of independent broadcasting stations. The annulment led to greater political awareness and the presence of a committed courageous press.

With the return to civil rule in 1979, after thirteen years of military rule, the few surviving privately owned newspapers in Nigeria were joined by a plethora of titles. The newcomers appeared, in part, to serve the electioneering role played by newspapers of the 1920s. Ignoble sectional parochial rivalry ensued with reawakened political partisanship. For instance, the Nigeria Tribune and the Daily Sketch were used to advance the political interest of Obafemi Awolowo, while the Concord Group of newspapers represented the interests of their owner, Moshood Abiola and his political National Party of Nigeria (NPN). The role of the newspapers in political party partisanship continued in the 1990s.

Similarly, as the nation prepared for the fourth republic in the early 1990s, a number of privately owned newspapers emerged. These newspapers and others that came into existence after the 12 June annulment have played significant roles in criticizing the military government. Since then, the country has seen a formidable opposition press, which in spite of all forms of intimidation has turned the people’s skirmishes into full battle.

It is correct to say that in Nigeria today there is no other opposition against government in power other than the independent media.

Electronic media

The changes in the terrain of the print media are nothing compared to the remarkable and unprecedented changes in the broadcast media. Events started to unfold in 1979. With impending civil rule, the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN) was decreed by the Federal Government. This decentralized radio broadcasting and restructured the nation’s broadcasting industry. The decree was however violated by the Civilian Government that came into power as it set up several stations in different states of the federation. The broadcast media became an active political tool which Uche (1989) described as 'The affinity between broadcasting and politics is like the birth of Siamese twins'.

In addition, the process of massive economic restructuring that was inevitable in the 1980s produced the policies of deregulation. These policies had far reaching effects on the broadcast media in the years to follow. In 1992, the National Broadcasting Commission was established thereby deregulating the broadcast media and bringing to an end government monopoly of the broadcast media. The NBC is empowered to issue, renew or revoke broadcast licenses, among other functions. By 1997, NBC had licensed nine independent private television stations, two private radio stations, two direct broadcast satellite and 40 re-transmission stations.

Media control in Nigeria

All three types of government (colonial, civilian and military) that have functioned in Nigeria have implemented policies that have actually restrained freedom of the press. Journalists have been harassed, detained, jailed, and repressive laws and decrees enacted. Comparatively, the British colonial administration may appear to have done the least harm, but it set in motion the kinds of repressive press laws existing in Nigeria today.

These pernicious laws and decrees against the media gave government officials legal backing to persecute, fine, detain and imprison journalists, and to proscribe media houses. For instance, the Offensive Publications (Proscription) Decree 35 1993, made it possible for the government to clamp down on six media houses across the nation. Even government owned media were not spared. This kind of suppression also took place after the 22 April 990 failed coup d’état when over seven media houses were closed down.

Aside from government control of the media through laws, decrees and the courts, other means of control exist and obstruct freedom of expression. One such is what Uche (1989) calls 'coopting'. The government uses certain preferential treatments to 'buy' the most influential journalists in the country... appointing these influential critics in the media to top posts within the government.

'Coopting' of journalists ensures that they are reduced to being mere stooges of government officials. It is not surprising therefore that the editor of the Guardian had to publish an article reassuring his readers that his proprietor's acceptance of a ministerial appointment in the government could not influence the objectivity of the newspaper in handling issues concerning government.

Other measures of government control include denying journalists access to places and persons for information, refusing to give government advertisements and dubious labeling of documents containing valuable information. All these measures have been used. For example, the newspapers that were pro-government during the colonial rule, the Eagle, Lagos Critic and Record (for some years of its existence) received most government advertisements. But the few indigenous businessmen who could advertise in the newspapers gave their advertisements to the Standard or any other of the newspapers that represented their nationalistic feelings (Omu, 1978). This measure has been in use ever since. Presently, unsurprisingly, one finds more government advertisements in the Daily Times than in any anti-government newspaper.

In addition, regulatory bodies set up by the government can be a source of negative or positive control of the media. Where there are defects or loopholes in the decree that set up such regulatory bodies, these can be used for repressing freedom of expression. It is thought that government may intentionally leave loopholes to exploit in silencing any opposition. It is widely believed that one pitfall in the decree that set up the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) is the power given to the commission to revoke the licenses of stations which do not operate in accordance with the code and in the public interest. The decree did not specify either how to seek redress or to what the public interest is, as in the American Federal Communication Commission. Thus the decree allows the NBC to provide licenses in perpetuity only to withdraw them at whim.

The influence of the government is seen in the unflinching support government media organizations give the government of day. Government officials do not hesitate to remove anyone in charge who fails to offer unquestioned support. An 'erring' official risks being sacked with 'immediate effect' or faces other punishments for such 'heinous' acts. For instance, within one year of the elected civilian government assuming office in 1990, no less than ten chief executive officers of state-owned broadcasting stations were sacked (Uche, 1989). Those who kept their jobs got the message - toe the line.

Private media proprietors also exert significant control of their media organizations. Proprietors have been known to demand self-censorship by their editors. The proprietor expects those working in their media organizations to understand and protect their interests. Often a proprietor's economic and/or political interests are very influential in how they want their papers to relate to the government of the day. In 1992, Moshood Abiola the multi-millionaire politician, asked his editor Bayo Onanuga to apologize to the then military President Babangida. Onanuga's article in one of the titles of which Abiola is proprietor was believed to have angered the president. However, Onanuga refused to apologize and instead he resigned along with three others. Abiola, however, did apologize and to rub the former editor's nose in the dust, the apology, a private letter from Abiola to the President, was reported exclusively by the Daily Times 23 April 1992.

Media practitioners have never failed to denounce these controls, except journalists who have been 'coopted'. There have been instances when the government has been taken to court. At times justice was even upheld as in 1975, when a reporter was arrested, flogged and had his hair and beard shaved on the orders of a military government who found his articles offensive. The reporter instituted a court action and, surprisingly, he won the case and the government was asked to pay him damages (Uche 1989).

However, the story has not always been the same for other journalists especially as the government can easily enact laws and decrees. These laws and decrees can be made retroactive to give government officials legal backing to deal adversely with journalists. The Buhari regime did exactly this in 1984, with the famous Decree 4, which tested the resilience of Nigerian journalists. The decree was promulgated to protect public officers from publications that might be a source of embarrassment. The commencement of this decree was made retroactive by the Buhari government, which enabled it to send two Guardian journalists to jail for writing a story about ambassadorial postings.

What does the future hold?

In general, there are a number of ways in which new information and communication technologies could be exploited to Nigeria's benefit. Apart from being invaluable to the processes of democracy - including elections - Nigerian journalists need training to improve their professional capabilities using computer technology. They need to familiarize themselves with the Internet. The benefits of training could help them run better newspapers, radio and television stations. Training will enable journalists to use the abundant information they can access via the internet to give a critical analysis of political, economic and social issues. In turn, this would enable them provide the people with information they need for making informed decisions.

Although press freedom has greatly increased compared to the past, there is a need to ensure that the next century is one in which there is not just an absence of the insidious threat of continued abridgement of press freedom and freedom of speech, but also in which we can see the development of the country in other spheres. The media in the new millennium should be able to play their part fully in lubricating the democratic processes of the fledgling democracy (when it comes) and for aiding economic and social development. There is still a need for security of lives of journalists especially when they publish or broadcast certain information and also unhindered access to information.

Undeniably, Nigeria has political and economic problems, but the rapidly changing conditions of the world of which Nigeria is a part make it imperative that the future of the media should be planned now with vision and enlightenment to exploit their potential for establishing freedom and stability. Of necessity, the decrees establishing media regulatory bodies will have to be amended, and a secure environment provided by media owners in which excellence in the profession and democracy can flourish.

References

·         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_%28communication%29

·         http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_media_should_not_be_controlled

·         http://www.blurtit.com/q637193.html

·         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age

·         http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090101131540AAU97lU

·         http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/STUDENTS/McCormick/govern.htm

·         http://waccglobal.org/en/19984-media-ownership-and-control/862-Media-ownership-in-Nigeria-Present-and-future-perspectives--.html

·         Omu, F. I. A. (1978) Press and Politics in Nigeria, 1880 - 1937. London: Longman Group Ltd.

·         Simeon Djankov, Caralee McLiesh, Tatiana Nenova, and Andrei Shleifer (June 2001) Who Owns the Media? World Bank, World Bank, World Bank, and Harvard University

·         Uche, Luke Uka (1989). Mass Media People and Politics in Nigeria. New Delph: Concept Publisher Company.

·         Uche, Luke Uka (1988). 'Democratic process in Africa and the new information technologies: Theoretical and methodological approaches for communication research in Africa on the emergent dialogue on democratization of the media. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the African Council on Communication Education (ACCE), held in Jos, Nigeria.