‘Media capture’
Citizens, when confronted by alternative policy options, are dependent on media to formulate an informed decision
The writer served as executive editor of The Express Tribune from 2009 to 2014
In many countries the ties between government and media are close. Such links can be forged through advertising or some form of state subsidy to the media, or simply through the relationships between political elites and media owners, but the effect is frequently the same: ‘captured’ media that does the bidding of elites and thus is not truly free.
The subject of ‘media capture’ was spotlighted at a conference held at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in April 2016. The state of media around the world was being discussed. The discussion showed how capture is manifested in different parts of the world.
The findings of the discussion form the content of a booklet titled Media Capture and threat to democracy. The following are some pertinent excerpts from it: Media and communications scholars have long looked at questions of commercial influence, ownership, the role of government, and other sources of political bias in shaping coverage.
Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988) famously proposed their “five filters” and included ideology, corporate ownership, and pressure from sources as factors that influence coverage. Ben H Bagdikian (1983) wrote about corporate control of the media and the effect it has on coverage, and sociologist Herbert Gans (1979), and others, have written about the way that sources shape coverage through developing relationships with reporters. Since then, others have refined these ideas to better understand the full range of forces that restrict or bias coverage.
Perhaps the best working definition of the media capture phenomenon is that provided by political scientist Alina Mungiu-Pippidi: “By ‘media capture’ I mean a situation in which the media have not succeeded in becoming autonomous in manifesting a will of their own, nor able to exercise their main function, notably of informing people. Instead, they have persisted in an intermediate state, with vested interests, and not just the government, using them for other purposes.”
Originally coined by the economics profession, “capture” is an economics term that describes what happens when regulators become overly empathetic or supportive of those they are meant to be regulating. It can almost be understood as “poacher-turned gamekeeper.”
If we assume one of the roles of the media is to regulate an economy or a political system by providing information that can lead to action by other agents in society, then media capture becomes a useful term to look at some of the reasons why the media do not always fulfill that role. These may all be said to be captured in some way: media that are ideologically controlled by government; media that are controlled by advertisers and owners; media coverage that pushes a certain agenda.
When the media get captured by those they are supposed to oversee they cannot or will not perform their critical societal role. Even where preemptive censorship no longer exists it is possible for formal press freedom to coexist with substantial political influence on the media. This influence has political outcomes.
Citizens, when confronted by alternative policy options, are dependent on the media in order to formulate an informed decision. When one of those options goes against public interest but holds a significant benefit for powerful interest groups, there is a risk that those interest groups will persuade or pressure media owners and managers to sway coverage in favour of the option that goes against public interest. This form of collusion between powerful interest groups and the media is more likely in societies with high levels of wealth concentration.
In a situation where the media are captured by the rich who can influence what is published, it can become impossible for voters to know what their true interests are, worsening inequality. Capture by the rich can have a longer-lasting effect than capture by politicians. Politicians can be voted out of office, but the rich cannot.
In short, media capture is a way of understanding how media systems are swayed or controlled by powerful interests around the world. As long as capture exists, the media are not truly free.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 16th, 2017.
The subject of ‘media capture’ was spotlighted at a conference held at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in April 2016. The state of media around the world was being discussed. The discussion showed how capture is manifested in different parts of the world.
The findings of the discussion form the content of a booklet titled Media Capture and threat to democracy. The following are some pertinent excerpts from it: Media and communications scholars have long looked at questions of commercial influence, ownership, the role of government, and other sources of political bias in shaping coverage.
Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988) famously proposed their “five filters” and included ideology, corporate ownership, and pressure from sources as factors that influence coverage. Ben H Bagdikian (1983) wrote about corporate control of the media and the effect it has on coverage, and sociologist Herbert Gans (1979), and others, have written about the way that sources shape coverage through developing relationships with reporters. Since then, others have refined these ideas to better understand the full range of forces that restrict or bias coverage.
Perhaps the best working definition of the media capture phenomenon is that provided by political scientist Alina Mungiu-Pippidi: “By ‘media capture’ I mean a situation in which the media have not succeeded in becoming autonomous in manifesting a will of their own, nor able to exercise their main function, notably of informing people. Instead, they have persisted in an intermediate state, with vested interests, and not just the government, using them for other purposes.”
Originally coined by the economics profession, “capture” is an economics term that describes what happens when regulators become overly empathetic or supportive of those they are meant to be regulating. It can almost be understood as “poacher-turned gamekeeper.”
If we assume one of the roles of the media is to regulate an economy or a political system by providing information that can lead to action by other agents in society, then media capture becomes a useful term to look at some of the reasons why the media do not always fulfill that role. These may all be said to be captured in some way: media that are ideologically controlled by government; media that are controlled by advertisers and owners; media coverage that pushes a certain agenda.
When the media get captured by those they are supposed to oversee they cannot or will not perform their critical societal role. Even where preemptive censorship no longer exists it is possible for formal press freedom to coexist with substantial political influence on the media. This influence has political outcomes.
Citizens, when confronted by alternative policy options, are dependent on the media in order to formulate an informed decision. When one of those options goes against public interest but holds a significant benefit for powerful interest groups, there is a risk that those interest groups will persuade or pressure media owners and managers to sway coverage in favour of the option that goes against public interest. This form of collusion between powerful interest groups and the media is more likely in societies with high levels of wealth concentration.
In a situation where the media are captured by the rich who can influence what is published, it can become impossible for voters to know what their true interests are, worsening inequality. Capture by the rich can have a longer-lasting effect than capture by politicians. Politicians can be voted out of office, but the rich cannot.
In short, media capture is a way of understanding how media systems are swayed or controlled by powerful interests around the world. As long as capture exists, the media are not truly free.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 16th, 2017.