Is the Western Press really free?
Bereket Gebru
This year’s international press day is up on us. The day is going to be marked all around the world. So, it is normal that states and organizations are gearing up to celebrate the day colorfully. Freedom House is one of such organizations and it has launched its “Freedom of the Press Report – Press Freedom’s Dark Horizon.” Like most of the international state backed organizations camouflaged as human rights and Press freedom advocates, Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press Report ranks the state of freedom in countries across the globe.
Considering these organizations are predominantly western with the political and financial backing of European and American governments, it is no wonder that they rank western states highly. Their parameters for ranking press freedom in other states are based on their similarity to western values and practices. The proliferation of print and electronic media that propagate liberalism would help a country score high while the adoption of models that promote local values, social cohesion and equitable distribution of national resources would push a state to the extremes of authoritarianism on their scale.
The report states: “only 13 percent of the world’s population enjoys a Free press—that is, a media environment where coverage of political news is robust, the safety of journalists is guaranteed, state intrusion in media affairs is minimal, and the press is not subject to onerous legal or economic pressures.” As indicated in the report, European and North American states make up a large portion of the special 13% states along with major western allies such as Australia and Japan. The rest of the states in the world are doomed by the report as having partially free and not free status.
Far from their constant claims that the Western media are the freest in the world, western renowned scholars who have conducted decades of research on the matter boldly state that they only serve the interests of a handful of societal groups. The prominent scholar Noam Chomsky in his book entitled “Manufacturing Consent” clearly states:
…the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and construct media policy. This is normally not accomplished by crude intervention but by the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalization of priorities and definitions of news worthiness that conform to the institution’s policy.
Chomsky’s Propaganda Model focuses on the inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media effects on mass-media interests and choices. The model traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out “the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public.”
The author then identifies the five set of ‘filters’ used by these interest groups. He explains that concentrated ownership and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms is one of such factors. Through merger and the purchase of smaller media outlets, claims the book, these interest groups have managed to control the whole media setting in the U.S. through only nine huge corporate companies.
The second filter the author identified was the use of advertising as the primary income source of the mass media. He contends that the heavy reliance on advertisements for finance leaves the media vulnerable to sanctions and rewards by these interest groups. Those who conform to the normal way of doing things would be rewarded while others who walk astray would be punished.
The third filter is the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power. As journalism is about verification, the role of relevant governmental bodies to confirm or deny news stories plays a pivotal role in producing news. For instance, destruction following protests need to be confirmed by the police or local governments on the cause, degree of damage done and participants of the protest. These provide the state and the powerful societal interests behind it a chance to mould their own version of the reality. The experts used to provide their professional opinions are also carefully selected to represent the views these interest groups favor.
The fourth filter is about “flak” as a means of disciplining the media. The author explains that “flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program that might take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and bills before congress, and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action. He notes that flaks produced on a large scale prove costly to the media. These actions are then compounded, he further asserts, by the withdrawal of patronage by advertisers.
The fifth filter is anticommunism. The author states that communism as the ultimate evil has been sold in the U.S. Obviously, the sense of communal ownership rocks the base of class position and superior status of the powerful societal interests. Anybody advocating policies that threaten property interests is labeled as one working to promote communism and the populace is mobilized against them. This especially works for the U.S.; however, the expansion of neo-liberalism across Europe has recently seen this move cross the Atlantic Ocean to Europe.
As the five filters of Chomsky’s propaganda model show, the media in the Western world are systematically controlled by powerful societal interest groups. Huge companies like News Corp., ABC and NBC make up a considerable portion of the U.S. media landscape. Owners like Rupert Murdock and Silvio Berlusconi control a considerable portion of the media setting in U.S. and Europe. For instance, Silvio Berlusconi controlled over 40% of the Italian media some years back.
With the media systematically hijacked by a handful of individuals and media conglomerates, the people of the West are deceived into believing that they are enjoying media freedom. Their voices and real demands, however, are left ineffective as the powerful societal interests and those in control of state power make sure that they seem to be defeated democratically. The issue of austerity is a prime example as the people of Europe demand for it to be dropped while the media and the state make sure that it is implemented. No matter how hard they try, Europeans have not managed to put a stop to austerity. The people of Greek also voted to leave the Euro currency two years ago but it has not materialized up to now. These things are perpetrated by the media and those in power.
Therefore, it is about time that the people of the U.S. and Europe wake up and realize what is going on around them. Speaking what you want does not count for anything unless your opinions are given a genuine chance of overcoming other options put forth by a handful of powerful people. The media is being used as an effective tool of shaping opinions and thwarting socially beneficial moves. So, the people of the West need to rise up to the deception of the media and liberate themselves. It is their obliviousness that is giving their governments and the handful of powerful people behind them a license to loot and carnage the world through various pretexts.