Poll Comments - Media Ownership and Democratic Government

This poll was conducted February 1-15, 2002:

Without diversified media ownership [e.g., private sector, the State, community groups] it is not possible to have representative, democratic government in a country.

Do you agree? Disagree? Can not decide?

AGREE


"One owner ultimately means one point of view whatever the higher intention." [Philippines]

"In a country where 60% for example of any media; newspaper, television, radio, is owned by one person a society will not get an accurate and well balanced view of themselves and their political leaders. It is very difficult to get unbiased journalism as all stories are reported on by individuals with opinions, but it is almost impossible when those same journalists are afraid to write the truth for fear of losing their job, political persecution, or worse." [Malawi]

"Whereas diversified ownership has to be a pre-requisite, this in itself may not always deliver the desired results - commercial interests can influence media content in ways just as pernicious as state political control. The key has to be balance between the various components of a country's media structure." [no country provided]

"South Africa and Zimbabwe are good examples." [South Africa]

"I have researched media in Russia, just after the Soviet Union fell. I saw that the trends there with respect to privatization of the media were all too familiar. The media, no longer controlled by the state, were being increasing censored by their private sponsers. Now, as we all know (at least I hope others are aware), the media in Russia are ever more controlled by the state again - directly sometimes and indirectly at others (the FSB (former KGB) can still force local papers to print what they want - their planted stories that is).Therefore, I'd say that a healthy democracy requires access to different points of view. Different points of view does not mean various comments not only on the issues that the leading papers dictate to us, but also information about other issues out there that the main papers' agendas do not include." [Peru]

"Media is the 5th estate. Without it, there is no checks on the government or its institutions. This is also an essential component of the freedom of expression." [Canada]

"A democratic system is founded on the belief that it represents the will of the people. Without independent, non-partisan media, it is impossible to voice and disseminate the opinions, views and concerns of the people, which provide the checks and balances crucial to democratic societies." [Canada]

"Absolutly true but needs to within a regulatory framework that is enforcable and realistic." [no country provided]

"Diversified media provides a wide range of opinion and advice and it allows the freedom of press to prevail. Without freedom of press in a country, the government can not be democratic at all." [UK]

"Media monopoly is harmful." [Canada]

"Increasingly civil society participation became in thing whileever policies are drawn, this is because of funding partners insistence, but true participation doesn't occur as the seriousness of beneficiary involvement is undervalued or not valued at all." [India]

"We need more voices and representation in the media. Owners over time have found ways of making sure that the sources of their investment is not hurt by positions taken by their workers. We need independent voices controled by the people or held in trust by communities." [USA]

"However, "diversified" is not a guarantee. Also "diversified" should be more precisely defined." [USA]

"It really concerns me that there is so little diversity of opinion expressed in the media. It makes me feel as if I'm being brainwashed!" [Canada]

"While in Australia last year I noticed some disturbing news biais in the Murdoch newspapers." [New Caledonia]

"Competition in media ownership between government and private sector is vital to get the truth to the public to the extent possible." [no country provided]

"I look to the Internet and Radio National here in Australia, everything else is so biased that it's not worth the time." [Australia]

"State owned media are biased and therefore information does not present a wide range of opinions, etc...which does not allow for democratic processes." [no country provided]

"No single "owner" can eliminate bias from its selection of material to present, to say nothing of "spin." Similarly, corporations seem to have fairl uniform views on economic issues. There is no substitute therefore for a variety of types of ownership, including coops as well as the ones you mention." [Canada]

"Private ownership of news media was the model adopted when modern democratic western societies arouse, so that the government would not have control over the information (after all, according to principles developed in the Enlightenment, people should always be suspicious about their government). But, if there is a media monopoly, these businesses, and not the government, would be able to manipulate information to their best interests." [Brazil]

"Unless people at the grassroot are also effectively involved in media ownership, and the fact that media are powerful in influencing decisions, then we do not expect a true representative democratic government in a situation where media are just owned and controlled by few people." [Tanzania]

"There is not freedom or free will when individuals lack either the internal or the external conditions to understand their situation and operate successfully. Mass media, linked to the increasing appetite of egocentric producers and consumers do not contribute to forestall present evils. Freedom from and freedom for are two different things. The ability to choose and the ability to act on this choice depend on the access to different approaches. New ways of being-in-the-world require the development of cognitive and affective dimensions, in order to empower people to assess and act upon the cultural background leading to social unrest and violence. This depends on the construction of new paradigms, supported by different kind of alternative media, linked to universities, non-governmental organizations and communities." [Brazil]

"But that means that all countries need to take look at this balance as in most developed countries there is a growing media monopoloy by the private sector." [Canada]

"Democracy depends upon an "informed" public. We need as many sources as possible in order to arrive at intelligent decisions and positions." [USA]

"I believe that there has to be diversified media so that there are diverswse views, issues and dabates. Concentration of ownership means that there would be less voices those representing the owners' class. In Swaziland we have three State owned media and one newspaper. Thus for information critical of the government, corruption etcetera we have to rely on the only privately owned newspaper." [Swaziland]

"In Bangladesh, the government has made many poorly informed decisions regarding IT. Very seldom is the public consulted before ISP telephone charges are raised, RR connectivity turned over to one NGO, undersea cable considered sinister, community based ISPs discouraged, e-government initiatives squelched. This reflects the non-democratic spirit of both of the political parties, unfortunately. However, there is a strong surge of IT interest among entrapreneurs and NGOs. The success of these private ventures should energize the IT "haves" in this country to try more adventurous equity experiments." [no country provided]

"Canada is currently experiencing just this problem... there are now one hudge media giant running most of the major Canadian newspapers and another that own the country's largest privat broadcat network, the "national" newspaper, a major phone company, a satellite TV distribution service and even more media. The newspaper chain has decided that all editorials of all it's newspapers must be vetted by head office and are sometimes re-written or tossed my head office... Journalists are up in arms, writing protest letters and setting up protest websites (that have been threatened with legal action and taken down)... Canada is in the process of loosing its VERY impirtant regional voices and freedom of expression." [Canada]

"I agree, but diversified media ownership alone cannot bring about democracy. Freedom of information and the skills of critical thinking with which to evaluate that infornation and form an opinion is required of all citizens. could a succesful democracy make this possible?" [no country provided]

"Read Michael Parenti for an in-depth explanation." [no country provided]

"Diversified media ownership leads to catering to the different needs of the community and society at large. It is important for bringing harmony and accelerating the development process." [India]

"Representative, democratic governments express themselves through media as well. media thus must be representative and democratic as well to understand what they speak of." [The [Philippines]

"Diversity of media ownership needs to be regulated to ensure all sectors are fairly represented." [England]

"This provides a diversity of media voices as well as being more representative of different parts of society." [South Africa]

"The issues and persons in politics are shaped through public communications. Mass media in the United States is organized in large commercial enterprises. Economic benefits to the organizations that own media outlets are too seductive for them to provide unbiased reporting. They cannot cover the issues with balance. In the United States we have already greatly eroded a representative form of government. We live with politics that is shaped by the business interests of the organizations that own the channels of our news." [USA]

"Democratization process requires free access to information. This is only possible through diversification of media ownership, which will provide ample scope to share ideas and thoughts with oppness and more importantly depicts the factual evidences without any hesitation. State run Media Moghuls restricts the process and cross-breeding of ideas." [Bangladesh]

"The current landslide toward media concentration at the national and global level, together with media dependance from advertising revenue is a serious threat to democratic life." [France]

"It is only through diversity of media that we can hear all voices. the role of the media can, however, also be negative in building up eextremist groups, and encouraging intolerant views." [Namibia]

"The media offer a critical space for public discourse. In my experience diverse participation in media (including ownership, employment, representation, access and more factors) contributes to greater accountability of government as well as engagement of the citizenry. In my country and in most of the world, we have a long way to go to build democracy with strong, diverse participation and integrity." [USA]

"No comments. The affirmative above is kind of obvious." [Brazil]

"Media increasingly plays the role of mediator in social affairs, and thus without a media that can voice all (or many) sectors in society, those voices are unheard. It is also true that a diversified media may not be enough, if the values that underpin democracy are not rooted in the society." [South Africa]

"Democracy comes in many shapes and sizes. Sometimes it means to go thru the motions of holding "elections" while engineering the results behind the scenes. In its purest form, the sine qua non of democracy is empowerment of the individual. The state derives its power of, by, and for the people and is totally in their thrall. To the extent that the citizenry does not control power, the system is less democratic. The answer to this question, therefore, is that diversified media ownership is one of the most fundamental building blocks of a true democracy; to the extent that the media is centralized under the state, the system is less and less democratic." [USA]

"CanWest Global's decision to impose corporate editorials on its newspapers without opportunity for local rebuttal is a good example of the kind of abuses that can occur when one company owns the majority of daily newspapers in a country. We need to hear many voices and many points of view. Without this knowledge we have no power." [Canada]

"Democracy of media systems-diversity, access, etc-and communications rights are FUNDAMENTAL to democracy, social justice and a better world." [USA]

"Diversity of thought and of so-called factual investigation are the lifeblood of every society, and I am not only referring to democracies." [no country provided]

"Does it not seem logical that one owner means one mind. Ny spreading the ownership we are to experience various points of view compared to a single corporate-minded monopolist portrayal of the of the world." [Canada]

"There have been examples of undemocratic countries with free media, but to my knowledege never the opposite. Freedom and democracy are built bottom-top, not top-down." [Switzerland]

"The power of the press belongs to those who own one." [USA]

"This goes to the core definition of free press and democracy - in contrast to dictatorships, the lynchpin of democracy is an electorate which can make informed decisions/judgements about those who govern and the powerful vested interests whicho seek to control government. The governed therefore need exposure to the widest range of views - the narrower the views the further we move form democracy. Diversity in ownership is an important protection against a uniform public monologue - and provides at least a chance, for informed public debate." [Australia]

"They say the essence of democracy is to have an informed populous. How are we informed? Through the media, naturally. As such we need to be presented w/ and understand a variety of viewpoints. If media is homoginous, we recieve only a narrow perspective. True diversity in ownership allows for true dialog (I hope). Now, just make people pay attention." [USA]

"But the question in the Drum Beat was different. It was "Does diversified media ownership always lead to democracy?". The answer to that question is no, diversified ownership is a necessary but insufficient requirement." [no country provided]

"Without diversity, what we get is little more than fascist propaganda." [no country provided]

"I agree with the following qualifications:

a) having diverse media does not gaurantee democratic government and

b) state regulation of media is crucial to a measure of democratic intervention in the operation of media;

c) diversified media ownership is useful to demoracy only if there they support avenues of access for thier audiences." [Australia]

"It's become obvious, at least in the U.S., that as the groups controlling the media become fewer and more intensely involved in benefiting directly from decisions made by government, the less likely media will be to directly challenge or criticize power." [no country provided]

"Media Most Important way." [Pakistan]

"Without diversified media, its owner can manipulate the communication on behalf of his own personal interests." [Colombia]

"What's the alternative?" [UK]

"What all forms of media, all opinions represented in the media need is equal access to the entire mass public in order to truly preserve democracy." [no country provided]

"It is very important that the medias of little cities can exist." [Argentina]

"This would buttress a multiplicity of views to promote democarcy and development." [Kenya]

"While private ownership and competetion in publication needs no explaining, I would like to stress that private sector includes much more than business houses. There should be media groups run by cooperatives, board of trustees, etc. Too much power for an individual sometimes bodes ill for professionalism. Forwarding the pluralistic logic of democracy to media ownership is a good idea." [India]

"The huge media conglomerates like Clear Channel Communications have totally destroyed community radio in the USA. Rather using community airwaves for information and cultural exchange and communication, it is now used in an attempt to control "80%of a markets advertising revenue", as the folks at CCC put it. If we are going to have a the FCC governing the airwaves they must return to regulations that limit station ownership in each town, and give licensing preference to community based organizations and companies and not national media giants." [USA]

"The "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules." [no country provided]

"Any form of controlled media and state control of editorial can corrupt the democratic process and stifle democratic progress, dialogue and the exchange of ideas and arguements within a healthy environment." [UK]

"This statement is right today because the state no longer monopolise the media and the large population is free to choose and decide according to their conscience and their constitutional right. This in essence means that in some states freedom of press is both guaranteed and thrives because of competetion." [Kenya]

"A democratic govt. is of the people, by the people and for the people." [India]

"I have long been concerned over the concentration of media ownership into fewer and fewer hands resuting in a bland monoculture of opinions and debate(oxymoron?). I have also worked as a journalist in a nation where all media is owned by the state - the result was a monoculture of opinion and debate. Believe me, we don't want to go there." [UK]

"In brief, pluralism is the best defence against antidemocratic media." [no country provided]

"We feel this to our bone in Zimbabwe right now." [Zimbabwe]

"However, the issue should go beyond ownership to access to these media...I would rather phrase the question 'Without access to diversified media...'" [Mozambique]

"The voice of the powerful supresses those of the less powerful and also the few with assess to the media/ who own it use it selflessly for their own ends as has happened in the case of Zimbabwe whereby the independent media has used it to achieve its own end and the state media doing like wise as a result people only heard what the state or what those who own the independent media wanted them to hear and no other voice was heard, also both too extremme and none reporting objectively. So whatever decisions people make based on these they are doing so using information which is grossly biased." [ ]

"This is so true..even for democratic countries such as USA, where any dissenting opinion is not tolerated in mainstream media. Private ownership tends to concentrate in few hands who determine the editorial policy and how media supports or not support a person, cause or issue. Hence diversity in media ownership is fundamental for a true democratic society." [ ]

"For me, this so obvious that no additional comment should be necessary." [France]

"The monopoly on media of Government promotes dictatorship." [Pakistan]

DISAGREE [top]

"One of the real contributions of technology is the expansion of media. Internet, community and NGO newpapers and magazines (I get about 10 a month) community radio, email networks. Controling the media will only get harder in the future. Limited ownership will become counterproductive to profits as "alternative" media develop to fill the nitch." [no country provided]

"Even if there were no media at all, democracy is always possible. media coverage is expansive and not always trustee,Without media, representative work differently and are more near the people which will elected them." [no country provided]

"How diversified is diversified? Mostly it's just a domination of private (meaning pro-profit) interests... specially in our given setup." [no country provided]

""Diversified" does not equal democracy in the way the question is framed. The state would only produce propaganda and the private sector has shown that it will only promote it's agenda: profit - which makes it a de facto agent of the state (i.e., American government), which in turn only promotes "free" market capitalism. If non-profit organizations without any corporate underwriting were allocated/mandated at least ten percent of the media then one could make the argument that there would be diversity/democracy via a relatively objective media." [USA]

"A "free press" is not the only gurantee for having democratic governments, but it's a good short-cut." [no country provided]

UNDECIDED [top]


"Initially I thought this too simple and obvious a question ... but you're right, it's not! Certainly in the context of my adopted home, the Philippines, a highly diversified media has not managed to create a representative, democratic government. So clearly, the presence of an apparently free press is not enough in itself. Thus it is difficult to state whether the absence of media diversity of ownership necessarily ensures the impossibility of democracy. A free and diverse press needs to be coupled with good governance, and transparent, non-corrupt practices-not just in government, but in every day social norms, including those practiced within media themselves, no matter who owns these channels. We have suffered in this country from a (generally) habitually negative press-carrying over from the time of the dictator Marcos, when that type of watchdog approach was precisely what was required. Now, most people are tired of bad news and constant negativity and would welcome more positive news coverage. That is something the news media marketing departments should explore: trends in readership preferences. Perhaps ownership has little to do with it-and what is really required is an objective media mix teamed with an active and pragmatic civil society... the perfect recipe of course is true multisectoral partnership and common goals... a pipe dream some say... I hope not." [Philippines]

"Maybe the reverse is true: without a democratic government, diversified media ownership is not likely. If diversified media ownership does not exist, democracy is probably weaker, but not non-existent." [no country provided]

"Certainly it is, but the demographic government will facilitate, if not allow this diversification." [no country provided]