Press Freedom - Journalists and freedom of speech
Communications proprietors resist access and ownership regulation and, . time that media corporations have resisted free speech objections to the cable controlled “the physical connection between the television set and the cable. In Turkey, media ownership is highly concentrated, with a few major is indicative of the challenge that confronts freedom of expression and. Giddens in Meier said, “The media have a double relation to democracy. a person that will have respect for the ethics of journalism and freedom of expression.
It also controls many of the regional and local newspapers and periodicals across the vast country.
A propaganda model, we would stress, that is far more persuasive than were the stale and repetitive methods of the past. A second model consists of media owners who, either out of fear or a desire to ingratiate themselves with the political leadership, fail to support and protect their journalists. On one level we see examples of this in societies like Mexico, where narcotraffickers and corrupt officials often determine not simply how an issue is to be covered but whether certain subjects will be dealt with at all.
How Media Ownership Threatens Press Freedom
A third case consists of the vertically organized conglomerates that control both media and non-media enterprises. Unlike traditional companies of even larger media conglomerates, family controlled or other, these new multi-faceted business conglomerate operations often have no principled commitment to news coverage as anything beyond a profit-generating part of the broader enterprise.
Especially in settings where the political leadership employs economic leverage to influence press coverage, the conglomerate model is vulnerable to intimidation. A prime example of this phenomenon is Turkey, where press freedom is on the decline despite an impressive number of newspapers, journals, and television stations.
In Turkey, media ownership is highly concentrated, with a few major private holding companies subtly applying pressure on editors and journalists at their outlets to refrain from coverage that could harm their broader business interests, including criticism of the government or potential advertisers. The state of media freedom has declined to the point where the latest Freedom House report describes the media environment as not free. There are also worrying signs in democratic societies where legal protections for journalists are strong and overt political intrusion uncommon.
In the United States, the major sources of television news are dominated by the conglomerate model. News media should be truthful, accurate, fair, objective and relevant 3. The media should be free but self-regulated 4. The media should follow agreed codes of ethics and professional conducts 5. Under some circumstances, government may need to intervene to safeguard the public interest. The more sources of information we have, the greater our knowledge.
The greater our knowledge, the more intelligently we can select our representatives in government at all levels, and the better we can guide their decisions.
In Africa, most state owned media are often used by the government as tools for propaganda. A variety of sources of information independent of each other is essential as well. On many issues, media outlets will to varying degrees reflect the interests of their individual owners.
The media is to serve the public interest, and may make money while doing so. A closer look at the relationship between media ownership and democracy in countries known to uphold freedom of expression for decades will give us a clear light of how much work needed to make this union a strong one that will bring about political stability and democracy in Africa.
The reason is fundamental: In a healthy democracy, those who disseminate information must not be fettered in their role of holding government accountable. However, a free press will help in building the democracy of a country. But media because of their power and the often conflicting demands of profit and service under which they operate are open to control. This is something that is unheard of in Africa and other developing countries of the world.
Perhaps and expression is not only in the volume of circulation but because other methods of regulating ownership, such as com- also in the volume of news and views. Its objective is to ensure low upheld only when there are absolutely no restrictions on how barriers to entry for newer media owners in the media market, much a single person can speak, or can it also be upheld when and has little to do with media consumers in the market.
However, media infrastructural regulation governs not only The freedom of speech and expression includes a right to the activities of owners of the media, but also the scope of speak and express, but in the light of scarcity of newsprint, for reception of information through such media.
By acknowledg- instance, for a newspaper does this also include a right to ing that the reach of information disseminated through media speak and express as much as one wants without any fetters?
But the government does not In such a scenario, the governance of media ownership see this restraint at this level as a violation of freedom of speech through regulation of media infrastructure throws up a unique and expression. The loss on advertisements may not only entail advertisements and therefore the cut in pages will not be the closing down but also affect the circulation and thereby felt by them if they adjusted their advertisement space. Why are then the financial means of sustenance for big to express itself by the media of two or more newspapers.
How Media Ownership Threatens Press Freedom | Free Press Unlimited
If a common newspapers, namely, advertisements, protected under free- ownership unit were to go on acquiring or sponsoring new newspa- dom of speech and expression here, while not the financial pers and if the claim for quota for all the newspapers is admitted, that means for sustenance of smaller newspapers? The majority of would result in concentration of newspaper ownership and will accel- court rulings seemed to ignore this question.
The printing of commercial advertisements on it be in the form of advertisements or coverage of news and limited newsprint and number of pages is seen to displace views—is seen as a business decision under Article 19 1 gand relevant coverage of news and views, which unlike advertise- not as a free speech issue.
It is the scope of such business deci- ments are protected under the freedom of speech and expres- sion that the government looks to limit under Article 19 6. The opposing claim of the not giving the means of financial sustenance of one kind of government on free speech therefore stems out of understand- newspaper protection under right to freedom of speech and ing volume of speech made, as a decision under Article 19 1 g expression over another kind of newspaper.
Implicitly, this and not Article 19 1 a.
Media Ownership and Control Versus Press Freedom in a Democratic Africa | OMICS International
Both rights fall within the ambit of the concept of they are issued by businessmen. These claims circle the determination of That will also deprive them of their freedom of speech and ex- how far something which has been said can be disseminated pression. On the other hand, if as a result of restriction on page or propagated under the freedom of speech and expression.
The recognition of and expression. Article 19 1 a. In Sakal, for example, the court held: For the purpose of propagating his Why is this significant? The court in Sakal, as well as in the ideas every citizen has a right to publish them, to disseminate them majority opinion in Bennett Coleman, is obsessed with the and to circulate them.
In other words, interest in this. This thornier question is however posed by the government In the above paragraph, it is quite unclear what rationale in the same case when it asserts that freedom of speech and the Court is using to justify a right to unlimited volume of expression under the Constitution is not so much for the ben- circulation, outside of merely stating that a right to circulate efit of the press as for the benefit of all people.Freedom of Expression explained (explainity® explainer video)
By asserting speech, unless such speech falls under Article 19 2is this, the government actually makes a distinction between protected under Article 19 1 a.
The interest of the same justification it uses for another. Nevertheless, it all people goes beyond mere right to read into also questions does establish both the right to circulate as well as the right to of, for example, the right to read from a diverse choice of circulate an unlimited volume as part of freedom of speech sources.
The government is then claiming that the freedom of and expression. Conversely, this also implies the for everyone to be realised as part of Article 19 1 a when the right of a diversity of voices to access and express themselves media infrastructure in question is a scarce commodity?
In Cricket Association of Bengal, this question was raised However, only one judge on the bench, Justice Mathew, with respect to television broadcast airwaves.
Since airwaves tackles this claim in his minority opinion. He initially frames constitute a scarce media infrastructure, who should be it in terms of individual versus social interest: There is an sion?
For ensuring the free speech right of the citi- zens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues.
Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizens to arrive available at at informed judgment on all issues touching them. This cannot be pro- vided by a medium controlled by a monopoly— whether the monopoly Delhi Magazine Distributors Pvt Ltd is of the State or any other individual, group or Organisation. He does this later while quoting the American fundamental rights under the Constitution.