The power of newspaper ownership
Part 2 of a two-part article
The protective role of the press need recognition and emphasis. When things are routinely good and smooth, the sheltering role of a free press and the related democratic freedoms are typically not desperately missed. But they come into their own when things get fouled up, for one reason or another.
The recent problems of East and Southeast Asia bring out, among many other things, penalty of limitations on democratic freedom, of which the press is a part. Indeed the financial crisis in this region (from 1997 onwards) led to general economic recession, the protective power of democratic freedoms not unlike that which prevents famines was badly missed in some countries in the region.
Those who were newly dispossessed often did not have the voice they needed. The victims in, say, Indonesia or South Korea, the unemployed or those newly-made economically redundant may or may not have taken interest in democratic freedoms when things had been going up and up together for all.
But when things came tumbling down and divided they fell (as people standardly do in any large economic decline), the lack of democratic institution including a press tended to keep their voices muffled and ineffective.
Not surprisingly, civil and democratic right, including a free press, became a part of demands on which the recent agitations and rebellions have focused, and there has already been remarkable progress in political and civil rights in several countries in East and Southeast Asia (including of course, South Korea and Indonesia).
Informed and unregimented formation of our values requires openness of communication and arguments, and the freedom of the press cannot but be crucial to this process. Indeed, value formation is an interactive process, and the press has a major role in making these interactions possible.
As new standard emerges (for example the norm of smaller families and less frequent child bearing), it is public discussion as well as proximate emulation that spreads the new norms across a region and ultimately between regions.
Value formation
Even the very concept of what is to count as a "basic need" tends to be dependant on public discussion on what is important, and no less importantly, on what is feasible. Human beings suffer from miseries and deprivations of various kinds, some more amenable to alleviation than other.
The totality of the human predicament would be an impossible basis for a practical discussion of our "basic needs". Indeed, there are many things that we might have good reason to value if they were feasible such as complete immunity from illnesses of all kinds, or even immortality. Our conception of needs relates not only to the comprehension of the nature and extent of deprivations but also to our appreciation of what can or cannot be done about them.
These evaluations and understandings can be strongly influenced by the freedom and vigour of public discussion. A free press can be great ally of the process of development through, among other connections, its constructive role in value formation.
A criticism that is often made is that the newspaper may be far from neutral in their presentation. This need not, in itself, be a fatal flaw, so long as different newspapers present disparate points of view, and between them, give voice to many distinct perspectives that call for attention.
The problem, however, arises from the fact that given a systematic bias in the press, this may not actually happen. In this context, the private ownership of newspaper has often been seen, with reason, to be a source of concern, and there have also been suspicions, which too can be reasonable, about the selective influence of advertisers.
Hannen Swaffer, the British journalist, said in frustration, a quarter century ago: "Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to."
That judgement is probably too cynical and unjustifiably harsh, but there are problems here, to which we must pay attention for better use of press freedom.
Countervailing powers
There is, in fact, no easy way escaping the power of newspaper ownership. Newspaper establishments involve property, and it is hard to see that we can have arrangements through which newspaper owners own only that property and no other. In dealing with this issue, public ownership may not help either, since that would give the ruling government a special power that would, to a great extent, defeat the purpose of the freedom of the press.
It is useful in this context to invoke the idea of what John Kenneth Galbraith has called "countervailing powers". What is needed is not so much to obliterate any particular power, but to confront one power with another.
In the present context, this would be an argument not only for the multiplicity of private ownership from different parts of the business world, but also for supplementing them with cooperative ownership as well as with ownership by independent bodies and statutory boards.
The presence of other media, than other newspapers, including radio, television, the Internet, can also greatly help coverage and diversity. We have to rely, to a great extent, on the countervailing power of competition and confrontation to overcome the problem of bias.
There is also the different issue of the importance of journalistic ethics and commitment, which was briefly flagged earlier. This is not just a matter of the honesty and objectivity of journalism (though they too can be importantly involved), but also one of initiative, imagination and special motivation which would be needed to break less traveled grounds.
For example, even though it is very easy to be forceful on very visible deprivations such as famine or severe unemployment, the importance of bringing less obvious adversities (such as non-extreme hunger or defective schooling arrangements) can also be very great.
A right and a duty
While press freedom along with other democratic freedoms, had certainly helped independent India to avoid major famines altogether in its entire half of century of existence (in contrast with what standardly happened in the British Raj), nevertheless less striking but also important deprivations (such as endemic undernourishment, or persistent illiteracy, or inadequate health care) have not received the attention they deserve from the Indian press.
To overcome this, what is needed is not only a fuller practice of journalistic initiative and enterprise, but also the development of dedicated pressure groups that focus forcefully on particular deprivations. This too, in a broad sense, involves the invoking the countervailing powers to broaden the overall reach of the architecture of social institutions and activist alliances.
There are examples of some success in a number of fields. For example, women's organisations and feminists group in India have been able in recent years to give greater visibility and prominence to specific aspects of gender disparity, and have made a major contribution towards advancing awareness and debate.
There is need for commitment, but also for an adequately broad institutional structure with ample countervailing powers to secure range and impartiality. Press freedom deserves our strongest support, but the press has obligations as well as entitlements. Indeed, the freedom of the press defines both a right and a duty, and we have good reason to stand up for both.
Part 1: [#1] Government, too, can be victim of censorship[/#]
Part 2 of a two-part article
The protective role of the press need recognition and emphasis. When things are routinely good and smooth, the sheltering role of a free press and the related democratic freedoms are typically not desperately missed. But they come into their own when things get fouled up, for one reason or another.
The recent problems of East and Southeast Asia bring out, among many other things, penalty of limitations on democratic freedom, of which the press is a part. Indeed the financial crisis in this region (from 1997 onwards) led to general economic recession, the protective power of democratic freedoms not unlike that which prevents famines was badly missed in some countries in the region.
Those who were newly dispossessed often did not have the voice they needed. The victims in, say, Indonesia or South Korea, the unemployed or those newly-made economically redundant may or may not have taken interest in democratic freedoms when things had been going up and up together for all.
But when things came tumbling down and divided they fell (as people standardly do in any large economic decline), the lack of democratic institution including a press tended to keep their voices muffled and ineffective.
Not surprisingly, civil and democratic right, including a free press, became a part of demands on which the recent agitations and rebellions have focused, and there has already been remarkable progress in political and civil rights in several countries in East and Southeast Asia (including of course, South Korea and Indonesia).
Informed and unregimented formation of our values requires openness of communication and arguments, and the freedom of the press cannot but be crucial to this process. Indeed, value formation is an interactive process, and the press has a major role in making these interactions possible.
As new standard emerges (for example the norm of smaller families and less frequent child bearing), it is public discussion as well as proximate emulation that spreads the new norms across a region and ultimately between regions.
Value formation
Even the very concept of what is to count as a "basic need" tends to be dependant on public discussion on what is important, and no less importantly, on what is feasible. Human beings suffer from miseries and deprivations of various kinds, some more amenable to alleviation than other.
The totality of the human predicament would be an impossible basis for a practical discussion of our "basic needs". Indeed, there are many things that we might have good reason to value if they were feasible such as complete immunity from illnesses of all kinds, or even immortality. Our conception of needs relates not only to the comprehension of the nature and extent of deprivations but also to our appreciation of what can or cannot be done about them.
These evaluations and understandings can be strongly influenced by the freedom and vigour of public discussion. A free press can be great ally of the process of development through, among other connections, its constructive role in value formation.
A criticism that is often made is that the newspaper may be far from neutral in their presentation. This need not, in itself, be a fatal flaw, so long as different newspapers present disparate points of view, and between them, give voice to many distinct perspectives that call for attention.
The problem, however, arises from the fact that given a systematic bias in the press, this may not actually happen. In this context, the private ownership of newspaper has often been seen, with reason, to be a source of concern, and there have also been suspicions, which too can be reasonable, about the selective influence of advertisers.
Hannen Swaffer, the British journalist, said in frustration, a quarter century ago: "Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to."
That judgement is probably too cynical and unjustifiably harsh, but there are problems here, to which we must pay attention for better use of press freedom.
Countervailing powers
There is, in fact, no easy way escaping the power of newspaper ownership. Newspaper establishments involve property, and it is hard to see that we can have arrangements through which newspaper owners own only that property and no other. In dealing with this issue, public ownership may not help either, since that would give the ruling government a special power that would, to a great extent, defeat the purpose of the freedom of the press.
It is useful in this context to invoke the idea of what John Kenneth Galbraith has called "countervailing powers". What is needed is not so much to obliterate any particular power, but to confront one power with another.
In the present context, this would be an argument not only for the multiplicity of private ownership from different parts of the business world, but also for supplementing them with cooperative ownership as well as with ownership by independent bodies and statutory boards.
The presence of other media, than other newspapers, including radio, television, the Internet, can also greatly help coverage and diversity. We have to rely, to a great extent, on the countervailing power of competition and confrontation to overcome the problem of bias.
There is also the different issue of the importance of journalistic ethics and commitment, which was briefly flagged earlier. This is not just a matter of the honesty and objectivity of journalism (though they too can be importantly involved), but also one of initiative, imagination and special motivation which would be needed to break less traveled grounds.
For example, even though it is very easy to be forceful on very visible deprivations such as famine or severe unemployment, the importance of bringing less obvious adversities (such as non-extreme hunger or defective schooling arrangements) can also be very great.
A right and a duty
While press freedom along with other democratic freedoms, had certainly helped independent India to avoid major famines altogether in its entire half of century of existence (in contrast with what standardly happened in the British Raj), nevertheless less striking but also important deprivations (such as endemic undernourishment, or persistent illiteracy, or inadequate health care) have not received the attention they deserve from the Indian press.
To overcome this, what is needed is not only a fuller practice of journalistic initiative and enterprise, but also the development of dedicated pressure groups that focus forcefully on particular deprivations. This too, in a broad sense, involves the invoking the countervailing powers to broaden the overall reach of the architecture of social institutions and activist alliances.
There are examples of some success in a number of fields. For example, women's organisations and feminists group in India have been able in recent years to give greater visibility and prominence to specific aspects of gender disparity, and have made a major contribution towards advancing awareness and debate.
There is need for commitment, but also for an adequately broad institutional structure with ample countervailing powers to secure range and impartiality. Press freedom deserves our strongest support, but the press has obligations as well as entitlements. Indeed, the freedom of the press defines both a right and a duty, and we have good reason to stand up for both.
Part 1: [#1] Government, too, can be victim of censorship[/#]
AMARTYA SEN is 1998 Nobel laureate for economics, and he delivered the above keynote address at the recent World Congress of the International Press Institute in New Delhi.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.