Mention 'independent media' and we immediately think of monarchs, political dictators, uniformed heads of state, military junta and similar entities as the main obstacles for media independence. There may be some honourable exceptions, but in general, our past experiences tell us how these types of political systems are anathema to independence in general, and independent media in particular.

At this forum, there is hardly any need to discuss how crucial independent media is for strengthening democracy. All of us, who are fighting for the cause of independent media, know it well. We all believe in the values cherished by independent media and have strong roots and traditions of free media. Some of us may have a history of struggle for free and independent media.

In this context, I always remember James Augustus Hicky, an Irishman who launched India’s first newspaper ‘Bengal Gazette’ in 1780. A vocal proponent of media freedom, Hicky once said, “I am willing to enslave my body to gain freedom for my soul.” Due to this strong tradition, Indian journalism has always enjoyed complete independence, except for a brief period during the Emergency of 1975-1977.

But we must understand that the threat to media freedom, post globalisation, comes more from private enterprises, entities willing — and capable — to spend billions on advertising, rather than from political systems and personalities running the country. CEOs and boards, along with media managements willing to surrender their freedom for dollars, are potentially more of a threat than dictators, prime ministers and heads of states. Here, monetary power appears to be more influential than political power. Unfortunately, media managements are also more than willing to succumb to corporate pressures.

But these are at least outside powers, if we may use the word, that are trying to dictate terms by throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars at the media. The issue that causes more concern is the undermining of the scribes' rights and powers within the media organisations by the managers. It is the circulation, marketing and advertising managers who have started dictating terms to journalists, and they have the full support of the managements on this.

The former editor of 'USA Today' James Fallows, in his book 'Breaking the News', expressed concern about this shifting of business controls from the hands of technocracts to finance people in the U.S.A. The trend, which probably began in the U.S. in the '80s, is now evident in many other places, particularly — and very strongly so — in India.

Recently, a few senior editors from India expressed concern over this trend in their respective articles. “Editors in India are an endangered species,” said Vinod Mehta, editor of the newsweekly 'Outlook'. Another legendary editor, Khushwant Singh, also expressed similar sentiments saying that “the hard truth about Indian journalism is that proprietors matter, editors do not; money counts, talent does not.”

Rahul Singh, another senior Indian journalist, has aptly summarised the situation in his article when he said, “The marketing departments, not editorial, run the show, often making editorial appointments and deciding how the front page should look and what it should display. The Indian newspapers have become brands and products, not agents of change and enlightenment.”

Market share, advertising revenue and political self-interest drive corporate media agenda. The society has started to lose the diversity of political viewpoints that are important for democracy and freedom. On one hand, the media are growing and expanding rapidly. But the growth is not translating into improved content standards. In fact, fierce competition is scaling down the level of content to the bottom.

I have purposely elaborated in detail the developments in India. There is a danger that the same trend will be followed elsewhere in Asia sooner or later, or perhaps it already exists elsewhere. The most unfortunate part of the story is that this is all being done in the name of readers and viewers. The managers are telling the journalists what type of content the readers and viewers want. And they are taking it upon themselves to decide in these matters because they claim to know more than the journalists as to what readers want.

Unfortunately, many readership surveys and television rating points (TRP) support this argument. Viewers are interested in trivialisation and sensation. There could be many fallacies in measuring TRPs or conducting surveys. But the fact remains that decisions in advertising markets worth billions of dollars are taken on the basis of these figures.

One more obstacle for independent media is created by what we call 'mobocracy'. In every society there are some sacrosanct issues and personalities. Writing about them or against them is sure to invite the wrath of supporters of that issue or personality. And this wrath normally takes a violent form, resulting in attacks and assaults on media offices and journalists. Learning lessons from such violence, journalists often tend to bypass that topic completely and wisely avoid writing about it. The loss is again to the people and society.

Secondly, it is necessary that we all do some introspection. Many times it is observed that journalists have lost contact with the people. The fourth estate is supposed to confront the three estates. Instead, the fourth estate is either becoming a part of or associating with the other three estates.

It is easier to fight against the political system when it works as an opponent of or an obstacle to freedom, because the enemy is known to all of us. We have established methods to fight against it. But fighting an enemy that is within our own system is a formidable challenge.

When we search for solutions to these new problems and challenges we will have to work on several fronts. On one hand, we will have to give good quality content to our readers and viewers and train them to consume it. To put it crudely, if we have been giving garbage to people as food, after some time people will think garbage is the food and may not accept real food.

Thus, when we talk of independent media, media literacy should be considered an integral part of it. It is only with the strong backing of the people that we can stand up and fight for independent media. But to gain people’s support for independent media, media also will have to gain credibility and in order to do this, serious content will have to be provided to the people. We will have to avoid the sort of news that James Fallows describes as a “distractant machine”.

But here lies the crux of the problem. As journalists we do not call the shots — the marketing people do. The marketing department is not interested in serious content. It is a vicious circle that we have to break somewhere.

We will have to tell the people that we cannot have an active democracy with a news system that self-censors stories on their marketability rather than considering their real news value and importance for informing the society impartially. We will have to tell the people what the real news is — the news that touches on daily life and the problems people are facing in their daily lives. The real news is that which keeps the people informed, helps them to decide a course of action, enhances their social and political understanding, empowers them and supports and builds movements for social change and for people-centric policies.

To invest in independent media, we must remember and emphasise the editor’s role, the purpose of journalism and the function of news. In this context, I again wish to quote Vinod Mehta’s words. He said, “Editors are employed to lead readers, not be led by them. Really great journalism must do more than merely give people what they want. Brand managers, with honourable exceptions, are congenitally incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of journalism in a free society. They can never understand that content also has a social dimension.”

Finally, we will have to think of how we can have a level playing field for our media organisations versus advertisers to maintain our independence. On the other hand, we will have to think of how we, as journalists, will have level playing field within our organisations as against our colleagues from managements.

Our agenda for investing in independent media and having a system for ensuring independent, pluralistic media, should include the following points : a) think of good public service broadcasting as a positive alternative and work for it, b) give importance to readers’/viewers’ training to have media literacy and c) as individual journalists, to establish strong ties with people’s organisation. These steps will pave the way to a resurgent independent media.

*Milind Kokje, Asia Media Forum coordinator, delivered this presentation at the Global Forum for Media Development's 1st Asian Regional Forum on Media Development, July 4 and 5, 2008, in Sri Lanka.