Control is Better

The traditional separation of powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—sometimes fails, makes mistakes, and can err, a reality that cannot be avoided. This is especially true within authoritarian or dictatorial regimes, where state power systematically violates human rights and obstructs freedoms.

However, even in democratic countries, shortcomings sometimes emerge, although the law is democratically established, the government is elected through universal suffrage, and the judiciary is not, at least theoretically, bound to follow the executive’s orders.

Still, it can happen that the justice system convicts an innocent person, or that a parliament enacts laws that discriminate against certain minority groups (consider, for example, the century-long segregation of Black citizens in the United States or the discrimination against Muslims following the enactment of the USA Patriot Act). Governments may also pursue policies with disastrous effects on large parts of society (as seen in some recent EU policies on economic refugees and asylum seekers).

The noblest duty of journalists and media professionals is to expose such cases of legal violations. They have often paid dearly for fulfilling this duty, becoming victims of attacks, appearing on "missing" lists, and even being murdered—something that still happens today in countries like Colombia, Guatemala, Pakistan, Turkey, and the Philippines.

This is why the press was long considered the "fourth estate." Thanks to this "fourth estate," which was based on the civic spirit of mass media and the courage of journalists, citizens in the past had the ability to criticize unjust decisions, reject illegal decrees, and oppose criminal actions that affected innocent people by democratic means. In short, the press was regarded as the voice of those who lacked a voice.

However, since neoliberal globalization began its triumphant march, the "fourth estate" has increasingly lost its role as a preventive force. This is a shocking diagnosis, but it cannot be ignored when one examines how the process of globalization and speculative capitalism operate. A common feature of this process is the confrontation between market and state, private enterprise and the public sector, individual and society; private versus public, egoism versus solidarity.


Real power is now in the hands of global corporate groups and internationally operating conglomerates, whose economic weight exceeds the GDP of some states. The media’s adaptation to these geo-economic frameworks has led to a fundamental restructuring of its industry.

Radio, television, press, and the internet—all forms of mass communication now fall under the umbrella of expanding media groups that enter markets with ever-new products and rightly refer to themselves as "Global Players." Corporations such as News Corp, Viacom, AOL Time Warner, General Electric, Microsoft, Bertelsmann, United Global Com, Disney, Telefonica, RTL Group, and France Telecom are using current technological changes to fuel their own expansion.

The "digital revolution" has swept away traditional barriers between sound, text, and image. With the rise of the internet, the media has developed highly specialized corporate groups that, under their own direction, combine not only classical media but everything related to mass culture, communication, and information.

Not long ago, mass culture, communication, and information were three separate fields: commercial mass culture provided profit-driven public entertainment, communication through advertising, marketing, and publicity aimed to ensure the smooth sale of products to the market, and the information sector, with its agencies, radio and television news, newspapers, and periodicals, kept the public informed on world events.

Gradually, these distinct and separate areas of competence have merged into a massive ensemble, where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish what belongs to mass culture, what to communication, and what to information. Meanwhile, industrial producers of symbols offer all possible types of messages: television broadcasts, animated films, video games, printed publications, theme parks like Disney, sports events, and more. In short, these new media groups are characterized by two features: they bring text, sound, and image to market through all available media, and they do so worldwide.

In his famous 1940 film "Citizen Kane," Orson Welles attacked the "superpower" of the title character, who in reality represented media mogul William Randolph Hearst. Citizen Kane controlled numerous newspapers in a single country. But when compared to today’s media giants, he seems a mere dwarf, although he remains a symbol of local and national power.

Worldwide, these hyper-corporations are taking control of broad sections of the media landscape. Their economic weight and ideological significance make them key players in neoliberal globalization. Through continuous mergers and acquisitions, the communication sector, in cooperation with the electronics, telephone, and internet industries, has become the heavy industry of our time, mirroring the actions of classical industry by working to dismantle anti-trust laws and force governments to make concessions.

Globalization thus also means the globalization of mass media, communication, and information. Focused solely on their own expansion, these media giants have no alternative but to seek favor from the tripartite state powers, thereby abandoning journalism’s former goal of serving as the "fourth estate." Nothing is now more foreign to them than exposing violations of the law and abuses of power, correcting malfunctions in democracy, or improving the political system. Media as a counterbalance? Missed.

How should we respond? How can we defend ourselves against this new-old power that has joined the other side with flying flags? The answer is simple: we must create a "fifth estate." A fifth estate that enables us to oppose this new coalition of rulers. A fifth estate whose task is to criticize the vast dominance of media groups, which have ceased to represent the public interest. In certain situations, these groups even act against the will of the people, as seen currently in Venezuela.


In Venezuela, where the current opposition lost power as a result of free elections in 1998, large groups controlling the press, radio, and television have declared a regular media war against the legitimately elected President Hugo Chavez.

While the government and the president adhere to democratic rules, the media defends the interests of a small privileged class and opposes any social reform project or any attempt to more fairly distribute the nation’s wealth.

The case of Venezuela serves as a model for how the new international media policy operates. It clearly shows that media corporations no longer view themselves solely as media powers, but as the ideological arm of globalization, doing everything to block the demands of large segments of society and to neutralize or, if necessary, openly combat their strength.

(The fact that these corporations occasionally seize political power themselves is evident in the example of media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, who allowed himself to take control of the Italian government through democratic elections.)

This "dirty media war" against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is an evolution of the efforts made by the daily newspaper El Mercurio in Chile from 1970 to 1973 to bring down the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. Similar campaigns could be repeated in Ecuador, Brazil, or Argentina to prevent social reforms and a new distribution of national wealth. In this way, media power now joins the traditional oligarchies and classical reactionary forces—all in the name of freedom of opinion, of course.

Given the close connection between mass media and neoliberal globalization, it is urgent to consider what actions citizens can take to encourage media to report truthfully, adhere to ethical norms, and follow a code of conduct that allows journalists to work in line with their knowledge and conscience without needing to serve corporate interests.

In this new ideological war sparked by globalization, information is contaminated—both due to the abundance of offers and the flood of various lies.

News is mixed with rumors and false information, and its content is distorted and manipulated. The situation resembles the food industry. There were times when food was scarce, and in many regions of the world, it still is. When the agrarian revolution (mainly in Western Europe and North America) flooded the market with an oversupply of food products, it was eventually discovered that many of these products were contaminated with pesticides, caused diseases, promoted the growth of cancer cells, and generally harmed health—even sparking panic in cases like the BSE scandal. Previously, people died of hunger; today, it can happen due to contaminated food.

The same trend is observed in the information industry. In the past, information was an exclusive good, and even today, certain and complete information is inaccessible in dictatorships. In democratic countries, however, we are virtually overwhelmed with it. According to Empedocles, the world consists of four elements: air, earth, fire, and water. We might add that today’s globalized world knows a fifth element: information.

At the same time, we realize that our information is just as contaminated as our food. It poisons our reason, pollutes our minds, manipulates us, and misleads us, filling our subconscious with images that are not our own.

This is why we need something akin to "information ecology." Let’s call it decontamination. We have pushed for "organic" food; now it is time for "organic" news. We must ensure that major media report truthfully because the pursuit of truth is the only purpose of information.

This is why we have proposed the creation of Media Watch Global, an organization to monitor international media. In this way, we aim to provide citizens with peaceful means to defend themselves against the superpower of mass media. Media Watch Global sees itself as part of a worldwide social movement, which gathered again early this year in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Our goal remains to voice citizen concerns stemming from the new arrogance of global media corporations. The freedom of corporations cannot justify denying citizens their right to truthful information, and it should never become an excuse for deliberately spreading slander and falsehoods worldwide.


The authority of Media Watch Global is primarily moral. In cases of ethical violations, it has a specific mandate to censure, and by publishing relevant research findings, to denounce all instances of breaches in the media code of honor.
Media Watch Global serves a vital role as a counterbalance to global media power. The organization has committed to assuming civic responsibility for the public good and upholding the right of all citizens to truthful information. In this context, the World Summit scheduled for December in Geneva, which will address information flow issues, is of particular significance. Additionally, Media Watch Global will provide information on numerous current and past instances of media manipulation.

The equal members of this watchdog organization can be divided into three groups: first, journalists from all traditional and alternative media, whether active, retired, professional, or occasional reporters. Second, university lecturers and researchers from various fields, particularly media experts (since universities remain one of the few areas still somewhat shielded from the totalitarian ambitions of the market). Third, media consumers, ordinary citizens, as well as individuals known for their moral integrity.

Current regulatory bodies in the media industry are by no means satisfactory. Information is a public good; journalism unions, which often feel obligated to corporate interests, do not always guarantee information quality. The codes of conduct for individual media entities—if they even exist—are often incapable of correcting ongoing developments, preventing information suppression, or combating censorship.

Therefore, maintaining ethical principles and standards of conduct, especially in the information sector, requires an independent and credible institution, in which key roles should be held by academics. The role of an ombudsman or mediator, which still played a significant role in the 1980s and 1990s, has been absorbed by market forces. It is now instrumentalized by corporations, serving only to maintain a general image and acting as a cheap alibi to feign credibility.

One of humanity’s noblest rights is the freedom to express one`s views and thoughts. No law may arbitrarily restrict freedom of expression and press freedom. However, media entities exercising this right carry a certain responsibility: they must not violate other rights, especially the right of citizens to uncontaminated information. Media companies should not hide behind freedom of expression to spread false information and ideological propaganda.

Media Watch Global shares the conviction that the absolute freedom claimed by leaders of global media corporations cannot restrict the freedom of ordinary citizens. Global Players have declared the 21st century the era of global enterprise; Media Watch Global emphasizes that the time has come for communication and information to finally become citizen-owned.

*****

Translation based on the German edition of Le Monde Diplomatique, October 2003: Dziennikarze Wędrowni (Kumaszyński)

NOTES:

2) For example, the media power of Silvio Berlusconi`s Fininvest or the Lagardère and Dassault groups in France. (In Poland, note the influence of Agora and German publisher Springer with publications like Newsweek, Profit, and Fakt.)
3) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) eased anti-trust restrictions on June 4, 2003, under pressure from U.S. media corporations, allowing a single company to control up to 45% of a market segment (previously 35%). These changes were set to take effect on September 4 this year, but were temporarily lifted by the Supreme Court due to citizen protests, which saw it as a "serious threat to democracy."
4) Other media such as "La Tercera," "Ultimas Noticias," "La Segunda," "Canal 13," and many more echoed this sentiment. See also: Patricio Tupper, "Allende, la cible des medias chiliens et de la CIA (1970-1973)," Paris (Editions de l`Amandier), October 26, 2003.
5) See: Armand Mattelart, "Arbeitsgruppe dot force," Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2003. Also: "Founding Proclamation of Media Watch Global," Le Monde Diplomatique, January 2003.
6) In Poland: the Ombudsman.