#zoomout
Now that the commotion surrounding that infamous dinner has gradually begun to die down, it’s time to take a serious look at what has been, from the very beginning, the heart of the matter. The relationship between politics and politicians on the one hand, and media owners on the other. The independence of the former from the latter. Transparency regarding media ownership structures. Pluralism.
I believe the starting point for any discussion on this topic must be the recognition of the role the media play in modern democracies. They shape public opinion and set the agenda, with all that this entails for the political system and politics in general. At the same time, however, they also affect and influence each individual’s right to information and to be kept informed—a fundamental issue that concerns the very essence of democracy.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Bitterness is a waste of energy
For the right to news and information to have any meaning, individuals must be able to evaluate and filter that content. We’re talking about the obvious here. That is, the right to know whether the publisher of a newspaper or the owner of a website publishing a news story about a political figure or their political opponent is a relative, friend, or associate of that specific political figure. This need is even more acute during election seasons and when polls are conducted on behalf of newspapers or other media outlets. Personally, I have struggled for years to understand how, while in many professions conflicts of interest—quite rightly—are regulated in one way or another, in the case of publishers, it seems to remain off-limits. And this, even though we all recognize the power the media has in shaping opinion, both individual and collective.
In order for every person to be able to form an opinion freely, they must have free access to information. At any time, each and every one of us must be able to consult an official registry that is readily available and accessible, and learn the identity of the individual who ultimately owns each media outlet— that is, the ultimate beneficial owner. And with every change in ownership status, there must be an obligation to update the registry accordingly and immediately. That is the first step. There are other issues related to the oversight that regulatory authorities must exercise, but let’s start with the basics.
Related to ownership structure is the issue of media concentration. Again, while there are specific rules regarding takeovers and concentration for every other business, this is not a concern in the media industry. Let us consider how dangerous it is for democracy itself that a single private individual can single-handedly determine and control what we hear and what we read.
The concerns mentioned above—and many others—are not shared only by some of us. Since last August, a relevant European regulation—known as the EMFA—has been in direct effect, though its provisions are not actually being implemented in Cyprus. International independent organizations have ranked Cyprus poorly on this issue, and the matter has also been addressed by the European Commission in its reports on the rule of law.
The guiding principle of any regulation must be that every media outlet “borrows” a platform that constitutes a public good and has a duty to provide the public with objective and independent information. Regulating this issue will benefit not only citizens but also journalists themselves. At a time when, internationally, the greatest challenge is the search for truth amid the fog that surrounds everything, the credibility of the profession itself is seriously at stake. Because, as we know all too well, what matters is not only that the truth be written and spoken, but also what public opinion believes to be the truth. The direction things seem to be taking, beyond being detrimental to democracy, is disheartening for journalists and journalism itself.
But politicians themselves should also seek to address this issue. At a time when the seriousness and credibility of politics are being severely tested, transparency can only be beneficial. When the public approaches the news with skepticism or journalistic analysis with suspicion, politicians do not benefit—they suffer. This creates a vicious cycle from which it is difficult to escape.
