Independent media

The concept is often used to denote, declare, or claim independence from state-control, market forces, or conventions, and media organisations and individuals assert their legitimacy and credibility through it.

[1] In various discussions, such as those regarding the role of media within authoritarian societies or the relevance of European public service broadcasters or the "alternative press", the concept of independence is interpreted diversely.

Additionally, digital transformations tend to compromise the press as a common good (with a blurring of the difference between journalism and advertising) by the technological, political and social dynamics that it brings.

In many regions, austerity measures have led to large-scale budget cuts of public service broadcasters, dislocating employees and limiting innovation in programming.

[15] Despite apparent neutrality algorithms may often compromise editorial integrity, and have been found to lead to discrimination against people based on their race, socio-economic situation and geographic location.

[18] Buckley et al. cite failure to renew or retain licenses for editorially critical media; folding the regulator into government ministries or reducing its competencies and mandates for action; and lack of due process in the adoption of regulatory decisions, among others, as examples in which these regulators are formally compliant with sets of legal requirements on independence, but their main task in reality is seen to be that of enforcing political agendas.

In such contexts, newspapers have historically been free of licensing and regulation, and there has been repeated pressure for them to self-regulate or at least to have in-house ombudsmen; however, it has often been difficult to establish meaningful self-regulatory entities.

The Arab Satellite Broadcasting Charter was an example of efforts to bring formal standards and some regulatory authority to bear on what is transmitted, but it appears to not have been implemented.

[23] Public pressure on technology giants has motivated the development of new strategies aimed not only at identifying ‘fake news’, but also at eliminating some of the structural causes of their emergence and proliferation.

Facebook has created new buttons for users to report content they believe is false, following previous strategies aimed at countering hate speech and harassment online.

Ahead of the United Kingdom national election in 2017, for example, Facebook published a series of advertisements in newspapers with ‘Tips for Spotting False News’ which suggested 10 things that might signal whether a story is genuine or not.

Powerful actors such as governments have often been seen to initiate and engage in the process of systematic attacks on the media by trivializing it, or sometimes characterizing it as an ‘enemy’ has widespread implications for the independence and well-being of the sector.

[14] In some regions, delegitimisation is reportedly combined with wider attacks on independent media: key properties have been closed down or sold to parties with ties to the government.

Opposition to these pressures may strengthen the defense of the press as civil society and mobilize the public in protest, but in some cases, this conflict leads to fear-induced apathy or withdrawal.

A general assault on the media can lead to measures making journalists more frequently liable for publishing state secrets and their capacity to shield sources can be reduced.

Also observed in other regions, such as in North America where the phenomenon is commonly referred to as "astroturfing", serial callers are often individuals commissioned by political actors to constantly phone in to popular radio call in programmes with the intention of skewing or influencing the program in their interest.

Many governments in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Asia and Pacific regions have passed stringent laws and regulations that limit or forbid foreign media ownership, especially in the broadcasting and telecom sectors, with mixed impact on editorial independence.

These kinds of funding have been common historically in international broadcasting, and they typically influence actual media content, framing, and the ‘red lines’ different from professional principles that reporters feel unable to cross.

In addition, the media organization concerned can no longer exert strong control over what advertisements are shown, nor can it benefit from accessing full audience data to strengthen its own revenue prospects.

[14] According to the Worlds of Journalism Study, journalists in 18 of the 21 countries surveyed in Western Europe and North America perceived their freedom to make editorial decisions independently to have shrunken in the past five years.

In some countries, the rise of trade bodies as a dominating site of advocacy seems to limit the plurality of voices involved or consulted to those representing mainly owner interests in decision-making.

[36] $1.8 billion in journalism and media-related grants were distributed by 6,568 foundations between 2010 and 2015 according to a Northeastern University study, but the collapse of the newspaper industry has negated the capacity building efforts of the philanthropy.

[37] The 2018 philanthropy study states "foundations have played a behind-the-scenes role in guiding the direction of the nonprofit news sector, including the types of subjects covered, organizations supported, and regions prioritized".