Friday, August 7, 2009

Contending issues of Media Liberalization in Nigeria

The contending issue in media liberalization in Nigeria is rooted in a protracted debate that questions whether a free market or a regulated broadcasting system advantages media and its audience. In my opinion, the former protects the media from government interference, but may damage the quality of media output and replace government with corporate power.
A possible solution could be a normative approach which seeks to redress possible government and corporate influence, to help discommodity the media by bestowing upon audience/ civil society more power. Thus; I propose the media in Nigeria should extend its watch dog role by both reflecting (prescriptive meaning: carry the opinion of the political and social elites, because their sponsor the media) and reforming (descriptive meaning :) society.
This solution conforms to Kean’s “general principal”:
Communication media should not be at the whim of ‘market forces’ but rather placed within a political and legal framework which specifies and enforces tough minimum safeguards in matters of ownership structures, regional scheduling, programme content and decision making procedures.

1) In an analysis of the relationship between democracy and the media in Nigeria, it can be concluded that the media help to weaken authority rule and encouraged the consolidation of democracy.
2) Democratization in Nigeria was essentially an elite-driven process (elites in power and in opposition); in turn, Nigerian elites, political and intellectual – rather than a more broad based civil society – were the agents behind the development of private broadcasting, reinforcing the paternal characteristic of the
These elites were engaged in seemingly endless negotiations on media labialization and its relationship with the political process, an indication of their mounting commitment to pluralist behavior; but they also focused on how they might preserve their bases of commercial and social power in a liberalized media environment.
It can be further observed that a close alliance between the media on one hand, and government and/ or business on the other hand limits the role of media agents of political transformation.
3) Therefore the idea that there should be a public television station that is free from political interference and commercial competition is significant for the further development of civil society movement. Such provision is viewed as a fundamental requirement for democratic citizenship, dialogue and the formation of national identities.
4) Public television should provided a legitimate institutional structure through which this emerging civil society may attempt to influence government, scrutinize and challenge its decisions, demonstrate the authority of the democratic culture and thus facilitate the consolidation of democracy.
Some precedents for public service television exist for assuming such responsibilities. In Western Europe, for example, the belief in public service broadcasting is most mature. John Keane’s research describes how in Western Europe, public service broadcasting is a device:
For protecting citizens against the twin threats of totalitarian propaganda and the crass commercialism of the market-driven programming and thus, as devices essential to a system of representative government in which reasonable, informed public opinion plays a central mediating role between citizens and state institutions.
Nevertheless, the realization of the ideal media liberalization in Nigeria has been traumatic
5) In fact evidence mounted to suggest that the new media had merely complicated Nigeria’s media environment an encouraged grater, rather than less political envelopment and excessive commercial competition for rating. For example, it is possible to argue that cable television challenges the belief that a media system supposedly open to all regardless of income facilitates democratic citizenship. Where commercial and cable television deliver programs only to the most profitable geographic areas, or those areas willing and able to pay for such provision, the public service ideal is designed to provide national programming.
6) There is the need to develop a genuine public television institution that might empower viewers and allow them determine their own agenda, instead of depending on politicians and media producers to set it for them. Political and social elites are routinely asked to comment on the news, whereas private individuals stumble into the news because of a unique experience they may have had.
Together with particular formats, such as the staged political debates, this kind of agenda setting affirms “the power of the opinions of public persons and the powerlessness of the opinion of the private persons”.
The illusion of popular participation is seen most clearly in the Presidential Brief, a call in television program on NTA. Which gives viewers a few seconds to ask the president questions or deliver their opinion on the preceding discussion, in most cases the calls a screened and the presidents is always quick to back down opinions that are in contracts to his.
This is neither the foundation of genuine debate nor the basis for authentic popular empowerment, but does demonstrate the power of political and social elites to dominate discussions.
7) Ideally, public service broadcasting should perform at least three functions:
i) Be a source of “quality” culturally programming;
ii) Promote pluralism and diversity;
iii) Act as society’s “fourth estate”.

No comments:

Post a Comment