25.10.2013 Views

Press Freedom and Globalisation - International Press Institute

Press Freedom and Globalisation - International Press Institute

Press Freedom and Globalisation - International Press Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Press</strong> <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Globalisation</strong><br />

Foreign owners have had major shares in East African media. Further, East African<br />

media have to operate within the regime of global media. Both factors limit their freedom.<br />

Put to an extreme, Tom Mboya stated that Kenya achieved independence despite the world<br />

press. 86 East African mass media do not work in a vacuum. Their content depends on<br />

foreign sources <strong>and</strong> news agencies. 87 Advertisement income depends on foreign global<br />

business <strong>and</strong> its preferences. 88 Media ideology is a result of Western capitalistic concepts. 89<br />

Hence, East African media are wrapped up in a web made by global media. One view is<br />

that this is how global forces secure universal spread of press freedom. A competing view<br />

is that East African media are slaves of a global media regime <strong>and</strong> have lost freedom to<br />

play their own unique role. According to the latter, one allegation is that such a Western<br />

ideological press would never liberate the third world. 90<br />

Foreign owned media were initially nationalised in Tanzania <strong>and</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a. Kenya<br />

allowed the presence of foreign owners <strong>and</strong> precipitated recurring debates about their role<br />

<strong>and</strong> purposes. One claim is that foreigners were the only ones strong enough to resist<br />

pressure from Kenyan authorities. Foreign ownership was thus a security for press<br />

freedom. Another claim was that foreign owners through Kenyan media can interfere with<br />

domestic affairs. This made foreign ownership an agent for foreign interests. A third view<br />

was that owners were owners, <strong>and</strong> both locals <strong>and</strong> foreigners were pursuing their media<br />

business according to commercial interests. In that case, the question was not about foreign<br />

ownership, it was on how private media operate as agents for capitalistic interests. 91 If<br />

86<br />

Mboya, “Relations Between <strong>Press</strong> <strong>and</strong> Governments in Africa”, p 144.<br />

87<br />

Paterson, “Global Battlefields”, pp. 79-81.<br />

88<br />

Carrington <strong>and</strong> Nelson, “Media in Transition: The Hegemony of Economics”, pp. 226-232; <strong>and</strong> Abuoga<br />

<strong>and</strong> Mutere, The History of the <strong>Press</strong> in Kenya, pp. 94-95.<br />

89<br />

Makali (ed.), Media Law <strong>and</strong> Practice, pp. 60-61; <strong>and</strong> Abubakar, “The Mass Media <strong>and</strong> Ideological<br />

Apparatuses in Post-Colonial Africa”, pp. 55-56.<br />

90<br />

Ochieng, I Accuse the <strong>Press</strong>, p. 49.<br />

91<br />

Mytton, Graham, Mass Communication in Africa (London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1983), p. 19,<br />

Ochieng, I Accuse the <strong>Press</strong>, pp. 52, 55, 115 <strong>and</strong> 167, Makali (ed.), Media Law <strong>and</strong> Practice, p. 71.<br />

93

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!