KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

Communication and media studies

CCM 425: Media Management and Entrepreneurship

Dr. Barnabas Githiora

Members

1.Joseph oyomo F109/4373/2019

2. Christine Medza Mwando F109/4359/2019

3.Samwel Ndege F109/4386/2019

4.Wilson cheye f109s/13977/2019

Task: The business of media and public interest.

In one way, the business of media is unique. Unlike other industries, the media deal in ideas,
information, and culture. They inform and entertain us, influencing how we understand ourselves and
our world, as well as how we spend our leisure time. They play significant political and cultural roles,
hence they hold a unique position in democratic societies that value free and creative expression,
independent thought, and diverse perspectives. Citizen Tv, KTN, NTV, K24 and TV47 are examples of
mainstream media in Kenya which appear to serve this purpose by sourcing, recording, investigating,
analyzing and presenting news and information to the mass audience based on news values and what
appears to be public interest. Programs like The Trend in NTV are classic source of entertainment to
viewers.

In another way, the business of media is like all other businesses. Nearly all major media companies are
commercial corporations, whose primary function is creating profits for owners or stockholders. For
instance, Royal Media Services earns money through TV and radio commercials, online ads such as the
intrusive ads on Citizen Digital, live and recorded coverage of events such as university graduation and
wedding shows, lottery programs among other numerous forms of profit-approach media business.

Thus we face a great dilemma in assessing the changing business of media and its significance for
democratic societies. Which of these yardsticks-profits or public interest-should we use in measuring
media's performance? Can both missions be simultaneously accomplished?

The business of media in a totalitarian state (such as Eritrea) is fairly simple. Power is concentrated in
the hands of a few-namely, the government. The media are owned and controlled by those in political
power. The government is likely to use the media to promote culture and information that is consistent
with its goals and to exclude dissenting views. Regular citizens watching, reading, or listening to the
media are subjected to a steady stream of material that more or less reflects the interests and opinions
of the ruling party.

According to the 2022 World Press Freedom Index, Eritrea has the worst press freedom followed by
North Korea, Turkmenistan, China and Djibouti.Since Eritrea's conflict with Ethiopia in 1998–2001,
Eritrea's human rights record has worsened. Human rights violations are frequently committed by the
government or on behalf of the government. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association are
limited.

In democratic societies such as Norway, a free press and independent media are entrusted with a
different and more complicated role. First, rather than serving as a propaganda machine for those in
power, media are expected to reflect the range of creative visions and ideas that constitute a society's
vibrant culture. Second, the media have the special task of providing independent information to
citizens. Ideally, they are watchdogs of our freedoms, informing citizens about current events and
debates and alerting us to potential abuses of power. In this context, a free press is a means by which
the public interest is served. It is not an end unto itself. However, the grand mission of a free press
coexists with the industry's more pedestrian function: to make a profit.

In Kenya, Media regulation is concerned with four key areas: business ownership and control; standards
of content, preservation of personal liberties; and preservation of the public interest. There are three
regulatory bodies (Media Council of Kenya, Communication Authority of Kenya and Film Classification
Board) which have been established through legislation to regulate media content and practice.

In the media's business ownership, the fundamental principle is to attract an audience to sell to
advertisers. Even though you may not have paid anything to watch certain specific network news
broadcast, you are part of the large economic process that underlies such programs. You are the target
of advertisers who hope to sell you their products. They speak to you as a consumer. They invite you to
solve individual problems and improve your personal life by buying something.

The recent ratings report by the Media council of Kenya rated Citizen Tv as the most viewed channel in
kenya with over 60 % viwership index. To the RMS's giant station, this means a good advertising position
rather than just news dissemination and consumption.j

The market model of media is based on the ability of a network to deliver audiences to these
advertisers. The more people watching a program, the higher the price the networks can charge for ad
time. Lost audiences mean lost profits. The success of a program is largely measured in rating points
among desirable demographics: those people to whom the advertisers want to speak. What sells is
good. In essence, this is the market model of media. With some variation, it applies to all types of media.

It is a dominant framework within the media industry, a widely familiar economic perspective that
assesses media using the universal currency of business success: profits. We call it the model because, to
varying degrees, assumptions about how "free markets" operate form the core of this perspective. As
with other industries, the media are conceptualized as primarily competitors in this marketplace.

The media, for the most part, are made up of commercial, profit-seeking businesses. Media companies
issue stock, compete for larger market share, develop new products, watch costs,

look for opportunities to expand, and engage in all the other activities that constitute regular business
practice. In various ways, owners, investors, employees, and audiences all experience the consequences
of these business decisions. In most cases, media activities can be explained using the basic concepts
that make up the market model. The market model, then, is especially useful in understanding why
media companies behave the way they do. It is the framework to which most business people refer in
explaining their actions.

There are serious limitations to the market model of media, however businesses cannot be judged by
profitability alone. Society has an interest in how industries perform that goes far beyond profits. Labor
laws, environmental protections, and antifraud measures, for example, are all ways in which society
puts limits on business practices in the name of the public interest-even at the expense of profits. This
holds true for the media industry as well. Even the largest and most powerful media conglomerates
must operate within a dynamic frame- work of social and political constraints that, in the name of the
public interest, shape how businesses work. In particular, it is widely recognized that a vibrant public
sphere is essential to the operation of a healthy democracy. The media play a crucial role in helping to
create such a vibrant public sphere. This introduces us to the next framework useful in explaining media
not as profit organizations but as a product of public interest.
Public interest

The most common justification that journalists make for their work is that it is “in the public interest.” It
is this notion that underscores the moral authority of journalism to ask hard questions of people in
power, to invade the privacy of others and to sometimes test the limits of ethical practice in order to
discover the truth.

But what exactly is the public interest?

Put simply, the public interest is about what matters to everyone in society. It is about the common
good, the general welfare and the security and well-being of everyone in the community we serve.

The public interest is not just what the readers, listeners or viewers want either as consumers or people
who want to be entertained.The public interest does not mean what the public might find interesting.
Broadly speaking, the difference here is between what is relevant to members of the public, as opposed
to what might merely entertain, fascinate or titillate some of them.

It is about issues that affect everyone, even if many of them are not aware of it or even if they don’t
appear to care. For instance, most investigative stories are public interest -based. The public demands to
know the truth and masterminds behind obscure killings of a civil servant, case witnesses, lawyers,
business men and politicians for example.

Believers in democracy argue that the robust discussion, debate, and expression of thought that a free
press facilitates is more likely to lead to just and competent social and political decisions. The alternative
is an authoritarian society, which few people would find appealing. That is why independent media and
freedom of the press are so highly valued and why the media play such a unique role in serving the
public interest.

The public sphere perspective unlike the market model, defines the media as central elements of a
healthy public sphere-the "space" within which ideas, opinions, and views freely circulate. Here, rather
than profits, it is the more elusive "public interest" that serves as the yardstick against which media
performance is measured.

Rather than simply supplying consumer goods in a free market context, media in a democratic society
are expected to serve the public interest. It is no small task, however, to define what public interest
means or how our mass media can serve in this capacity.

Normally publications should seek to correct significant wrongs, should promote the well-being, welfare
and safety of the public, should raise public awareness of important issues and should make a
contribution towards promoting good conduct in public life. This also raises the need for content
Regulation as we shall see later.

The public interest tests set out here can help journalists to resolve difficult ethical dilemmas. Even
when they have to do work that sometimes does not fit well with their obligations to be open they can
preserve their integrity and maintain their ethical balance when they can justify acting in the public
interest.

On a more specific level, the public interest is enhanced by a media system that presents a diversity of
views and stories, giving cit- izens a window on their world that is multicultural and offers many
different perspectives.

Until recently, advocates of a public interest approach focused almost exclusively on the importance of
news media for public life. That was because the information provided in the news was so obvi- ously a
central requirement for an active citizenry. However, it is a mis- take to see news as the only media form
that contributes to democracy. Other types of media play important roles as well. Internet Web sites,
talk radio programs, and television talk shows all facilitate public dialogue about current issues. Books
can contribute to and spur public discussion. Even films and music can participate in and stimulate
public debate about significant ideas and issues.

The media's role in facilitating democracy and encouraging citi- zenship has always been in tension with
its status as a profit-making industry. Mediating between these two has been the government, whose
regulations (or lack thereof) have fundamentally shaped the environment within which the media
operate.

Content regulation

Dominick J. (2013) says policies to regulate ownership and control are important to regulation of the
business, in order to create diversity and remove the concentration of media power from the hands of a
few. Concentration of services in the hands of a small number of operators is a threat to media pluralism
and can hinder the free flow of news, commentary and debate in a democratic society.

Media ownership and control rules are vital to ensure that a diversity of news and commentary is
maintained. Limiting crossownership and mergers of media companies is especially important to
promote diversity and to support democracy. Policies helps regulates licensing, control media business
operations, governing the number of players, how they enter the market, and how operations take
place. For instance, planning allocation and distribution of signals in broadcasting, applied through
stringent licensing, is necessary to remove conflicts in business operations and to avoid interference
with security or aeronautical signals. It also helps the government to preserve the public interest, such
as national cohesion and security by keeping track of the operators and their operations.

Policies on content and professional conduct seek to ensure that media operations reflect high level of
professional standards and community expectations. They also seek to ensure that media operates in an
ethical manner, maintaining high professional standards, and observing the cardinal rule of news
gathering and dissemination- fairness, accuracy, transparency, and decency. In addition, policies and
laws are necessary to ensure the preservation of individual privacy and personal liberties against media
intrusion. In many states, this is achieved through stringent laws and stiff sanctions – including laws
about defamation and libel and through standards of practice/codes of ethics that provide for
arbitration and complaints.
As the internet becomes increasingly ubiquitous it is not surprising that it is being used to deliberately
spread misinformation, disrupt electoral processes, or recruit terrorists. It is also nosurprise that
internet platforms are facing unprecedented pressure to comply with state laws to regulate content. In
fact, online platforms are subject to opposing demands: ”one asking them to thoroughly police the
content posted on their services to guarantee the respect of national laws, and the other objecting to
them making determinations on their own and exercising proactive content monitoring, for fear of
detrimental human rights implications. Moreover, given that the current non-liability regimes were
initially established for ‘passive’ intermediaries, the fear of a potential loss of protection may
disincentivise companies from assuming more responsibilities.

States enter into secretive agreements with companies on a range of issues, from copyright to
blasphemy, to violent extremism, to voluntarily remove content from their platforms. Such measures
bypass critical democratic institutions, like the judiciary; have the potential to censor legitimate speech,
including journalistic reporting on matters of public interest and counter speech; and impose liability on
intermediaries, which can lead to over-compliance and removal of permissible speech for fear of
penalties. In addition, there is the question of the effectiveness of such measures.

For example, In September 2016 Israeli Public Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, announced that close
cooperation between the Israeli government and Facebook would take place to tackle “incitement”
online. This involved encouraging social media networks to remove all content that Israel deems
“incitement”. The term incitement has been vaguely defined by Israel, but can include discourse and
rhetoric that resists or criticises Israeli policy. The cyber unit at Israel’s Attorney’s Office reported that in
2017 85% of the Israeli government’s requests to remove content were accepted representing an
increase from 70% in 2016.34 The cyber unit works in close cooperation with both Facebook and Twitter
to censor and remove online content that is perceived as “inciteful”. According to Adalah, the Legal
Center for Arab Minority Rights, the Unit removed 1,554 cases of online content in 2016, constituting a
grave violation of Israeli Basic Law that states “Nothing in the law allows state authorities to censor
content based solely on an administrative determination”. This censorship undertaken by the state
therefore amounts to an illegal offense.

In conclusion, policies and other regulation are necessary to ensure the preservation of the public
interest. Media have a role to play in social order, and regulation and policies are needed to ensure that
the media do not undermine the preservation of the public interest, but rather, plays an active role in
propagation of positive social norms. This includes preservation of national security and social cohesion,
and promotion of what is good in society e.g. cultural identity.

References:

Dominick, J. R., (2013). The Dynamics of Mass Communication; 12th Edition. McGraw-Hil

David Croteau, William Hoynes (2006).The business of media: corporate media and the public
interest.2nd edition. A Sage Publications Company, USA