Независимые СМИ: вызовы и перспективы в современном мире

Mass communication outlets not associated with governments or corporations

Independent media refers to any media, such as television, newspapers, or Internet based publications, that is free of influence by government or corporate interests. The term has varied applications. Independence stands as a cornerstone principle within media policy and the freedom of the press, representing an "essentially contested concept". 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. 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. For this reason other norms, such as transparency and participation, may be condidered to be more relevant. Research has found that independent media plays an important role in improving government accountability and reducing corruption.

Two factors tend to influence media independence. The disruption and crisis in business models that have supported print and broadcast media for decades have left traditional media outlets more vulnerable to external influences as they seek to establish new revenue sources. In many regions, austerity measures have led to large scale budget cuts of public service broadcasters, dislocating employees and limiting innovation in programming. An indicator of a lack of independence is the level of public trust in the credibility of journalism. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, trust in media seems to be declining, reflecting declines of trust in government, business and NGOs. Since 2012, online media has become more and more popular, gaining trust throughout the world, but for Mindi Chahal, awareness on the risk of "fake news", filter bubbles and algorithms have begun to change perceptions of the credibility of online information. Anya Schiffrin says that despite the initial optimism that social media would reduce such tendencies by enabling broader citizen participation in media, there are growing signals that social media are similarly susceptible to political capture and polarization, further impacting on the trust that users may have towards information on these platforms. Media regulators' impact on the editorial independence of the media, which is still deeply entwined with political and economic influences and pressures. Private media – functioning outside of governments' control and with minimum official regulation – are still dependent on advertising support, risking potential misuse of advertisers as a political tool by larger advertisers such as governments. New technologies have added new meaning to what constitutes media independence. The collection, selection, aggregation, synthesis and processing of data are now increasingly delegated to forms of automation. While the sharing of social media posts is crucial in elevating the importance of certain news sources or stories, what appears in individual news feeds on platforms such as Facebook or news aggregators such as Google News is the product of other forces as well. This includes algorithmic calculations, which remove professional editorial judgment, in favor of past consumption patterns by the individual user and his/her social network. In 2016, users declared preferring algorithms over editors for selecting the news they wanted to read. 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.

The role of regulatory authorities (license broadcaster institutions, content providers, platforms) and the resistance to political and commercial interference in the autonomy of the media sector are both considered as significant components of media independence. In order to ensure media independence, regulatory authorities should be placed outside of governments' directives. this can be measured through legislation, agency statutes and rules. 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.

State control is also evident in the increasing politicization of regulatory bodies operationalized through transfers and appointments of party aligned individuals to senior positions in regulatory authorities.

Governments worldwide have sought to extend regulation to internet companies, whether connectivity providers or application service providers, and whether domestically or foreign based. The impact on journalistic content can be severe, as internet companies can err too much on the side of caution and take down news reports, including algorithmically, while offering inadequate opportunities for redress to the affected news producers. The rise of satellite delivered channels, delivered directly to viewers, or through cable or online systems, renders much larger the sphere of unregulated programing. There are, however, varying efforts to regulate the access of programmers to satellite transponders in parts of the Western Europe and North American region, the Arab region and in Asia and the Pacific. 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.

Self regulation is expressed as a preferential system by journalists but also as a support for media freedom and development organizations by intergovernmental organizations such as UNESCO and non governmental organizations. There has been a continued trend of establishing self regulatory bodies, such as press councils, in conflict and post conflict situations. Major internet companies have responded to pressure by governments and the public by elaborating self regulatory and complaints systems at the individual company level, using principles they have developed under the framework of the Global Network Initiative. The Global Network Initiative has grown to include several large telecom companies alongside internet companies such as Google, Facebook and others, as well as civil society organizations and academics. The European Commission’s 2013 publication, ICT Technology Sector Guide on Implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, impacts on the presence of independent journalism by defining the limits of what should or should not be carried and prioritized in the most popular digital spaces.

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. These changes reflect broader transformations occurring among tech giants to increase their transparency. As indicated by the Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index, most large internet companies have reportedly become relatively more forthcoming in terms of their policies about transparency in regard to third party requests to remove or access content, especially in the case of requests from governments. At the same time, however, the study signaled a number of companies that have become more opaque when it comes to disclosing how they enforce their own terms of service, in restricting certain types of content and account.

In addition to responding to pressure for more clearly defined self regulatory mechanisms, and galvanized by the debates over so called ‘fake news’, internet companies such as Facebook have launched campaigns to educate users about how to more easily distinguish between ‘fake news’ and real news sources. 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. There have also been broader initiatives bringing together a variety of donors and actors to promote fact checking and news literacy, such as the News Integrity Initiative at the City University of New York’s School of Journalism. This 14 million USD investment by groups including the Ford Foundation and Facebook was launched in 2017 so its full impact remains to be seen. It will, however, complement the offerings of other networks such as the International Fact Checking Network launched by the Poynter Institute in 2015 which seeks to outline the parameters of the field.

The media systems around the world are often put under pressure by the widespread delegitimisation by political actors of the media as a venerable institution along with the profession of journalism, and the growing efforts made towards media capture, particularly online media, which has often been regarded as more resistant to such form of control than other types of media.

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. This can be particularly apparent during elections. A common tactic is to blur the distinction between mainstream news media, and the mass of unverified content on social media. Delegitimisation is a subtle and effective form of propaganda, reducing the public's confidence in the media to perform a collective function as a check on government. This can be seen as being linked political and social polarization. Mungiu Pippidi considers that capture corrupts the main role of the media: to inform the public, with media outlets instead opting to trade influence and manipulate information. A distinguishing feature of media capture is the collaboration by the private sector. Cases abound across all regions of bloggers and citizen journalists putting a spotlight on specific issues and reporting on the ground during protests. Full capture can also be complicated to achieve. Paid trolls leading to phenomena such as paid Twitter and mob attacks, along with fake news and rumors, are reportedly able to widely disseminate their attacks on independent journalists with the aid of bots. Across much of Africa, a trend of "serial callers" has become increasingly common. 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. It is more complex to regulate ownership issues when the companies are internet platforms spanning multiple jurisdictions, although European competition and tax law has responded to some of the challenges in this regard, with unclear impact on the issue of independence of journalistic content on Internet companies.

Across the industry, media outlets have been re evaluating where the value in media content lies, with a corresponding increase in government development programs, corporate benefactors and other special interests funding or cross funding media content. 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. While larger media companies have relied on attracting their own advertisers online, many online intermediaries such as Google Ads now exist, which effectively has meant that small online media companies can get some revenues without having to have dedicated facilities—although the requirements of platforms like Facebook for video content, and the power to change news feeds without consultation do compromise editorial autonomy. 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. While there remains a marked decline in print advertising sales in these States, some newspapers are reporting an increase in digital advertising revenues and subscriptions that have enabled expansions of newsrooms that previously faced significant financial difficulty. This development partly reflects the relationship between major news brands and electoral cycles but it may also signal a growing willingness on the part of readers to pay for quality digital content.

Several tools and organizations commit to mitigating political and economic interference in the media system.

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. This has occurred as the lobbying power of media elites has increased with ownership consolidation, particularly in North America. In some cases, the relative formal independence of the media regulator from the government may have made it more vulnerable to capture by commercial interests. Some of the board members from these trade bodies and associations sit on government working groups and are members of committees. Such members often facilitate the associations’ indirect participation in the drafting of media laws and policies.

Some development organizations and experts make a distinction between media development and media for development. "Media development" refers to efforts to directly improve the media in a society through the means mentioned above. "Media for development" refers to more indirect efforts at using existing media to convey messages about specific development issues. Such efforts include many ICT for Development (ICT4D) projects. Media for development has been applied to education, healthcare, business, disaster relief, corruption, minority empowerment, and local community engagement, among other development goals.

While development of the media sector is a common activity of many development organizations, there are a small number that engage in direct media development as their primary purpose. In the U. S., the three main media development implementers are Internews, International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), and International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX). In addition, organizations like the Center for International Media Assistance, Reporters Without Borders, Article 19, and others monitor media development efforts and freedom of the press around the world.