Public Interest Theories

The main objective of policies and regulations to be put in place is to defend public interest and cultures (Papathanassopoulos and Negrine, 2010:7). Media policies are often contested because of their potential limits to public interest or abuse of power by the state (Van Cuilenberg and McQuail, 2003:183). However, there is some

41

ambiguity surrounding the definition of public interest which normally leads to contestation by different actors when media policies are created. In pursuit of public interest, the policies should be equipped to address three main objectives of policies which are political welfare, social welfare, and economic welfare (Van Cuilenberg and McQuail, 2003:185).

Firstly, the policy criteria of political welfare objective are normally democracy, freedom of communication and universal accessibility. Political welfare criteria is the most important determinant of public interest as it ensures that there is participation in civic life and that there is adequate access to information and ideas (Van Cuilenberg and McQuail, 2003:185). According to Feintuck (1999:199), “the fundamental, democratic principle that justifies or legitimates media regulation is the objective of ensuring that a diverse, high-quality range of media are available to all citizens in the interest of avoiding social exclusion.” The political welfare objective is very crucial since it deals with universal access obligation.

The second policy objective, social welfare, on the other side is crucial since it will lead to social and cultural benefits. Such benefits will come in the form of quality news, entertainment, and local content. According to Van Cuilenberg and McQuail (2003:185), the policy criteria of social welfare should also strive to regulate the media companies from broadcasting information which can be harmful and offensive to the public. UNESCO’s special gathering has also given special exemption of culture in all global trade deals (McChesney, 2004: 10). However, the supporters of neoliberalism argues that nation-state have more to gain if they removed all cultural trade barriers.

The last policy objective as indicated in Van Cuilenberg and McQuail (2003:185) is economic welfare. The goal of economic welfare is to ensure that media becomes an “integral part of the economy and also forms an important and elaborate market in its own right” (Van Cuilenberg and McQuail, 2003:185).

Policies and regulations are crucial in sustaining diversity, cultural integrity, enhancing public knowledge and also answer the questions of universal access (Ó Siochrú et al. 2002:4). The government intervenes in communications through

42

legislations, regulations and subsidies at national or international level. The necessary type of intervention to defend public interest is called State-society. Papathanassoupoulus and Negrine (2010:15) argue that the state-society approach “emphasises the institutional relationships – both formal and conventional – that bind the state’s components together and structure its relations with society”.

However, media policies in the digital age are unable to achieve public interest goals as they are mostly determined by supply and demand mechanisms (Van Cuilenberg and McQuail, 2003: 200). As a result, the public interest is being redefined by some to include economic and consumerist values and the current policy places less emphasis on social equality. The political wish to provide communication to large proportion of the population is not done for the purpose of social equality, but for motives such as the maximisation of revenues (ibid). However, Van Cuilenberg and McQuail (2003:200) argue that “the concepts of digital divide ... still figure in the background discourse to policy, but practice police in this respect mainly seeks to maximize opportunity for consumers to have access to new media.” Therefore, the main goal of media policy which is to ensure free and equal access media which disseminates information and communication needs to society is becoming hard to achieve (Van Cuilenberg and McQuail, 2003:205).

According to Totale (2003), the best way to organise media which will protect the core value of a society is to place controls which ensures that public opinion is not being served by free market (Totale, 2003). Public intervention in communications is very important as the free market only serves the interest of the wealthy ownership and their allies in government (Hesmondhalgh, 2007). Ó Siochrú et al. (2002:3) state that it is very important for the media product to be regulated because the media product cannot be decided by the supply and demand like any product. The basic difference between the media industries and normal business according to Cottle (2003:3) is that “the media companies characteristically produce and supply commodities and content that is essentially symbolic in nature and these symbols enter into life of society.”

According to Papathanassoupoulus and Negrine (2010:13), the extent to which government is an “autonomous and active actor, formulating independent

43

preferences and objectives that cannot be reduced to an aggregate of private preferences or the interest of dominant class” is characterised as state centric approach. This approach argues that the best way to distribute resources and to answer human needs is for government to enforce policies and regulations (Hesmondhalgh, 2000:106). This assertion differs from free market system which calls for business domination and less intervention from government.

3.10 Conclusion

In concluding, the chapter argues that critical political economy is concerned about the increasing role of private ownership in the business of making policy. This chapter also uses the Marxist political economy theory to explain the extent to which wealthy and powerful owners of the media are deciding policy on behalf of the government. It further argues that global organisations linked to the UN also hinder the state’s ability to make its own policies by means of neoliberalism policies. The ability of state in making policies is also undermined by the escalation of new digital media which contribute to deeply rooted inequalities. Therefore, the critical political approach also calls for public intervention by means of policies and regulations which will defend the interest of the public.

44