Collective Consciousness and the Quest for Strong Independent Media

“Whoever controls the media in a country, controls the mindset of the country, and through that, the country itself.”

This quote from Bálázs Orban, the Political Director of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, struck a certain chord in me. The quote was part of a presentation given by Zsófia Fülöp, a former journalist of the independent political-cultural weekly Magyar Narancs in Hungary and a journalist fellow of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. In her talk, she elaborated the harsh challenges faced by journalists in Hungary amidst the shrinking press freedom in the country.

Indeed, Hungary has witnessed a dramatic decline in media freedom under the rule of Viktor Orbán. The government has consolidated control over the media landscape by placing public media under direct political influence, utilizing regulatory measures to suppress critical voices, and curbing investigative journalism.

At the same time, independent media face an increasingly dire situation. They endure intimidation, harassment, and legal challenges that undermine their ability to hold those in power accountable. Their voices are also stifled by the predominantly pro-government discourse and their influence is limited to the capital, leaving the rest of the country in the dark. These independent entities have been marginalised by the government to a point where they generally only have two options; being taken over by government sympathizers or forced to close down. There were at least six influential independent media organisations shut their operations throughout 2016 to 2021. As a result, media pluralism is virtually non-existent in Hungary.

Independent journalists in Russia face an even more dangerous condition. Russia serves as a prominent example of media repression and state control. The government has systematically silenced critical voices, stifled opposition media, and consolidated control over major media outlets. State-controlled media propagates narratives that support the government's agenda, while dissenting voices are marginalized or silenced, leaving many parts of the country oblivious of what is happening in their own backyard. Meanwhile, independent journalists face threats, physical attacks, and legal harassment.

News director and anchor of TV Rain (Dozhd), Ekaterina Kotrikadze, explained how her media entity is such a perfect example of the precariousness of independent media and its workers. One among few independent TV channels in the country, TV Rain broadcasts news into Russia and is widely recognised as the most effective challenge to President Vladimir Putin’s narrative of the invasion in Ukraine on Russian overall television. The TV channel was forced to suspend their operation shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 with the government declaring it was broadcasting false information about the war, operated for some time in exile from Latvia, until it was granted a broadcasting licence in the Netherlands—where they are currently operating from. When asked whether or not she believes that her channel can survive in the long run, she simply said, “I don’t know”.

In Indonesia, where my own works focuses, the implication of media capture is considerably vast and immensely consequential: it hampers public access to accurate information, undermines democratic discourse, and limits citizens' ability to hold their leaders accountable. Currently, eight group of conglomerate owners are regarded as key players in the Indonesian media sphere. Five of these owners are politicians, actively using their media companies to influence broader issues and policies to serve their interests. In essence, Indonesia’s current media—especially news media—landscape shows an increasing domination of the elites with oligarchic power that perpetually influence and are being influenced by the governing power, forming a tightly knit hegemony. Here lies the presently declining media quality in Indonesia that is argued to have contributed to the broader decline of the country’s democracy.

At the same time, journalists reporting on corruption, human rights abuses, and sensitive issues often face intimidation, violence, or legal repercussions. A report by an Indonesian independent public service journalism, Project Multatuli (PM), in early October 2021 highlighting the incompetence of the East Luwu Regency (in South Sulawesi Province) police precinct for dropping a rape case of three children in 2019 was branded as hoax by the police force. Former editor-in-chief of an independent media in the Papua region, Jubi, received at least three terror attacks—with the last one involving an explosive device—for continuously reporting on structural discrimination against Papuans. To deepen the pain, the government's use of restrictive laws, such as provisions on slander contained in the problematic Information and Electronic Transactions Act, has generally been curtailing critical reporting and limit freedom of expression in the media.

While the current, most heated debates in academia regarding the future of media and journalism are around the issue of capture by digital platforms, The 2023 Milton Wolf Seminar on Media and Diplomacy reminded us that as much as tech giants such as Google and Facebook (Meta) possess the enormous power to decide the shape of media, actual power on the ground that governments and politicians have are driving and controlling the landscape of media in many countries with direct implications towards the public. Des Freedman, Head of Department and Co-Director of the Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Centre, pointed out that in assessing media and journalism, apart from addressing the problems of digital power, we also need to focus on actual power as the main critical conception. While digital monopolies in the current media landscape are real, there are power structures which precede them. In regards to media capture, it is paramount to consider the role of the state, not least as a key monopoly enforcer or waiver of rules.

We all agree that a robust independent media is vital, especially in authoritarian countries or those with flawed democracy. These media act as a crucial pillar of democracy, providing accurate information, ensuring accountability, safeguarding human rights, and promoting pluralism. Yet, maintaining them amidst the harsh political condition they are in is by no means easy.

This is also why context and different media systems need to be put into the equation because there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to independent media and their respective political system. For instance, as much as the larger part of Europe—especially countries such as Norway, Sweden, and Finland—have oftentimes been lauded as example of how governments have found many ways to support media pluralism and diversity, Hungary’s—equally part of the European Union—media landscape proves otherwise. Hence, the standard solution that has repeatedly been offered by academia in media studies to counterbalance media capture, such as demanding government’s commitment to strengthen independent media and breaking monopolies or oligopolies, might sound like a mere public service announcement to those living in countries where the state strives on limiting media plurality and independence as a way to maintain status quo. In the face of growing authoritarianism and flawed democracies, the main title of the seminar, Media in the Abyss, felt very befitting.

Yet, as much as the state of independent media might seem disheartening, hope persists.

First and foremost, there needs to be a universal consideration that independent media, wherever they might be, cannot be left alone to fend for themselves in the face of unequal power structure. In one of her journals, Natalie Fenton of Goldsmiths, University of London, stresses the importance of collective consciousness in developing and maintaining robust resistance in a less-then-democratic media sphere. Substantial engagements need to be forged within the society to build an understanding in the public of how crucial media plurality and independence are for their wellbeing. 

During the seminar, Victor Pickard, Co-Director, Media, Inequality & Change Center, Annenberg School for Communication of University of Pennsylvania, offered several points in the quest of decommercialize and democratise the media. Two of which are rather universal: 1) journalist ownership and control of the media by unionising newsrooms, and 2) establishing employee-owned cooperatives and community ownership and control so that newsrooms look like the communities they are meant to serve, empowering people to make their own media and tell their own stories. In authoritarian or flawed democracy setting, these points are difficult to achieve before gaining collective consciousness.

Additionally, in the specific context of Indonesia, where the government has the tendency to maintain hegemony in the larger part of the media industry, there are at least three aspects that can be put forward—which may or may not apply to other political and media systems—using the collective consciousness approach.

First, slightly mirroring Pickard’s second point, public financial support. In order for independent media to thrive, the public needs to want it to the point that they are willing to financially support it. Aside from the usual “suspects” such as donations from donors which might come with strings attached, public financial support is important in both sustaining the media and safeguarding its journalistic operations. Indonesia’s Project Multatuli—previously mentioned—has been experimenting with membership scheme. While news outputs can be freely accessed by everyone, paying members are invited to attend regular editorial meetings and encouraged to give reporting ideas as well as direct criticisms as part of transparency.

Second, rather than pushing forward particularities, there needs to be encouragements for collaborations and networking among independent journalists, media organisations, and civil society groups to bind solidarity in order to strengthen the collective consciousness. This can promote knowledge sharing, collective advocacy, and the development of a supportive ecosystem for independent journalism. When one of the filmmakers of Watchdoc, Indonesia’s documentary production house that focuses on underreported issues, was detained by the police—as an act of intimidation—for a defamation case, many parts of the society offered support, including legal aid groups, human rights NGOs, and the general public. There needs to be an understanding that without the common solidarity in protecting journalists’ safety, independent journalism just does not happen.

Third, fostering international solidarity. Active mutual engagements between Indonesian independent media and international organisations need to be built to raise awareness of press freedom issues, especially those that involves marginal issues. Structural discrimination, exploitation, and human rights abuse in Papua are among the least reported issues in Indonesia because the narratives are heavily guarded by the government. While breaking the media hegemony might be difficult, local independent media can forge cooperation with international communities to push news with local perspectives to a wider audience, creating a larger solidarity.

Challenging the state in an unequal power structure, independent media—especially in authoritarian regimes and flawed democracies—are almost always in a precarious position. However, by building a common understanding within the public, they need not to face the hardship alone. Contextual strategies tailored for specific political and media landscape may well be the much-needed lifeline for these organisations to continue their struggle in creating a more democratic media sphere.